U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

48–314 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 111–199 

STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED 

PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2010 

HEARING 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 3081/S. 1434 

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT 

FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

Department of State 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BEN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

CHARLES J. HOUY, Staff Director 

BRUCE EVANS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

Professional Staff 

TIM RIESER

NIKOLE MANATT

JANETT STORMES

PAUL GROVE (Minority) 

MICHELE WYMER (Minority) 

LASHAWNDA SMITH (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

RACHEL MEYER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2009 

Page 

Department of State: Secretary of State ................................................................ 1 

(1) 

STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED 

PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2010 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Mikulski, Lautenberg, Specter, Gregg, 

Bennett, Bond, and Brownback. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

SECRETARY OF STATE

STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here. 

We’re starting a little bit late, which is my and Senator Gregg’s 

fault. We were chatting with the Secretary about the world’s problems. 

We know how busy you are. We’re going to hear your testimony 

and place your written statement in the record and leave time for 

questions. There are amendments to the supplemental appropriations bill on the Senate floor, and Senator Gregg just told me 

there’s a vote at 11:40. 

I do want to say how pleased and proud I am to have you representing the United States as our Secretary of State. It’s reassuring to have someone of your stature, intellect, and experience, 

which is extraordinarily important as the top American diplomat. 

You can hold your own with any foreign head of state, you’re instantly recognized, and you are a wonderful person to help reintroduce America to the rest of the world. 

It’s also an opportunity for the State Department itself. It has 

had problems of leadership and management know-how. I think political ideology and bullying some times replaced common sense 

and the judgment of career Foreign Service officers. We wasted valuable time and resources. Our image has suffered badly. Other 

countries, particularly China, are filling the vacuum. You, with 

your experience, both on the Hill and at the White House, and now 

your experience at the Department, will help. 
2 

We’ve also learned, as many of our military leaders have said, 

that military force is usually not the best option. It’s certainly far 

more costly than diplomacy which could help prevent, in many instances—not every, but in many instances—instability and conflict. 

I would like to see the State Department return to its dominant 

role, its rightful role, as it was under former great Secretaries like 

George Marshall and Dean Acheson. I think the manner in which 

we conduct diplomacy over the next 5 to 10 years will determine 

whether the United States remains a world leader, as it has been 

for the past century. I’m one American who wants us to remain 

that leader because of our commitment to democracy and to the 

ideals of this country. 

The President has set a new course. He’s replaced arrogance with 

vision and has the courage to take risks, including by searching for 

common ground with those we disagree with. We’re powerful 

enough and our values are resilient enough to do that. We’ve had 

Presidents who have done this in both parties in the past. I think 

the obvious example is President Nixon going to China. 

In this time of great fiscal difficulties, your budget request is ambitious, but I think it reflects the magnitude of the challenges we 

face. I hope you devote as much time as possible to fighting for it. 

I know I intend to. 

I yield to my colleague and neighbor from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JUDD GREGG

Senator GREGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also wish to welcome the Secretary and appreciate her excellent representation of 

the United States. Obviously, as the chairman said, you bring talented ability and tremendous international respect to the office, 

and it’s good for the Nation that you’re doing this job. 

There are so many issues before us as a country. In our international concerns, it’s hard to know where to start, but I think the 

starting point has to be the continued threat to our Nation from 

international terrorists, specifically Islamic fundamentalists, obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and the logical sources for 

those weapons being Iran, potentially Pakistan, and obviously 

North Korea. 

So I hope that we can get your thoughts on how we make sure 

those folks don’t get their hands on those types of weapons, and, 

of course, any other thoughts you have on so many issues which 

pan before us in this very complex world. And we thank you for 

your leadership. 

Senator LEAHY. Secretary Clinton, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY CLINTON

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Gregg, Senator Specter, Senator Bond. I’m very pleased to be 

here with you and to have this opportunity to discuss in some detail both the threats and the opportunities facing our country. 

When I appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee a 

few weeks ago with Secretary Gates, we both emphasized a need 

for a comprehensive approach to the challenges we face. 
3 

We know we are confronting instability in Afghanistan, Pakistan, 

Iraq, and the Middle East. We have transnational threats, like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change. And we have urgent 

development needs, ranging from extreme poverty to pandemic disease, all of which have a direct impact on our own security and 

prosperity. 

Now, these are tough challenges, and we would be foolish to minimize the magnitude of the task ahead, but we also have new opportunities. By using all the tools of American power, the talent of 

our people, well-reasoned policies, strategic partnerships, and the 

strength of our principles, we can make great strides against the 

problems we’ve faced for generations and address the new threats 

of the 21st century. 

This comprehensive approach to solving global problems and 

seizing opportunities is at the heart of smart power, and the President’s 2010 budget is a blueprint for how we intend to put smart 

power into action. The President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request 

for the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is $48.6 billion, a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2009 funding levels. 

We know this request comes at a time when other agencies are 

experiencing cutbacks and the American people are experiencing 

economic recession, but it is an indication of the critical role the 

State Department and USAID must play to help advance our Nation’s interests, safeguard our security, and make us a positive 

force for progress worldwide. 

Our success requires a robust State Department and USAID 

working side by side with a strong military. To exercise our global 

leadership effectively, we do need to harness all three Ds: diplomacy, development, and defense. 

And this budget supports the State Department and USAID in 

three critical ways. First, it allows us to invest in our people; second, implement sound policies; and third, strengthen our partnerships. We know it represents a major investment, and we pledge 

to uphold principles of good stewardship and accountability. 

Let me begin with people. The men and women of the State Department and USAID may have the world in their hands, but too 

many are trying to balance all the balls they have in the air. Many 

key positions at posts overseas are vacant for the simple reason we 

don’t have enough personnel. In Beijing, 18 percent of our Embassy 

positions are open. In Mumbai, 20 percent. In Jeddah, 29 percent. 

And we face similar staffing shortages here at the Department in 

Washington, as well as USAID. 

We need good people and we need enough of them. That is why 

the President’s 2010 budget includes $283 million to facilitate the 

hiring of over 740 new Foreign Service personnel. This is part of 

our broader effort to expand the Foreign Service by 25 percent. 

The staffing situation at USAID is even more severe. In 1990, 

USAID employed nearly 3,500 direct-hire personnel to administer 

an annual assistance budget of $5 billion. Today, the agency staff 

has shrunk by roughly one-third, but they are tasked with overseeing $13.2 billion. 

To provide the oversight that taxpayers deserve and to stay on 

target of doubling our foreign assistance by 2015, we simply need 
4 

more people, good people to do the jobs we’re asking them to do. 

We need personnel with the right skills to respond to the complex 

emergencies of the 21st century. And that’s why we’re requesting 

$323 million for the civilian stabilization initiative, and that includes expansion of the Civilian Response Corps. This group of professionals will help the United States stabilize and reconstruct societies in transition from conflict and civil strife. 

Now, with the right people in the right numbers, we will be able 

to implement the polices that we think are right for our country, 

and we’re focusing on three priorities. First, urgent challenges in 

regions of concern, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq and 

Iran, and the Middle East; second, transnational challenges, such 

as the one that Senator Gregg just referred to; and development assistance. 

Now, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, our efforts center on the 

President’s goal to dismantle, disrupt, and defeat Al Qaeda, and we 

know this requires a balanced approach that takes more than military might alone. So we’re expanding civilian efforts and we’re ensuring that our strategy is fully integrated and adequately 

resourced. 

We’re helping Afghans revitalize their country’s agricultural sector. In study after study, what we have found is that agriculture 

is still the mainstay for a country that’s largely rural. It was once 

a major source of jobs and, in fact, of export revenue. Afghanistan 

was considered the garden of Central Asia. 

Unfortunately, that has been devastated by years of war and 

civil strife. We’re supporting the Pakistani military as they take on 

the extremists who confront their country’s stability. We’re making 

long-term investments in Pakistan’s people and the democratically 

elected government through targeted humanitarian assistance. And 

in both of these countries, we are holding these governments and 

ourselves accountable for progress toward defined objectives. 

Finally, we’re seeking resources to deploy a new strategic communication strategy. I would love to get into more detail with you 

on this, but just suffice it to say we are being out-communicated 

by the Taliban and Al Qaeda. That is absolutely unacceptable. It 

is not only true in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but as Senator Bond, 

who’s focused on Southeast Asia knows, it’s there, as well. 

We have to do a better job of getting the story of the values, 

ideals, the results of democracy, out to people who are now being 

fed a steady diet of the worst kind of disinformation, and even 

more than that, seeing the media used by these extremists to 

threaten and intimidate every single night, just as it used to be 

used in Iraq, until we put a stop to it. 

As we move forward with the responsible redeployment of our 

combat forces from Iraq, this budget provides the tools we need to 

facilitate the transition to a stable, sovereign, and self-reliant Iraq. 

I was recently in Iraq, and we are very focused on implementing 

the strategic framework that went along with the Status of Forces 

Agreement, so that we do what we can to help increase the capacity of the Iraqi Government. And, as you know, we’re working with 

Israel and the Palestinian authority to advance our goal of a twostate solution, and a future in which Israel and its Arab neighbors 

can live in peace and security. 
5 

In addition to these urgent challenges—and there are others that 

I haven’t had time to mention—we face a new array of 

transnational threats, none more important than the one Senator 

Gregg highlighted, but we have others as well: energy security, climate change, disease. 

The United States is not immune from any of these transnational 

threats, and we’ve got to develop new forms of diplomatic engagement. We cannot send a special envoy to negotiate with a pandemic 

or call a summit with carbon dioxide or sever relations with the 

global financial crisis, but what we can do is use our ability to convene to create pragmatic and principled partnerships. We’re working through the Major Economies Forum in preparation for the climate conference in Copenhagen. We’re deploying new approaches 

to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. 

We’re now a full partner in the P5-plus-1 talks. And, as you know, the President and I have launched a 6-year, $63 billion global health initiative to help combat the spread of disease. Development will play a critical role in what we try to do, and I think we 

have underplayed the importance of development in creating both 

goodwill among people and stronger partnerships with governments. 

We’re going to be asking for $525 million for maternal and child health, nearly $1 billion for education, $1.36 billion for addressing 

the root causes of food insecurity, and $4.1 billion for humanitarian 

assistance, including care for refugees, displaced persons, and 

emergency food aid. We really believe this will advance our values. 

And I know, Mr. Chairman, you agree with us on that. 

Our smart power approach will rely on partnerships, and that 

begins with our own Government. We are seeking an unprecedented level of cooperation between our agencies. Secretary Gates 

highlighted this cooperation when he testified before you last 

month. 

These partnerships are critical. If we’re going to be successful in 

addressing food security, then we’ve got to get everybody who deals 

with food aid and sustainable agriculture in the same room, around 

the same table, hammering out the American approach, not the 

State Department or the USAID or the USDA or some other approach. It’s got to be a team, and we’re trying to forge those teams. 

We think it will make us more efficient and cost effective at the 

same time. 

We’re also looking to revitalize our historic alliances in Europe, 

Latin America, Africa, and Asia, strengthen and deepen our bilateral ties with emerging regional leaders like Indonesia, Brazil, Turkey, Mexico, and India, and we are working to establish more constructive and candid relationships with China and Russia. 

We’re asking for $4.1 billion for contributions to multilateral organizations and peacekeeping efforts. This is a good down payment 

for us because for every peacekeeper that the United Nations puts 

in the field, like the ones I saw in Haiti a few weeks ago, it saves 

us money. We don’t have to intervene or walk away, turn our back, 

and live with the consequences. 

We’re also expanding our partnerships beyond traditional government-to-government efforts. We’re working with women’s groups 

and civil society, human rights activists around the world, and 
6 

we’re encouraging more people-to-people cooperation. I believe this 

may be one of the great new tools that we have in our diplomacy. 

Last week, I announced the creation of a virtual student Foreign 

Service that will bring together college students in the United 

States and our Embassies abroad to work on digital and citizen diplomacy initiatives. 

But finally, we must rely on sound principles to guide our actions, and we are committed to practicing what we preach, and 

that includes having an accountable Government here at home. 

We’re working to make the State Department more efficient, transparent, and effective. For the first time, we have filled the position 

of Deputy Secretary for Resources and Management, and we’re 

going to be reforming our processes in both the State Department 

and USAID. 

Mr. Chairman, we’re pursuing these policies because we think 

it’s in America’s interest. No country benefits more than the United 

States when there’s greater security, democracy, and opportunity 

in the world, and no country carries a heavier burden when things 

go badly. Every year, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars dealing with the consequences of war, disease, violent ideologies, and 

vile dictatorships. 

Since last testifying before this subcommittee, I’ve traveled 

around the globe, covering many miles and many continents, and 

I can assure you, there is a genuine eagerness to partner with the 

United States again in finding solutions. Our investment in diplomacy and development is a tiny fraction of our total national security budget, but I really believe our country will make very few investments that do more dollar-for-dollar to create the kind of world 

we want for our children. 

By relying on the right people, the right policies, strong partnerships, and sound principles, we can have a century of progress and 

prosperity lead by the United States of America. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present the 

President’s budget requests, and I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

Mr. Chairman, Senator Gregg, and Members of the Subcommittee, it’s a pleasure 

to be with you this morning. 

When I appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee a few weeks ago 

with Secretary Gates, we both emphasized the need for a comprehensive approach 

to the challenges on our nation’s agenda. We face instability in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the Middle East; transnational threats like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and climate change; and urgent development needs ranging from extreme 

poverty to pandemic disease that have a direct impact on our own security and prosperity. 

These are tough challenges, and we would be foolish to minimize the magnitude 

of the task ahead. But we also have new opportunities. By using all the tools of 

American power—the talent of our people, well-reasoned policies, strategic partnerships, and the strength of our principles—we can make great strides against problems we’ve faced for generations, and also address new threats of the 21st century. 

This comprehensive approach to solving global problems and seizing opportunities 

is at the heart of smart power. And the President’s 2010 budget is a blueprint for 

how we intend to put smart power into action. 
7 

The President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request for the State Department and USAID is $48.6 billion—a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2009 funding levels. 

We know that this request comes at a time when some other agencies are experiencing cutbacks. But it is an indication of the critical role the State Department 

must play to help advance our nation’s interests, safeguard our security, and make 

us a positive force for progress worldwide. 

In the face of formidable global challenges, our success requires a robust State 

Department and USAID working side-by-side with a strong military. To exercise our 

global leadership effectively, we need to harness all three Ds—diplomacy, development and defense. 

This budget supports the State Department and USAID in three key ways: It allows us to invest in our people, implement sound policies, and strengthen our partnerships. We know it represents a major investment. And we pledge to uphold principles of good stewardship and accountability. 

Let me begin with people. The men and women of the State Department and 

USAID have the world in their hands, but too many balls in the air. Many key positions at posts overseas are vacant for the simple reason that we don’t have enough 

personnel. In Beijing, 18 percent of our embassy positions are open. In Mumbai, 20 

percent. In Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, it’s 29 percent. We face similar staffing shortages 

at the Department in Washington. 

To address the challenges confronting our nation, we need good people—and enough of them. That’s why the President’s 2010 budget request includes $283 million to facilitate the hiring of over 740 new Foreign Service personnel. These new 

staff are part of a broader effort to fulfill the President’s promise of expanding the 

Foreign Service by 25 percent. 

The staffing situation at USAID is, if anything, more severe. In 1990, USAID employed nearly 3,500 direct hire personnel to administer an annual assistance budget 

of $5 billion. Today, the agency’s staff has shrunk by roughly a third, but they are 

tasked with overseeing $13.2 billion in assistance. To provide the oversight that our 

taxpayers deserve and stay on target to meet our goal of doubling foreign assistance 

by 2015, we need more people manning the decks. 

We also need personnel with the right skills to respond to the complex emer- gencies of the 21st century. To help meet this challenge, we are requesting $323 

million for the Civilian Stabilization Initiative—that includes expansion of the Civilian Response Corps. This group of professionals will help the United States stabilize 

and reconstruct societies in transition from conflict and civil strife. 

With the right people in the right numbers, the State Department and USAID 

will be able to use smart power to implement smart policies. We are focusing on 

three priorities: first, urgent challenges and regions of concern, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, and the Middle East; second, transnational challenges, and 

third, development assistance. 

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, our effort centers on the President’s goal to disrupt, 

dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda. We know that this will require a balanced approach 

that relies on more than military might alone. So we are expanding our civilian efforts and ensuring that our strategy is fully integrated and adequately resourced. 

