U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

48–841PDF 2010

NEW BEGINNINGS: FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES

IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 22, 2009

Serial No. 111–67

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

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 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

DAVID KILLION, Senior Professional Staff Member 

GENELL BROWN, Senior Staff Associate/Hearing Coordinator 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S. Department 

of State .................................................................................................................. 5

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton: Prepared statement ............................ 9

The Honorable Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California: Letter to the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton dated February 

12, 2009 ................................................................................................................. 67

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 78

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 79

The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: Prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 81

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from 

American Samoa, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and 

the Global Environment: Prepared statement ................................................... 84

The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Prepared statement ............................................................ 86

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas: Prepared statement ................................................................... 87

Written responses from the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton to questions 

submitted for the record by: 

The Honorable Shelley Berkley, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Nevada ................................................................................................ 90

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia ......................................................................................... 100

The Honorable Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 106

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega ............................................................. 110

The Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 119

The Honorable Michael E. McMahon, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New York ...................................................................................... 145

The Honorable Brad Miller, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina .............................................................................................. 149

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Florida .......................................................................................... 153

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California ............................................................................................ 204

The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 205

The Honorable Diane E. Watson ........................................................................ 218

(1)

NEW BEGINNINGS: FOREIGN POLICY 

PRIORITIES IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 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. 

Just before we get into the hearing I just want to reiterate our 

committee’s policy on handling protests. We have no objection to 

audience members wearing T-shirts and hats expressing their 

views. But to maintain order in the hearing room we request that 

audience members do not hold up or wave signs, make gestures to 

attract attention, stand up in protest, shout or yell your views or 

otherwise disrupt the hearing. We will ask the Capitol Police to remove anyone from the room who violates this policy, and it is the 

policy of the Capitol Police to arrest anyone ejected from the hearing room. 

It is a great pleasure to welcome Secretary Clinton to the committee this morning for her first appearance before Congress as 

Secretary of State. We know you have an extremely busy schedule, 

Madam Secretary, and we very much appreciate your taking the 

time to be here. 

Normally, the Secretary’s first appearance before the committee 

would be to present the administration’s budget for the next fiscal 

year. But given the transition and the understandable delay in preparing the Fiscal Year 2010 budget, I have asked her to testify 

today on the administration’s overall foreign policy agenda and to 

discuss the broad outlines of the budget request. In a few weeks, 

the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, Jack Lew, 

will appear before the committee to discuss the Department’s detailed budget proposal. 

I now yield myself 7 minutes for an opening statement. 

Madam Secretary, I want to commend you and your excellent 

team for taking immediate steps to address the dangerous lack of 

capacity at the State Department and USAID. 

From her first days in office, the Secretary has directed a comprehensive review of our chronically underfunded diplomacy and 

development capabilities. She then developed a plan to restore 

these critical components of our national security infrastructure; 

and, finally, she fought to ensure that the administration’s FuncVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:59 Feb 24, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\042209\48841 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

tion 150 budget request provided adequate resources to implement 

that plan. 

Madam Secretary, I couldn’t agree with you more that we desperately need to reinvigorate our civilian foreign affairs agencies. 

To the extent diplomacy and development can help avoid conflicts 

before they start, it will save us billions in the long run. It will also 

help prevent the continuing migration of development-related programs to the military, thus relieving the burden on our brave men 

and women in uniform. 

I am committed, and I know many of my colleagues on the committee are as well, to doing everything that we can to ensure that 

the budget request is fully funded. We will also do our part by 

marking up and passing a State Department authorization bill, 

hopefully on a bipartisan basis, very soon after we receive the detailed budget; and later this year we hope to pass foreign assistance reform legislation to rationalize our various foreign aid programs and provide the administration additional flexibility to ensure that the most urgent needs are being met. 

I want to make sure my colleagues have plenty of time to ask 

questions, so I am not going to run through the entire laundry list 

of foreign policy challenges we now face, but I do want to touch on 

a couple of issues. 

Madam Secretary, several of my colleagues and I returned just 

yesterday from a trip to India and Pakistan. I think I can speak 

for all of them in saying that we were encouraged by the dramatically improved United States ties with India but deeply concerned 

about the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Pakistan. 

In recent weeks, extremists based in the western border regions 

have turned their guns on the Pakistani state, launching dramatic 

suicide attacks in the population centers of Islamabad and Lahore. 

Equally troubling, the Pakistani Government has cut a deal with 

the extremists that overran the Swat Valley—the latest in a string 

of failed agreements that has only emboldened the radicals. To 

make matters worse, the Pakistani Supreme Court just ordered the 

release of Mauluna Abdul Aziz, the radical Red Mosque cleric who 

has renewed his call to kill Westerners and place all of Pakistan 

under a rigid and intolerant form of Islamic law. 

The United States has an enormous stake in the stability and security of Pakistan. We cannot allow al-Qaeda or any other terrorist 

group that threatens our national security to operate with impunity in the tribal regions, nor can we permit the Pakistani state—

and its nuclear arsenal—to be taken over by the Taliban or any 

other radical groups or otherwise be destabilized in a matter that 

could lead to renewed conflict with India. So it is very alarming 

that we are now hearing predictions from a number of leading experts that Pakistan could collapse in as little as 6 months. 

Madam Speaker, I know you take these issues seriously; and I 

want to commend you and your team for developing a comprehensive Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy. I completely agree with your 

assessment that the security of these two countries and their 

neighbors is inextricably linked, and I strongly support your conclusion that strengthening the civilian democratic Government of 

Pakistan should be a central part of our overall efforts. 

3

In the next few weeks, our committee will consider legislation to 

massively expand assistance to Pakistan, including funds to 

strengthen the capacity of Parliament, the judiciary and the public 

education system. The bill also calls for the administration to make 

a series of reasonable determinations to ensure that military assistance is used to meet both United States and Pakistani national security interests. 

Ambassador Holbrooke will testify next Wednesday to provide 

the administration’s views of the legislation and to discuss the larger Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy. 

I also would like to say a few words about Iran’s continuing efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability. As you are well 

aware, a nuclear-capable Iran would pose a dire threat to the 

United States and our allies in the region; it would act as a hegemonic power in the Middle East and cause a cascade of proliferation. In short, we can’t allow Iran to acquire this capability. 

Regrettably, the previous administration’s policy failed to impact 

the Iranian regime’s destabilizing behavior. And there is no reason 

to believe that doing more of the same will result in a different outcome. We need a new approach to dealing with Iran—one that offers direct engagement in a bilateral or multilateral format. I believe this is reflected in the administration’s recently completed 

Iran policy review. 

But such engagement can’t be open-ended. Indeed, Tehran continues to enrich uranium and every day moves closer to the nuclear 

threshold. I would urge you to seek support in advance from key 

members of the international community to impose crippling sanctions—the kind that would compel, or at least maximize the 

chances of compelling, a change in the regime’s current course—if 

engagement does not yield positive results. 

Finally, after 25 years of grappling with the enormous economic 

losses caused by intellectual property piracy and counterfeiting, I 

would urge you to put this issue high on the list of the State Department’s economic agenda. 

Madam Secretary, I am excited about the prospect of working 

with you on the many challenges facing our Nation. 

I am now pleased to recognize my friend and the ranking member of the committee, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for her 

statement. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Madam Secretary, I also welcome you to our committee. 

Thank you so much. It has been a pleasure and an honor to have 

worked with you in your time as Senator and as First Lady as well. 

This is an era of profound challenges and also one of important 

opportunities to advance our agenda of freedom, of prosperity, and 

security. However, if this weekend’s Summit of the Americas is any 

indication, we are off to a troublesome start. The Summit served 

as a forum for despotic leaders to attack democratic values and our 

free-market principles and for proclaiming their radical vision as 

the way forward for the hemisphere. Many of those repressive leaders decided to make the Cuban dictatorship’s return to the InterAmerican System the pillar of their agenda. The OAS Secretary 

General supports this proposal, ignoring the fact that the Cuban 

4

regime is in violation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter 

and the American Convention on Human Rights. 

Sadly, some responsible nations failed to counter the efforts by 

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, by Nicaragua’s Ortega, and their fellow 

rogues and enablers to subvert our freedom agenda, while diverting 

attention away from their own assault on democratic institutions, 

their own assaults on freedom of the press and association, and the 

opposition in their own countries to their leadership. 

The Summit reminded me of the discussions at the U.N. Human 

Rights Council or the Durban II conference which has taken place 

this week in Geneva. Despite clear indications that Durban II 

would be a reaffirmation of the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-freedom hate-fest of its predecessor, many waited until the last minute 

to announce that they were boycotting. Indeed, for some, it took 

Iran’s Ahmadinejad spewing his venom to awaken them from their 

stupor. 

The U.S. cannot stand idly by and allow such manipulation to 

take place, particularly when U.S. taxpayer funds are at stake. 

Many Americans are struggling to make ends meet. We must, 

therefore, ensure that we can justify our funding for international 

organizations and foreign affairs activities. 

The recently submitted supplemental is a case in point. The re- quest for $95 million to provide heavy fuel oil and unspecified energy assistance to North Korea and over $34 million for dismantling efforts is troublesome. Years of negotiation with the North 

Korean regime have resulted in an increase rather than a reduction of the threat that it poses, as underscored by its April 5th 

rocket launch. Pyongyang’s announced intention to resume its plutonium bomb-making efforts, combined with its uranium enrichment, clearly demonstrates that North Korea has viewed the SixParty Talks as a means of advancing its nuclear weapons. 

But North Korea’s weapons drive has implications beyond 

Pyongyang. Syria was reportedly close to completing a nuclear facility built with North Korean assistance when an Israeli strike destroyed it in September 2007. There have also been ongoing reports 

about North Korea and Iran missile cooperation; and, just a few 

weeks ago, news reports cited Western intelligence concerns that a 

ship that traveled from North Korea to Iran may have had tons of 

enriched uranium hidden in its cargo, materiel that could be used 

for nuclear weapons. 

Iran and Syria are closely watching how we deal with North 

Korea. Will they conclude that we will treat them as generously as 

we have treated Pyongyang in the proposed supplemental? 

Another item of grave concern is the administration’s plan to provide more than $900 million in aid for the West Bank and Gaza. 

In Gaza, this is tantamount to a bailout for Hamas. Reassurances 

that the aid will go through NGOs, nongovernmental organizations, 

and not to Hamas ignores the reality that there is only one ultimate distributor and guarantor of aid in Gaza, and that is Hamas. 

Dumping money into Gaza reconstruction enables Hamas to reconsolidate its political standing in Gaza without cost, freeing up 

Hamas funds to buy rockets and other arms. NGOs and international organizations do not have the proper vetting and internal 

controls to ensure that aid is not going to extremists; and the 

5

United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) continues to do 

business with banks that the United States has targeted for laundering Islamist militant money. 

I am also concerned about the seemingly broad interpretation in 

the supplemental of the Palestinian Antiterrorism Act waiver and 

the implications for a Palestinian Authority that includes Hamas. 

It appears to ignore requirements for the dismantling of the 

Islamist militant infrastructure and the halting of incitement before a PA effectively controlled by Hamas could be eligible for U.S. 

funds. 

In Afghanistan, Madam Secretary, we all share the goal of ensuring that sanctuaries and safe havens no longer exist for those who 

wish to do us harm. However, it appears from the G–20 summit 

that many of our European allies are unwilling to assume any real 

burden to help prevent that from happening. 

I welcome the administration’s release of its strategic review of 

United States policy in Afghanistan and the President’s outline of 

the next steps. I am committed to ensuring that our personnel on 

the ground have the support and the resources necessary to succeed in their mission. 

Madam Secretary, however, I am greatly concerned about reports 

that the administration may have changed our policy on investigating and possibly prosecuting former administration officials. 

This is an extremely negative development when we need to work 

together to counter extremist Islamic militants who seek our destruction. As Edmund Burke would say, all that is required for evil 

to prevail is for good men to do nothing. 

Ultimately, we must not miss any more opportunities to prove to 

rogue regimes and tyrants that the goal of U.S. policy is to foster 

and defend freedom and democracy world wide. I have faith that 

this administration, with your leadership, Madam Secretary, and 

our President, will do exactly that, promote our freedom agenda 

overseas. 

Welcome again, Madam Secretary; and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time. 

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you. And, without objection, any 

opening statements by other members will be placed in the record. 

Madam Secretary, without objection, your full statement will be 

made part of the record; and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM 

CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you, Ranking Member. Greetings to many friends and former colleagues. It is a pleasure to be here with you this morning. This 

committee has been the source of many advances in our Nation’s 

foreign policy, and I look forward to working with you to continue 

that tradition. 

When I appeared before the Senate—that is that other body on 

the other side of the Capitol—I spoke during my confirmation hearing of a commitment to pursue a policy that would enhance our Nation’s security, advance our interests, and uphold our values. 

Today, nearly 100 days later, I am pleased to report that we have 

begun making progress toward achieving that goal. 

6

I want to begin by recognizing and thanking the men and women 

of the State Department and USAID who are serving our country 

around the clock and around the world. I am extremely proud of 

their work. With their talents and under President Obama’s leadership, we have put forward a new diplomacy powered by partnership, pragmatism, and principle. 

Our priorities are clear. We are deploying the tools of diplomacy 

and development along with military power. We are securing historic alliances, working with emerging regional powers, and seeking new avenues of engagement. We are addressing the existing 

and emerging challenges that will define our century: Climate 

change, weak states, rogue regimes, criminal cartels, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, poverty, and disease. We are advancing our 

values and our interests by promoting human rights and fostering 

conditions that allow every individual to live up to their God-given 

potential. 

Now, I know that many of your questions today will deal with 

longstanding concerns: Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, certainly the Middle East, the fallout from the global financial crisis. 

I will speak briefly to those, and I look forward to answering any 

questions you might have. 

As you know, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the President has 

outlined a strategy centered on a core goal to disrupt, dismantle, 

and defeat al-Qaeda and to prevent their safe return to havens in 

Afghanistan or Pakistan. We combined our strategic review with 

intensive diplomacy, and nations from around the world are joining 

our efforts. More than 80 countries and organizations participated 

in the International Conference in The Hague, and a donor’s conference just concluded in Tokyo raised over $5 billion. 

In Iraq, we are working toward the responsible redeployment of 

our troops and the transition to a partnership based on diplomatic 

and economic cooperation. We are deploying new approaches to the 

threat posed by Iran, and we are doing so with our eyes wide open 

and with no illusions. We know the imperative of preventing Iran 

from obtaining nuclear weapons. After years during which the 

United States basically sat on the sidelines, we are now a full partner in the P5+1 talks. 

In the Middle East, we engaged immediately to help bring the 

parties together to once again discuss what could be done to reach 

a two-state solution. We are maintaining our bedrock core commitment to Israel’s security, providing economic support, security assistance; and we are also doing what we can to bolster the Palestinian Authority and to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. 

More broadly, we are working to contain the fallout from the 

global financial crisis. Our efforts at the G–20 focused in large 

measure on the poorest and most vulnerable countries. We need to 

provide support for the International Monetary Fund. We need to 

provide direct assistance to countries such as Haiti, where I traveled last week. These resources will help democratic, responsible 

governments regain their economic footing and avert political instability with wider repercussions. 

Now, these challenges demand our urgent attention, but they 

cannot distract us from equally important but sometimes less comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:59 Feb 24, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\042209\48841 HFA PsN: SHIRL
7

pelling or obvious threats ranging from climate change to disease 

to criminal cartels to nonproliferation. 

In today’s world, we face challenges that have no respect for borders. Not one of them can be dealt with by the United States alone. 

None, however, can be solved without us leading. All will have a 

profound impact on the future of our children. 

As daunting as these challenges are, they also offer us new arenas for global cooperation; and we are taking steps to seize these 

opportunities. 

First, we are pursuing a wide-ranging diplomatic agenda premised on strengthening our alliances with democratic partners in 

Europe, Asia, Africa, and our own hemisphere. We are cultivating 

partnerships with key regional powers. We are building constructive relationships with major nations that will have a lot to say 

about what happens in the world to come: China, Russia, India. We 

are working with long-time allies like Japan and South Korea to 

address not just regional concerns but a host of global issues as 

well. 

I want to say a special word about Asia. Advancing our relationship with India, which I know the chairman and the ranking member and others mentioned, is essential. It is the world’s largest democracy. It is an important ally in so many efforts. I made my first 

overseas trip as Secretary of State to Asia, a signal that we are not 

just a transatlantic power but also a transpacific power and that 

Asia will be an indispensable partner in years to come. 

But we haven’t forgotten our traditional allies. We have worked 

hard with the European Union and with NATO. And then, just a 

few days ago, we did go to Latin America to meet with nations who 

share a common home, a hemisphere, a heritage, and a common future. We discussed a new energy partnership, fighting drug trafficking and the drug cartels, consolidating democratic gains, and so 

much more. 

We are also building closer ties with regional anchors, including 

Brazil, Indonesia, and Turkey. These are not only partners but 

they can be leaders on issues ranging from deforestation to democracy. 

We will work with China and Russia wherever we can, and we 

will be candid about our areas of disagreement. We will be starting 

a strategic and economic dialogue with China very shortly. We will 

be working with them to develop technologies to reduce the world’s 

dependence on fossil fuels, and we have committed ourselves to 

working with Russia on finding a successor agreement to the 

START arms control agreement. 

But we also understand that redefining diplomatic engagement 

is not just between governments. Policies and political leaders 

change over time, but ties between citizens, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, universities, NGOs, all of those endure. 

These are very effective tools of diplomacy, and we are committed 

to engaging these groups. 

And so, finally, we will work to expand opportunity and protect 

human rights, strengthen civil society, live up to the ideals that define our Nation, work to advance education and health care, the 

rule of law and good governance, fight against corruption, expand 

8

opportunities for women and girls and those on the margins of society. 

As we promote responsible governance abroad, we have to invest 

more in our tools here at home. As the chairman said, I am working hard to create a more agile, effective department with the right 

staffing and resources to fulfill the President’s agenda. That is why 

I have filled for the first time the position of Deputy Secretary for 

Management and Resources. 

I have also challenged the Department to reform and innovate 

and save taxpayer dollars, returning our ambassadors into in-country chief executives with authority and responsibility for the programs on the ground. We are consolidating IT support services that 

will yield savings of tens of millions of dollars. We are deploying 

new media technologies to carry our message more effectively. 

And I am determined to see that the men and women of our Foreign and Civil Service get the resources they need to do their job 

safely and effectively. Even Secretary Gates has pointed out our 

country has underinvested in diplomacy. That must end. Just as 

we would never deny ammunition to American troops headed into 

battle, we cannot send our diplomats into the field in today’s world 

with all of the threats they face 24/7 without the tools they need. 

If we don’t invest in diplomacy and development, we end up paying 

a lot more for conflict and all that follows. 

So, Mr. Chairman, we are pursuing these policies because they 

are the right thing to do. We believe that no country benefits more 

than the United States when there is greater security, democracy, 

and opportunity in the world. Our economy grows when our allies 

are strengthened and people thrive. 

And no country carries a heavier burden when things go badly. 

Every year, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars dealing with 

the consequences of war, disease, violent ideologies, and vile dictatorships. So let’s invest in the type of world that we want. 

We have no shortage of challenges or opportunities. The world is 

looking for leadership and looking to see how this new administration meets this moment. I believe if we follow our plans and our 

principles we will succeed. We can lead the world in creating a century that we and our children will be proud to own, a century of 

progress and prosperity for the whole world but especially for our 

beloved country. 

