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

70–949PDF 2011

AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN:

TRANSITION AND THE WAY FORWARD

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 27, 2011

Serial No. 112–83

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 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

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

of State .................................................................................................................. 7

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton: Prepared statement ............................ 10

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 46

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 47

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

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 49

The Honorable Ann Marie Buerkle, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York: Prepared statement ............................................................ 51

Written responses from the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton to questions 

submitted for the record by: 

The Honorable Ann Marie Buerkle .................................................................... 52

The Honorable Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 63

(1)

AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN: TRANSITION 

AND THE WAY FORWARD 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The committee will come to order. 

After recognizing myself and the ranking member, Mr. Berman, 

for 7 minutes each for our opening statements, I will recognize the 

chairman and the ranking member of the Middle East and South 

Asia Subcommittee for 3 minutes each for their statements. 

We will then hear from our witness, the distinguished Secretary 

of State—welcome home and happy belated birthday—who will 

summarize her prepared statement before we move to the questions and answers with members under the 5-minute rule. 

Without objection, the witness’ prepared statement will be made 

a part of the record. Members may have 5 days to insert statements and questions for the record subject to the length limitation 

in the rules. And we are getting started right away because we will 

have votes and we like to be interrupted because of the democratic 

process. 

Madam Secretary, welcome to our committee. We are pleased to 

have you here to assess U.S. policy and progress in Afghanistan 

and Pakistan. 

In 2009, President Obama initiated a surge in Afghanistan, resulting in approximately 90,000 U.S. troops there now. The President underscored the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan and 

defined the goals as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating alQaeda and its extremist allies. 

In the 2010 review, the President noted that, ultimately, it is the 

Afghans who must secure their country and it is Afghans who must 

build their nation. It will take time to ultimately defeat al-Qaeda, 

and it remains a ruthless and resilient enemy bent on attacking 

our country. But make no mistake, we are going to remain relentless in disrupting and dismantling that terrorist organization. 

However, President Obama announced the withdrawal of 10,000 

U.S. troops from Afghanistan by this year’s end, with another 

23,000 to be withdrawn by the rather curious date of September, 

2012. Therefore, Madam Secretary, we must ask, where are we in 

achieving the strategic objectives outlined by the President? 

2

Progress in the fight is undeniable, but our gains remain fragile. 

On the one hand, the U.S. is negotiating with the Haqqani network; and yet, on the other, we are attempting to destroy the 

Haqqani network. 

There have been some unwelcome developments since the President’s announcement 4 months ago, such as the multiple high-profile assassination of major leaders in Afghanistan. Turnover to the 

Afghan national security forces remains a significant challenge in 

some of the key contested areas. And on the counternarcotics front 

the United Nation’s Office on Drugs and Crime reported a 7 percent increase in opium poppy crop cultivation, citing the link between insecurity and opium cultivation. 

This leads us to the broader question: What are the priorities for 

advancing our national security interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan? 

I remain troubled by Iran’s threatening and unhelpful role in Afghanistan. So I ask, what additional pressure are we bringing to 

bear to offset the Iranian influence in Afghanistan? 

The most important long-term aspect of the American relationship with Afghanistan today is the strategic partnership declaration under negotiation with Kabul. During the negotiations over 

the strategic framework agreement and the status of forces agreement with Iraq, the previous administration extensively engaged 

and consulted the Congress in a bipartisan manner. We are disappointed that a similar level of outreach, engagement, consultation, transparency on this critical issue has been decidedly absent 

on the current Afghanistan negotiations. 

So I am capitalizing on your appearance today, Madam Secretary, to secure information on the agreement being negotiated. 

What are our priority components of this? What are the primary 

components of this negotiation? Do you anticipate a total withdrawal like we are about to do in Iraq, or will we remain until we 

train and perhaps have a modest counterterrorism presence? 

How will it address critical weaknesses within the political system such as too much power concentrated in the presidency and 

overdependence on foreign aid. What reforms are we requesting to 

fix these flaws? Are we insisting on the right to pursue insurgents 

who threaten us and our interests? Are we preserving our tactical 

and operational flexibility? 

The Afghan Government must be pushed to make the necessary 

steps to become a reliable partner for the U.S. over the long term, 

and I know that you know that as well. Too much American blood 

and treasure have been invested in Afghanistan for us to walk 

away or to have a government that threatens American interests. 

And turning to Pakistan, our relations continue to suffer from a 

cascading series of crises. 

First, there was the bitter Raymond Davis affair involving the 

U.S. Embassy worker who shot and killed two Pakistani men he 

believed was robbing him. Davis was correctly released to U.S. custody. The ultimate disgrace was the discovery of Osama bin Laden 

inside Pakistan and living adjacent to a Pakistani military facility. 

And now we see the brazen attacks by Islamabad’s armed proxies 

against the U.S. Embassy and other U.S. targets in Afghanistan. 

3

Our two countries are at a crossroads. We cannot sustain a partnership with Islamabad if it pursues policies that are hostile to 

U.S. interests and jeopardize American lives. Legislation developed 

in our committee and carried by the Appropriations Committee 

puts tough conditions on U.S. assistance to Pakistan funded 

through State Department accounts. The Pakistan security establishment must work more closely with us to eliminate al-Qaeda 

and its affiliates, while cooperating more fully with our goals to 

help stabilize Afghanistan. 

Can the relationship be salvaged? Can our strategic objectives in 

Afghanistan and Pakistan be brought into better alignment? It is 

hard to be optimistic. All of the options on the table appear deeply 

unappetizing. All run the risk of being ineffectual, counterproductive, or both. 

Madam Secretary, we look to you to help clarify for us the strategic choices that we, Pakistan, and Afghanistan face at this profoundly challenging time for the future of peace and stability in 

South Asia. We are especially interested in hearing about your very 

recent trip to the region. 

I thank you for appearing before our committee today. I look forward to working with you to advance our critical national security 

interests in this increasingly pivotal region. 

I yield back the balance of my time; and I am pleased to yield 

to my friend, Mr. Berman, the ranking member, for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Before I start on my opening statement, I would like to just let 

the committee know that our former colleague, Howard Wolpe, 

passed away on Tuesday. He served seven terms in Congress. Most 

of that time, he chaired the Africa Subcommittee of this committee, 

and we will remember his dedication to Africa. He authored the 

sanctions legislation against South Africa’s apartheid government, 

led the effort to override President Reagan’s veto of that legislation. 

He retired from Congress in 1992, but, as we all know, he stayed 

deeply engaged in African affairs, serving as President Clinton’s 

Special Envoy to Africa’s Great Lakes Region and President 

Obama’s special advisor for that region as well. We have not only 

lost a man who made a difference in public policy but a friend with 

a profound mind and an engaging and charming wit. So thank you, 

Madam Chairman. 

Thank you, also, Madam Chairman, for calling this important 

hearing on the administration’s strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

I would like to begin by commending Secretary Clinton for the 

leadership that she and the President exhibited on Libya. As a result of your efforts, we were able to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe of unimaginable proportions and ultimately create the conditions for the Libyan people to oust one of the world’s most brutal 

dictators. 

Secretary Clinton, you have just returned from a trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan, so this is a particularly good time to explore 

what remains one of the most important and complex foreign policy 

challenges of our time. 

4

In 2009, when the Obama administration took office, I was very 

encouraged by the President’s commitment to providing sufficient 

resources to our military forces, diplomats, and aid workers in Afghanistan and to renewing our partnership with the civilian leadership of Pakistan. However, as I have communicated to you in recent months, I am deeply concerned about our rapidly deteriorating 

relationship with Islamabad and how that impacts our efforts in 

Afghanistan. 

Soon after the bin Laden raid, news reports indicated that Pakistani intelligence tipped off militants operating IED factories on 

Pakistani soil, factories that are making bombs to kill U.S. troops. 

More recently, Admiral Mullen asserted that the Haqqani network, 

a group believed to be responsible for the September 10 truck bomb 

that wounded 77 American soldiers and the September 13 attack 

against the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, is a ‘‘veritable arm of Pakistan’s ISI.’’ These events raise very serious questions about Pakistan’s commitment to work with us to defeat the terrorists that 

threaten Pakistan and the U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan. 

This behavior must stop. 

In 1957, President Eisenhower remarked that the United States 

was ‘‘doing practically nothing for Pakistan except in the form of 

military aid.’’ He voiced concern that the ‘‘American commitment to 

Pakistan’s military was perhaps the worst kind of plan and decision we could have made. It was a terrible error, but we now seem 

hopelessly involved in it.’’

Sadly, these words remain true today. 

Given the current climate, I support the administration’s decision 

to pause security assistance to Islamabad until Pakistan shows 

real progress in combating terrorist groups. I believe we should reevaluate all military aid to Islamabad to ensure that it is meeting 

its intended purpose. But, at the same time, I think it would be a 

terrible mistake to slash our economic assistance to Pakistan. It is 

in our long-term interest to support the continued development of 

Pakistan’s civil society and nascent democratic institutions. These 

are the critical building blocks of a peaceful and prosperous Pakistan and, ultimately, a stable Afghanistan and South Asia. 

We must continue to find ways to partner with the people of 

Pakistan, who have become a casualty of misguided policies pursued by Pakistan’s military and by civilian leaders seemingly unwilling to lead. Pakistanis are reminded of these failings every day 

by constant energy shortages, a never-ending financial crisis, political turmoil, and rising extremism. 

The United States can’t solve all of Pakistan’s many problems, 

but we can make a difference. The recently completed renovation 

of the Tarbela Dam funded by the United States means that 1 million more Pakistanis will have access to electricity. 

We should also take steps to strengthen Pakistan’s private sector 

by creating an American-Pakistan enterprise fund which won’t cost 

the American taxpayers a single dime. Madam Secretary, I know 

you have expressed support for this concept. 

In these difficult economic times, it is critical that any assistance 

that we provide be sustainable and completely transparent both to 

the Pakistanis and to the American people who pay for it. This is 

true not just in Pakistan but with all of our international proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:08 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\102711\70949 HFA PsN: SHIRL
5

grams. To those who suggest that foreign assistance is a luxury we 

can no longer afford, I say America cannot afford a course of isolation and retreat. Rather than making indiscriminate cuts, we need 

to modernize and reform our assistance to make it more efficient, 

more effective, and better at serving our national interests. 

Let me just touch briefly on transition and reconciliation in Afghanistan. 

I support the President’s decision to withdraw all combat troops 

by 2014, but we must ensure that the gains made after 10 years 

of fighting will not be lost. The strategic partnership declaration, 

which I look forward to learning more about, will serve as an important symbol of our long-term commitment to the Government 

and people of Afghanistan, and it is critical to regional security and 

to a successful transition. 

While I appreciate the progress being made to cement our relationship with Kabul, I continue to have reservations about efforts 

to reconcile with the Taliban and al-Qaeda-affiliated groups such as 

the Haqqani network. As much as we all want the war to end and 

to bring our troops home, I am concerned that allowing these extremist groups to assume leadership positions in the government 

would threaten the gains we have made on counterterrorism, women’s rights, and counternarcotics. Even if these groups were sincere 

in their desire to reconcile—and I am skeptical that they are—

Pakistan remains the spoiler. 

