responsibility they're kind of protecting their territory with the concept that they never met a good idea that wasn't their own. so if you've got it -- you know, hey, it won't work for these eight reasons. if i've got it, i've already presented it and it's a good idea. so that comes down when in doubt default to the status quo, which gets us back to the cold war system. so for me it was a great hearing because there's a lot of work to do. but this commission has had -- this is the ninth hearing. we've been briefed pushing 400 meetings and briefings by organizations in the field that we've documented. and made available. very substantial data analysis. we have three hearings coming down in the short term and we'll continue to press on. and thank you, gentlemen. bob? >> nothing further. i thank the witnesses for attending today. >> dov? >> just to reiterate what you just heard. i think you all are trying

mightily especially ambassador herbst. i think your organizations are simply not cooperating. i think it's become clear in this hearing. i think there's -- i sense a degree of frustration that you folks were trying very hard to hide. thank you. >> commissioner green? >> mr. bever, not to get an answer but an area that you're going to have to deal with or somebody over there is going to have to deal with is spot. you're going to have to figure out a way that is acceptable to usaid to intergrate yourself either into that system or some other system. the last point is just to reiterate what i said before. i think we've got a lot of momentum now on this activity. and if you guys don't figure out a way to take advantage of that, i can guarantee you what will happen.

it will atrophy and die. >> commissioner schinasi? >> i'm just going to go back to resources for a minute. mr. bever, in your statement, you know, you said that your peak a.i.d. spending was $4.8 billion in 2003-2005. that's less than a week's spending by the department of defense. so -- i mean, that just gives you the idea of the magnitude of resources. and if you look at the fy2011 executive budget summary for state and a.i.d., you see that the foreign military assistance just to pick one is the biggest -- maybe the fourth largest expenditures in here. and that compares to $2.5 billion for contributions to peacekeeping and peacekeeping operations. so if we're going to talk about, you know, militaritizing our foreign aid and foreign policy i think we already see through the numbers where we are now. thank you. >> commissioner tiefer? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. bever, i think i said some things earlier that were subject to misunderstanding leading to me what was the surprising the word minimal and the word corruption could be put in the same sentence. and i think i understand what i said was unclear. and i'm do some preliminary but then i'm going to ask you whether there's a substantial level of corruption in the afghan political economy which might affect the united states. the place that i was drawing on -- i did not mean to surprise you in some way. i don't have another copy. sigar's report january 15th, 2010, on the afghanistan energy supply. it's not the kabul plant. it's on the energy supply. the heading, which is, i think, where it would have been helpful to you is simply afghan government lacks the capability to collect revenues to fund fuel costs and operations and maintenance expenses.

so this is a section on that the afghan government can't get the money from the energy system. and it includes what they've had to do instead like coming to us and saying well, you fund our operation and maintenance. will you fund our field costs? that's not to say that the u.s. government's projects themselves are suffering from corruption. and if i gave that impression that's what i was asking, and i think i did, then i withdraw my question. but with that being the mechanism, they then do describe corruption in the energy sector affects afghanistan's ability to collect revenue. and they give the example that it takes as many as 25 signatures to get an electricity connection in kabul. though you don't need any significant issues if you get it through bribes. and as a result, this is a quote from sigar, the cost to obtain permission to build a connection

could well exceed the actual cost to connect to the distribution system. the bribes cost more than the cost to connect. so with that being my background, is there substantial corruption in the afghan economy which may indirectly affect u.s. efforts? >> commissioner, yes, i can say yes. there is and it's been growing. and you can track it pretty closely with the corruption that came with the drug business. but if you'd like a question for the record, we can fill you in on more. >> i would like -- >> it's a very serious issue and it discounts the effectiveness of our aid dollars, no question about that. >> i would like nothing better. i have some other questions for the record and i will stop now. thank you. >> all right. commissioner shays. >> no question. as i'm sorting this out i'm thinking it was mentioned the cold war. the cold war has ended and it seems to me like the world is a

more dangerous place particularly for the every day civilian. i'm struck with the fact that we have smart power. in the beginning it's totally hard. we go in and we use our hard power. and the challenge that we're trying to all address is the combination of hard and soft power. but then eventually there's a hand-off. dod is out. and then it's all state. i am struck by the fact as well that you make, mr. bever, is that everyone is exhausted. and we got to deal with that in a very honest way. so obviously coordination is hugely important for obviously dealing with the waste, fraud and abuse and the waste of money and also to ensure that we don't lose people because we haven't coordinated well.