To create conditions that will prevent al Qaeda from returning to Afghanistan, we 

are helping Afghans revitalize their country’s agricultural sector, which was once a 

major source of jobs and export revenue. We are supporting the Pakistani military 

as they take on the extremists who threaten their country’s stability, and we are 

making long-term investments in Pakistan’s people and democratically elected government through targeted humanitarian assistance. In both Afghanistan and Pakistan, we are holding ourselves and these governments accountable for progress toward defined objectives. Finally, we are seeking the resources to deploy a new strategic communications strategy to combat violence and empower voices of moderation 

in both countries. 

As we move forward with the responsible redeployment of our combat forces from 

Iraq, this budget provides the tools we need to facilitate the transition to a stable, 

sovereign, self-reliant Iraq and to forge a new relationship with the Iraqi government and people based on diplomatic and economic cooperation. 

Elsewhere in the Middle East, we are working with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to advance our goal of a two-state solution and a future in which Israel and 

its Arab neighbors can live in peace and security. 

In addition to these urgent challenges, we also face a new array of transnational 

threats, including climate change, energy security, nonproliferation, and disease. 

These issues require us to develop new forms of diplomatic engagement—we cannot 

send a special envoy to negotiate with a pandemic, call a summit with carbon dioxide, or sever relations with the global financial crisis. By supporting the Department’s use of new tools and strategies, the President’s budget will enable us to con-
8 

front the threats and seize the opportunities of our interconnected world. For example, we are working through the Major Economies Forum and to prepare for the 

United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen. We are deploying new approaches to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and are now a full partner in the P–5∂1 talks. And the President has launched a 6-year, $63 billion Global 

Health Initiative to help combat the spread of disease. 

This budget also reflects the critical role that development assistance must play 

in our foreign policy. We are proposing significant investments for critical programs 

including $525 million for maternal and child health, nearly $1 billion for education, 

$1.36 billion to address the root causes of food insecurity, and $4.1 billion for humanitarian assistance, including care for refugees and displaced persons and emergency food aid. These initiatives build good will, alleviate suffering, and save lives, 

but they also make our country safer and our partners stronger. Smart development 

assistance advances our values and our interests. Our assistance programs will also 

reduce the risk of instability in countries that face a variety of political, economic, 

and security challenges. Providing responsible governments with economic support 

now can help avert far more expensive interventions in the future. 

Our smart power approach will rely on partnerships to magnify our efforts. These 

partnerships begin within our own government. We are seeking an unprecedented 

level of cooperation between agencies. 

Secretary Gates highlighted this cooperation when he testified with me before you 

last month. Partnerships are also vital beyond our borders. None of the great problems facing the world can be solved without the United States, but we cannot solve 

any of these problems on our own. We are energizing our historic alliances in Europe and Asia, strengthening and deepening our bilateral ties with emerging regional leaders like Indonesia, Brazil, Turkey, Mexico, and India, and establishing 

more constructive, candid relationships with China and Russia. As we work to maximize the benefits of our policies and to ensure that global burdens are broadly 

shared, we must also make more effective use of international organizations. Our 

budget request provides $4.1 billion for contributions to multilateral organizations 

and peacekeeping efforts—money which will fulfill our obligations to the United Nations and other international organizations, including full funding of all 2010 payments to the Multilateral Development Banks. 

We are also expanding our partnerships beyond traditional government-to-government efforts. In addition to working with women, civil society, and human rights 

activists around the world, we are also encouraging more people-to-people cooperation. Last week at Yankee Stadium, I announced the creation of a Virtual Student 

Foreign Service that will bring together college students in the United States and 

our embassies abroad to work on digital and citizen diplomacy initiatives. 

Finally, we must rely on sound principles to guide our actions. We are committed 

to practicing what we preach. And this includes a commitment to accountable governance at home and abroad. 

As we seek more resources, we have a responsibility to ensure that they are expended wisely. We are working to make the Department more efficient, more transparent, and more effective. For the first time, we have filled the position of Deputy 

Secretary for Resources and Management. Together, we are working to increase efficiency and implement reforms throughout the State Department and USAID. 

Mr. Chairman, we’re pursuing all of these policies because it is the right thing 

to do, but also because it is the smart thing to do. No country benefits more than 

the United States when there is greater security, democracy, and opportunity in the 

world. Our economy grows when our allies are strengthened and people thrive. And 

no country carries a heavier burden when things go badly. Every year, we spend 

hundreds of billions of dollars dealing with the consequences of war, disease, violent 

ideologies, and vile dictatorships. 

Since last testifying before the committee, I have traveled around the globe, covering many miles and many continents. I can assure you that there is genuine eagerness to partner with us in finding solutions to the challenges we face. 

Our investment in diplomacy and development is only a fraction of our total national security budget. But this country will make very few investments that do 

more, dollar-for-dollar, to create the kind of world we want to inhabit. By relying 

on the right people, the right policies, strong partnerships, and sound principles, we 

can lead the world in creating a century that we and our children will be proud to 

own—a century of progress and prosperity for the whole world, but especially for 

our country. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to present the President’s budget request. 

I look forward to answering your questions. 
9 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Madam Secretary. You mentioned 

Secretary Gates’ testimony before us, and you also said we need an 

American approach, not USDA or USAID or fragmentation. I’ve 

talked with Secretary Gates about this, and I’ve looked at some of 

the speeches he’s given. 

In some ways, the Defense Department is becoming our largest 

foreign aid agency. There are things they can do very well, very 

quickly. If you need to build a bridge, nobody’s better equipped to 

do it than the Department of Defense (DOD). But if development 

means giving the people in the area the tools and training to build 

their own bridges, then he would be the first to say that the men 

and women at DOD are not the ones to do that. 

Can we start shifting what has become more and more of basically a State Department effort at the Department of Defense back 

to the State Department? Others in the military have told me they 

would like to see this. 

DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES/RESPONSIBILITIES AT STATE/USAID

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is a goal that both 

Secretary Gates and I agree on, and we are supported by the President in working toward that goal. We’ve already started high-level 

discussions between State Department and the Defense Department about how we will begin to move back a lot of the authorities 

and the resources that go with them. 

We are engaged in a careful analysis of what we are prepared 

to do immediately, what we will be able to do once we build up our 

capacity and focus on the tactics that will enable us to be effective 

in the field. And I think that over time, starting with the 2010 

budget, you will begin to see a clearer delineation of the responsibilities of the State Department and USAID. 

Senator LEAHY. I hope you continue to work with this subcommittee, because I think most of us on both sides of the aisle 

would like to see that. Speaking of resources, an article by David 

Sanger and Tom Shanker in the New York Times noted Pakistan 

is increasing its nuclear arsenal. An impoverished country building 

nuclear weapons at the same time they’re asking for a lot more 

money from us in both military and economic aid. 

They’re being threatened by an insurgency but nuclear weapons 

will do nothing to fight the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Are we just giving 

them money which is, after all, fungible, not to fight the Taliban 

and Al Qaeda, which are groups that are destabilizing their country more and more all the time, but to support Pakistan’s nuclear 

program? 

PAKISTAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM

Secretary CLINTON. Mr. Chairman, I think that there is no basis 

for believing that any of the money that we are providing will be 

diverted into the nuclear program. But let’s put this into a broader 

context. I think that for the first time, we are developing the kind 

of relationships with the government and military of Pakistan that 

enable us to provide support and advice about the threats that they 

face. 

When I testified a few weeks ago, I was very concerned, because 

there seemed to be an inability or an unwillingness on the part of 
10 

the democratically elected government to take on the very real 

threat that the Taliban posed to major population centers and, indeed, the security and stability of the entire state of Pakistan. That 

has turned around, and I give a great deal of credit to our military 

leadership, to Secretary Gates, and particularly, Admiral Mullen, 

who have worked to develop very good relationships with their 

counterparts. 

And so what we see now is an all-out effort by the Pakistani 

military to take that territory that had been seized by the Taliban. 

There is a lot more work to be done as we move forward in this 

relationship. Obviously, we believe that India and Pakistan can 

take more steps to build confidence between the two of them that 

will lessen the need for a nuclear deterrent in the eyes of the Pakistanis or the Indians. But we think we’re on the right path, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator LEAHY. There are some other aspects of that which we 

won’t discuss in an open hearing, but I would appreciate it if you 

and I and Senator Gregg could talk about that at another time. 

You must wonder every morning when you wake up when you 

will ever get a quiet day. Iran fired another missile yesterday 

which was capable of traveling 1,200 miles and they made sure 

they got the film of it out to everybody around the world. Obviously, for them, obtaining a nuclear weapon is a key foreign policy 

goal. 

What are we doing about Israel and the Palestinians? We’ve seen 

settlement construction not only continue after Israel said they 

wouldn’t and even accelerate over U.S. objections. The rocket attacks continue against Israel. Of course, there was also the Gaza 

catastrophe. The Israelis and Palestinians don’t seem to be able to 

work this out on their own. 

We provide tens of millions of dollars to resettle Russian immigrants to Israel. Now we’re told some of that money might be supporting some refugees who live in settlements we asked them not 

to build. 

I went to a small town in the West Bank a couple of years ago 

named Aboud. There was recently an article in the Washington 

Post about that town, where Muslims and Christians live harmoniously. For generations they had hundreds of olive trees, and all 

of a sudden, the Israelis built their security barrier. It went 4 miles 

into Palestinian territory and cut off one-third of their land. Hundreds of olive trees were cut down. 

They were told that the water they had always used would now 

be available only on some days, and sometimes they’re not told 

when they can have it. Meanwhile, they can see sprinkler systems 

being used in the Israeli settlement. Will this administration get 

actively involved before it is too late? Because, frankly, if it’s not 

already too late, it’s the 11th hour. 

FOREIGN POLICY CHALLENGES

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, the litany of challenges 

that you have listed are daunting. There’s no getting around how 

much work lies ahead. But I want to assure you that in the short 

period of time that the Obama administration and I have been honored to have these positions, we have been working extraordinarily 
11 

diligently to try to set up the groundwork for facing all of these difficult challenges, specifically with respect to the Middle East. 

As you know, on the second day of his Presidency, President 

Obama accepted my recommendation to appoint George Mitchell to 

be our Special Envoy. Senator Mitchell has been tireless in not only 

consulting with all of the parties multiple times, but in working 

through what would be our approach as we try to engage the 

Israelis and the Palestinians in such an effort. 

We made it very clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu, as you 

know, when he was here, that our Government favors a two-state 

solution. That is the goal of our efforts, what we are working toward. And the President was explicit in calling for a stop to the 

settlement. 

It is a very difficult set of circumstances that both the Palestinians and the Israelis confront, but we are operating on the basis 

of bedrock principles. The United States is committed to the safety 

and security of the state of Israel and the people of Israel. 

We believe in a two-state solution, and we do not want to see either party, the Israelis or the Palestinian authority, do anything 

that would prejudice or undermine the ability to achieve a twostate solution. 

We are starting early. We are engaging. The President will be 

going to the Middle East, as you know, in 2 weeks to make a major 

address. In Cairo, Senator Mitchell will be working in accordance 

with a work plan that we are setting up with the Israelis and the 

Palestinians. And I can promise you our very best efforts and our 

absolute commitment to the realization of a two-state solution, 

which we believe is in the interest of both Israel and the Palestinians. 

Senator LEAHY. I do, too. I have further questions about Hamas 

and the rockets, but my time has run out. Senator Gregg. 

Senator GREGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me pick up 

where you left off. Mr. Netanyahu’s been here in Washington for 

the last few days, and his position seems to be pretty clear that you 

can’t settle the situation of his immediate neighbors, the Palestinian issue and southern Lebanon issue, unless you settle the 

issue of Iran. 

First, do you believe that a precondition of resolving the Palestinian questions and the issue of southern Lebanon is the resolution of issues related to a nuclear Iran? 

MIDDLE EAST PEACE AND IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM

Secretary CLINTON. Senator Gregg, I don’t think that they are actually dependent upon one another, but I do believe that the alliance which has come together of Israel and many of her Arab 

neighbors against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is an opportunity that will enable us both to move forward with our engagement regarding Iran and our commitment to pursue diplomacy and 

to build a multilateral coalition, including not only the countries in 

the region, but beyond, European nations, Russia and China, and 

others, to recognize the extraordinary threat that is posed by the 

potential of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. 

But we think that this coalition against Iran is a great opportunity to assist in achieving the two-state solution. We’re not link-
12 

ing them. We’re not saying they’re dependent. We made it very 

clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu our commitment to pursue 

what we hope will be an effective strategy against Iran. 

The President made clear that he is committed to preventing 

Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, with all of the consequences 

that that would entail. But at the same time, we cannot wait on 

the Palestinian-Israeli efforts regarding peace, so we think they 

have to proceed simultaneously. 

Senator GREGG. As I look at where we as a Nation see our greatest threat, it is obviously a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda or 

other fundamentalist Islamic organizations obtaining a nuclear 

weapon. And right now, you have a terrorist state developing nuclear weapons, or terrorist government in Iran, and you have a 

group of terrorists trying to capture nuclear weapons from a nation 

state, Pakistan. So those appear to be the two most significant examples where nuclear terrorism could arise. 

So I would like to get the specifics of how we keep—if you have 

ideas, what these specific ideas are for how you keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon when they clearly are committed to doing 

that, and the timeframe seems to be shorter rather than longer 

now, and what we do in Pakistan to keep terrorists from taking 

control of nuclear weapons, specifically. 

IRAN AND PAKISTAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM

Secretary CLINTON. Well, not to complicate the threats that 

you’re posing, which are very real, there’s a third, which is the acquisition of nuclear material outside of either of those two scenarios, which we are equally—— 

Senator GREGG. I accept that, but I’m—— 

Secretary CLINTON. Yeah, which we are equally worried about. 

Well, first, let me just say with respect to Pakistan, part of the reason why we are encouraged by the military’s strong response 

against the Taliban in Bunar and Swat is because we do not want 

to see the Pakistani state threatened with the advance of the 

Taliban. 

We are assured by the Pakistani military and the government 

that they have control over their nuclear weapons at this time, and 

we have offered and continued to work with them in any way that 

they deem appropriate to help them assure the safety and security 

of those weapons. I do not see that as an immediate threat, but it 

is certainly one that we take very seriously. 

With respect to Iran, our goal is to persuade the Iranian regime 

that they will actually be less secure if they proceed with their nuclear weapons program. There is a lot of debate about the timetable. Recent analyses have suggested the timetable may be longer 

than what had originally been thought. But whatever the timetable 

might be, the goal is the same—a nuclear armed Iran with a deliverable weapons system is going to spark an arms race in the Middle East and the greater region. That is not going to be in the interest of Iranian security, and we believe that we have a very 

strong case to make for that. 

At the same time, we see a growing recognition among a number 

of countries that they do not want this eventuality to take place, 

so we’re having serious conversations with many beyond the imme-
13 

diate region. I don’t want to go into details because, obviously, this 

is a very difficult undertaking, and we don’t want to be 

telegraphing everything we’re doing, but the strategy which we are 

laying out does have a timeframe, as the President said during his 

meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, where we either see some 

openness and some willingness to engage on this very important 

issue with us or we don’t, but we are going to pursue our diplomatic efforts. 

AUNG SAN SUU KYI

Senator GREGG. I appreciate that. I appreciate you can’t be specific, but this is such a huge issue, as if we were looking at Germany in 1930, in my opinion. But may I turn to another topic 

which I would just like to get your quick thought on, and that is 

what we do in Burma. With Aung San Suu Kyi now being tried, 

and we have this dictatorship, which is incredibly oppressive, of 

Than Shwe, and isn’t it time for us to take some more insistent action than what we’ve been doing in this area? 

Secretary CLINTON. Senator, that’s exactly what we are looking 

at through a strategic review. I know there’s been consultation 

with some of the Members and staff on the Hill looking for the best 

ideas we would have going forward. We are absolutely committed 

to trying to come up with an approach that might influence the regime we reject. Their baseless charges against Aung San Suu Kyi, 

their continuing resistance to a free and open electoral process, if 

they stay on the track they’re on, their elections in 2010 will be totally illegitimate and without any meaning in the international 

community. 

I’ve been heartened by the response we’ve received. I’ve spoken 

to a number of the foreign secretaries of the ASEAN countries 

who’ve issued strong statements. We’re working to get more support in the United Nations. We share your both frustration and distress at the repressive regime. There are several countries that 

have influence on the Burmese junta, and we are going to try to 

do our best to influence them to see that this repressive regime is 

not one that we should continue to support, and hopefully get a 

greater international base to take action against them. 

Senator GREGG. Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. Senator Specter. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, 

thank you for taking on this tough job, and thank you for the excellent job you are doing at it. I noted in the Washington Post yesterday, a statement that the administration indicated an interest in 

talking to Hamas. Obviously, a very, very touchy subject. Very 

hard to deal with a political organization which has articulated an 

intent to destroy Israel. Hard to bring them into the dialogue and 

discussion. 