Islamabad may share our general goal of a stable and secure Afghanistan, but I think we have very different definitions of stability. Ultimately, we will not be successful in Afghanistan, militarily or politically, unless Pakistan plays a constructive role in allowing Afghans to determine the future of Afghanistan for themselves. Madam Secretary, how will we ever succeed in Afghanistan 

as long as Pakistan provides sanctuary for Afghan insurgents? 

Once again, I thank you for being here today and I look forward 

to your testimony. And I do, just in closing, have to say that, because a bill of mine is in a Transportation and Infrastructure Aviation Subcommittee roundtable today, there will be times when I 

may have to leave, but I will certainly come back and read your 

testimony as well. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. Chabot is recognized for 3 minutes. He is the chair of the 

Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chair, for calling this important hearing; and we welcome you here, Ms. Secretary of State. 

Although it is not the expressed topic of our hearing, I would like 

to say a word on Iraq. 

I am very concerned by the President’s recent announcement of 

a complete withdrawal by the end of the year. Fulfilling a campaign promise at the expense of American national security interests is, at best, strategic neglect and, at worst, downright irresponsible. It seems painfully clear to me and to many analysts that the 

Iraqi Army is not yet prepared to defend Iraq from the threat 

posed by its nefarious neighbor to the east. 

The administration’s current policy appears to focus on normalizing our relationship with Iraq, but the situation in Iraq is not 

6

normal. Indeed, I fear that our objective is no longer to ensure Iraq 

is stable but merely to withdraw our forces by the end of this year 

in order to meet a political time line. 

Saying that Iraq is secure, stable, and self-reliant, as Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough recently did, does not 

make it so. And to borrow a quote from you, Madam Secretary, 

when you were serving in the other body, it requires ‘‘the willing 

suspension of disbelief’’ to accept that withdrawing our forces from 

Iraq at a time when Iranian agents seek to harm at every turn our 

country and its allies advances our strategic interest. 

Although I understand that Iraq is a sovereign country, I believe 

that there is much more that this administration could have done 

to secure a more realistic troop presence beyond the end of this 

year. 

Accordingly, I would like to echo Senator Lieberman’s recent call 

to reopen negotiations with the Iraqis. It would be a failure of colossal proportions to withdraw our forces before Iraq is ready to 

stand on its own. 

This decision also offers a disturbing insight into the administration’s definition of ‘‘conditions-based withdrawal’’ which is, of 

course, its policy in Afghanistan. When asked recently whether not 

leaving a residual force in Iraq endangers hard-fought gains, he responded, and I quote, ‘‘I think that they should have raised those 

issues when President Bush agreed to the agreement to withdraw 

troops by the end of this year.’’

Is this what we should expect of an Obama administration in 

2014 if conditions in Afghanistan do not justify withdrawal? 

I hope you will address exactly what conditions we would like to 

see before we withdraw and what contingency planning the administration is conducting should indeed we get to 2014 and discover 

the conditions in Afghanistan have not progressed as quickly as we 

had hoped that we would. 

As one reporter recently observed, it used to be that American 

withdrawal was conditioned on success. Now it seems withdrawal 

has become the definition of success. If that is the case, success in 

Afghanistan will feel a lot like failure. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chabot. 

We will now welcome our witness. It is an honor to welcome the 

Secretary to the committee today. 

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton has served as the 67th 

Secretary of State for the United States since January 21, 2009, 

the latest chapter in her four-decade career in public service. She 

has served previously, as all of us know, as a United States Senator from the State of New York, as First Lady of the United 

States and of the State of Arkansas, and as an attorney and law 

professor. 

Madam Secretary, without objection, your full statement will be 

made a part of the record. If you could be so kind as to summarize 

your written remarks, we can then move directly to the questionand-answer discussion under the 5-minute rule in hopes that we 

can get as many members as possible before you have to depart. 

Madam Secretary, welcome back; and the floor is yours. 

7

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM 

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

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman; 

and to Ranking Member Berman and to the members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity once again to appear before 

you. 

I want to start by recognizing the concerns that many of you 

have about Afghanistan and Pakistan policy. You and the American people are right to ask questions. But I think it is also important, as the chairwoman alluded to in her opening statement, to 

recognize the significant results that our policy has already produced. 

Osama bin Laden and many of his top lieutenants are dead. The 

threat remains real and urgent, especially from al-Qaeda’s affiliates, but the group’s senior leadership has been devastated and its 

ability to conduct operations greatly diminished. Many of our successes against al-Qaeda would not have been possible without our 

presence in Afghanistan and close cooperation with Pakistan. 

Now, in Afghanistan, we still face a difficult fight, but coalition 

and Afghan forces have reversed the Taliban momentum in key 

areas. Afghan security forces have a long way to go, but they are 

taking more responsibility every day. And while the country still 

faces enormous challenges from poverty and corruption, our development efforts have bolstered the economy and improved lives. 

You know the statistics. Ten years ago, fewer than 1 million students enrolled in Afghan schools, all of them boys. Now more than 

7 million, nearly 40 percent of them girls. Afghans are better positioned to chart their own future. 

I offer these very brief examples as a reminder that, as President 

Obama has said, we are meeting our commitments and we are 

making progress toward our goals and we cannot let up. We should 

build on our momentum, not undercut our progress. 

Now, I will be the first to admit that working with our Afghan 

and Pakistani partners is not always easy, but these relationships 

are advancing America’s national security interests and walking 

away from them would undermine those interests. 

With that as context, let me report I have just completed a productive visit to both countries. In Kabul and Islamabad, I emphasized our three-track strategy of fight, talk, and build, pursuing all 

three tracks at once as they are mutually reinforcing, and the 

chance of success for all three are greatly increased by strong cooperation from the Afghan and Pakistani Governments. Let me 

briefly discuss each track. 

First, the fight. Coalition and Afghan forces have increased pressure on the Taliban, the Haqqani network, and other insurgents, 

including with a new operation in eastern Afghanistan launched 

within recent days. But our commanders on the ground are increasingly concerned, as they have been for some time, that we 

have to go after the safe havens across the border in Pakistan. 

Now, I will be quick to add that the Pakistanis also have reason 

to be concerned about attacks coming at them from across the border in Afghanistan. So, in Islamabad last week, General Dempsey, 

Director Patraeus, and I delivered a single, unified message. Pakistan’s civilian and military leadership must join us in squeezing 

8

the Haqqani network from both sides of the border and in closing 

save havens. 

We underscored to our Pakistani counterparts the urgency of the 

task at hand, and we had detailed and frank conversations about 

the concrete steps both sides need to a take. I explained that trying 

to distinguish between so-called good terrorists and bad terrorists 

is ultimately self-defeating and dangerous. No one who targets innocent civilians of any nationality should be tolerated or protected. 

Now, we are not suggesting that Pakistan sacrifice its own security. Quite the opposite. We respect the sacrifices that Pakistan has 

already made, and it is important for Americans to be reminded 

over the past decade more than 5,000 Pakistani soldiers have been 

lost and tens of thousands Pakistani citizens have been killed or 

injured. That is why we are pursuing a vision of shared security 

that benefits us all. 

The second track is talking. And here, too, we are taking concrete steps with our partners. So in both Kabul and Islamabad I 

reaffirmed America’s strong support for an inclusive Afghan-led 

peace process. And we have been very clear about the necessary 

outcomes of any negotiation. Insurgents must renounce violence, 

abandon al-Qaeda, and abide by the laws and constitution of Afghanistan, including its protections for women and minorities. If 

insurgents cannot or will not meet those red lines, they will face 

continued and unrelenting assault. 

And I want to stress, as I did in Kabul, that the hard-won rights 

of women and all Afghans cannot be rolled back and the growth of 

civil society must not be quashed. 

Now, there is no doubt that the murder of former President 

Rabani was a setback. But the Afghans strongly believe reconciliation is still possible, and we support that as the best hope for 

peace and stability in the region. 

Pakistan has a critical role to play and a big stake in the outcome. So we look to Pakistan to encourage the Taliban and other 

insurgents to participate in an Afghan peace process in good faith 

both through unequivocal public statements and by closing off the 

safe havens. 

We are working with the Afghan Government to help them secure commitments from all of their neighbors to respect Afghan 

sovereignty and territorial integrity and to support Afghan reconciliation. This will be a key focus when I go to Istanbul next 

week to meet with regional Foreign Ministers. 

For our part, the United States is working with the Afghan Government to conclude a new strategic partnership. 

And let me add, in response to the chairwoman’s question, in 

2011, we had three Washington-led rounds of discussions with the 

State Department leading an interagency team, including DOD, 

USAID, and the NSC. These discussions resulted in a text that is 

about 90 percent agreed to, including strong commitments on economic social development, democratic institution building, human 

rights, anti-corruption, and other important long-term reforms. 

Among other things, we envision establishing an AfghanistanUnited States bilateral commission and associated implementation 

mechanisms to help our focus remain on what needs to be done 

during the transition process. 

9

Ambassador Crocker and General Allen are still working through 

some of these security cooperation issues with President Karzai. 

The negotiation is ongoing, but I want to assure the Congress that, 

although we do not expect this to take the form of a treaty or to 

require advice and consent of the Senate, we will consult with you 

on where we are in this process and I will ensure that any one who 

wishes to get a full briefing will get one and we will very much welcome your views. 

And in response to Congressman Chabot’s point, we anticipate 

having a transition that does include security components, not only 

from the United States but also from NATO, commitments that 

were made at the Lisbon Summit. And, again, we look forward to 

consulting with you on that. 

And, finally, the third track is building. Building what? Building 

capacity and opportunity in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and across the 

region. Now, this is part of a clear-eyed strategy rooted in a lesson 

we have learned over and over again around the world. Lasting 

stability and security go hand in hand with greater economic opportunity. People need a realistic hope for a better life, for a job, 

for a chance to provide for their families. So it is critical to our 

broader effort that civilian assistance continue in both Afghanistan 

and Pakistan. And I thank Congressman Berman for raising that. 

Yet I will also be very clear that we have had to move rapidly 

and deeply to strengthen oversight and improve effectiveness, and 

I will be happy to answer questions about that. 

Early next week, I will be sending you a comprehensive status 

update on our civilian assistance, detailing our plans to shift from 

short-term stabilization to long-term development. 

Now, as the transition proceeds and coalition combat forces leave 

Afghanistan, there need to be realistic hopes for development. So 

we are working to achieve greater agricultural productivity, greater 

exploitation in a way that benefits the Afghan people of natural resources, increasing exports, and strengthening the financial sector. 

I really want to underscore the point that Congressman Berman 

made, which is really that we want to move from aid to trade. We 

cannot do that if we don’t get reconstruction opportunity zone legislation which will lower tariffs on Pakistani and Afghan products 

and the enterprise fund, which will not require taxpayer dollars. 

This is what we did in Central and Eastern Europe, and it was a 

big help in convincing people that the free market was the way to 

go. 

And, finally, we are pursuing a broader long-term vision for regional economic integration that we call the New Silk Road. It is 

not just an economic plan. It talks about how we can get these 

countries that have so many problems with each other to begin cooperating. And to that end, I am very pleased by the progress that 

both India and Pakistan are making on the commercial front and 

the progress in implementing the transit trade agreement between 

Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

So those are our three tracks: Fight, talk, and build; and we are 

on all of them simultaneously. We believe this is the best place 

that we can be in moving forward, and I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Clinton follows:]

10


70949a-1.eps
11


70949a-2.eps
12


70949a-3.eps
13


70949a-4.eps
14

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary. I will yield myself the time for the question. 

