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

64–869PDF 2011

ASSESSING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES AND

NEEDS AMIDST ECONOMIC CHALLENGES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 1, 2011

Serial No. 112–33

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

(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 

VACANT 

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

WITNESS 

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

of State .................................................................................................................. 9

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

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

State of Florida, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: Prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton: Prepared statement ............................ 13

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 72

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 73

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

Commonwealth of Virginia: Statement .............................................................. 75

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

State of California: Material submitted for the record ..................................... 76

Questions submitted for the record to the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton 

by the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ............................................................... 84

Written responses from the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton to questions 

submitted for the record by: 

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ................................................................... 93

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

the State of California ...................................................................................... 168

The Honorable David Rivera, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ........................................................................................................... 174

The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York ............................................................................................ 177

The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina .............................................................................................. 179

The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Missouri .............................................................................................. 183

The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Rhode Island ....................................................................................... 195

Questions submitted for the record to the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton 

by: 

The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana, and chairman, Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia .............. 201

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

the Commonwealth of Virginia ........................................................................ 207

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

State of California, and chairman, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade ................................................................................... 208

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

of California ...................................................................................................... 209

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Texas ............................................................................................. 212

The Honorable Gus Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ........................................................................................................... 215

The Honorable Mike Kelly, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ............................................................................. 218

Page

IV

The Honorable Tim Griffin, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arkansas ....................................................................................................... 220

The Honorable Renee Ellmers, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina .............................................................................................. 221

(1)

ASSESSING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES 

AND NEEDS AMIDST ECONOMIC CHALLENGES 

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in room 

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

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

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

Madam Secretary, it is a pleasure to welcome you to our committee for the first time as chairman. In order to maximize our 

time for discussion, after my opening remarks and those of my good 

friend, the ranking member, Mr. Berman, I ask that you summarize your written testimony and then we will move directly into 

questions from members. 

Madam Speaker, we must maintain firm ties with our allies, and 

enemies must be clearly identified. I hope that this administration 

can tell who’s who. 

In Lebanon, we have witnessed the conquest of the country by 

the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis. The U.S. should never have been 

supporting a government with Hezbollah. Now, with Hezbollah in 

control, what is the justification for continued U.S. taxpayer investment? In Egypt and elsewhere, successive U.S. administrations 

failed to move beyond the status quo and prepare for the future. 

We should not associate the protests in Jordan and Bahrain with 

events transpiring in Tripoli, Cairo, and Beirut. 

But there is one constant. We have failed to effectively use our 

resources to help build strong, accountable institutions that protect 

basic human rights. This administration’s prior decision to cut support from pro-democracy civil groups in Egypt and to only fund 

groups pre-cleared with the Mubarak government is a mistake we 

must never repeat. 

Then there is the mistake of the Bush administration, continued 

under the current administration, to conduct business as usual 

with the Libyan regime following the lifting of U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed in response to Libya’s state-sponsored attacks, which claimed the lives of many, including Melina Hudson 

and John Cummock. 

John’s wife Victoria, my constituent, and Melina’s father and 

aunt are in the audience today. Madam Secretary, I have a letter 

that they have written requesting yours and Director Mueller’s 

help in securing information on the role of Qadhafi and others in 

attacks on Western targets in the ’80s and the ’90s. 

2

Some of us objected to the normalization of relations with the 

Libyan regime, raising its deplorable human rights record. Regrettably, Libya’s deployment of fighter jets and tanks to murder those 

daring to express a desire for freedom is proof that the oppressors 

cannot be coddled or engaged. 

Then, the U.N. Human Rights Council refused to do anything 

about Libya’s gross human rights abuses. On the contrary, Libya 

was elected to the Human Rights Council last year. Days ago, the 

Council was forced to act due to the Qadhafi regime’s slaughter of 

hundreds of people in the streets. However, another U.N. entity, 

the Security Council, did find time just weeks ago to target our 

democratic ally, Israel. The United States needs to condition its 

funding for the U.N. on real reforms. Just as administration officials talk about smart power and smart sanctions, when it comes 

to the U.N., we need smart withholding. 

In our hemisphere, the U.S. approach is one of misplaced priorities. The Havana tyranny has again ramped up its assault against 

the democracy movement in Cuba, detaining dozens of peaceful 

protestors, beating mourning mother Reina Luisa Tamayo, and this 

weekend sending its shameless thugs after the Ladies in White. 

Yet the administration has repeatedly eased regulations on the 

Castro regime. Just weeks after the latest appeasement, the dictatorship announced its intention to seek a 20-year prison sentence 

for U.S. citizen Alan Gross, whose trial starts on Friday. 

When it comes to those countries that do share our values and 

our priorities, there appears to be no end to the stall tactics and 

empty rhetoric. Our partners in Colombia and Panama have gone 

above and beyond meeting the politically determined and everchanging benchmarks placed in the way of long-awaited free trade 

agreements. Hondurans who fought for their Constitution and rule 

of law against Mel Zelaya’s attack on their democracy are still suffering under the veiled reprisals of our State Department. 

These examples crystallize the complaints that the American 

people have about foreign assistance programs. My constituents in 

letters, e-mails, and talks with me and through our new interactive 

feature on the main committee Web site, ForeignAffairs.house.gov, 

keep asking: What is the return on our investment? 

Rafael Santana, from Miami, whose letter was published in the 

Miami Herald on Monday, wrote,

‘‘We are the most generous nation in the world and foreign aid 

should go to those countries that are friendly to us. When was 

the last time we heard of good will toward America? The majority of us haven’t—and don’t expect to.’’

Some attempt to obscure the facts through novel ways of slicing 

and dicing the numbers. But the budget request for International 

Affairs continues the significant increases of recent years. The cumulative $61.4 billion International Affairs request is a 42 percent 

increase over Fiscal Year 2008 levels. The increases are more dramatic when we focus on the State Department’s own salaries and 

operations. The $12 billion State Programs request is a 25 percent 

increase over 2010 actual levels and a nearly 75 percent increase 

since 2008. 

3

There is also a problem of misplaced priorities. The administration should not propose massive increases in global health and climate change programs while cutting key programs such as the 

Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership and the Partnership 

for Regional East Africa Counterterrorism, particularly as al-Qaeda 

affiliates in Africa set their sights on American targets and American citizens are being captured and killed by Somali pirates. 

The safety of our men and women serving with distinction in Afghanistan, Madam Secretary, and the country’s transition to a 

more stable and Democratic future must forever guide us. Pakistan 

must also do more to meet the pressing United States concerns, including the release of Raymond Davis, our detained American diplomat, and shifting its approach to Afghanistan, away from armed 

proxies and toward constructive and legitimate political partners. 

We must make those decisions in light of the unfortunate fiscal 

realities facing our Government and every American family. 

Those who complain about diminished levels of International Affairs funding need to ask themselves how much less would an insolvent United States of America be able to do? Our funding baseline has to change. The real question is not, ‘‘Is this activity useful?’’ but, rather, ‘‘Is this activity so important that it justifies borrowing money to pay for it and further endangering our Nation’s 

economy?’’

At this point, Madam Secretary, I would like to recognize my 

good friend and partner, the ranking member, for his opening remarks. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Ros-Lehtinen follows:]

4


64869b_1.eps
5


64869b_2.eps
6

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

Before I start my opening remarks, I would just like to acknowledge the tremendous work of Rich Verma, sitting behind the Secretary. He is the Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, and he will be leaving the State Department shortly. He was 

a tireless advocate for the Secretary’s agenda and the administration’s agenda and for issues of tremendous interest to this committee, including Iran sanctions. I want to thank him for his service and wish him all the best in his next endeavor. 

Madam Secretary, thank you very much for being with us here 

today. Geneva yesterday, Washington today. It sounds like just a 

repeat of your regular schedule. We appreciate this opportunity to 

discuss the International Affairs budget and the various policy initiatives you have championed as Secretary of State. 

Madam Secretary, in these challenging economic times it is critical that we make the most of every taxpayer dollar; and although 

the International Affairs budget makes up only 1 percent of the entire Federal budget, it funds some of the most essential elements 

of our national security. I know you are committed to getting the 

most bang for the buck. 

In the first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, 

completed last December under your leadership, the State Department places a welcome emphasis on improving monetary evaluation of programs, increasing transparency of aid projects, and on 

aligning priorities and resources. 

With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle, the responsible approach taken in the QDDR to achieve cost 


64869b_3.eps
7

savings stands in stark contrast to the Republican appropriations 

bill passed by the House 2 weeks ago. The reckless cuts in that legislation weren’t chosen because they looked at programs and said, 

here’s something that is not working, or here’s something we don’t 

need to do. No, the total level of reduction was purely arbitrary, 

plucked out of a hat, and totally unrelated to any thoughtful calculation of what was actually needed and how much it should cost. 

Their bill isn’t about making government more cost effective or 

more efficient. It doesn’t promote the kind of reforms and streamlining needed to ensure that our aid reaches those who need it 

most in the most efficient possible manner. It is simply a slashand-burn process, with no consideration for all the critically important work that is being destroyed or how it undermines our national security. 

The bill savages nearly every program that protects the poorest 

and most vulnerable people: Humanitarian assistance for victims of 

natural disasters, Pakistan, Haiti—I could go on and on—slashed 

by 50 percent, massive cuts in refugee aid. Look what is going on 

in Tunisia and Egypt right now, Libya. Food aid. Water and sanitation. Programs to fight AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Meanwhile, funding for the diplomats and aid workers that carry out 

these programs is also slashed. 

If there is anything we have learned over the past few years, it 

ought to be that we don’t just hand over money to contractors and 

other governments without adequate oversight and accountability. 

Supporters of the Republican bill overlooked two critical facts. 

First, as you, Madam Secretary, Secretary Gates, and our senior 

military leadership have said repeatedly, America’s national security depends not only on our men and women in uniform but also 

on the diplomats and aid workers who risk their lives every day to 

support America’s interests abroad. In fact, 15 percent of the Fiscal 

Year 2012 International Affairs budget request is dedicated to supporting critical U.S. efforts in the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. In the face of mounting deficits here at home, 

it is important to remember that these civilian efforts are much 

more cost effective than deploying our military. 

And, second, aid to others isn’t a gift. The United States provides 

foreign assistance because it serves our interests. Helping countries 

become more democratic, more stable, more capable of defending 

themselves, and better at pulling themselves out of poverty is just 

as important for us, our national security, and our economic prosperity as it is for them. The more we slash our foreign assistance, 

the more we cede the playing field to China, which is more than 

happy to fill the vacuum in Africa, Latin American, and Asia. 

Madam Secretary, over the past month we have witnessed a stirring series of popular revolutions across the greater Middle East. 

As Americans, we are inspired to see the people of Tunisia, Egypt, 

Libya, and other countries rise up to fight for the universal values 

that all of us hold dear: Freedom, democracy, and human rights. 

We all hope that the upheaval in the Middle East will lead to a 

brighter future for the people of the region, but we also must guard 

against the possibility that these movements for change will be hijacked by those determined to restore an autocratic form of governVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:43 Jul 15, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\030111\64869 HFA PsN: SHIRL
8

ment or by forces hostile to the United States and our allies in the 

region. 

Madam Secretary, as we all know, the Iranian regime is continuing its efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability, and this 

remains one of the most pressing foreign policy challenges facing 

our Nation and the international community. When you testified 

before this body 2 years ago, you pledged that the administration 

would pursue crippling sanctions against Iran; and we have certainly moved in that direction. Last year, the Obama administration had unprecedented success in building the diplomatic support 

for tougher sanctions on Iran at the U.N. Security Council. Congress followed by passing the comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act, the most rigorous sanctions ever 

imposed on Iran. That legislation, which was signed into law 8 

months ago, helped galvanize international opinion on Iran’s nuclear weapons program and laid the groundwork for other countries 

to impose their own national sanctions. 

Madam Secretary, we appreciate the fact that you have pursued 

the Iranian nuclear threat with great urgency and look forward to 

working with you to ensure that our sanctions laws are fully implemented, including against Chinese firms that, as you have indicated, continue to engage in sanctionable activity. 

My concern is this. We have not yet sanctioned any non-Iranian 

bank or energy company, even though we know several are engaged in sanctionable activity. Companies need to know that there 

are consequences for these types of activities. So far, no company 

has any reason to think there are such consequences. 

Finally, I do want to express my appreciation for the administration’s recent veto of a Security Council resolution targeted at 

Israel, which was a powerful reaffirmation of your support for 

Israel and for direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations leading to two 

states living side by side and a permanent Israeli-Palestinian 

peace. 

Once again, it is a pleasure to have you with us today, and I look 

forward to your presentation. 

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

Madam Secretary, Mr. Berman and I are honored to welcome you 

before our committee today. 

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton has served as the 67th 

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

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

has served previously as a United States Senator from the State 

of New York, as First Lady of the United States and of the State 

of Arkansas, and as an attorney and law professor. 

Madam Secretary, without objection, your full written statement 

will be made part of the record. If you would be so kind as to summarize your written remarks, we can then move directly to the 

question and answer period under the 5-minute rule in the hopes 

of getting all our members to have a question before you depart. 

Madam Secretary, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

9

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM 

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

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, 

and congratulations on your assuming this post. I want to thank 

you publicly for traveling to Haiti with our team on behalf of the 

efforts that the United States is pursuing there. I also want to 

thank the ranking member for his leadership and support over 

these last years. 

Late last night, I came back from around-the-clock meetings in 

Geneva to discuss the unfolding events in Libya. I would like to 

begin by offering a quick update. 

We have joined the Libyan people in demanding that Qadhafi 

must go—now, without further violence or delay—and we are working to translate the world’s outrage into action and results. 

Marathon diplomacy at the United Nations and with allies has 

yielded quick, aggressive steps to pressure leaders. USAID is focused on Libya’s food and medical supplies and is dispatching two 

expert humanitarian teams to helping those fleeing the violence 

and who are moving into Tunisia and Egypt, which is posing tremendous burdens on those two countries. Our combatant commands are positioning assets to prepare to support these critical civilian humanitarian missions, and we are taking no options off the 

table so long as the Libyan Government continues to turn it is 

guns on its own people. 

The entire region is changing, and a strong and strategic American response is essential. In the years ahead, Libya could become 

a peaceful democracy, or it could face protracted civil war, or it 

could descend into chaos. The stakes are high. This is an unfolding 

example of using the combined assets of smart power, diplomacy, 

development, and defense to protect American security and interests and advance our values. This integrated approach is not just 

how we respond to the crisis of the moment. It is the most effective—and most cost-effective—way to sustain and advance our security across the world, and it is only possible with a budget that 

supports all the tools in our national security arsenal, which is 

what we are here to discuss. 

The American people are justifiably concerned about our national 

debt. I share that concern. But they also want responsible investments in our future that will make us stronger at home and continuing our leadership abroad. Just 2 years after President Obama 

and I first asked you to renew our investment in development and 

diplomacy, we are already seeing tangible returns for our national 

security. 

In Iraq, almost 100,000 troops have come home, and civilians are 

poised to keep the peace. In Afghanistan, integrated military and 

civilian surges have helped set the stage for our diplomatic surge 

to support Afghan-led reconciliation that could end the conflict and 

put al-Qaeda on the run. We have imposed the toughest-ever sanctions to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We have reengaged as a 

leader in the Pacific and in our own hemisphere. We have signed 

trade deals to promote American jobs and nuclear weapons treaties 

to protect our people. We have worked with northern and southern 

Sudanese to achieve a peaceful referendum and prevent a return 

to civil war. We are working to open up political systems, econoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:43 Jul 15, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\030111\64869 HFA PsN: SHIRL
10

mies, and societies at a remarkable moment in the history of the 

Middle East and to support peaceful, orderly, irreversible democratic transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. 

Our progress is significant, but our work is far from over. These 

missions are vital to our national security, and I believe with all 

my heart now would be the wrong time to pull back. 

The Fiscal Year 2012 budget we discuss today will allow us to 

keep pressing ahead. It is a lean budget for lean times. I did 

launch the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review to help us maximize the impact of every dollar we spend. We 

scrubbed this budget and made painful but responsible cuts. We 

cut economic assistance to Central and Eastern Europe, the 

Caucasus, and Central Asia by 15 percent. We cut development assistance to over 20 countries by more than half. 

And this year, for the first time, our request is divided into two parts. Our core budget request of $47 billion supports programs 

and partnerships in every country but North Korea. It is essentially flat from 2010 levels. 

The second part of our request funds the extraordinary, temporary portion of our war effort the same way that the Pentagon’s 

request is funded, in a separate overseas contingency operations account, known as OCO. Instead of covering our war expenses 

through supplemental appropriations, we are now taking a more 

transparent approach that reflects our fully integrated civilian 

military efforts on the ground. Our share of the President’s $126 

billion request for these exceptional wartime costs in the frontline 

states is $8.7 billion. 

Let me walk you through a few of our key investments. 

First, this budget funds vital civilian missions in Afghanistan, 

Pakistan, and Iraq. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, al-Qaeda is 

under pressure as never before. Alongside our military offensive, 

we are engaged in a major civilian effort that is helping to build 

up the governments, economies, and civil societies of both countries 

and undercut the insurgency. These two surges, the military and 

civilian surge, set the stage for a third—a diplomatic push in support of an Afghan process to split the Taliban from al-Qaeda, bring 

the conflict in an end, and help to stabilize the region. 

Our military commanders are emphatic they cannot succeed 

without a strong civilian partner. Retreating from our civilian 

surge in Afghanistan with our troops still in the field would be a 

grave mistake. 

Equally important is our assistance to Pakistan, a nuclear-armed 

nation with strong ties and interests in Afghanistan. We are working to deepen our partnership and keep it focused on addressing 

Pakistan’s political and economic challenges as well as our shared 

threats. 

As to Iraq, after so much sacrifice we do have a chance to help 

the Iraqi people build a stable democratic country in the heart of 

the Middle East. As troops come home, our civilians are taking the 

lead, helping Iraqis resolve conflicts peacefully and training their 

police. 

Shifting responsibilities from soldiers to civilians actually saves 

taxpayers a great deal of money. For example, the military’s total 

OCO request worldwide will drop by $45 billion from 2010 as our 

11

troops come home. Our costs, the State Department and USAID, 

will increase by less than $4 billion. Every business owner I know 

would gladly invest $4 to save $45. 

Second, even as our civilians help bring today’s wars to a close, 

we are working to prevent tomorrow’s. This budget devotes over $4 

billion to sustaining a strong U.S. presence in volatile places where 

our security and interests are at stake. 

In Yemen, it provides security, development, and humanitarian 

assistance to deny al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula a safe haven 

and promote the kind of stability that can lead to a better outcome 

than what might otherwise occur. It focuses on these same goals 

in Somalia. It helps northern and southern Sudan chart a peaceful 

future. It helps Haiti rebuild. And it proposes a new Global Security Contingency Fund that would pool resources and expertise 

with the Defense Department to respond quickly as new challenges 

emerge. 

This budget also strengthens our allies and partners. It trains 

Mexican police to take on violent cartels and secure our southern 

border. It provides nearly $3.1 billion for Israel and supports Jordan and the Palestinians. It helps Egypt and Tunisia build stable 

and credible democracy, and it supports security assistance to over 

130 nations. 

Now, some may say, Well, what does this get us in America? Let 

me give you one example. Over the years, these funds have created 

valuable ties with foreign militaries and trained in Egypt a generation of officers who refused to fire on their own people. And that 

was not something that happened overnight. It was something that 

happened because of relationships that had been built over decades. Across the board, we are working to ensure that all who 

share the benefits of our spending also share the burdens of addressing common challenges. 