But to achieve these goals we need your help, we need your advice, and we need your support. And I look forward not only to the 

formal hearing today but to the informal, ongoing dialogue that I 

have started with some of you and look forward to having with all 

of you. We are in this together. We have to row in the same direction for the benefit of our country and our children. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Clinton follows:]

9


48841a-1.eps
10


48841a-2.eps
11


48841a-3.eps
12


48841a-4.eps
13


48841a-5.eps
14


48841a-6.eps
15


48841a-7.eps
16


48841a-8.eps
17


48841a-9.eps
18


48841a-10.eps
19

Chairman BERMAN. Well, thank you very much, Madam Secretary. 

We will now, just your luck, go into a period of questioning from 

members of the committee; and we will strictly observe the 5-

minute rule, which includes the questions and the answers. So if 

you intend to have an answer to your question, pace yourself. And 

in order of seniority based on members who were here at the time 

that we started the hearing. 

I yield myself 5 minutes for a few questions. 

Madam Secretary, as I noted in my opening statement, I do support a policy of engagement with Iran. At the same time, I can’t 

get away from the fact that Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons capability keep going ahead and that this engagement can’t be 

so open-ended that we essentially pass the threshold that we are 

seeking to avoid by virtue of the engagement. 

So my two questions: One, what kind of time frame do you have 

in mind for the Iran engagement? And the second question is based 

on the assumption that the engagement is more likely to work and 

to work in a reasonable time if the regime understands that a failure to respond to our efforts will result in truly crippling sanctions 

and to get that level of sanctions we can’t do it ourselves. This is 

going to have to be an international effort. And I am curious, I 

would like to know, are we pursuing the default position, the leverage that I think will make the engagement more likely as we deal 

with key members of the international community and the Security 

Council? 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think your 

question very accurately describes the efforts we are undertaking. 

We have concluded that it is going to be a more successful engagement if our partners around the world understand that they 

must work with us and support our efforts, including tougher sanctions; and I have had a number of conversations over the course 

of the last 90-plus days with allies, partners, and other nations 

concerned about Iran’s continuing ambitions for nuclear weapons. 

I think there are three points I would make, Mr. Chairman: 

One, the fact that we are engaging, that we have fully participated in the P5+1 process actually gives us more leverage with 

other nations. 

Number two, I think the fact that we have been willing to go 

even beyond the P5+1 and to reach out to Iran, to invite them, as 

I did, to the Conference in The Hague on Afghanistan increases 

even further our ability to ask more from other nations. 

And, finally, I think our engagement, which we have no illusions 

about, as I mentioned to you, puts us on much stronger international footing. 

So I want to assure you that we will be operating on dual tracks. 

Yes, we are more than willing to reach out to the Iranians, to discuss a range of issues, assuming they are willing to reach back. As 

the President said in his inaugural address: We will hold out our 

hand. They have to unclench their fist. But we are also laying the 

groundwork for the kind of very tough, I think you said crippling, 

sanctions that might be necessary in the event that our offers are 

either rejected or the process is inconclusive or unsuccessful. 

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you very much. 

20

I yield back the balance of my time, and I will recognize the 

ranking member for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, welcome. And I would like to yield my time 

to Mr. Burton, and I hope that he will yield 1 minute to Mr. Smith. 

Mr. BURTON. Welcome, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. One of the things that concerns me and my colleagues is the ability to extract information from terrorists so that 

we can protect this country. And if you look at what the terrorists 

are doing—cutting off heads, cutting off arms, blowing up the 

World Trade Center, threatening to blow up buildings in San Francisco and elsewhere—and you listen to what the Vice President 

said the other night on television, that the memos that he has seen 

show that the tactics that we have employed to extract this information have protected the American people and stopped some terrorist activity. 

I am very concerned—and I hope that you will take this message 

to the President. I am very concerned that we are tying both hands 

behind our backs, because we are saying that there are limitations—very strong limitations, even within the law, in interrogating these prisoners. 

I have seen Guantanamo. My colleagues have. We know that 

they are treated fairly. We haven’t been being unhumanitarian to 

these people, but we have used very strong techniques to extract 

information from them. And those techniques were cleared with the 

leadership of both the House and the Senate. They knew about 

them. And yet the President of the United States yesterday said 

that he was leaving it up to Attorney General Holder to see whether or not some of the people of the previous administration could 

be prosecuted for those activities. 

Now, I believe in obeying the law. But when it is cleared with 

the Congress and the administration, to go to the CIA and say we 

might prosecute some of you or some of your leaders at the Justice 

Department that recommended these techniques is just, in my 

opinion, crazy. 

We are in a war against terror. I don’t care what they call it in 

the administration. They have changed some terminology. We are 

in a war against terrorism; and we need to use within the law 

every single aspect, procedure, that we possibly can to stop this terrorism. And I have heard people say that we have, in effect, scared 

so many of the leaders of the CIA and others who were at the Justice Department before that they may not use tactics that they 

even could employ in order to stop terrorist activity. 

We need both hands untied with our intelligence agencies to really stop terrorism in the United States; and I hope that the President of the United States and you, Madam Secretary, will reevaluate the situation and not be prosecuting people at the CIA or the 

Justice Department who were just doing their job to try to protect 

this country. I mean, that is what it is all about. 

And, with that, I don’t have any other questions. I just hope that 

you will take that message back to the President and the administration, and I thank you very much for your attention. I yield to 

my colleague. 

21

Mr. SMITH. I thank my good friend for yielding. 

First of all, Madam Secretary, let me thank you for the work you 

have done on behalf of David Goldman in the reunification with his 

son, Sean. As you know, that Brazilian case is one of the most egregious human rights child abduction cases I think there has been, 

although there are many of them. So I want to thank you personally for raising that with Brazilian authorities. I would also like to 

thank our Consul General, Marie Damour, and others who are 

doing a wonderful job. 

I would like to ask you, with everything within my being, to 

press for the release—the unconditional, immediate release of all 

political prisoners in Cuba. Dr. Oscar Biscet in 2003, as you know, 

got a 25-year harsh, totally unjust prison sentence. Many of us are 

concerned that he and the other human rights activists who languish in prison today are subjected to extreme tortures and deprivations; they need to be released or some will die. So any further 

movement with the Cuban Government, please. 

Dr. Biscet—just so everybody knows very clearly who he is—has 

been sentenced to 25 years in prison. His daughter and others have 

cried out for his release. He has been put in solitary confinement 

over and over again; and, like I said, he may be close to death. And 

I would hope that we would immediately demand that the International Committee to the Red Cross be asked to see and ascertain 

the health or lack of it and well-being of the prisoners. We must 

continually press for their release. 

Also, Mr. Wolf and I have tried repeatedly to get into the prisons, 

as we have done in the Soviet Union in the 1980s and the Peoples 

Republic of China right after Tiananmen Square. We, however, 

have been turned down every time and have not been granted a 

visa. Others get it. They don’t go to the prisons, however. I think 

all of us on both sides of the aisle, regardless of one’s ideological 

perspective, we need to say ‘‘free the prisoners.’’

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the ranking member has expired; and the vice chair of the committee, the chairman of the 

Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee, a gentleman I believe 

you know from New York, Mr. Ackerman, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Madam Secretary. You make all your New York 

homies very, very proud. 

I had to look up for a moment. I thought we were in the Judiciary Committee and had the Attorney General in front of us, listening to some of the remarks a moment ago. 

I don’t think we have to lecture you or remind you. Besides some 

of the political prisoners, besides some of the terrorists we have in 

the prisons, besides some of the miserable people that are intending to do damage to our country, the Constitution of the United 

States is also a very high-valued target. Let’s all do our job and 

protect it first. Everything else will surely follow. 

If I can follow up on the chairman’s concern, which I think is one 

that is overwhelming, and it is the issue of Iran. Are we prepared—talking about sanctions. Because, as we know, in order for 

them to be effective, they have to be comprehensive, and they have 

to be complete, and they have to be participated in by almost the 

22

entire world for it to work. Are we prepared to place sanctions on 

some of our friends and allies if they don’t conform to a sanctions 

regime, which is, as the chairman says, the preferable default position, rather than the unthinkable default position? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, we believe that we can make 

a very strong case for exactly the kinds of sanctions regime that 

you and the chairman have referred to. We actually believe that by 

following the diplomatic path we are on we gain credibility and influence with a number of nations who would have to participate in 

order to make the sanctions regime as tight and crippling as we 

would want it to be. 

So I think the short answer is, it is our expectation that we will 

be able to put together such a comprehensive sanctions regime in 

the event we need it; and it is our commitment that we will pursue 

that if we are either unsuccessful or stonewalled in our other approach. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. 

Peace process, Middle East, Israel, Palestinians. The Saudis have 

indicated that they are trying very hard, which means withholding 

all of the pledges that they have made for the Palestinian people, 

unless they have a unity government and unless Abu Mazen places 

Hamas back in the government yet again. What will be our position? Will we continue to deal with the Government of the Palestinian Authority if they include a recognized terrorist organization 

in their government? 

Secretary CLINTON. The President’s policy, as described in the 

supplemental, is very clear: We will not deal with nor in any way 

fund a Palestinian Government that includes Hamas, unless and 

until Hamas has renounced violence, recognized Israel, and agreed 

to follow the previous obligations of the Palestinian Authority. And 

that is our policy, and that is exactly what is guiding us. But we 

want to leave open the door that that can happen. 

I mean, we don’t know, Congressman. We are not betting on it. 

But we put waiver authority in for the President vis-a`-vis funding 

for the Palestinian Authority or any successor government if those 

conditions are met. Now, from everything we hear, there is no intention on the part of Hamas to meet those conditions. But these 

are not just American conditions. These are the conditions that 

were adopted by the Quartet, which consists of the United States 

the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia. These are actually the conditions embodied in the Arab Peace Initiative. 

So in every conversation that I have had with any Arab leader 

or any European leader I have made it clear that the United States 

cannot work with, cannot recognize, cannot in any way fund a government, including any group that did not meet those conditions. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. In trying to wrest Syria away from the Iranian 

orbit, would——

Chairman BERMAN. Unless you can wrest them real quickly. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would just urge you not to pay any deal off 

with Syria in Lebanese coin. 

Secretary CLINTON. I agree completely. We have assured the Lebanese of that. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

23

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Secretary, in receiving Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s award in 

Houston on March 27, you said that you were in ‘‘awe’’ of Margaret 

Sanger. You said that Sanger’s ‘‘life and leadership’’ was ‘‘one of 

the most transformational in the entire history of the human race’’ 

and that Sanger’s work here and abroad was ‘‘not done.’’

With all due respect, Madam Secretary, Sanger’s legacy was indeed transformational but not for the better if one happens to be 

poor, disenfranchised, weak, disabled, a person of color, an unborn 

child, or among the many so-called undesirables Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human race. 

Sanger’s prolific writings drip with contempt for those she considers to be unfit to live. I have actually read many of Sanger’s articles and her books. Sanger is an unapologetic eugenicist and racist who said, and I quote: ‘‘The most merciful thing a family does 

for one of its infant members is to kill it.’’

She also said on another occasion: ‘‘eugenics is the most adequate 

and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political, and social 

problems.’’

In her book, ‘‘The Pivot of Civilization,’’ Sanger devoted an entire 

chapter which she entitled, ‘‘The Cruelty of Charity,’’ to explain a 

shockingly inhumane case for the systematic denial of prenatal and 

maternal health care for poor pregnant women. ‘‘Such benevolence 

is not merely superficial and nearsighted,’’ Sanger wrote, ‘‘it conceals a stupid cruelty’’ and leads to a ‘‘deterioration in the human 

stock’’ and ‘‘the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents.’’

So it is extraordinarily difficult how anyone could be in awe of 

Margaret Sanger, a person who made no secret whatsoever of 

views that were antithetical to protecting fundamental human 

rights of the weakest and the most vulnerable and suggests that 

her work remains undone around the world. 

As I think you know, in 2007 alone, Planned Parenthood killed 

over 305,000 children by abortion in the United States alone and 

millions more worldwide. 

So as part of Sanger’s work that remains undone, here is my 

question: Is the Obama administration seeking in any way to 

weaken or overturn pro-life laws and policies in African and Latin 

American countries, either directly or through multilateral organizations, including and especially the United Nations, African 

Union, or the OAS, or by way of funding NGOs like Planned Parenthood? 

And, secondly, and so we can have total transparency—and you 

know as a former lawmaker, we always have definition pages when 

we write legislation. Definitions do matter—does the United States’ 

definition of the term ‘‘reproductive health’’ or ‘‘reproductive services’’ or ‘‘reproductive rights’’ include abortion? 

I yield to the distinguished gentlelady. 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, I deeply respect your passionate concern and views, which you have championed and advocated for over the course of your public career. We obviously have 

a profound disagreement. 

24

When I think about the suffering that I have seen of women 

around the world—I have been in hospitals in Brazil where half 

the women were enthusiastically and joyfully greeting new babies 

and the other half were fighting for their lives against botched 

abortions. I have been in African countries where 12- and 13-yearold girls are bearing children. I have been in Asian countries where 

the denial of family planning consigns women to lives of oppression 

and hardship. 

So we have a very fundamental disagreement. And it is my 

strongly held view that you are entitled to advocate, and everyone 

who agrees with you should be free to do so anywhere in the world, 

and so are we. We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health; and reproductive health includes 

access to abortion that I believe should be safe, legal, and rare. 

I have spent a lot of my time trying to bring down the rate of 

abortions, and it has been my experience that good family planning 

and good medical care brings down the rate of abortion. Keeping 

women and men in ignorance and denied the access to services actually increases the rate of abortion. 

During my time as First Lady, I helped to create the campaign 

against teenage pregnancy. And while we were working to provide 

good information, access to contraception, and decision-making that 

would enable young women to protect themselves and say ‘‘no,’’ the 

rate of teen pregnancy went down. I am sad to report that after 

an administration of 8 years that undid so much of the good work, 

the rate of teenage pregnancy is going up. 

So we disagree. And we are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive 

health care. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from American Samoa, the chairman of the Asia 

and Pacific Subcommittee, Eni Faleomavaega, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I want to congratulate you on your appointment to Secretary of State and commend you for the admirable 

work you are doing to address our most daunting problems around 

the world. 

I think your decision to visit Asia on your first overseas trip sent 

precisely the right signal about the importance we place on the 

Asian Pacific region and our commitment to our treaty allies and 

Japan and Korea and our intent to reengage the ASEAN countries 

and our plans to foster a positive, constructive dialogue with the 

People’s Republic of China. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us today and thank you 

for your tireless efforts in serving our country. For the sake of 

time, I am submitting a series of questions for the record and 

would appreciate your written responses. 

These two questions, Madam Secretary, are not trick questions, 

but today I would like to ask you about two matters of particular 

concern to this Member: The current situation in Papua, West 

Papua in Indonesia, and the current crisis in Fiji. 

First, will the administration review the current political status 

of West Papua and the extent to which the Government of IndoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:59 Feb 24, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\042209\48841 HFA PsN: SHIRL
25

nesia has implemented and included the leadership of the people 

of West Papua in the development and administration of the special autonomy law? And will the administration hold Indonesia accountable for continued human rights abuses in this region of the 

world? 

Second, having just returned from Fiji for discussions with the 

interim prime minister of Fiji and with the other community leaders of Fiji, I submit to you the situation in Fiji is more complex 

than it appears. I commend our current U.S. Ambassador’s efforts 

to continue the engagement with the leaders of the interim government. And, unfortunately, in my view, Madam Secretary, for too 

long we have had no coherent policy toward some 16 Pacific Island 

nations, very indicative of the fact that we have not had USAID 

presence in the Pacific region for how many years now. And for too 

often and for too long, Madam Secretary, in my view, we have permitted Australia and New Zealand to take the lead even when 

Canberra and Auckland operate with such a heavy hand that they 

are counterproductive to our shared goals. 

It makes no sense, Madam Secretary, for the leaders in New Zealand and Australia to demand early elections for the sake of having 

elections in Fiji when there are fundamental deficiencies in Fiji’s 

electoral process which gave rise to three military takeovers and 

even a civilian-related takeover within the past 20 years, these people having to live often with three separate constitutions. 

Basically, Madam Secretary, that is the gist of my two questions, 

West Papua, Indonesia, and the crisis in Fiji. I think I totally disagree with the nasty accusations that the leaders of New Zealand 

and Australia have made against Fiji, given the fact that it is more 

than what it appears; and I would appreciate your response to 

those. 

Secretary CLINTON. I really appreciate your question. 

I think your specific questions are embedded in a larger problem, 

is that we do have these 16 island nations, many of whom are 

among our staunchest allies. Palau, for example, has voted with us 

in the United Nations. Its young men go off to war under the 

American flag. So we need to have a more comprehensive approach, 

an American approach to these islands; and I would welcome your 

advice about that. I think it is very important, Representative. 

As to West Papua, we believe that it does need to be supported 

in its efforts to have a degree of autonomy within Indonesia. We 

support some of the steps that have been taken and—to realize 

that, and we will include our concerns in our dialogue with Indonesia because we understand the delicate nature of what is at 

stake here, that it is part of sovereign Indonesia, but it deserves 

more support, respect, and certainly protection from many human 

rights abuses. 

With respect to Fiji, I would welcome your advice about Fiji. Because our coverage of what is going on from our own Ambassador, 

and as you point out, from Australia, New Zealand in particular, 

does paint a picture of turmoil and chaos and antidemocratic behaviors by the ruling parties. So what we want is to restore democracy. We want a functioning democracy in Fiji that can deliver for 

its people. And if you have advice as to how we can pursue that, 

I would welcome it. And I will invite you—we will have the State 

26

Department follow up, and we will bring you in, and we will talk 

more broadly about the Pacific Island region. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Madam Secretary, you were a member of the Armed Services 

Committee in the Senate for 6 years, and you have also taken a 

great interest in foreign policy for many years even before that. Is 

there any information about the interrogation of prisoners that you 

believe was kept from you as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, as you recall, during the 

years I was on the Armed Services Committee I was not in the 

leadership of that committee, nor was I in the leadership of the 

Senate, nor did I serve on the Intelligence Committee. So a lot of 

the information that has come out in the last several years was not 

shared with me. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So do you believe that information was not 

shared with the leaders of your committee? 

Secretary CLINTON. I have no information on that, Congressman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So, today, you are not confirming for us the 

charge that we have heard over and over again that the leadership 

of the House and the Senate were always kept informed as to the 

interrogation techniques that are now under attack? 

Secretary CLINTON. I have no information. 

You know, I think that the position that the President has adopted is in keeping with our values as a Nation and in keeping with 

laws that the United States had either promulgated itself or agreed 

to internationally. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The administration has released information 

that is somewhat detrimental in terms of as it makes it appear 

that we were doing some things during this war against radical 

Islam and the terrorists of radical Islamic terrorists that makes it 

appear at least that we were off base. We were doing things that 

were not correct. And that information apparently is—there are 

senior intelligence officers who are suggesting that release of that 

information may end up damaging our ability to thwart terrorist 

attacks. Do you have any comment on that? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, let me make three points. 

First, there is no doubt that our highest priority in terms of our 

national security is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat the networks 

of terrorists who target the United States, our friends, and our allies, people of humanity, and civilization across the world; that we 

must do what is required within the law to achieve our objectives. 

You referenced the Senate Armed Services Committee. The committee has issued at least one, maybe more, reports that have 

found that many of these actions or techniques were actually counterproductive. Now, I am not expressing an opinion on that. I am 

just referring to findings by the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

So let me just repeat finally what the President said. 