First to say that, Madam Secretary, I am gravely concerned 

about the safety of the residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq. Many 

members, including the ranking member and I, have sought the administration’s commitment to securing their protection, given the 

Iraqi Government’s repeated failure to comply with its international human rights obligations to the Camp Ashraf residents. 

And in light of President Obama’s announcements of the final withdrawal of American troops from Iraq we need to be confident that 

our administration is engaged with the Government of Iraq, the 

U.N. High Commission of Refugees, and others to ensure the welfare of Camp Ashraf residents and to resolve their long-term security goals. 

And my question, Madam Secretary, deals with my native homeland of Cuba, although in recent weeks I feel the need to carry my 

papers with me to find out when it is that I actually got to the 

United States. 

But, Madam Secretary, your administration has remained in opposition to many of the world’s tyrants, to your credit, yet the U.S. 

continues to engage the Cuban regime. In March, you stated that 

Qadhafi should leave power. In June, you said that Salay should 

move out of the way. In July, you stated that Assad is not indispensable and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power. 

Yet, in stark contrast, this administration continues to engage 

the Cuban regime and provide the Castro brothers economic lifelines in the form of allowing increased travel opportunities, supporting their offshore oil drilling aspirations. 

Two weeks ago, in front of our committee, Under Secretary 

Wendy Sherman confirmed that the Department had recently met 

with Cuban regime officials to discuss the sad case of Alan Gross. 

Media reports have stated that State Department officials were 

willing to offer concessions such as allowing convicted Cuban spies 

to return to Cuba or taking Cuba off the state sponsor of terrorism 

list in order to obtain the release of Mr. Gross. The United States 

should not be negotiating with a state sponsor of terrorism. So I 

ask you, Madam Secretary, why is there a double standard with 

the Castro regime? 

Thank you. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you so much for those two questions. 

Let me start on Cuba, and then I will go back to Camp Ashraf and 

our concerns about it. 

You know, our position has been the same for more than 50 

years. We think Fidel Castro should go. I mean, that is the unfortunate commitment that we have put forth over many years. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. 

We do worry greatly about the activities of the Cuban Government, and we have strongly supported the desire of the Cuban people to freely determine their own future, and it is our view that we 

should help those who are trying to work toward positive change. 

So we do support a wide variety of activities on the island. We 

interact with a broad cross-section of individuals and groups in 

15

Cuban society; and we provide humanitarian assistance, including 

food, over-the-counter medicines, and so much more. 

We think that that is a necessary kind of double approach. We 

want democracy for Cuba. We have always supported democracy 

for Cuba. We have tried to encourage changes and reform, but, at 

the same time, we are going to keep working with individuals. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Have we met with U.S. officials about 

Alan Gross or the convicted spy? 

Secretary CLINTON. U.S. officials regularly meet with their 

Cuban counterparts, as I know you’re aware, because we have a lot 

of areas of mutual concern. We have drug trafficking, we have immigration, we have all kinds of issues. And our main objective for 

the last 2 years has been to ensure Alan Gross’ unconditional release. So at no point has the U.S. Government been willing to give 

unilateral concessions to the Castro regime or to ease sanctions as 

a means to secure Mr. Gross’ release. 

But I will underscore we think it is a gross violation of his 

human rights and a humanitarian abuse that he has not been returned to his family, and we would like to see that happen as soon 

as possible. 

With respect to Camp Ashraf, which we are deeply concerned 

about, we know that there is an ongoing and very legitimate expression of concern. We have elicited written assurances from the 

Government of Iraq that it will treat Ashraf residents humanely, 

that it will not transfer residents to a country that they may have 

reason to fear, and we are pushing very hard to get the United Nations High Commission on Refugees to work with the residents of 

Camp Ashraf to get them into a safe place. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. We appreciate that. 

Mr. Payne is recognized, ranking member on Africa, Global 

Health, and Human Rights. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Let me commend you, Madam Secretary, for the outstanding job 

that you are doing. The recent five-country trip—they only talk 

about two, but I know you touched down in three others—is amazing. Your trip to Libya where the President had really asked the 

Europeans and NATO to lead and that we would come in and help 

out I think was a very successful strategy. I certainly commend the 

administration for living up to the agreement that President Bush 

made when he said that our troops should be out of Iraq at the end 

of this year, and I congratulate our Government for living up to 

that promise to have our troops back in America by the holidays. 

The Iraqi people want them out, the American people want them 

out, and I think they should be out. 

I certainly support what the administration has done in south 

Sudan. I happened to be in Juba at the celebration of the new 

country. But I would hope that we will give them all the support 

with President Salva Kiir and the south Sudanese people, and that 

we continue to watch Darfur and continue to support the TFG government in Somalia. We need to make that work and also to urge 

the Kenyans to assist, as they are doing now, to try to eradicate 

terrorists who are coming into Kenya and destabilizing the area. 

I also commend the President for the 100 troops that are going 

to the Central African Republic and to Uganda to train the UganVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:08 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\102711\70949 HFA PsN: SHIRL
16

dans in trying to finally eliminate Joseph Kony who this House 

passed bipartisan legislation saying that he should go out. Many of 

my colleagues on the other side have been just as passionate about 

the fact that Joseph Kony needs to be eliminated, needs to be captured or taken out. For 25 years he has wreaked havoc on people. 

The horrendous acts that he has done are just unconscionable. 

Time is past that he should be taken off the face of this Earth. 

Let me just quickly get to what you are here about, Afghanistan 

and Pakistan. I almost forgot that. 

The U.S. strategy in Afghanistan has been based on the belief 

that developing Afghanistan’s economy and institutions will win 

over the population to support the Afghan Government even after 

international forces draw down. Some analysts are concerned that 

the Afghan economy may enter a steep depression as international 

military involvement in Afghanistan winds down over the next 3 

years. What steps has the U.S. taken to ensure that this depression 

does not happen? And I know you did mention the New Silk Road, 

the new Central Asia-South Asia trading hub that we are trying 

to create in Afghanistan. Will there be job training programs and 

community development so that that can overtake the military action? 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you very much, Congressman; and 

thanks, as always, for highlighting the important issues and security concerns coming out of Africa. I thank you for that. 

And I join with Congressman Berman in saluting the life of 

former Congressman Howard Wolpe, who I also had the privilege 

of working with both in the 1990s and as Secretary of State. 

With respect to the sustainability of the Afghan economy, you are 

right to raise the issue that when this enormous amount of international money that has been used inside Afghanistan begins to diminish that raises questions about sustainability. 

There are three quick answers I would give you. 

One, we are working to strengthen the capacity of the Afghan 

Government itself at both the national and the local level, because 

we think it is important to try to help them understand fundamentals like planning and budgeting. USAID is currently developing a 

set of measurements about sustainability and applying them to all 

of our programs. 

And, secondly, we are working on necessary reforms right now. 

I will give you a quick example. The Afghan power company, they 

have to learn to effectively collect revenue. They have to learn how 

to cover the costs of their operations. 

And we are also working with the Ministry of Public Works on 

the roads authority. Because the international community has built 

roads, but they have to learn how to maintain them, and that 

means collecting tolls or other tariffs. 

We are also working to make sure that we are coordinating with 

other donors. There are many big donations that come for infrastructure and training, and we are going to make sure that we are 

all on the same page. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. Burton, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and 

Eurasia. 

17

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Let me start by making a little statement. 

There are a lot of congressmen and congresswoman who are very 

concerned about unilateral action being taken by the administration in military fashion. Nobody mourns Qadhafi’s leaving the 

scene, but we believe that Congress should be involved in the decision making process before we go to war. And that was of long duration. It cost $3 billion of taxpayer money. And I think the administration ought to be aware that there is a lot of concern among 

Democrats and Republicans that unilateral action is being taken 

without any consultation with Congress. 

Now, let me just talk about a couple of things and ask a question. 

In 1979, we supported, either tacitly or directly, the removal of 

the Shah, and the Ayatollah Khomeini came back and imposed 

Sharia law. He lined up 3,000 political prisoners at a wall and shot 

them and killed them, and 20,000 people who were sympathetic to 

the West were lined up against a wall and shot and killed. That 

is Sharia law. 

Now Tunisia has said they are going to have Sharia law. The interim Government of Libya has indicated they are going to have 

Sharia law. Under Sharia law, one of the things that really bothers 

a lot of people is, if you are an enemy combatant and you are defeated, your wife can be raped and it is all right. And I understand 

there are women who are being raped right now by the people that 

won the war because the people who supported Qadhafi had wives 

and they thought that was proper punishment. Sharia law is something that is anathema to most Americans. 

We have in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood that is taking on a 

larger and larger responsibility, and some believe they are going to 

end up running that country. The entire northern tier of Africa 

may very well be under Sharia law, as well as Iran. And I am concerned and I hope my colleagues are concerned that we could be 

facing another Iran not only in Iran, but also in Libya, in Tunisia, 

in Egypt, and who knows about Syria. 

So I would like to know what the administration plans to do to 

make sure that we don’t have a radical government taking over 

those places. I know you were just there in Libya. I watched on television your remarks, and I understand the position of the administration. 

But I will tell you. It really worries me not only from a security 

standpoint. We still get almost a third of our energy from that part 

of the world. And if we don’t make sure that we don’t have radical 

Islamist governments in that region, we could have a big, big problem like we have with Iran. 

And, with that, I will be happy to hear your comments. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I think that you have 

raised many different aspects of a question that is yet to be answered; and that is, what does democracy mean? What is the likely 

outcome of these changes? 

And we know from our very long history, far back beyond 1979, 

that revolutions are unpredictable phenomena. Sometimes it works 

out well, as it did for us. Many times, it goes through really messy 

transitions, as it did for France, for example. And sometimes it 

18

ends up in a place that we certainly don’t think reflects democracy 

as we define it. 

The United States is deeply engaged in and committed to working with these new leaders, many of whom have never been involved in politics before, to make it absolutely clear that there 

must be a renouncing of violence and military capacity if you are 

to be part of a democratically elected government, that there needs 

to be a respect for human rights, for women’s rights, for the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion and all of the rest that we 

hold so dear. 

Sitting here today, I think a lot of the leaders are saying the 

right things, and some are saying things that do give pause to us. 

But I will assure you we are going to do all that we can within our 

power to basically try to influence outcomes. 

But the historic winds sweeping the Middle East and North Africa were not of our making. They were, in many instances, not even 

predicted. But they are going to have consequences, first and foremost, for the people of those countries and then for the rest of the 

world. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Burton. 

Mr. Faleomavaega is recognized. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I certainly want to personally welcome you, 

Madam Secretary, and want to commend you for the outstanding 

leadership that you have demonstrated not only in your capacity as 

the President’s chief negotiator in just about anything and everything that goes on in the world but to certainly thank you for the 

services that you have given to our country. I deeply appreciate the 

opportunities that I have had in dialoguing with you one some of 

the issues that are important for the needs of our country. 

Just one question, Madam Secretary. Maybe I am being simplistic in trying to unravel—to understand a little further about the 

challenges that are before us as far as Pakistan and Afghanistan 

is concerned. 