Third, we are making targeted investments in human security. 

We have focused on hunger, disease, and climate change and humanitarian emergencies because these challenges not only threaten 

the security of individuals, they are the seeds of future conflicts. If 

we want to lighten the burden on future generations, we have to 

make investments that make our world more secure for them. 

Our largest investment is in global health programs, including 

those launched by former President George W. Bush. These programs stabilize entire societies that have been and are being devastated by HIV, malaria, and other diseases. They save the lives 

of mothers and children and halt the spread of deadly diseases. 

Global food prices are approaching an all-time high. Three years 

ago, this led to protests and riots in dozens of countries. Food security is a cornerstone of global stability, and we are helping farmers 

grow more food, drive economic growth, and turn aid recipients into 

trading partners. 

Climate change threatens food security, human security, and national security. Our budget builds resilience against droughts, 

floods, and other weather disasters, promotes clean energy and preserves tropical forests. It also gives us leverage to persuade China, 

India, and other nations to do their essential part in meeting this 

urgent threat. 

12

Fourth, we are committed to making our foreign policy a force for 

domestic economic renewal and creating jobs here at home. We are 

working aggressively to promote sustained economic growth, level 

the playing fields, and open markets. To give just one example, the 

eight Open Skies Agreements that we have signed over the last 2 

years will open dozens of new markets to American carriers. The 

Miami International Airport, Madam Chairman, which supports 

nearly 300 jobs, including many in your district, will see a great 

deal of new business thanks to agreements with Miami’s top trading partners, Brazil and Colombia. 

Fifth and finally, this budget funds the people and the platforms 

that make possible everything I have described. It allows us to sustain diplomatic relations with 19 countries. It funds political officers who are literally right now out working to diffuse political crises and promote our values, development officers who are spreading opportunity and promoting stability, and economic officers who 

wake up every day thinking about how to help put Americans back 

to work. 

Several of you have already asked our Department about the 

safety of your constituents in the Middle East. Well, this budget 

also helps fund the consular officers, who evacuated over 2,600 people thus far from Egypt and Libya and nearly 17,000 from Haiti. 

They issued 14 million passports last year and served as our first 

line of defense against would-be terrorists seeking visas to enter 

our country. 

I would like to say just a few words about the funding for the 

rest of 2011. As I told Speaker Boehner, Chairman Rogers, and 

many others, the 16-percent cut for State and USAID that passed 

the House last month would be devastating for our national security. It would force us to scale back dramatically on critical missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And as Secretary Gates, 

Admiral Mullen, and General Petraeus have all emphasized to the 

Congress, we need a fully engaged and fully funded national security team, and that includes State and USAID. 

Now, there have always been moments of temptation in our 

country to resist obligations beyond our borders. But each time we 

have shrunk from global leadership, events have summoned us 

back, often cruelly, to reality. We saved money in the short term 

when we walked away from Afghanistan after the Cold War, but 

those savings came at an unspeakable cost—one we are still paying 

10 years later, in money and lives. 

Generations of Americans, including my own, have grown up successful and safe because we chose to lead the world in tackling the 

greatest challenges. We invested the resources to build up democratic allies and vibrant trading partners; and we did not shy away 

from defending our values, promoting our interests, and seizing the 

opportunities of each new era. 

I have now traveled more than any Secretary of State in the last 

2 years, and I can tell you from firsthand experience the world has 

never been in greater need of the qualities that distinguish us—our 

openness and innovation, our determination, our devotion to universal values. Everywhere I travel, I see people looking to us for 

leadership. Sometimes I see them after they have condemned us 

publicly on their television channels and then come to us privately 

13

and say, We can’t do this without America. This is a source of great 

strength, a point of pride, and I believe an unbelievable opportunity for the American people. But it is an achievement. It is not 

a birthright. It requires resolve, and it requires resources. 

I look forward to working closely together with you to do what 

is necessary to keep our country safe and maintain American leadership in this fast-changing world. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Clinton follows:]


64869a_1.eps
14


64869a_2.eps
15


64869a_3.eps
16


64869a_4.eps
17


64869a_5.eps
18


64869a_6.eps
19

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

I will begin with my questions. 

Madam Secretary, former Libyan officials are coming forward 

claiming to have proof that Qadhafi personally ordered the attack 

on Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. What is the Obama administration 

doing to depose and secure proof for the criminal prosecution of Qadhafi and his henchmen? Also, will the United States support the 

implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya? And when will the 

United States expand the asset freeze to include those who have 

been identified on the United Nation’s sanctions list? And, also, 

when will we institute a travel ban? What is the role of our U.S. 

military in the region? Is it humanitarian support along with our 

allies, and limited to that? 

On Iran, Madam Secretary, I remain concerned that the Department is not fully implementing the Iran sanctions law. Can you 

comment on the status of the five companies that the administration waived sanctions against through the utilization of a special 

rule in CISADA based on their pledge to cease all investment in 

the Iranian energy sector? How many investigations are currently 

open? And will you commit to us to brief the committee or staff on 

all investigations that the administration is undertaking on Iran 

sanctions law? 

I ask for U.S. protection for the many residents of Camp Ashraf, 

many of whose family members are here today in the audience and 

are concerned about their relatives. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Let me begin by saying that, when it comes to Libya, the United 

States has led the way in imposing very strict sanctions that are 

finding assets and preventing those assets from going to the Qadhafi family or the Qadhafi leadership. We have also worked closely with the European Union and member countries, because they 

also have many assets from the Libyans that they are tracking and 

freezing. 

We also, as you know, passed in a very quick, aggressive manner 

a strong Security Council resolution on Saturday, which gets the 

entire world behind targeted sanctions, arms embargo, humanitarian assistance; and yesterday in Geneva I had the opportunity 

to discuss further what more could be and needed to be done. 

There will be additional announcements coming from other countries, coming from the EU; and the United States continues to look 

at every single lever it can use against the Qadhafi regime. 

We are well aware of the ongoing efforts by Colonel Qadhafi to 

defend the area of Tripoli and a few other places that he continues 

to hold. The opposition forces have been working to create more of 

a military presence so that they can not only defend the places that 

they have already taken over but even try to take Tripoli away 

from Colonel Qadhafi. 

We are also very conscious of the desire by the Libyan opposition 

forces that they be seen as doing this by themselves on behalf of 

the Libyan people, that there not be outside intervention by any external force because they want this to have been their accomplishment. We respect that. But we have also with our NATO allies and 

with the Pentagon begun to look at potential planning preparedVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:43 Jul 15, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\030111\64869 HFA PsN: SHIRL
20

ness in the event that we feel it is necessary for both humanitarian 

and other reasons that there would have to be actions taken. One 

of those actions that is under review is a no-fly zone. There are arguments that would favor it, questions that would be raised about 

it, but it is under active consideration. 

With respect to Iran—and I know the time is so short and I want 

to be able to supplement any of these questions with written material—we are seeing the difference that coordinated sanctions can 

make. It is not only what the United States did with the cooperation and leadership of Congress with the CISADA legislation that 

added to the Iran Sanctions Act, gave the United States many 

more tools, but it is also because of the international cooperation 

through the United Nations Security Council and through additional add-on sanctions from many of our partners, including the 

EU, Japan, and others. 

Because when you are trying to sanction Iran, no matter how 

powerful the United States is economically and no matter how 

much we can do on our own, it is imperative that we get the international community to support it. Otherwise, there is just too much 

leakage. We have really limited that. I feel strongly that we are 

making an impact on that. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I respectfully request written responses as you offered to the questions 

that you were not able to answer because I asked so many, including the deposition of the Libyan officials, which is so timely. 

My good friend, the ranking member, Mr. Berman. 

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

I do want to commend to my colleagues on the committee the 

speech that Secretary Clinton gave, in addition to her excellent testimony today, but yesterday going to the Human Rights Council, 

where she discussed Libya, Iran, and other issues. It is really quite 

a remarkable presentation, particularly pointing out the hypocrisy 

of Iran’s condemnations of violence in Libya and what they do to 

their own people and protestors in Iran. 

I would like to try to get into two issues in this short time. One, 

the Israeli-Palestinian process. And I ask that because I struggle 

in my own mind with the right approach at this particular point. 

Has the emergence of protest movements throughout the Arab 

world altered the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking? 

Given Egypt’s preoccupations with its internal issues, I assume 

Egypt in the immediate future is not going to be very involved in 

Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy. How important is the removal of 

Egypt from the peace process equation? Is this a time when we 

should be pushing forward with peace efforts or should we wait for 

the regional dust to settle—sort of a bad metaphor, I guess, here—

before making another push? What do you anticipate from the next 

Quartet meeting, which as I understand is likely to take place this 

month? 

And I have one other question after that. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, thank you very much, Congressman 

Berman. 

We believe that a continuing effort on behalf of the two-state solution is first and foremost in Israel’s interest and, in addition to 

21

that, in the interest of presenting a very affirmative effort in the 

midst of all of this turmoil and change. So our work continues. 

We understand the changed landscape very well. One thing that 

both the Israelis and the Palestinians depended on was Egypt’s 

support for Camp David, Egypt’s support for the peace process. I 

was pleased that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in one 

of its earliest actions declared that it would respect the Camp 

David Accords. That was a very important message. We have made 

it clear to our Egyptian counterparts that we expect that, and we 

will do everything that we can to support it. 

I think it is fair to ask, given what is going on in the region, 

what is the chance for any kind of break-through or resolution of 

these ongoing matters. We know that it is difficult at any time, but 

we believe that this is an opportunity for Israel. There was a 

speech that Prime Minister Netanyahu gave yesterday that is reported in our press today in which he says he is well aware of the 

growing isolation of Israel in the international community. That is 

not good for Israel. That is not good for Israel’s economy. That is 

not good for Israel’s position and leadership. 

So I know that the Prime Minister recognizes that we have some 

very tough decisions ahead of us. So we work extremely closely 

with the Israeli Government, and we will continue to do so. As you 

and others have noted, the Security Council of the United Nations 

is not the place for these kinds of negotiations, but trying to get 

the parties back to direct negotiations remains our highest priority. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much. 

Across the Middle East and North Africa, as we have all noted, 

we are witnessing a transformational moment. These countries will 

need external support as they undertake successful transitions to 

democratic governments. Will the United States be able to provide 

sufficient support to transitional governments in Egypt and Tunisia and be prepared to assist in other countries as needed? We look 

at what is going on in Libya, Bahrain, Jordan, and Yemen, and are 

we going to keep in place a current policy that restricts USAID 

from providing democracy and governance support to NGOs that 

are not registered under the Egyptian NGO law? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, first, Congressman Berman, we are 

going to do everything we can to support this transition to democracy that is under way. Each country is different; and, very candidly, each country wants different things from us. They want either economic aid or they want the full menu of support on politics, 

governance, human rights, and the like. It is our intention, as we 

have already communicated with teams that we have sent out. 

Under Secretary Bill Burns has just finished an intensive tour of 

the region, talking to the leadership in the key countries, that we 

will stand ready, as we have already announced, with $150 million 

of reprogrammed money in Egypt, for example. We are trying to 

better coordinate with our European and other partners around the 

world so that we don’t duplicate what is being done. 

But with respect to the question about getting money into certain 

organizations and individuals——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Secretary, I am going to be a 

little ruthless, because we want to get all our members in. Thank 

you. I know my good friend understands. 

22

I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, Chris 

Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Secretary, welcome to the committee. 

I just returned from visiting our friend and ally, Japan, where 

I spoke with members of the Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Justice, 

and the Diet, regarding the fact that Japan has become a destination country, a haven, for international child abduction. I want to 

note parenthetically our Foreign Service Officers were extremely 

competent, as well as our Consul General, and empathetic. 

As you know, there are at least 171 abducted children and 131 

brokenhearted parents who are worried sick and have no access in 

most cases to even see their children. All of us, of course, want 

Japan to sign the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. But, as you know, that treaty will not 

solve the current cases, and they stand a great risk of being left 

behind a second time. 

My question is, what is the administration’s plan to resolve the 

current cases? On at least five occasions President Obama has met 

with both Prime Minister Kant and Hetoyama. Did he personally 

raise the issue of those children and their left-behind parents? 

Secondly, I would like to ask you, if you would, since 1979, brothers and sisters have been illegal in China as part of the barbaric 

one-child-per-couple policy. For over 30 years, the U.N. Population 

Fund has vigorously supported, funded, defended, promoted, and 

even celebrated these massive crimes against humanity. The facts 

are these—and they are uncontested—any Chinese woman, Tibetan 

woman, or Uighur mother without a birth permit is put under coercive pressure to abort; if need be, physically forced to do so. All 

unwed moms are compelled to abort their child. And in what can 

only be described as a search-and-destroy mission, disabled children are aborted as part of a nationwide eugenics program. Each 

day, Chinese family planning cadres impose huge compensation 

fees on any woman who lacks permission to give birth or somehow 

evades detection. 

There is no doubt that the UNFPA-supported one-child-per-couple policy in China has led to the worst gender disparity in any nation in human history. Where are the missing girls? Dead. Aborted 

because they were female. Systematically destroyed over 30 years 

by sex selection abortion. Today, there are as many as 100 million 

missing girls in China—gendercide, the evil twin of genocide. 

The societal implications of the UNFPA-supported one-child-percouple policy are absolutely staggering. According to the World 

Health Organization, about 500 Chinese women commit suicide 

every day in China. China has become a magnet for sex trafficking, 

in large measure due to the missing girls of China. 

In light of this massive ongoing crime against women, I would 

like respectfully to know if you or the President raised directly in 

a face-to-face manner the issue of forced abortion in China when 

President Hu Jintao was in Washington. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, let me start with your 

visit to Japan and thank you for bringing greater visibility to this 

very painful problem that I am deeply concerned about. 

23

In fact, I, for the first time, created in the Department the position of Special Adviser on Children’s Issues. It is something that 

I have worked on for my entire adult life, and we are actively engaging foreign governments to go ahead and join the Hague Conventions both on child abduction and on adoption. And I have 

raised it in every meeting that I have had with my Japanese counterparts—and I have had many Japanese counterparts because the 

government has changed in the 2 years I have been involved. And 

I know the President has also raised it. 

I appreciate your going to Japan, and I thank you for the kind 

words about the consular affairs officers there, because this is at 

the highest priority level in the administration. 

It is not only Japan. But Japan, unfortunately, has many more 

of these cases. We are also concerned about South Korea and many 

other countries in Asia. And in fact our Special Adviser hosted a 

meeting for all of our chiefs of mission from Asian countries, including Bangladesh, China, Japan, Laos, Nepal, the Philippines, 

South Korea, and Timor to encourage that this be put on the top 

of the list. 

With respect to the pending cases, it is my belief that if we can 

get the conventions approved, we will have a stronger argument on 

the pending cases. I think that there will be a recognition that Japanese society has changed its views about how these cases should 

be handled; and I think that will open more possibilities for the 

families that are, unfortunately, suffering from the abduction of 

their children. 

With respect to China, its one-child policy, its forced sterilization, 

its forced abortion——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I am sorry, Madam Secretary. Thank 

you so much. 

Mr. Ackerman, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the 

Middle East and South Asia, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Just when it was getting good. 

Madam Secretary, it seems like just yesterday that a faceless, 

frustrated fruit vendor devoid of a future set himself afire and now 

tomorrow ain’t what it used to be. Certainly not for millions of people in the Middle East, certainly not for most of the rest of the 

world. We have seen amazing things happen and taking place—

things that we didn’t necessarily anticipate. 

Others are watching it carefully as well. We see people demonstrating in the streets in countries which, to our amazement, are 

not holding up signs that say death to America or death to Israel 

or death to anybody else there. They are raising their own flags 

proudly, without trampling or burning ours. They are holding up 

signs—signs that are in English. 

You referred to meeting with people who made statements on TV 

and told you different things. These are people who are—publicly, 

their prayers may be going upward, but their hopes and dreams 

are directed to us. They are talking to us in our language. It is fascinating. 

We have to have a plan. They are looking westward. Others have 

been caught flat-footed, as well as have we. We see a young man 

who was one of the leaders in Egypt, an Islamic but secular young 

24

man, when asked who he wants to meet, he doesn’t say Muhammad, the Prophet. He says, ‘‘Mark Zuckerberg, the Jew.’’

There is an opportunity here that we have never sensed. This is 

a new generation of people. People have not been sent out into the 

streets by their parents to die, but parents are willing to die for 

the next generation. They have dreams, and they are looking to us 

to help them. 

What are we going to do? The opportunity is here. Why don’t we 

come up with something out of the box, something creative? Pick 

500 of the finest young men and women from some of our business 

schools, give them each $10,000. Maybe the Israelis will do the 

same. Let them start businesses with these young people. Let them 

work together. Let them find their own future. Let them find the 

way that they have indicated in the streets in which they are demonstrating that they want to go. 

This is a new direction. Let’s not wring our hands and say, Oh, 

my God, others are going to take advantage. The future isn’t there 

for us to react to. The future is to be made. Do we have a plan? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, we do. We have lots of 

plans. I am very excited by your idea, and I would welcome every 

member of this committee to offer ideas that would give us additional ways of interacting with the—particularly young people who 

are at the base of these transformational movements. 

Let me just say three quick things. We do have a lot of ongoing 

efforts that have been funded by this Congress over the last many 

years for entrepreneurial training. The President had an entrepreneurial conference last year, where we brought people from Muslim 

majority countries. I run into them all the time as I am traveling 

in the region. We have a Web site that keeps them in contact that 

helps to mentor them. We can take that and build on it and make 

it even greater. 

We have a lot of the MEPI programs and the so-called NERD 

programs, the Near-East programs, that have played a major role 

in bringing a lot of these young people to the United States on 

international visitors programs, on reaching out to them where 

they were in their own countries. We have to continue that. This 

is a labor-intensive, person-by-person kind of outreach program; 

and it is one of our hopes that we will get the resources to do that. 

We have increased dramatically what I call 21st century 

statecraft so that we have a social network connections system 

where we are talking to people in Arabic and Farsi, never done by 

our Department before; and I have empowered a lot of people to go 

and get this under way and be connected to their counterparts 

around the world. 

We do have to be conscious and aware of what people want from 

us and what they don’t want from us. And, again, that is evolving. 

So our Embassy and Bill Burns and others who have been visiting 

have been meeting with representative groups of young people who 

come from the entire political spectrum because we do not want to 

make the mistake of not including in our dialogs those with whom 

we have some difficulties because we want them also to feel that 

they can realize democratic aspirations, which is more than just 

having an election. 

25

So there is a lot to be done, and I think your idea is a very good 

one, and I will follow up on that, Congressman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. I am glad you are there. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Mr. Burton of Indiana, subcommittee chair on Europe and Eurasia, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURTON. Madam Secretary, we take an oath of office when 

we become Congressmen and you, as Secretary of State, to protect 

the United States from enemies both domestic and foreign. One of 

the big concerns that I have is our dependence on foreign energy. 

Right now, we import about 65 percent of our energy from outside 

the United States. When we had the oil embargo back in 1972, the 

early ’70s, we imported about 28 percent. So we are importing more 

than double the amount of energy we did back then. 