so we're going to obviously -- we're looking at all of these issues. we haven't taken a position on how we coordinate. i think you all make arguments well for the different options that are out there and probably it's a combination of a few of them. but we'll look forward to working with you in getting the right answers. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. now, consistent with our prior understanding, you all, all three of you, can put anything that you need to clarify the record on the record but ambassador herbst, any final comments you have to share. >> i have to leave in a press conference and i have your permission for that. i would like to reiterate one point. we've got something that's going. it's relatively new. it's not been tested but it's growing quickly. we're starting to use it. give it a chance. >> okay. mr. bever? >> we've welcomed being here today. thank you very much for inviting

a.i.d. i would just say on the corruption issues, i would welcome the opportunity for us to continue to engage with your commission on those important topics as well as the reforms in kabul even in the energy sector which we've been working on. i think we have to wait for a little bit more political evolution related to various appointments in the government. and i'd rather not get into that here in this setting at this point. on spot, commissioner green, we had a meeting with department of state. and the congress, congressional staff on friday. i think we found a way forward there. we are seized with that challenge. and we look forward to some more discussions on that. and finally, commissioner shays, i just want to say i'm sorry. i may have misunderstood your original assertion about lost lives and lost money. i'm a firm believer that the -- it's in the united states' interest to do whatever we can

to mitigate conflicts ahead of time. and that's why a.i.d. created a small office of conflict mitigation and management a number of years ago. partly out of the spinout of the early afghan issues. but i think those kinds of efforts need more and more and more attention and i can see a country further out in the southwest where there's problems coming. and it's extremely important to save lives, soldiers lives and civilians lives to get -- to apply lessons from your commission now for that future possible area of conflict. finally, i would just say on qddr, i would urge the commission to engage with our agency and with the state department and i know my colleague had to leave because the issues you're raising are the ones we're grappling in between us how to deal with

these issues in the future. >> thank you. that makes sense. dr. schear? >> i have found this engagement very enlightening. i'm taking a lot of homework back to my department. i'll keep my leadership closely informed on this.nj and i do appreciate the opportunity. i'd just underline two things which i think chairman shays and others have actually mentioned. sustaining the time, attention and energy in front a contingency over a persistent long period is really a challenge. as general mcchrystal has said unfortunately after the taliban, our rotation policy may actually be one of the biggest threats we face. we have been trying to fight one eight-year war and it looks more like eight one-year wars. in order to give the time and attention and energy that's required especially in the contracting world where results have to be sustainable.

where there's local ownership and we want to leave things behind that the local communities can embrace that aren't seen as a monument to foreign intervention but something that is used, we have to figure out a better way to work in these persistent environments. we don't have the answers yet and we're working on them and i'll do my best to engage my colleagues on this and a continuing dialog with you. thank you so much. >> thank you, doctor. and last item we always thank staff, which is the real reason why we're here in terms of our ability to deliver and prepare our sessions. this is the part that i always like to -- we're done. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the

provides each center with a million dollars to launch plus, they cover operating expenses that exceed $200,000 per year. we won't have that kind of money in the budget. so we are limited in the numbers that we can do. and we are also raising the issue of reciprocity with chinese officials.

'>> that are claimable under sovereignty provisions in the treaty. i believe with all my heart that we are going to be so sorry if we won't get this up and going and i know you and the chairman are committed to doing so. and if there's more we need to do from the administration side, mr. chairman, i will get it done. you give me the date and we'll have the people here to testify because i want everybody on the committee and the congress to know what's at stake here. finally on the london embassy, the construction of the embassy is estimated at between $500 to $700 million. it is self-financed because we are selling -- i forget 11 sites that we currently own because we are consolidating everything in one place.

we sold the old grovener site and we will inhabit it until we move to the new embassy and we're selling the navy annex. we are going to realize a significant return on these sales. and the estimated cost of the construction as i said 500 to 700. the site predeveloped was $426 million. that is $46 million. so when you add it all up because of the expenses of doing business in london, among other reasons, it's going to be around a billion dollars. and we are going to work very hard to get the vat exception but we are not coming in for any appropriations. this is really consolidating sites and becoming more efficient and it will also be a green building, which we value and a great signal to send. >> let me ask you the budget on