27

Number one, no one will be prosecuted who acted within the four 

corners of the legal advice that was given, following that advice, to 

perform any function that that person believed was legal. However, 

those who formulated the legal opinions and gave those orders 

should be reviewed; and the President has referred that to the Attorney General and has also said that there may be an opportunity 

for a nonpolitical bipartisan—I might say nonpartisan—review to 

get all of this out in the open in the way that we function best as 

a democracy. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, Madam Secretary, getting it all out in 

the open, Dick Cheney says that the documents that have been released by the administration tend to show a negative picture of 

those people who are protecting us against terrorists, and he says 

there are several specific documents that are being kept classified 

by the administration that would show that any time there was a 

problem, people tried to correct it. 

Are you in favor of releasing the documents that Dick Cheney 

has been requesting be released? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, it should not surprise you I don’t consider him a particularly reliable source of information. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Secretary, I asked you a specific 

question. 

Dick Cheney has asked for specific documents to be unclassified. 

We are not asking you your opinion of Dick Cheney. About those 

documents, if you want to maintain your credibility with us, what 

is your position on the release of those documents? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, I believe we ought to get to 

the bottom of this entire matter. I think that is what is in the best 

interest of our country, and that is what the President believes, 

and that is why he has taken the actions he has. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Payne is the chairman of the Africa and Global Health 

Subcommittee. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Madam Secretary, it is a pleasure to have you before the committee in your new role of Secretary of State. I would like to begin 

by commending President Obama’s administration and your leadership in the meetings of the G–20 where a whole new tone was 

shown there with the meetings in other parts of Europe, even close 

to old Europe. We had a great meeting in the recent Summit of the 

Americas. I think you set a great tone there. I was there, and we 

had an opportunity to talk with heads of state who were so glad 

about the new U.S. policy and the willingness to listen. 

I would like to ask some specific questions with regard to Africa. 

As you know, I had a recent trip to Somalia. I visited Mogadishu. 

I think I was the first American to go to Mogadishu in close to 15 

years. However, I do think there is a great opportunity for us to 

assist that nation that has had no government for close to 15 years. 

As a matter of fact, the young hijacker that is going on trial, they 

say he is about 16, they haven’t had a public school system for at 

least that long. We know there are a lot of underlying problems 

there. So we need to focus on that. 

28

Two areas that I would like to mention, though, in addition to 

Somalia. One, quickly, Sudan, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, North-South Agreement, is not going as well. Darfur, the refugees are still in Chad, and we have a Special Envoy. What do we 

intend to do there? 

Secondly, in Western Sahara, they have also, as with Mr. 

Faleomavaega’s question about West Papua, there has been a question about the status between Morocco, and as you know, when 

Spanish Sahara, when the Spanish left, Morocco said it is theirs. 

So there should be some kind of referendum to let the people decide. I would like to see you look into that. 

Finally about Somalia, the government there, and I have encouraged Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, who is the current President of Somalia, I met with him last year. He was selected through work of the 

U.N. in Djibouti several months ago. They feel that they can deal 

with the so-called piracy on the ground. They can’t deal with it at 

sea, but it needs to be terminated where it emanates from. 

There is going to be a conference in Brussels tomorrow where the 

United Nations and the European Union are coming together to 

have a donors’ conference. They need to have 6,000 troops. They 

need to have 10,000 policemen. There is a goal of $260 million. Ban 

Ki-Moon himself will co-chair this meeting. Will we be participating? Could we have a robust appearance? I think if we can take 

the lead and help this 2-month old government. I had excellent 

meetings in Mogadishu. I met with civil society women’s groups, 

the Education Minister, the Prime Minister. Of course, on the way 

out, I think it was so successful, the ones that didn’t like the success tried to create a little chaos, but that is a desperation thing, 

I believe. 

So could you in the little time remaining respond? Thank you. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, we are glad you are 

home safely. I really commend you for your dedication to Africa 

and the work you have done over many years. 

We will be sending a high level envoy to the Brussels meeting. 

We agree with you that we should be supporting Sheikh Sharif 

Ahmed’s government, doing the best we can to support his efforts. 

We know that you cannot just interdict pirates at sea. Of course, 

once you interdict them, you should keep them, which is something 

that we have been talking to our Dutch friends about, to change 

the rules of engagement so anyone who is captured will actually be 

brought ashore and tried. But you do have to go after the land 

bases. 

We look for cooperation with the Federal transitional government, with others who are concerned about the increasing piracy, 

but also about the condition of Somalia. So we are very focused on 

that, and we welcome your ideas. 

Chairman BERMAN. I hate to cut you off, but this is the way I 

have to do it. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Secretary. I was in Pakistan with Chairman 

Berman this past weekend, and I hope the administration’s desire 

to have flexibility in its plan are not efforts to placate Pakistan, 

and I say that because a Taliban spokesman has invited Osama bin 

29

Laden into Swat. Also because a girl’s school that I have visited in 

the past up in the North-West Frontier has now been blown up. 

And this is a country with nuclear weapons. 

So in the meetings we held, some top Pakistani officials told 

Chairman Berman and myself, and this was over this weekend, 

that basically to express their concerns, let’s just say that they 

painted a very dire situation and we had better be prepared on 

that front. 

Second, I wanted to bring up the fact that the Commerce Department has established now a whole apparatus of conferences to encourage United States investors to China, and I think in these conferences, they are quite blind to the corruption that eats many of 

our business people alive. Nancy Weinstein, who runs a small 

southern California business, told our subcommittee about how an 

unscrupulous landlord in China and complicit local police in Shanghai had cost her millions and millions of dollars in a foreign investment nightmare that is very parallel to many stories that many of 

us on the committee hear. 

So Chairman Sherman and I have introduced a bill to require 

the State Department to report on unfair business practices that 

are overseas, and establishes what we would call investment warnings. Since the State Department has a warning system for U.S. 

travelers, our thought is why not for U.S. investors? At the very 

least, it might offer a counter toward what we see as naive 

boosterism toward China and other countries by our Government. 

I look forward to your support on that initiative. 

Lastly, you mentioned in your testimony the need to deal with 

criminal networks. Here I think the United States has a key case 

pending. It is a request with Thailand for extradition of international arms dealer Viktor Bout. Bout is to stand trial here in the 

United States for conspiring to provide weapons to a terrorist organization, in this case the FARC in Colombia. The Russians are 

pressing hard to see him released, and they are using underhanded 

means to do this. Let us not lose this one. I understand that you 

are going to meet with the Thai Foreign Minister later this week. 

Please stress the importance of this case. This is a man who has 

killed countless civilians, armed child soldiers in Africa, and created instability across the globe. 

And I wanted to yield 30 seconds to my colleague from California 

at his request. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is what these hearings are all about. It 

is supposed to be a dialogue and a source of information for the 

American people. This goes to the heart of whether or not we can 

expect to have transparency and openness in this administration. 

Are you going to support the release of documents which Dick 

Cheney now tells us will give a more complete understanding of the 

interrogation issue? Or are you going to refuse to answer the question? 

Secretary CLINTON. I support whatever decision the Obama administration makes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. What will be your recommendation? 

Secretary CLINTON. I am not going to share that with you because I don’t know any facts that support what you are describing. 

30

But I do want to talk about Pakistan, which poses a mortal 

threat to the security and safety of our country and the world. I 

want to take this occasion in this public forum to state unequivocally that not only do the Pakistani Government officials but the 

Pakistani people and the Pakistani diaspora, many of whom are extremely successful Americans here in academia and business, the 

professions and so much else, need to speak out forcefully against 

a policy that is ceding more and more territory to the insurgents, 

to the Taliban, to al-Qaeda, and to the allies that are in this terrorist syndicate. 

I think that we cannot underscore the seriousness of the existential threat posed to the state of Pakistan by the continuing advances, now within hours of Islamabad, that are being made by a 

loosely confederated group of terrorists and others who are seeking 

the overthrow of the Pakistani state, which is, as we all know, a 

nuclear-armed state. 

I don’t hear that kind of outrage or concern coming from enough 

people that would reverberate back within the highest echelons of 

the military and civilian leadership of Pakistan. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Madam Secretary, 

thank you for being here. 

I have so many questions I hope you will respond for the record. 

I want to echo Mr. Royce’s comments about the need to warn 

American businesses about the places where they will face unfair 

government practices. 

As on the Iran Sanctions Act, we have had through the past administration this strange approach to the rule of law where they 

say, well, the Iran Sanctions Act is not law because we don’t agree 

with it. 

The law requires the State Department to identify those situations in which there are investments of over $20 million in the Iran 

energy sector. It then allows the administration to either impose or 

waive sanctions. I would hope that the administration, and especially the State Department that is so dedicated to talking to other 

countries about the importance of the rule of law, would not follow 

the practice of the past administration, which was to claim that 

they didn’t get their copy of the Wall Street Journal on those days 

in which the Wall Street Journal reported a $20 million investment 

in the Iran energy sector. 

I would hope that you would at least identify the companies as 

required by law, and then waive the sanctions, if you choose. Better 

yet, I hope you impose sanctions. 

Also, I hope you would take efforts to discourage firms from selling gasoline to Iran and, perhaps more importantly, discourage 

firms from selling refining equipment technology to Iran. 

I know it is difficult to deal with Iran. Here is an easier one, 

Canada. 

Canada was found by the OECD to be the number one Western 

country in violation of intellectual property, and I hope you have 

a chance to talk to our friends to the north about the importance 

31

of protecting intellectual property, both for their own businesses 

and for ours. 

As to the United Arab Emirates and the 123 Agreement, before 

you move forward with that agreement, I hope that you get much 

better enforcement by the UAE of their laws to prevent transshipment and diversions, particularly from the port of Dubai to 

Iran. The UAE has become the home of literally hundreds of companies affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard. They have passed 

a good statute, perhaps, but they have no lead enforcement agency, 

no regulations, and no real enforcement. 

There is talk that this nuclear cooperation agreement will mean 

a lot of jobs for Americans. But without liability protections in 

place, such as those in the Convention on Supplementary Compensation, no U.S. company will bid on the contracts. All of the 

contracts will go to the French and the Russians which are stateowned companies which claim sovereign immunity and so they 

don’t worry about liability. So if we are going to tell the American 

people that there are jobs in this deal, there should be the Convention on Supplementary Compensation as part of the deal. 

As to Armenia, the Bush administration tried many times to cut 

aid for Armenia. I hope we see an increase, and I hope that the 

administration would either eliminate military assistance to Azerbaijan or at least maintain parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan 

as to military aid. 

As to Sri Lanka, I hope you would oppose IMF loans to the Sri 

Lankan Government until that government agrees to allow journalists and human rights officials to inspect the displaced persons 

camps where Tamils are being held, and to generally respect 

human rights. 

As to Darfur, I think your bargaining position will be strengthened if we don’t tell the Sudanese Government in advance that we 

are dismissing out of hand any military or lethal option. We should 

not dismiss out of hand the idea of a no-fly zone and the idea of 

using our Air Force to hit the Sudanese Government, or even the 

possibility of providing assistance to insurgent groups in Darfur. 

And finally as to Istanbul, the Halki Theological Seminary was 

raised by President Obama when he was in Turkey, and I hope 

that the State Department would follow up until that school is allowed to reopen. 

I realize I have left almost no time for response. 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, this is a very important list, 

and we are paying close attention to each and every matter that 

you mentioned. 

I will also follow up on the legislation that you and Congressman 

Royce have introduced regarding unfair business and government 

practices that affect our investors and businesses abroad. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PAUL. Thank you. Welcome, Madam Secretary. 

I have a general question that I want to ask about foreign policy, 

but I would like to mention first that the election had something 

to do with bringing about change in tone with our foreign policy, 

and I think there have been some very positive changes in tone. 

32

Many of us have argued for more diplomacy rather than more 

threats. So many of us are pleased with that. It goes back to the 

old saying of speaking softly and still being willing to carry a big 

stick. But sometimes I wonder whether that big stick doesn’t get 

wielded a little too often. 

I do want to caution all of us that what we say is very important 

and can be very beneficial, but what we do is also very important, 

and so that may cancel out the benefits of speaking more softly and 

being willing to talk and negotiate. 

Some people say that we shouldn’t talk to our enemies, but I remember the Cold War rather well, and we did talk to Khrushchev 

and Mao Tse-tung when they were great threats to us. So sometimes I think that when we look at how we stood up to tens of 

thousands of nuclear weapons that we should be cautious as far as 

what we might do in Pakistan and put it into a proper perspective. 

But my big concern is whether or not we can reverse the empire 

mentality that I think we have adopted over these many, many 

decades; and also the relationship of this to our financial burden. 

Although we are speaking more softly and would like to get some 

troops home, the first thing that was done was our DOD budget 

was increased by 9 percent in a time when our national debt in the 

last 12 months went up $2 trillion. All great nations have been 

brought to their knees for economic reasons. We didn’t have to 

fight the Soviets, and the Afghanistan adventure that the Soviets 

were involved with was very significant, and I don’t know how we 

can ignore that. 

So I would like to ask the question about whether or not you can 

give me some signs or indication or some encouragement that 

maybe we shifted policies in the slightest manner? Have we 

brought any troops home? Are we less involved in Iraq? Will that 

war ever end, or are we really going in the opposite direction because we are seeing Pakistan, we need more troops, more expansion, more money, more DOD funds. 

So coming from my perspective, I can’t see the difference even 

though, like I said, I am pleased that there is a willingness to talk 

and try to work things out, and I think that is very positive. I always think that people who are not willing to talk are insecure. 

This whole idea that we are so strong, to me it seems like we lack 

confidence if we can’t talk to people. We are strong enough. Nobody 

is going to attack us militarily. I think it is very important that we 

change our tone. 

I think it is good you got rid of the term ‘‘war on terrorism.’’ How 

can you have war against a tactic? It doesn’t make any sense; but 

I am not sure that ‘‘overseas contingency operation’’ is more specific. Can you address that and maybe give me some hints as far 

as maybe seeing some shift in our policy? 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you, Congressman. 

I think the President’s actions in these nearly 100 days do match 

actions with words, although I admit there is a lot more to be done. 

We are still sorting out everything that we inherited and trying to 

make sense of it. We want to protect America’s national security, 

but we think there are better and more effective ways of doing 

that. 

33

So we are ending the war in Iraq. There is a definite end date 

for our troops to be there. The President did close Guantanamo. 

The President is looking for ways to engage with those nobody 

wanted us to talk to, which is a sea shift in how we are proceeding. 

Words and actions both matter. At the end of the day, actions 

count more. But you have to begin by at least articulating a new 

approach. 

In our budget, we have asked for more money for diplomacy and 

development. The Budget Committee in both the House and the 

Senate cut back the President’s request. It is kind of old thinking, 

in my view. 

The Secretary of Defense has said that there are fewer Foreign 

Service diplomats posted overseas than there are sailors and Marines on one aircraft carrier. There are more musicians in the military bands than there are diplomats across the board. So we are 

trying to shift this gigantic ship of state, Mr. Paul. We are looking 

for your help to do so. 

At the risk of going over our time, I just want to say, having 

campaigned during the last Presidential election, you had the most 

enthusiastic supporters of anybody I ever saw. 

Mr. PAUL. I love to hear that. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, my goodness, everywhere I went they 

were literally running down highways holding your signs. I never 

had a chance to tell you that. But your message obviously resonated with a lot of people. 

Mr. PAUL. Thank you. 

Chairman BERMAN. You are going to encourage him. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, Mr. Engel and I were just talking to each 

other and saying that we think you are an extraordinary Secretary 

of State, and I am absolutely confident that you are destined to be 

one of our Nation’s finest diplomats. I don’t think there is any 

question about that. 

If I can raise three issues. One is an issue that is of great personal importance to me, and I know you are very familiar with it. 

Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent who is being held in Iran, my 

understanding is that Ambassador Holbrooke gave a letter to Iranian officials recently. I was hoping you could provide an update. 

Two, with respect to Turkey and Armenia, both you and the 

President have visited, and I was hoping you could comment on the 

potential for an extraordinary breakthrough in terms of the normalization of relations, the possible opening of borders, and the 

possible bridging some extraordinarily difficult issues between the 

Turkish and the Armenian people. And if you could quickly comment in terms of Azerbaijan, the potential possibly with respect to 

the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, what is happening. 

Third, if I may quickly mention Indonesia. I think there was an 

Economist magazine that on one of the headlines said, ‘‘Indonesia: 

A Model for Muslims.’’

Mr. Burton and I not too long ago started an Indonesia Caucus 

because of the extraordinary potential for American-Indonesian relations, the fact that President Yudhoyono is a democrat in the finVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:59 Feb 24, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\042209\48841 HFA PsN: SHIRL
34

est of historical ways. He has turned around his country in a remarkable feat given the humanitarian crises that Indonesia has 

endured. I was hoping you might tell us in terms of what prospects 

there are with American-Indonesian relationships in terms of yet 

another very positive election in Indonesia. 

Secretary CLINTON. First as to Mr. Robert Levinson, yes, we did 

continue our efforts to try to obtain information about Mr. 

Levinson. His family, as you know, has suffered deeply because 

there is absolutely nothing coming out of the Iranian Government. 

He was mentioned in the letter that we passed on to the Iranian 

Government in The Hague, and we are going to continue to press 

this at every turn. 

As well, Roxana Saberi, who is being held in an arbitrary and 

terribly unfair, unprecedented unjustified way, she should be able 

to come home. We hope that we can achieve that. 

With respect to Turkey and Armenia, I have been very encouraged by the bold steps that have recently been taken in this direction by Turkish and Armenian leaders to reconcile their countries 

with each other and with their shared and painful past. I believe 

that the steps that Turkey and Armenia are taking toward normalizing relations and opening their borders will foster a better environment for confronting that shared tragic history. 

The Turkish and Armenian Governments have sought United 

States support and encouragement of their reconciliation efforts. 

And following that request, both the President and I have supported them fully. 

We have also assured the Government of Azerbaijan that we will 

intensify our efforts to resolve the conflict over Nagorno Karabagh 

and other outstanding issues between Azerbaijan and Armenia. 

There is a Minsk Process, as you know, that we are going to be 

deeply engaged in. We already are. We have sent a State Department official to Azerbaijan I think two times in the last 3 weeks, 

and we hope there will be some resolution in the next few months. 

Thank you for mentioning Indonesia. As I said in my opening remarks, I see Indonesia as an anchor country, a regional power. 

When I was there on my first trip as Secretary of State, I said if 

you want to see a country where democracy and Islam and secularism and women’s rights coexist together, that is Indonesia. It is 

a young democracy, but President Yudhoyono and his government 

have made enormous strides. I think the United States has to continue to work with Indonesia and support their democratic and economic development. I think it is a very big piece of business for the 

United States, and I applaud you and Mr. Burton for starting the 

Indonesia Caucus. 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I want to follow up on what Dr. Paul mentioned, and praise the administration for its act of diplomacy, in 

particular for the action that has been taken on Cuba, to allow 

Cuban Americans to visit family as frequently as they would like 

35

to. I think that is both humane and the right thing to do. I think 

that is the right thing to do. 

My concern moving forward is that there have been certain signals from some in the administration that we may want to condition future action on Cuba based on what the Cubans do. The administration has stated that the embargo has not worked; it has 

not had the desired effect. I think that is quite self-evident after 

50 years. 

But to then say so we are going to condition and not move any 

further until the Cubans take certain action, I think that many of 

us have been convinced, or certainly not convinced, for example, 

that the Cubans want the travel ban to be fully lifted. If you remember during the Clinton administration when action was taken 

where it looked like normalization of relations might happen, a 

plane was shot down. A few years ago when we moved legislation 

through the House and the Senate to lift the travel ban or to prohibit enforcement of it, detainees were taken, 75 of them. So every 

time it seems we have taken a move, the Cubans have pushed back 

with something else. And I fear if we take the same position which 

has been I think the trap that previous administrations have fallen 

into, then we will have the same result. 