Right now, the conventional wisdom, which I share, is not to talk 

to Hamas. Those who take a little different point of view argue 

that without dialogue, the problems can’t be solved. I have long believed in dialogue with Syria and Iran and have spoken about it 

and written about it. The dialogue with North Korea, when it 

moved to the bilateral stage with President Bush’s administration, 
14 

plus multilateral, produced results, although it’s difficult to deal 

with the North Koreans and make anything stick. 

The experience with Qaddafi in Libya is heartening. It shows 

that if you deal with someone who’s arguably the worst terrorist 

in the history of the world—blows up Pan Am 103, Berlin discotheque, et cetera—and comes back—makes reparations and 

comes back. So you have the issue of dialogue. 

HAMAS

There are recent pronouncements by the leadership of Hamas of 

easing off on their threat to destroy Israel. Several comments in a 

5-hour interview reported by the New York Times recently, a 10- 

year truce. Well, a lot can happen in 10 years. You don’t need reciprocity to declare a truce. You can declare a truce. What do you 

see in our dealings with Hamas, from the point of view of aid development, which you talked about earlier, and I agree with you, 

to try to bring the people under Hamas’ jurisdiction to reject them 

on election, which would solve the problem. How do you engage 

Hamas, if at all? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Senator Specter, it is not the administration’s policy to engage with Hamas. There are no efforts on the 

part of any official within the administration to do so. We have 

made very clear what our ground rules were, that in order for us, 

or we hope others, to deal with Hamas, Hamas had to renounce violence, had to accept the right of Israel to exist, and had to agree 

to adhere to the previous agreements entered into by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the PA. 

So there is not any policy whatsoever, nor any authorized outreach to Hamas. And what we have been stressing is not only our 

strong conviction, but the principles embodied in the quartet, which 

consists of the United States, United Nations, the European Union, 

and Russia, all of whom have signed on to the same formulation 

regarding Hamas. But equally, the implicit expectation in the Arab 

peace initiative, that there had to be a willingness by Hamas, for 

it to ever come to any table that any of us would be a part of, to 

meet those requirements. 

Now, I agree with you that at points in history, there have come 

opportunities for us to take advantage of, such as the Qaddafi example you provided. We see nothing at this moment that suggests 

that Hamas is anything other than a terrorist organization, a resistance organization, unwilling to really stake its future on a future of peace and security in a Palestinian state living next to 

Israel, and so we are dealing with a Palestinian authority. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you. Madam Secretary, turning now to 

other dialogue potentials, it is my hope that the administration will 

pursue a dialogue with Syria. Only Israel can decide for itself 

whether it wishes to give up the Golan, and anything done will 

have to be not with trust, but with verification, but the negotiations which Turkey has brokered appear to have some promise. 

And Foreign Minister Walid al-Mu’allim I think, has established a 

record of credibility, and I would suggest he is a good negotiating 

partner. 
15 

OPENING DIALOGUE WITH IRAN

Let me come to a question with respect to Iran. Prime Minister 

Netanyahu was very pleased with the meeting with President 

Obama and the timetable which the President has set, looking to 

the Iranian elections, as the potential for dialogue and holding out 

the possibility of bilateral dialogue, and I hope you will pursue 

that. 

And putting a timetable for the first time on not waiting indefinitely with all the options on the table—and I speak in generalities, not to beat a tom-tom unnecessarily. 

The offer that the Russians made some time ago to enrich the 

uranium, I think, has never been pursued or publicized. Perhaps 

it has been pursued, but not publicized. But that seems to me to 

be a perfect lie when Iran insists that they’re developing—enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, and the Russians can provide 

it for them. 

What conceivable excuse—when they resist something so obvious 

as that, it seems that would be a good wedge to get more cooperation from China, Russia, and other countries. What can be done to 

pursue Russian enrichment of their uranium? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Senator Specter, that is an option that 

is being considered within the P5-plus-1, as well as within our own 

deliberations. We have a broad range of issues to discuss with the 

Iranians if they respond affirmatively to the President’s invitation 

to do so. And obviously, they are in the midst of election season. 

We know what that means. So it’s unlikely that we will get a response or a dialogue going until there is some settling of the political scene. But your reference to the enrichment potential is one 

that we are exploring. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. Senator Bond. 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madam 

Secretary, welcome. I am pleased to support your request for the 

additional resources that you badly need. I also congratulate you 

on the enunciation and implementation of smart power—that is, 

backing up our kinetic power with economic development, capacity 

building, educational exchanges, which I think is a way that we 

have to go in dealing with potential insurgencies. 

And speaking of those, I congratulate you on having made your 

first official visit to Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation in the 

world, headed by an American-educated president who’s working 

hard to bring Indonesia into a position where it and Southeast Asia 

will not be threatened with terrorists. 

I think we’ve all heard now that the second attack, the followon after 9/11, was to be an attack on the west coast by Hambali 

and his associates from Indonesia. I have a much longer statement 

that I will put in the record, to everybody’s great relief. 

Senator LEAHY. We will all read it. 

Senator BOND. I’m sure you will. 

[The statement follows:] 
16 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

Secretary Clinton, welcome back to the Senate, it is a pleasure to have you before 

the committee today. 

I applaud your leadership of the State Department and for embracing the concept 

of ‘‘smart power.’’ 

Many people in the world in less-developed nations are suffering right now—their 

governments don’t work; their people are hungry; there is little hope. 

These people, whether they live in Afghanistan, Southeast Asia or the Middle 

East, are vulnerable to ideologies that promise a better life, whether or not those 

ideologies deliver. 

Right now many of those nations are vulnerable to an ideology known as Extremist Violent Islam. Their goal: to destroy Western nations and convert the world to 

their ideology. Their tactic: terrorism. 

We all know that anti-Americanism is growing throughout the world. So how do 

we respond to this ideology, and to the terrorism that results? Obviously, where appropriate, we are sending American troops to defend America. 

But we need to do more. 

And as a member of the committees on Intelligence and Defense and Foreign Operations appropriations, I look forward to working with you in a constructive, bipartisan manner to enhance our nation’s military, intelligence and diplomatic power, 

or—as you and I refer to the latter—our nation’s ‘‘smart power.’’ 

Enhancing our nation’s smart power must be an essential component of our national security strategy. I believe 80–90 percent of our war against extremists and 

terrorism, involves putting additional resources towards smart power initiatives 

such as: 

—Peace Corps volunteers 

—USAID foreign service officers (I’m cosponsoring legislation to increase the number of FSO’s with Sen. Durbin) 

—Educational and cultural exchanges like the Eisenhower fellowships and Financial Services Volunteer Corps 

—Robust and appropriately targeted public diplomacy programs 

—English language initiatives 

—And rural development and healthcare programs, to name just a few. 

In other words, I believe our nation needs to put proactively more sandals and 

sneakers on the ground, in order to prevent having to put boots and bayonets on 

the ground in the future. 

You see—Smart Power recognizes that before a person can choose his politics, he 

has to have enough to eat, and a stable community in which to live. 

One area where I have long called for increased focus, and an area where the 

United States has abiding interests and opportunities for the deployment of our nation’s smart power is Southeast Asia. 

The 10 member ASEAN countries represent our fifth largest trading partner, the 

U.S. exports twice that of what it exports to China to ASEAN, and is home to approximately one-quarter of the world’s Muslims, the vast majority of whom practice 

the peaceful, tolerant and mainstream teachings of Islam. 

Without continued and enhanced engagement, I believe this area runs the risk 

of becoming a second front against Islamist extremism. 

The importance of the Straits of Malacca, through which 15 million barrels of oil 

and 40 percent of the world’s trade are transported through every day, cannot be 

overstated as well. 

And as you know, the cornerstone to stability and prosperity in this important region is the 17,508 island archipelago nation of Indonesia. 

I thank you for recognizing Indonesia’s importance by selecting it as one of your 

first official visits as Secretary of State. 

As the world’s third largest democracy and largest Muslim populated nation on 

Earth, your visit underscored that Islam and Democracy are not mutually exclusive—that America supports Indonesia as a key partner in the effort against terrorism. 

And, it demonstrated that America has not abandoned its leadership role in this 

vitally important region. 

A tremendous amount of progress has been made in Southeast Asia. 

However, the trends are not reversible. 

America must renew its efforts to stay engaged in the region, or run the risk of 

ceding influence to China and other regional powers and bearing witness to the 

radicalization of the hundreds of millions of Muslims in this region of paramount 

strategic and economic importance. 
17 

Senator BOND. I have a book coming out that you can read at 

even greater length. But you mentioned communication, which is 

very important. Public diplomacy has really fallen down. We used 

to have a voice of America. We used to have broadcast bureaus. It 

reached out with news and information that reached the elites, 

that reached the leaders, reached the average citizens. Now they’re 

playing dance music for teenagers. 

And I guess the greatest comment on that, when my son and his 

marine scout snipers recaptured Fallujah in May 2007, they did so 

with no civilian injuries, tremendous success, and the Al Qaeda 

news media reached out and put totally different stories, lies that 

not only were the BBC, Yahoo, ABC, and other American news organizations—his report to me was, ‘‘We’re winning the war on the 

ground, and we’re absolutely losing it in the media.’’ 

We found that to be true last December in Kabul, where we 

talked to our fine Ambassador Wood, who was saying, ‘‘When we 

do something good, it never gets publicized. When something happens, the Taliban or Al Qaeda will phrase it their way.’’ And it took 

the ISAF 2 weeks to acknowledge what happened. So he set up a 

government media information center, and to allow Afghan journalists to come in. Tremendous success. 

And then when I read about it, 95 percent of it had to be funded 

by donations. Now, if there is one area where the State Department really needs to focus some efforts, we need to tell our story. 

If something goes wrong, admit it, tell it, apologize, tell what we’re 

doing to solve it. But right now, we’re getting killed. What are you 

doing in the communication area? 

PUBLIC DIPLOMACY EFFORTS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Secretary CLINTON. I could not agree more with you, Senator. I 

really appreciate your emphasis, both on Southeast Asia, which we 

have got to get reengaged in, and on this really important issue of 

strategic communications. We are revamping what’s called public 

diplomacy from top to bottom. I am bringing in people who know 

how to tell a story. Our new Under Secretary will be one of the 

founders and executives from Discovery, a channel that has swept 

the world and understands what it is people want to hear about 

and how they can best be engaged. 

But we’re not stopping there. We’ve got to get into the so-called 

nontraditional media, which is becoming more and more traditional. So, for example, when I announced yesterday that we were 

sending money for humanitarian relief in Pakistan, part of what 

we’re going to be doing is buying time on cell phones to communicate directly with the refugees, and to have them be able to ask 

questions, but to get information to them. 

In both Afghanistan and Pakistan, we realized, as you saw in 

Kabul, that the Taliban, with their little FM radio stations on the 

backs of motorcycles and pickup trucks, were spreading this propaganda. And, in fact, they were jamming our cell phones that our 

young military, our soldiers and our marines had. They were very 

effectively preventing communication out, even on a personal basis. 

We are addressing that. 
18 

We have a civilian military team. We’re going to be going at that 

with a great deal of effort because we cannot lose the information 

war. 

Senator BOND. Just to interrupt very briefly, I hope if you need 

additional powers to expand beyond that, there has to be greater 

coordination among our agencies. The lack of coordination—Defense Department, State Department, and all the others—is critical. 

USAID

Another quick comment on USAID. It’s been understaffed, underperformed. Afghanistan needed the agricultural development about 

which you spoke for 2 straight years. We put in $5 million in this 

subcommittee for USAID to send agricultural extension agents over 

there. How many went? Zero. That’s why we involved the National 

Guard to start the agricultural development teams. You need to 

have the security before you have the crops planted, the trees 

planted, the facilities set up. 

And I hope that you will get a reinvigorated USAID which can 

work with the Department of Defense, where security is needed to 

bring agricultural development to Afghanistan and the other kinds 

of development needed elsewhere in the world. 

Secretary CLINTON. That is our intention. We’ve put together for 

the first time a multiagency, multitalented team on Afghanistan 

and Pakistan, and we’ve brought into the State Department representatives from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), from the 

USDA, from the Department of Defense, from across the Government, because what we have found is that, as you point out, there 

was just a disconnect. 

You know, many of us said—when I was in the Senate, I agreed 

with you—that we should have been investing in agriculture. We 

could just never kind of get the team together. Well, it’s together 

now, and we are committed to doing it. We’ve got relationships 

with some of our great land-grant colleges. We’re going to be using 

agricultural experts. We really believe we do have a plan. 

Now, obviously, security is an issue. It’s kind of a chicken-andegg issue. If you start to help people, they will provide security on 

their own. They will be the eyes and ears you need. But until we 

get to that point, we’re going to have to have our own PRTs beefed 

up so that we can get our people out into the field. But we do have 

a specific plan with actually names next to provincial assignments, 

Senator. We’re really going to go after this. 

Senator BOND. I’ll be interested to see it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. Senator Mikulski. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Madam Secretary, it’s just wonderful to welcome you once again back to the Senate, and to welcome you now 

as America’s top diplomat, but also the CEO of the State Department, and that’s really where my questions will lie. Many of my 

colleagues have asked the policy questions about the issues facing 

this country, but policies without people, as you said, in implementing—in your testimony, we can’t do the job. 

Going to the triad that you’ve said we’ll stand on for foreign policy—defense, diplomacy, and development—I would like to go to 
19 

the diplomacy and development issues, wearing both my Maryland 

hat and the dean of the women hat. 

I would like to go to the diplomacy hat, first of all. In your testimony, you talk about the need for more Foreign Service officers, 

and I would confer to that. Many of them live in Maryland and 

they speak to me not only about the great joy they have in serving 

America, but about the great stress they have in trying to serve 

America. 

PAY COMPARABILITY BETWEEN FOREIGN SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Could you share with us how you hope to be able to retain people? The family stresses and particularly the issue on locality pay, 

where many of our wonderful diplomats and up-and-coming diplomats, in study, face as much as a 20 percent pay cut. And if we 

are for Lilly Ledbetter, we’re also going to be for the wonderful people who work at the State Department. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I’m very grateful that you raised this, 

Senator, because there’s an urgent need for pay comparability between Foreign Service employees assigned overseas and those assigned in the United States. 

A typical Foreign Service employee, as you know, spends as 

much as 70 percent of his or her career outside of our country. Because they do not earn locality pay while serving outside, they essentially take a pay cut of over 20 percent every time they’re assigned to represent our country abroad. And for senior employees, 

this problem was corrected with the introduction of pay for performance in 2004, but the problem remains uncorrected for the 

entry-level and mid-level people, the very people we’re trying to 

make sure stay in the Foreign Service. 

In fact, the base pay of an entry- or mid-level Foreign Service 

employee serving overseas is 23 percent less than what it would be 

if they stayed here in Washington. 

Senator MIKULSKI. So somebody trying to rebuild Afghanistan 

makes less than somebody working at the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD), trying to rebuild the cities of 

America, both serving America with duty and dedication? 

Secretary CLINTON. That’s exactly right. And the disparity grows 

each year because as locality pay increases as a proportion of pay 

in Washington, DC, the difference between overseas and domestic 

pay continues to widen. Now, we believe that this needs to be addressed urgently, but that’s just a piece of the puzzle. That is something that is such a glaring inequity that it needs to be corrected. 

But we’re also trying to make sure that we have enough training 

and supporting services, not only for our Foreign Service employee, 

but for their families, because of the confluence of greater and 

greater stresses on individual families that come from these deployments that our diplomats are undergoing and the increasing threat 

matrix that we see around the world. The job is just harder and 

harder, and that goes also for our USAID personnel. 

DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES IN THE BUDGET

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, Madam Secretary, I want to move on to 

development. So do you think you need more new authorizing legis-
20 

lation? Do you think you need—has the President got the money 

in this appropriations request to deal with this? 

In other words, you and I are people who like to work on things 

that are specific, immediate, and realizable. What can we do to retain the very best that we have in that foreign team that you have 

all over the world? We’re working under great stress and, at times, 

great danger. And yet—so is it authorizing—is it in the budget? 

Secretary CLINTON. There are several things that are in the 

budget that we need to do that will help us on this, Senator. One 

is to increase the numbers. That is something that we desperately 

need. As I said in my testimony, we haven’t filled positions in some 

of our most important postings because we don’t have the people. 

We are also looking to have a different rotation because, as we 

move people up the ranks, we’ve got to get them trained for the 

next assignment. 

If we’ve got a great, brilliant young Foreign Service officer in development, and we want to send that young person to Afghanistan, 

they’re going to need language training to be effective. So the Foreign Service Institute needs resources. We have a lot of this in our 

budget. 