pakistan. but i just want to inquire expenditures are going from the 2010 budget. the reason i ask this is that it appears it's going slowly and there's arguments to go through ngos as opposed to the pakistani officials, whether they be local or regional or national. what is your general comment, whether it's the kerry-lugar, 1.5 billion or all sorts of things? how are we coming? >> we're making progress, senator. but we're trying to be very thoughtful about how we distribute this money. because it is a significant investment in pakistan. we've spent money already on some of the energy projects, which we think are paying off both in terms of what they're doing for the people of pakistan but also because we're connected

to them. it is challenging because we do want to go through pakistani institutions and ngos wherever we can but they have to be vetted and we have to feel that they are going to perform in a way that i can come before this committee and report to you is in keeping with our efforts. so we can give you a very thorough readout of where the money is in the pipeline bubs we've been spending a lot of time and jack lew, i think, has talked to this committee about that in making sure we're spending it right. or as right as we can make it. >> that would be very helpful to keep us up-to-date. it is challenging as you say. but it's critical in terms of the confidence of the american people with appropriations of this size for -- with pakistan and afghanistan. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator lugar. senator feingold? >> thank you again, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. and madam secretary, just before i ask you some questions, i'd

just like to note that your identification of the 150 account as a national security budget is absolutely right on the mark. a stronger state department is vital it our nation's security as is expanding and strengthening our work in such areas as economic development good governance, respecting the rule of law and conflict resolution. by ensuring these programs are well funded we can help our foreign partners combat the recruitment and operation of al-qaeda while also strengthening and protecting our nation here at home. so i appreciate that very much. madam secretary, on a number of subjects, i've noted that enhancing our diplomatic capacity is vital to our nation's security. at the same time, as you well know with skyrocketing deficits, we have to look at ways to eliminating wasteful or inefficient spending. and i think one glaring example of wasteful spending is a program that has been found to be mismanaged and ineffective, radio marketing at the board of

governors. and the urgent national security and human rights priorities we face around the world, can you please tell me why the administration wants to continue funding radio and tv marketing in fy2011 and does this allocation of resources really match our national security and human rights sflirts >> well, as far, we are taking a hard look at all of our aid programs for cuba. frankly, my goal is to be effective in what we spend so that it actually assists those cubans who are fighting for freedom, who are standing up against the abuses of the cuban government. and we're looking at everything. i mean, i can't come before you and say that any program is sacrosanct because i want to be sure we're getting our money's worth. and with new forms of communication and new ways of getting information into cuba to

help support the efforts on the ground, i think we have to look at every expenditure like every one. >> a completely different topic in africa, let's say a bit about our policy toward the lords resistance arm or the lra or the rebel group that's operating against three countries. it continues to kill at an alarming rate as you probably know. i've authored a bill that has 63 cosponsors. and which will require more strategic attention resources to help address this violence. and madam secretary without, you know, sorting getting into all the weeds on this how in seeking the end the lra's reign of terror fit into your fiscal '11 budget and does the administration have any kind of specific plan and dedicated resources to help address this issue? >> senator, we are deeply

concerned and share your views about protecting civilians who have been suffering at the hands of the lord's resistance army for years in southern sudan and the drc and the central republic.$-y we have provided support to improve the effectiveness of military responses to the lra. we've helped to support and supply some of the militaries in the area. thus far, $6.4 million has been provided. additional funds will be notified to congress soon. resources have come from reimbursements from the u.n. for u.s. support for peacekeeping operations. we believe our support of these operations has helped to degrade the capacity of the lra. we've encouraged the military forces seeking to defeat the lra and the u.n. peacekeeping missions in the region to put a very high priority on civilian protection. there needs to be better coordination, information and

intelligence-sharing as you know we tried that once very unfortunately not to the result we were seeking. but we're going to continue to work with existing militaries and u.n. peacekeepings. i want to be specific here because we've also -- we've also provided assistance for civilian victims in the drc, car southern sudan. 1.74 million for ngos in southern sudan, $1.1 million for the international of migration for relocation efforts in southern sudan. 1 million for the food program for the u.n. humanitarian air service in central african republic and contributions to the hcr. you know, i have been following the lord's resistance army for more than 15 years. i just don't understand why we cannot end this scourge. and we're going to do everything

we can to provide support we believe will enable us to do that. >> thank you for that commitment. madam secretary, i have concerns about supplemental spending bills given that they fall out of the normal budget process. but in this case i'd like to ask about the funds requested for pakistan in the fy 2010 supplemental, the majority of which will go toward training and other support for pakistani police including to do such things as to better confront the spread of extremism. given the documented problems the police abuse of pakistan from your own state department human rights including allegations of torture, rape and extra-judicial killings and continual i punitivity for crime that, quote, corruption by the police was rampant, what does this ensure that the police forces does not end up spreading extremism to the problems that we address? >> senator, this is something we are very focused on because