To the extent we have dialogue with the Cubans, we ought to say 

something like this: We have relaxed restrictions on Cuban Americans. We want to relax restrictions on all Americans, and if you 

don’t start releasing political prisoners, we are going to lift the 

whole embargo. Because truly, I think that is what they fear worse 

than anything. So why should we condition future action based on 

what they do or they don’t do. We should do what is good for America. In this sense, I think it is also good for Cubans. But I would 

love to hear your response. 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, that is an interesting formulation I have never heard before. Look, I think that Congressman 

Smith and certainly the ranking member are very strongly expressing the opinions of many Americans, not just Cuban Americans, 

that a regime which is so dug in and unwilling to exercise the normal functions of a government, to have a judiciary that is independent, to have the rule of law, to release political prisoners, is 

one that is very difficult to move. I understand that. 

But on the other hand, I think that the President’s actions did 

draw a response from Raul Castro which was then contradicted 

today by Fidel Castro saying that my brother really didn’t mean 

that we would talk about political prisoners and human rights. So 

I think you can see there is beginning to be a debate. This is a regime that is ending. It will end at some point. We need to be ready 

to do that, and we have responded to Raul Castro’s comments by 

saying that we would consider a discussion that would include 

human rights and political prisoners. 

As you know, the embargo is part of our law. The President cannot lift the embargo. That has to be done by an act of Congress. 

If the Congress decides that is in America’s best interest, obviously 

the administration will abide by that. 

But we are going to proceed very carefully in this process because we know what has happened before. I well remember when 

those two small, unarmed planes doing nothing more than dropVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:59 Feb 24, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\042209\48841 HFA PsN: SHIRL
36

ping pamphlets were shot down by the Castro regime. I believed 

then, and I think you said it well today, it was done to prevent us 

opening. But it was also an act of such aggression and violence that 

you can’t let it go unanswered either. 

So this is a difficult calculation. Our goal is for a free, independent democracy that gives the people of Cuba a chance to have 

the same opportunities that their sisters and brothers and cousins 

and my sister-in-law, who came to this country from Cuba, that 

they have in our country. And so we are looking at it, and we welcome your advice. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from New York, just back from the Summit of the 

Americas, Mr. Engel, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did just come back from 

the Summit of the Americas. We met with more than 20 heads of 

state in private meetings. Madam Secretary, every leader I met 

with had nothing but praise for you and President Obama. I congratulate you. I was pleased to lead a delegation to meet with you 

at the summit. I think we are well on our way of reestablishing engagement in the area, and a policy where our brothers and sisters 

in the region feel that we are partners, we care about them, and 

we are not neglecting them. I thought the way you conducted yourself was great. As a longtime supporter of yours and a New Yorker, 

I just cannot express how proud you make all of us. Thank for your 

work for our country. 

I wanted to comment on a few issues and then let you respond. 

I want to say in terms of Cuba, we should absolutely condition 

what we do on Cuba based on what they do. If they are willing to 

talk about human rights and not just talk, we don’t want talk, we 

want action, and democracy and political prisoners, then we should 

respond in kind. I don’t think short of that we should open up and 

give them what they want. They have been a repressive regime, 

and we need to make sure that democracy comes to that country, 

as it will, but we need to encourage it. 

I want to talk about the Merida Initiative for Mexico. We have 

had conversations about this, and I am a strong supporter of 

Merida. I hope the Congress gives more money toward it than we 

have. 

I met with President Calderon of Mexico. The frustration is that 

the moneys are not flowing. They have to go and get helicopters 

elsewhere, and other things. The bureaucracy is impossible. I 

would like you to talk about how we can speed up that process. 

When I met with President Calderon and Prime Minister Golding 

of Jamaica, both of them said the same thing, that 90 percent of 

the crimes committed in Jamaica and Mexico, and I am sure other 

countries, are committed with United States weapons. We need to 

stop the flow of U.S. weapons south of our borders. 

In my recent letter to President Obama, which was signed by 52 

of my colleagues, I urged him to return to enforcement of a ban on 

imported assault weapons. These are imported—this is not about 

Second Amendment rights. This ban was enforced by President 

George H.W. Bush and President Clinton, and I think we should 

go back to it. I would like your comment on that. 

37

At the summit, I was pleased to hear yours and President 

Obama’s announcement of $30 million in security assistance for our 

Caribbean neighbors, the CARICOM nations. I believe that the 

CARICOM nations should also be granted money under Merida because if we are successful in stopping the drugs coming up from 

Mexico, and Merida, at my insistence along with others, was also 

extended to Central America. We don’t want them moving to the 

Caribbean. Perhaps $30 million should be linked to that. 

So those are my questions in terms of the Western Hemisphere. 

Now two other issues that we have worked with when you were 

a Senator. That is Kosovo. Saudi Arabia recently became the 57th 

country to recognize Kosovo. I am wondering, and I am glad this 

administration is pushing nations to recognize them, and I am just 

wondering if you can comment on that and what you expect to happen in the International Court of Justice. 

Finally, I want to express the concern that the ranking member 

expressed vis-a`-vis Gaza aid, that it doesn’t fall into the hands of 

Hamas; and particularly in response to what the Israeli Prime 

Minister and the new government has said, that they are going to 

put a priority on negotiations with Iran before they move forward 

with the Palestinian situation. 

I know that is a lot, but I would be grateful for any of your comments. 

Chairman BERMAN. And you have 1 minute and 3 seconds. 

Secretary CLINTON. I will talk as fast as I can. 

On the Merida Initiative we have to get the money flowing. Honestly, I don’t understand why it is so hard. We are really digging 

deep to figure this out. In the supplemental there is money for 

three Blackhawk helicopters for Mexico. I urge everybody to support this. 

During my visit, it became abundantly clear that the Mexican 

Government and the police and the army, they are outgunned by 

the drug cartels. We need to try to right that balance. 

On assault weapons, we are looking about the ban. We are also 

sending to the Senate the Inter-American Convention on the Illicit 

Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Explosives, and 

Other Related Materials, known as CIFTA. It is an attempt for us 

to try to help staunch the flow of all of these very powerful weapons. We are giving more security aid to CARICOM. As you heard 

at the Summit of the Americas, the Caribbean countries are suffering so much from drug activity. 

And we are working on Kosovo recognition; and we will not give 

aid to Hamas. 

Mr. ENGEL. What a great Secretary. 

Chairman BERMAN. I didn’t think you could do it, but you did. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mack, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MACK. Madam Secretary, it is great to have an opportunity 

to speak with you a few times recently, and I appreciate all of 

those times. 

There is so much to talk about, so my guess is I will be sending 

you a letter with some questions because I don’t think that we can 

cover it all in 5 minutes. 

38

I wanted to talk a little bit about Cuba and associate myself with 

the conditions that must be met by Castro. This is really not an 

issue about the United States lifting the embargo, it is whether or 

not Castro wants to lift the embargo. If he releases the political 

prisoners, if there is freedom of expression, if there are free and 

fair elections, I believe it is the law of the United States that that 

is what will trigger the lifting of the embargo. 

I think it is also important that we don’t lose context about Castro. I know that you are very familiar with all of this, but we can’t 

forget the Cuban missile crisis and the murders that took place on 

that island. And we can’t forget the depriving of the people of Cuba 

human rights, hope and opportunity. 

So I think this is part of the discussion that is being lost right 

now. In an attempt to try to engage, I think we have lost part of 

the discussion about why it is that Cuba and Castro are in the position that they are in right now. And it is at their own hands, not 

at the hands of the United States. 

So I hope that we can continue the dialogue, and there are people on both sides of the aisle who feel strongly about the political 

prisoners and the freedom of expression and elections in Cuba. 

I also wanted to mention quickly my kind of takeaway from the 

summit. That is that there is a small group of countries, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Argentina, that really 

took the opportunity to try to hijack what could have been a very 

productive summit. They came into the summit putting Cuba up as 

the issue and, frankly, hijacking what could have been a very good 

Summit of the Americas. 

My concern with this small group of countries is what it is that 

they are going to try to do outside of the Western Hemisphere. If 

you look at Hugo Chavez and the relationships that he is building 

with Iran and North Korea and Russia and the purchasing of 

weapons, my concern is that we will find ourselves in a position, 

if you believe that Hugo Chavez looks up to Fidel Castro, we could 

find the same scenario where we did with the Cuban missile crisis, 

where you have Iran using Venezuela as an access point in our 

hemisphere to put pressure on the United States. It is something 

that I am very, very concerned about. 

The last thing I wanted to just put a little tidbit out there about 

the Merida Initiative. As I told you before, I am very supportive of 

the Merida Initiative and what the administration and yourself 

have been doing. I do have an issue with the guns. I think once 

a statistic gets thrown out we tend to run with it. So we hear 90 

percent of all of the guns are coming from the U.S. I don’t believe 

that is accurate. It is 90 percent of those that we are able to track. 

I saw a report recently that talked of the total number of which 

only 17 percent of those guns are U.S. guns. 

So I think it is important to have the opportunity to talk with 

the President of Mexico. I think it is clear the issue is our border. 

Mexico wants to stop the flow of guns and money moving south. 

Frankly, we want to stop the flow of drugs and criminals north 

across the border. So it really comes about securing the border for 

the benefit of both of our countries and our hemisphere. I hope that 

we can move in a way that doesn’t blame U.S. for these problems 

but works in a partnership. 

39

Last, because I have 10 seconds, trade. 

Chairman BERMAN. No, you have minus 10 seconds. 

Mr. MACK. Okay. Every country that we do trade with is a supporter of the United States, so I hope we will support the Colombia 

and Panama Free Trade Agreement. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Meeks, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is delightful to have you, Secretary Clinton, be here today. It 

was an absolute delight to see you in the Summit of the Americas, 

and how you and the President represented this country very well. 

It is in fact bringing us back so we are not isolated as a country 

against everybody else. We are now beginning to respect other 

countries again, and listen. As the President indicated and you indicated while at the summit, you were there to listen. 

I think when we listen, we hear a lot of things and we understand a lot. Traveling with my good friend, Mr. Mack, who his last 

statement is something I agree with, Panama and Colombia, some 

of these trade agreements. I disagree with some of his former comments. I think we listened to all of those small nations, and we 

learned a lot from that. 

Given that, what President Obama said at the G–20, he said in 

an era of integration and interdependence, if we neglect or abandon 

those who are suffering in poverty, that not only are we depriving 

ourselves of potential opportunities for markets and economic 

growth, but ultimately that despair may turn to violence that turns 

on us. 

I couldn’t agree with his statement more. When we look at poverty all over the world, I like to especially look at it in the Western 

Hemisphere where we just came back from, I believe one of the 

mechanisms by which we can resolve some of that is some of these 

trade agreements. However, what has to be done or contained 

therein is trade capacity building. I don’t know whether or not we 

have focused enough on that issue to make it clearly defined as to 

the success of trade capacity building. 

So my question to you is this: In the 109th Congress in the foreign operations bill there was a proposal to create a Trade Capacity 

Enhancement Fund, at that time it was for $522 million, and an 

Office of the Director for Trade Capacity Enhancement within the 

USAID. This new office would have been responsible for USAID’s 

trade capacity building programs, as well as coordinating government-wide trade capacity programs to all U.S. agencies. These 

changes in the funding and management would have represented 

an initiative to make trade capacity building a higher priority. 

So my question to you is: What are your thoughts about creating 

this Director of Trade Capacity? What do you think would be the 

best way to promote and to evaluate the effectiveness of capacity 

building? And do you think that there should be some innovative 

ideas so we can try to combat the problem of poverty because if you 

talk to particularly the indigenous and Africans, people of African 

descent in Latin America, someone like an Evo Morales talk about, 

and others, who I don’t think we need to demonize, we need to unVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:59 Feb 24, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\042209\48841 HFA PsN: SHIRL
40

derstand from whence they come and why they take some of the 

positions that they take. I would love to hear your opinions on that. 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman Meeks, your question suggests 

the need for a much more in-depth discussion about trade. It is not 

enough to say we are for it or against it. We are for the right kind 

of trade that does enhance the well-being of our own country and 

other countries. And deep into those countries, as you say, 

marginalized people, indigenous, African descent and Latin American. So I am very open to exploring what we can do to build trade 

capacity. 

Specifically with respect to Panama and Colombia, we had numerous conversations, as many of you who were there at the summit did with representatives of those two countries, and made it 

clear that there were steps that they had to take in order to enable 

the Obama administration to fight for and support those trade 

agreements. 

But I think you have put your finger on the deeper question, how 

do we make sure that the benefits of trade really get below just the 

upper echelons of any society? That is our question for what happens abroad. And here at home, what do we need to do to enhance 

our own social safety net and our capacity to make sure that as 

commerce moves, our people are not left behind? That is the kind 

of discussion we should have. 

So I would welcome your ideas about how to do this either with 

a fund or some other steps we can take. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Fortenberry, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I also welcome you to the committee. I did appreciate your opening remarks. I also appreciated the brief dialogue that we had after President Obama’s speech to the Joint Session of Congress regarding the potential development of nuclear 

weapons capability in Iran. As I said then, I extend a hand of 

friendship and I stand ready to work with you in any creative way 

to work toward some solution on that most pressing difficulty and 

the other seemingly intractable issues throughout the Middle East. 

A number of us also met with Ambassador Mitchell recently, and 

I appreciate the good work that he is doing on your behalf on the 

Israeli-Palestinian question. 

However, Madam Secretary, my heart is also deeply conflicted. 

While I do appreciate your observations overseas of women suffering from deplorable conditions, I am deeply grieved by your response to Congressman Smith’s question. Your remarks last month 

when you called Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, a person whom you enormously admire, were stunning to me. 

Margaret Sanger clearly embraced bigotry and racism. She advocated for the elimination of the disabled, the downtrodden and the 

Black child. In one of her writings she said, ‘‘Today, eugenics is 

suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and 

thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.’’

I don’t believe these ideologies have a place in our pluralistic society. And you went on to say that you will use American foreign 

41

policy in your position to further reproductive rights, which includes abortion, across the globe. 

Madam Secretary, I don’t believe we should use American foreign 

policy to export abortion. This will undermine, in my view, our foreign relations in many areas throughout the world, including Latin 

America and Africa, and among Muslim people. Promoting the 

international abortion industry is an imposition of our own 

woundedness upon others. Abortion has caused tremendous grief in 

this society, and its export, I believe, will be seen as a form of 

neocolonialism that is paternalistic and elitist and an assault on 

the dignity of especially the poor and vulnerable. I believe women 

deserve better, women throughout the world deserve better. 

Madam Secretary, I urge you to consider another way, one that 

upholds the genius of womanhood and the life nestled within her. 

And no matter how difficult the circumstance, I believe we should 

be big enough and bold enough to celebrate the beautiful gift of life. 

Then we will truly make a change in the world for the greater 

good. And I am convinced we would create an extraordinary 

amount of goodwill with this perspective versus forcing U.S. taxpayers to fund abortion overseas. 

Finally, I ask that you turn to a true heroine of international development and human empowerment, Mother Teresa, whom I believe you had a chance to meet with. She fought abortion by adoption, by care of the mother and adoption for her baby. And she also 

said, Come, we will take care of you. We will get a home for your 

child to those in need. She said that any country that allows abortion is not teaching its people to love but to use violence to get 

what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and 

peace is abortion. 

Again, Madam Secretary, I urge you to consider a kinder way 

forward, one that truly cares for the woman and her child and does 

not consider abortion as an integral component of U.S. diplomatic 

and international development initiatives. 

I live with six women. Let me clarify that. I have a wife and five 

daughters. Part of trying to raise them well and empower them to 

be successful, I believe, is inculcating them with the noble idea that 

all persons have inherent dignity, and therefore rights. 

So I have to ask you, is forcing U.S. taxpayers to fund abortion 

in keeping with the highest values of the United States of America? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, let me say with respect to 

your comments about Margaret Sanger, you know, I admire Thomas Jefferson. I admire his words and his leadership, and I deplore 

his unrepentant slave holding. 

I admire Margaret Sanger being a pioneer and trying to empower 

women to have some control over their bodies, and I deplore statements that you have referenced. That is the way we often are when 

we look at flawed human beings. There are things that we admire 

and things that we deplore. 

We have for 8 years followed the policy that you have described, 

and I think we have gone backwards. We have gone backwards in 

the real, genuine care that we have given to women. 

I admire you for raising five strong daughters who will be able 

to make their own choice, and most likely, given your guidance, 

will be very staunchly pro-life. But that is a choice that they will 

42

be able to exercise as free, independent American women. That is 

what I want for all women. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

gentlelady from California, Ambassador Watson, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for providing 

this time. 

Secretary Hillary Clinton, you are a breath of fresh air. I have 

watched your movements around the globe, and you are talking 

peace. And I carry the attitude that peace will not come at the end 

of a gun, but only with us negotiating and, as the President says, 

listening, and I have heard you say that many, many times, learning, and then leading. 

We want to provide for you the policy tools that you will need 

to continue your diplomatic efforts globally. I am concerned about 

the staffing shortages you are going to face as we start to leave 

Iraq. We know that we have a greater responsibility left behind. 

How do we help that nation rebuild and how do we help it stabilize? I am hoping that we can come up with a way to support 

your staffing of the Embassy there. 

As you know, under the former administration we were building 

the largest Embassy in the world and looking to hire 5,000. Well, 

we stopped that because I didn’t think that we needed to invest $1 

billion. If we were going to build the largest Embassy in the world, 

it should be in China or India or in those areas of the world. 

What can we do to enhance your ability to continue to spread 

peace and continue the listening? 

And then I also want you to comment, we went just a few weeks 

ago to Ethiopia to an Inter-Parliamentary Union. We pulled our 

membership out in 1997. When we arrived there as observers, five 

of us, we were welcomed with open arms. They were so glad to see 

Americans participating on the world stage. There were 150 nations involved. We pulled out in 1997. We were sent to assess the 

value of reentering the group. But I can tell you, the conversations 

we had outside, the bilateral conversations we had while there, and 

people who came up to me after I talked about the condition of adolescent girls and women in the world. I had a woman come up with 

a full burqa on with only her eyes showing, Saudi Arabian, and another woman coming up and saying please, help us empower our 

women. 

So how do you feel about us rejoining the IPU, and what tools 

can we then provide you so you continue your policies of peace? 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you so much, Congresswoman. Your 

question about Iraq is incredibly important. We finally were able 

last evening to get an ambassador confirmed. Ambassador Hill is 

on his way to Baghdad. It is very difficult for a lot of countries to 

understand our system, that it would take so long for us to have 

ambassadors or confirmed high level appointees. But thankfully, 

we will have a very experienced, seasoned diplomat leading our 

mission there. And our work will be guided by the strategic agreement between the United States and Iraq as to how we will work 

together on a number of issues ranging from supporting their civil 

society and good governance and anti-corruption and the oil industry and so much else. 

43

We are going to have to work extremely hard, though, because, 

as you say, this Embassy has been on a war footing, and how we 

begin to transition to peace and stability and a long-term relationship between the United States and Iraq will be quite challenging. 

But we are determined to do that, and we will undertake it under 

Ambassador Hill’s leadership. 

With respect to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I am reminded of 

Winston Churchill, one of the great war leaders of all time, who famously said it is always better to jaw-jaw than war-war. Talking 

forums, you can learn things. And occasionally, as we saw with the 

Conference against Racism, when it is hijacked by vile and unacceptable rhetoric, then you have the option of walking out and 

showing your displeasure, or not participating, as we chose not to 

do. But I think that it is always in our interest to try to explore 

and test the waters and see what we can accomplish together. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, in February during your Asia tour, you said 

we have to continue to press China on Taiwan, Tibet and human 

rights. How about forced abortion? 