Senator MIKULSKI. I want to come back, and perhaps then your 

staff can get to me specifically. But essentially, the revitalization 

of the Foreign Service—let me just add one point. 

Secretary CLINTON. Pay comparability is in the Senate version of 

the supplemental. 

Senator LEAHY. If the Senator would yield, Senator Gregg and I 

put that in the supplemental bill. That’s the bill we’re going to be 

voting on today, and then we’ll send it over to the other body, 

where we hope that they will agree to do it. That is something both 

Senator Gregg and I really worked hard on, to make sure it’s in 

this bill. 

Senator MIKULSKI. If I could now come to the development part, 

and I’d really like to thank Senator Leahy and Senator Gregg for 

the job they’ve done over the years, trying to deal with this. But 

in Maryland, we are the home now to many of the international relief organizations. We’re the home to Catholic Relief, World Relief, 

Lutheran Refugees, and they’re asking about where are we heading 

with AID? 

One, that it is a contracting agency. They have worked with 

those contracts, but they’re so energized over the election of this 

new President, and they want to be out there in the world, but 

they need AID to be working with, number one, in terms of the resources they can count on in a steady stream, and number two, 

leadership that they can count on. 

REINVIGORATING USAID

Could you share with us how you see taking AID from a contracting office to this collaborative thing, where you have a strong 

AID working with very strong NGOs that are both American and 

international? 

Secretary CLINTON. That’s exactly the model, and we are determined to move away from the contracting pipeline model. We do 

not think it has worked, and frankly, we think it has squandered 

very scarce American taxpayer dollars. There are just too many 
21 

contractors who are in the beltway, as they say, who take 50 to 60 

percent of the money before it ever even gets out into the field, and 

then it just kind of trickles down. We cannot afford doing that, and 

that has been unfortunately the trend. 

So we are looking at a revitalized, reinvigorated, and restaffed 

USAID. We’ve asked for a significant increase in our USAID Foreign Service numbers that you will see in this budget because as 

we move tasks inside, we’ve got to have the people to do them. 

Right now, there are only four agricultural specialists left in 

USAID. That’s just unacceptable, and it’s one of the reasons why 

we’ve had trouble pushing the agricultural agenda for Afghanistan. 

But your description of what the best NGOs want is exactly what 

we’re going to try to produce. 

Senator MIKULSKI. And they want a strong AID. They don’t see 

it as competition with them for resources, so they’re looking at both 

a steady stream, both in the Millennium accounts—well, I know 

that my time is up. I just want to compliment you. You know, we, 

the women of the Senate, work on a bipartisan basis, concerned 

about women of the world, and, you know, you were part of that, 

and we still count you as one of our own. We want to compliment 

you on establishing an ambassadorial level for women’s global initiatives, a great choice, the Judith McHale choice in public diplomacy. 

And I want to extend again a hand that you know you have always with us. But we, the women of the Senate, speaking for Kay 

Bailey Hutchison and all the Republican women and your Democratic colleagues, we want to work with you and your team at the 

State Department to really make a difference in the world. And we 

look forward to working with you on these global women’s initiatives. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator LEAHY. I appreciate Senator Mikulski saying that, because on these humanitarian things we do, it is good foreign policy, 

it is good for our security, but there’s also a moral aspect when 

you’re the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth. We have a 

moral responsibility to help in these areas. I think most people realize that. 

Senator Bennett, from his State of Utah, has done his best to 

help. They’re giving us their Governor to serve in what I think is 

one of the most difficult and one of the most important posts, and 

I’m glad to see we’re sending someone who actually speaks the language. Senator Bennett. 

Senator BENNETT. You took my opening comment, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEAHY. Go ahead and say it again. 

Senator BENNETT. Madam Secretary, welcome here, and I wanted to congratulate you and the President in your choice of Governor 

Huntsman as Ambassador to China. I recommended him to Colin 

Powell 8 years ago for exactly that position. He’s superbly well 

qualified. Not only does he speak the language, he understands the 

culture. 

I will share with you a conversation I had with the president of 

the University of Utah as we were talking about our Governor. And 

you don’t normally have this kind of conversation discussing a Gov-
22 

ernor with a college president who’s dependent on the State legislature for support. 

And he said, ‘‘Jon Huntsman could teach a class in Chinese culture. He speaks all the dialects. He understands all of the background by virtue of his experience there as a young Mormon missionary. He has fallen in love with China.’’ And he said, ‘‘I think 

he’s more interested in China than he is in Utah.’’ 

Now, I don’t say that in any place that would hurt his career in 

Utah, because he was a very, very popular Governor in the State. 

But I think he is where his heart is, and I think you’ve made a 

very wise decision. I look forward to great things coming out of his 

service there. He also made a comment to me once that I think 

summarizes the Foreign Service, at least at the ambassadorial 

level. He said being an Ambassador is death by reception. 

Now, my colleagues have covered, as Senator Mikulski said, most 

of the policy issues, and I don’t want to re-rake those leaves. But 

I have two enthusiasms I would like to share with you and get 

your comments on. 

The first is the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). And I’m delighted to see this administration asking for $1.425 billion, 

a significant increase over the 2009 appropriated level, and simply 

want to register formally on the record and in this opportunity, 

while we’re focusing on it, to let you know that at least on this subcommittee, this Senator is very much committed to the approach 

of the Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

Too much foreign aid has been to build monuments that have an 

American plaque on them, and then don’t really do very much later 

on, aren’t properly maintained, don’t have the impact. Having it 

done in a way that is a working activity that goes on forever and 

ever and produces results over the long term rather than something just nice to look at is I think the core of what the Millennium 

Challenge Corporation was formed for. There are some who are 

afraid that since, well, it happened in the Bush administration, it’s 

doomed here. And I’m delighted that that does not appear to be the 

case. 

MICROENTERPRISE

My other enthusiasm is microenterprise, and I’ve been pushing 

for more and more of that the whole time I’ve been in the Senate. 

I’m delighted that every year, the budget goes up a little. But I’m 

concerned that 50 percent of the microenterprise funding benefits 

are not benefiting the very poor. And Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel 

Prize winner who started the Grameen Bank, has stayed focused 

on the very, very poor, and the point with Senator Mikulski, that 

90-plus percent of the borrowers there are women. And they’ve created entrepreneurs and capitalists out of the very poorest women 

in the world, and I’m for all three: entrepreneurs, capitalists, and 

women. 

So could you talk about what might be done with respect to the 

microenterprise activities, whether through AID or maybe the Millennium Challenge account itself? Now, they don’t really work in 

that area, but cooperative activities here, let’s talk about the whole 

aid thing, with the focus on making it work, and making it work 

for the poor, and making it work long term, rather than what has 
23 

been unfortunately too much a part of American history in this 

area of building something big and grandiose, and then not seeing 

long-term benefit from it. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, thank you very much, Senator Bennett, 

and thanks too for the very positive remarks about Governor 

Huntsman. We’re extremely excited that he will represent the 

United States in China and assist us in this very important relationship. 

I also just want to echo your support for two initiatives from the 

Bush administration, both the Millennium Challenge grant program and PEPFAR. And we are very supportive of these approaches. We think that we can actually make them even better 

and better integrate what they’re doing and the lessons we’ve 

learned from them. But we were very committed to continuing 

what we see as successful efforts. 

On microenterprise, this is very near and dear to my heart. I 

started working with Muhammad Yunus in 1983 in Arkansas, 

when we brought some of the lessons of the Grameen Bank to some 

of the poorest people in our State at that time, and I have stayed 

very much involved through my times as First Lady and certainly 

as Senator, and I couldn’t agree more with you. 

The challenge is to make sure that the money we put into microenterprise gets into the hands of the people who need it the most. 

We’ve got to make some changes in order for that to occur, and we 

intend to do so. We also want to look at the best models. A lot of 

people got into microenterprise in the last 10 years, and they 

weren’t always as focused on the poor as Muhammad Yunus has 

been, and we’re doing a real scrub of that as well. 

We also believe that the sustainable model that Grameen represents where people eventually created their own revolving loan 

fund is the better way to go than to constantly be putting new 

money out to borrowers. It’s not the model we will use everywhere, 

but we think for the poorest of the poor, it is the best model because it changes behaviors and mindsets while it provides money. 

And you have seen that, and I have seen that. So we are very committed to microenterprise. It’s going to be a big element of our revamped USAID approach. 

We do think there is a role and room for slightly more upscale, 

if you will—they’re still poor, but they’re on the brink of breaking 

into the middle class. They may already have a business that, with 

our help, can expand. So we don’t want to eliminate that category 

of borrowers who can create more jobs for other people while we 

concentrate our efforts on the poorest of the poor. 

So I’ve consulted already with Muhammad Yunus. He came in 

and we had a long discussion. We want to bring microenterprise as 

a part of our efforts to some of the countries that we think would 

benefit most from it. Haiti is an example, and we’ve talked to 

Grameen about providing assistance there. Liberia, I met with 

President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. She’s been heroic and deserves 

more help to create her economy from the ground up. 

There’s just a lot of opportunity for us with microenterprise, and 

I look to you to provide advice and counsel and support as we move 

forward. 
24 

Senator BENNETT. If I could very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I would 

suggest that you also talk to the folks at the World Bank. I’ve tried 

that with not too much success, and I’m going to keep trying it. 

And if you’re there too, maybe we can dent that huge bureaucracy 

on the subject. 

Senator LEAHY. Senator Brownback. 

FOREIGN AID BUDGET

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Madam Secretary. Good to see you. A common area of interest with 

you we’re working on right now—and this is on another subcommittee, on the Agriculture Subcommittee—is the food aid budget. 

And I just was coming across some numbers on this, that we’ve 

spent 65 percent of that budget on administration and transportation. I think that’s a touch high. And, consequently, we keep putting more money in food aid and we get less of it out the door. 

So we’re researching two bills, and I just want to put them on 

your radar screen because I know this is something you’ve been interested in, just a blunt instrument approach, saying no more than 

50 percent of food aid money can go for administration and transportation. I think 50 percent is pretty generous on this. And just 

to really try to push the system to find ways to be able to get food 

aid to locations more cost effective than what we’re doing right 

now. So I’m all for the food aid budget, very supportive of that. 

But it looks like to me it’s a little bit like what we’ve done with 

the malaria program earlier. When we first started looking at this, 

90 percent of the money was going for conferences and consultants, 

and in countries, in Africa and other places, saying, ‘‘Look, we 

know what to do. We just don’t have the bed nets. We don’t have 

the sprays. We don’t have the medicine.’’ So let’s put the money in 

that, because you know what to do. And it’s the same on food aid. 

And I would think also, there’s a key area here on micronutrients 

on food aid that’s probably the best, cheapest way to improve lives 

around the world that we’ve got left in front of us, real cheap, simple, cost effective, and we’re looking at how that can be built into 

our food aid budget better. 

Because if we’re going to help people with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and malaria, the best thing we can probably do for them is get them clean water and decent food, and 

these are ways that are simple and pretty cost effective within our 

current budget. 

Secretary CLINTON. Senator, that is music to my ears, and your 

leadership in this area is extraordinarily important to us, because 

we do think we can do a better job with the dollars we spend on 

food aid, but we also think we’ve got to begin to shift toward helping with sustainable agriculture again. 

You know, the United States led the way with the Green Revolution in the 1960s and made a huge difference. Starting in the 

1980s, we began to shift away from helping farmers in poor countries continue to deal with depleted soil and other needs in modern 

agriculture. So we really did shift to emergency food aid, and we’ve 

got to do that. That’s part of our mission. 
25 

But it’s like that old saying, you know, you can give a person a 

fish or teach them to fish, and we want to begin to help local farmers become more productive again. So we’re looking at both of 

these. And I could not agree more with your emphasis on get the 

cost of the administration and the transportation down. One of the 

things that I did in the refugee assistance for Pakistan is to say 

we’re going to spend some of this money to buy wheat in Pakistan. 

They happen to have had a bumper crop. Actually, it’s one of 

President Zardari’s accomplishments. He made some very tough decisions last summer, and now there’s a bumper crop of wheat. Let’s 

buy from the farmers instead of shipping the wheat all the way 

across the world, which takes forever, in fact, months on our containers. So we need to do both. And I think that we have a plan 

on food security that I would love to have you and your staff 

briefed on so we can get the benefit of your advice. 

And, finally, on micronutrients, a huge opportunity for us. Iodized salt, vitamin A, vitamin K, there’s just a lot of—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. Pretty simple. 

Secretary CLINTON. It’s very simple, and we have to get a delivery system. We can partner with UNICEF, which has done some 

of this work elsewhere. But I think this holds a great opportunity 

for us. 

NORTH KOREA FUNDS/ECONOMIC ZONE IN EASTERN CONGO

Senator BROWNBACK. On a tougher subject, North Korea. This one, you’ve got in that budget $98 million for economic support 

funds for North Korea. I’ve asked you this at a prior hearing, but 

I just don’t see any reason by what North Korea has done that we 

would want to use this to bribe them. They are not at the Six-Party 

Talks. They continue to have probably the worst—that’s pretty 

tough, but they’re in the bottom five human rights persecution 

countries in the world. 

I just—I would urge you not to use those funds to bribe them to 

come back to the table. And I would hope the chairman would look 

at this as well. And before I get your comment—because I want to 

hear it on that—one other issue, we’ve just put forward a bill on 

conflict commodities. This is dealing with a region in the Congo, 

and it’s a bipartisan bill. 

I’ve worked with Dick Durbin and Russ Feingold and myself on 

this, trying to do an initiative there to get the commodities coming 

out of eastern Congo to come out of licensed mines and not ones 

that are run by militias that then fund the militias that then do 

gang rapes and child soldiers. 

And if we can ratchet down the money into the system, that 

worked in West Africa in the blood diamonds. A little simpler to 

do. This one is going to be I think more difficult, but nonetheless, 

I think the theory works, and that if we can do that in eastern 

Congo, I think it would go a long ways toward defunding the 

money into the militias that are multiple, but are doing heinous 

things. It’s a really ugly situation that doesn’t get as much visibility on it. 

And I hope you can look at that bill, and I hope you can reassure 

me on North Korea, we’re not going to use these funds for bribery 

to get them back at the table. 
26 

Secretary CLINTON. I can reassure you completely on that, Senator. We are not going to expend one penny of those funds in the 

absence of their voluntary return to the Six-Party Talks and their 

resumption of the obligations that they’ve already agreed to. 

This money is there as a backstop in the event we see the kind 

of changes in actions that we’re looking for from the North Koreans. We also are very committed to the idea you just outlined on 

conflict commodities. We think that this has a tremendous amount 

of promise. And I’d like to both look at the bill, but also to consult 

with you and Senators Durbin and Feingold about how we could 

even now try to set it up to begin such a process. 

There’s such a rich economic zone in eastern Congo. This could 

be the catalyst for enormous job creation and prosperity for the 

people of that region. We face so many difficulties there, but if we 

could, through our efforts, convince the government of the DRC, of 

Uganda, of Rwanda, to join in an economic zone and to utilize the 

security that they have to protect these mines, to license them, to 

get the money out, to get it into a designated fund to help the people in the region, similarly to what Botswana did with their diamonds many years ago, we think we could make a huge difference. 

So I think this is a very important idea. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEAHY. Before we finish, Senator Gregg, you had something else you wanted to say? 

FUND FLEXIBILITY

Senator GREGG. I just had a quick question. My view is that you 

don’t have enough flexibility with the funds you have, certainly nowhere near the flexibility the Department of Defense has. And so 

I have an amendment that I’m proposing on the supplemental, 

which would raise the 451 authority from $25 million to $100 million, including access to the MCC funds, if that’s where you decided 

to go. And I was just hopeful you would be supportive of that approach. 

Secretary CLINTON. I will certainly look at it, Senator, because 

I agree with you. We do not have the flexibility. And it is one of 

the reasons, to go back to the chairman’s earlier comments, why so 

much authority is ceded to the Defense Department, because 

they’ve got the flexibility. 

And they not only have the flexibility in Washington, they have 

the flexibility on the ground. They have empowered their young 

captains, majors, lieutenant colonels with money to solve problems. 

And we come along with diplomats and development experts. We 

don’t have anything like that kind of authority and flexibility all 

the way up the chain. So I will certainly look at this, and I appreciate your zeroing in on it. 