The concern I have is the unrest in Libya, in Egypt. If you look 

all the way across the northern tier of Africa and into the Persian 

Gulf, you will see that the potential for unrest is really, really severe. And I know you are doing your best. But, nevertheless, there 

is still that problem. If the Straits of Hormuz is bottled up, if the 

Persian Gulf is bottled up, if they do something in the Suez Canal, 

we could lose at least 30 percent of our energy. We are dependent 

on that part of the world. 

Now, this country has not moved toward energy independence at 

all in the last 40 years. We were importing 28 percent back in 

1970, 1972, and now it is 65 percent. Our dependency has continued on. And we have said we want energy independence. 

T. Boone Pickens was in to see me a couple of weeks ago, and 

I have talked to others that say we have the ability to become energy independent if we really want to do it. But because of environmental concerns, we are not moving. We are not drilling off the 

Continental Shelf. We are not drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. We 

are not drilling in the ANWR. We have got millions and maybe trillions of coal shale that can be converted into oil, and we are not 

doing a darn thing about it. We are increasing and continuing to 

depend on foreign sources of energy. 

This administration is doing absolutely nothing to deal with it. 

As a matter of fact, they are impeding our ability to become energy 

independent. Now we have got to do something about that. 

If we have everything go to hell over in the Middle East and if 

our good friend in Venezuela, Mr. Chavez, who is working with 

Tehran right now—they have flights going back and forth every 

week—if they decide to put the kibosh on us, we are really in trouble. Can you imagine what it would be like to lose 30 to 40 percent 

of our energy from foreign sources because we are not drilling and 

getting energy right here in the United States? 

So my question very simply is this. Why is this administration—

and you as Secretary of State are one of the leaders who is supposed to make sure that we are protected from enemies, both domestic and foreign—and right now, you know because you have 

been over the problems that we have in the entire Middle East. 

You know of the problems that we have in Venezuela. You know 

of all these problems, and you know of our increased dependence 

on foreign energy. Why is it? And can you take a message back to 

26

the President and just say, Look, it is time to get on with it. We 

need to do what is necessary to become energy independent. 

And the experts with whom I have talked—and I have talked to 

many of them—tell us we can become energy independent in the 

next decade if we really want to. As a matter of fact, T. Boone Pickens said if we do one thing, and that is convert our 18-wheel tractor-trailer units to natural gas, we could cut our dependence on foreign oil by 50 percent in the next decade; that one thing, and we 

are not doing a thing about it. 

And this administration, in my opinion, is being derelict in its responsibility, and you as Secretary of State, I implore you to go back 

to the President and say, This is just not just an economic issue; 

this is a national defense issue that we are not doing a thing about 

and we need to get on with it. 

And I would like to have your response. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I actually agree that our 

energy dependence is a national security issue. When I served on 

the Armed Services Committee, I authored some of the earliest legislation so that we would begin to look at alternatives, that we 

could begin to use the large Defense Department budget to try to 

explore what could be done. 

I don’t think there is any one answer, however. I do believe—and 

I followed up on that by having the first-ever international energy 

coordinator. In the QDDR, I recommended that we have a whole 

bureau devoted to energy because I do see it as you do, as a critical 

part of our national defense. 

I would take issue, as you might expect me to, with respect to 

your characterization of what this administration has done. There 

is a lot that can be done right now that would make us more energy efficient. There were a lot of programs and a lot of funding 

to move toward energy efficiency, which every expert I talk to, says 

can have a dramatic impact on reducing our use of foreign and domestic sources. That doesn’t mean that we don’t need to look carefully at what else we can do in terms of drilling and the like. That 

is a longer-term prospect. 

I am worried about right now, and I think some of the short-term 

decisions that are being made by the Congress undermine our 

march toward energy independence, and I think we have to look at 

a whole menu of what needs to be done. 

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

Faleomavaega, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Asia 

and the Pacific. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Secretary, it is always a pleasure and a personal honor 

for me to welcome you before this committee. I am sure our Nation 

deeply appreciates your service and outstanding demonstration of 

your leadership as the President’s chief diplomat in representing 

our Nation throughout the world. 

Just yesterday, you made a very important speech before the 

United Nations Human Rights Council in Europe, and now this 

morning you will be making a serious effort to save what is left of 

the State Department’s proposed 2012 budget, which, in my humble opinion, with a machete and a sledgehammer our friends in the 

majority are proposing to cut by as much as 50 percent of what the 

27

administration is requesting in order for your Department to carry 

out your many responsibilities throughout the world. 

How ironic, Madam Secretary, that here you are as the President’s most senior member of his Cabinet, and yet your Department’s budget is less than half a percent of the U.S. gross domestic 

product, or 1 percent of the entire Federal budget. 

Madam Secretary, it is my understanding that some of our colleagues in the majority have suggested that we should utilize the 

2008 budget operations as the benchmark for the 2012 budget 

cycle, which means a reduction of about 42 percent in the administration’s proposed budget. 

My question is, will your department be able to function with 

these kinds of proposed cuts that we are now considering seriously 

in the Congress? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I hope we don’t get to 

that, because it would seriously affect the missions that the State 

Department and USAID have been assigned, not only by this President but by the prior President. When President Bush and the 

Bush administration signed, for example, the Strategic Framework 

Agreement with Iraq, it was filled with the kinds of work that was 

supposed to be ongoing in order to solidify the relationship that 

had been built after our military leaves Iraq. 

I cannot stress to you how strongly I think it is imperative that 

we continue the mission in Iraq. We are talking about democracies 

in the Middle East. Forget about how we got there. The fact is they 

are trying to figure out how to have a democracy. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Secretary, in other words, you are 

going to be hurting. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, it is not me personally. It is our country and our interests and our security that will be devastated, in 

my opinion. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The chairman has a very strong hand with 

the gavel here, but Madam Secretary, I do have my laundry list for 

your consideration. 

Two months ago, as a member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, I submitted a strong letter to Assistant Secretary 

Arturo Valenzuela in your Department concerning the current crisis of the abuse and mistreatment by the Chilean military forces 

against the people of Easter Island, or Rapa Nui. Unfortunately, I 

have not received any response from Secretary Valenzuela’s department or agency. I don’t know what—maybe he is sick or just didn’t 

care or bother to respond. 

And secondly, Madam Secretary, I want to know if the State Department has any information or details concerning the plight and 

the suffering of some tens of millions of indigenous Indians living 

throughout Latin America, their problems economically, especially 

economically and socially, in terms of their critical situation. 

Also, the administration’s recent announcement that you were 

going to bring USAID back to the Pacific, and with the budget cuts 

now, does this mean that there is going to be no USAID for the 

Pacific region? And I am talking about some 16 island Nations that 

I am sure really have a need for this program. 

Also, the unexploded ordnance cluster bomb issues for the countries of Laos and Cambodia, the debt reduction also for Cambodia 

28

that has been going on now for 30 years and still don’t understand 

what happened there. I think my time is about ready to go, Madam 

Secretary. 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, I will get answers on all of 

these. But specifically, let me just respond on USAID’s presence in 

the Pacific. Here is an area where, number one, we are finding 

large energy deposits. I am sorry that Congressman Burton is gone, 

because also Papua New Guinea and in the land mass, there is a 

huge deposit that ExxonMobil is developing. We are in a competition with China that is unbelievable. They are expending enormous 

amounts of money. They have a huge diplomatic presence across 

the Pacific. The very least we could do is have a USAID office in 

either Fiji or Papua New Guinea so that we fly the flag and people 

know we care about them. That will be on the chopping blocks. It 

is one thing, but it really stands for a much bigger challenge that 

we are facing in that region of the world. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I might also mention China has about a 

$600 million development program for these Pacific island nations. 

And what do we have in response? Zero. My time is up 

Secretary CLINTON. Also, they will vote with us in the United 

Nations consistently, and China is trying to undo that. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Five minutes for Mr. Rohrabacher, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. First of all, Madam Secretary, let me compliment you on your energy and clarity after arriving here from 

meetings in Europe and arriving late last night. I don’t know how 

you do it. You have done a terrific job in advocating what your administration wants you to advocate. 

Let me ask you, I would like to be specific and give you a chance 

to answer this. Did President Obama confront President Hu during 

his visit to Washington on the issue of forced abortion? I think that 

could be answered with probably a yes or no. 

Secretary CLINTON. We consistently raise that with the Chinese 

and I want to just say——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is that a yes; President Hu was actually confronted by President Obama? 

Secretary CLINTON. I cannot answer that—I cannot answer that 

yes or no on that particular visit. I can tell you that we consistently 

raise it in our highest diplomatic encounters with our Chinese colleagues. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would that include the highest—has President Hu been confronted with the issue of forced abortion by our 

President? 

Secretary CLINTON. I will have to get an answer for you, but let 

me say that this is an issue that I started raising in 1995. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Secretary CLINTON. And I continue to raise it, and I am the chief 

diplomat and I raise it in every setting that I can. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Can you get back to me? You can’t give 

us a yes or no now, but maybe you can get back to us, and we will 

call you on this, as to whether President Hu has been confronted 

himself on the issue of forced abortion. 

29

Secretary CLINTON. I will certainly do that, and let me just 

quickly add, because Congressman Smith’s question——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You know what, Madam Secretary, I only 

have a couple of minutes to ask you some questions, and I agree 

with the question, but I was also doing Mr. Smith a favor. 

I would like to ask you a little bit about the nature of foreign 

aid. It seems to me that we give—when we are talking about the 

amounts of money that is being spent, the billions of dollars we 

spend, does it make any sense at all for us to be borrowing money 

from China and giving it to other countries, especially giving it 

back to China? 

I have noticed that you will be asking in your budget request for $1.3 billion to the—let’s see, it says here the global fund and the 

global fund assistance program. China happens to be the fourth 

largest recipient and has received almost $950 million. Now, what 

sense does it make for us to borrow money from China and then 

give it back to them in a grant, and then we are paying the interest, of course, on the money that we have borrowed from them? 

This is insane. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, first, you are not going 

to get an argument from me. I was part of, in an indirect way, the 

last administration that balanced the budget, and I wish we had 

stuck with it. And we find ourselves in a very challenging position 

now because of what happened between 2001 and 2009. So I am 

one of those who believe we have to be smart and tough and do 

what is necessary to balance the budget, and I don’t think it can 

all be done by slashing our foreign aid and our State Department 

budget. 

With respect to your specific question, we do support the global 

fund. It has been an efficient way for the United States to amplify 

our own efforts with respect to PEPFAR. And yes, China is a recipient, and China is stepping up and assuming greater responsibility than when we started, when they would deny they even had 

an HIV/AIDS problem. And from our perspective, HIV/AIDS is a 

communicable disease that actually affects the world, and therefore 

we want to stamp it out wherever we can find it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And your answer to my question is, yes, it 

does make sense for us to borrow money from China and give it 

back to them as a grant as part of this global fund assistance. 

Let me just note that we can disagree as to who caused the prob- lems for our economy. Let us just note that we are $1.5 trillion 

more in debt this year and the year before since this administration has taken power as compared to the last year of the Bush administration. Whether or not who is responsible for that, we can 

talk about later. 

Let me ask about aid to Pakistan, and again, we have only got 

a few seconds here. Pakistan has received billions of dollars’ worth 

of aid; yet they have a U.S. citizen, Raymond Davis, who is now 

being held under very questionable circumstances. Are we going to 

demand—are we still going to give our money away to people who 

support the Taliban and put our intelligence assets at risk? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, we are working very 

hard in order to achieve the release of Mr. Davis. It is one of our 

highest priorities across our Government. 

30

We do believe that the combination of military and civilian aid 

that we have pursued with Pakistan is in America’s interests and 

that is our first and most important——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah, we develop the plan, give to Pakistan, 

and Pakistan creates nuclear weapons——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I would 

like to recognize Mr. Payne, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. If you didn’t give the whole 

title, I might have had 4 or 5 seconds more. 

But let me just rest and say that it is so great to see you again, 

and let me commend you, Madam Secretary, for the outstanding 

work that you continue to do with your firmness and your knowledge of world affairs. 

I am also very distressed that H.R. 1, as it relates to our whole 

foreign affairs, issues at the National Family Planning, cutting 

$200 million; 83 percent less for debt restructuring for Haiti; 49 

percent reduction in international disaster assistance funds which 

helps with clean water, emergency shelter, health care, et cetera, 

rape prevention; 41 percent reduction in refugee and migration assistance; 17 percent decrease in the Peace Corps, which everyone 

says is the greatest program in the world, what we get back for our 

investment; 29 percent reduction in the Millennium Challenge Corporation. And we can go on and on. 

It is absolutely to me insane. Whereas it has been indicated 1 

percent of our budget goes to foreign affairs and we are slashing 

it. This is not going to solve our problem in this country by taking 

1 percent and cutting that in half to make you have one-half of 1 

percent going to alleviate problems in the world. So I would hope 

that there can be some changes made on the way to the budget 

question. 

Let me just ask quickly some questions in regard to south Sudan 

with the recent elections. Will cuts prevent us from really getting 

in there and assisting that new government? I am concerned about 

Darfur, that we don’t give up tough sanctions on the Bashir regime 

until Abyei is concluded in south Sudan, which it should be a part 

of south Sudan and the whole Darfur situation. 

I also would hope that we can step up our support for the transitional Federal Government in Sudan. I think there is a new offensive going on, and if we can support the African peacekeepers that 

are going to try to have this new offensive, I think that we can secure that area in Somalia. 

I will stop there for a minute and maybe try to give you a minute 

to answer a couple of those questions. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman Payne, I appreciate your 

listing the cuts that are in H.R. 1 because obviously those will have 

a dramatic impact on our ability to wield our power. I mean, that 

is what I am interested in. I am interested in results for America. 

And if we are basically going to people empty-handed or we are 

having to close offices and cut back programs so that we don’t have 

that relationship that enables us then to turn around, as we did 

with the Egyptian military, and say, ‘‘Hey, guys, remember us, we 

31

trained you, we worked with you, here is how we think you can do 

this,’’ we will be weakened. I mean, that is the bottom line. 

I mean, it is not a pleasant thing to say because I think at this 

moment in history, as much as any, it is not like there is no competition out there. Iran is competing with us. China is competing 

with us. We have people who are more than happy to step forward 

and fill the void that we leave behind. 

I was struck, for example, that the conservative government in 

the United Kingdom actually increased their development budget. 

While they were cutting everything else, they said, you know, if we 

don’t compete, if we are not present, we are really going to be off 

the map. And so they are actually increasing their development 

budget. 

So on these issues, like you mentioned, south Sudan, Darfur, Somalia, the United States is the major player, and I think we deserve a great deal of the credit for helping the Sudanese referendum for south Sudan to go peacefully. We are deeply engaged 

in working to resolve Abyei. We are still focused on Darfur. 

You mentioned Somalia and the transitional Federal Government. We are the largest supporter of the African Union forces that 

are in there taking the fight to al-Shabab Chicago which is allied 

with al-Qaeda. 

I mean, I could go around the world and point to where our aid 

and our diplomatic effort coincide with our security challenges, and 

what our military is doing and places where our military is not 

present, where we are the only representation of American power. 

You know, look, it is up to the Congress to make this decision, but 

as I said in my opening remarks, every time we pull back, we have 

paid a bigger price, and that is what I worry about. 

Mr. PAYNE. Even in Cote d’Ivoire where Bagwell is still staying 

in office, it has an impact on our chocolate industry, which is a big 

industry in New Jersey. So we are interconnected financially. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Mr. Manzullo, 

subcommittee chair on Asia and the Pacific. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Secretary, it is good to have you here this morning. I 

represent the 16th Congressional District of Illinois, not too far 

from Park Ridge, and 26 percent of our manufactured items are exported. We have over 10,000 jobs directly related to foreign direct 

investment from Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Israel, and 

other countries. 

And this past week, I led the largest congressional delegation 

ever to New Zealand and to Australia to discuss the Trans-Pacific 

partnership, and appreciate your going there in December of last 

year, signing the Wellington Declaration. It strengthens our ties 

with that part of the world. We got out 2 hours and 21 minutes 

before the earthquake hit, and it was fortuitous on our part. 

Our relationship with New Zealand and Australia is extremely 

important, and I am delighted that the Prime Minister will visit 

the United States next week and speak before a joint session of 

Congress. 

As a result of our discussions, I learned that the New Zealand 

Government is in the process of reauthorizing the patent system 

which will actually remove patent protection for software, and we 

32

discussed that at length with the Trade Minister, Tim Groser, and 

the Australians are in the process of adopting a so-called plain 

packaging rule for tobacco which adversely impacts the use of 

trademarks, and many people see the use of the patent system to 

enforce social change as being inimical to the United States’ 

strength in the patent laws as we know it. 

These issues concerning loss of patent protection for software and 

also for trademark protection are really disturbing to the nine 

countries that have been involved in those negotiations which, as 

you know, go back probably 10 years through several different administrations, especially in light of China’s continuous theft of intellectual property, closure and outright theft of American businesses, including a couple from my congressional district. 

My question to you is, are you aware of these patent issues and 

trademark issues involved in the TPP? And I would like to hear 

your thoughts on them and what America is going to do to try to 

turn around New Zealand and Australia to a higher level of patent 

protection. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, first let me say how 

pleased I am that you and your large delegation were safe. We had 

some very tense moments there trying to make sure that everybody, all the Americans as part of this large delegation, were accounted for. So thank you. 

And with respect to the TPP, although the State Department 

does not have the lead on this—it is the United States Trade Representative—we work closely with the U.S. TR. It is absolutely essential that we work with our friends and allies, particularly countries like Australia and New Zealand, to make sure they understand the implications of some of their internal domestic legislative 

changes. And we are doing so because I share your concern. We obviously have the biggest stake in the world in improving the protection for intellectual property, not seeing close friends and allies 

begin to remove those protections. 

You point out that China remains the largest violator, and part 

of what we have tried to do is to push them to recognize that as 

they develop they, too, will want the protection for their own intellectual property, and they need to be part of an international regime. So we are aware of this. We are working on it, and I will 

keep you informed about how the negotiations proceed. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you and I yield back my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Wow. Thank you, Mr. Manzullo, Man 

of the Year. 

Mr. Sherman, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I join with Mr. Rohrabacher and his amazement 

at your energy, which is exceeded only by my amazement of Don 

yielding back part of his time. And of course, Mr. Rohrabacher 

would be even more amazed if you reflected on the fact that I think 

this is your first of four hearings before various congressional committees over the next 2 days. 

I have got so many areas to pursue that I will mostly propound 

questions for the record so you will have a few minutes of relaxation. 

33

The Korea Free Trade Agreement. What worries me is goods 

coming into this country duty free, manufactured by North Korean 

or Chinese labor. For example on automobiles, the automobile 

could be 65 percent made in China, then taken to South Korea 

where it would be finished by Chinese guest workers residing in 

barracks in South Korea, and then this car could enter the United 

States duty free, having never been touched by a South Korean 

worker. 

Of greater concern is outlined in my letter of February 9 to the 

President, which I know your staff is already working on a response to, dealing with the special industrial zones in North Korea, 

in which North Korean slave labor is provided to South Korean 

companies. The South Korean Ambassador to the United States is 

on record as saying that he believes that the Korea Free Trade 

Agreement will pave the way for goods entirely produced in these 

slave-labor zones to enter the United States duty free. 

And if you review my letter, you will see that it looks like the 

South Korean Ambassador has a very good legal point, all the more 

reason why we need to change this agreement before we submit it 

to Congress, particularly the annexes described in my letter. 