Secretary CLINTON. In 1995, I was the first person to speak out 

against forced abortion in China at the fourth annual United Nations Women’s Conference. I consider any governmental imposition 

that imposes government policy on women to be absolutely unacceptable. I feel strongly about forced sterilization, forced abortion, 

or any other egregious interference with women’s rights. 

Mr. INGLIS. Why didn’t you say that in China? 

Secretary CLINTON. I did say it in China. I said it in China 14 

years ago. 

Mr. INGLIS. But why didn’t you say it in February? 

Secretary CLINTON. Because they knew I had already said it. 

They are very well aware of that. When I made that statement, the 

Chinese Government turned off the television so that their people 

could not hear me say it. I have said it consistently. I have written 

about it. I am on record as saying that over and over again. 

Mr. INGLIS. 14 years ago, you were First Lady. Today, you are 

Secretary of State. There is a big difference. Why didn’t you say it 

as Secretary of State? 

Secretary CLINTON. I just did. 

Mr. INGLIS. That is helpful, I guess. Because the thing that concerns me is if you look at the 2008 State Department Human 

Rights Report, it says, ‘‘China’s human rights record remain poor 

and worsened in some areas.’’

In addition, since 1999, the Secretary of State has designated 

China as a Country of Particular Concern for egregious—a word 

you just used—egregious abuse of religious freedom. China is clearly still one of the world’s worst violators of human rights, including 

religious freedom. 

Can the United States tolerate those things while we seek, what 

you said, global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, 

and security crises—can we ignore those other things while we address with them the things that you mentioned when you were in 

44

China? Or does their failure on human rights and things like 

forced abortion mean that really we must press them on those 

things in order to get to the global economic crisis, the climate 

change crisis, and the security crises? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, they are all part of our comprehensive 

engagement with China, and it is part of what I and others representing the United States raise with the Chinese. We are going 

to have a bilateral human rights dialogue with the Chinese in all 

of the matters, and others that you mentioned will be part of that. 

But I think that, just as we did in previous years going back 

many decades, we had ongoing dialogue with the Soviet Union 

when they were threatening to annihilate us. We have had normalized diplomatic relations with nations who engage in policies that 

we certainly deplore. And I think, with China, it is a complex relationship. We are putting it on a very strong footing so it can be 

positive and cooperative and comprehensive. And human rights will 

be a part of that. 

Mr. INGLIS. You referenced the Soviet Union, and our engagement with them is I think instructive. I think it nearly drove the 

State Department folks crazy when Ronald Reagan said, ‘‘Mr. 

Gorbachev, tear down this wall.’’ But it was moral authority that 

he was using there. And, of course, I think that it helped bring 

down that wall. 

So if America engages countries like China, don’t we have to use 

our moral authority? Of course, we have to examine our own hearts 

and our own circumstances to see how we are doing. But don’t we 

have to speak with moral authority, and use that moral authority 

when we engage countries like China? 

Secretary CLINTON. Yes, we certainly do. And President Reagan 

continued to negotiate arms control agreements. He continued to 

press for economic investments in the former Soviet Union. So it 

is a broad engagement that we have with large and complex countries like that; and so, similarly, I think that we will pursue this. 

There is always and must be a moral dimension to our foreign 

policy. That goes back to our founding. That is why it is so important what the President is doing, which is reasserting the moral 

authority of the United States so that when we raise these issues 

we can be taken seriously, and that is what we intend to be. 

Mr. INGLIS. And I appreciate that. The thing that I would just 

encourage you to do is, as Reagan went there and spoke at the 

wall, when you are in China next I hope you will speak to these 

issues of religious freedom, of human rights, of forced abortions, 

these egregious violations. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I did speak about religious freedom and 

other matters when I was there. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I apologize for calling you Senator when I first 

saw you. I wish it had been a higher title. 

I just want to speak a little bit about Cuba. And I think it is perfectly normal to put conditions on Cuba. This country has been 

doing that to other countries all its history, it will do that again, 

to promote democracies and to promote human rights. And let me 

45

say, as someone who lived there, I experienced at the age of 11 how 

to take apart and put together a Slovakian machine gun. I experienced the people knocking on my house door because they thought 

my father was carrying contraband on the black market. I remember the military coming to my house and taking inventory just before I left, and having lived in New Jersey with the mother of the 

sons that were killed on the plane as they were rescuing people 

leaving the totalitarian government. 

So I don’t want to belittle the point, because everybody has 

raised the issue of Cuba many, many times. But there is nothing 

wrong with putting conditions. And may I add that all those people 

that are in prison today were part of—they were born, raised, and 

schooled in Cuba, all those political prisoners. They didn’t come 

from Miami to Havana. They are a product of the revolution. And 

there are maybe 300, but there were 5,000 classified differently 

that are put in jail because they can’t speak about the government. 

So conditions are perfectly fine, and I hope that the President 

will take that into consideration. 

But I want to raise two other issues that are important. I want 

to talk a little bit about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, and 

I want to talk about Cyprus and Turkey’s 43,000 troops in Cyprus. 

Can you just comment a little bit about that? 

Secretary CLINTON. Yes, I certainly can, Congressman. And 

thank you for your eloquent and heartfelt description of why we always have to be promoting human rights and freedom. 

I have met twice with the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus and I have met once with Mr. Talat representing the Turkish 

Cypriots. The United States strongly supports a bizonal, 

bicommunal resolution to the Cyprus talks, and we have told each 

side that we support their very diligent efforts to try to resolve 

these matters, including security issues and troop presence. 

So we are going to do everything we can to support the Cypriots 

reaching their own resolution. I think that previous efforts have, 

unfortunately, resulted in a feeling by certainly the Greek Cypriots 

that things were attempted to be imposed on them, and we want 

the parties to reach an agreement. And that is what we are supporting. 

Mr. SIRES. Can you talk a little bit about Colombia? 

Secretary CLINTON. The Colombia Free Trade Act, which several 

of you have referenced, was a subject of intense conversations at 

the Summit of the Americas between us and the Colombians. Several Members of Congress, including some on this committee and 

other committees, have been in Colombia in the last several days 

trying to figure out what is it the Colombians would be asked to 

do in order to move the Free Trade Agreement forward. 

The Obama administration believes that the right kind of free 

trade agreement is very much in the interests of both Colombia 

and the United States. The steps that have been taken by President Uribe and his government to not only deal with the insurgency and the terrorists, but to clean house with a lot of the abuses 

that were unfortunately present within the military and other instruments of government have been very impressive. There is still 

more work to be done. 

46

So we are intensely discussing with the Colombians how we can 

come to a resolution that would enable us to move forward. 

Mr. SIRES. I have 1 minute. Can you talk a little bit about the 

handshake that Chavez gave? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I must say he is very adept at knowing 

where the cameras are. 

You know, we had sat down for a discussion with the Presidents 

and heads of state of the South American countries, and the President—our President—was at the head of the table, you might say. 

I was sitting behind him. And it was one of those hollow squares, 

and the cameras came in to do the photo spray. And as soon as the 

cameras were set, President Chavez got up, came around, presented the book and, as you noted, held out the cover so that it 

could be easily seen. 

You know, I found it somewhat amusing, to be honest. I mean, 

I know some people have reacted. But I think President Obama 

was right in saying, why should we be afraid of shaking somebody’s 

hand? Now, that doesn’t mean that we are going to agree, it doesn’t 

mean that we are going to give up our principles. But let’s try to 

see whether there is any opportunity to move President Chavez 

away from the influences that others were speaking about. 

Look, it is a serious matter if any country in our hemisphere falls 

under the sway of Iran or someone else who is inimical to our interests. We buy a lot of their oil. Let’s see whether we can begin 

to turn that relationship. It might or might not be possible. The 

handshake was not the end of anything, but the beginning of seeing whether that could be done. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield 

time to the ranking member. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Bilirakis. 

Madam Secretary, illustrating the perilous security situation in 

Mexico, I have a constituent of my congressional district, Felix 

Batista, who disappeared in Mexico in December 2008. And I will 

hand this letter to you to respectfully request your help in assisting 

so many of our constituents who have disappeared in Mexico. 

Also, Madam Secretary, regarding Haiti. That is so important, 

not only to our entire hemisphere, but very much of importance to 

south Florida. You announced $300 million in assistance to Haiti, 

including a pledge made at the Haiti Donors Conference. And we 

want to make sure that we have taken proper steps for transparency, for accountability, and making sure that we can show sustainable progress for Haiti. 

The supplemental has $300 million in food aid, but Haiti is not 

mentioned as a recipient of that provision, and I hope that we get 

some aid for Haiti in that provision. 

And I will have some other time as well. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis, for that time. And I yield back to you, sir. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. I have a couple questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Madam Secretary. Can you generally state the administration’s policy toward Greece? Could you expound on the issues 

47

related to Greece’s acceptance into the visa waiver program and 

Greece’s relationship with FYROM? And then I have one more 

question. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you very much. 

Greece is a close ally, a partner within NATO, a country with 

whom we cooperate on a range of important regional issues. I have 

met several times with the Foreign Minister and also with the 

Prime Minister, along with President Obama, during the European 

Union-U.S. Council in Prague. 

We have discussed the visa waiver issue. We are working with 

Greece. There are certain requirements that they are working to 

fulfill that we hope we can be able to bring to resolution. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. How about on the mutually acceptable resolution 

on the name issue with FYROM? 

Secretary CLINTON. We very strongly support efforts for a mutually accepted name. And we understand Greece’s sensitivities. I 

have discussed this with our NATO partners, also in my meetings 

at the EU. And we have urged all the parties to come to a resolution that is acceptable. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. I have one more question with regard 

to Cyprus. As you know, the Annan failed because it contained provisions that prohibited Greek Cypriots from purchasing property in 

one part of their own country and constitutionally established 

Turkish troops permanently on Cyprus. 

It is my belief that this was bad policy to try to impose an Annan 

type plan that would be unacceptable to Western democracies on 

the Cypriot people. 

Can you state with any degree of certainty that this administration will not be advocating similar settlement provisions in any future settlement agreements for the reunification of Cyprus. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I think your description is accurate; 

that, as you know so well, the plan was rejected because it was unacceptable to the Greek Cypriots. 

We have taken the position that this must be a settlement that 

the two parties agree to themselves. We don’t intend to impose 

anything. We intend to support, insofar as we are able, the negotiations between the parties for what we believe is the best outcome, 

a bizonal, bicommunal federation that would represent fairly the 

interests of both communities. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary CLINTON. In my remaining time, may I just quickly respond to the ranking member’s comments? 

We will do everything we can on any missing constituent. And 

also with respect to Haiti, we did deliver $50 million in food aid, 

Madam Congresswoman. We are going to look at what else we can 

do. We will keep you informed about a comprehensive approach we 

are setting up for Haiti. 

Mr. ACKERMAN [presiding]. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 

McMahon. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I believe it would be unbecoming for a Member of Congress to gush publicly, and even a new Member. But let 

me say, the people of Staten Island and Brooklyn, New York, and 

48

all of New York, are just so proud of what you did for us in the 

United States Senate, particularly in my district, as you know, feeling for the forgotten people of New York. And what you did for us 

and what you now do for our Nation and people around the world 

now who were forgotten feel that they have a champion. And I applaud you, and President Obama for his selection of you. 

I also applaud your ability to gracefully deflect the distracting 

and sometimes personal slings and arrows of political and special 

interests hurled at you, and your ability to stay focused on the important international issues we face as a nation. It gives us great 

pride to see you even here in this room be able to exemplify a great 

American spirit, and we are just so privileged and honored to have 

you here. 

One of the reasons I sought a seat on this committee was because I knew that under Chairman Berman we would be working 

with you as you revamp our image and our power around the world 

with a stronger State Department. 

Specifically, I want to ask questions about Sri Lanka. If I could 

first commend the State Department’s April 16th call on both the 

Sri Lankan Government and the Tamil Tigers to allow the over 

140,000 trapped Tamil civilians to escape the conflict zone. We also 

support the Department’s appeal to the Sri Lankan Government to 

enforce international humanitarian standards in the IDP camps, to 

grant visas to international aid groups, and to permit entry into Sri 

Lanka of international monitors and media access to those camps. 

The conflict has been brutal, as you know, and we are concerned 

with the prospects of post-conflict resolution for the Sinhalese and 

the Tamil people. 

Madam Secretary, does the State Department have any post-conflict plans for the region? And, if so, what are they? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, this is such a terrible humanitarian tragedy, and we have been pressing the Sri Lankan Government for a halt in the fighting so that we could secure safe passage 

for as many of the trapped civilians as possible. 

As you know, there was a very short lull, but then the fighting 

has continued. There seems to be very little openness on the part 

of the Tamil Tiger leadership to cease their efforts so that we could 

try to get in and help the people. So we are beginning intensive 

post-conflict planning. We have discussed this with a number of 

our other allies and partners who share our concerns. I think that 

the Sri Lankan Government knows that the entire world is very 

disappointed in its efforts to end what it sees as 25 years of conflict. It is causing such untold suffering. 

We have made it clear that as soon as there is some lull in the 

fighting or an end to the fighting, that there has to be not only 

massive humanitarian aid but a political resolution. The people 

who have been waging this internal insurgency for all these years 

are going to have to be brought into the political process in some 

way. So we are determined to do what we can, along with others, 

to be ready. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Thank you. Just briefly to the issue of Cyprus. 

One avenue it seems to me possible to follow is, for instance, the 

USAID has worked with Cyprus to develop a power grid which is 

not integrated from the north into the south. Is that an area that 

49

perhaps we could, as we give aid in that area, to force integration, 

if you will, first in the power grid, then hopefully in the bizonal 

agreement? 

Secretary CLINTON. I think that is an excellent suggestion, and 

we will certainly share that with the Cypriot community on both 

sides. 

You know, let me say that Cyprus is so strategically located. If 

this problem can be resolved in a way that is satisfactory to both 

communities and, as you say, bizonal, bicommunal agreement, I 

think that the future for Cyprus is unlimited, economically, and as 

a player in Europe and the Middle East. It is in everyone’s interest. 

It is also very much on the minds of many of those who are involved in the negotiations. 

So we will take a look at this power grid idea and get back to 

you. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Thank you very much. And just in the area of 

foreign aid, we know what an important issue it is. So many folks 

on this committee are fighting to keep it in the budget, the higher 

amount that you had requested. Just to let you know that we are 

working with you, and any way we can help you just please let us 

know. Thank you again. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. Madam Secretary, I don’t want to belabor this 

point. It has been discussed by a number of members. But I really 

believe our intelligence agency, the CIA and the FBI, if there are 

prosecutions because of the tactics that were employed to extract 

information from terrorists or suspected terrorists—if they are 

prosecuted for that, first of all, I think there is going to be a tremendous amount of animosity from across the country to the administration for that. But, in addition to that, if there is a terrorist 

attack and people remember that they were prosecuting people who 

were trying to protect this country with tactics that may or may 

not be questionable, then I think that there will be a terrible backlash on the administration. 

I am not here to protect the Obama administration. But if there 

is a terrorist attack and we are prosecuting people that try to get 

information to protect this country, people are going to be madder 

than hell. 

Now, I have two questions or three questions, and you can answer them in tandem if you would like. 

Regarding Taiwan, I would like to know if the administration is 

still absolutely committed to the Taiwan Relations Act and protecting Taiwan in the event of an attack. 

Second, the Colombian Free Trade Agreement, which has been 

discussed by my colleagues. I think that, regarding immigration, 

drug trafficking, terrorists, and gangs that come into the United 

States, I think a Colombian Free Trade Agreement and a Panamanian Free Trade Agreement will help stem the tide of that. Conversely, if the economies start to go south down there because we 

don’t have a free trade agreement, along with the other things that 

are bringing people illegally into the United States, I think we can 

50

see more people coming into the country. So I hope that we will 

press on with that. 

The Six-Party Talks regarding North Korea, I would like to know 

what the prospects are of resuming those talks, and whether or not 

we can expect some results, because North Korea really hasn’t been 

paying much attention to us. 

And, finally, I think all of us are concerned about Mr. Chavez’s 

attention and association with Russia, China, and Iran. They have 

had flights back and forth to Tehran from Venezuela, and I think 

I and many of my colleagues are very concerned that there may be 

a coalition that is formed that may threaten not only the security 

of Central and South America but the United States as well. 

And so I will let you answer those. And, if I have time left, I am 

going to yield to my colleague. Thank you. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. Burton. 

Our policy with respect to Taiwan remains one China policy, Taiwan Relations Act, three communique ́s. There is no change in our 

approach. We have been very consistent about that. 

As I said, the Colombia and Panama Free Trade Agreements are 

ones that we are looking very hard at and working with the Panamanians and the Colombians. 

Regarding the Six-Party Talks, we have made it clear that we 

are prepared to resume the Six-Party Talks. The Chinese and Russians, the Japanese and South Koreans have equally made that 

clear. As you know very well, the North Koreans have not demonstrated any willingness to resume the Six-Party process. 

I was pleased by the strong statement that we got unanimously 

from the United Nations condemning the missile launch, saying 

that it was in contravention of the United Nations Security Council 

Resolution 1718. And I think the strong support that we see among 

the parties against what North Korea is doing will eventually yield 

fruit, but I think we have to be strong, patient, persistent, and not 

give in to the kind of back and forth, the unpredictable behavior 

of the North Korean regime. 

And, finally, you know, the Chavez relationship you describe is 

a result of 8 years of isolating Chavez, and I don’t think we believe 

it has worked very well. We have isolated him, so he has gone elsewhere. I mean, he is a very sociable guy. He is going to look for 

friends where he can find them, and so he is finding friends in 

places we would prefer him not to find friends. So 8 years of isolation has resulted in the kinds of outreach that I think both you and 

I find troubling. 

You know, our belief is, if it hasn’t worked, why keep it going? 

Let’s see what else might be possible. And during our encounters 

with President Chavez we agreed to consider exchanging ambassadors. I think that is a positive development, and we will see what 

else can possibly arise from looking for ways that we can perhaps 

work together. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Tanner. 

Mr. TANNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here. I want to echo 

what everyone else has said about the breath of fresh air and the 

tone that is being set. 

51

Let me talk a minute about NATO, if I could. I am worried that 

2009 is a critical year both for NATO and for our efforts with respect to Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

I was on active duty during the Vietnam days, and a country can 

only sustain an overseas military expedition so long without a critical mass of popular support behind it at home, and we got derailed 

during the last administration with the Iraq matter, which very 

much cut into that critical mass support in Europe by constituents. 

And we in the NATO parliamentary assembly are trying to do everything we can to rebuild that as it relates to Afghanistan and 

Pakistan, because the two, even though they were interchanged in 

a word by the previous administration, are completely different in 

our view. And so if one believes that we have to show some 

progress in Afghanistan, Pakistan this year to maintain that critical mass of public support from our European allies, I think we 

have a window of opportunity to do that but we have to act and 

act quickly. 

Since I left you in Strasbourg Kehl, I went to Lithuania, 

Ukraine, and Georgia, and then back to Brussels to talk to them 

about the fact that they didn’t get in the MAP, but to keep working 

at their reforms. What I guess I am trying to do and the American 

delegation is trying to do in NATO PA is to convince them that 

even if they cannot do as much as hard power maybe as we would 

like, they can certainly do more soft power, and it is in their interests every bit as much as it is ours to stem the flow of heroin and 

sow poppies, and so forth. 

That ties in to then our evolving relationship with Russia and 

our dependence in some ways, I believe, on our Western and now 

Eastern European allies to help us with whatever leverage they 

can provide to help us. 