Senator GREGG. And specifically related to Pakistan, I’ve introduced a bill to give you up to $500 million of flexibility. It was actually a suggestion I think that came from Ambassador Holbrooke, 

but I would hope that you could take a look at that and see if you 

could support that as well. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. I 

am heartened by the full committee meeting we also had with you 
27 

and Secretary Gates. There are so many things the military can do 

so very, very well, so many things the State Department can do so 

very, very well, and I want to be in a position where we don’t have 

to do each other’s jobs. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator Gregg and I will get that comparability pay that Senator 

Mikulski talked about. We’ll get it through the Senate, and then 

we’re going to get it through conference with the House. Thank you 

very, very much. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you very much. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Question. The fiscal year 2009 supplemental diverges from past practice by giving 

the DOD control of funds to train and equip the Pakistani military, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. The House version of the fiscal year 2009 supplemental contains a provision to shift control back to the State Department in 2010, 

with concurrence of DOD. Am I right to assume that you support that? 

Answer. The Department of State will continue to administer all Foreign Military 

Financing (FMF) to Pakistan in fiscal year 2010. Although the fiscal year 2010 

funds for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF) were initially requested for the Department of Defense, Secretaries Clinton and Gates have since 

agreed that these funds should be appropriated to the Department of State in fiscal 

year 2010 and transferred to the Department of Defense to implement the program. 

Thereafter, the Department of State will oversee the PCCF and continue to seek the 

funds needed to assist the Pakistani security services in developing their counterinsurgency capabilities. 

Question. Like past Presidents, President Obama has called for an end to settlement construction. Did Prime Minister Netanyahu tell President Obama he would 

halt settlements? Do you see a way to make progress on a peace agreement without 

an end to settlements? 

Answer. Our intention is to work aggressively toward a future where Israelis and 

Palestinian are living side by side in peace and security. We are asking all parties 

to take difficult steps to help create the context for peace, and the resumption of 

meaningful negotiations, beginning with the fulfillment of their obligations and commitments. For the Israelis, that means a stop to settlements, as they committed to 

in the Roadmap in 2003. For the Palestinians, that means continuing their efforts 

to take responsibility for security and to end incitement, as they also committed to 

in the Roadmap. And we are asking the Arabs to act in the spirit of the Arab Peace 

Initiative and take concrete steps toward peace and normalization, as well as aggressively and tangibly supporting the Palestinian Authority under Palestinian 

President Abbas. We are continuing our dialogue with all parties to make progress 

on these issues. 

Question. We provide tens of millions of dollars a year to resettle Jews from the 

former Soviet Union and elsewhere to Israel. We are told that some of the settlement construction is to accommodate these immigrants. Do you know if this is correct? 

Answer. It has been our longstanding policy that no U.S. assistance to Israel can 

be used in territories occupied by Israel in 1967. The Department’s annual grant 

to the United Israel Appeal for its Humanitarian Migrants Program requires that 

UIA accept that funds be expended solely for the benefit of humanitarian migrants 

who are living, receiving training, working or studying in territory subject to the 

administration of the State of Israel prior to 1967. 

Question. Two weeks ago, one of Hamas’ leaders said it had stopped firing rockets 

at Israel. Do you know if that has in fact happened? Has Hamas made any further 

offer to refrain from violence during negotiations on the future of the Palestinian 

territories? 

Answer. According to the Government of Israel, three mortars and one rocket 

were launched from Gaza into Israel on May 2nd. Between May 6 and May 11, two 

mortars and three rockets were launched from Gaza into Israel, according to news 
28 

accounts and the Government of Israel. As we look back on the situation in Gaza 

and southern Israel over the last few years, it is clear that Hamas has significant 

influence over the number of attacks emanating from Gaza. It controls both a vast 

network of smuggling tunnels and munitions caches in Gaza. Past overtures to 

Hamas to refrain from violence have resulted in temporary lulls. While we remain 

hopeful that Hamas will end terror attacks on Israel, our ultimate objective is to 

convince Hamas to disavow its current approach and accept the Quartet principles: 

recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence, and acceptance of previous commitments and obligations, including the Roadmap. 

Question. I have real concerns about the effectiveness of our foreign aid programs, 

particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

I want to tell you what an experienced European aid worker told me a few weeks 

ago. He has worked in Afghanistan for 20 years and he has seen it all-including 

the past 8 years that USAID has spent billions of dollars there. Although his organization does not receive U.S. funding, I asked him his opinion of USAID. This is 

what he told me: ‘‘They are distant from reality.’’ ‘‘They ask questions as if they are 

from another world.’’ ‘‘They are very slow to have an impact.’’ ‘‘They come with a 

plan and think they know everything.’’ ‘‘They are deaf, they don’t like to listen, or 

they don’t want to.’’ 

USAID has done some very good things in Afghanistan, but I hear this type of 

complaint far too often. What do you think is the cause of it, and how can it be 

fixed? 

Answer. With $7.9 billion obligated to development programs since 2002, USAID 

provides the largest bilateral civilian assistance program to Afghanistan. Its work 

continues to be a vital support to Afghanistan in its efforts to ensure economic 

growth led by the private sector, establish a democratic and capable state governed 

by the rule of law, and provide basic services for its people. 

I have stated that I believe that our civilian aid efforts in Afghanistan have not 

been as successful as I would have liked due to a number of factors. In large part, 

the security restrictions and short tours under which USG employees operate in an 

ongoing war zone severely restrict their ability to have candid, open, and frequent 

dialogue with the recipients of our aid as is done in other Missions around the 

world. Additionally, we have just 257 staff members (U.S. Direct Hire, Foreign Service National and Third Country National personnel) responsible for $2 billion in 

projects this year, which means, unfortunately, that there is less time for groundtruthing and more time spent on contract management and reporting. Lastly, the 

dedicated development personnel in Afghanistan and Pakistan are working in an 

environment where progress and traction are easily eroded, so showing an impact 

is exponentially harder than it would be in a conflict-free zone. 

In spite of these challenges, a transformational change is taking place in Afghanistan. For example, we are starting to see the impact that 6 million students in 

school—one-third of whom are girls, up from nearly zero a decade ago—is having 

on society. The impact that USAID alone has made through building approximately 

3,000 km of roads, has resulted in a stronger society and provided communities with 

increased access to health care, education, markets, and government services. Development takes time, but the long-term impact is great. 

Our aid professionals are working harder to implement programs at the local 

level, which is a positive and direct departure from previous strategies to work solely with the central government. This empowers communities and ensures that development projects meet the needs of those communities. We expect to see the results of this, but it will take some time. 

However, I am pleased to note that as a result of President Obama’s recently announced strategy, we are changing the overall engagement of the U.S. Government 

in Afghanistan. I would like to focus on three areas where we are aggressively moving forward: civilian staffing; direct support to the Afghan government; and our procurements. 

USAID and the State Department are both in the process of significantly increasing staff in Afghanistan, as well as support staff in Washington, to allow more rapid 

and effective implementation of assistance. In Afghanistan, USAID has pledged to 

provide an additional 150 American staff. Of these, 45 will be located in Kabul, with 

the remainder deployed to directly support PRTs and expand reach into the district 

and provincial levels. 

USAID and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan have established the goal of greatly increasing resources through the Afghan government or 

local firms by 2011. Towards that end, USAID is building capacity in priority Afghan Ministries and has signed agreements with two ministries to provide $237 million for direct contracting by these ministries. Numerous firms and non-govern-
29 

mental organizations currently receive training and mentoring to improve their 

competitiveness and capability for directly handling USAID assistance. 

USAID is revisiting its operational models in Afghanistan and Pakistan to implement much larger development assistance programs. As part of that, USAID has 

been reviewing each procurement action for Afghanistan to ensure their efficiency 

and alignment with the new strategy. This review has enabled USAID to target its 

assistance to sectors and regions of the country most in need of assistance. 

Question. I opposed the invasion of Iraq and believe President Bush’s decision to 

do so was a colossal mistake that did nothing to make us safer and cost us dearly. 

I have supported President Obama’s decision to refocus on the Taliban and al Qaeda 

in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

But I also want to know what the strategy is, and be sure that our goals are realistic and we do not get mired in a costly war that drags on indefinitely. The same 

applies to our aid programs, because we could spend huge sums in Afghanistan and 

Pakistan and have little to show for it 2, 4, 6 years from now. Why do you think 

our aid to these countries has not been more effective, and how does your fiscal year 

2010 budget change that? 

Answer. Thank you for your support for President Obama’s decision to focus on 

Afghanistan and Pakistan. As the President has outlined in the new strategy our 

success is critical to our national interests, Special Representative Holbrooke has 

undertaken with the interagency a thorough review of all our programs to ensure 

they are designed to implement the new strategy. We have requested a large increase in civilian staffing and increased resources for the effort. We are undertaking 

an unprecedented regional and international diplomatic engagement on Afghanistan 

and Pakistan to broaden support. I agree with you that we need to establish realistic and appropriate goals and we understand the need to show progress on the 

ground over the coming year. 

We are not contemplating a permanent surge, nor an indefinite war. We will 

stand with our friends in this part of the world and work to ensure that they ultimately are able to defend themselves and ensure that Al Qaeda and their extremist 

allies are not able to return. 

We will work with Congress to ensure that there is proper accountability for the 

assistance we are providing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We support the Special 

Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) to ensure that our aid 

will be properly used and that it can be effective. 

Question. There is growing concern with the brutality of Mexican drug cartels, 

and the spill over into the United States. In the past 11 months, we have appropriated more than $700 million for Mexico under the Merida Initiative, and you are 

asking for another $459 million in fiscal year 2010. This is a partnership, because 

the United States is the market for drugs and the supplier of the guns, and we want 

to help Mexico deal with this problem. 

Past counter-drug strategies in Latin America have failed to reduce the flow of 

drugs into the United States—the cultivation, corruption and violence have just migrated from one country to another. Why is the Merida Initiative going to be different? 

Answer. More than just a bilateral foreign assistance package, the Merida Initiative is an agreement, based on partnership, among the governments of the United 

States, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean to cooperate with each other 

and respond jointly to the problem of drug trafficking and associated violence 

throughout the region. Furthermore, as an integral part of ensuring success, the 

United States has committed to increasing the effectiveness of our efforts at home 

to reduce demand for drugs in the United States as well as the flow of illicit money 

and arms south into the hands of drug cartels. As Merida Initiative programs are 

implemented over the next months and years, we are also collaborating with our 

Caribbean neighbors on a separate but complementary security initiative specific to 

that region. We believe that we are taking a holistic approach that will succeed because it puts pressure on the drug trafficking organizations from all sides. 

We are attempting to close trafficking routes and deny weapons and drug proceeds to the trafficking organizations. We are assisting the Mexican and Central 

American governments to disrupt the criminal organizations and gangs operating in 

their territory and are cooperating in law enforcement operations to locate and arrest members of these organizations in the United States or wherever in the world 

they may operate. We are encouraging our Merida Initiative partners to share information and best practices with each other and with countries engaged in the same 

fight. We are working with willing and capable partners who have demonstrated a 

commitment to this effort. The United States-Mexico partnership is overseen by a 

high-level consultative group made up of cabinet members from both countries. 
30 

Merida Initiative programs in all recipient countries include a mix of assistance 

targeted to the needs of the country and the best possible value added that the 

United States Government can provide. In all cases, assistance includes essential 

equipment as well as programs to strengthen the law enforcement, judicial and civil 

society institutions of the recipient countries against the corrosive effects of organized crime now and in the future. 

We look forward to continuing to consult with Congress as program implementation evolves to ensure Merida achieves our objectives and advances U.S. and hemispheric interests. 

Question. Most of our aid to Mexico is for the military and police, who have a history of human rights abuses of the worst kind—executions, disappearances, torture, 

rape—and the complaints of abuses have increased dramatically in the past year. 

This undermines the goal of stopping drug violence and improving public security. 

The Mexican military court system is opaque and ineffective. In the past 10 years, 

military courts have sent only one military officer to prison. One in 10 years. 

We put human rights conditions on a portion of our aid to Mexico, but they have 

not been met and there is no evidence the military leadership even recognizes it has 

a problem. How would you respond? 

Answer. Strengthening democratic institutions and respect for the human rights 

and the rule of law are at the heart of the Merida Initiative. Improving public security in Mexico and addressing the threat posed by narco-traffickers and criminal organizations require enhancing the capabilities of Mexico’s security forces, including 

strengthening the respect for human rights. Most reporting suggests human rights 

abuses connected with the security forces in Mexico are not systematic, but stem 

from a lack of professionalization and corruption among members of these forces. 

Of course, U.S. assistance to Mexican security forces is preceded by a U.S. vetting 

process and we are also aiding the Government of Mexico to enhance its own internal vetting capacity. 

Our partnership with Mexico under the Merida Initiative envisions a wide range 

of activities involving police professionalization and enhancement; prosecutorial and 

judicial capacity building; support for the inspector general and internal affairs offices of law enforcement agencies; human rights training; and support for human 

rights organizations and civil society including through assistance to independent 

citizen participation councils. Indeed, our overall efforts with respect to rule of law 

and judicial reform are aimed at strengthening these basic institutions both to improve competence and enhance the respect for human rights. 

The military justice system in Mexico has been criticized for its opaqueness. As 

the Mexican military plays a greater role in the policing function in response to the 

current effort to confront Mexico’s drug cartels, it is important that the military 

court system become more transparent and vigilant. In this connection, we note that 

in May the office of the military prosecutor announced that 12 members of the 

army, including 4 officers, had been detained and would be tried in connection with 

their alleged role in the disappearance of three civilians in the state of Tamaulipas 

the previous month. 

Question. For more than a decade, I have tried to obtain an explanation from the 

Department on its implementation of the Leahy Amendment. That Amendment cuts 

off U.S. aid to a unit of a foreign security force if the Secretary of State has credible 

evidence that such unit has violated human rights, unless the foreign government 

is bringing those responsible to justice. 

When it comes to the Israeli military, the only answer I have ever received is that 

the Leahy Amendment has never been applied to a single case involving a human 

rights abuse there. 

There is abundant documentation of human rights abuses by Israeli soldiers, and 

investigations in these cases are too often cursory and result in no punishment. The 

cases of Abir Aramin, and Kassab and Ibrahim Shurah, are just two examples. I 

want to know what steps are being taken to apply the Leahy Amendment there. 

Answer. The administration aims to uphold the ideals espoused in the Leahy 

Amendment as we carry out our foreign assistance programs. I take seriously any 

reports of incidents alleged to constitute credible evidence of gross violations of 

human rights and we will continue to review such alleged violations by any country. 

While I have discussed the specific application of the Leahy Amendment with 

members of my new team here in the State Department, there are other key personnel who have yet to join us. I look forward to their counsel on the questions you 

have raised and pledge to report back to you soon after their arrival at the Department. 

Question. Since 9/11, my office, like others here, has received complaints about 

visa denials. We know the processing of these applications has become more onerous 

due to security concerns, but I am very concerned that the law is being applied in 
31 

a way that harms U.S. interests. Let me read you part of a letter I received just 

last week from a Vermonter: 

DEAR SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you for your effort to help my company ensure that 

my Cambodian colleague, Mr. Mara Pho, got a fair hearing at his visitor visa interview at our Phnom Penh embassy last week. 

Unfortunately, we failed. Mr. Mara Pho’s application was routinely denied. 

This is a colossal disappointment. Mr. Mara Pho is extraordinarily valuable to my 

company, which provides the finest educational youth travel programs in the world 

to thousands of America’s brightest high-school and university students. 

Mr. Mara Pho is, without question, one of the top 150 young English-speaking 

professionals in Cambodia today. 

Because Mr. Mara Pho was routinely rejected twice in his two attempts to gain 

a visitor’s visa to attend our employer’s annual instructor training in California, he 

is now not eligible for promotion within our company and his talents will be underutilized. 

In fact, it is now highly likely that this extraordinarily valuable young professional will not work for my employer or any other U.S. company in the coming 

years. His skills are in high demand by companies based in Malaysia, Vietnam, 

China, India, Indonesia, Australia, Thailand and Cambodia itself. 

The global economy is crumbling. China is rising fast. Thailand is unstable and 

economic disparities and political dissatisfaction in Southeast Asia are sky-rocketing. 

Is this really the right time to be alienating the brightest young professionals of 

Cambodia, a part of the world of vital strategic importance to America? 

Madam Secretary, the law puts the burden on visa applicants to prove they will 

return to their home country, but too often it is applied in ways that defy common 

sense and we create a lot of resentment towards the United States as a result. I 

hope you will review the way these laws are being applied so qualified applicants 

are not turned away. 

Answer. Visa applications are adjudicated on a case-by-case basis according to criteria specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and appropriate Federal regulations. The presumption in the law is that every visitor visa applicant is 

an intending immigrant, and the INA places on the applicant the burden of demonstrating that he or she qualifies for nonimmigrant status. 

Consular officers are obligated to review each visa application carefully and to 

conduct interviews in order to allow applicants to present their circumstances fully. 

It is our objective to provide courteous and helpful service to all persons requesting 

consular assistance, and it is our policy to treat all applicants fairly and equally. 