I applaud your efforts to liberalize our export controls without 

hurting our national security. The goal has got to be jobs, but 

sometimes liberalization leads to exporting the jobs. If something 

is taken off the munitions list, then it could be manufactured in 

China and imported into the United States. If you license the export of tools and dyes and plans and technology, that can lead to 

goods being produced abroad. So I hope that prioritization in the 

liberalization is given to those projects that will provide more jobs 

rather than more offshoring to the American economy. 

As to Iran sanctions, I think the ranking member did an outstanding job in propounding the questions and pointing out how 

important this is. The State Department began a number of investigations, particularly of Chinese companies, back in September. 

Under the law, the State Department is supposed to complete that 

within 6 months—that means next month—and a question there 

for the record is whether the U.S. is actually prepared to sanction 

a firm located—and a major trading partner of the United States, 

also known as China. And if we are not willing to sanction any 

company in China, if we are looking to delay decisions where 6 

months ought to be long enough to make a decision, then we make 

a mockery not only of our policy toward Iran but of the rule of law 

in the United States, since the law does require certain action. 

As to the Caucasus, the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan stated recently that his country is seriously preparing for war. I hope you 

could outline for the record the serious repercussions that Azerbaijan would face if it renewed the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. 

As to an organization known as the MEK, the U.S. Circuit Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia has required the State Department to review its decision. A number of well-respected foreign 

policy experts have said the MEK ought to be taken off the list. 

This is the only thing that Howard Dean and John Bolten agree 

on, not to mention General James Jones, Bill Richardson, and Lee 

Hamilton recently. 

34

I asked for a classified briefing of the relevant subcommittee. The 

State Department refused because of the litigation. The Intelligence Committee provided it, and frankly, after that classified 

briefing, I thought that perhaps there was nothing done this century that justified the MEK being on that list, and it provided substantial ammunition to the belief that MEK is on the list as part 

of a peace offering or a concession to Tehran. So I hope that you 

will personally review the decision that the court has ordered your 

department to review. 

Finally is the issue of Libya. It may in the future, depending 

upon developments, be good policy for us to arm the Benghazi 

Army, if it ever organizes itself, if they have a functioning provisional government. And I wonder if you have begun the review of 

the recent U.N. sanctions and of U.S. law to make sure that America could legally do that should you decide it to be good policy. If, 

God forbid, there is a major conflict around Tripoli, let’s make sure 

the right side wins. 

I yield back. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you, Congressman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Without objection, members may have 

5 calendar days to submit questions for the record for the Secretary, Mr. Sherman, so we hope to get some answers to those important questions. 

I am pleased to recognize——

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that my letter of February 9 be made part of the record. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Absolutely, without objection. 

Mr. Royce, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Secretary, on the question of Libya, I think 

that one of the important resources could be Libyans and Libyan 

Americans for their input. Omar Turbi, who has testified before the 

committee before, is here today. I talked with him this morning. I 

know that Samantha Power, you know, in the administration had 

some observations. Some of those observations have to do with 

what we didn’t do in Bosnia in terms of jamming Milosevic’s radio 

stations. I actually carried legislation on doing this, but we couldn’t 

get it through until the bombings started. 

So I think right now if we look at the lesson of Rwanda, right, 

I mean one of the lessons is if we can—when a dictator is telling 

people to kill his own people, there is an opportunity, especially 

given the fact that he is jamming al Hararya anyway. So he jams; 

why don’t we put the assets up to take care of that? 

And one of the things, for example, that al Hararya could do if 

they were broadcasting would be interviews with Egyptian soldiers 

saying why they didn’t shoot, why they didn’t fire on their own people. This kind of thinking—because in a way it is an information 

war, isn’t it? And so I just wanted your response to that. 

And I was also going to ask you briefly in terms of another problem on the African continent that you are very well aware of, the 

LRA, Joseph Kony. Myself and a colleague had legislation basically, you know, to put the assets, deploy the assets. This is a fellow, you know, who just exists to pillage, and he grabs child solVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:43 Jul 15, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\030111\64869 HFA PsN: SHIRL
35

diers out of the villages, or grabs children and converts them into 

soldiers. 

So we now have passed the authorization over, you know, for the 

plan, and I was going to ask you also about implementation of that 

plan to remove him from the equation. 

Thank you. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I think that the ideas 

that you have offered regarding Libya are ones that we are seriously considering as part of the package of potential actions that 

are being looked at by both our civilian and our military teams. 

I also think that this is an information war to a great extent, and 

what we have been trying to do in the last 2 years is to rebuild 

our credibility so that what we had to say would be listened to. I 

did a Web chat with an Egyptian Web site, and we gave them 2 

days’ notice, and they went out in Tahrir Square and elsewhere. 

They got 7,000 questions. 

So people are really anxious to hear from us. And they are also, 

as you I think rightly point out, anxious to hear from each other, 

like the Egyptian soldier idea which I think is a terrific one. So we 

will follow up and give you more feedback about what we are 

doing. 

I could not agree more about the horrors of the LRA. This is one 

of the great criminals of the last 50 years who has pillaged, raped, 

abducted, kidnapped, killed in every way known in the worst of 

barbarism. So we are very focused on that. 

As you know, because you have followed this closely, he unfortunately has been harder to get than we would have thought. We 

have had a lot of support from allies and partners, but he unfortunately has escaped accountability. But we are going to continue to 

do that, and we appreciate your keeping that in the spotlight. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. 

I had a last question I was going to ask you, and that went to 

the request that North Korea is making of the administration for 

food aid. We have had hearings here in which a French NGO testified that they traced the food aid that they had previously given 

and found that it ended up on the Pyongyang food exchange, basically being sold for hard currency for the regime. What she was 

testifying to us, as a representative of this NGO, was the same information that we had also received from Mr. Yop who was the 

minister of propaganda, I guess you would call him, for like 50 

years, and he defected. And I saw that one of his former employees, 

a central committee member in North Korea, had told the press 

yesterday the same thing he had once told us. 

And the quote is, ‘‘We must not give food aid to North Korea.’’ 

This is from a former Politburo member. ‘‘Doing so is the same as 

providing funding for North Korea’s nuclear program.’’

What had transpired is Hwang Jang-Yop explained to us how 

they basically took hard currency. That is what they needed to 

build their weapons program, and they would get it any way they 

could. And one of the ways they get it is by the financial support, 

you know, that they receive. 

And so I was going to say that I think it is wise counsel from 

North Korean defectors that we not do that. I was going to ask for 

your opinion. 

36

Secretary CLINTON. We agree with——

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

Mr. ROYCE. I am glad you agreed. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Meeks of New York is recognized, 

He is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Europe and 

Eurasia, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Secretary, it is so great to see you, and I want to first 

commend you and all the diplomats under your charge for the tremendous efforts at the State Department to ensure U.S. security 

and prosperity in these challenging times globally. Through your 

skilled advocacy around the world to rebuild partners and to—reliable partners and bilateral engagement, you are making indeed 

America a safer and a stronger Nation. 

I also want to thank you. We have within our office a Pearson 

Fellow by the name of Nancy Cohen who is a Foreign Service officer, and she has done a tremendous job and just exemplifies the 

great people you have in the Foreign Service. 

Now, there are too many questions to ask and time is limited, 

so I am going to ask some questions that later that group can put 

down for the record, but before I get to the questions I also want 

to preference my statement by an overarching concern with the 

current budget that has been proposed by the Republican majority. 

The current administration inherited a geopolitical reality riddled with anti-Americanism. Now that our reputation is being restored and there is such an opportunity for positive change, is this 

the time that we really want to pull back funds that support critical programs and initiatives? This is more than just, in my opinion, penny-wise and pound-foolish. It is downright dangerous to our 

national interests. And you know, when you talked earlier in regards to Europe, even though they are tightening their belt, you 

know, they are also putting more money into foreign aid. 

One of the questions I would have is the partnership we have 

with Europe, whether or not—there is a perceived—you know, 

there is a perceived—whether or not we then begin holding up our 

end of the bargain. And we are talking about foreign aid, which 

brings me to the specific point of, you know, almost half of the 

funding is being cut from the population refugee and migration 

budget. 

You know, I am deeply concerned about vulnerable populations 

like Afro-Colombians and the indigenous that Mr. Faleomavaega 

was talking about, that live in the crossfire conflicts that are not 

of their own making, and to renew any of the progress we have 

made to make their lives more secure as a result of our own hemisphere, or our own hemisphere more secure. 

So my question, Madam Secretary, is since the United States is 

a leader in protection of displaced populations, what impact could 

funding cuts for the migration and refugee assistance account have 

on assistance of refugees overseas? How could reducing funding for 

assistance and programs that serve forcibly displaced populations 

impact the United States’ interests in such areas as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sudan? And what are the major concerns the 

37

Department of State has regarding the consequences of drastically 

reducing assistance to refugees? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, thank you so much, Congressman, and 

thank you for raising the refugee assistance issue. The United 

States has been, and I hope will remain, the leader in dealing with 

refugee challenges, internally displaced people, people fleeing from 

conflicts; and it has been one of the areas where we are able to 

claim that we put our values into action because we are there on 

the ground. 

You have been in refugee camps. You see the USAID big sign 

there. You know what it means to have experienced development 

experts who provide the base for a safe place, whether it is in eastern Congo or from a flood in Pakistan or in Haiti or anywhere else. 

So this is a particular concern, that we be prepared to continue the 

humanitarian work that undergirds a lot of what people know 

about us around the world. 

Now I have fought to be sure that when we go into these post 

conflict, post disaster situations, the United States’ brand is front 

and center. You know, there was when I got there, a feeling that 

maybe we shouldn’t be, so to speak, trumpeting our own horn. My 

attitude is, if the American taxpayers that are putting that money 

out there, if people don’t want American aid, if they don’t want 

USAID and our programs to be there helping them, then we won’t 

be there, but if they are going to take it, then we are going to be 

advertising it. 

So I think it is a big part of what we are doing, because what 

I found as I started traveling around the world is that a lot of people didn’t know what we did. You know, they said, ‘‘Well, wait a 

minute, you know, the Chinese are doing this and the Saudis are 

doing that and so and so are doing that.’’ I said, ‘‘Yeah, we have 

got more money in there than those guys combined, and we are 

going to get credit for it.’’

So it is not only doing the right thing, which should be the primary reason we do it, but frankly, I want to build the American 

brand again so that when people get food, clean water, shelter, 

they know where it came from. It came from the generosity of the 

American people. And so this is for me a big issue and we are doing 

even more to try to get that message out so that we can be the 

leader that I think the American people, with their generosity, 

want us to be. 

Mr. MEEKS. Let me just ask this. I know you won’t get a chance 

to answer because of the time. The other concern I wanted to raise 

was of the northern distribution network and how effective it has 

been for the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and what can be done in 

utilizing the network to improve U.S. relations more broadly in 

central Asia. Again, with Mr. Faleomavaega and being on this trip 

recently with him, we haven’t connected with all of those countries. 

It is such an important part of the world. 

Secretary CLINTON. Absolutely. That is a big part of it. Thank 

you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, and now I am 

pleased to give 5 minutes to Mr. Chabot of Ohio, our new Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia chairman. Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

38

Before beginning my questions, Madam Secretary, let me remind 

some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who keep bemoaning the cuts in the CR that we are broke, and the only reason 

that this Congress is even dealing with the CR is because the last 

Congress couldn’t even pass a budget for the first time in 34 years, 

at least in the House, and then couldn’t pass appropriations bills 

to keep the government functioning. 

So that being said, let me begin my first question with Libya. 

Madam Secretary, it is difficult to look at the initial U.S. response 

to the unrest in Libya and think of any word other than ‘‘tepid.’’ 

Although the administration has suggested that its initial reaction 

was tempered in order to avoid provoking a hostage situation, such 

fears did not seem to hinder other nations. The Chinese dispatched 

a frigate and the British dispatched at least two warships and employed C–130s during their evacuation operation. At the same time, 

our rented ferry was stuck in port because it could not initially 

make the journey across the Mediterranean. 

Everything that we have learned about the Qadhafi regime over 

the past decade indicates that its leadership responds to force or 

the threat of force. For example, back in 2003 when Qadhafi, after 

looking at the ease with which the U.S. military—at least at first—

dispatched the Iraqi Army, they feared that he might be next. His 

response was to agree to renounce all terrorism and hand over to 

the United States his entire WMD program. 

By sending ships to the Libyan coast, the British and Chinese effectively told Qadhafi that there would be a steep price in intervening in their evacuation. Why did we not do the same? Although 

we are now repositioning forces off the Libyan coast, our unwillingness to use or to threaten to use force to protect our own citizens 

has left many around the world pointing to this incident as a sign 

of weakness of America’s will. 

What led the administration to believe that threatening force to 

protect our own citizens would have been provocative? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, first, let me say that 

other countries don’t have the same history with Libya that we do. 

And if you look at some of the early statements that were coming 

out of Qadhafi and his leadership team, they didn’t talk about the 

Chinese. They talked about the Americans. 

Our Embassy was overrun in Libya in 1979. We feel that we did 

this in a prudent and effective manner, and we did it in a way that 

did not raise the alarm bells around the region and the world that 

we were about to invade for oil. If you follow, as we follow, all of 

the Web sites that are looking at what is happening in the Middle 

East, you see a constant drum beat that the United States is going 

to invade Libya to take over the oil and we can’t let that happen. 

Well, we are not going to do that and we are going to side with 

the Libyan people in their aspirations, but the last thing in the 

world we wanted was to start off with military assets when we 

very effectively got our people out. Yeah, the seas were high; the 

seas were high for the other evacuators as well. 

I disagree fundamentally with your assumption. I see no evidence that anybody thinks less of us because we were smart about 

how we got our people—not only Embassy people but American 

citizens who were working in Libya—out safely. And as soon as we 

39

did, we pivoted very quickly and led the way at the Security Council, have led the way in pushing beyond rhetoric with the Europeans and the others. It is easy to make a speech. It is harder to 

actually impose a sanction, freeze the assets, target the arms, et 

cetera, and I think we handled this in a very effective way and 

without a single problem for any American. 

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Secretary, let me move on. We have limited 

time, obviously. 

On the Iranian nuclear program, I would like to talk about that 

next, briefly. During the latest round of negotiations with the Iranian regime in Istanbul, the Iranians were adamant in emphasizing their right to indigenous enrichment. A recent bipartisan letter from numerous Senators reflects the overwhelming view of Congress on this question. It is still, however, unclear what the administration’s position on this issue is. The letter cited reports suggesting that the administration is open to an indigenous Iranian 

enrichment capability, albeit under certain conditions. 

The so-called Einhorn Plan would allow Iran to maintain 4,000 

centrifuges. The U.N. even went so far as to suggest during an 

interview with the BBC that Iran has a right to enrichment. Article IV of the on the Nonproliferation Treaty, the source of the Iranian claim, is not clear on this point. What is the administration’s 

position on Iran’s claim that they have a right to an enrichment 

program on their soil, and does the administration believe that the 

current regime should be allowed to enrich or reprocess domestically? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, it has been our position 

that, under very strict conditions, Iran would sometime in the future, having responded to the international community’s concerns 

and irreversibly shut down its nuclear weapons program, have such 

a right under IAEA inspection. I think that is the position of the 

international community, along with the United States. 

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

you. Mr. Carnahan, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations. And the reason I interrupt is we 

have got limited time, and everyone wants to ask questions. So I 

apologize, Madam Secretary. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome, 

Secretary Clinton. 

Personally, for the work that you do on behalf of the people I represent in Missouri, we really appreciate you being a one-person 

voice of America at a time when we really need it. So thank you. 

I wanted to submit two questions to you in writing, one about 

our continued work. We had an Oversight Subcommittee hearing 

last year. We heard from Stewart Bowen, and would like to get an 

update on the transition efforts in terms of reconstruction, how 

that process is going, and also would like to get a written question 

in to you about the ongoing engagement with Bosnia for constitutional reforms and the need for U.S. engagement with the EU. 

But I would like to focus my question about the voices of democracy that are really rising across the Middle East, North Africa and 

elsewhere, and the need to reevaluate our public diplomacy tools. 

Certainly, looking beyond our traditional state-to-state diplomatic efforts but about citizen-to-citizen diplomacy, the cost effecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:43 Jul 15, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\030111\64869 HFA PsN: SHIRL
40

tiveness of that—I am especially reminded of that. This past week 

I had a bipartisan town hall meeting with Congresswomen Emerson and Clay at Washington University. And a student came up to 

me there who studied in Cairo the previous year, was continuing 

to have contact with students there in Cairo, and how these kinds 

of engagements are so critical in those countries. Could you talk 

about that? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I agree with that completely, Congressman. If I could double or triple our student exchanges, particularly 

into this region right now where we have more of our students 

going to Cairo, to Tunis, to Oman, to places where young people 

are voicing their desire for democracy and more people coming from 

those regions, we have tried to increase our international visitors 

program and specialized programs, but I am a big believer in people-to-people diplomacy, and I would like to see us do even more 

of that. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And what about the use of new media? 

Secretary CLINTON. We are moving very rapidly on the use of 

new media. I have an extraordinary team of young people, as you 

might expect, who are leading the charge on this, and it has totally 

changed how we are communicating; because, you know, Twitter, 

Facebook, they are in real-time, and you can’t overlook broadcasting, and frankly, I wish we were doing a better job in our 

broadcasting efforts. 

I met with Walter Isaacson, who is the new chair of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Aljazeera is a 24/7 entity. The Chinese 

have started an English language television network. The Russians 

have started an English language television network. We should be 

by far the most effective in communicating. 

So, yes, social media is very important, but still most people in 

the world get their news and their images from television and 

radio. So we can’t forget old media while we try to break new 

ground in new media. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. And finally, I wanted to touch on another hearing we had last year. We had Ambassador-At-Large 

Verveer here talking about women’s empowerment worldwide. I 

really have serious concerns about the recently passed CR, the reinstatement of the global gag rule, the reductions in international 

family planning and global health assistance; as you mentioned, 

some of the programs that President George W. Bush was so supportive of. Could you talk about how this will impact women who 

are so vital to development, how it will impact those communities 

and, in fact, translate to our national and our economic security? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, thank you, Congressman. This is very 

close to my heart, and as you know, a woman dies from complications in childbirth every minute, about 529,000 each year, and we 

have made a lot of progress but we have a long way to go. And I 

am worried that, you know, the House 2011 budget proposes more 

than $1 billion in cuts to global health. 

What that means is that 5 million children and family members 

will be denied treatment or preventive intervention; on malaria, 

4,500 others; and more than 40,000 children under 5, of which 

16,000 are newborns, will not get access to effective child survival 

intervention. PEPFAR will have to turn away 400,000 people who 

41

require lifesaving treatment against HIV/AIDS. More than 16 million people will be denied treatment for debilitating tropical diseases. More than 40,000 children and family members will be denied treatment for tuberculosis, and we will have 18.8 million 

fewer polio vaccinations and 26.3 million fewer measles vaccinations. That affects us. 

I woke up this morning and was listening to the news and heard 

about the effort to find some woman who is wandering around 

Washington with measles. So this is not just what we fail now to 

do for others; it is how that will come back and affect our own 

health here at home. 

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

Paul of Texas. 

Mr. PAUL. I thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome, Madam 

Secretary. 

I want to comment first about the demonstrations and the 

change of governments going on in the Middle East and the Mediterranean. I think everybody is excited about that and always 

hopeful. I am hopeful, but not overly optimistic, because of the 

long-term history of 1,000 years that they don’t readily adapt to 

true liberty. 