And, finally, on the strategic plan that NATO is working on, we 

are working on it as well in NATO PA, and will be submitting that 

to you. And I would hope that maybe at some point I could come 

down to your office or we could talk further about what is going 

on, because everybody that I have talked to from General Joulwan, 

who used to be SACEUR, to General Wes Clark to General Jones, 

who is National Security Adviser, and General Craddock now to a 

person knows that hard power alone won’t get us where we want 

to go in this new world. 

Thank you. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, congratulations on becoming the President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and 

the speech that you gave, which I told you in Strasbourg I thought 

was an excellent one. I mean, you just outlined some of the serious 

challenges facing NATO at this time in its 60th year. Those of us 

who have passed that landmark age know that you have to take 

stock of where you are and where you are going, and we need to 

do that with NATO. And certainly we need to do it vis-a`-vis these 

very important commitments that have been made in Afghanistan 

by ISAF and by our NATO members. I think all of the points you 

made are ones that I would really welcome the chance to discuss 

with you. 

I personally was quite encouraged by the commitments made 

both in NATO and then later in the EU. We have all of the forces 

52

and support we need for the election, which is a critical milestone 

in Afghanistan. We need a fair, free, credible, legitimate election 

process. We are attaining additional troops. Somewhere north of 

5,000 I think will be added to our overall total in Afghanistan. But, 

as you point out, the additional support for training the Afghanistan National Army, for training the Afghan National Police, for 

helping mentor government officials, for working on anti-corruption 

and good governance and rule of law, for trying to do more with 

agricultural production—Afghanistan used to be a net exporter of 

agricultural goods, it needs to be again—of working with people in 

the local provinces. So there is a lot of good work being done, and 

I would love to discuss it with you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, it is good to see you again. I want to zero in 

on the firearms situation in Mexico. It has been reported by the administration that 90 percent of the guns that are recovered and 

firearms recovered in Mexico are from the United States. It seems 

that ATF has recalculated that and says that it is an error, that 

it is only 90 percent of the traceable guns, which turns out to be 

17–20 percent of those guns. 

There are reports that Mexico is an arms bazaar with grenades 

from South Korea, AK–47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket 

launchers from Spain, Israel, and even the former Soviet Union, 

that the Russian Mafia is also involved in arms and drug trafficking in Mexico. And, in 2006, Amnesty International said that 

China was providing arms to Mexico and many other Latin America countries. 

And two other statistics. The Mexican army has had desertions 

of over 150,000 of its own soldiers in the last 6 years, and many 

of them take their M–16s that are made in Belgium with them 

when they leave the Mexican military and go work for the drug 

cartels. And just recently, in March, Guatemala seized 500 grenades and AK–47s on its border that were going into Mexico. 

So my question really is, Mexico seems to have borders that are 

porous for firearms, not just from the United States. And we are 

trying to help Mexico get a grip on the drug cartels, which are tremendously affecting their economy, our economy. 

So my concern is that our aid that we give to Mexico in the 

Merida Initiative doesn’t turn out to be used against us, whether 

in the corruption process or whether these weapons turn out to go 

to the drug cartels and be used against Americans. 

I recently just this weekend was on the Texas-Mexico border 

with the Air National Guard, flew up and down the Rio Grande 

River as they caught two drug smugglers coming into the United 

States. And that seems to be the concern of law enforcement on 

this side, that much of this money or equipment is going to be used 

against us because of the corruption. 

Can you help me out a little bit with that and tell me what precautions are being made by our administration to make sure that 

all this equipment that we are sending doesn’t end up in the wrong 

hands and used against us? 

53

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I obviously think that 

we have to be as careful and accountable as we possibly can be. I 

think that the threat to Mexico by these drug cartels is one that 

we want to respond to and we are responding to it. And the Merida 

Initiative is the organized approach adopted by the prior administration which we want to continue and make even more effective. 

And I believe that the Mexican Government, from my visit there 

and the President’s recent visit, is very focused on this. They know 

what they have to do, and they are seeking our help, which is 

something that will over the long run strengthen our relationship. 

We have to defeat these drug cartels. I mean, we have to defeat 

them, we have to disarm them, we have to capture or kill them. 

We have to rid the people of Mexico of this scourge. And we have 

to support President Calderon, who is showing enormous courage. 

I mean, the bravery that man shows every day getting up and 

going to work is very impressive. So we will just have to work together to make sure that we put in appropriate safeguards. And I 

know the Mexican Government has every interest in ensuring that 

whatever equipment we provide ends up in the right hands. 

With respect to where the drug cartels get their guns, I have no 

doubt that they are shopping in the international bazaar. But there 

is a considerable number of these weapons that do come out of our 

country, and I think we ought to be smarter about how we at least 

can prevent whatever the contribution percentage is from crossing 

the border and adding to the woes of the Mexican army and the 

Mexican police. 

Mr. POE. Would it not be the responsibility for us to protect our 

border from drugs as it would be for Mexico to protect their border 

from guns? It just seems to me that neither border is being protected by either country, because guns are going one way and drugs 

are going the other way. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, you are right. We haven’t done a very 

good job, have we? None of us have. And we have got to do a better 

job. The administration just appointed Alan Bersin, who was the 

U.S. Attorney along the San Diego border during the Clinton administration, had an excellent record of securing the border. We 

are going to take every step we can. Any ideas you have, I am sure 

the administration would welcome. 

Mr. POE. I will be glad to pass those on. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. 

Madam Secretary, you just don’t know what a joy this is to be 

here and be proud of you and hear the depth and breadth of concern and knowledge you have on every single issue and question 

that has come up today. Thank you very much. 

I spent part of the Easter break in Tanzania, and the focus of 

our trip was maternal mortality. And I can say without a doubt 

that if the women of childbearing age—it is hard enough to live in 

a third world country. I cannot imagine being a woman of childbearing age. But their lives and the dignity of their lives and their 

future and their children’s future would be much improved with 

54

family planning and options made available to them. So thank you 

for your statements regarding that. 

You are such a committed woman for women’s rights all over the 

world. So I would like to talk about CEDAW, the convention to 

eliminate all forms of discrimination, of which is the U.N. convention that has been ratified by 95 percent, 185, United Nations 

members, but not the United States of America, over the last 30 

years, leaving us in the company of Iran and Sudan of all things. 

It is time to move beyond this embarrassing and shameful distinction, and every single Congress since the 102nd Congress I have 

introduced CEDAW ratifying language, although it has to actually 

take place in the Senate. But this year H. Res. 22 has over 120 

members cosponsoring. 

So, what can we do to work together to get it out of the Senate 

and signed and ratified by the President, by President Obama? 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Woolsey. And the administration is forwarding CEDAW along with 

other priority treaties to the Senate with the hopes that this could 

be the year that we would finally ratify this convention that really 

does recognize and support the rights of women. And I hope that 

Members of Congress, led by you and others who care deeply about 

this issue, will make your views known to your Senate colleagues, 

because we need to move on this. I agree with you. I find it embarrassing we are in the company of the countries that you named. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, thank you. 

Now I have a less friendly question. The President refers to diplomacy development over military power, or along with military 

power in addressing Afghanistan. Yet, in the supplementals there 

is a 10–1, 7–1 investment for the Department of Defense, as compared to foreign affairs, foreign assistance, and the State Department. 

Earlier this year, myself and 10 of my colleagues sent a letter to 

the President requesting more information about his and the administration’s Afghanistan policy. We haven’t gotten our questions 

answered. We want to know about clear authorization for the use 

of military force. Has it been established? Is he going to come to 

the Congress? How do you find the goals, objectives, and benefits 

of the United States’ involvement in Afghanistan? What are the 

human and financial resources necessary to carry out the administration’s plan? What is the timeline for redeployment of our troops 

and military contractors? How about NATO and the U.N., what is 

their role, and other international partners? And how long will the 

immediate humanitarian economic needs of the Afghanistan people 

be addressed? That was our letter. I don’t know if you have seen 

it. 

Secretary CLINTON. I have not seen it, but I understand the concern behind your questions. And let me just say, Congresswoman, 

we conducted a very thorough review of the policy we inherited, 

and we can’t go back and wish things had been done differently. 

We have to start with what we see right in front of us. 

We think that there is an important national security interest on 

behalf of the United States to prevent Afghanistan from becoming 

a safe haven for terrorists, extremists, and those who would export 

violence against the United States, our friends and allies, and who 

55

would turn Afghanistan backwards, again particularly when it affects the role of women. 

But our primary goal in Afghanistan is to disrupt, dismantle, 

and defeat al-Qaeda. And as someone who represented New York 

on September 11th, I take that very seriously, and am absolutely 

committed to doing everything I can as Secretary of State to make 

sure we are not attacked again, and to go after those who attacked 

us and attack the friends and allies of America. 

Chairman BERMAN [presiding]. The time of the gentlelady has 

expired. And, therefore, I am going to recognize the gentleman 

from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. And it is so good to have 

you here being from Arkansas. I just want to relay how proud the 

State is of you being in this position. 

In deference to my ranking member, and then the ranking member on my committee, I would like to yield 1 minute to Ms. RosLehtinen very quickly. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Madam Secretary, in response to an earlier question, you said 

correctly that United States policy was not to provide funding to 

a Palestinian Authority that included Hamas unless and until 

Hamas meets the obligations, including recognizing Israel. I agree 

with that. However, that is not what the language in the supplemental says. And I just encourage you to take a second look at the 

supplemental when it talks about power sharing agreements, that 

talk about Palestinian Authority governments, including ministries, agencies, and instrumentalities. I think it is going to leave 

room there for Hamas to get the funding. 

I thank the gentleman for the time. I don’t wish to take up time, 

and I would like to yield back to you. Thank you. So if you could 

take a look at that again, Madam Secretary, for any possible 

changes in the supplemental language. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I yield to Congressman Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. I thank Congressman Boozman for yielding. 

Madam Secretary, I believe that words on behalf of the Chinese 

women need to be backed up by deeds. And as you know, the U.N. 

Population Fund has actively supported, co-managed, and whitewashed the most pervasive crimes against women in human history, yet the Obama administration has given a $50-million check 

and has failed to enforce the Kemp-Kasten anti-coercion law. 

Secretary CLINTON. I am sorry. Could you let Mr. Smith start 

again? I couldn’t hear what you said. I want to hear what you are 

saying. Is that all right, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SMITH. That would be fine. 

Words on behalf of the Chinese women who are beleaguered by 

their own government and by nongovernmental organizations and 

others who are enforcing the one child per couple policy need to be 

backed up by deeds. The point that I am making is that in China 

today with the UNFPA enabling every day of the week, including 

UNFPA-backed countries, women are forcibly aborted. Brothers 

and sisters are illegal. They are missing at least 100 million girls, 

gendercide, because of the preference for males. And if you are only 

allowed one, that one is more likely to be a boy than a girl, so girls 

are singled out, the girl child, for forced abortion. There are about 

56

500 suicides a day—not a week, a month—a day in China. And 

some experts attribute that in whole or in part to the forced abortion policy. 

In 2008, the U.S. Department of State found that the UNFPA 

had violated the anti-coercion provisions of Kemp-Kasten and reprogrammed every dollar to maternal health and to family planning, but not to the UNFPA. 

My point is and my concern is that rather than demanding reform—and I do believe the Obama administration, had you continued the Kemp-Kasten denial of funds to UNFPA, especially given 

the position that this administration takes on abortion, that would 

have had a profound impact on the Chinese Government as well as 

on the UNFPA itself—and yet we have written them a $50-million 

check, maybe deducted a few dollars, maybe, maybe not. But we 

have written them a very large check. And that sends a clear nonambiguous message to the Chinese Government that coercion really doesn’t matter. 

Secretary CLINTON. Mr. Chairman, could I respond to these very 

two very important questions? I think that the point that the ranking member made really deserves a response, because the administration is very firm that we should not and will not deal with 

Hamas. We will not deal with a power sharing Palestinian Authority Government that includes Hamas that does not meet the criteria of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and agreeing to all 

prior agreements entered into by the PLO and the Palestinian Authority. And what we have said is that assistance will not flow to 

Hamas and any entity controlled by Hamas, and will only be permitted any power sharing government in which Hamas participates 

if the President certifies that the power sharing government has 

met the three principles I just outlined. 

So if the language is not as clear as we intend it to be, because 

as I have just described it is our intention, you know, we will look 

at that. 

Furthermore, all NGOs, any organization applying for any grants 

to do any humanitarian work in Gaza have to certify before any 

award is made that they do not provide material support to Hamas 

or other terrorists. I obviously feel very strongly about this. That 

is our intention, that is our policy. 

With respect to what Congressman Smith is saying, Congressman Smith, the questions previously jogged my memory. When I 

was in China, I met with a group of women. Once again, I spoke 

out about the forced one child policy. I share your horror and absolute rejection of such a policy. I also think it is bad for China. The 

imbalance between girls and boys is a ticking demographic bomb 

that is going to explode within their society. This is a bad policy 

from any angle you look at it. And I don’t believe that there are 

any grounds for our being connected to any policy that supports it, 

but I will look into the point that you made. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think 

there is no doubt, Madam Secretary, that your commitment to 

human rights is above reproach. And we thank you for the sinVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:59 Feb 24, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\042209\48841 HFA PsN: SHIRL
57

cerity of your presence here today. Very proud of you. But more importantly, we are proud of the bold leadership that you have already shown in conjunction with the new message of the Obama 

administration. 

Several things I am going to put on the record, and then focus 

in narrowly on some issues. 

First of all, thank you for what you are doing for the Iranian 

American reporter. Count us as your partners. We demand her release immediately. We certainly welcome that there should be a 

fair trial. But my position is that she is innocent and she should 

be released immediately. Thank you for those bold words. 

Again, the work that has been done by appointing the envoy for 

Pakistan, Afghanistan, and for the Middle East are part of the bold 

leadership. 

I want to focus in on our recent visit. But as you well know, the 

number of visits that I have made to Pakistan co-chairing the Pakistan Caucus, this is not the Pakistan of Benazir Bhutto, who respected you and you respected her. In my meetings or conversation 

with her, her dream when I last spoke before her assassination was 

for this new revived Pakistan. 

My question is that we need to continue and to accelerate the 

pressure on the civilian government. You are right, the voices of 

Pakistani Americans, brilliant people committed to our country, 

need to be raised with the civilian population. I know there is fear, 

but sometimes you have to go against fear. I would ask, for example, we just gave $1 billion at the donor 

conference for conditions that include this: One, they must find a 

unified government, whether it is Sharif working with Zardari, 

Prime Minister, there must be a strong unified government that 

can confront the issues and swat the use of the Sharia law that is 

killing women, bloodying individuals. And I would appreciate your 

comment on that. 

Second, let me quickly go to a unified Africa policy that would 

include the comments of my chairman, Mr. Payne, but also Liberia. 

And when I say that, that is two opposites, so that we can enrich 

Africa in its totality. 

And lastly, this issue of a global national strategy for development, I think that will cover South and Central America, it will 

cover the crisis in Mexico with drugs, it will cover Africa and the 

Mideast. It will cover the South Asia. I would hope that that would 

be something that we would be looking at very quickly so that included in that we can recapacitate, reprofessionalize USAID, which 

by the way we saw in India. It was fabulous to see them dealing 

with maternal health. 

And I would appreciate your comments on those questions. 

Thank you again for your leadership. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you so much, Congresswoman. And 

thanks for your leadership on behalf of the Pakistani Caucus, because I agree completely with you. We need to hear those voices, 

and I think that could be a very helpful addition to our efforts. 

I also appreciate your raising Liberia. I had a long meeting yesterday with President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. What she has done in 

such a short period of time in Liberia deserves our full support. I 

am so committed to doing everything I can to help her on security, 

58

on infrastructure. And I think it has to be a public-private partnership. We need more American corporations and NGOs to invest in 

Liberia and assist President Sirleaf in her efforts to rebuild that 

war ravaged country. 

I also appreciate your talking about USAID, often the unsung heroes and heroines of our policies. When Congresswoman Woolsey 

was talking about maternal mortality, those are the kinds of interventions that literally save lives and put us at our very best, give 

us a chance to talk with people not in a political way but sort of 

person to person, which builds connections. And I look forward to 

discussing with all of you and particularly under the leadership of 

the chairman how we can do foreign aid better, how we can 

streamline it, how we can get better results, how we can be more 

effective. So your ideas about that are going to be very welcomed. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. May I very quickly just ask the issue of 

Sharia law in Pakistan and Afghanistan and how we can put pressure on their thoughts about that. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, we are hopeful that the law that was 

passed by the Parliament in Afghanistan will be taken back. We 

have some reason to believe that that will happen, and we have 

urged it to occur expeditiously. 

I think that the Pakistani Government is basically abdicating to 

the Taliban and to extremists. But look at why this is happening. 

If you talk to people in Pakistan, especially in the ungoverned territories, which are increasing in number, they don’t believe the 

state has a judiciary system that works. It is corrupt. It doesn’t extend its power into the countryside. So the Government of Pakistan, however it is constituted, which is of course their business, 

not ours, must begin to deliver government services. Otherwise 

they are going to lose out to those who show up and claim that 

they can solve people’s problems, and then they will impose this 

harsh form of oppression on women and others which we find unacceptable. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here 

today. Let me say at the onset, I commend the focus that you have 

on the Pakistan-Afghanistan area. After all, Pakistan is the country that brought us Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 World Trade Center 

bomber, his uncle Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In my view, the tribal area in Pakistan was not given proper attention over the past 

several years, and I think that we are beginning to see as we travel 

back from Pakistan that that is a terrorist training haven. It is the 

epicenter in the war on terror, and it has to be the focus on our 

foreign policy in terms of how we deal with that area. If bin Laden 

is alive, surely that is where he is. It is the biggest threat to our 

soldiers in Afghanistan, and it is perhaps the biggest threat to our 

homeland security. And I would encourage you to keep up the focus 

in that area. I would hope that we are doing a lot of things behind 

the scenes in terms of dealing with that particular area, the FATA. 

My question regarding that as it relates to Congress is a funding issue. There has been about $7.5 billion in nonmilitary assistance 

to Pakistan. You know, we have the coalition funds that reimburse 

59

Pakistan. And then we have the A.Q. Khan issue, A.Q. Khan, who 

is a master proliferator to countries like Iran and to Syria and to 

North Korea, the first atomic bomb in Pakistan, which is another 

issue. 

Shouldn’t we be trying to condition this support and this aid and 

somehow tie this aid to a security agreement with Pakistan that 

they will no longer allow this area to fester, and will provide the 

security necessary to take out al-Qaeda and the Taliban and the 

FATA? And shouldn’t we also condition that on the ability of the 

United States to be able to sit down with Mr. Khan, Mr. A.Q. 

Khan, and get information from him about what could have been 

one of the largest proliferations of nuclear armament in history. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, thank you for the bipartisan approach that you exhibited in your questions, your question 

concerning Pakistan, because it is a concern for America and we 

have got to figure out the best way to deal with it. And we have 

to try, insofar as it is possible, to overcome any partisan differences, and we welcome your advice and suggestions. 

We do think that there needs to be the right kind of conditions. 

You know, it is a little bit like the Goldilocks story: If they are too 

weak, we don’t get changes. If they are too strong, we get a backlash. So we have to figure out sort of what is the area that will 

influence behavior and produce results. We are creating measures 

of performance that we will share with the Congress so that you 

and we can follow whether or not we are getting the kind of positive outcomes that we are attempting to achieve. 

With respect to A.Q. Khan, there is no doubt he is probably the 

world’s greatest proliferator, and the damage that he has done 

around the world has been incalculable. We have made it very 

clear that the network had to be dismantled, and it was. There are 

people who were connected with A.Q. Khan who are out of business 

or who were imprisoned. And there are ongoing efforts to continue 

to obtain useful information. 