There are 12 million Pashtuns living in Afghanistan, a couple of 

million Uzbeks, a couple of million Tajeks. It seems to me there is 

really no such thing as an Afghan, because there are so many different tribes that make up the country in Afghanistan. 

And right on the borderline of Pakistan there are 27 million 

Pashtuns. And within those confines we end up with some 27,000 

Talibans that we are going after, hopefully, and trying to get them 

to straighten out in their ways and hopefully by the current process of trying to negotiate with them. We have got 100,000 troops 

right now in Afghanistan, I guess, with the purpose of going after 

the 27,000 Talibans and costing us about $120 billion a year. Are 

we still committed to 2014, Madam Secretary, for withdrawal from 

Afghanistan, given the tremendous amount of resource and problems that we are faced with in dealing with this? 

Secretary CLINTON. Yes, Congressman, that is the commitment. 

It is a mutually agreed upon commitment by NATO ISAF and the 

Afghan Government and, of course, the United States. So that is 

our commitment. 

And, as you know, we have begun to transition security responsibility to the Afghan forces in a number of areas. There will be more 

announced shortly by the Afghan Government. And we have a plan 

19

that our military leadership is implementing to continue to advise 

and support as Afghans take the lead but to move away from any 

kind of ongoing combat responsibility by American or NATO ISAF 

troops. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

The second question, like my colleague, our chairwoman, I am 

deeply concerned about the recent events that transpired in West 

Papua and Indonesia whereby the Indonesian military and police 

forces have arrested hundreds of unarmed and harmless civilians 

who apparently had a meeting in Jayapura. The Papuan People’s 

Congress said that they met. 

And among those arrested is a dear friend, a traditional leader 

by the name of Forkorus Yoboisembut. This gentleman, Madam 

Secretary, wouldn’t even hurt a fly. He’s a traditional leader. 

Out of sheer frustration, 2.2 million West Papuans have been 

waiting with the Indonesian Government for well over 10 years 

and was supposed to be given the special autonomy status, and the 

Indonesian Government hasn’t done anything really to pursue and 

promote this. And I suspect out of frustration the West Papuans 

simply wanted to declare independence, and for this now the Indonesia Government is now accusing Mr. Forkorus of treason. 

And I met the gentleman. He is an elderly person, a traditional 

leader, wouldn’t even hurt a fly; and I would really appreciate, 

Madam Secretary, that the administration would pursue this earnestly with the Indonesian Government. 

I realize always the answer has been this is an internal matter 

within the province of the Indonesian Government, but it does have 

a lot of serious international implications in terms of the military 

forces and how the Indonesian Government is pursuing this; and 

I just wanted to ask for your assistance and if we could work together in making sure that this traditional leader and others who 

have been arrested are properly given their due process in law. 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, we will certainly follow up on 

that and consult with you about it. 

Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Turner is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

I recently returned from Afghanistan and met with military and 

State people. There is a contrast between the optimism, at least 

that the military expressed, in achieving their goal in the next 30 

months, which I think minimally is to thwart a base of operations. 

The State Department seemed less optimistic in establishing a 

legal system and a rule of law; and I would be interested in hearing what you think of this, whether the cultural divide between 

what we expect from the Afghanis and what is really practical that 

can be closed within at least a reasonable period of time. Certainly 

30 months is going to be very difficult. 

Thank you. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you very much, Congressman. And 

thank you for going on that trip, because I think it is important, 

and I hope you agree to see the situations first hand and meet and 

talk with people, and so we appreciate your trip. 

20

I think that the civilian presence in Afghanistan, which has been 

tripled in the last 2 years in response to what were clear deficiencies of attention in the prior years, has made a lot of progress. 

But it is a complicated undertaking, and I think that those with 

whom you spoke were being very candid with you, that it is something that is quite challenging. 

As I said in the beginning, we have made a lot of progress. We 

think that progress has made a difference. But you have got to remember that Afghans had a lot of experience fighting but not a lot 

of experience in putting together what we would consider a modern 

government and certainly very little experience in what we are 

hoping to see them move toward, which is a sustainable democratic 

government. 

So the progress is challenging, but it is continuing, and that is 

why it is important that we negotiate the strategic partnership documents so that we have an ongoing relationship. 

You know, there is no sensible way to compare any two nations, 

because they are each unique. But we do have some experience. 

You know, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the people living in 

those totalitarian states had little or no experience, unless they 

were quite elderly, in what a functioning democratic government 

even looked like, what a trade union looked like, what kinds of 

human rights should be respected. And I think it is quite an accomplishment for the people of those countries over the last 20-plus 

years to have made the progress that they have made. 

Well, we are starting on a very different level in Afghanistan. 

There is no real experience. They went from a monarchy that was 

a very loosely governing presence in much of the country to a succession of, first, invasion by the Soviet Union and the installation 

of a puppet regime, to the war lordism, the rise of the Taliban, in 

part as a reaction against what was not happening the people in 

the country thought was in their interest. This is a country that 

has been through so much. 

And I would add that, yes, even though there are different ethnic 

groups or different tribal and clan groups, they do consider themselves Afghans. They don’t have any doubt in their minds about 

that. But how they work out the modes of cooperation are still to 

be determined. 

So we are entering this with I think the right dose of humility. 

I think in the beginning maybe we didn’t have enough of that. We 

didn’t know how difficult it would be to make that transition. But 

we are making progress, and we are going to stay with it. And on 

the civilian side will be with it after 2014. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Well played, Mr. Turner. The junior 

man on the totem pole stuck around and got to ask the Secretary 

a question. 

Mr. Berman, the old guy, is recognized. 

Mr. BERMAN. Young at heart. 

Madam Secretary, the administration has made it clear that the 

war in Afghanistan can only end through a political settlement. 

You have been quite candid that you will not support any agreement that gives up the hard-won rights of the Afghan people. The 

redlines you have previously mentioned aside, given the Taliban’s 

21

brutal history and that the movement is so ideologically driven 

what makes you think, for example, they would agree to change 

course on ideology? How do we get them to change the way they 

see the world. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I am not sure that all of 

them would, and I am very realistic about that. We have had somewhere in the order of 2,500 fighters officially reintegrate. In other 

words, we have registration of them, we know that they have done 

it. Of those, there seems to be both a weariness with fighting and 

a recognition that the path that the Taliban had been on was not 

the right path. 

So this is part of the testing process that we have to be engaged 

in. And I think that the hard reality is that until we really put it 

to them in some kind of Afghan-led negotiations, nobody will be 

able to gauge that. We have followed some intelligence threads 

which suggest that there is a debate going on within the Quetta 

Shura about, for example, about letting girls go to school which is 

something that would seem to be to be absolutely a condition. 

So I think you are asking the right question, I am just not yet 

at the stage of how this is unfolding to be able to tell you are our 

chances 50/50, are they 40/60. We just don’t know yet, Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, I understand. I want to get into an issue that 

has concerned me. It is a sensitive issue. And I had to miss your 

testimony because, all politics is local, and there is an issue in the 

Aviation Subcommittee of Transportation and Infrastructure. But 

last March, in accordance with Section 203 of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act, you certified that Pakistan was continuing to cooperate with the United States in efforts to dismantle 

supplier networks, that it has demonstrated a sustained commitment and is making significant efforts toward combating terrorist 

groups. 

Given Admiral Mullen’s recent statement, the discovery of Bin 

Laden in Pakistan, recent reports in the Indian press that the mastermind of the Mumbai attacks remains a key player in the affairs 

of LeT, despite being in custody for over 2 years. I am wondering 

do you have any regrets about making that certification. And is 

there anything on your recent trip, or anything else that has gone 

on in the last few weeks that makes you feel optimistic that the 

purposes we were trying to achieve in that certification requirement we can move forward on. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, the certification that I 

signed with regard to Pakistan’s role in combating terrorist groups, 

as you know, was mandated by legislation from the preceding fiscal 

year. And at the time I made the certification, I closely considered 

the requirements set forth in the statute, and I determined that on 

balance, Pakistan met the legal threshold. Now, one of the challenges is that there are a number of factors here. There was no 

doubt that Pakistan had entered the fight against terrorists and 

had made sacrifices for that fight. There was certainly a continuing 

intelligence cooperation particularly focused on the al-Qaeda operative that was proving to be helpful. 

Mr. BERMAN. Could I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary 

have an additional minute just to finish the answer to this question? 

22

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. No, I am sorry. All animals are equal. 

Secretary CLINTON. I would be happy to provide additional written material about that, Mr. Berman, because I know what a serious question it is, and I have to do this on an annual basis. And 

I also would point out that in the last 6 months from the operation 

in Abbottabad, we have had great success in taking out al-Qaeda 

leadership, and we have to weigh all of these factors. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mr. 

Smith is recognized. He is the Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, and Human Rights chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. I thank my distinguished chairman for recognizing 

me. Welcome, Madam Secretary. Let me ask a couple of questions. 

Ten years after the Taliban, not a single public Christian church 

remains in Afghanistan. As you know, two Christian Afghan citizens most certainly would have lost their lives had there not been 

a huge intervention. And we were part of that. You, I know, were 

part of that. But my question would be what are we doing to ensure that Christians and other minority religions are not subjected 

to increased repression? The U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom said that the situation for Christians ‘‘worsened in 

the past year.’’

In like manner, we are seeing the same thing in Pakistan. We 

all know that Pakistan’s Minister for Minority Affairs Shahbaz 

Bhatti was assassinated. A terrible, terrible loss. He was opposing 

the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. And we know about other faiths, 

including the Hindus, it has been reported by the Human Rights 

Commission of Pakistan that 20 to 25 Hindu girls are abducted and 

converted to Islam every month. I just chaired a hearing about 

Coptic Christian girls, a 3-hour hearing, and the distinguished 

chairwoman was at that hearing. It was riveting that we now see 

in Egypt that young girls who happen to be Coptic Christians are 

abducted in their teenage years, 12, 13, 14 years old, and then they 

are forced into Islam and then they are sold or given in marriage 

at age 18 to an Islamic man. 

There is even a very pathetic expression that they are 

Islamacizing the womb. In other words, they get a woman and they 

get any children she subsequently bears to be a member of the Islamic faith, all by coercion, all by kidnapping. And I haven’t heard 

anything, frankly, from the administration on that, but that is 

Egypt, and perhaps you want to speak to that. But this deteriorating situation on religious freedom, that as we all know a fundamental tenet of human rights, is getting worse. 

And finally, to piggyback, I want to associate my remarks about 

the dual standard, or double standard, with regards to Cuba. You 

know, Fidel Castro is really given, I think, a large pass for his 

egregious human rights abuses in a way that is similar to what 

happens with Hu Jintao. Hu Jintao got a state dinner. Nobody has 

repressed human rights more than the President of China, Hu 

Jintao, and yet he was feted and treated with great honors where 

he should have been held to account for his egregious violations. 

I would ask, before yielding to your answer, please pick up the 

phone and call the Foreign Minister of China, and ask: ‘‘Where is 

Chen Guangcheng?’’ Next Wednesday, I am chairing an emergency 

hearing of the China Commission. There have been rumors, reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:08 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\102711\70949 HFA PsN: SHIRL
23

ports, we don’t know they are true, that he may have been beaten 

to death. As you recall, he is the blind activist lawyer, I know you 

know all about him, who has stood up for women who were being 

coerced into forced abortions and forced sterilizations in Linyi province. 