The one thing, though, that might be different is the use of the 

Internet, and that is very positive. And yet governments are very 

strong, and that was the first thing they closed down over there, 

because the last thing governments want is information to get out. 

But a lot of people in this country have come to the conclusion 

that our policy overall has been inconsistent; that sometimes we 

support the bad guys and the bad guys become our enemies. For 

instance, you know, we worked with Osama bin Laden when he 

was fighting the Soviets. We were allies with Saddam Hussein 

when he was fighting the Iranians. We certainly propped up the 

Shah of Iran for 26 years, and that bred resentment and hatred 

that ushered in an age that now you are dealing with because we 

have radicals, you know, in Iran. So it goes on and on. 

We now have propped up Saudi Arabia for a long time, sold them 

a lot of weapons, and yet 15 of the Saudis were part of the 9/11 

disaster, and even the 9–11 Commission said that our presence 

there had a lot to do with that. 

We keep supporting Algeria and Morocco and Yemen and all 

these dictators, and yet we pretend that as soon as it looks like the 

dictator might fall, oh, we are all for democracy and we are for 

freedom and we are against these dictators. I don’t think the people 

there understand. I don’t think our people in this country quite understand either. 

You mentioned in your comments about Libya, that nothing 

should be taken off the table, which is to me a little frightening, 

because the previous administration would say that when they 

would be asked questions about first strikes, preemptive war, nuclear first attacks. That scares the living daylights out of me when 

nothing is taken off the table, and I dread the fact that we might 

be considering military activity in Libya. I mean, we are flat-out 

broke. We are in all these countries. War is expanding. We are 

bombing in Pakistan. We are dealing in Yemen. We really don’t 

42

have total control of Iraq, and partial control of Afghanistan, and 

it goes on and on. 

But the question I have is, isn’t there a limit to supporting these 

dictators? And I, of course, take a position which the least involvement, the better; and deal with people on different terms rather 

than saying, you know, we will buy our friends. I think a friend 

bought is not a friend, and I think a friend that is coerced by military power is not a friend and breeds resentment. 

What is wrong with swearing off support for and aid for all dictators? Just think what might happen in the Middle East, if we did 

that—I mean, here we have supported Egypt, $70 billion. They 

have a lot of weaponry there, and who knows what kind of friends 

they are going to be with Israel? Has this been beneficial to Israel 

with all these weapons here? Why wouldn’t Israel be a lot better 

off if we swore off all aid to all dictators in that country as a moral 

position, and as a good position for our national defense and our 

national security, as well as a good position for Israel. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, you make a very passionate argument, and my response is that the United States over 

the course of its entire diplomatic history has had to make some 

very difficult decisions. We try to balance what we believe to be in 

our interests. Sometimes, and I would argue most times, we get it 

right; sometimes we don’t. 

Take Egypt, for example. I believe that it was in America’s interests and in Israel’s interests to support Egypt following the Camp 

David Accord. Thirty years of peace between Egypt and Israel, albeit not a warm and fuzzy peace but nevertheless a peace, was an 

essential element of Israel’s ability to develop and continue to 

strengthen itself and in a very tough neighborhood. 

The fact that we did have those relationships in Egypt made it 

possible for us to have very, very frank conversations and prevent 

what we now see going on in Libya. 

Mr. PAUL. May I interrupt just a second to ask, is there no 

chance in the world that Israel might not be better off under these 

conditions? It seems like they could be worse off with what is happening over there, mainly because these dictators will have our 

weapons and they may well be turned against Israel? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, you know, I think the qualitative military edge that we guarantee Israel protects against that. I think 

Israel, certainly in my conversations at the highest levels, prefer 

predictability, prefer stability, do not want vacuums created that 

could lead to very bad outcomes for them. 

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

Sires of New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. 

Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for the service that you 

give this country, all these years that you have, and the way you 

carry and represent the country throughout the world. Thank you 

very much. 

I have a couple of questions. I hope I get them in. The other day, 

Defense Secretary Gates made a statement that was certainly very 

curious. He said that any Secretary of Defense that can recommend 

that we use ground forces, to the President, should have his head 

examined. 

43

The wars that we are in, all the billions of dollars that lead to 

part of the deficit that we are carrying in this country, is that a 

recognition that, really, unless it comes from the people of those 

countries, that we really shouldn’t go in with armies into some of 

these countries because we are just going to squander our resources and we are not going to really get anywhere? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I think that what the Secretary of Defense was saying should be heeded. It is a very strong warning. But 

I also believe that there are situations where we have no choice, 

but we need to be very clear that it is the only and best choice 

available to us. 

Mr. SIRES. Because I am concerned about this package that we 

have now in Libya and some of these countries. So I hope we don’t 

get ourselves into a ground war. 

My second issue has to do with Cuba. Obviously, we seem to be 

making concessions and we seem to be doing all the things that the 

Government of Cuba wants. And yet, at the same time, they are 

one of the biggest abusers of human rights. Just last week, they 

put more people in jail. They beat up Zapata’s mother, who is the 

political prisoner dying in jail, and yet we have appropriated $20 

million for human rights activities in Cuba, and we haven’t spent 

a dime of it. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, we are committed to 

spending that money. We are trying to do so in a way that will 

strengthen direct engagement with the Cuban people. I know you 

are very aware not only of the terrible abuses by the Castro government against Cubans but the holding of Alan Gross, one of our 

USAID personnel who was trying to get aid into Cuba to help the 

Cuban people. So we remain committed to advancing policies that 

will assist Cubans on the ground, and we are committed to freedom 

and democracy for the Cuban people. 

Mr. SIRES. Madam Secretary, I happen to have gone to Colombia 

for the swearing in of the new President. I have to tell you it was 

a great moment for me, a great honor to be there. But I thought 

that it was a little weak in terms of representation from our State 

Department that we have this neighbor, that we have this great 

ally, and yet there was a delegation of Congress people that went 

but we didn’t see too many people from the State Department representing this country. 

And now I see that the President of the United States is going 

to fly from Brazil, right over Colombia, into El Salvador and is not 

stopping in Colombia. I have been hearing what a great neighbor, 

what a great friend, what a great ally Colombia is, and yet we 

seem to basically don’t do the right thing. They have made remarkable changes in their country over the last few years. As you talk 

to different people—I go to Colombia just about every year—I see 

the changes. Isn’t it about time we move on Colombia and Panama 

and some of these issues? 

Secretary CLINTON. First, Congressman, thank you for going. The 

representation by the United States is only part of our engagement 

with Colombia and in particular with President Santos. We have 

maintained very close relations with him and with his government. 

We think he is doing an extraordinary job, and we are very proud 

that the United States has been a partner for the Colombian people 

44

now for a long time so that they can realize the benefits of the development that you have attested to. 

We are strong supporters of the Colombia and the Panamanian 

Free Trade Agreement. I would like to see those two, plus Korea, 

passed this year. I think it is in America’s interest, and we are 

working very closely with the Colombians and with the Congress 

to try to make sure we can do that. 

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

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

Mr. Pence, the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Middle East 

and South Asia, is recognized. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Chairman. 

I want to thank the Secretary of State for her testimony and for 

her service to the country. It is good to see you back before the 

committee. 

I also want to thank you specifically for the efforts by the administration and your offices to further isolate Libya during a time of 

extraordinary tragedy in the streets, tragedy of which I think we 

are probably only partially aware. I want to continue to encourage 

and urge the administration to stand with those that are standing 

in that now-bifurcated country to use all means at our disposal to 

provide support and certainly associate myself with Mr. Royce’s 

comments about isolating radio communications and would express 

appreciation for your efforts at Geneva and elsewhere to facilitate 

a coordinated international response, including a no-fly zone. Qadhafi must go. I am grateful to hear the Secretary of State and the 

administration take that position unambiguously. 

I also want to thank you for mentioning President George W. 

Bush’s PEPFAR initiative in your testimony. We haven’t gotten 

quite as much praise about that in the last couple of years as I 

think is warranted. Your comments are most welcome. 

Let me take you back. In your testimony today, Madam Secretary, on page 5 you make reference to the 16-percent cut for 

State and USAID as potentially being ‘‘devastating to our national 

security.’’ I allow you your opinion on that, of course. 

Let me say, though, that I am more associated with your statement on September 10, 2010, in which you were quoted as saying: 

‘‘Our rising debt levels pose a national security threat.’’ It was in 

remarks that you made to the Council on Foreign Relations. 

A couple of facts, and then I would love to get your response to 

them. 

You used the number 16-percent cut, and I won’t question your 

staff’s arithmetic on that. We had a pretty long debate over the 

continuing resolution. But as we have broken it down, the projects 

that were eliminated in the base text, for your information, include 

$300 million in contribution to the Clean Technology Fund; $75 

million eliminated in the Strategic Climate Fund; $55 million 

eliminated from the United Nations Population Fund, a fund that 

has been a source of great controversy; $5.75 eliminated from Cultural Preservation. Global Diversity Trust took a $10 million hit. 

You will forgive me, Madam Secretary, if I see none of those as 

devastating to our national security. 

Also, in terms of the reductions of programs, even after you factor in the programs that were eliminated and those that were reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:43 Jul 15, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\030111\64869 HFA PsN: SHIRL
45

duced, as the chairman pointed out earlier there is still a rather 

significant increase in spending over 2008 levels. And at a time 

when we are facing a $1.65 trillion deficit—a deficit contributed to 

by leadership of both political parties, let me stipulate—we are facing a $14 trillion national debt, which could well double over the 

next 10 years, I find myself more associating with your September 

comments before the Council on Foreign Relations than with the 

assertion that a 16-percent cut in a State and USAID budget that 

has been greatly expanded in the last 3 years is in fact, to use your 

words, devastating to our national security. 

So I raise that by way of asking for your response about where 

do we cut, where do we begin? If we can’t do without programs like 

the Clean Technology Fund, the Strategic Climate Fund, the Fund 

for Cultural Preservation, if we can’t suffer a modest reduction that 

still leave us above the 2008 levels, I would welcome your response 

to where we do begin to put our fiscal house in order. 

Because I was one of the members of this committee that helped 

to engineer a couple of times the passage of the PEPFAR program. 

Despite my cheerful conservative record, I believe that the compassion of the American people is expressed in the manner in which 

we come alongside other nations, particularly those in the twothirds world, particularly those at the point of the need. 

But we are in trouble here. This country is going broke. We have 

to ask every department of this government—with the exception, I 

would allow, of people that are downrange in the field wearing our 

uniform and our veterans—I think we have got to look at every aspect of the government and say, Where can we save? 

So where is the right place to start in what remains at the time? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, I really appreciate your 

thoughtful question, and I recognize the dilemma. I guess my plea 

would be that we look hard at what we are doing that is part of 

national security. I would like to see what we are doing in the 

frontline states, for example, treated in the same way as the military overseas contingency operations are treated. Because what 

will happen is that the obligations that we face in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, which are really in support of the courage of 

our military that has sacrificed so much, is either going to save the 

gains or lose the gains over the next few years. 

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

apologize. 

My Florida colleague, Mr. Deutch of Florida. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Welcome, Madam Secretary. I would like to add my voice as well 

to thanking you for your passionate defense of American values as 

you travel throughout the globe as our top diplomat. 

There were reports that surfaced last week about the IAEA quarterly report that has disclosed new information that Iran is exploring ways to militarize its nuclear weapons program, including ways 

to affix atomic weapons on long-range missiles. Further, the report 

stated that Iran is trying to move advanced centrifuges into Natanz 

that could reduce the amount of time needed to produce weaponsgrade fuel. Iran is continuing to expand its production of nuclear 

fuel, according to the IAEA. They now possess over 8,000 pounds 

46

of low-enriched uranium, enough to build two to three nuclear 

weapons should they proceed with weaponization. 

The President stated in his first press conference as President of 

the United States that Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon is 

unacceptable and that we have to mount an international effort to 

prevent that from happening. I would ask, Madam Secretary, as a 

start, if you could speak to the efforts of the administration and the 

State Department specifically in enforcing CISADA’s successes to 

date, and then I will have a follow-up. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

We have, we think, put together, thanks to the work of this committee and others, a very effective sanctions regime which we are 

constantly looking to improve, to tighten, to strengthen; and we 

welcome the advice from this committee particularly. 

When we passed CISADA, it was on top of the Iran Sanctions 

Act. Last fall, I imposed sanctions for the first time in the history 

of the Iran Sanctions Act on the Swiss-based, Iranian-owned firm 

NaftIran Intertrade Company, so-called NICO. It was a major investor in a number of oil and gas projects in Iran. We also took the 

advantage of what was in CISADA to begin to sanction on human 

rights. We got more designations in addition to what we have already done coming. 

We have used CISADA to convince Shell, State Oil, ENI, Total, 

and Impex to withdraw from Iran and promise not to do any further business in Iran’s oil sector. We have worked with a number 

of our partners to see these kinds of developments. A number of 

shipping companies have discontinued services to Iran. Several 

maritime shipping insurers have announced they will not provide 

coverage for Iran-bound vessels. Major energy traders have discontinued the sale of refined products to Iran. 

As a result of restrictions on gas exports, it has been forced to 

convert lucrative petrochemical plants to produce low-quality gasoline, costing them millions in revenue. They have reduced their 

gasoline subsidies, increasing the prices 400 percent and 2,000 percent for diesel fuel. That has all had an amplifying effect on negative trends in the Iranian mismanaged economy. And we continue 

our international outreach. We have informed firms that we are 

going to add additional sanctions. 

So we think we have made progress with international support, 

but we have more that we think we need to do. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I appreciate that, Madam Secretary. 

Along those same lines, China recently announced a $2.5 billion 

new investment in Iran’s oil production. How is the Department 

dealing with China’s continued evasion of sanctions and what leverage do we have with the Chinese to urge, if not force, compliance? 

Secretary CLINTON. We actually have worked closely with the 

Chinese, but it is a never-ending effort. They are hungry for energy. They do not see Iran particularly as a threat to them. So 

they, after much diplomatic effort and arm-twisting, went along 

with the Iran Sanctions Act in the Security Council, but it is a constant, committed, determined effort for us to keep them abiding by 

the sanctions they agreed to. We literally work on it every day. 

47

Mr. DEUTCH. Finally, the Office of Terrorism Finance and Economic Sanctions Policy, the office that is charged with enforcing 

these sanctions, runs on, at least with respect to Iran, a staff of essentially four people. So the question I have is, won’t we be jeopardizing national and international security if they don’t have the 

appropriate funds, if the cuts go through, in order to enforce these 

sanctions that exist? 

Secretary CLINTON. We have had such a terrific team both at the 

Treasury Department and in the State Department. I was the first 

person who set up a designated sanctions operation inside the 

State Department because we went to all this trouble to pass sanctions on North Korea, pass sanctions on Iran, and then we just 

didn’t follow through the way I wanted to see. So it is important 

we keep doing that. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the chair of the Subcommittee 

on the Western Hemisphere, Mr. Mack of Florida. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Madam Chair; and, Madam Secretary, it 

is great to see you again. 

Just a quick statement. As I have listened to my colleagues on 

both sides and your opening statement, Madam Secretary, more 

money is not leadership. Leadership comes from within one’s character and a clarity of purpose. Let me suggest that America’s leadership lies in freedom and in an understanding that freedom is the 

core of all human progress. So as we talk about budget issues, I 

think it is important to understand that it is America’s leadership 

in freedom that matters around the world. 

I was interested to hear your responses to my colleagues’ questions in particular about the Iran Sanctions Act and how you have 

applied sanctions already. My first question is, if Venezuela is in 

violation of U.S. sanctions on Iran, will you act? 

Secretary CLINTON. Yes. 

Mr. MACK. Have you seen the published, signed contracts that 

guarantee the transfer and liability of two cargos of gasoline from 

Venezuela to Iran? 

Secretary CLINTON. We have seen a lot of statements and contracts coming out of Venezuela, but we don’t see much followthrough yet. 

Mr. MACK. Madam Chair, I would like to submit this for the 

record. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Without objection. 

Mr. MACK. Assistant Secretary Valenzuela testified before the 

Western Hemisphere Subcommittee that Iran is in violation of 

sanctions. Let me ask you this question again. Will you act on this 

violation? 

Secretary CLINTON. Of course, if there is a violation. Currently, 

our best information is that their relationship is largely diplomatic 

and commercial and has not moved in the direction they keep talking about. But we follow it closely. If there is evidence that they 

have violated the sanctions, we will come down on them. 

Mr. MACK. Well, again, I would suggest that you look back at the 

documents where I think it shows that they are in violation; and 

your own Assistant Secretary Valenzuela testified that they are in 

violation of the Act. As part of the Iran Sanctions Act—I think it 

48

is section 7 of the Iran Sanctions Act—that the Secretary of State 

may issue an advisory opinion explaining whether an action is in 

violation. And myself, the citizens of the United States, and people 

around the world are looking forward to your advisory opinion on 

whether you think Venezuela is in violation. 

I think it is pretty clear that Hugo Chavez supports regimes, dictators, the destruction of human rights. This is not someone that 

we want to align ourselves with. In fact, I was disturbed to hear 

that he was asking Qadhafi—or letting Qadhafi come to Venezuela. 

Whether that is true or not, the fact that he thinks that that is a 

good thing is shocking to me. So I look forward to your response 

on this. I think the evidence is pretty clear. 

The Assistant Secretary also talked about Chavez supporting 

international terrorist organizations. In fact, he agrees with me 

that Chavez is supporting international terrorist organizations. Do 

you believe Mr. Valenzuela’s statement that Chavez is supporting 

terrorist organizations? 

Secretary CLINTON. First, Congressman, I agree with your description of his statements, his rhetoric, which is deeply troubling 

and deplorable. We constantly look for evidence. We have a certain 

evidence standard that we have to meet that the Congress has set. 

Mr. MACK. Madam Secretary, I think it is out there, and we are 

dying for you to act. We cannot continue to wait. Action must be 

taken on this. 

Let me ask you another question, since I only have about 45 sec- onds. Joe Kennedy, who draws about a $600,000 salary from his 

supposed nonprofit Citizens Energy, is a public relations shield for 

Hugo Chavez. We all know the record of Chavez, but Joe Kennedy 

continues to promote this dictator while lining his own pockets. I 

have condemned Joe Kennedy. Are you prepared to condemn Joe 

Kennedy for continuing to support and be a shill Hugo Chavez? 

Secretary CLINTON. I am not going to condemn him. I have no 

information that leads me to that conclusion. But we will get back 

to you, and we will certainly brief you and your staff on what we 

actually know. And if you have additional evidence on Chavez——

Mr. MACK. Madam Secretary, on Joe Kennedy, all you need to 

do is watch the nightly news and see the commercials that he is 

running in support of Chavez. 

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

I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Cardoza of California. 

Mr. CARDOZA. I would like to thank my friend, the chairwoman 

of this committee, and thank her for the great job that she does. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for being here with us. Thank you 

for your continued outstanding service to our country. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you. 

Mr. CARDOZA. I am a huge fan; and, because of that, I am going 

to actually allow you to answer the question that I ask. 

Madam Secretary, at least 70 people were killed during an attack 

last October in Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad, making 

it the worst massacre of Iraqi Christians since 2003. Less than 2 

months later, extremists bombed the homes of more than a dozen 

Christian families in Baghdad as well. On New Year’s Eve, 23 people were killed by a suicide bomber in Alexandria, Egypt, while 

coming out of Mass at St. Mark’s and St. Peter’s Coptic Church. 