As we develop with the Congress the kind of conditional statements that we want, we have to just be careful that what we put 

into legislation doesn’t stop cooperation instead of further cooperation. And so let us work with you and others to try to figure out 

exactly sort of what is the sweet spot here? How to we get results? 

We are not interested in putting money into doing what hasn’t 

worked, and we have seen the situation deteriorate over the last 

8 years in Pakistan. And even before, it has been a very difficult 

country for us to get our arms around and figure out what our ongoing relationship would be like. 

But we are convinced that the democratically elected government 

in Pakistan shares our goals with respect to the terrorist threat. 

We just have to figure out how we can best support them in actually getting results. 

Mr. MCCAUL. If I could just close with, I am the ranking on the 

Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee. Jane Harman is the 

chairwoman. We are both very interested in this issue and working 

with the administration. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. And 

I appreciate your comments on this issue, Madam Secretary. 

60

And the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, as I said to you last week, I truly applaud 

your bold steps in reshaping America’s image and role in the world; 

and I look forward to working with you and the President in tackling these enormous challenges which oftentimes are seen as opportunities. I will submit to you the many questions I have for the 

record. 

Let me go to Cuba first. Yes, I firmly believe that we should promote freedom, human rights, democracy, encourage elections 

throughout the world. But remember, though, that recent history 

under the Bush administration shows us that we did this with the 

Palestinians and we ended up with Hamas. So sometimes it backfires. 

With regard to Mr. Mack’s point about remember the history; 

well, yes, we do have to remember the history. And we also cannot 

forget the Bay of Pigs, assassination attempts, Guantanamo, the 

dictatorship of Batista. There are many, many issues that also 

have to be included in this history. 

You mentioned the Cuban plane flying over—the American plane 

flying over Havana. Well, I am not so sure if a Cuban plane entered United States airspace what our response would be. 

I raise these questions because these are two sovereign countries 

which have serious, serious issues to address on both sides; and I 

recognize that it is going to be very difficult as we move forward. 

Last week, week before last, as you know, I led a delegation of 

Members of Congress to Cuba with one specific purpose and that 

was to assess whether or not Cuba wanted to move forward with 

the dialogue and whether or not all issues, such as political prisoners, human rights, the plight of Afro Cubans, would be placed on 

the table if in fact discussions would move forward. Of course, 

President Raul Castro communicated to us, ‘‘yes.’’

And I applaud yourself and the President for moving forward 

with the family reunification efforts. This is the right thing to do 

in the steps that you are taking to help reunite Cuban Americans 

and Cubans. 

I wanted to ask you if there are any other plans, any other policies you are considering looking at; and do you agree with lifting 

the travel ban for all Americans to travel to Cuba? 

Also, I remember back in 1998 there was a report by the Pentagon that said that Cuba did not present a national security 

threat to the United States. And so I am wondering, from your administration’s point of view, why is Cuba still on the list of state 

sponsors of terror? And what can or should Cuba do anything to 

be removed from the list of state sponsors of terror? 

And, finally, I have to thank you for your response to my questions regarding the investigation of my constituent, Tristan Anderson, who was seriously injured when he was shot in the head by 

tear canisters by an Israeli soldier in the West Bank of Ni’ilan. I 

hope that the State Department will insist that the Israeli Government hold those responsible accountable and that the family and 

Tristan receive an apology. I will send you additional questions to 

that issue. 

61

Thank you very much. Good to see you again, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

You know, we have taken the actions that you know so well in 

addition to the remittances and the travel for family members. We 

also have opened up telecommunications investments in Cuba. We 

are taking a hard look at this in the response that we received 

from Raul Castro. And we are available to engage with the Cuban 

Government if they are willing to do so, but we don’t yet know 

whether they really are or not. 

And I have to say I think that if two small, little, unarmed 

planes had gone into our airspace, they would have been forced 

down. I don’t think they would have been shot town. 

I think that there is such a stake that the Castro regime has in 

making the United States the excuse for everything that goes 

wrong inside Cuba that they are going to have to really have a 

change in attitude about how and under what circumstances they 

would want to really have that discussion that you described, that 

you were assured that Raul Castro said everything would be on the 

table. But we are considering what they might come back with, but 

so far we don’t really see any movement. But, as the President 

said, we are open. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and, again, 

welcome, Madam Secretary. 

Madam Secretary, I would like to focus on Africa, if I may. I just 

returned yesterday from Africa. I have two lines of questioning. 

The first line of questioning sort of impacts the first part of my 

visit into Burkina Faso and into the Congo. The point of my question will be not only the funds that we are sending in there, but 

I have serious questions that they are being utilized properly and 

that they are reaching and helping the people where they need the 

help the most. I say that particularly because of the line of corruption and many times the monies that we are sending don’t get 

down. 

If we take Faso, for example, and go in there, it is the poorest 

country on earth. It has a 77 percent unemployment. We are sending over there, just in the Millennium Challenge alone, about $500 

million. There are questions about where that money is going. And 

when you look at the countryside, where is it going? 

We visited the other areas. We left there and went into the 

Congo into a place called Goma. And if that is not Ground Zero of 

the deprivation center of the world, I don’t know what is. We took 

a helicopter in there. We visited the refugee areas. One of those 

areas had about 42,000 people in it, over 20,000 of them children. 

It is just deplorable, those conditions. And it is the only health care 

that they get. 

So my question is, what are we doing specifically to make sure 

that the money that we are spending for these humanitarian efforts are getting to that source? 

The second line of questioning comes into the security area 

around the Horn of Africa where we went into Kenya. And, of 

course, Kenya and Yemen also balance that area. There my quesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:59 Feb 24, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\042209\48841 HFA PsN: SHIRL
62

tion is, how are we going to really effectively thread the needle in 

being able to bring some stability to that region, especially when 

we have the Al-Shabab faction working so expeditiously to undermine the existing fragile government? 

If we go in, we have a problem. If we stay out, we have a problem. If we use the allies to make it a regional problem, we have 

a problem, because Kenya being our most important ally over there 

has such internal intrigue going on where they have a two-headed 

monster government where they are fighting each other. And AlShabab, quite honestly, is getting strong support from al-Qaeda 

and certainly has those training camps right near the Kenyan border. 

Madam Secretary, Africa is an extraordinary explosion that is 

soaring in magnitude and consequences if we in the United States 

don’t apply our resources appropriately in terms of the humanitarian effort as witnessed in Goma and Faso and our efforts to stabilize that area given the terrorist threat in Kenya and in Somalia. 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman Scott, I am very happy that 

not only you visited there but you have so graphically and dramatically described what you saw. 

I would underscore the feeling I am getting from you. Africa is 

a matter of great national security concern to the United States. 

This is a continent of such diversity, such promise, and such peril; 

and you have highlighted two of our biggest challenges. 

I am committed to doing a better job on the aid we deliver, because I share your concerns. I don’t know where a lot of it ends 

up. And our transparency and our accountability measures are not 

adequate. We waste way too much money on contractors. Fifty 

cents on every dollar doesn’t even end up—it is not even in the 

pipeline to end up serving the people it should serve. And once it 

is on the ground, it is really hard to make the case that our aid 

over decades has made the difference it should have made in the 

lives of the people of so many African countries. 

I think we have to start over, Mr. Chairman. I think we have got 

to ask ourselves, what are we doing and how do we do it better? 

How do we define our mission? And how do we have mechanisms 

that we can say to the American people are working and look to 

see the results in so many places elsewhere? 

With respect to the Horn of Africa, if you look at the map, Yemen 

is just off the coast of Somalia. The nexus between Al-Shabab and 

al-Qaeda is growing, and we have to have a strategy for the Horn 

of Africa that includes trying to stabilize Somalia and help this 

new Federal transition government. 

So I know my time is up. But this is one of the most important 

areas for our concern, and we have got to be smart about how we 

are going to approach it. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I would like to ask you to share your views 

on the possibility of lifting or at least reviewing the policy prohibiting U.S. Government employees from all travel to the Gaza strip. 

I would like you to do that, because—to review that policy. Because 

63

as we talk about addressing humanitarian needs in Gaza along 

with the concerns that no money flow to Hamas, I think it would 

reassure Members of Congress and—if members of the administration could go there. 

So could you share your views on that? I think there are changed 

circumstances, a new administration. I know the convoy that was 

attacked in 2003, that is a legitimate reason to pull back, but perhaps maybe it is time to review it. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I have to look into that. 

Because I know not only have Members of Congress including yourself gone to Gaza, but USAID workers have gone into Gaza. They 

have as part of our surveys of what we are trying to determine is 

the best approach for our aid. There have not been high-level administration visits. But we are member of the Quartet; and Tony 

Blair, who is the Quartet representative, has gone into Gaza several times. 

So I will look into this, and I will determine whether my understanding is accurate, and we will get back to you. 

Mr. ELLISON. I just mention that, Madam Secretary, because 

after we left Gaza, as you point out, I did go there. We did go there. 

We met with members of USAID, and we asked them what they 

thought about what was happening there. And they said, well, we 

are not allowed to go. So that is—so thank you for looking into 

that. 

My next question is, I believe that the—I would like to ask you 

to consider working with your counterparts in Israel about the 

opening up of the crossings. I know that humanitarian aid does 

flow, and I understand Israel has legitimate security concerns regarding the crossings. But I think that, as the crossings are so 

tightly controlled, what ends up happening is that most of the 

goods and services that end up in Gaza flow through the tunnels. 

And I think that if the crossings opened, we could enlist average 

citizens in helping close the tunnels. But because the crossings are 

closed, people have to depend upon the tunnels, which, of course, 

contraband goes through. So do you have any views on how you 

might approach that subject? What do you think about that? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, the crossings are no longer 

completely closed. There are many items that are being transported 

through the crossings. 

There are, as you know, some items that the Israeli Government 

does not permit to cross. We have urged the Israeli Government on 

several occasions to open the crossings as much as they are able 

commensurate with their legitimate security needs which you recognized. 

The best way for us to help the people of Gaza is for Hamas to 

cease its rocket firing on Israel, to abide by the Quartet principles 

and the same principles that were adopted by the Arab Peace Initiative which I have reiterated several times here today. 

Mr. ELLISON. Reclaiming my time. Yes, you have, Madam Secretary; and I appreciate you reiterating that. But, you know, 

750,000 of the people living in Gaza are under 18 years old. The 

Gaza and Hamas are not the same thing. There are a lot of people 

who have nothing to do with Hamas and Gaza and wish Hamas 

64

would go away. But they are living under this same—under these 

closed crossings. 

And just to point out to you, Madam Secretary, there is a very 

tight definition of what constitutes humanitarian aid. I have been 

there; and I have seen it is essentially sugar, flour, cooking oil. 

Even things like macaroni, lentils, and tomato paste and fruit juice 

were barred. 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, I know that those lists have 

changed, because I have monitored this. I think when you went, 

which was somewhere early in January, if I am not mistaken——

Mr. ELLISON. February. 

Secretary CLINTON. We have looked at the lists, and a lot of what 

has been said was not permitted to cross is just not accurate. But 

I am not speaking for the decisions that are made by the Israeli 

Government in pursuit of their own security. I think what we want 

is to get back to a process, an effort, and negotiations that would 

lead to a two-state solution. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired; and 

the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence, is recognized. 

Before we start the clock up, Mr. Pence, let me just indicate the 

Secretary has been here for 3 hours and 20 minutes, not counting 

the time she had to talk to us in the other room. And she has, I 

think very generously—I haven’t quite seen this yet from a Secretary of State—agreed to stay until 1:30, but at 1:30 this hearing 

ends. 

The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you for coming before this committee. 

Secretary CLINTON. I am sorry, Mr. Pence. I am looking at some 

old friends from Arkansas over your head. I don’t mean to be interrupting. Don’t count this time against Mr. Pence. 

Chairman BERMAN. The Arkansas time. We will give you credit 

on the other side. 

Mr. PENCE. Madam Secretary, I had assumed that that warm 

wave was not directed to me. 

Secretary CLINTON. Don’t assume that, Mr. Pence, please. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you for your service to the country in this post 

and over many years. 

I want to raise an issue with you that has come up in this hearing before, and I want to raise it with great respect to you and to 

the President of the United States of America that you serve. 

In testimony before this committee earlier, I know that the issue 

of the President being photographed with the virulent anti-American Socialist dictator of Venezuela came up. And I know that, according to testimony that was handed to me, that you indicated 

that you found it ‘‘rather amusing.’’ But let me say with the deepest respect, Madam Secretary, I am not amused; and I want to 

speak to that issue. And what I—and get your sense as an American who is both known and respected around the world about the 

wisdom of the leader of the free world being seen in that kind of 

a setting with that kind of a Socialist dictator. 

Hugo Chavez, is, we all know, a Castro wannabe in the region. 

He has oppressed the media. He has bullied economic interests in 

65

the country. He has blacklisted political opponents from state agencies. There are reports, of which you are well aware, of his lack of 

cooperation on our efforts to confront narcoterrorism in the region. 

There are reports of worse by that government. And, of course, he 

has openly supported Iran’s nuclear ambitions and has referred to 

the predecessor of the 44th President as some sort of a demon, 

which would not be inconsistent with his long history of spewing 

vile intentions toward the people of the United States of America. 

You made a comment that I quote with great respect in July 

2007 in another context, I want to admit, in which you said, and 

I quote, with regard to potential meetings with North Korea, Venezuela, or leaders of Cuba. You said: ‘‘I will not promise to meet 

with these leaders during my first year because. . .’’ you said and 

I quote, with much agreement, ‘‘I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes.’’

And so my question, Madam Secretary, is, in light of your previously stated insight, isn’t it true that having the President of the 

United States be seen on the world stage warmly greeting a virulent anti-American Socialist dictator, that intentionally or unintentionally our President was used for propaganda purposes, to borrow 

the phrase that you used? 

And isn’t it also true that, as Natan Sharansky observed memorably in his book, ‘‘Case for Democracy,’’ there is almost nothing 

more demoralizing to people that are fighting for freedom in their 

own country than to see the leader of the free world in friendly association with the very people that are oppressing them? 

Sharansky said we could ‘‘never fully prepare ourselves for the disappointment that came from seeing the free world abandon its own 

values in that context.’’

And so in a very real sense I wanted to invite in a respectful way 

your thoughts about that, recognizing that you serve this President, but also expressing to you my profound concern that this administration allowed itself, intentionally or unintentionally, to be 

used to prop up and promote the image and the interest of a virulent, anti-American Socialist dictator in Venezuela. 

Chairman BERMAN. I am going to give the Secretary a little bit 

of time to—because you characterized an earlier comment that she 

made—to respond. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Mr. Pence, I have lived a long time 

now. I grew up at the height of the Cold War when we were on 

the hair-trigger alert of nuclear war. I remember virulent antiAmerican Communist dictators threatening our country on a regular basis; and I remember our Presidents meeting with them, 

shaking their hands, and negotiating. They did not do so without 

conditions or without strong principles, but they did so. 

I have also seen us establish normal relations with Vietnam. I 

have seen the 30 years of normalized relations with China. And I 

don’t think there is any contradiction between standing strongly for 

our principles and our values and pursuing the give and take of 

diplomatic encounter and negotiation where appropriate. 

I think that your strong feelings about Hugo Chavez are certainly understood, because he has clearly been someone who has 

behaved in ways that don’t accord with our values and our prinVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:59 Feb 24, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\042209\48841 HFA PsN: SHIRL
66

ciples. But so were the Soviet leaders and so did so many others 

with whom we eventually created an environment in which we 

could see some changes that benefited the United States of America. 

That is my bottom line, Mr. Pence. My bottom line is I am here 

to serve my country, which I have loved ever since I was a little 

girl; and I am going to support my President because he is committed to doing whatever he can in the time he is given to serve 

to make this a better, safer, more secure world. 

There are different approaches. I respectfully say we spent 8 

years trying to isolate Chavez, and what has been the result? I 

don’t think it has been in America’s interest. So we are going to 

try some different things. 

And I respect your disagreement. We want as bipartisan a foreign policy as possible; and we have, wherever we can, reached out 

and will continue to do so to members of this committee and others. We want your constructive criticism. We want your feedback. 

But President Obama won the election. He beat me in a primary 

in which he put forth a different approach. And he is now our 

President; and we all want our President, no matter of which 

party, to succeed, especially in such a perilous time. 

So I appreciate your strong feelings, but I think that we are pursuing a course that may very well open up some additional opportunities that we hope will be in our interests and advance our values and protect our security. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Costa, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this important hearing; and, Madam Secretary, congratulations for a fresh 

start and for the good work you have done so far. 

My questions to you are regarding the Department of State’s use 

of soft power and your thoughts and your ideas in that direction. 

But, first of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like, since many of my 

colleagues have indicated to the Secretary that they intend to send 

you a letter, I actually sent you a letter in February; and I would 

like to submit it for the record. 

Chairman BERMAN. It will be included in the record. 

[The information referred to follows:]

67


48841f-1.eps
68


48841f-2.eps
69

Mr. COSTA. And your office did call us yesterday and indicated 

that you do intend to respond, and I appreciate that and will look 

forward to the answers. 

Many of us have taken numerous visits to the Middle East and 

the hot spots that we are dealing with; and we see the wonderful 

men and women and Americans in uniform doing work that involves building schools, building bridges and roads, teaching democratic values for local government and state government, all important, important work that needs to be done in these places of the 

world where we are trying to develop partnerships and establish 

stability in those areas. But, frankly, in my view, more appropriate 

the role of the Department of State than necessarily the Department of Defense. 

So my questions to you are the following: 

How long will it take for the State Department to ramp up and 

build a robust effort toward soft power? How much in the way of 

resources will you need and what kind of resources will you need 

and how can we help you in that effort? 

And, finally, and I guess this is always important even in our 

own form of democracy, and that is the expectation gained. Realistically, what should be our expectations in terms of the State Department’s implementation of a robust ability to develop soft power 

in the parts of the world where it could complement all of the other 

efforts that we are pursuing? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman Costa, that question is 

music to my ears, because, obviously, I think that the use of every 

tool in our foreign policy toolbox is essential if we are going to be 

successful. 

I think we have a lot of work to do. I said in my confirmation 

hearings that USAID has been decimated. It has lost personnel. It 

has lost authority. It is like a contracting agency. And it is heartbreaking. Because, like you, I have seen the results of USAID 

projects and the dedication of the men and women who serve there, 

but we haven’t served them well in their efforts to promote American values. 

Mr. COSTA. Not at all. And everywhere we go we see the successes of those USAID projects even under the limited support that 

we provide. 

Secretary CLINTON. That is right. But because we are too bureaucratic, we are too overwhelmed by paperwork and contracting and 

all the rest of it, it is a lot easier for the military to get out in the 

field and do something. 

You know, I said in my confirmation hearing that those of us 

who have traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan and met with our young 

soldiers know that a young captain in the beginning of the Iraq 

war was literally given a fund, a commander’s fund of money, an 

emergency response fund, sometimes as much as $25,000, $50,000. 

If they needed a road prepared, they would get the road prepared. 

If they needed to open a factory, they would open it. Whereas it 

would take weeks, if not months, to take money that was appropriated by this Congress actually into the State Department and 

into USAID and then into the contracting process. 

70

So people just said, Wait a minute, we need to move fast; and 

that is one of the reasons why during the last 8 years the authorities began to migrate over to the Defense Department. 

Mr. COSTA. So how much time are you going to need, what kind 

of resources, to ramp up to have a realistic implementation? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I think that we are trying to get positioned to be able to make progress immediately. A lot of it depends 

upon the budget we have. Because so much of what we are asked 

to do in our budget is determined by not only the administration 

but by Congress making decisions. 