He took on their case and has come against the full fist, the iron 

fist of the Chinese dictatorship and has ever since, spent years in 

prison and house arrest. Now we hear he may even have been beaten to death. We don’t know. But please call the Foreign Minister 

on that if you would, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I share not only your 

concerns, but your outrage over what we are seeing happening. We 

will follow up on your request to China. And specifically on the 

question of persecution, obviously what we are seeing is deeply distressing. And it is not only against Christians or against Hindus, 

it is also against different sects of Muslims. I mean, there are Islamic sects in Afghanistan and Pakistan and elsewhere that are 

also discriminated against, persecuted and their adherence brutally 

treated. 

This is one of our biggest problems in the world right now, is 

there needs to be a greater acceptance of religious tolerance, and 

in so many places, there is no history of religious tolerance. And 

I am searching for ways to be effective. You know, one of the things 

that we tried very hard to do is to work with a number of countries, including Muslim majority countries, the Organization of Islamic Conference, to begin to change the dialogue from something 

they wanted to call religious defamation, which would be a legal rationale for persecuting people who spoke out about their own religion or criticized someone else’s to a broad acceptance that there 

needs to be an equation between freedom of speech and freedom of 

religion. 

I mean, we are trying many different approaches and will continue to do so. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. And I 

thank Mr. Smith. Mr. Sherman is recognized. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for coming before 

us. I hear you have a busy schedule. And I missed your opening 

statement for the same reason as the ranking member, all politics 

is local, and our districts are co-located. My first questioner matter 

relates to the Sindh province of Pakistan. You may just want to respond for the record because that isn’t one of the hot issues. But 

the Sindhis have been influenced by the Sufi strain of Islam, they 

have moderate values harmonious with American ideals. 

And I would hope that we would do all we could for rural Sindh 

that is suffering from this year’s floods, which are on top of last 

year’s floods, and that you would speak to the Pakistanis. You have 

so many issues to cover with them. But one is the disappearances 

of Sindhi activists in southern Pakistan. In this committee room, 

we dealt with the authorization bill. It may never become law, but 

it does reflect whatever wisdom there is on this side of the room. 

And we took a look at the Voice of America which has a budget of 

$750 million. 

And I believe it was unanimous to direct the Voice of America 

to spend at least 1.5 million of that, and we are talking about a 

24

small amount of money, broadcasting in the Sindhi language. Further research indicates that the best way to reach the people of 

Sindh would be on AM or medium wave broadcast originating from 

the UAE. 

Now, we already broadcast in Urdu into Pakistan, but the Sindhi 

language is spoken by far more people than the Urdu language. 

And while the Urdu language may be the language of preference 

by Islamabad, the language spoken in the homes in southern Pakistan is Sindhi. So I don’t know if you have a comment on that or 

would just want to take that under advisement. 

Secretary CLINTON. No, I think that is a very useful suggestion, 

and I will get back to you for the record. 

[The information referred to follows:]

25


70949b-1.eps
26


70949b-2.eps
27

Mr. SHERMAN. I appreciate that. I think we, or many of us saw 

this ad about Camp Ashraf featuring a 14-year-old girl who fears 

extermination. We face a tough circumstance in that we are withdrawing from Iraq. In the past, there have been, some would say, 

massacres, at least terrible instances in which tens of people have 

been killed. 

And there are press reports that the Iraqi officials say, well, 

don’t worry about it too much, after all, these folks are on the U.S. 

terrorist list. What are we doing to assure that when we leave Iraq 

we will not see the massacre of 3,400 people at Camp Ashraf and 

how is it going on the court ordered review of whether the MEK 

should be on the terrorist list. 

Secretary CLINTON. On those points in particular, Congressman, 

in accordance with the D.C. Circuit’s 2010 ruling, the State Department is reviewing the designation. There will be a decision. It has 

to be done expeditiously but thoroughly, and we hope to have such 

a decision in the future. I would add that the current designation 

does not pose a bar to the resettlement of Ashraf residents in Europe. And the humanitarian situation at Ashraf, in our opinion, is 

also not related to the MEK’s designation. 

And I think it is also important to recognize that we need to do 

as much as we can to move as many people out of the camp before 

the end of the year, and we are trying to do that. We are working 

primarily through the United Nations, and certainly with both the 

residents of Ashraf and the Government of Iraq to try to put in 

place a very rapid assessment of individuals. And we have urged 

the EU and other countries to favorably consider the resettling of 

any Ashraf resident granted refugee status because we want to 

shrink the numbers as best we can. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank 

you, Mr. Sherman. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Welcome, Madam Secretary. And let me just note for the record that the chairwoman is 

not the only person who is deeply concerned about the Castro regime and the brutality and the horrible repercussions that we have 

suffered because we have prevented this gangster to ally himself 

with all the hostile elements of the world and the hemisphere, so 

we shouldn’t take that lightly, and don’t think of it just as the 

chairman’s cause, but our cause. 

Second of all, you stated that we are going to do as much as we 

can in terms of Camp Ashraf. You are not doing as much as you 

can. It has been 500 days since the court ordered us to reconsider 

this terrorist designation, and that should be plenty of time to understand what the issues are. And other people around the world 

now have determined that they don’t put them on the terrorist list, 

so we are not doing as much as we can, and I would hope that you 

take that up and do as much as you can to ensure there is not another massacre of people there that we could have prevented. 

Let us note that we have officially requested the State Department for information about the Camp Ashraf massacre. Do you intend to comply with that request as we have been told the State 

Department will, or are you backtracking from that commitment? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, we will provide what information we can to you. 

28

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh-oh. ‘‘We can’’ sounds like the operative 

words of how to get out of answering a question. You obviously 

have the records of your own department; are you going to provide 

them? You have a request from Congress, you have agreed to do 

it, and will you comply with that request? 

Secretary CLINTON. We certainly will comply with the request. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Thank you. 

Secretary CLINTON. But I cannot tell you what will be in the 

reply. So that is the qualification of my answer. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. There are Libyan funds that are 

frozen in the United States right now. How much did we spend to 

help the Libyans defeat their tyrant? I don’t think it would be at 

all inappropriate for us to, at this time of economic crisis in the 

United States, to free some of those funds, or some of those funds 

that are frozen, put our request in to be repaid for what we did to 

help the Libyans win their freedom. Are we planning anything like 

that? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I think, Congressman, the latest fig- ures that I had is about $1 billion was spent. And I am sure the 

Defense Department would, that is really their money, so I will 

wait to see what their final figures are. But we—you know, we are 

in discussions with the Libyans about a number of issues that they 

have requested help from us. And it is a little challenging until 

they get a government, which, as you know, they don’t officially 

have. And we are going to look to see how we can best coordinate 

and organize any kind of reimbursement for certain functions that 

we have performed. But there have been no decisions because there 

is no government yet to negotiate with. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me suggest that it would be, I think, a 

very defendable policy, if not an admirable policy in terms of what 

the people of the United States might think, for us to ask for compensation at a time when we are borrowing money, $1.5 trillion a 

year, it is not right for us to borrow money from somebody else in 

order to help a group of people free themselves and put our people 

in debt for that. We should, if possible, the Libyans have enormous 

assets, require people like this to be able to repay us if we expect 

the American people to continue to support the cause of freedom 

throughout the world. 

With that said, let me just note, and I know there has been a 

lot of talk about this lately, I do not blame the President at all, and 

I am not here to talk about the job you are doing in terms of trying 

to pull them back from the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 

call for extending our deployment in Iraq I do not believe reflects 

the desires of the American people, who are war weary right now. 

We cannot expend resources we don’t have and we cannot keep 

sending our troops over to do the fighting for somebody else, when 

it is up to them at a certain point to defend themselves. Thank you 

very much, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank 

you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, 

Madam Secretary. It is a great pleasure to have you before our 

committee. And thank you for the spectacular work you are doing 

29

on behalf of our country. I think, like many Members of Congress, 

am very concerned about the capability and the capacity and really 

the corruption, and those two things have been cited as really 

major obstacles to improving the rule of law in Afghanistan. 

So my question really is how do we ensure that the billions of 

dollars of U.S. taxpayer funds that are being spent in this country 

are being used for the intended purpose and used effectively when 

corruption and a lack of governmental capacity and capability remain two big obstacles? I am interested to know what your 

thoughts on how long it will take before these factors are no longer 

a major obstacle. And just to use an example, in the State Department CBO justification there is a call for $4.35 billion in funding, 

which includes a request of $1.1 billion for economic support funds. 

I mean, you take that investment and economic development in Afghanistan and compare it to our own: Sort of the two largest loan 

programs administered by the United States Small Business Administration, which total about $574 million, which is roughly onethird of the amount we are sending to Afghanistan for economic 

support, it is a very hard thing for my constituents to understand 

in this difficult economy that we are investing those kinds of resources to rebuild the economy in Afghanistan when we have such 

urgent needs here. 

And in the context of this lack of capacity and this pervasive corruption, it makes it even more difficult for people to understand. 

So I would love to know how you think we are proceeding on those 

fronts and when we can expect the Afghan people to have the ability to do this work on their own so that we can direct those resources back here to our own country and to the urgent needs facing our constituents in Rhode Island and in my district? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, thank you very much, Congressman. 

And I certainly understand and sympathize with the legitimate 

questions of your constituents and of Americans everywhere. I 

think that the drawdown of troops in Iraq represents a very large 

net savings to the American taxpayers. The withdrawal on a very 

measured basis from Afghanistan similarly provides, because our 

civilian assistance is frankly such a small percentage of the overall 

money that is spent, the vast majority of which comes from our 

DOD security forces. 

So I think that we are aware of that. We think we are on the 

right track. But specifically with respect to capacity and corruption, 

corruption remains a fundamental challenge, not only in Afghanistan, but frankly, around the world. And I find it one of our biggest 

problems. It is a cancer in so many countries whose leaders care 

more about enriching themselves and their families and their associates as opposed to making investments that will provide a better 

future for their own people. 

And so the key is to build institutional capacity, create systems. 

And that is exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan. We are taking an integrated civilian military approach, because again, the 

largest sums of money that people have worried about feeding corruption have come from the enormous amount of money coming in 

associated with our military activity. So both State and DOD, and 

of course USAID, are absolutely committed. We are promoting the 

enforcement of anticorruption laws and regulations; we are doing 

30

ethics trainings; we are including civil servants and judiciary personnel in that; we support the Major Crimes Task Force, which is 

intended to prosecute cases in the Afghan justice system; the FBI, 

Department of Justice and others are working with their counterpart agencies; we continue to go after the poppy trade and the corruption that comes from drug trafficking; we have improved our accountability by increasing vetting for those people who have anything to do with American funding; we have worked with our partners to do the same. 

So we are very much committed to transparency and accountability, to the rule of law, to monitoring and all of the steps that 

we are taking toward those ends. But we know it remains a problem as it does in so many of the other parts of the world where 

we do business. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. Judge Poe is 

recognized. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Madam 

Chair. I will try to make this to the point. Last time you and I 

talked in this very room we talked about the safety of Camp 

Ashraf. That was in March. And then later in April the Iraqi soldiers came in and killed people in Camp Ashraf. People disagree 

on how that occurred, but people did die. Right now, the 31st 

United States is leaving. I am not discussing that. But also in the 

31st, Maliki has made it clear that the camp is going to close. 