obviously we have both legal and moral requirements as to how money that we provide to anyone is expended and what is done under the rubric of that kind of aid program. and what we've done is provide training, provide support to the pakistanis so they understand what we expect to them. what we are looking to see. we worked with the pakistani military to try to better create more accountability. and we've asked that they respond whenever any issue is raised with us. i can't sit here and say that, you know, we know everything that's going on. but we are making a concerted effort to try to provide more oversight and expect more accountability in these -- in these funds. >> thank you so much, madam secretary. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator feingold. senator demint?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam secretary. i appreciate your professionalism representing our country all over the world. the more i delve into foreign policy, the more i believe you probably have the hardest job in the administration. a couple of points, first i want to thank you for your leadership in honduras. as you know that was a situation that appeared to be moving out of control and i think you and your department have got it on a good track trying to restore relationships within and around honduras. i get very good reports there from what the state department is doing. let me just mention a couple of things. in iran, obviously, that's a big issue. my concern is timing. you've, i think, taken an

international leadership role in, i think, raising the pressures levels but the people in israel and their concern that -- well, my concern is that we may be only a few months away from some type of action that could destabilize the region. and i don't sense in the congress the urgency of timing here of what we need to do and how quickly. and again, i appreciate the -- you taking the sanctioned idea a step further. but i would like to hear a comment there. and just ask your comment in a few other areas. one -- and you've mentioned and several others have mentioned human rights. and i've long been a supporter of engagement with countries like china and trade with china. but it seems increasingly over the last year or two that human rights, religious freedom and

china, egypt, india, vietnam, other countries, more and more reports that there's less religious tolerance. that there's more problems and perhaps it's just a matter of whaths to the news. but i'm hearing from a lot of people directly in my office that are suggesting a deteriorating situation. and meeting with the people from georgia, a lot of representatives, again, i hear a concern that our emphasis is more on russia. and even to the point of them not getting equipment they needed for basic protections especially for parts for their rifles. so some pretty important concerns there specifically on georgia. so if i could just ask you to comment on the urgency and timing of iran, possible scenarios there. and just maybe your perception of human rights as well as a

comment on georgia. >> thank you so much, senator. on iran's sanctions we are intentionally engaged with countries around the world. in the last month i attended the london conferences on afghanistan and yemen and held numerous bilateral of meetings in countries to lay out evidence of iran to urge that they join with us on the pressure sanctions track. i just came back from saudi arabia and qatar and have also met last week with the prime minister of turkey. i'll be going next week to latin america including brazil. so we are -- and it's not just i. the top levels of the state department are engaged very -- very directly in working the need for sanctions. we are beginning the process in the security council in new york

where language is being hammered out based on the work that has been done by the treasury department and the state department in coordination. we are targeting a lot of these proposed sanctions against the revolutionary guard, which we believe is playing an increasingly important role in the politics and the economy of iran. so we're working as hard as we can. i have to say that we've been heartened by the positive response from russia. i think in their response proved the wisdom of the president's policy of engagement. we have made it clear from president obama's inauguration that we'll reach out our hand if the other side unclenches its fist. our clear commitment to engagement has created space for a lot of these countries to now consider supporting sanction that is they might not have otherwise.

because we have otherwise demonstrated the strategic patience to exhaust the international efforts of convincing iran to do the right thing without sanctions. so i think, senator, we are -- we are very, very focused on this. we hope that the next 30 to 60 days we'll see a sanctions resolution emerge in new york. and we also have made clear with others of our allies and partners that whatever comes out of new york, we may pursue bilateral or multilateral sanctions on top of whatever can be the result of a security council deliberations. so this is the highest priority for the obama administration. on human rights, i share your concern. it's a kind of good news/bad news story. i mean, we see breakthroughs and positive actions. and then, unfortunately, we do get evidence of back-sliding,

discrimination, oppression, violence that is religiously based. we are working with a number of muslims majority countries to devise an alternative to their proposal of defamation of religion because we think in a robust society, free expression should be protected but we also recognize the sensitivity of criticizing or undermining the religious feelings and attitudes of people. so we're looking to see if there is a way to come up with a resolution that will suit our constitutional concerns. and we're working hard with a number of countries to do that. but we speak out vigorously against human rights abuses. and in particular, religious freedom and discrimination complaints and we'll continue to do so. and finally, with respect to

georgia, georgia remains a high priority to this administration. we've had a number of high profiled visits to georgia. vice president biden, deputy secretary steinberg, special representative holbrooke -- we've had a very clear message that we are supporting the government of georgia. for the fy11 budget we're requesting $90.1 million in aid which is an overall increase of 8% from the fy10 level of $73.77 million. the bulk of that will be, you know, trying to help the georgians sustain their work in democracy, to enhance public confidence within their own country and in the region, in their direction. we also are continuing to provide funding for nonproliferation, antiterrorism demining and related programs.