So it is going to take a couple of years. I can’t promise that we 

are going to get it done next year, but we are going to try to start 

on the right path and then work very closely with the Congress to 

get the authorities and the appropriations we need to deliver, and 

I want to have strong outcome measures so that we can figure out 

whether what we are doing is working. 

Mr. COSTA. I also mentioned this to you at the end of the State 

of the Union last month, but we have private sectors. We have people—Americans—who are actually providing their own resources in 

parts of the Middle East. We ought to support those efforts and add 

value to those efforts. 

Secretary CLINTON. I want many more public-private partnerships, Congressman Costa. I think you are absolutely right. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Klein, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KLEIN. Congratulations, and I am just very, very impressed 

with the leadership that you have taken in the short time you have 

been in office. So thank you for your service. 

The Summit of the Americas I think was a great opportunity. 

And being from Florida, we have looked for many years at the 

original summit that your husband actually presided over in Miami 

and since then, but even for the last number of years there has 

been sort of a vacuum of interest. It is trade but so many other 

things that make up for a strong relationship. 

But one of the specific areas that I have some concern about has 

to do with hurricanes, believe it or not. And as hurricane season 

approaches, and these hurricanes start off the coast of Africa and 

move across and come into the Caribbean area, and we have hurricane hunter planes which are Air Force and NOAA planes that 

help us understand the intensity and the direction so that we can 

narrow that cone of where the hurricane will make landfall. It has 

everything to do with the number of lives saved, the amount of dollars lost, and all those kinds of very important things. 

There is a gap in the area where hurricane hunters can fly; and 

it was pointed out recently by the World Meteorological Organization, an agency of the United Nations, that there are countries in 

our region, Venezuela being one of them, that are prohibiting us 

from flying into those areas through our NOAA planes. Other countries who share this information through the World Meteorological 

Organization, including Cuba, help us all provide for that safety; 

and I just wanted to ask you if you can take a look at that and, 

of course, take that up with your colleagues on a world level, of 

71

course. This is about safety and security for all of our countries in 

terms of getting the best data possible. 

Secretary CLINTON. Absolutely. I am glad you brought this to my 

attention. It is not an issue that I was aware of, Congressman 

Klein; and we will immediately take a look at that and see if we 

can’t remove any barriers to the hurricane hunters. 

Mr. KLEIN. It is certainly in the best interest of all the countries, 

including the ones that are prohibiting the airspace. There were actually seven storms that formed and intensified over this area. 

Second, and if I can on a different subject. The conference—the 

Durban II, if you will, conference that took place, I would like to 

extend appreciation that we did not participate, unfortunately. Because the underlying purpose, of course, is a very legitimate purpose, but it was hijacked once before; and, unfortunately, as we 

saw by Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comments, it was virulent, anti-Israel, 

anti-Semiticism in many ways. 

But as we move forward with status with the U.N. Human 

Rights Council, we, of course, believe very strongly as Americans 

in the importance of human rights. Can you share with us your 

thoughts on how we can reform this Council, make sure that this 

in itself does not move in a direction of just focusing on anti-Israel 

behavior or anything else but really focuses on the importance of 

human rights worldwide? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, that is exactly why we have concluded 

that we will stand for election and resume a role at the Human 

Rights Council if we are successful. Because we have been very disappointed at the behavior and the priorities of the Human Rights 

Council. 

There are so many important human rights issues that literally 

go to life-and-death survival matters all over the world of horrific 

abuses, some of which we have discussed today, that never get 

raised. Nobody ever talks about them in the Human Rights Council, and I think that is a grave disservice to so many people who 

are hoping that they will be recognized for what they are suffering. 

And yet we have got to be very aware that any of these organizations, if you have a political ideological agenda, can be hijacked. 

That is why, after serious effort trying to see whether there was 

any way to salvage the Durban process, we concluded no; and you 

could see why we were right. It is so unfair that something as serious as racism, discrimination, and xenophobia would be so totally 

overtaken by an agenda that didn’t talk about the racism that exists all over the world that we should be focusing on. 

So I think, Congressman, we are going to enter this again with 

a very clear-eyed view that we know it is not an easy structure to 

interact with. We don’t know whether we’re going to be able to influence it. But I have had some conversations with some other 

countries, and we are going to try our best to form a critical mass 

that will make the Human Rights Council focus on the vast array 

of human rights problems that exist around the world. 

Mr. KLEIN. And I thank you for that. We all believe very strongly 

as Americans of the importance of human rights as part of our 

international and international agenda. I am one of these people, 

as you do, who believes in engagement. We can always say no. We 

can always have other consequences. But we need to try first. 

72

Thank you very much. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Carnahan, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to add my congratulations to your new 

position and just congratulate you on your service. I had an opportunity to be at your swearing in at the Harry S. Truman Building, 

appropriately named for the man from Missouri who was a strong 

internationalist, believed in engagement, and had a great appreciation for history; and I know that you will follow that great tradition. 

We have seen just in the first few months of the new administration, dramatic and positive changes in the U.S. image around the 

world, and there is a new reservoir of good will out there that we 

can use in that diplomatic toolkit that you have spoken about so 

often and so well. 

I had a chance to see that firsthand with our congressional delegation at the IPU conference in Ethiopia. Congresswoman Watson 

mentioned that. But our delegation was not just received openly. 

They were actually received with genuine and broad enthusiasm. 

So it was a very big shift from what we have seen in past years; 

and there is a great enthusiasm for us to be reengaged in international organizations and initiatives from the economic crisis, climate change, poverty, and disease. The list goes on. 

Mr. Costa covered a lot of my questions about the use of smart 

power. But I just want to make an editorial comment. I would hope 

that we can eliminate the term ‘‘soft power,’’ because I think there 

is nothing soft about smart power. I want to be sure that we are 

giving the budget priorities to that new approach in diplomacy in 

our country. 

The other issue I wanted to cover was in Bosnia. I represent one 

of the largest populations of Bosnian Americans in the country in 

the St. Louis area. With Chris Smith, my colleague, we have 

formed a Bosnian Caucus in the Congress. It is a society there that 

has a history of multicultural existence and multiethnic existence. 

They are in need of constitution reforms. There hasn’t been much 

movement since the days of the Clinton administration, and I 

would hope that we can put some renewed emphasis there to get 

Eastern Europe right. I would like to hear your comment about 

that. 

And, finally, we also stopped in Cyprus on the way back. Congressman McMahon mentioned the power grid potential to cooperate. We also saw a unique operation. The U.N. Committee on Missing Persons had unique cooperation between Greek and Turkish 

Cypriots on one of the most sensitive issues on the island. I think 

that also is a great model in terms of going forward with reconciliation. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you so much, Congressman Carnahan. 

And I love your quote. I wrote it down: ‘‘Nothing soft about smart 

power.’’ That is exactly our belief. 

And thank you for mentioning Bosnia. The western Balkans are 

a matter of great concern to us. I have spent a lot of time both with 

our colleagues at NATO and at the EU talking about what we can 

and should do with respect to Bosnia and other countries in the 

73

Balkans. I applaud you and Congressman Smith for creating a caucus on Bosnia, and I would love to have an opportunity to get any 

ideas you have. 

We still have work to do. We have not adequately established a 

democratic functioning government or in any way approached a reintegration of society in Bosnia. So I hope that you will be part of 

what we do going forward to try to figure out how we are going to 

address Bosnia and the western Balkans. 

And, finally, on Cyprus, there are a lot of opportunities for cooperation. This is another one that I wasn’t familiar with, and I 

will look into it as well. But I just appreciate your emphasis on the 

kind of model of internationalism that is smart, is very clear-eyed 

but engaged. 

Let’s look for opportunities. Let’s figure out how we influence behavior. We lost a lot of ground as a country the last 8 years. We 

really ceded moral authority in a way that I think has undermined 

our security, our financial crisis woes, and our dependence on a 

country like China to hold their treasury instruments. This is a 

very complex world in which we are operating, and we think that 

a better approach is to try to build up that reservoir of good will, 

because we are certainly going to have to probably see it paid down 

over time. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And it is great to see you again, Madam Secretary. I last saw you 

at George Mason University in the fall. And I just also wanted to 

say, I honestly believe that President Obama’s election and your selection as Secretary of State have done more to restore U.S. credibility abroad and to give us open, new opportunities for U.S. diplomacy than anything I can think of in living memory. Incalculable 

damage was done to the United States’ interests in the last 8 years 

with a unilateral cowboy diplomacy, with a bullying technique, neither of which, frankly, are worthy of a great power. 

And the idea that some might criticize the President for shaking 

a hand when every single President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt had no compunction of shaking the hands of people who 

might be unsavory characters but with whom we wanted to be engaged is truly clutching at straws to try to find something apparently to be critical of and perhaps to distract our attention from the 

damage done the last 8 years. I applaud what you and President 

Obama are doing. You are a breath of fresh air, and I thank you 

for your leadership. 

Madam Secretary, let me ask. You have recently visited Turkey. 

There are some who would say that it is very much in our interests 

that Turkey becomes a member of the EU. It stabilizes that critical 

corner of the world, and it really rewards a secular Islamic form 

of government that is a model so desperately needed in other parts 

of the world. It is a critical NATO ally. It has been a military ally 

of the United States on many, many occasions. What is the position 

of the United States Government with respect to the issue of the 

accession of Turkey to the EU membership? 

74

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman Connolly, when President 

Obama was recently in Turkey, he spoke to the Turkish Parliament; and he reiterated the United States Government’s support 

for Turkey’s accession to the European Union. When I was in Brussels meeting with the European Union and the European Commission, I also underscored our support for Turkey’s membership in 

the EU. We believe that it is exactly as you described, in the best 

long-term, strategic interests of Europe, of the region, and of the 

United States. So we strongly support it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Madam Secretary, some observers of the new President have 

noted that perhaps the proliferation of special envoys, Ambassador 

Holbrooke, Former Senator George Mitchell, very talented individuals, as well as some other envoys might have the unintended consequences of fracturing the execution of U.S. foreign policy and 

making it harder to coordinate and speak with one voice. I wonder 

if you could address that issue as the Secretary of State. 

Secretary CLINTON. Mr. Connolly, I believe strongly in the use of 

special envoys. Upon my selection by President Obama back in December, I in my first meeting discussed with him what I saw as 

the opportunities available for the use of special envoys. He obviously agreed, and we have appointed some extremely talented people. 

I think the terrain in which we are operating and the complexity 

of the environment in which we find ourselves that we inherited 

has meant that we could not possibly have addressed in depth each 

of these challenging issues from Afghanistan to Pakistan to the 

Middle East and beyond without the concerted attention of a special envoy and a team drawn from not just the State Department 

but trying to put together interagency teams that come together to 

provide the expertise and experience needed to advise me and advise the President. I do not see it at all as fracturing. I see it as 

intensifying the ability of our Government to move quickly. 

And, of course, there is another element; and that is the very 

long time it takes to get senior officials in our department or any 

department confirmed. I have very few confirmed positions. If we 

were to wait for a confirmed secretary, assistant secretary or under 

secretary to pursue some of these hot button issues, we would still 

be waiting; and I don’t think we can afford that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I look forward to 

working with you. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

If we lock the doors now, then the next member will be the last 

member to question, the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Berkley. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was getting a little nervous as I looked up at the clock, but I 

am delighted to have an opportunity to welcome the Secretary. 

I know that many of the Congress people from New York have 

expressed their great pride in having you here. As a former New 

Yorker and a Nevadan by choice, let me echo what they have said 

and thank you for being here and thank you for the remarkable job 

that you are doing on behalf of our great Nation. 

There are three points that I want to touch on very quickly, because I know that my time is limited. 

75

A number of people have commented on the fact that perhaps 

President Obama should not have shaken the hand of President 

Chavez when he approached him. I can tell you that, as an American, I would have been mortified if our President had done anything other than what he did. I have no doubt that was a setup. 

President Chavez is a very clever fellow. He knew exactly what he 

was doing, and I think that our President behaved in a manner 

that could make all of us very proud of him. 

The second thing is I just returned from leading a delegation of 

Congress people to the 66th Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue, 

which is an ongoing discussion between Members of Congress and 

our European Union Parliament counterparts. Prior to attending 

the meeting in Prague—and this is the 33rd year that this dialogue 

has been going on—we also went to Estonia, Lithuania; we met 

with dissidents from Belarus, and then we went to Prague. 

Two points. One is the Estonians, the Lithuanians, and, of 

course, the dissidents from Belarus reaching out to the United 

States, very grateful for our steadfast support for creating their 

fledgling democracies. They are having, as you know, serious financial problems in that part of the world but are very grateful to the 

United States; and it was a pleasure to meet with all of their government officials. 

The second thing is that it is my understanding that, prior to the 

last administration, whether they were Republicans—whether it 

was a Republican administration or a Democratic administration, 

there was tremendous support of the Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue by the administration and their secretaries of state. That did 

not happen in the last 8 years, and I am hoping that I can work 

with somebody in your office to bring this Transatlantic Legislators 

Dialogue up to the level that it once was. In the 33 years that this 

dialogue has been going on, I can’t think of a time that it is more 

important to engage with our European allies than it is now. So, 

upon reflection, if you could give me a name, I would appreciate 

it. 

The third and last thing that I would like to talk about is the 

two-state solution in the Middle East. I have been a proponent of 

the two-state solution, but it has always been prefaced on the three 

issues that you discussed initially when Mr. Ackerman spoke of the 

situation in the Gaza: Recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state; recognizing and enforcing all of the previous agreements; 

stopping the terrorism and the rockets coming into Israel and raining terror on innocent Israeli civilians. 

I would add a fourth; and that fourth would be getting the Israeli 

soldier, Gilad Shalit, back to his family and his loved ones. I think 

that would be very important. 

To me, I worry about creating the two-state solution. At this particular moment in time, I fear that Abu Mazen is a very weak—

I am hesitant to call him a leader—a weak President that does not 

have the faith and allegiance and support of his own people in the 

West Bank and certainly not the Gaza. I worry that giving him additional aid will not be helpful to us insofar as that it is very hard 

to track any of the aid that we have ever given and see where it 

has been productive and helpful to the Palestinian people. I worry 

also about providing aid to the Palestinians that live in the Gaza 

76

or the West Bank through UNRWA, because that, to me, has proven very unsatisfactory in the past as well. 

I would like to get your opinion on that, and thank you again for 

being here. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. 

Let me just quickly say of course we will work with you on the 

Transatlantic Legislative Dialogue and thank you for going to Estonia and Lithuania and talking with the dissidents from Belarus. 

They need to be absolutely assured that the United States stands 

with them. We take our Article 5 responsibilities in NATO very seriously, and we hope for better times for the people of Belarus. 

Let me just add quickly that I am very impressed with Salam 

Fayad, who has served as the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority. I think the reforms he has implemented should give us all 

a much greater sense of security. There is a transparency and accountability measure that has never been present before. We have 

made it clear both to the Palestinian Authority and my visit in 

Ramallah as well as to friends and interested nations that we do 

want to support and build up the Palestinian Authority. Obviously, 

we want to see changes, but we want to applaud the changes that 

Salam Fayad has made. 

So it is a challenging course, but we don’t see any alternative to 

a two-state solution. We think it is not only in the best interests 

of the Palestinians that they have a sovereign state but that it is 

absolutely critical to Israel’s security that we proceed on this path. 

But I look forward to discussing with you some of the concerns 

that and you others have expressed. 

Ms. BERKLEY. And with the last minute—I don’t have a minute? 

Chairman BERMAN. You have 1 minute and 25 more than 5. 

Ms. BERKLEY. But her response was so long. 

Chairman BERMAN. Her response was so good. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Yes, it was. Excellent as always. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

We would ask, Madam Secretary, if you would be willing to, to 

respond for the 230 or so questions that must have been asked for 

the record because they never gave you time to respond to them. 

And members will have until Wednesday, April 29, to submit questions for the record; and the record will stay open to receive them. 

And, Madam Secretary, all I can say is a very impressive performance here. 

The hearing is now adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(77)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

78


48841n.eps
79


48841m-1.eps
80


48841m-2.eps
81


48841b-1.eps
82


48841b-2.eps
83


48841b-3.eps
84


48841c-1.eps
85


48841c-2.eps
86


48841e.eps
87


48841d-1.eps
88


48841d-2.eps
89


48841d-3.eps
90


48841g-1.eps
91


48841g-2.eps
92


48841g-3.eps
93


48841g-4.eps
94


48841g-5.eps
95


48841g-6.eps
96


48841g-7.eps
97


48841g-8.eps
98


48841g-9.eps
99


48841g-10.eps
100


48841i-1.eps
101


48841i-2.eps
102


48841i-3.eps
103


48841i-4.eps
104


48841i-5.eps
105


48841i-6.eps
106


48841l-1.eps
107


48841l-2.eps
108


48841l-3.eps
109


48841l-4.eps
110


48841k-1.eps
111


48841k-2.eps
112


48841k-3.eps
113


48841k-4.eps
114


48841k-5.eps
115


48841k-6.eps
116


48841k-7.eps
117


48841k-8.eps
118


48841k-9.eps
119


48841o-1.eps
120


48841o-2.eps
121


48841o-3.eps
122


48841o-4.eps
123


48841o-5.eps
124


48841o-6.eps
125


48841o-7.eps
126


48841o-8.eps
127


48841o-9.eps
128


48841o-10.eps
129


48841o-11.eps
130


48841o-12.eps
131


48841o-13.eps
132


48841o-14.eps
133


48841o-15.eps
134


48841o-16.eps
135


48841o-17.eps
136


48841o-18.eps
137


48841o-19.eps
138


48841o-20.eps
139


48841o-21.eps
140


48841o-22.eps
141


48841o-23.eps
142


48841o-24.eps
143


48841o-25.eps
144


48841o-26.eps
145


48841j-1.eps
146


48841j-2.eps
147


48841j-3.eps
148


48841j-4.eps
149


48841p-1.eps
150


48841p-2.eps
151


48841p-3.eps
152


48841p-4.eps
153


48841q-1.eps
154


48841q-2.eps
155


48841q-3.eps
156


48841q-4.eps
157


48841q-5.eps
158


48841q-6.eps
159


48841q-7.eps
160


48841q-8.eps
161


48841q-9.eps
162


48841q-10.eps
163


48841q-11.eps
164


48841q-12.eps
165


48841q-13.eps
166


48841q-14.eps
167


48841q-15.eps
168


48841q-16.eps
169


48841q-17.eps
170


48841q-18.eps
171


48841q-19.eps
172


48841q-20.eps
173


48841q-21.eps
174


48841q-22.eps
175


48841q-23.eps
176


48841q-24.eps
177


48841q-25.eps
178


48841q-26.eps
179


48841q-27.eps
180


48841q-28.eps
181


48841q-29.eps
182


48841q-30.eps
183


48841q-31.eps
184


48841q-32.eps
185


48841q-33.eps
186


48841q-34.eps
187


48841q-35.eps
188


48841q-36.eps
189


48841q-37.eps
190


48841q-38.eps
191


48841q-39.eps
192


48841q-40.eps
193


48841q-41.eps
194


48841q-42.eps
195


48841q-43.eps
196


48841q-44.eps
197


48841q-45.eps
198


48841q-46.eps
199


48841q-47.eps
200


48841q-48.eps
201


48841q-49.eps
202


48841q-50.eps
203


48841q-51.eps
204


48841h.eps
205


48841r-1.eps
206


48841r-2.eps
207


48841r-3.eps
208


48841r-4.eps
209


48841r-5.eps
210


48841r-6.eps
211


48841r-7.eps
212


48841r-8.eps
213


48841r-9.eps
214


48841r-10.eps
215


48841r-11.eps
216


48841r-12.eps
217


48841r-13.eps
218


48841s-1.eps
219

Æ


48841s-2.eps