When we were in Iraq this summer, Chairman Rohrabacher, myself and others on this committee, we met with Maliki on the issue 

of Camp Ashraf. It got very heated. We wanted to go see the Camp. 

He refused to let us see it. And later we learned when we were flying around in a Black Hawk that we had been invited to leave the 

country based upon that discussion with him. But the number one 

thing he said about the way Iraq treated Camp Ashraf was the 

U.S. designation of the MEK. He spent all of his time saying this 

is the reason they are treated the way they are, because you, 

United States, have designated them as a foreign terrorist organization. 

My concern, first of all, is the safety of the people in Camp 

Ashraf when that 31st comes. They are in fear. 85 of those people, 

some are Americans and the others of that 85 that are there among 

the 2,000 are permanent residents of the U.S. 

So my question is what are we doing through the U.N. to make 

sure they extend the deadline so that people can do what is necessary through the U.N. to get out of Iraq and go somewhere in the 

world? And second, the long-term issue of the MEK designation? I 

am encouraged by your words last night that you made regarding 

that. So those are my two issues and my two questions to you, 

Madam Secretary. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I can assure you that I 

am personally very focused on trying to make sure that we protect 

the safety of the residents of the Camp. I and our Department and 

our administration strongly condemned the violence that led to the 

deaths. Regardless of how it happened, the fact is, you are right, 

36 residents died because of the violence on April 8th. We are monitoring the situation as closely as we can. We see no evidence sugVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:08 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\102711\70949 HFA PsN: SHIRL
31

gesting that there is any other attack, imminent attack on Ashraf, 

and we continue to urge the Government of Iraq to show restraint. 

As I said earlier, we do have written assurances from the Government of Iraq to treat the Ashraf residents humanely, to follow 

their international obligations which they have as long as the residents remain in the country, not to transfer anyone to any country 

where that person could be persecuted as a result of their political 

or religious beliefs, and so we are trying to nail down as much as 

we can to provide some protective screen for the residents. 

Now, we know that they have approached—that we have also 

pushed the UNHCR to have even more of a presence, to do more, 

to try to move as many of the status determinations as they can. 

So this is an area of deep concern to us, and we are moving on 

many fronts, and we are also going to move as expeditiously as possible to a final resolution on the designation. 

Mr. POE. And do we have any timeframe on the designation? 

Secretary CLINTON. I cannot be more specific than that, Congressman. As expeditiously as possible. 

Mr. POE. Well, I will just want to re-urge you and the administration to make sure that when December 31st comes, bad things 

don’t happen to those good folks in Camp Ashraf. And all of the 

politics, we need to set it aside, fulfill our obligation, since they put 

their weapons down as the MEK that they get refugee and asylum 

status somewhere in the world, but their safety is paramount. So 

I would just re-urge that, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary CLINTON. I appreciate your urging, I appreciate the 

concerns and I take them very seriously, sir. 

Mr. POE. I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. And the Chair 

will recognize herself because there is no other member right now. 

Madam Secretary, if I could ask you to clarify the comments that 

you made last week that the U.S. has met with the Haqqani network, but also urge the Government of Pakistan to get tough on 

that very same Haqqani network which has directly killed scores 

of U.S. troops. And one of your senior officials said in an authorized 

news conference last week we were asked by ISI to give this a try. 

So which is it, Madam Secretary, crackdown or negotiate with the 

Haqqani network or a little bit of both? 

Secretary CLINTON. It is both. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. If you could elaborate. 

Secretary CLINTON. It is both, Madam Chair. As I said, we want 

to fight, talk and build all at the same time. Part of the reason for 

that is to test whether these organizations have any willingness to 

negotiate in good faith. There is evidence going both ways, to be 

clear. Sometimes we hear that they will, that there are elements 

within each that wish to pursue that, and then other times that it 

is off the table. So I think that with respect to the Haqqani network, it illustrates this point. There was a major military operation 

that was held in Afghanistan just in the past week that rounded 

up and eliminated more than 100 Haqqani network operatives. And 

we are taking action to target the Haqqani leadership on both sides 

of the border. 

We are increasing our international efforts to squeeze them operationally and financially. We are already working with the PakiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:08 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\102711\70949 HFA PsN: SHIRL
32

stanis to target those who are behind a lot of the attacks against 

Afghans and Americans. And I made it very clear to the Pakistanis 

that the attack on our Embassy was an outrage and the attack on 

our forward operating base that injured 77 of our soldiers was a 

similar outrage. And it was in both instances terrible, but the fact 

is we avoided having dozens and dozens of wounded or killed. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. And if I could ask a question related to the statement that President Karzai made. Just less 

than 48 hours after you and he held a press conference, President 

Karzai said, God forbid if there ever is a war between Pakistan and 

America then we will side with Pakistan. I wanted to ask you, is 

this something that he told you in your meetings? How do you interpret his comments? And a broader question, are Afghanistan 

and Pakistan reliable allies? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, first of all, President Karzai and I had 

a very productive meeting when I was in Kabul last week. We are 

making progress on a lot of issues and we are coordinating closely 

on both fighting the insurgents and trying to test out this Afghanled reconciliation. So frankly, when I heard about the comment we 

immediately asked Ambassador Crocker to go in and figure out 

what it meant, you know, what the point of it was. And Ambassador Crocker, who you know, is one of our most distinguished experienced diplomats, reported back that he really believed that 

what Karzai was talking about was the long history of cooperation 

between Afghanistan and Pakistan, in particular the refuge that 

Pakistan provided to millions of Afghans who were crossing the 

border seeking safety during the Soviet invasion, during the 

warlordism, during the Taliban period, and not at all about a war 

that anybody was predicting, and that it was both taken out of context and misunderstood. So I think Ambassador Crocker is a pretty 

good guide to that. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. He sure is. Thank you very much, 

Madam Secretary. Mr. Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madam Chair. I get the good 

luck of being here for the second round. Madam Secretary, I think 

going back to—I wasn’t very clear when Mr. Berman had raised a 

question again when the former chiefs or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

Mullen, as well as Secretary Panetta, are pretty scathing in terms 

of their attacks, I don’t know if you want to call it attack, but to 

say that our partnership with Pakistan is something a lot to be 

said in terms of what had happened here with Haqqani. Is that—

and I realize too that the Pakistan Government was very irritated 

by the comments it made. Where are we now exactly with the 

charges made by Mr. Mullen as well as Secretary Panetta in that 

regard? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I think everyone agrees 

that the Haqqani network has safe havens inside Pakistan, that 

those safe havens give them a place to plan and direct operations 

that kill Afghans and Americans. And we also agree, however, with 

what Admiral Mullen also said, is that there is no solution in the 

region without Pakistan and no stable future in the region without 

a partnership. So if you look at everything that Admiral Mullen 

said in his testimony he raised serious questions which our Government has repeatedly raised publicly and privately about the safe 

33

havens, but he also said that the bilateral relationship was critical 

and consequential and that we do have a lot of shared interests 

particularly in the fight against terrorism. So it is important to recognize that we are all balancing these two realities. 

I mean, it would be great if we could get rid of one, namely the 

safe havens or the difficulties that the Pakistanis themselves feel 

they have in taking the fight to the terrorists because they believe 

that they have already paid a grievous price and worry about how 

they can sustain that, but we operate on both those channels at 

one time. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I wanted to raise the question too that I realize that for a good part of over 10 years now, it seems that our 

countries seem to be bogged down, just these three countries, Iraq, 

Pakistan and Afghanistan. That seems to be our—our whole foreign policy seems to be centralized just on these three countries. 

And I noticed with interest as Secretary Panetta now in his recent 

visit to Asia, does there seem to be a shift in paradigm in terms 

of what exactly are some of the priorities on how we look at the 

situation? Why are we so focused, or bogged down just on this one 

issue or dealing with these three countries when we have the rest 

of the world to deal with? Am I wrong in looking in terms of the 

recent statements that Secretary Panetta has made about the fact 

that our interests in Asia is just as critical and just as important 

as we are in other regions of the world? 

Secretary CLINTON. No, you are absolutely right. As you recall, 

I have made a number of trips to Asia, my first trip to Asia. I just 

recently wrote an article for foreign policy pointing out we are 

making a pivot toward Asia. We think that it is very important to 

begin to focus on the challenges and the opportunities that Asia 

presents. I had a wonderful visit, as you recall, to one of our favorite Pacific islands. So this administration certainly is focused on 

Asia. We are looking at how we maintain our vigilance about terrorism, because we cannot forget that it is from the border regions 

in Afghanistan and Pakistan that we were attacked, and that was 

an immensely costly event in our history in terms of lives lost and 

dollars spent to recover from. So we did not choose where we had 

to focus in the last 10 years. But now we are in a position to begin 

to make that pivot. And there are many who believe, as I do, that 

much of the future of the 21st century is going to be written in 

Asia and the United States must be a resident power militarily, politically and economically if we expect to maintain our global leadership. So this is a very important commitment that I hope is a bipartisan commitment because we feel strongly it is in America’s 

best interest. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. And darn it, 

the gang is back. Mr. Royce is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. Welcome back, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you. 

Mr. ROYCE. I have a question for you on the LeT, the organization that carried out the attacks on Mumbai. My terrorism subcommittee recently held a hearing on U.S.-India counterterrorism 

cooperation and a recommendation that came out of that hearing 

was that we should condition our assistance to Pakistan on their 

34

inclusion of LeT in terms of their engagement, in terms of their attempt to shut down this organization. It has got a campus that continues to recruit. It is an oddity because it has morphed from an 

organization focused on Kashmir, but now it has got global aspirations. We have made arrests here in the United States and so 

forth. So I was going to ask you, would you consider making that 

a condition in terms of that scorecard that reportedly we keep with 

Pakistan? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, as you referenced in the 

beginning of your remarks, we have had intensive discussions with 

our Indian counterparts. On my last trip to India, DNI Director 

Clapper went with me and had many in-depth conversations. So I 

do not want to commit at this time to taking such a path because 

I think it is important that there be further consideration of all of 

the implications. Certainly, every time we meet with the Pakistanis, we press them on LeT about the continuing failure in our 

view to fulfill all of the requirements necessary for prosecution related to the Mumbai attacks, and we will continue to do so. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, one of the concerns I have if we don’t elevate 

this issue, Madam Secretary, if we don’t drive this point home now, 

it seems to me that some of the ISI in their assistance to the LeT 

in orchestrating these attacks are setting in motion the types of 

policies that could lead to conflict between India and Pakistan. And 

I almost wonder, when you look at the Mumbai attacks, when you 

look at the attacks in Delhi and then you find the connection to ISI 

or former ISI officials who are involved in the operation; when you 

look at some of the other operations where you find out ISI was 

involved in the training, it leads you to question what is the intention from an intelligence perspective of sending in a force, allowing 

them sanctuary, allowing them to base on your home territory and 

then carrying out civilian terrorist attacks on a neighboring country. 