The vast majority of applicants do qualify for the visa they seek. Prior to this year’s 

economic downturn and the admission of eight new countries into the Visa Waiver 

Program, we saw a steady increase in visa issuances annually since 2002 and in 

some categories, visa issuances now exceed pre-9/11 numbers. 

Question. With Departments of State and Homeland Security set to fully implement the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative on June 1, I want to be clear about 

your preparation for this new program: 

When the previous administration prematurely launched the air portion of WHTI 

a few years ago, it was a disaster and they eventually had to roll back the passport 

requirements until the passport processing centers could catch up on the backlog. 

Since air travel represents about 10 percent of North American border crossings, I 

am very concerned about State’s ability to handle new passport applications and renewals when land and sea crossings start requiring passports on June 1. Is the 

State Department prepared to handle a potential surge of passport applications this 

summer? 

Northern border States like Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York are heavily 

dependent on international travel and tourism—particularly from Canada. I want 

to make sure that citizens on both sides of the border know that the United States 

is open for business and we welcome Canadians coming down for business trips, vacations, or a weekend getaway. Do you believe that Canada and Mexico are ready 

for the new document requirements we’ll be implementing on this side of the border? Have you been doing any outreach to Canadians and Mexicans to let them 

know which documents they will need to visit the United States? 

Answer. Yes, the State Department is fully prepared to meet the demand of the 

American public for passports and passport cards now that the final WHTI rule has 

been implemented. The Department has increased its capacity to process passports 

by 95 percent since January 2007, when the air portion of WHTI was implemented. 

The Department’s Passport Office is continuing to increase its presence in border 

States. New passport offices opened in Detroit and Minneapolis in the past few 
32 

months, and, later this summer, we will open offices in Dallas and Tucson. The Bureau of Consular Affairs has received $15 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding to expand our network of passports offices to another seven 

locations, including a new office in Vermont, as well as offices in Atlanta, Buffalo, 

San Diego, and El Paso. We will also be installing public service windows at our 

existing passport processing facilities in New Hampshire and Arkansas. 

In coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, we have conducted 

intensive outreach on new requirements for travel documentation under WHTI. In 

the months prior to June 1, State Department efforts concentrated on regions closest to the borders and included Canada. We made use of funds provided by Congress 

specifically for northern border outreach to run an intensive campaign using local 

media. 

WHTI-approved document compliance rates nationwide since June 1 are in the 90 

percent range, according to preliminary DHS statistics. I would refer you to DHS 

for the most updated statistics. Compliance rates are somewhat higher than the national average along the northern border. We believe this clearly indicates that we 

delivered the message about WHTI requirements to the traveling public in both the 

United States and Canada. These high compliance rates demonstrate that citizens 

in both countries have a strong awareness of the WHTI requirements and have in 

large numbers obtained the necessary travel documentation. WHTI did not change 

any documentary requirements for Mexican nationals entering the United States. 

Mexican nationals still require visas, or a Border Crossing Card, are needed to enter 

the United States. 

The State Department experienced a small uptick in demand for passport books 

and cards right around June 1, but demand for the year is well below the levels 

seen in 2007. We are processing within our normal service levels of 4–6 weeks for 

routine applications and with 2–3 weeks for expedited applications. Our ability to 

produce passports on an emergency basis is expanding as our agencies expand, and 

in the past 2 months we have augmented our emergency services to include the ability to produce passport cards as well as books at several agencies located near 

northern and southern borders. 

Question. I thought President Obama did a superb job at the Summit of the Americas, reintroducing the United States to our Latin neighbors who had come to see 

us as heavy handed and disinterested in their concerns. How do you plan to build 

on the tone he set there? 

Answer. To build on the positive momentum from the Fifth Summit of the Americas, we must make concrete progress on Summit initiatives for the Hemisphere’s 

citizens, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable. We are moving quickly to implement Summit initiatives announced by President Obama, including the Energy 

and Climate Partnership of the Americas; the Microfinance Growth Fund; the Social 

Protection Network; the Caribbean Basin Security Dialogue, and seeking ratification 

of the Convention on Illicit Trafficking in Firearms. We are working with the 12- 

member Joint Summit Working Group, which includes the Organization of American States, Inter-American Development Bank, and the World Bank Group, among 

others. These institutions can help to provide the necessary technical and financial 

support to leverage our own efforts in the region. 

Question. You have requested $633 million, a $95 million increase, for the Educational and Cultural Exchange Program. I fully support that and I suspect just 

about every Senator does. We regard these as among the best uses of State Department program dollars. 

Can you share with us any statistics on what this amount of money actually 

means as far as the number and backgrounds of people who will be able to participate in these programs? 

Does the Department have a long term strategy for expanding exchanges? 

Besides State Department-funded exchange programs, U.S. universities and businesses have their own programs. I spoke about this on the Senate floor not long ago, 

because we have heard about foreign scholars who are offered teaching and research 

positions at U.S. universities, but it takes so long for the Department of Homeland 

Security to do the security checks that they end up missing the opportunity. I know 

this isn’t your fault, but are you aware of this and is there anything you can do 

about it? It is not only humiliating to the people who are invited to come here, it 

denies American students and scholars the opportunity to learn from and work with 

these people. 

Answer. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) conducts over 

45,000 people to people exchanges each year, working hand-in-hand with our Missions overseas. These programs are active in all regions of the world and increasingly engage youth and disadvantaged audiences. In fiscal year 2008, 54 percent of 

all the participants were women and girls. Diversity is also reflected in the broad 
33 

spectrum of age groups, professions and social sectors that ECA’s programs draw 

from. For example, there are academic opportunities for foreign secondary level students (the Youth Exchange and Study and Future Leaders Exchange high school exchange programs; as well as in-country English study for disadvantaged high school 

students) university students (undergraduate exchanges and Fulbright graduate 

scholarships), teachers and scholars. There are programs for emerging leaders (the 

International Visitor Leadership Program) and for midcareer professionals in government and other public policy-related sectors (the Humphrey Fellowships), journalism (the Murrow program), and business (the Fortune/State Department Women’s Mentoring Partnership). There are also increasing opportunities for Americans 

to gain international experience by studying abroad (Gilman and Fulbright programs for post-secondary students as well as critical language study institutes, and 

the Youth Exchange and Study outbound and National Security Language Initiative 

Youth programs for secondary school students). At the same time, ECA supports a 

wide array of cultural diplomacy programs including exchanges in the performing 

arts. ECA makes extensive efforts to remain in touch with its wide network of alumni from all these programs through an online community and in-country activities 

and encourages them to organize projects that will benefit their communities. 

Exchanges have become an increasingly valuable diplomatic tool because of their 

unique ability to reach young people, underserved audiences and non-official figures 

of influence (e.g., cultural, religious and tribal authorities). To expand the reach of 

our educational and cultural engagement, ECA is broadening its partnerships with 

the private sector and mobilizing the broad reach of social networking. Looking 

ahead, ECA will expand America’s engagement with young people and other key 

influencers overseas, using a combination of proven exchange models and innovative 

new programs. ECA will enhance alumni programs; expand the number of emerging 

leaders who travel to the United States; extend English language programs to more 

disadvantaged students, host country universities, and overseas teachers of English; 

and grow its youth programs to foster leadership skills and mutual understanding. 

ECA also stands ready to initiate or expand exchange programs with Iran, Cuba, 

North Korea, and others if and when political developments warrant. 

ECA is aware of the difficulties exchange participants have in navigating the visa 

process in order to come to the United States. Some of those delays are obtaining 

passports from their own authorities. We also understand the compelling need to 

safeguard our Nation’s borders. A formal collaboration between the Department of 

Homeland Security and the Department of State was established in 2006 to address 

these issues. ‘‘Secure Borders and Open Doors’’ is an advisory committee that makes 

recommendations to the two departments on how to balance the needs of security 

and openness. In addition, to minimize the number of lost opportunities for grantees 

planning to visit the United States, public affairs staff at embassies and consulates 

abroad work closely with their colleagues in the consular sections to make the process of acquiring visas for exchange grantees as fast and efficient as possible. ECA 

planners make special efforts to factor into their scheduling the sometimes long 

waits for visa approval, so they can provide as much lead time as possible between 

participant selection and the start of a program. 

Question. I think we squandered a great opportunity after the collapse of the Soviet Union to forge a very different kind of relationship with Russia, based on trust 

and cooperation. Instead, we pursued policies that were seen as threatening and 

humiliating, and today our relations with Russia are a far cry from what they could 

be, illustrated by Russia’s invasion of Georgia last year when they threatened to 

shoot down American planes carrying Georgian troops back from Iraq. The administration has talked of pushing a reset button for our relations with Russia. What 

does that mean in practical terms? 

Answer. As the last few years have seen a dangerous drift in relations between 

Russia and the United States, our objective for pressing the reset button is to revisit 

and strengthen the many areas where we can and should be working together with 

Russia. 

We can and should cooperate to secure WMD and related materials to prevent 

their spread, to negotiate a follow-on agreement to the START Treaty, which reflects the administration’s interest in seeking further cuts in both our arsenals. The 

United States and Russia have a special obligation to lead the international effort 

to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. The rising threat of insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan is of critical importance to both our countries, 

and today NATO and Russia can, and should, cooperate to defeat this common 

enemy. 

We will not agree with Russia on everything. For example, the United States will 

not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. We will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign 
34 

states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances. 

But the United States and Russia can disagree and still work together where our 

interests coincide, as they do in many places. 

Question. We all witnessed from afar the humanitarian catastrophe in Sri Lanka. 

You spoke about it. So did the President. The Sri Lankan Government rejected calls 

from around the world to stop bombing and shelling areas inhabited by civilians, 

and to respect the laws of armed conflict and the rights of people who have been 

displaced. 

The LTTE has accepted defeat, but this looks like another example of a collective 

failure of the international community to prevent a bloodbath of innocent civilians. 

Nobody can justify or excuse the atrocities of the LTTE, but aside from condemning 

the shelling of civilian targets, what did the administration do to put real pressure 

on the government? Did you consider freezing assets of Sri Lankan officials, denying 

visas for them and their relatives, opposing multilateral bank loans? 

Answer. The United States has a range of diplomatic tools to influence the Sri 

Lankan government, many of which we have employed to varying degrees of success 

throughout the past several years. During the final stages of the conflict, the administration’s focus was on stopping the loss of life and helping to meet the urgent humanitarian needs of those civilians trapped by the humanitarian conflict. 

Our Embassy in Sri Lanka was very active in pressing the Sri Lankan government to give international organizations, especially the United Nations and ICRC, 

access to the government-designated ‘‘safe zone’’ within the conflict zone, as well as 

the surrounding areas where civilians were being registered, screened, and sheltered. There was and remains an urgent need for food, shelter, water, and medicines 

in the camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs). We are also conscious of the 

needs of those most vulnerable—the very young, new mothers and the elderly. We 

continue to advocate for the freedom of movement and the reunification of families 

who have been separated during the violence. Our ambassador spoke with the highest levels of the Sri Lankan government—such as Senior Presidential Advisor Basil 

Rajapaksa and Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights Mahinda 

Samarasinghe—several times a week to discuss humanitarian access and other 

pressing issues, and we are continuing these contacts. These efforts have led to 

international organizations being able to operate in camps and screening areas and 

to obtain better access to displaced persons within those areas. 

While the Immigration and Nationality Act does permit the denial of visas to 

aliens who have engaged in specific acts such as such as genocide and religious persecution, there is no broad statutory authority for denying visas for ‘‘humanitarian 

concerns’’ or ‘‘human rights violations.’’ 

Sri Lanka is currently in the process of negotiating a Stand-By Arrangement with 

the International Monetary Fund (IMF). While the fighting was ongoing, I noted on 

May 14 that it was ‘‘not an appropriate time to consider’’ the IMF program. With 

the end of fighting in Sri Lanka, we are taking a fresh look at the IMF Stand-By 

Arrangement in close coordination with the Department of the Treasury, which has 

the lead on International Monetary Fund issues, and with other U.S. agencies. We 

continue to work with the Sri Lankan government on humanitarian issues and political reconciliation to build a democratic and tolerant Sri Lanka. 

Question. We have gotten into the habit of paying our contributions to organizations like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Preparatory Commission and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons at the end of the year, which 

forces them to cut back while they wait for the funds. These organizations fulfill 

key nonproliferation functions. Are we going to start paying on time? 

Answer. Funding shortfalls in the Contributions to International Organizations 

account in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 caused us to begin paying our assessed contributions to several additional organizations late, a practice that we had 

already been employing toward a number of organizations since the 1980s. For 

these organizations, including OPCW, payment for all or part of our assessed contribution is deferred until the fiscal year following the calendar year in which it is 

due. 

The fiscal year 2010 President’s request includes $175 million to begin eliminating the practice of deferring payments of our assessed contributions. This funding would represent the first step in a multi-year plan, as the estimated cost for 

eliminating the practice for all affected organizations is close to $1.3 billion. In determining how to allocate any funding provided by Congress for this purpose, we 

would factor in Congressional views on how to prioritize funding among all the organizations to which we employ a deferred payment schedule. 

Our payments to the CTBTO Preparatory Commission are made from voluntary 

contributions from the NADR account. Many priority programs supporting our nonproliferation goals are funded from the NADR account such as the IAEA voluntary 
35 

contribution and export control cooperation. We have not had sufficient funding 

available in recent years to make full timely payments to the CTBTO Preparatory 

Commission. The fiscal year 2010 President’s request includes $26 million for this 

program, which will not enable us to end the practice of paying late. With the administration’s new emphasis on pursuing Senate advice and consent for ratification 

of the CTBT, we are committed to becoming current in our payments as soon as 

possible. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Question. You mentioned in your testimony the focus that this administration to 

reinvigorate relationships that have not been nurtured in recent years. One of these 

relationships is between the United States and Indonesia. As you have stated, one 

of the areas we must re-engage is Southeast Asia, and in particular, Indonesia. 

Could you elaborate on the plans and goals of this administration to strengthen the 

partnership between the United States and Indonesia, in addition to providing some 

insight on the larger diplomacy objectives with other nations in Southeast Asia, like 

the Philippines? 

Answer. The United States and Indonesia have recently begun formal discussions 

on building a Comprehensive Partnership, which would provide a framework to 

broaden and deepen the bilateral relationship between the United States and Indonesia. Possible areas of enhanced cooperation would include: regional security; environmental protection, climate change, and energy security; trade and investment; 

regional democracy and human rights promotion; and higher education. I will meet 

with Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda on June 8 to discuss ways to 

move forward on plans for the Comprehensive Partnership. We have already renewed our Fulbright Scholarship Agreement by signing the memorandum of understanding extending the program for 5 years. We also hope to bring the Peace Corps 

back to Indonesia and work together on a Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact and reach an agreement on a United States-Indonesia science and technology 

agreement, which would provide a framework for U.S. science and technology agencies to work with their Indonesian counterparts. 

Our objective in the Philippines is to help the country become a more stable, prosperous, and well-governed nation that is no longer a haven for terrorists. U.S. assistance aims to accelerate growth through improved competitiveness; strengthen 

governance, the rule of law, and the fight against corruption; invest in people to reduce poverty; and promote a peaceful and secure Philippines. 

In addition to our important bilateral relationships, we are enhancing our ties 

multilaterally as a result of the growing regional integration in Southeast Asia. The 

administration seeks closer ties with ASEAN as part of our effort to increase our 

engagement with the region, and to erase any doubts about the strength and durability of the U.S. commitment to Southeast Asia. We are implementing partnerships 

with governments in the region and with the ASEAN Secretariat to address the 

wide range of challenges confronting us, from regional and global security, to the 

economic crisis, to climate change and human rights. 

Question. The Asia Pacific region is home to approximately one-third of the 

world’s population. I was pleased to learn that your trip to Asia was productive and 

well-received. While our focus on the Middle East to achieve peace is extremely important, I believe that our Nation’s relationships with its neighbors across the Pacific are equally important. Instability in the region could prove just as volatile as 

our concerns with other areas of the world. Would you please comment on the administration’s approach to engage our neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region, and how 

resources like Hawaii’s East-West Center may be utilized? 

Answer. Our relationship with the East Asian and Pacific region will be of increasing importance to our well-being and influence over coming decades, so it is 

no accident that my first trip as Secretary of State was to that region. Thoughtful 

engagement and a clear sense that we are interested in the views of our many 

friends and partners in the Pacific are and will continue to be a cornerstone of 

American success. We have many tools to pursue engagement with the Asia-Pacific 

countries, and we need to use all of them as skillfully and actively as resources permit. 