49

Since these tragic incidents, the Middle East has been rocked by 

wide-ranging democratic protests and regime changes, as we have 

seen in the last few weeks. How has this ongoing instability affected the already heightened risk to vulnerable religious minority 

groups like Assyrians, Jews, Copts, and others? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, thank you for asking that 

question. I think this has not gotten the level of attention and concern that it should. We immediately went into action when the 

bombings took place in Baghdad. Our Ambassador was deeply involved with the government, making sure that there was protection 

and security. The Ambassador went to Mass in order to show solidarity with Iraqi Christians. But there is no doubt that Christians 

and other minority groups are feeling under pressure and are leaving countries from North Africa to South Asia because they don’t 

feel protected. 

I think we need to do much more to stand up for the rights of 

religious minorities. And, obviously, I am deeply concerned about 

what happened to the Christians in Iraq and the Christians in 

Egypt. I am also concerned about what happens to minority Muslim groups in Pakistan and elsewhere. So you have raised an issue 

that I think is one of deep concern, and we have to be speaking 

out more, and we have to hold governments accountable. 

When I spoke with the prior Egyptian Government after the Alexandria bombing, they expressed the same level of outrage that I 

felt. They said that the Copts are part of Egyptian history. As you 

recall from Tahrir Square, there was a lot of interfaith efforts with 

Copts and Muslims worshipping together. Let’s hope that continues 

and let’s do whatever we can to make that the future, instead of 

what I am fearful of, which is driving out religious minorities. 

The final thing I would say on that, because it is an issue I have 

paid a lot of attention to, we want to protect religion and religious 

believers, but we don’t want to use some of the tools that other 

countries are proposing, which is to criminalize defamation, criminalize in the broadest possible definition blasphemy, and then use 

it to execute, harass, and otherwise oppress religious minorities. 

So we have to come up with an international consensus about 

what we are going to do to protect those who are exercising their 

conscience. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you very much. 

My second question deals with the events again that have highlighted the unique role Israel plays in the Middle East as a reliable, stable, and democratic ally that shares our values and interest. Likewise, there is no question that the tumult throughout the 

region and especially in Egypt raises strategic questions for Israel. 

My question is this. Is the administration in close contact with 

the Government of Israel about the impact of recent events on 

Israel’s QME and possible new threats it faces? In light of the current uncertainty, is the administration reconsidering the massive 

sales of advance weaponry in the region, some of which were already notified, in order to protect the quality military advantage? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, first let me say we are in constant, probably daily, contact with our counterparts in the Israeli 

Government at all levels of our Government. 

50

Secondly, the Qualitative Military Edge is absolutely a commitment that this administration has followed up on. Secretary Gates 

has said publicly and privately on numerous occasions that in the 

last 2 years we have probably done more to enhance Israel’s defense than at any previous period. This administration has delivered for Israel. It is not maybe as well known because it is both 

public and classified, but I want to make sure that members of the 

committee know that this administration time and again has made 

sure that Israel has what it needs to protect itself. 

Of course, we discuss with Israel other actions that we take in 

the region. I think right now we are all in agreement about what 

we need to be doing. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

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

Madam Secretary. 

Mr. Fortenberry, the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Africa, 

Global Health, and Human Rights, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Madam Chair; and thank you, 

Madam Secretary, for joining us today. I just read your remarks to 

the Human Rights Council from yesterday. Well done. Madam Secretary, as we consider the administration’s nearly $61 

billion in International Affairs budget request, I believe we must 

balance two factors: First is the threat posed by unprecedented levels of national debt; second, with the essential necessity to engage 

with other nations for our national security purpose while also upholding our noblest ideals. But our primary responsibility is to the 

American people. They must know that the Federal Government is 

wisely spending their tax dollars and ensuring that our programs 

reflect their core values. 

I think we also must do the right thing by standing with those 

throughout the world who need and merit our support. The historic 

upheavals in recent weeks in the Middle East demonstrate before 

the world an operative American principle that the legitimacy of 

government derives from the consent of the governed. Our policies 

must reflect this Nation’s enduring commitment to legitimate government, to human dignity, as well as to economic engagement for 

the well-being of persons. 

Madam Secretary, for decades, U.S. policy has assumed that political and human rights gains would inevitably flow from economic 

liberalization. That assumption, however well-intended, sometimes 

is lacking. It has it its drawbacks. 

Look at China, for instance. China gives cover to North Korea’s 

nuclear weapons programs; China trades with Iran; China does not 

respect human rights, including the barbaric practice of forced 

abortion and sterilization. China is probably jamming coverage of 

this hearing today, and they have jammed coverage of the events 

throughout the Middle East. 

Let’s look at Iran. In Iran, human dignity is trampled in the 

name of religious dictatorship and autocracy. Iran is also seeking 

aggressively nuclear weapons capability, and it crushes dissent. 

So, Madam Secretary, three questions. 

Is it time for the United States and members of the responsible 

international community to speak boldly, clearly, and frequently in 

support of the people of Iran who are seeking a more just and modVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:43 Jul 15, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\030111\64869 HFA PsN: SHIRL
51

erate government? Why do people have the right to live free from 

fear in Tripoli but not in Tehran? 

Secondly, is it time for the United States to singularly elevate 

the role of human rights, universal rights, in our bilateral relationship with China? 

And, third, as you touched upon in the last question, what will 

the administration do to emphasize to governments in transition 

throughout the Middle East that religious freedom is a universal 

and indispensable aspect of a vibrant democracy? 

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

Thank you for your leadership on these important issues. I agree 

that it must be a constant and loud chorus coming from not only 

the United States but like-minded countries in favor of human 

rights in Iran. 

I do think that we have seen the active opposition crushed and 

oppressed. Our latest information is that Mousavi and Karoubi 

may be imprisoned. There is dispute about that, but they are certainly under house arrest, if they are not actually in prison. 

What many had advised before, that we not throw ourselves into 

the middle of their legitimate uprising, may be moot. Therefore, as 

I said yesterday, as a statement that I issued a few days ago, we 

have to go chapter and verse about everything that Iran is doing 

that abuses the rights of its own people and exposes their hypocrisy 

as they try to somehow identify with the legitimate aspirations for 

democracy and human rights in the region. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. This is a shift or new emphasis in our policy? 

Secretary CLINTON. We have always taken that position, but we 

have tried to modulate it to some extent, Congressman, because of 

the warnings we were receiving from within Iran and outside Iran. 

You speak to some of the same experts who were worried that the 

regime would basically paint everybody who opposed them as 

American stooges. So we have done a lot of messaging, but I think 

it is fair to conclude that at this point in time the more we can 

point out their double standard and their hypocrisy the better off 

we will be. 

Secondly, on China, we always raise human rights. I raise it all 

the time. The President, I know, raises it. I was jammed in 1995. 

My Internet speech was jammed a few weeks ago. So I am well 

aware of how they try to control information. We will continue to 

raise these issues, and we will continue to try to help those who 

are inside. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Sorry to jam you, Madam Secretary, 

and interfere with the transmission as well. 

Mr. Chandler of Kentucky is recognized. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Madam Secretary, I want to join with some of my 

colleagues up here and thank you very much for your service. I 

think that your representation of our country is carried out very 

thoughtfully, very ably, and with a great deal of class. I thank you 

for that. 

By the time you get to where I am in the order here of questions, 

most of the important questions have been asked. But I actually 

have a couple that I think are particularly important. 

With what is going on in Tunisia now, I think it is safe to say 

that this is one of the most important times in that country’s hisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:43 Jul 15, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\030111\64869 HFA PsN: SHIRL
52

tory. It is also a country that has been a very important ally of 

ours. And yet our budget requests and what is happening with our 

budget suggests that we are getting ready to administer an enormous cut in aid to Tunisia, I think from the neighborhood of $22 

million down to $6 million. I am concerned about that, and I would 

like you to address what kind of message that sends at this critical 

juncture. 

Secondly, Syria. There are those who believe that peace with 

Syria is absolutely essential and would be a tremendous turning 

point in the peace process, and there are those who are of the 

school of thought that that is a possibility and that it would be beneficial to the Bashar Assad regime. There are others who believe 

that Syria has—well, that the Alawi minority government there, 

the regime there, is utterly dependent upon casting the United 

States and Israel in the role of the enemy, that their regime maintenance depends upon it. And in fact the actions of the Syrians and 

their rhetoric seems to bear this out. 

Obviously, they have spent a great deal of time in efforts to have 

a stronger alliance with Iran. They have been helping terrorists 

across the board, it seems like, from Hezbollah to terrorists within 

Iraq to Palestinian terrorist groups. 

What do you think about the Syrian situation? Do you see any 

signs that the Syrians are improving their behavior? And has Syria 

taken any steps to improve its relationship with us? 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you, Congressman. 

If I could, before Congressman Fortenberry leaves, I just wanted 

to make sure the record reflects that Function 150, Congressman, 

is $50.9 billion. That includes Treasury money, MCC, Peace Corps. 

State-USAID is $47 billion. Then the overseas contingency operation is $8.7 billion. So we get a total of $55 billion. I just wanted 

to make sure that we are talking apples and apples here. Because 

you are right that there are other funding streams. Treasury supports our commitments to the World Bank, obviously, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Peace Corps, and then other small 

agencies. 

Thank you, sir. 

Congressman, first, on Tunisia, I think Tunisia has to work. Tunisia is a much smaller country. It is in many ways a more middleclass country. It has a great potential because of the way that it 

has dealt with its transformation, and we need to be on the ground 

helping. So I agree with you that cutting aid to Tunisia right now 

would be maybe penny wise but pound foolish. 

Although there are Europeans who wish to assist in Tunisia, the 

Tunisians, as I heard directly from the Tunisian Secretary of State 

for Foreign Affairs yesterday in Geneva, the Tunisians remember 

when the United States stood for their independence in the 1960s. 

They remember that many of our European friends were colonizers 

in North Africa. They want the United States there helping to support them in their transition to democracy. We could make a real 

model in the Middle East by assisting Tunisia. 

Mr. CHANDLER. You need to amend your budget request. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, we do. We do. But first I have got to 

figure out what I have got left after you guys get done with me. 

I keep putting up these warning signals. 

53

With respect to Syria, you outlined very well the differing currents that are at work inside Syria, in Syria’s relationship with the 

region, particularly Syria’s relationship with Israel. Obviously, we 

would support anything that Israel would decide is in Israel’s best 

interest in dealing with Syria. 

We caution and raise a lot of concerns about what we see as Syria’s relationship with Iran, Syria’s relationship with Hezbollah. 

That is not in Israel’s interest, it is not in America’s interest, and, 

frankly, we don’t think it is in Syria’s long-term interest. 

So we sent back an ambassador, as you know, because we think 

it is better to be on the ground talking, picking up information, 

conveying messages, and we hope that we will get a clearer view 

forward. 

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

Mr. McCaul, the vice chair of the Subcommittee on the Western 

Hemisphere. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Madam Chair; and, Madam Secretary, 

welcome. 

Two questions, one with respect to Iran, one and with respect to 

Mexico. 

You mentioned Israel prefers stability over a power vacuum, and 

I agree with that. I think what we are seeing in the Middle East 

is a power vacuum; and the question is, who is going to fill that 

void? Is it going to be filled by a secular movement or by forces like 

the Muslim Brotherhood? Or, as we look at Iran, is Iran going to 

take this opportunity to fill the vacuum? 

We know two Iranian vessels were in the Suez Canal, the first 

time since 1979. We support emerging democracies. I think that is 

the correct policy for this country. And we are supporting the forces 

in Egypt and Libya. But when it comes to Iran, who has, as you 

mentioned earlier, oppressed its own people and fired tear gas and 

shot its own people, at least there is the appearance that the administration has been sort of silent on the issue, and yet I think 

there is a golden opportunity for us at this point in time to support 

the resistance movement in Iran. Why aren’t we doing this more 

forcefully? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I would argue that we 

are, that we are doing it forcefully, in many ways, and we will continue to do so. 

But I want to underscore the first point you made, which is that 

there is no doubt in my mind that if we are not present, and 

present in resources, not just in rhetoric, not just saying what we 

are for, but being able to deliver on that, others will fill that vacuum. The Middle East abhors a vacuum. We know that from long 

experience. 

So while we message against Iran, if that is all we do, we are 

not going to be in the game. We have got to be on the ground. That 

is why we need diplomacy and development to be viewed as national security, so that when these young people on the street say, 

Well, how do we write a Constitution?, it is the United States and 

our allies who are there to help, not the Iranians. 

But if anybody doubts that, despite all of the sanctions and the 

best efforts of the international community to isolate, condemn 

54

what Iran has done, that they are not in there every single day 

with as many assets as they can muster trying to take hold of this 

legitimate movement for democracy, you are sadly mistaken. We 

are in a competition. I just stress that over and over again, that 

we have got to be there. We have got to fight back. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I agree with you. I think that diplomacy with Iran, 

in my view, is naive. I think the best thing we can be doing, both 

from the State Department and from an intelligence effort, is to do 

everything within our power to support these freedom fighters who 

want to overthrow the ayatollah and the mullahs who are oppressing these people. 

Moving to Mexico, we had two U.S. law enforcement agents for 

the first time in 25 years shot in an ambush with 83 rounds from 

an AK–47 after they have said they were American diplomats. Now 

the Mexican Government seems to be saying it is a case of mistaken identity. I personally don’t buy that. I will take the testimony of our agent over the three Zetas now in custody who are 

talking about the incident. 

My question with respect to the State Department is several. The Merida Initiative that we passed in the Congress had $1.3 billion 

to provide primarily military assistance, and yet only 25 percent of 

that has gone to that assistance in Mexico. The rest seems to have 

been bottlenecked up in the State Department. I was hoping you 

could explain why and perhaps give me your assurance that we are 

going to try to move that money as quickly as possible. 

Two more quick items. Extradition. I hope this administration 

fights hard to get these killers extradited to the United States. 

Then, lastly, there is a 1990 agreement that prohibits our law 

enforcement in Mexico when we put them down in a war zone, as 

President Calderon calls it, and we don’t allow them to carry weapons. I would like this administration to revisit that agreement in 

light of the new conditions down in Mexico. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you for raising Mexico, Congressman. 

Because, again, this is an area that doesn’t get enough attention 

and there it is, right on our border. 

The U.S. Congress has appropriated $1.5 billion since the Merida 

Initiative began in Fiscal Year 2008, and by the end of 2011 we expect to have obligated over half of this funding. Your question is 

a fair one: Why does it take so long? The complexities of negotiating technical requirements with Mexico, what we expect to get 

for our money, what we expect to get from them when we give 

them our money, and the need to ramp up staffing to support a 

program of this magnitude has taken time. But we have also decided that what works best is providing professional training, 

which we are doing for 4,500 new Mexican police investigators, 

training for 3,000 Mexican prosecutors. We will give you have 

chapter and verse about what we are doing. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Higgins of New York. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Madam Secretary. First of all, thank 

you for your work on behalf of America throughout the world. You 

should know that Buffalo still misses you very much. 

The two most powerful forces in the world today are youth and 

technology. We understand in the Arab world 60 percent of the 

55

population is under the age of 30. They call it the youth bulge; they 

call it the youth quake. And they are empowered by new media and 

not only for organizational purposes but for aspirational purposes 

as well. 

When you think about the extraordinary convergence of an 82-

year-old man living in his modest home in Boston who wrote books 

and pamphlets on civil resistance, on nonviolent resistance, his 

work is disseminated throughout the entire Arab world as a primary source for their organizational efforts. So it says that America has two unique roles here. One is clearly aspirational. Because 

this individual from America, this 82-year-old man, his experiences 

in his writings were borne out from his experience in the civil 

rights movement of this country, and that that is now serving as 

a beacon for the Arab world I think says extraordinary things 

about the times that we are living in and the extraordinary opportunities that are before us. 

The other thing is America’s role in what comes of the Middle 

East and these revolutions. Everybody is asking the question now: 

Will Egypt be more like Iran or will it be more like Turkey? And 

we have a role in that, as you have stated, with this budget. 

So when you hear folks talking up here about America’s role in 

helping to influence what the next steps are in Egypt and at the 

same time support a continuing resolution that cuts 30 percent in 

a development assistance account that specifically supports democracy in places like Egypt, we can’t have it both ways. A lot of bad 

things can happen to the world without America, but not a lot of 

good things can happen in the world without this country as well. 

So I just ask you to respond to that. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, first, say hello to every 

one in Buffalo and tell them I miss them, too. 

I think you made a very important point. When I became Secretary of State, I looked at all of the research analysis I could find, 

and two things stuck out to me. One, that most people, whoever 

they are and wherever they live and under what kind of regime, 

want the same thing: They want a good job with a good income 

that gives them and their kids a better future. That is universal. 

And so focusing on that became one of my goals, as to how we help 

to lift up the bottom. 

Secondly, that we have this huge youth bulge, not just in the 

Middle East—in Latin America, in Asia—and when you look at 

countries where 25, 35, sometimes 50 percent of the population is 

under the age of 25, they are totally ill-prepared to educate those 

people, provide them health care, guide them to the kind of future 

that we would like to see for them, which happens to be in our interest as well. 

So we have focused on trying to figure out how best to message 

to young people. That is why I set up this unit inside the State Department about how we use social media, how we try to connect. 

There I am doing Web chats. We are trying to do everything we 

can to go where people are getting their information and to put the 

American story out there. 

We did such a great job during the Cold War. American communication about democracy and freedom was universal. And then the 

Berlin Wall fell and we all said, Okay, great, we don’t have to do 

56

that anymore. And we have slowly but steadily receded from the 

information communication competition. 

Others are filling that. As I said, they are filling it with 

Aljazeera, they are filling it with Chinese English, they are filling 

it with Russian English, et cetera. I think that is one arena we 

cannot afford to be out of. Maybe to some it looks like a luxury, 

but to me it undergirds our message. 

I can make a speech, a Member of Congress can go to the floor 

and make a speech and say we stand for freedom. That is one 

speech which will probably not even be heard by the vast majority 

of young people we are trying to influence. But if we have that 

message going out day in and day out on new media, old media, 

our diplomats, our development experts, everybody is out there saying the same thing about who we are as Americans and what we 

stand for, we can really infuse this moment of transformation with 

American values and the American spirit and the American experience. 

As you can tell, I feel passionately about it because I believe in 

it. That is what I was raised on. That is what I saw as a young 

girl. When Congressmen McCaul or Fortenberry said diplomacy 

with Iran is naive, we always had diplomacy with the Soviet Union 

while we were sending messages behind the Iron Curtain every 

minute of every day about what the alternatives were. That is 

what we need to be doing. 

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

Judge Poe, the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations. 

Mr. POE. Madam Secretary, thank you for being here, and thank 

you once again for the time that Deputy Secretary Corbin spent 

with me, over an hour, talking about a lot of issues. I will try to 

keep it down to 5 minutes, which is not really fair for those of us 

in the south who talk slower. 

Secretary CLINTON. But I don’t need a translator. 

Mr. POE. You don’t need a translator. 

I believe, like you, that deep down in our soul everybody in the 

whole world has this burning desire for freedom. However you 

want to call that or define it, that is the way people are. I believe 

that it exists probably as well as anyplace in the country of Iran. 

We have a lot of Americans here who are of Iranian descent. Many 

of them have family at Camp Ashraf. Many have lost families who 

have been killed in Camp Ashraf. They have family in Iran. I believe those young people in Iran have that spirit of freedom. 