It would seem to me that the potential for conflict created by this 

type of tripwire is very, very great. And that is why I think this 

has to be elevated in terms of the discussion with Pakistan. I think 

it has to be conditional. It can’t be the case where Pakistan says, 

well, we are helping with any terrorist organization that is targeting the leadership in Pakistan, but we are going to allow ISI 

agents to assist other terrorist organizations that are targeting 

neighboring states or, as Admiral Mullen said, targeting U.S. 

troops, that they get this kind of cooperation. It has to be broadened to include, in my view, the LeT. And I would ask you, do you 

think there is a potential for this to spin out of control in terms 

of the types of attacks that have been carried out on the capital 

and the major financial centers of India by the LeT? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, of course, we worry about that very, 

very much and we discuss it in great depth with our Indian counterparts because it is, first and foremost, a concern of theirs. It is 

obviously also concerning to us, but we have designated them, we 

are certainly raising their continuing presence and activities on a 

regular basis. But I think that our policy has to be carefully coordinated with the Indian concerns. As you know, India is trying to improve relations with Pakistan right now, and there are actually 

some very productive discussions going on. 

35

Mr. ROYCE. But perhaps Admiral Mike Mullen’s words will allow 

us to carry this conversation on with Pakistan rather than India. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BURTON [presiding]. The Chair will now recognize the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Mr. 

Engel of New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, since 

you were my Senator for 8 years in New York, I know a lot of 

things about you, so first of all, I want to wish you a happy birthday. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGEL. And second of all, I should ask you for your comments on this article from Time Magazine, Hillary Rodham Clinton 

and The Rise of Smart Power. So I don’t know if you have any comment on that, but I want to comment on it. 

Secretary CLINTON. I am speechless, Congressman. 

Mr. ENGEL. I think the country realizes the wonderful job you 

are doing and I really want to thank you. You know, we are talking 

about Pakistan and Afghanistan and we focus on the Middle East. 

I just want to throw in something about something you and I have 

spoken about a great deal, and that is the conflict between Israel 

and the Palestinians because it does impact on other countries in 

the Middle East. The Israeli prime minister has just said that he 

will negotiate with the Palestinians any place, any time, anywhere, 

and he is even talking about potential freezes on expansion of 

neighborhoods and things like that. Meanwhile, the Palestinians 

refuse to speak to the Israelis and instead still persistent going to 

the United Nations trying to get a unilateral Declaration of Independence instead of negotiating face-to-face. This Congress is going 

to anticipate that we will have legislation cutting off aid to the Palestinians if they are not serious about the peace process. I am wondering if you could comment on that. And then I have an Afghanistan question for you. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, as you know, we are 

deeply focused on trying to move the parties to negotiations that 

would result in resolution of issues and the eventual two-state outcome that is American policy and which I know you and I support. 

We have a quartet process that is currently operating. There were 

meetings held yesterday. And now the quartet envoys have met 

with both Israeli and Palestinian representatives. There has certainly been an emphasis on trying to get specific proposals made 

by both sides on territory and security in line with President 

Obama’s comments last May. And we are pushing very hard for 

that to occur. 

Now, you are right, that there remain difficulties in getting the 

parties to sit down with each other, so we are pursuing these goals 

through what are called proximity talks which are not the preference, as you know. But we think that keeping this moving, keeping it alive as a possibility is very much in the interest of both, because one thing we have learned over now 20, 30 years of these negotiations is that a vacuum is not good for Israel, it is not good for 

the region, and so we want to keep some momentum going. 

With respect to aid for the Palestinians, I will certainly underscore publicly again our strong preference that aid not be cut, parVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:08 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\102711\70949 HFA PsN: SHIRL
36

ticularly aid for the security forces. And the maintenance of security in the Palestinian territories is very much in Israel’s interest. 

Just last week, the Israeli general in charge of West Bank security 

publicly said do not cut resources to Palestinian security. 

So I would hope as the Congress considers these issues that we 

will consult closely and that there be a real recognition that we 

don’t want unintended consequences, and we certainly don’t want 

either a collapse of the Palestinian authority in a vacuum that 

could then be filled by radicals like Hamas and we don’t want there 

to be a collapse of the security cooperation between the Palestinians and Israel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Let me ask you a quick question about 

Afghanistan. I know there has been some criticism from my friends 

on the other side of the aisle about withdrawing from Iraq at the 

end of the year. I think the President got that one right. And I 

think my constituents are concerned that we don’t remain bogged 

down in a ground war in Afghanistan forever and ever. We have 

been successful using drones and others to get at terrorists. And 

there, it seems to me, can be more efficient means in keeping us 

in Afghanistan forever and ever. I think we should speed up our 

withdrawal from Afghanistan. I would like to hear what your 

thoughts are. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, there has been an agreement with our NATO allies that 2014 is the year. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank 

you, Mr. Engel. Mr. Chabot is recognized. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Secretary, in a 

recent interview when asked about negotiations with insurgents, 

you spoke of universal redlines specifically renouncing violence, renouncing ties to al-Qaeda and committing to abide by the Afghan 

constitution. Are these redlines preconditions to talks, and if so 

how is engaging with them in negotiations a coherent strategy 

when they reject our redlines in principle. And you mentioned in 

your opening statement and several times during your testimony 

here today the importance of protecting women’s rights. And I happen to agree with you on that point. But can these rights be reconciled with the potential implementation of Sharia-based law, 

which is a stated objective of the insurgents that you are potentially offering a place in the Afghan Government. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, first, Congressman, they are outcomes 

that would have to be satisfied. You don’t make peace with your 

friends and you rarely sit down to negotiate any peace with someone who has already agreed with you. It is through the process of 

negotiation that you test and determine whether the outcomes that 

you seek can be satisfied. So that is our intention and it is certainly a long, is part of a long line of how one negotiates to end 

conflicts like this. Secondly, with respect to the constitution and 

the laws of Afghanistan, which do protect the rights of ethnic minorities and of women, there is an absolute condition that we have 

said the outcome must be to meet that. 

I know that there is a lot of discussion about Sharia law and I 

think there is a lot of information about it and what it means and 

how it is applied that is difficult to assume. There are different 

countries with different kinds of applications of what they consider 

37

to be Sharia which is the law that arises out of the Koran in their 

interpretation. So I don’t want to prejudge, but I think the rule of 

law is our guide and the constitution and the laws of Afghanistan, 

which do give respect to, and in some cases, adherence to Islamic 

principles is what we are demanding be respected. 

So I think that it might be useful to take a look at all the different meanings of that phrase and how it is applied because from 

time to time, I think it is not clear what the implications would be. 

Mr. CHABOT. That is one area I would suggest and encourage the 

administration to take particular care in because the presence of 

Sharia law, in any form, in any government, could have potentially 

devastating effects on the rights of women, and I am sure you are 

aware of that. 

Madam Secretary, recent comments by Haqqani network leaders 

have suggested that we have been attempting bilateral negotiations 

with them in order to split them off from the Quetta Shura 

Taliban. The Haqqani network, however, has said that it will only 

negotiate with the Quetta Shura approval and participation. Are 

we prepared to, in effect, negotiate with Mullah Omar, and if so, 

under what circumstances and what would our conditions be? What 

is your assessment of the Haqqani network, and given the administration’s intentions of negotiating with it, what role might it have 

in a future Afghanistan? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, the negotiations that 

would be part of any Afghan-led peace process would have to include the Quetta Shura, and would have to include some recognition by the Quetta Shura, which based on everything we know is 

still led by Mullah Omar, that they wish to participate in such a 

process. That is what I meant when I said you don’t make peace 

with your friends. We are pursuing every thread of any kind of interest expressed. You might have been voting when I said that the 

ISI asked us to meet with a representative of the Haqqani network. 

There was such a meeting. There was nothing, there was not a negotiation, there was no follow-up meeting. This was done, in part, 

because I think the Pakistanis hope to be able to move the Haqqani 

network toward some kind of peace negotiation, and the answer 

was an attack on our Embassy. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chabot. Mr. Meeks is recognized. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Madam Secretary, 

let me also congratulate you and the Obama administration for the 

supreme work that you have been doing. And I think that the article that is talking about smart power is talking about how we are 

doing things differently. And it seems to me as we travel now I feel 

that when I talk to other nations, other countries, that they again 

feel included. And so that is leadership, but not leadership where 

it is my way or the highway, basic leadership where we are bringing the world back together or closer together to work to resolve 

problems in the world together. 

We have seen that with the fact that when we have civilian lives 

at risk, and that is what Libya was really all about, that is what 

Tunisia is all about. And the President kept his word and we 

worked it out and we saved hundreds of thousands of lives, but we 

did it not just by ourselves, we did it in a multilateral way, which 

38

is a very, very positive thing in my estimation, and that is what 

I think smart power is all about. Then talking about Afghanistan 

and Pakistan. So my first question is though Turkey seems to be 

a little bit removed geographically, but I know you are going to 

Turkey next week, and Turkey, I understand, have asserted themselves as keepers of the peace and they will be hosting this conference about building blocks in the Afghan reconstruction process 

next week. 

So my question to you, first, is has Turkey been otherwise engaged in the region? Have they been helpful or not helpful? Because that could be another partner that we could have in helping 

us in this crucial area of the world. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, they have been both involved and helpful. Of course, Turkish groups serve in NATO ISAF. 

I remember my first trip to Afghanistan, Turkish troops were responsible for the airport in Kabul, and I remember meeting the 

Turkish general who was in charge. But Turkey also has a great 

ability to communicate with a lot of the leaders in Afghanistan, 

Pakistan and elsewhere, because, of course, it is a Muslim majority 

country. And it has a history of democracy and now an Islamicbased party, the AKP, that is leading the country. So Turkey has 

a great deal of credibility with a number of the countries, and 

therefore, its involvement is a very helpful assistance to us. 

Mr. MEEKS. Likewise, I think that we need to move into a post 

Cold War conversation and dialogue with other countries. Russia, 

we had a reset agreement. So I was just wondering whether or not 

Russia has been involved in any of the Afghanistan-Pakistan issues 

at all in that region? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, for a long time Russia wasn’t particularly involved, nor was it welcome because of the invasion by the 

Soviet Union and the many years of brutal conflict that ensued. In 

recent years, however, and in part because of our reset, Russia has 

been helpful. They have cooperated with us on the northern distribution network, which is our alternative route to get troops and 

equipment into Afghanistan when the Pakistani route is either unavailable or under pressure. 

Russia is also now participating in many of the discussions about 

the path forward. Because remember, Afghanistan has been a 

crossroads for conflict between and among all of its big neighbors, 

Pakistan, Iran, India, China, Russia. And so Russia very much 

wants to see a stable Afghanistan. It worries greatly about the heroin trade that comes out of Afghanistan, and that is a big domestic 

problem for Russia. So we are appreciative of the role that they are 

now playing. 

Mr. MEEKS. Finally, Madam Secretary, as we pull out of Iraq, 

and I know the agreement about 2014 is Afghanistan, I am wondering what is the response of NATO and ISAF and the Euro-Atlantic partnership Council, the Istanbul Initiative and the contact 

countries? Do these organizations still remain as a cohesive command, and what role will they be playing in the region generally? 

I just thought staying together in that regard is tremendously important. 