The East-West Center plays an important role in U.S. relations with the Asia-Pacific region. The Center’s work supports and complements State Department public 

diplomacy and policy-related efforts through its programs of research, seminars and 

education, including its unique initiative for the Pacific Islands. The East-West Center will host the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) Symposium in 

Fall/Winter 2010 to kick-off the United States APEC host year in 2011. The Sec-
36 

retary of State’s role in appointing five members of the Center’s Board of Governors, 

as well as the Center’s regular consultations with the Department in Washington 

and with U.S. Ambassadors and their staffs in the Asia Pacific region, enhances the 

Center’s ability to serve as a U.S. national institution meeting broad foreign policy 

goals. It functions as a neutral venue for dialogue, collaboration and study that is 

well known and respected across the region. In addition to the annual Congressional 

appropriation it receives through the State Department, the Center has been successful in winning grants from the Department and other government and private 

entities to conduct exchanges and related activities and is increasing engaged with 

its over 50,000 alumni. As the Center approaches the 50th anniversary of its founding by Congress, the State Department looks forward to continued cooperation with 

the Center to meet shared objectives for strengthened U.S.-Asia Pacific relations. 

Question. Terrorist acts are of great concern to the United States no matter where 

they may occur. The administration’s approach of ‘‘smart’’ diplomacy, marshalling 

the Department of State’s resources, and drawing upon the knowledge of its dedicated workforce to provide assistance on the ground in many parts of the world is 

to be commended. From your testimony, I believe you have a framework in mind 

to accomplish this vision. Where do you hope the State Department will be in terms 

of achieving this goal in the next 2 to 5 years? 

Answer. We hope that over the next several years we will have significantly degraded the operational capability of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, restricted 

the flow of funds to terrorists, and deprived terrorists of a market for their violent 

extremist ideologies, which should in turn deprive them of any base of popular support and new recruits. President Obama noted in his inaugural speech that earlier 

generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, 

but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. We must do the same to effectively counter terrorism. Smart power is about using the full range of tools at our 

disposal—diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural. Smart power 

is about working within alliances and partnerships. 

We must achieve real unity of effort within the government, working with the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Treasury, Justice, and the intelligence 

community. We must ensure for example, that our foreign assistance is well-targeted, that our rule of law and democracy programs are effective, and that our public diplomacy explains our policies and draws attention to our work to improve the 

lives of others. 

We must strengthen our partnerships with our traditional allies and others 

abroad, including the vast number of like-minded nations that share our abhorrence 

of terrorism. Some of these are indeed on the front lines: Afghanistan, which as the 

President has emphasized, cannot again become a safe haven for the world’s most 

dangerous terrorists; and Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation now threatened by an 

indigenous insurgency with close ties to Al-Qaeda. As the turmoil in South and Central Asia has demonstrated, Al-Qaeda and its allies have an ability to upset the geopolitics of pivotal regions of the world today that is unrivaled among non-state actors. 

While we work bilaterally to improve our partnerships, multilateral fora also offer 

a route for improving global norms of behavior and deepening cooperation. In, for 

example, the United Nations, NATO, the G8, the European Union, the Organization 

of the American States, the African Union, APEC and other groups, there are initiatives that could bear more fruit with enhanced American leadership and assistance. 

One means to address these challenges is through the Regional Strategic Initiative (RSI), developed by the State Department as a key tool to develop flexible regional networks, intended to work with regional states to develop common regional 

approaches which will lessen or eliminate gaps that terrorists exploit. The RSI uses 

smart power and works with our Ambassadors and interagency representatives in 

key terrorist theaters of operation to collectively assess the threat, pool resources, 

and devise collaborative strategies and policy recommendations to Washington and 

to our host states. RSIs have been established in eight regions of the world facing 

critical terrorist threats: Southeast Asia, Iraq and its neighbors, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Western Mediterranean, East Africa, the Trans-Sahara, South Asia, 

and Latin America. We plan to establish another RSI covering Central Asia later 

this year. As we strengthen collaboration through the RSIs, we plan to bring key 

foreign partners into our discussions to develop truly comprehensive strategies. 

To support the deliberations and decisions stemming from the RSI, the Office of 

the Coordinator for Counterterrorism has successfully increased the NADR-appropriated budget for RSI from $6 million to $37 million in the 2010 budget request. 

This increase, if funded, will provide resources for the plethora of CT projects derived from the work on RSI globally that enhance the ability of law enforcement 

personnel to fight terrorism. This increase is part of the new set of activities funded 
37 

under the administration’s Shared Security Partnership initiative, which will bring 

much-needed resources and interagency focus to assisting our partners with the 

tools and shared vision to successfully address shared challenges in the counterterrorism area. 

Activities to counter violent extremism are also crucial smart power tools. They 

allow us to assure allies and to dissuade and deter adversaries, and undermine the 

terrorist’s greatest source of strength—new recruits. Terrorist organizations use the 

media to disseminate messages to sympathetic audiences, to attempt to recruit new 

followers, to intimidate their opponents, and to conduct disinformation campaigns. 

Using sophisticated, modern methods of communication and public relations, they 

segment audiences and adapt their message as appropriate. They do this using a 

variety of means, including traditional mass media and new media channels. 

To address this, our office put in place a strategic communication team to support 

the RSIs and has inaugurated a series of programs; this sort of activity also fits 

neatly into Secretary Clinton’s concept of a ‘‘smart diplomacy’’ that addresses international problems through the use of whatever combination of panoply of policy and 

other tools available. The Ambassador’s Fund for Counterterrorism supports innovative field activities and programs that work to support law enforcement’s fight 

against terrorism through shifting the perceptions of target audiences, undermining 

the enemy’s image, delegitimizing extremist ideologies, and diminishing support for 

violent extremism. We also intend to focus our activities more intently on building 

our international partners’ capacity to counter extremism themselves, by helping 

them build the soft power tools to address extremism in their own countries. This 

critical piece has been missing from our counter-extremism efforts. 

We are also working with the private sector to bring their resources, which offer 

enormous potential, to address the underlying conditions that give rise to terrorism. 

For its part, the private sector, of course, has a vested interest in partnering against 

violent extremists to secure its existing and future investments and economic opportunities. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

Question. From June 26–30 the Czech Republic will hold a Holocaust Era Assets 

Conference in Prague. One of the conference goals is to assess progress made since 

the 1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust era property restitution and financial 

compensation for stolen property. This is a very important conference. Six decades 

after the end of the Second World War, there are still large numbers of property 

restitution claims that remain unresolved due to foot dragging in national capitals 

across Europe in enacting property restitution laws and identifying funds. This is 

a tragic injustice that must be rectified. 

My questions are as follows: 

—Who does the State Department plan on sending to represent the United States 

at this conference? 

—Will this delegation be charged with throwing the support of the United States 

behind efforts to encourage countries that have not enacted property restitution 

laws to do so as quickly as possible? 

Answer. Secretary Clinton has appointed Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat to head 

the United States Delegation to the Conference on Holocaust Era Assets in Prague 

June 26–30, 2009. The Czech Republic is hosting this conference in its capacity as 

the President of the European Union. The conference is seen as a follow-up conference to the 1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust Era Assets which Ambassador Eizenstat organized. 

Between 1993 and 2001, Ambassador Eizenstat served successively as the United 

States Ambassador to the European Union; Under Secretary of Commerce for International Affairs; Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural 

Affairs; and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. He also served as the Special Representative of the President and the Secretary of State for Holocaust Issues in which 

capacity he negotiated Holocaust claims agreements with Germany, Austria and 

France. 

While serving as Ambassador to the European Union, Ambassador Eizenstat had 

a mandate from the Department of State to investigate property restitution in the 

countries of central and Eastern Europe. He visited the area several times while he 

was serving in Brussels and pursued the issue after returning to Washington. 

The Department’s Special Envoys for Holocaust Issues have also worked on the 

property restitution issue over the past decade and have visited the countries concerned on numerous occasions. 
38 

Private property restitution, or compensation if restitution is not possible, is a 

major theme of the Prague conference and the United States Delegation will engage 

fully on that issue. In preparation for the Prague Conference, the Department of 

State hosted two town hall meetings on the property issue. Individual claimants and 

organizations representing claimants were invited to attend. As it has in the past, 

the United States will continue to urge the countries of Central and Eastern Europe 

to return property to rightful owners. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER

Question. In both fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009, Congress provided funds 

to the State Department for efforts to facilitate and promote widespread, secure 

Internet use by individuals residing in countries practicing repressive Internet monitoring, censorship and control. This is a low-cost method of allowing people, especially those living under repressive regimes, to access all-source, uncensored, 

unfiltered information, enabling freedom of thought, expression and the unimpeded 

flow of ideas and information. Language in the report accompanying the fiscal year 

2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 110–161)—which included $15 

million for such efforts—stated, ‘‘DRL should ensure that recipients of funds employ 

Internet technology programs and protocols that facilitate and promote widespread 

and secure Internet use. Such programs should be field tested and have the capacity 

to support large numbers of users simultaneously in a hostile Internet environment.’’ In the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Public Law 111–8), 

Congress provided $5 million ‘‘for Internet activities to expand access and information in closed societies,’’ and noted ‘‘these funds are to be awarded on a competitive 

basis.’’ 

What is the State Department’s plan for awarding fiscal year 2009 funds? What 

criteria will be used in the determination of awards? Finally, how do Internet access 

efforts fit into broader U.S. foreign policy strategy? 

Answer. The State Department defines ‘‘Internet freedom’’ as freedom of expression and the free flow of information on the Internet. Freedom of expression is a 

universal human right and communications through the Internet, like any other 

media, should be protected by that right. To address challenges to Internet freedom, 

the State Department established the Global Internet Freedom Task Force (GIFT) 

in February 2006 as an internal coordination group. Promoting unrestricted access 

to the Internet has been an integral part of the Task Force’s three-pronged strategy. 

First, the State Department monitors Internet freedom in countries around the 

world by spotlighting abuses of Internet freedom and responding quickly to protest 

such abuses. The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) monitors 

and reports on abuses of Internet freedom in its annual Country Reports on Human 

Rights Practices. Second, State responds to challenges to Internet freedom by working in partnership with other democratic governments, international institutions, 

and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to urge countries to adopt policies that 

promote unrestricted access to information over the Internet. Third, the State Department advances Internet freedom by advocating for expanded access to the Internet and by funding organizations that combat Internet censorship. 

Consistent with the conference report for the fiscal year 2009 Appropriations Bill 

and the Department’s standard operating procedure, the fiscal year 2009 Internet 

freedom funds will be awarded on a competitive basis. As such, the competition and 

selection process for fiscal year 2009 funds will be very similar to the fiscal year 

2008 process. 

Prior to publishing a Request for Proposals (RFP), DRL will consult with relevant 

bureaus within State and with USAID on how to most effectively use the $5 million 

for Internet activities to expand access and information in closed societies. The RFP 

will then be published on both the grants.gov and DRL web sites. Eligible organizations will be invited to submit proposals before a given deadline. A panel comprised 

of members from relevant DRL offices, other bureaus within State, USAID, and 

other technical experts as appropriate, will review the proposals that are submitted 

according to the review criteria outlined in the RFP. DRL will also ensure that proposals complement, but do not duplicate, ongoing efforts. Proposals that best address DRL objectives and that receive the highest number of majority votes from 

the review panel will receive funding. 

The State Department greatly appreciates Congressional interest on this issue 

and looks forward to continued cooperation with Congress on advancing Internet 

freedom. 
39 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL

Question. What is the status of the Burmese nuclear program? What nations, if 

any, are assisting Burma in its effort? 

Answer. The United States is concerned with the potential proliferation, nuclear 

safety, and environmental impacts that could result from nuclear development in 

Burma. We do not believe Burma possesses the necessary legal, technical, financial, 

regulatory, or enforcement infrastructures needed to safely support nuclear development. Burma has not participated in international projects designed to help states 

develop these capacities, such as those offered through the IAEA. We also question 

whether Burma is prepared to accept the level of transparency required to establish 

confidence that a nuclear program would be limited to peaceful use. For these reasons, we closely monitor Burmese activities in the nuclear field. 

Burma does not currently possess or operate a nuclear reactor. However, on May 

15, 2007, Russia’s Rosatom and Burma’s Ministry of Science and Technology signed 

an agreement on the creation of a nuclear cooperation center to include construction 

of a 10-megawatt nuclear research reactor in Burma. We have expressed our concerns publicly about this agreement. More information on our concerns could be provided in a classified setting. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK

Question. When studying the State Department’s Congressional Budget Justification for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I noticed that among the strategic goals and priorities listed, there was no mention of shutting down, or at least 

attempting to shut down, the world’s largest network of concentration camps and 

political prisons located in North Korea. At what point can this committee expect 

such a goal to be included in the objectives of EAP? 

Answer. We remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation in North 

Korea, including labor and political prisoner camps. We will continue to make it 

clear to the DPRK that human rights are a top U.S. priority and will be a key element of any normalization process with the DPRK. We will also continue to work 

closely with other governments, including our regional partners, on the improvement of human rights in North Korea. 

Given the restrictive operating environment in North Korea, we utilize creative 

and flexible programs to promote human rights in the country. The Department of State is requesting $3 million in fiscal year 2010 for programming to promote democracy, rule of law, and human rights in North Korea. This 

represents an increase from the fiscal year 2009 allocation of $2.5 million for such 

programs. 

As outlined in our budget justification, these funds will be utilized to promote democracy and human rights in North Korea by empowering independent defector 

voices, journalists, and democracy activists. It will continue to provide access in 

North Korea to the type of balanced and non-propagandized information from 

abroad that has been critical to defectors’ awakening about the realities of North 

Korea and their subsequent desire to seek freedom. 

In addition, U.S. assistance will work to improve respect for human rights and 

rule of law inside North Korea. As the non-governmental organization community 

becomes more engaged in North Korea, the potential for programs continues to 

grow. The United States will build the capacity of these organizations to more effectively advocate for human rights in North Korea. 

Question. As part of the overall policy towards Iran, does the State Department 

support, as then-Senator and now President Barack Obama did in 2008, Federal divestment legislation similar to that passed into law in the 110th Congress regarding 

Sudan (Public Law 110–174)? Would the administration support including such legislation in fiscal year 2010 Appropriations legislation? 

If not, why not? 

Answer. We share Congressional concerns over Iran’s continued failure to comply 

with its UNSC, IAEA, and NPT responsibilities and obligations. However, additional 

unilateral sanctions would unnecessarily impair the President’s flexibility to conduct 

foreign policy, and be potentially harmful to our efforts to develop and maintain a 

multilateral framework to address the risks to the international community emanating from Iran. Multilateral sanctions against Iran have proven far more effective 

than U.S. sanctions alone. 

At this juncture in our nascent effort to engage Iran, we believe it is critical to 

maintain the strong support of our partners in the international community and ensure that the pressure stays on Iran, not our allies. However, I must stress that 

our offer of engagement will not last forever. If, despite our best efforts, our engage-
40 

ment does not produce results or Iran fails to comply with its international obligations, Iran faces further sanctions and isolation. 

Question. The President has said that we should close Guantanamo Bay’s detention facility because any benefits it may provide are outweighed by the diplomatic 

cost of allies who refuse to work closely with us while the facility remains open. 

Given these high costs, other than citing plans to close the facility, what is the State 

Department doing to rehabilitate the image of Guantanamo Bay and correct 

misperceptions about the detention facility as long as it remains open? How does 

the State Department intend to defend the president’s plans for the indefinite detention of some categories of detainees? What steps will the State Department take in 

fiscal year 2010 to build support for U.S. detention policies even if the administration closes Guantanamo Bay and moves detainees elsewhere? 

Answer. The President has said that we will close Guantanamo Bay’s detention 

facility because it has set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. Rather than keep us safer, the Guantanamo prison has weakened U.S. national security by serving as a rallying cry for our enemies and at the 

same time setting back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an 

enemy that operates in scores of countries. To turn the page and emphasize that 

the President’s objective is a diplomatic priority, I have appointed Ambassador Daniel Fried as Special Envoy for Closure of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. 

As Special Envoy, Ambassador Fried is working with foreign governments to repatriate, resettle abroad, or transfer for further judicial process those detainees whom 

the Guantanamo Detainee Review Panel—an interagency group created by the 

President’s Executive Order of January 22, 2009, which acts on behalf of the relevant Principals—has deemed eligible. In his diplomatic engagements, Special 

Envoy Fried regularly and publicly discusses the improved conditions of detention 

currently in place at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, noting especially the 

high level of professionalism exhibited by U.S. men and women serving on the staff, 

and the comprehensive medical support provided to detainees. 