I have a question that I certainly don’t know the answer to, but 

the United States throughout history takes the position usually 

that we support a country and then eventually we support the 

rebels or those who want to come in and take over that country. 

We have made that decision in Libya. I think the administration 

used actually the term ‘‘we support the rebels.’’ Sometimes we do, 

and sometimes we don’t. 

I think there is no greater tyrant on Earth than the little fellow 

from the desert, Ahmadinejad, and the way he treats his people, 

the way he has declared war really on everybody. When do we get 

to a point as a country in making these decisions like we did with 

57

Libya? When do we get to the point that we say, You have got to 

go? We made that decision in Libya. When do we make that decision in Iran, you have got to go? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I think we have to support those who are struggling and fighting for their own freedom 

inside countries, and we do that in Iran. But it is unfortunate that 

this regime has exercised such oppression against its own people, 

has done everything possible to destroy the opposition. So we do 

support and we will continue to support and we will be very vocal 

in our support. But we also look at those moments, those hinges 

in history, where there is an adequate critical mass of people that 

are willing to stand up for their own rights. 

Unfortunately, in many countries—it took a long time in the Soviet Union, as you know—and then countries began to move and 

we were there with support for them. We see that now in the Middle East, in North Africa. Iran is a tougher case, but we are going 

to do everything we can to support those who want that freedom. 

Let me just for the record say, too, because there have been several references during the hearing to the MEK. I know there are 

many representatives here in the audience. As the committee is 

well aware, on July 16, 2009, the district court here in DC ordered 

the Department to allow the MEK to respond to unclassified portions of the administrative record in reviewing the designation of 

being on the foreign terrorist organization list. And, as such, we 

are again reviewing the designation in accordance with the court’s 

decision and applicable law, and this review will result in a de novo 

decision concerning the designation of the MEK 

Mr. POE. When do you think you will have that decision? 

Secretary CLINTON. It is proceeding. These are very important 

considerations and reviews. As soon as we can, we will make such 

a decision, Congressman. 

Mr. POE. Myself and others have met with State Department, 

CIA in classified briefings. And I would just encourage the State 

Department, based on everything I know, to make that decision. 

I am one that, of course, thinks we ought to take them off the 

list. I would hope Congress wouldn’t have to make that decision. 

I hope the State Department would. But I would ask that, if any 

information comes forward either way, that the Department of 

State would share that with us in a classified briefing so that we 

have that information. 

The last question I was going to comment on and concern was 

the residents of Camp Ashraf. They are nervous. Their relatives 

are nervous because of the way that time is really not, in my opinion, on their side. How do you, just your opinion, think this is going 

to play out once we are gone, the people in Camp Ashraf? Are they 

going to be moved from the border, go to Iran, go to Europe? How 

do you see that playing out? 

Secretary CLINTON. First, let me say that we monitor this situation very closely. We try to investigate all of the assertions that are 

made. We know that adequate food and fuel under our supervision 

and pushing gets in. But we also know there are constant provocations that exist. So we are in a daily dialogue with the Government of Iraq, and we will continue to do everything we can to protect them. 

58

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Mr. Keating is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you in light 

of your enormous schedule and where you were yesterday and still 

taking the time this morning to address issues at our committee. 

A couple of weeks ago you laid out our country’s priority on 

Internet freedom around the world, and I join you certainly in 

those efforts to maintain an Internet meeting place that promotes 

the greatest possible benefits that can be really for democracy 

around the world. I liked your analogy in your speech about the 

Internet has become the churches and the union halls of yesteryear. 

We saw in Egypt and Iran, using technology from companies 

based in the United States, what a tremendous element it can be 

to advance democracy. I am certainly pleased that you created a 

new Office of the Coordinator of Cyber Issues. 

Along those lines, I wanted to address one issue. 

It has a tremendous capacity for democracy and freedom, but 

also therein lies a great danger, I believe. And I am working on 

legislation right now to establish end use agreements for sensitive 

technology that we export abroad. We have to make sure that the 

government clients like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan understand that American innovation should not be used for violence. 

So along those lines I would like to ask you if you anticipate the 

new Office of Coordinator of Cyber Issues to play a role with the 

private sector in determining best practices so that U.S. technology 

is not used abroad, and I would love your thoughts on any creative 

solutions we can employ to advance our innovation without stifling 

progress toward democracy. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, thank you for that question, because it 

is something that no Secretary of State has had to address before. 

And here we are talking about it and realizing that it is as important as the town square or any other setting for expression and assembly. We would be pleased to work with you and our new Office 

of Cyber Security to look at how we would create such end use 

agreements. 

A lot of the technology that we manufacture, that we invent here 

in the United States has dual uses, even triple and quadruple uses. 

It is difficult to know exactly how an end user will use it. So I 

think this deserves some very careful attention, and we would welcome your ideas about that. 

We also are working hard to come up with new technology all the 

time. We are incentivizing entrepreneurs, tech companies, and 

innovators to help us figure out how to help people get around 

whatever end use. Because we could take any kind of technology 

and we could say, you know, that may be okay to go through, and 

then some clever government figures out how to use it against people. 

So circumvention technology is a part of our ongoing Internet 

freedom agenda. We have funded significant advancements in the 

development of about a dozen circumvention technologies in the 

last few years. But, in itself, that is not enough. We also have to 

be looking at what Egypt did, which is unprecedented—shut down 

the whole Internet. 

59

So there is a lot of work still ahead of us, but it is an area that 

the United States is uniquely positioned to lead on, and it helps us 

get through all of those nets of repression and censorship and shutdown that governments are using to keep their people down and 

in place. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Madam Chair, in view of the lengthy morning, I will yield the 

rest of my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Second Man of the Year. Thank you. 

Mrs. Schmidt of Ohio. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here. 

I would like to focus my attention first on Sri Lanka and second 

on Colombia, if I have time. 

As you are aware, in 2009, thousands of Tamils were killed in 

Sri Lanka. They are being housed right now in subhuman conditions without proper food, plumbing, water, and creating lifethreatening events. With the geographic location of Sri Lanka and 

the government’s placing of this ethnic group in these deplorable 

conditions, with the historic ties that the Tamils have had with the 

United States, shouldn’t the U.S. lead in taking steps before either 

the U.N. Human Rights Council or the U.N. Security Council in 

asking Sri Lanka what the grounds were for these mass killings? 

And, secondly, I know that you received letters from people in 

the House and the Senate asking what steps, if any, the United 

States is taking as the U.N. Secretary General maps out his agenda for this year regarding this group that appears to be being 

wiped out by those in charge. 

Secretary CLINTON. Congresswoman, thank you very much. 

Initially, following the end of the war, the United States assistance focused on humanitarian needs—food, aid, shelter, and the 

like. We also put a considerable effort into de-mining because of 

what had been done in the north during the war. 

As the humanitarian needs began to recede, we have focused on 

working with the Tamils and the Sri Lankan Government on reconciliation, on representation, providing training on human rights 

to the Sri Lankan military, helping to address shortcomings in 

their criminal justice system and law enforcement, and trying to 

assist them on resettling and reintegrating the people who were 

displaced by the 26-year civil war. We have also been trying to support enterprise in the north so people can get back to making a living and supporting themselves and their families. 

We are constantly watching what is happening in Sri Lanka. We 

share your concerns that the end of this very bloody terrible war 

that lasted for so long be put behind Sri Lanka so that they can 

move forward and have a society that answers the needs of all of 

their people. 

There is still a ways to go. There is this reconciliation process, 

this commission that has been set up. I have personally spoken 

with leaders of Sri Lanka to express strong American support for 

it. But this is a matter we keep close look on because we share the 

concerns you have raised. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. 

Now I would like to focus on Colombia. As you well know, it has 

been a long time since we have had a Colombian Free Trade AgreeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:43 Jul 15, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\030111\64869 HFA PsN: SHIRL
60

ment. Just yesterday, in my own district, I spoke before about 60 

folks in the greater Cincinnati, southern Ohio area, business people 

that have economic relations with Colombia and would like to have 

a free trade agreement, and yet they are saddled with something 

much less. When will this administration push for that agreement, 

not just for Colombia but for Panama and other places in the Western Hemisphere? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, we strongly support action on 

the three trade agreements that have been negotiated but not yet 

finalized. Korea has been, but both Colombia and Panama are finishing up. We have urged that both our Government and their governments move expeditiously. We would like to submit them to this 

Congress for action. 

We think that there could be a grand bargain. There is a lot of 

work. We have not continued the trade adjustment assistance, 

which I know affects some people in your district. We have not continued the generalized trade preferences, the Andean trade preferences. 

I think if we look at all the opportunities we have and remember 

that the Western Hemisphere is our biggest trading partner and as 

we see what is going on in the world, the more we can work with 

our friends to the south and really help them increase their economies, create jobs here, create jobs there, enhance economic commerce and trade, the better off we will be. 

So as soon as we can get final signoff on Colombia and Panama, 

we would like to be moving forward with them, as well as with 

Korea. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. 

Madam Chairman, I will yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Woman of the Year. 

Mayor Cicilline of Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Welcome, Madam Secretary. It is a great honor 

to welcome you to our committee and to have the opportunity to 

discuss many of these important foreign policy issues. I thank you 

for your brilliant and wise leadership. Our entire Nation is in your 

debt. 

I just want to ask one question and make one plea. As you know, 

my district has a very vibrant Cape Verdean community, and I am 

very concerned about potential cuts to the Cape Verdean Millennium Funding. That has been very important in helping to transform the Cape Verdean economy; and I would just ask that, as you 

review that, you pay close attention to it and recognize how important it has been to the Cape Verdean community, certainly in my 

district. 

I recently returned this past Sunday from Iraq and Afghanistan; 

and I think, while there is some division in this country about 

what our role should be in Afghanistan and whether a protracted 

presence in that part of the world is wise policy, every military 

leader that we met with stressed the importance of both the diplomatic and development prongs of our strategy there and really confirmed everything you shared with the committee today. 

I have grave concerns about the level of expenditures that we 

will have to sustain in Afghanistan in road building and schools 

and police officers at a time when we are cutting those very same 

61

investments here in our country, but I think we are going to have 

a policy debate on that long term in the Congress of the United 

States. 

But one thing I learned on the trip and I learned from the briefings that we had—and your foreign policy staff was spectacular—

is the growing threat of Pakistan in this region of the world. And 

I wonder if you would speak to how we balance our interest in 

strengthening our relationship with Pakistan and at the same time 

respond to what is clearly a growing threat as it becomes a sanctuary, particularly along the border of Afghanistan. 

I invite your thoughts on that 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you so much, Congressman. I am glad 

you went to Iraq and Afghanistan. I appreciate the kind words for 

our national security team, military and civilian alike. 

I share your enthusiasm about Cape Verde. They did an excellent job with the Millennium Challenge Account, and we want to 

see them continue the second compact. 

Pakistan has to be put into historical context whenever we talk 

about it in the United States Government. I do think it is fair to 

say that our on-again, off-again relationship going back 30, 40 

years has been to our detriment. 

We enlisted the Pakistani people and government in our efforts 

to push out the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, which was one of 

the contributing factors to the fall of the Soviet Union. Then we accomplished that and we left—and we left them with jihadis and 

with drugs and awash in guns and money. Unfortunately, we saw 

some of the results that flowed from that. 

We also had a difficulty with them regarding what was called the 

Pressler Amendment. Admiral Mullen is fond of saying that every 

single soldier in the Pakistani military knows what the Pressler 

Amendment was and not a single American soldier does, because 

it had such an impact on ending training and ending mil-to-mil relationships—and, again, to our detriment. 

There is nothing easy about this, and striking the right balance 

is a constant calculation. But we think that we have no way forward other than to continue to engage both civilian and military 

with the Pakistanis. 

If you look at what they have done since the first time I testified 

before this committee in early 2009, and I said then that the Pakistanis were ceding territory to the terrorists. They were not going 

after them in their own country with their own military. That has 

been 180 degrees. They have taken a lot of losses. They have pursued those extremists who are attacking them. They have worked 

with us to go after extremists who are attacking our troops and our 

interests. 

But it is a constant calculation about how best to work with the 

Pakistani Government. They have a lot of internal pressures that 

make it difficult for them. But I would say, sitting here testifying 

before this committee, that in the last 2 years we have made 

progress, but we have a long, long way to go before we can see the 

kind of stability that we think is necessary for the region and for 

American interests. 

62

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. Out of deep respect for the Secretary 

and in my ongoing effort to curry favor with the chairman, I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. I just love it because we are going to get all of our members to ask their questions. 

Mr. Rivera of Florida. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for your distinguished service to 

our country. The last time I saw you was down at the Biltmore in 

Coral Gables. I hope you will come visit us again very soon. 

My question is regarding our Government’s reaction to the treatment or mistreatment of American citizens abroad, particularly the 

treatment of the Cuban Government to American citizens. Last 

week marked the 15th anniversary of the Brothers to the Rescue 

shoot-down in which four American citizens were murdered over 

international airspace. I am wondering, did the State Department 

or the White House issue any statement marking that day and condemning that heinous act? 

Secretary CLINTON. I will have to check on that, Congressman. 

I remember it well. Your description of it is accurate. It was a terrible, terrible injustice and murder of four Americans who were 

peacefully protesting the Cuban regime. 

Mr. RIVERA. I appreciate those remarks. 

I also want to ask you about American citizens who could avail 

themselves of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, 

otherwise known as Helms-Burton. As you are aware, Title III of 

Helms-Burton allows U.S. nationals to sue foreigners for damages 

in U.S. courts if those foreigners traffic in property confiscated by 

the Castro dictatorship. Now there is also a provision in HelmsBurton that says the President may suspend Title III for a period 

of not more than 6 months if the President reports in writing to 

the appropriate congressional committee at least 15 days before 

such suspension that it is necessary to the national interest of the 

United States and—and I emphasize—and will expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba. 

Now Helms-Burton, that Title III of Helms-Burton has been suspended every 6 months since former President Clinton and former 

President Bush, and now President Obama have done so. Can you 

tell us how such suspensions have expedited a transition to democracy in Cuba? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I think, Congressman, obviously we do 

not have democracy and freedom in Cuba. There is no doubt about 

that. But we do believe that the current regime is having to face 

the reality of its mismanagement of its economy, of its repressive 

policies. We saw the release of political prisoners, some of whom 

were imprisoned the last time I testified before this committee. We 

still see terrible abuses like the reaction to Mr. Zapata’s mother 

and so much else. 

But it has been the assessment of three Presidents, as you rightly point out—two Democrats, one Republican—that continuing to 

suspend Title III is in the national security interest of the United 

States. It is predicated on many different factors, but the ultimate 

conclusion has been the same for the last 16 years. 

63

Mr. RIVERA. So can you give an example of the second part of 

that requirement, expediting a transition to democracy? I understand in the national interest of the United States, but it doesn’t 

say ‘‘or.’’ It says, ‘‘and will expedite a transition to democracy.’’ Is 

there any example of that recently? 

Secretary CLINTON. Let me respond to you for the record, because 

I don’t want to misspeak. But I will get you additional information, 

Congressman. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you very much. 

Finally, with respect to the recent lifting of sanctions on the regime, we know that in the history of the United States we have 

seen some lifting of sanctions when President Carter reestablished 

diplomatic relations with Cuba. We saw the results. For example, 

the Mariel boat lift, when former President Clinton established the 

Track 2 People-to-People Contacts. We saw the results in the 1996 

shoot-down of four American citizens. Why would we expect a different reaction now from the Castro regime in terms of reforms—

democratic reforms in reaction to our lifting of sanctions if we have 

never seen it before? 

Secretary CLINTON. I think, Congressman, our goal is to assist 

the people of Cuba themselves. We are not aiming our lifting of 

sanctions in any way to please the Castro regime. We are trying 

to help the people of Cuba. 

With some of the economic changes that are going on in Cuba—

the unemployment, the laying off of hundreds of thousands of 

workers, as you know—we think maintaining a very positive approach to the people of Cuba, letting them know that the United 

States Government, that the American people—not just Cuban 

Americans but all Americans—support their freedom, support their 

eventual democracy we think is in their interest. And that is why 

we do it. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Mr. Engel of New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Madam Chair; and welcome, Madam Secretary. I want to second what Congressman Higgins said about 

Buffalo. Because you now that in the Bronx, Westchester, and 

Rockland, we feel the same way about you as well. 

I am so happy you raise the 16-percent cut for State and USAID 

that passed the House last month. I am glad you said it would be 

devastating to our national security, because it would be. I want 

to emphasize that. Thank you for saying that. 

I want to also mention a few other things and ask you to comment on any or all of them. 

I am very pleased, as the former chair of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee and now the ranking member, that the President is traveling to Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador. I think it shows 

the administration’s commitment to the region that you and I have 

discussed many, many times. I just wanted to say how important 

I think that is as well. 

I want to talk about the Mideast peace process. I have been very 

much chagrined because for the past 2 years the Palestinian leadership has refused to enter into direct talks with Israel. They use 

every excuse under the sun—settlements, expansion of neighborhoods—and have all these preconditions. Meanwhile, they mount 

64

an effort to delegitimize Israel at the U.N. and seek support for 

unilateral declaration of statehood outside of a negotiating process. 

I was very pleased that the administration vetoed that resolution 

in the U.N. Security Council. 

Are we telling the Palestinians that this is not helpful and that 

they really potentially face a loss of aid, loss of support? There has 

got to be some penalty for their behavior. 

Finally, I want to mention an issue that when you were senator 

in New York you worked very hard on, and that was the Kosovo 

issue, which is very, very important. We worked on that a lot together. I would like to see Kosovo admitted to the EU and admitted, of course, to the U.N. But they have been blocked. The people 

there feel that if the United States doesn’t play an active role that 

they really can’t count on Europe for helping them. I would also 

like to eventually see them as a NATO member. 

What are we doing to ensure that the fragile democracy there—

and you know they love the United States and they really count 

on us—that we are doing everything we can to push our European 

friends into integrating them fully into the EU? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, of course, our veto spoke very 

loudly; and we also conveyed very clear messages not only to Palestinians but to the region. But thank you for raising Kosovo, because it is unfinished business. It is unfinished business in Europe 

and for us. 

I visited early—end of last year and made it clear that the 

United States was working to elicit additional pledges of recognition from other nations. That continues. We are going to be doing 

everything we can do increase it. 

I have also met several times with the EU, because we think 

that the EU has to help the Kosovars make progress. 

There will be starting in a few days a conciliation process run by 

the EU between Serbia and Kosovo primarily looking at northern 

Kosovo where the Serbian population is located, looking for ways 

to try to resolve some of the issues on the ground. Deputy Jim 

Steinberg was just in Kosovo and the region looking for ways that 

we can support Kosovo. They have a ways to go, but we want to 

see Europe holding out that big carrot. We want them to be there 

with visa liberalization, with development assistance, with support 

for Kosovo to go on the road to membership in the EU. 

Obviously, we want to see them in the United Nations and 

maybe someday in NATO. The Kosovars have a lot to do themselves. They have to continue to improve their democracy. They 

have to crack down on violence and criminal elements that are, unfortunately, too present amongst them. They have to make their 

peace with Serbia—not selling out but working in a mediating way 

to try to resolve it so that they can enhance trade and commerce 

between the two countries. There is a lot to be done. But this remains a very high priority for me personally because of much of the 

work that we did together. It is a high priority for our Government. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

I will turn back my 17 minutes to the chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Kelly, vice chair of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. 