Secretary CLINTON. I think, Congressman, the commitment that 

was made last year, or earlier this year, I guess, at the Lisbon 

39

NATO Summit to remain involved to have an enduring partnership 

with Afghanistan, was a very strong signal that NATO countries 

understand that the stability of Afghanistan affects their national 

security as well. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mr. 

Wilson is recognized. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you for being 

here today. 

I was really very impressed by your visit to Pakistan. I have had 

the privilege of visiting there, and I was so impressed by their military. We were there to encourage the Pakistani military and the 

U.S. Marines for their earthquake recovery several years ago in 

Muzaffarabad. The organization was professional, the military 

itself was very, very positive. In particular, I was very pleased. 

There was a young U.S. Marine who was of Pakistani-American 

heritage that had been trained at Parris Island in South Carolina, 

and to see our working together because we can and we should. 

With that in mind, the foreign assistance programs that we have 

in Pakistan that you have helped initiate, do you believe they are 

making sufficient progress, and by what metrics are you judging 

the level of progress. 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, first, thank you for traveling 

there, and I share your very strong endorsement of the positive 

work that was done between the Pakistani military and United 

States military in earthquake relief, and it was a real model and 

we are very proud of that. 

With respect to the civilian assistance, we actually do think that 

we are making a difference, but it sometimes gets overwhelmed by 

all of the other activities that go on in our relationship. We will be 

sending you the latest status report on what we have done next 

week, I think. And we have built roads, we have increased their 

energy production, we have the world’s largest Fulbright exchange. 

The assistance we give to civil society. 

I did a town hall meeting in Islamabad and several people, both 

publicly and privately, thanked us for the programs that had made 

a difference in their understanding of how to put together voluntary organizations, how to engage with their government. 

None of this is easy and none of it, frankly, is without challenge, 

but I really believe we have to stay the course on this. 

Mr. WILSON. Also I have been very encouraged that with India, 

that Pakistan is developing a most favored nation trade status with 

India. I have been the co-chairman twice of the India caucus, and 

I have a deep interest and actually the biggest beneficiary of a 

level of stability in Pakistan is India. And why do you think this 

is moving at this time and what can be done to promote a level of 

trade and positive contact between India and Pakistan? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, I agree with you that the real 

game changer in the region is not so much our bilateral relationship as the relationship between Pakistan and India. And the more 

that there can be progress, the more likely there can be even more 

progress. 

So we have, in Pakistan today, a leadership, both civilian and 

military, that wants to see progress with India, and we have the 

same on the Indian side. There have been successful visits just in 

40

the last several months at the Foreign Minister level, the commerce minister level, announcements have been made to try to 

streamline visas for businesses, do more to accelerate movement 

across borders. And then the most favored Nation status is a really 

important development. 

So we encourage it. We try to tell both sides how much it will 

change their relationship. And when I was in Chennai last summer, I spoke about a new silk road where goods could go from 

Chennai up to Kazakhstan and it would go through Pakistan, it 

would go through Afghanistan. 

I firmly believe greater regional economic integration would revolutionize the economy in Pakistan. You know, India is a huge market. And Pakistan produces things that India needs, but they don’t 

get into India in any direct and cost-effective way. So the more we 

can do that, the better. 

Mr. WILSON. I share your enthusiasm, and indeed all of Central 

Asia could benefit so much even into western Siberia. I appreciate 

your enthusiasm for that recognition of it, promotion of it, and 

every effort to reduce and eliminate cross-border terrorism which 

has been such a tragedy for the people of India. 

I yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. Mr. 

Carnahan is recognized. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. Welcome back, Madam Secretary. I 

want to try to get at least one comment in and a couple of questions in here with my allotted time. 

First, as you know with Chris Smith, my colleague and co-chair 

of the Bosnian Caucus, so I am taking an opportunity to make an 

off-topic comment like others have done today, and I represent one 

of the largest populations of Bosnians in the country in St. Louis. 

But as we all know, reforms are stalled, progress is in question, 

and there is increasing risk to the region from inaction. 

My comment is that we need a solution, but first we really need 

a vehicle that can bring together the Bosnian people, their leaders, 

neighboring countries, the EU and of course U.S. leadership is essential. So I would hope that we could work with you and the appropriate folks in the Department to look for such a vehicle to 

move that process forward so it doesn’t backslide and create what 

I think could be a big problem. 

Back on topic here, as you know, I have long supported active 

U.S. engagement around the world. I believe the Obama administration has shifted, and certainly your leadership to a policy of 

smart power and responsible participation in international organizations has been in our great interest, our security interest, our 

economic interest and our values around the world. The United Nations assistance in Afghanistan has been essential in developing 

that country, also engages 80 percent of the cost with our partners 

that are helping share that burden. 

My question is to ensure that UNAMA has the ability to take on 

an even bigger role as the U.S. prepares to draw down its troop 

presence in the future and also what effect would the cuts proposed 

by this committee have on the U.N.’s ability to pursue that important work? 

41

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, first, we would be delighted to 

work with you and Congressman Smith on Bosnia because we 

share your concerns and we would love to consult with you. So I 

will reach out and we will set up a time to do that. 

On UNAMA, I think their activities in Afghanistan are essential 

to the safety and security of our troops, our civilian employees and 

the success of the transition. And as I wrote to the chair earlier 

this month, I am deeply concerned that the proposed U.N. reform 

bill mandates actions which would severely limit U.S. participation 

in the U.N., and therefore, greatly harm our interests, put aside 

anybody else’s interest. I am focused first and foremost on ours. 

The bill’s requirement that the U.S. withhold 50 percent of its 

contribution until the U.N. shifts to a voluntary funding scheme for 

most of its programs would undermine our leadership at a time 

when we really have to be at the very forefront, and we are being 

asked now to do more with less anyway. We get a lot for our investments out of UNAMA because as you say, the bulk of the funding is carried by others. And they are an absolutely critical partner 

in building Afghan civilian capacity, monitoring human rights, supporting Afghan elections. Everything we talked about today we 

partner closely on a literally hour-by-hour basis with UNAMA. And 

if we can’t depend on UNAMA, we will have to pay for and invent 

some other entity because we don’t have another partner that has 

the credibility or the reach that UNAMA has. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. Finally, I want to get your brief comment. You have been a great champion for including minorities, 

and especially women in transition to Afghan control. Just give us 

a brief synopsis on what the administration is doing to prepare for 

the upcoming Bonn Conference and beyond to ensure that that 

happens. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I thank you again, Congressman, because you have been a great champion for the women of Afghanistan as well. 

We are requiring a lot of emphasis by the United States and our 

partners on what is happening with women in Afghanistan. I met 

with a group of women leaders when I was there. And we expect 

there to be a process where women are involved at all levels in the 

peace and reconciliation effort, which they then can speak for 

themselves and have their own say about their own rights. 

And so I will give you further information about that. But we 

have made specific requests to the Government of Afghanistan that 

they be included. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

And before I recognize Mr. Mack, I would like to tell the members of our committee that per a request from the Secretary that 

Mr. Berman and I had agreed to, she would be departing after Mr. 

Mack’s questions because that will bring her to her other duties. 

Mr. Mack is recognized, the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere chair. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is great to see you 

again, Secretary Clinton. 

I am going to switch gears a little bit as well. As you know, I 

serve as the chair of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, so 

there is a lot to talk about. 

42

But I wanted to talk a little bit about Fast and Furious. And specifically, at what point did the State Department learn of Operation 

Fast and Furious? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, I don’t know the exact time. I 

can tell you that based on our information from the part of the 

State Department that would deal with this kind of issue, we have 

no record of any request for coordination. We have no record of any 

kind of notice or heads up. And my recollection is that I learned 

about it from the press. That is my recollection. 

Mr. MACK. So I think then I know the answer to this question 

but I will ask anyway. Did the State Department issue the Justice 

Department a license or a written waiver in order to allow for the 

transfer of thousands of weapons across the U.S.-Mexico border? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, this is the first time I have 

been asked this, and I can tell you that based on the record of any 

activity by the bureau that would have been responsible, we see no 

evidence. But let me do a thorough request to make sure that what 

I am telling you reflects everything we know. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you. That would be greatly appreciated. I 

wrote a letter to you yesterday. I am sure you got it and you have 

read it. 

Secretary CLINTON. I thought it was for my birthday. 

Mr. MACK. Happy birthday. 

Under the Arms Export Control Act, the Justice Department was 

required to receive a written waiver from the State Department to 

account for their intent to cause arms to be exported to drug cartels in Mexico. If no such waiver was received, Justice Department 

officials have violated the law and you would agree with that, correct? 

Secretary CLINTON. I cannot offer an opinion. I don’t know. I 

mean, this is the first time I am being asked. 

Mr. MACK. I am not asking you if there was such a written request, but if they hadn’t asked and received, by law, the Justice 

Department would be violating U.S. law. 

Secretary CLINTON. I cannot offer you any opinion on that. I 

don’t have the information or any analysis. I can only tell you the 

facts as we know them in the State Department. 

Mr. MACK. I will submit then and say that if the law says that 

they have to get a written, if the State Department is required to 

give a written waiver for the cause of arms to be exported to drug 

cartels in Mexico, and they didn’t do that and that didn’t happen, 

then they are in violation of the law. So the question here is, who 

do we hold responsible? 

I think there is a lot of frustration, at least for myself, that when 

we hear Mexico and President Calderon complain so much about 

guns moving south across the border to learn that our Government 

was involved in the delivery of those guns is quite concerning, and 

I am sure that you feel the same way. But we are looking for answers as to who knew what, when, and why and how this happened. 

So I look forward if you would get back to me and the committee 

about the waiver and whether or not the State Department issued 

that waiver. 

43

Second, I wanted—do you agree with Ambassador Brownfield 

that there is an insurgency in Mexico that are using terrorists tactics in Mexico. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I have expressed my 

concern about that in the past. We are sensitive to the characteristics that some of these drug traffickers have adopted that certainly 

resemble terrorist activities. And we are also aware of the concern 

by the Mexican Government that we, in their view, not mix apples 

and oranges, so to speak. Let’s focus on criminality, let’s not mix 

it with something else. So this is an ongoing discussion that we 

have with our friends in Mexico. 

Mr. MACK. She is going to gavel me down. But you in the past 

have identified it as an insurgency? 

Secretary CLINTON. I have said that it has characteristics of an 

insurgency, but I am very sensitive to the legitimate questions that 

the Mexican Government raises about really whether those characteristics are such that it should be defined as that. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary, Mr. Mack. 

Madam Secretary, I want you to know that the preparations for 

this oversight hearing were done by our Afghan war vets, two full 

committee majority staff members, Matt Zweig and Greg McCarthy, and our wonderful Defense Department fellow, Emiliano 

Tellado. 

Thank you so much. Pleasure having you here, and the committee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(45)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

46

f


70949n.eps
47


70949m-1.eps
48

f


70949m-2.eps
49


70949c-1.eps
50

f


70949c-2.eps
51

f


70949d.eps
52


70949e-1.eps
53


70949e-2.eps
54


70949e-3.eps
55


70949e-4.eps
56


70949e-5.eps
57


70949e-6.eps
58


70949e-7.eps
59


70949e-8.eps
60


70949e-9.eps
61


70949e-10.eps
62

f


70949e-11.eps
63


70949f-1.eps
64

Æ


70949f-2.eps