With regard to future plans concerning communications on detention issues, these 

issues continue to be deliberated within the Executive Branch, and it would be premature to discuss the development of any communications strategy at this time. The 

Department is working regularly with foreign interlocutors to help them understand 

how the steps that this administration is taking with regard to U.S. detention policy 

and practice are consistent with international law, the rule of law, and the deeply 

held values that we share with our closest allies. 

Question. Aside from any policies or programs that involve improving the image 

of the United States, does the State Department have a strategy in fiscal year 2010 

to empower moderate Muslims in their struggle against violent extremists? 

Answer. The Department of State has an established strategy of combating the 

extremist ideologies that can radicalize young people and lead them to join violent 

groups. There are two general approaches to such activity: 

First, we work to create alternatives that will divert ‘‘at risk’’ youth away from 

the recruitment process. Examples would be the use of mobile phones, SMS messaging, and Co-Nx video chats to amplify the reach of the President’s recent Cairo 

speech. But we are also piloting other on-the-ground programs like a Teach for Lebanon, based on the Teach for America model that employs Lebanese students from 

top universities to teach in the impoverished and often Hezballah-influenced regions 

of Lebanon. We are also working to build networks of moderates within the Muslim 

communities of Western Europe that can counter the extremist narratives both in 

Europe and on a more global scale. Additional efforts include support for mobile empowerment programs for ‘‘at risk’’ communities in Afghanistan with the hope of expansion into Pakistan. 

Second, we offer opportunities for ‘‘at risk’’ youth through diversionary programs 

such as ACCESS English teaching, YES scholarships, Fulbright Programs, and focused cultural programs that offer the prospect of rational alternatives grounded in 

the global economy. 

Question. The Department of Defense spends hundreds of millions of dollars per 

year engaged in information operations and strategic communications activities but 

recently eliminated the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Support to Public 

Diplomacy. Are you satisfied in the level of coordination between State and Defense 

in this area? How will the State Department coordinate with the Department of Defense to ensure the United States sends consistent messages through its public diplomacy and strategic communications activities? 

Answer. The Departments of Defense and State have a close, mutually reinforcing 

relationship here in Washington as well as in the field. The U.S. military offers 

many strategic communication resources in support of our international efforts and 

assists us in making a major impact with our public diplomacy. 
41 

There have been organizational changes at DOD but we continue to enjoy a 

healthy, cooperative relationship. Under Secretary Flournoy recently appointed a 

senior advisor to serve as OSD Policy’s Coordinator for Global Strategic Engagement, reporting directly to her, and among the Coordinator’s responsibilities is the 

task of coordinating State and helping to leverage DOD resources to better support 

public diplomacy. A senior public diplomacy officer (and former ambassador) represents the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy at the Defense Department and engages daily with OSD/Policy, OSD/Public Affairs, the Joint Staff and 

the geographic combatant commands. 

Up to a half-dozen DOD personnel join State FSO’s in staffing the Global Strategic Engagement Center, an interagency secretariat at the State Department that 

supports NSC Interagency Policy Committee decisions under PPD–1 (dated February 13). 

The Departments of State and Defense continue to benefit from cross-agency sharing of foreign media analysis, public opinion polling, and research. Currently, more 

than 20 Military Information Support Teams help U.S. embassies communicate U.S. 

policy in foreign countries. State and Defense both benefit from ever-increasing 

sharing of foreign media analysis, public opinion polling, and funded research. A 

new initiative to share strategic communication/public diplomacy training resources 

between the Foreign Service Institute and various Defense Department training and 

education institutions shows promise. Military officers and FSO’s who have shared 

a classroom tend to work well together in PRT’s and other foreign environments 

later. We also see promise in the development of a combined video and imagery 

database that will document America’s on-the-ground engagement in development 

and humanitarian assistance in many parts of the world—so much of which is done 

by our military colleagues. 

Secretary Gates and I, as well as Under Secretaries McHale and Flournoy, continue to believe that, managed properly, our two Departments’ combined efforts in 

the field, under the direction of the President’s ambassadors and their interagency 

country teams, are advancing America’s cause and showing the world an open hand 

of peace, democracy, and justice. 

Question. The post of Special Envoy to Monitor & Combat Anti-Semitism remains 

unfilled. Given the rise in anti-Semitic activity worldwide, and specifically in Venezuela, when can we expect someone to be nominated for this post? 

Answer. Filling the position of Special Envoy to Combat Anti-Semitism is a priority for the Department of State. The Department is committed to identifying an 

exceptionally qualified candidate that can be announced to the public in the future. 

Question. In light of the President’s new strategy of engagement with the government of Hugo Chavez, what steps is the administration taking to combat anti-Semitism sponsored and conducted by the Chavez regime in Venezuela, as detailed by 

the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the Anti-Defamation 

League, and several news organizations including the Wall Street Journal? 

Answer. The administration shares your concerns about anti-Semitism in Venezuela. We seek to engage the Government of Venezuela to advance the interests 

of the United States—including respect for democracy and human rights. Through 

direct communication with Venezuelan government officials, we can stress the importance of specific human rights issues, such as religious freedom and religious tolerance. 

In recent years, there has been a rise in anti-Semitic incidents in Venezuela, particularly during the Israeli military operations in Gaza. Although these incidents 

have diminished since the end of these military operations, the United States will 

continue to work with our hemispheric partners to promote inclusiveness and tolerance in Venezuela. Department officials remain in regular contact with representatives of U.S. and international Jewish organizations. In June 2008, the Department’s Special Envoy on Anti-Semitism visited Venezuela to meet with Jewish community leaders and a Venezuelan government official. 

At the Organization of American States’ Permanent Council Meeting on February 

4, the United States condemned the January 30 synagogue attack, and called on the 

Venezuelan government to investigate the attack and prosecute those responsible. 

The U.S. Embassy in Caracas also meets regularly with local Jewish community 

leaders and, after the synagogue attack, our Charge` met with synagogue leaders 

and a delegation from the American Jewish Committee. 

Question. When can we expect the nomination of a new Ambassador at large for 

International Religious Freedom? 

Answer. Filling the position of Ambassador at Large for International Religious 

Freedom is a priority for the Department of State. The Department is committed 

to identifying an exceptionally qualified candidate that can be announced to the 

public in the future. 
42 

Question. What support will the administration provide for human rights and democracy in Syria? For example, has the administration engaged with the Damascus 

Declaration, which represents a broad coalition of pro-democracy forces inside Syria? 

Answer. President Obama has made clear his strong support for human rights 

around the world. He has also declared his strong commitment to using diplomacy 

and dialogue to work on issues of mutual interest, as well as to bridge the differences which remain in our policies. In keeping with this policy, Acting Assistant 

Secretary Feltman and NSC Senior Director Dan Shapiro recently visited Damascus 

and discussed a wide range of issues including our concerns about the human rights 

situation in Syria. We will continue to use dialogue with the Syrian government to 

directly address U.S. concerns and identify areas where the United States and Syria 

can cooperate. The United States has had and will continue to have contact with 

a broad range of Syrian nationals, including human rights advocates and civil society leaders associated with the Damascus Declaration. 

In fiscal year 2005, NEA’s Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) launched its 

first grants aimed at supporting democracy promotion in Syria. Through a number 

of organizations and projects, increasing numbers of democracy activists have obtained the skills, training, and tools to advocate for reform, mobilize other citizens 

on behalf of the reform agenda, highlight the human rights situation inside the 

country, and begin to develop an alternative vision for the country’s future. Projects 

have aimed since then to provide ongoing support to Syrian democracy activists 

mainly through targeted technical assistance, including training in political communications, effective use of information technology, and the media. The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) also continues to support programs that 

promote democracy and human rights in Syria. Recent program themes include civic 

education, engaging youth in social activism, and working with youth to establish 

online communities for networking and debate. DRL plans to support similar programs in Syria in fiscal year 2009 through a congressional earmark. 

Question. On at least two occasions, the State Department has reported on the 

significant progress by the Philippines in strengthening human rights protections— 

progress that took place both before and following the enactment of the conditional 

FMF funding. I therefore noted with interest that the administration, in the Appendix to the fiscal year 2010 Budget, proposed to delete the FMF conditionality. This 

action appears to recognize of the progress made by the Philippines, as detailed in 

the State Department’s reports. 

So that the Committee can consider the administration’s request to remove the 

conditions, please advise the Committee on the bilateral cooperative actions the 

United States intends to take with the Philippines to continue progress in protecting 

human rights in the absence of such conditions. 

Answer. As the Philippine government has taken steps to combat extra-judicial 

killings (EJKs) and strengthen human rights protections, the United States has 

been closely engaged with the Philippines in promoting and protecting human rights 

through a variety of targeted programs and diplomatic outreach. Although we are 

pleased there has been a decline in the number of killings and forced disappearances, we share President Arroyo’s view that even one killing is too many. 

Ongoing military assistance programs, including our bilateral Philippine Defense 

Reform initiative, are designed to enhance professionalism, strengthen the concept 

of command responsibility, and encourage respect for human rights. U.S. military 

personnel provide human rights training, embedded in military training exercises, 

to thousands of Philippine soldiers each year. U.S. law enforcement agencies are 

similarly engaged with their Philippine counterparts and provide training on human 

rights, ethics, rule of law, leadership and anti-corruption. USAID concentrates on 

building the capacity of civil society and the judicial system, the latter by improving 

the efficiency and effectiveness of the courts. 

The Ambassador and other senior U.S. officials in Manila and Washington frequently and consistently raise human rights issues with Philippine government 

interlocutors. Since the start of 2009, Embassy Manila has intensified its outreach 

activities on human rights, stressing U.S. support for Philippine government human 

rights mechanisms—such as the independent Commission on Human Rights—as 

well as the complementary role of civil society in promoting and protecting human 

rights. 

Embassy Manila and officials in Washington have also emphasized the need to 

address extrajudicial killings (EJKs) and continue to urge the Philippine government to make greater progress toward eliminating the killings and investigating 

and prosecuting crimes that have occurred to date. Our concerns are reinforced at 

the working level and through targeted assistance programs sponsored by USAID, 

the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL), and 

the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL). This as-
43 

sistance includes: training on the investigation and prosecution of EJKs, forced disappearances, and torture; workshops offering human rights training for judges, public attorneys, police and military personnel, and other government officials; and 

training and materials to enhance the capacity of journalists to produce high-quality, accurate reports on human rights investigations and cases, thereby promoting 

greater public awareness. 

We continue to highlight at every opportunity our concerns about human rights 

and extrajudicial killings and seek to identify additional ways the U.S. Government 

can provide assistance. 

Question. When asked about U.S. aid to Africa at a hearing before the House 

Committee on Foreign Affairs in March, Secretary Clinton said: ‘‘I don’t know where 

a lot of it ends up. And our transparency and our accountability measures are not 

adequate. We waste way too much money on contractors. Fifty cents out of every 

dollar is not even in the pipeline to serving the people it should serve . . . I think 

we have to start over. I think we’ve got to ask ourselves, what are we doing? And 

how do we do it better? How do we define our mission?’’ 

Is there a process in place at the State Department to ask those very questions 

with respect to aid to Africa and foreign aid more broadly? I understand that UnderSecretary Lew is looking at budgets and spending, but how do you plan to answer 

the larger questions about mission and strategy? Who is leading that process, to ensure that strategy is driving our budgeting, rather than vice versa? 

Answer. I am committed to making sure that Foreign Assistance is properly managed and implemented. One element of this review is ensuring, exactly as you say, 

that our strategy drives our budgeting, rather than vice versa. I take seriously the 

need to modernize how we deliver foreign assistance so it is as strategic, effective, 

and coordinated, as possible. We have not yet fully completed our review of Foreign 

Assistance reform. We are thinking through these issues in a thoughtful and deliberative manner and will coordinate with a broad range of stakeholders. 

Jacob J. Lew, Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, serves as my 

principal adviser on overall supervision and direction of resource allocation and 

management activities of the Department. He is focused on ensuring that the Department of State is well coordinated internally and collaborating effectively with 

other agencies and organizations, spending smarter as we build the capacity to 

achieve our objectives and deliver results. 

Deputy Secretary Lew also is also responsible for the overall direction, coordination and supervision of operational programs of the State Department, including foreign aid and civilian response programs. 

The focus in these first few weeks has been on securing the necessary resources 

to implement a ‘‘smart power’’ agenda. I remain committed to improving and 

streamlining our delivery of foreign assistance and look forward to consulting closely 

with the Congress in the weeks ahead. 

Question. Recently I met with human rights and humanitarian activists to speak 

about the terrible situation facing the people of Burma. I was extremely impressed 

by the international NGO response to Cyclone Nargis—and was pleased that your 

request for fiscal year 2010 includes increased funds for humanitarian relief inside 

Burma. What steps are being taken to ensure that the assistance, some of which 

is provided through the ESF account, will reach the people most in need and will 

not be diverted for use or benefit by the SPDC? 

Answer. The United States has committed nearly $74 million to date to helping 

the people of Burma recover from the devastating May 2008 Cyclone Nargis. This 

assistance has helped meet the needs of those most severely affected by the tragedy; 

a need that is not being met by their own government. The United States provides 

assistance to the people of Burma, including the victims of Cyclone Nargis, through 

international NGOs and U.N. agencies. These organizations closely monitor and account for the funding provided to them and provide reports to us regularly. Each 

implementing organization has inventory control systems and safeguards in place 

to ensure USG-funded commodities are delivered to the intended beneficiaries. In 

addition to our implementing partners’ efforts, U.S. officials in Rangoon and in the 

region regularly travel to cyclone-affected areas and other program sites to monitor 

the distribution of assistance and its impact on the daily lives of the Burmese people. Working closely with our implementing partners, we will continue to monitor 

the humanitarian assistance we provide to ensure that it does not enrich or benefit 

Burma’s ruling generals. 

Question. The fiscal year 2010 Budget proposes a $15 million cut for the National 

Endowment for Democracy (NED). Does this reflect a diminished commitment to the 

promotion of democracy and human rights? If not, please outline the steps the State 

Department will be taking to make up for the diminished capacity of the NED. 
44 

Answer. The Department recognizes and supports the NED’s unique role as a key 

strategic partner in promoting democracy worldwide. The $100 million fiscal year 

2010 request for the NED is actually a $20 million (25 percent) increase over the 

previous administration’s fiscal year 2009 request of $80 million and consistent with 

NED’s fiscal year 2008 actual funding level, on which the request was based. As a 

result of subsequent Congressional action, the fiscal year 2009 request was increased to $115 million, including $15 million for additional, non-core NED small 

grants programs. The Department’s request for NED does not historically include 

any non-core special program funds. 

The fiscal year 2010 funding request will allow NED to continue its strong core 

grants program in priority countries and the activities of the NED’s core institutes: 

the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, and the Center for International 

Labor Solidarity. In addition to core funding for the NED, the administration’s fiscal 

year 2010 budget request for Foreign Assistance funds includes $2.8 billion for Governing Justly and Democratically activities to be administered by the U.S. Agency 

for International Development and the Department of State. As has happened historically, NED will also be able to implement programs funded from other appropriations. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Senator LEAHY. The subcommittee will stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., Wednesday, May 20, the hearing was 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(i) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Bond, Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri, Prepared Statement of .................................................................................................................. 16 

Brownback, Senator Sam, U.S. Senator From Kansas, Questions Submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 39 

Clinton, Hon. Hillary, Secretary of State, Department of State .......................... 1 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 6 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 2 

Gregg, Senator Judd, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire, Statement of .......... 2 

Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii, Questions Submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 35 

Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont: 

Opening Statement of ...................................................................................... 1 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 27 

McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Question Submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 39 

Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland, Question Submitted by ............................................................................................................... 37 

Specter, Senator Arlen, U.S. Senator From Pennsylvania, Question Submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 38 

(iii) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

SECRETARY OF STATE

Page 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 27 

Aung San Suu Kyi ................................................................................................... 13 

Development Resources: 

In the Budget .................................................................................................... 19 

Responsibilities at State/USAID ..................................................................... 9 

Foreign: 

Aid Budget ........................................................................................................ 24 

Policy Challenges .............................................................................................. 10 

Fund Flexibility ....................................................................................................... 26 

Hamas ....................................................................................................................... 14

Iran and Pakistan’s Nuclear Program ................................................................... 12 

Microenterprise ........................................................................................................ 22 

Middle East Peace and Iran’s Nuclear Program ................................................... 11 

North Korea Funds/Economic Zone in Eastern Congo ......................................... 25 

Opening Dialogue With Iran ................................................................................... 15 

Pakistan’s Nuclear Program ................................................................................... 9 

Pay Comparability Between Foreign Service Employees ..................................... 19 

Public Diplomacy Efforts in Southeast Asia .......................................................... 17 

Reinvigorating USAID ............................................................................................ 20 

USAID ...................................................................................................................... 18 

Æ