and we are heavily supporting their military deployment to afghanistan with new equipment, new training. so i think what we're doing is a very positive story. and we stand up for georgia in many international settings against the very, you know, strong attitudes expressed by their russian neighbors. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator boxer? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and secretary clinton, i just want to say that i think all of america is very proud of the job you're doing. and i think you're just being so effective. and i was really glad to hear that expressed in a bipartisan way today. i want to talk to you about women in afghanistan. just yesterday senator casey, senator wicker and i held a hearing which our chairman sanctioned to examine the status of females in afghanistan.

and what we discussed with your wonderful ambassador and with dr. samarra whom i know you're aware of. it's not good. it was alarming.o to date the life expectancy of an afghan woman is 44 years. can you imagine? 44. afghanistan has the second highest maternal mortality rate in the world. 1 out of every 5 children born in afghanistan dies before the age of 5. and over half of all marriages in afghanistan are forced or involve girls under the age of 16. yesterday we talked about a forced marriage of an 11-year-old girl to a man 20 years her senior. and this child set herself afire to get out of this situation. it's just -- it just touches your heart. she is now back with her own family.

but here's what i wanted to discuss with you. we all know how hard our military is working right now. oh, lord we pray this is a success. and we all know that reconciliation is what we're trying to achieve. to get these taliban to give up their ways. what worries some of us is that women could be used as a bargaining chip in the reconciliation process. unless they're at the table at every single stage because we can't forget these are the same taliban who required the windows of afghan homes to be painted over to conceal the fact that there was a woman inside. and who take pride today in throwing acid in the faces of afghan girls. now, we know you are a tireless champion for women around the world and we all know that you have worked hard around the

world with women around the table in this reconciliation process but i thought i'd use the day as an opportunity to get you to commit to us and to the afghan women that you'll work to ensure that these women are given a clear, transparent, and meaningful role at every level at the reconciliation process. to protect their right, to education, to healthcare because you know they're not allowed to see a male doctor and that's why so many of them die in childbirth because it's considered their -- they'retioned if they see a male doctor and there are no female doctors. there are some but there is not so many as there once were. so many of them are dying in childbirth. they need to have freedom of movement and they need to be free of violence. so will you make that commitment

to fight to get them into a key decision-making role and the reconciliation process. and will you personally reach out to president karzai 'cause i know you have a close relationship with him. to make sure this happens. >> the answer to both is yes, senator boxer. it is a very deep, long-standing concern of mine which i share with you. in our regional stabilization strategy for afghanistan and pakistan, we lay out how we wish to advance the rights of afghan women and girls with key initiatives that we are pursuing. and i would hope that, you know, this could become part of the record, mr. chairman. the entire report. >> without objection. >> but on the specifics with respect to women, i'm not going to sugar coat how hard this is. this is a very difficult challenge that we are making common cause with the women and

girls of afghanistan. i'm very proud of the work that the ambassador is doing. i have personally spoken several times about this to president karzai. and i will continue to advocate as i did at the london conference to make sure that women are included in the political process. any kind of reconciliation or reintegration effort has to take into account the rights of women. and we're going to do everything we can to try to protect and advance that. >> thank you. thank you so much. my second question kind of dovetails on senator demint's on iran. just recently a report was released of specific activities of iran's military related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile unquote. and this is chilling to all of us. iran's behavior not only poses a

grave security threat to israel and the greater middle east but also to efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear materials and weapons around the globe. and i am very pleased that the administration is focused like a laser beam on this. and i know you recently traveled to the region to d';vr @&hc% threat from iran. and that national security advisor james jones traveled there, mike mullen, vice president biden. and in addition, the u.s. government announced a new set of sanctions on iran's islamic revolutionary gathered. -- guard. i understand you are seeking a new set of sanctions through the u.n. security council which will require the support of all five permanent members including china. so i want to ask but china. you were recently in saudi arabia, which is now exporting more oil to china than ever. reports have suggested that saudi arabia may be able to provide china the stable supply of oil it needs. thus, reducing china's reliance on iranian oil. and this in turn could make