65

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thanks for being here. After watching you and 

knowing what you have done lately, you talk about marketing and 

the American brand and also reaching frequency, I think I am 

going to suggest that you be the poster girl for Red Bull or the 

Fubar Energy Drink. 

My question, though, goes to this—and I think your husband’s 

stepfather was a Buick dealer. I am a Chevrolet dealer. We are always looking for a return in investment. Certainly, in the State of 

the Union Address the President talked about investments, investments, investments. And we know that we have good investments 

and bad investments. 

My question then, based on what we have done for Palestine, we have spent about $2.5 billion in the last 5 years and again now this 

year we are looking for another $400 million to help them out in 

their cause. But this is a group that, for some reason, and I don’t 

understand, people who loudly and publicly criticize us and then 

come quietly back and say, Well, but we still need your help. At 

what point do we decide this was a good investment or a bad investment? And certainly when we look at Israel, who is fighting so 

hard, and see Palestine, who is working so hard just for the absolute opposite, at what point do we say to them, we can’t continue 

to fund you. We can’t reward bad behavior. 

And I wonder about this. Because as we go through these budget 

cuts—and they are real. And my colleagues on the other side decry 

the fact that this H.R. 1 is going to do so much to destabilize and 

we just can’t afford to make these cuts. My question is, when do 

we decide which investments are good investments and at what 

point do we cut off and penalize bad behavior? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, I think that is a really important question, and it is one I ask myself practically every day. 

Let’s take the example that you have put forth. 

I would argue strongly that the need to continue to support the 

Palestinians and their state-building is in Americans’ interest. Why 

is that? Because the Palestinian Authority, which has control over 

the West Bank, is demonstrating that it can control extremists, 

that it can cooperate to protect Israel, that it can give a better economic life to their people. It stands in stark contrast to Hamas, 

which has done nothing but increase the misery of the Palestinian 

people in Gaza. 

It is often frustrating for me—and I think you pick up on that—

to deal with any country or any group of people that see the world 

differently than we do. Sometimes I do try to put myself into their 

shoes because it helps to figure out, okay, so why do they see what 

I see so opposite of how I interpret it. 

If you look at the Palestinians, they believe that they had close 

to a deal with former Prime Minister Olmert. Israeli politics 

change, just like our politics changes. A new administration comes 

in, a new prime minister, a new coalition, and then they have to 

start all over again. So they get a little put out. But the Israelis 

rightly say, Look, we’re a new government. We want to start differently. 

So there is always some kind of explanation. Whether you believe 

it or whether you credit it is certainly up to the individual who is 

66

assessing it. But, from my perspective, when you look at the region 

right now, where are the secular regimes, where are the regimes 

that are actually producing benefits for their people. The Palestinian Authority is doing that. 

Between President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, no matter 

how frustrated one can get with them, what they have done really 

speaks for itself, because you don’t see demonstrations. Why? Because life is actually improving. Why is it improving? Because 

below the headlines they have a very positive arrangement with 

Israel where they are working together. 

So it is immensely complicated, and we do have to ask ourselves 

are we getting the best return on the investment we are making. 

And sometimes it takes a little explanation because it is not so selfevident. But when we look at that region and we are competing 

against Iran with Hezbollah, we are competing against Iran’s influence in Syria, we are competing against extremist Islamic elements 

that could move into the vacuum, I think it is in America’s interest 

to continue to support what has turned out to be an effective regime to promote benefits for people. Whether that pays off down 

the road or not is something we are going to have to try to keep 

influencing in every way we can. 

Mr. KELLY. Well, I appreciate that. I know that as we go forward 

in these budget cuts—and it is really a very serious thing—and you 

said about penny wise and pound foolish. There is also another 

axiom out there: Measure twice, cut once. So I think we will pursue 

that. But thank you so much for your time. 

I do yield back the rest of my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Madam Secretary, you are so generous with your time. We only 

have three more questioners. If you keep them brief, we will get 

to all three of them. Mr. Connolly and then we will have Mr. 

Marino and Ms. Buerkle. 

Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Welcome again, Secretary Clinton. I have to tell you I have 

known nine Secretaries of States and I can’t remember a performance as impressive as yours. Your stamina, breadth of knowledge, 

and your experience make all of us proud. Thank you for serving. 

I am going to ask a series of quick questions without speeches. 

The Muslim Brotherhood sort of reappeared in the vacuum in 

Egypt. Do we consider that the Muslim Brotherhood has in fact 

evolved into a more moderate, democratic-oriented organization 

with a contribution to make both in Egypt and other places in the 

Middle East? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, we are watching that closely. 

We are trying to suggest certain guidelines that should be used for 

determining whether a political party or any organization should 

be included in elections, included in government. And the jury is 

out. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Some recent speculation about the possibility of a rapprochement 

between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. A lot of young demonstrators both in the West Bank and in Gaza are encouraging just 

that, a time to come together and have one unified Palestinian 

67

voice and government. Does the United States welcome such a rapprochement and are there preconditions from our point of view that 

would have to be met before we would recognize such a unified government? 

Secretary CLINTON. Absolutely there are preconditions. It goes in 

part to Congressman Kelly’s prior question. 

We have made it very clear that if Hamas does not renounce violence, does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, does not agree to 

support previous agreements that have been entered into, we could 

not in any way support any government it was a part of or any rapprochement that took place. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

You talked about the 150 Function, and earlier, many hours ago, 

you talked about something like a 10:1 ratio of advantage for every 

dollar we invest. I think you said for every $4, we get $45 back, 

roughly a 10 or more, 11 to 1 ratio. Of course, I completely agree. 

Our friend Mr. Kelly unfortunately has left, but he talked about 

the cuts being real and he talked about investments as a businessman, correctly so. But surely the foreign assistance we provide relative to our defense budget or lots of other expenditures is an investment that over time has proved itself. And I was really struck 

by something you said. You don’t want to be empty-handed in the 

exercise of diplomacy when we really need it. And we can’t envision 

that in Congress, and surely that argues for protecting that investment and giving you some flexibility with respect to it. 

Would you care to elaborate? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, first, it would be my fervent 

hope that USAID and State Department would be viewed as national security. Having served in Congress, I know how often it occurs that we say, Well, we are going to cut discretionary spending 

except for defense, or except for national security, which is defined 

as being only defense. And in today’s world that is just no longer 

the case. 

What we do side by side with the military, coming in after the 

military, staying after they go, trying to prevent conflicts and everything else that is on our plate, with far fewer resources, if I 

might add, than the military, requires us to begin to think more 

broadly about what we mean by national security; and certainly 

from our perspective we do think that we can justify what we 

spend. 

We have undertaken an effort to cut back on areas that we don’t 

think are important to America’s national security anymore, and 

we are going to keep doing that, and we are going to keep trying 

to get smarter. 

At the very beginning of the hearing, Ranking Member Berman 

referred to contractors. We do so much better than being charged 

so much by contractors to deliver services that then we have to 

keep reinvesting every time there is a crisis by bringing a lot of 

that in house and paying for it, which is something I have tried to 

do over the last 2 years, which will save us money. 

So in many different ways of looking at how we are cost-effective, 

I think we are on the right track. I am well aware and I am one 

who believes that we have to be strong economically at home. But 

I also believe that part of being strong economically at home is givVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:43 Jul 15, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\030111\64869 HFA PsN: SHIRL
68

ing us the tools we need to project our leadership abroad. Because 

it has a kind of boomerang effect. If we are not looking strong 

abroad, that undermines how we look and how we are treated at 

home. So I think we have to look at this from a broader perspective. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you, and I yield back my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Marino of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Secretary, it is a pleasure to meet you. I thank you for 

your patience and your service. I also thank you for your passion. 

I understand that. By the way, one of the counties in my district 

is Lackawanna. 

I have listened very intently with what you had to say, and I understand the conviction and the passion. I really do. I understand 

the geopolitics that are involved here. But I want to bring this 

home a little bit and bring it back to our side of the ocean, if I may. 

My constituents of the Tenth Pennsylvania Congressional District have lost their jobs or will be losing their jobs. Many are worried about whether they will keep their jobs, with unemployment 

at still over 9 percent and a debt of $14.2 trillion. These same constituents not only are losing their jobs but they are losing their 

homes and their businesses. I have had grown men tear up in front 

of me because they cannot support their families, send their children to college, or even buy them new clothes. 

I have known that you as a senator prided yourself on meeting 

the needs of your constituents. How can we expect our constituents—that the United States must send their tax dollars overseas, 

that it is in the best interest of these countries, and the U.S. in 

the long run, to continue to send our money to other countries, 

even those who hate us, while my constituents are hurting and yet 

we cannot use these funds and others to create jobs by putting 

their tax dollars back into their pockets and eliminate the debt. 

What say you to this as a compassionate person? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I know your district. I 

thank you for raising in such moving terms what the people of the 

Tenth District are going through. I have been visiting your district 

my entire life, so I know that these are good people, these are hardworking people, and they deserve better. And I do believe that we 

need an economic policy here at home that does generate new jobs, 

new investment, new economic opportunity for people who, like 

your constituents, are willing to work hard for the dollars that they 

bring home. 

I also know that you have a very patriotic district and you have 

a high percentage of people who have served in our military and 

who have answered the call of service time and time again and 

that what my job first and foremost to do is to do everything I can 

to provide security for the American people. 

It is not an easy choice. And I wish that we could say, Well, let’s 

just put the world on hold for 5 years while we rebuild our economy. The world has never been able to be put on hold, but especially today. Things are moving much too quickly. And the threats 

we face, the challenges we confront are not going to go away. And 

they pose direct threats to markets where goods that we can make 

69

in the Tenth District in Pennsylvania can be sold. They pose direct 

threats to the security of our people because of the launching of 

terrorist attacks from ungoverned territories that, unfortunately, 

can become havens for terrorist groups with the instigation and 

support of al-Qaeda and others. They pose health threats as diseases move further north and pose real concerns to us. 

So the list is long about costs that, unfortunately, will come back 

to bite us if we are not trying to exercise preventive diplomacy. 

And so I do know that there have to be tradeoffs and difficult decisions. My only plea today is that many people when they are asked 

around the country—this was true with my own constituents who 

I served for 8 years in New York—when you ask them, how much 

money do we give in foreign aid, they think it is like 15 or 20 percent of the budget. 

And so to try to help Americans understand, it is a small part 

of a budget that has to be reined in. We cannot overlook the hurt 

the people are experiencing today. So what we have to be is smart 

about how we do this, especially now, when, frankly, we face an 

unpredictable future that could undermine the security and wellbeing of our people across America. 

Mr. MARINO. I understand it, and thank you. But you have been 

faced with a constituent standing before you saying, my grandmother used to say, Let’s take care of our own—and now. 

Again, that is not a question. I thank you. Get some rest. 

I yield my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Ms. Buerkle of New York. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Madam Chairman; and thank you, 

Secretary Clinton, for your perseverance here this morning and 

willingness to answer all of our questions. 

I am going to take my issue back across the seas as well and to 

my district. It is an intensely personal issue for the constituents. 

I represent New York’s 25th Congressional District. We are the 

home to Syracuse University. I know you are familiar with that 

area of the State. 

On December 21, 1988, 259 people onboard a Pan Am flight 

bound to New York died in a fiery blast. The product of that bomb 

was planted by a Libyan terrorist. The Pan Am flight crashed into 

a small town in Scotland, Lockerbie, and took, along with those on 

the plane, 11 folks who were on the ground. 

On that plane were 38 students from Syracuse University returning home for their Christmas break. Their families will never forget that day and the dramatic change that it made in their life. For 

many of those families, they will not be able to move forward. They 

will not get closure until the people responsible for that flight and 

that bomb are held accountable. 

In light of the information that we have gotten over the past several weeks, it has now become more apparent—we knew, but it is 

become more apparent to us—what happened on that plane and 

who caused that crash. So I am asking you this morning, what is 

the administration doing to gather evidence to build a case against 

Qadhafi? And when they do, will they prosecute him? 

70

Lastly, what must we do to encourage this? Because for my district, for many of the families affected, they cannot go on until he 

is held accountable for his actions. 

Thank you. 

Secretary CLINTON. Congresswoman, thank you. 

As you know, I know your district well and had many experiences with the families of the flight that was clearly the subject of 

a terrorist bombing. I was given a letter before coming out here, 

thanks to the chairwoman, that asked very specific questions about 

how we could gather evidence and put together a case against Qadhafi and all those with whom he might have conspired in setting 

in motion the chain of events that led to the explosion over 

Lockerbie. We will follow up on that. 

Much of the activity that is asked for in the letter would have 

to be done by our law enforcement agencies, but I will certainly 

contact after this hearing FBI Director Mueller and Attorney General Holder and others to see how we can move on that. Because 

there have been statements made in the last days by what are now 

former members of the Libyan Government fingering Qadhafi, 

making it clear that the order came from the very top, I think we 

do need to move expeditiously. 

In the Security Council resolution we have a referral to the 

International Criminal Court. That would certainly be one of the 

many counts that would be put against him if he ever is captured 

alive and turned over for justice proceedings. 

So we are going to continue to pursue this. This is a matter of 

great personal importance to me, because I did have the privilege 

of representing Syracuse, and I know that the pain and the feeling 

that he never was held accountable is so palpable and it is why so 

many of us were outraged by the release of Megrahi and protested 

vociferously to the British and Scottish Governments. To this British Government’s credit, a report has been put forth giving us more 

information about what went on behind the scenes. But there is a 

lot that we still need to do, and this letter is a good list of beginning efforts that need to be undertaken. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you. And I speak, I am sure, on behalf of 

the families of those victims that we really need to act expeditiously and to bring this man to justice. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Madam Secretary, you are a wonder woman. Thank you so very 

much for the generosity of your time and your kindness in allowing 

all of our members to ask a question. 

The committee is now adjourned. 

We welcome you back soon. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

[Whereupon, at 1:37 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

(71)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

72


64869n.eps
73


64869m_1.eps
74


64869m_2.eps
75


64869c.eps
76

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE HOWARD L. BERMAN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


64869d_1.eps
77


64869d_2.eps
78


64869d_3.eps
79


64869d_4.eps
80


64869e_1.eps
81


64869e_2.eps
82


64869e_3.eps
83


64869e_4.eps
84

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM

CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BY THE HONORABLE

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

FLORIDA, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS


64869o-1.eps
85


64869o-2.eps
86


64869o-3.eps
87


64869o-4.eps
88


64869o-5.eps
89


64869o-6.eps
90


64869o-7.eps
91


64869o-8.eps
92

————

NOTE: Not all responses were received prior to printing. The responses received follow this page. 


64869o-9.eps
93

WRITTEN RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY

OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS


64869f-1.eps
94


64869f-2.eps
95


64869f-3.eps
96


64869f-4.eps
97


64869f-5.eps
98


64869f-6.eps
99


64869f-7.eps
100


64869f-8.eps
101


64869f-9.eps
102


64869f-10.eps
103


64869f-11.eps
104


64869f-12.eps
105


64869f-13.eps
106


64869f-14.eps
107


64869f-15.eps
108


64869f-16.eps
109


64869f-17.eps
110


64869f-18.eps
111


64869f-19.eps
112


64869f-20.eps
113


64869f-21.eps
114


64869f-22.eps
115


64869f-23.eps
116


64869f-24.eps
117


64869f-25.eps
118


64869f-26.eps
119


64869f-27.eps
120


64869f-28.eps
121


64869f-29.eps
122


64869f-30.eps
123


64869f-31.eps
124


64869f-32.eps
125


64869f-33.eps
126


64869f-34.eps
127


64869f-35.eps
128


64869f-36.eps
129


64869f-37.eps
130


64869f-38.eps
131


64869f-39.eps
132


64869f-40.eps
133


64869f-41.eps
134


64869f-42.eps
135


64869f-43.eps
136


64869f-44.eps
137


64869f-45.eps
138


64869f-46.eps
139


64869f-47.eps
140


64869f-48.eps
141


64869f-49.eps
142


64869f-50.eps
143


64869f-51.eps
144


64869f-52.eps
145


64869f-53.eps
146


64869f-54.eps
147


64869f-55.eps
148


64869f-56.eps
149


64869f-57.eps
150


64869f-58.eps
151


64869f-59.eps
152


64869f-60.eps
153


64869f-61.eps
154


64869f-62.eps
155


64869f-63.eps
156


64869f-64.eps
157


64869f-65.eps
158


64869f-66.eps
159


64869f-67.eps
160


64869f-68.eps
161


64869f-69.eps
162


64869f-70.eps
163


64869f-71.eps
164


64869f-72.eps
165


64869f-73.eps
166


64869f-74.eps
167


64869f-75.eps
168

WRITTEN RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY

OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD BY THE HONORABLE HOWARD L. BERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


64869g-1.eps
169


64869g-2.eps
170


64869g-3.eps
171


64869g-4.eps
172


64869g-5.eps
173


64869g-6.eps
174

WRITTEN RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY

OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAVID RIVERA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF FLORIDA


64869h-1.eps
175


64869h-2.eps
176


64869h-3.eps
177

WRITTEN RESPONSE FROM THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY

OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TO QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

BY THE HONORABLE GREGORY W. MEEKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF NEW YORK


64869i-1.eps
178


64869i-2.eps
179

WRITTEN RESPONSE FROM THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY

OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TO QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

BY THE HONORABLE JEFF DUNCAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA


64869j-1.eps
180


64869j-2.eps
181


64869j-3.eps
182


64869j-4.eps
183

WRITTEN RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY

OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD BY THE HONORABLE RUSS CARNAHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI


64869k-1.eps
184


64869k-2.eps
185


64869k-3.eps
186


64869k-4.eps
187


64869k-5.eps
188


64869k-6.eps
189


64869k-7.eps
190


64869k-8.eps
191


64869k-9.eps
192


64869k-10.eps
193


64869k-11.eps
194


64869k-12.eps
195

WRITTEN RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY

OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD BY THE HONORABLE RUSS CARNAHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI


64869l-1.eps
196


64869l-2.eps
197


64869l-3.eps
198


64869l-4.eps
199


64869l-5.eps
200


64869l-6.eps
201

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM

CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BY THE HONORABLE

DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA


64869p-1.eps
202


64869p-2.eps
203


64869p-3.eps
204


64869p-4.eps
205


64869p-5.eps
206

————

NOTE: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing. 


64869p-6.eps
207

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM

CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BY THE HONORABLE

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

————

NOTE: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing. 


64869q.eps
208

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM

CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BY THE HONORABLE

EDWARD R. ROYCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

————

NOTE: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing. 


64869r.eps
209

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM

CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BY THE HONORABLE

KAREN BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


64869s-1.eps
210


64869s-2.eps
211

————

NOTE: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing. 


64869s-3.eps
212

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM

CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BY THE HONORABLE

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS


64869t-1.eps
213


64869t-2.eps
214

————

NOTE: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing. 


64869t-3.eps
215

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM

CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BY THE HONORABLE

GUS BILIRAKIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


64869u-1.eps
216


64869u-2.eps
217

————

NOTE: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing. 


64869u-3.eps
218

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM

CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BY THE HONORABLE

MIKE KELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF

PENNSYLVANIA


64869v-1.eps
219

————

NOTE: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing. 


64869v-2.eps
220

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM

CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BY THE HONORABLE

TIM GRIFFIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

————

NOTE: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing. 


64869w.eps
221

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM

CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BY THE HONORABLE

RENEE ELLMERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH

CAROLINA

————

NOTE: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing.

Æ


64869x.eps