china more willing to support sanctions against iran. do you feel better about the situation with china? do you feel that this diplomacy of yours that the u.n. could yield the right outcome? >> well, senator, we are working at it every single day. and the iaea report gave us one more piece of evidence to present to doubting countries about conclusions regarding iran's nuclear ambitions. we also are making the argument in public that china's dependence on oil from the gulf should cause it to make a strategic calculation to support sanctions. because in the absence of pressure that changes the iranian efforts to obtain a

nuclear weapon, there will be an arm's race in the gulf. and that will further destabilize the gulf. it could lead even to conflict which could dramatically undermine the delivery of oil from the gulf. so our argument joined by other countries including some in the gulf to china is that if you're concerned about your market access to the arabian gulf for oil then you should join the rest of the world in sanctions. and we were very successful when nobody thought that we could get china on board for the north korean sanctions 1874 out of the skoungs. -- security council. and even today the south africans stopped a ship weapons bound to the congo to kill more

people there. we're making the argument vigorously and lots of people are joining us to try to to convince china to join with the rest of the world. >> thank you so much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator boxer. senator menendez? >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, thank you for your service to our country. yesterday, a cuban prodemocracy human rights activist and political prisoner who was first incarcerated during the 2003 crackdown on dissidents in cuba died following a hunger street protesting the castro human rights abuses. amnesty recognized him as a prisoner of conscience and it's in his memory and the sacrifice he made and hundreds of political prisoners who languish in castro's jails that i want to ask you about some concerns i have with reference to how we are pursuing our cuban democracy programs.

i sent a letter in january to administrator shaw whom i have not heard an answer yet answering what is an intent to an email that they sent to the grantees and contractors for programs in cuba. basically that email suggested as the department has suggested that groups not travel to cuba. to conduct our democracy programs there. and that is a real concern. now, there are some people who have suggested that the united states only provide support to the cuban people when every single program under these activities is sanctioned by the castro regime. it's naive to think that independent groups would be allowed permission regime to carry out those activities when even members of this committee who have sought visas to visit human rights political

dissidents as part of the agenda have been denied those visas by the regime and a clear attempt to stop anyone who wants to visit those entities, those individuals inside of cuba. so i would not expect the regime to welcome anyone. to help engage with human rights activists, political dissidents, independent journalists in trying to promote civil society inside of cuba. so we have a long history in the united states of supporting groups around the world. in groups who have lived under the iron fists or behind what was the iron curtain. we've done that in eastern europe. we did that with lech walenska and others around the world. it seems to me that when it comes to cuba, the recent

actions by the regime to arrest an american citizen have totally frozen our actions. and i've even noticed that in the 2011 budget request stating what our democracy programs would do, a critical statement that existed in the 2010 request was eliminated. so my question is, are we going to have a permanent freeze on having entities that are trying to create peaceful change for civil society inside of cuba? is that the policy of the state department? >> no, senator. let me first express the united states' government sympathies to the family, friends and supporters. we were concerned about his welfare. we raised this with the cuban delegation during the migration talks. we urged that he be given medical attention and care.

and we are deeply distressed by his death during a hunger strike on behalf of his rights. and to send a signal of the political prisoner situation and oppression in cuba where we think there are in excess of 200 other prisoners of conscience. we are very supportive of the work that we believe should be done to support those people of conscience inside cuba. as i said earlier, we're trying to figure out the best ways to be effective in doing that. we're currently reviewing the risks in the wake of the baseless arrest of mr. gross in cuba. so that people who are traveling in furtherance of the mission of advocating for freedom, providing services, providing supplies and material to cubans

will take the necessary precautions when traveling. this is an issue of great importance to us. we do want do everything we can to try to assist cubans who are struggling against a continuing long-standing regime of oppression. so we're not in any way taking a position against travel or against the kind of actions that we think will produce positive results. but we are engaged in a very intense review so that what we do we think will have greater chances of being successful. >> well, i appreciate your answer. however, let me just say that the email that came out of a.i.d. and the statements that have come out subsequently have basically child any activity in the promotion of the democracy programs that the president is on budget has put together again which we are pleased to see.

at the end of the day, the regime, whether that be china, whether that be in any other country in the world can ultimately deter the united states from its engagement of human rights activists and political dissidents, then that part of our democracy crumbles. >> but that is not what we're doing. >> i'd like to see. i'd like to see what we're doing because right now we're not doing very much. so i'll follow up with that. i hope we get a response from the administrator. i'd like to ask you two other questions. one is, senator kerry, lugar, corker and myself have written legislation with efforts on reforming or foreign assistance. you mentioned the quadrennial defense and review. i would like to know when can we expect to see some tangible changes? what might these changes look like. my second question, as you know

there are 30,000 turkish troops occupying cyprus. no one in the world acceptance the proposition that they are there to protect those and a parliament passed a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of turkish troops from cyprus. yet, madam secretary, america's ambassador to turkey very recently said in a newspaper interview that turkey has quote security concerns on cyprus. certainly he can't be supporting this rationale for keeping turkish troops in cyprus or did he misspeak. >> qddr will be finished this summer. we will look at it to coordinate to assist us with congress on the reforms that ought to be undertaken. our goal is to enhance the capacity and effectiveness of

american foreign assistance to better coordinate among the various aspects of the american government that provide assistance. we have everything from usda to treasury with its funding of the international financial institutions to, of course, state, to usaid and other entities as well. we want to more clearly state the mission, more clearly resource that mission. the white house is currently simultaneously conducting its own peview of development, bringing in all the other stakeholders because, of course, we're only looking at state and usaid. but i think many of our findings will be very much in line with the direction and the aspiration that this committee has set forth. with respect to cyprus, we strongly support the continuing negotiations under u.n. auspices for a bizonal, bicommunal

resolution on cyprus. we have been heartened by some of the intense consultations going on between the leadership. but there's a long way to go. i think -- i can't speak for our ambassador, but i assume he was stating the opinion of the turkish government. that is something that we do not ascribe to because we want to see the entire cyprus situation resolved but we understand that is the stated position of the turkish government, not the american government. >> thank you, senator menendez. let me just say so the record reflects it, senator menendez, the committee has taken note to formally -- i spoke on the floor previously about in december our efforts to try to review the democracy of promotion programs. and we all agree that the goals

are laudable. and, you know, we want to help the cuban people but we also want to make sure we're doing the most effective things and that the programs are working. so we're looking at that. we're going to work with the administration. i think it's important to try to just look at it and evaluate it. and we're going to continue our review and we'll work with you and with the secretary to try to measure this. >> mr. chairman, if i may, i appreciate that. but what i am concerned about is turning a page that we have never permitted in our history, which is having an oppressive regime anywhere in the world tell us how we are going to ultimately engage in our democracy programs. and that's the core. we all want to see the most effective democracy programs but for anyone to expect that we will get a stamp of approval -- >> nobody expects that, senator. and i think that you're in a sense postulating a sort of subjective criteria that doesn't exist here.

we're not -- there's no stamp of approval necessary. we'll do what we think is in our best interest. and i'm confident the administration will do that and want us to do that. it's simply a question of measuring the effectiveness of what we're doing against all outcomes and i think we need to do that. so we'll work with you to have a good dialog. >> i'm happy as long as we do that worldwide, mr. chairman. >> we probably should. and i think that's important. senator casey? >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, thank you for your testimony today and your work. i was thinking as we were preparing for this hearing that one area of our discussion here that often doesn't get enough attention is the budget itself. the management of a huge enterprise what the state department is and i believe whatever level we're talking about is the strength -- the

strength of any government especially the united states government can only be maintained by the strength or integrity of its agencies. and the management of those agencies. i know it's a difficult -- it's difficult enough to deal with the issues that you're confronted with, but you also have to run a big agency. and we're grateful for the ray you managed it and the team in doing that. i was also struck by something that you said in your testimony on the section of development where you highlighted the areas of development that the department is focused on. whether it's health or food security or climate change and clean technology jobs.ñ2p but last section of that, i thought we cannot say this enough. and i'm quoting here. these initiatives are designed to enhance american security. to help people in need and

thirdly to give the american people a strong return on their investment. often when -- and again, this from traveling our country. you know this from your work in the senate that when people are confronted with a question of how do we save money, an important question these days, they often point to cutting foreign aid. it's a bonanza where we can save all kinds of money. the reality we know is otherwise. i was noting the international affairs budget is about 1.4% of the total budget of the united states. despite all of the -- i guess the perceptions or misperceptions that somehow there's a lot of -- a lot of areas to eliminate. and i think you're demonstrating that every day that we can't at this time in our history especially in light of our

security concerns do that. let me ask about two or three areas. one is -- one involves our domestic economy and the horrific recession that so many families have lived through. pennsylvania has a lower unemployment rate but 560,000 people out of work. and you mentioned that in the opening -- you mentioned the challenge of our domestic economy in the opening comments you made. sometimes that connection between the international affairs budget and the investments we make around the world may not -- may not seem to translate into the domestic economy. but i note here that since 2005, the u.s. export/import bank which is funded through the international affairs budget has financed $3.06 billion in exports from pennsylvania. supporting 223 companies, 112 communities. there are other examples as well.

but i'd like you to talk about that because it's not something that we talk about enough. and i think there's a story to tell here that the american people don't often hear. >> well, senator, casey, i can't thank you enough for asking that question because i think you are 100% right. i obviously that you believe what we're doing is part of our security. and i think that case is certainly more understandable for today since 9/11 than it might have been beforehand. but i also think it is essential to our economy. you illustrate one example of that, the export/import bank. we believe we can do even more through the xm bank. and i'm going to try to encourage that approach. somebody asked me to do because i said i would like to do xm bank on steroids because i think it can do so much for american companies and i want american

businesses to know that. we're also working on a much more extensive export-driven strategy. that the president has announced and has spoken about with business leaders. i've asked under-secretary bob hormats to lead our efforts on the state department. we can do more on our own and with the commerce department and we intend to do that to reach out to small and medium-sized businesses about how they can export. more lessons that perhaps can be conveyed to them. work with more chambers of commerce in partnership on this issue. we want to do more to highlight american business. we're in an economic competition as we are in every other aspect of the world today. and american business needs to have a partner in the united states government. other businesses from other countries have a strong partnership with their government, whether it's state-owned enterprises from

china or private companies from europe. they often have much more support from their governments than we have in recent years given to our businesses. so i think in many ways we can do more -- to impress upon the american public the importance of what happens at the state department in opening doors and in working with other government agencies here in the united states to promote jobs in america. >> thank you very much. and maybe one more area before -- i got about a minute left. but it's on nonproliferation. i was giving a speech yesterday about the topic generally and i especially appreciate the approach you have taken and your team the president and the vice president on a position of strength. that our number one objective and number one obligation is the security of the american people. and we're one of the fundamental goals of the nonproliferation strategy is to have a safe, secure and effective nuclear

arsenal. i want to have you talk about that in the context of not just the funding and the investments we have to make in this budget to make sure that we have a safe and secure and effective arsenal, but also in the context of a broader -- our broader security agenda. >> well, i appreciate your recognition that this budget and, of course, president obama are committed to our safe and secure nuclear arsenal. but at the same time the president's vision of a world without nuclear weapons. and some have asked me how can those two coexist? i said well, they can only coexist. i mean, realistically we know that the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world is often the distance. so what are the steps we need to take in order to move toward that? and in his prague speech outlining his vision as well as

in the state of the union, the president made clear that as long as nuclear weapons exist, the united states will maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent. infrastructure repairs critically important to sustain our nuclear security enterprise. and, therefore, the budget requests support programs that are important to implementing all of the president's nuclear security agenda. what can we do to fund the stockpile support activities that enhance our deterrent. that make deeper reductions through negotiations like what we're involved in with russia. how do we make the case to the senate surrounding the comprehensive test ban treaty. how do we fund the defense nuclear nonproliferation program. every piece of this fits together. so it's an issue that, of course, senator lugar has been a champion of for a very long time. but i think you are so right to be raising this issue in

audiences that you speak to because it's one of the most important issues confronting humanity. and we're trying to walk the line of being committed to a goal of zero but being smart about how we protect and maintain our deterrent now. so that's the -- that's the tension. but we think it's the realistic way forward. >> thank you very much. >> senator cardin? >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary clinton, thank you very much. we very much appreciate your leadership. i particularly want to underscore how important your statements about american foreign policy priorities including human rights has been received internationally. senator wicker and i were recently in an international meeting of the osce and your statements particularly about the importance of human rights but also that we're going to evaluate our own performance was very well received and it's helped us. and i encourage you to continue your strong commitment. in that area. i want to talk about the direction of our foreign aid program.

i strongly support what you're trying to do. including providing more resources and more aggressive use of our involvement internationally. but i am concerned about our government partners when there is a significant leakage of funds because of corruption. corruption is a problem in front so many places in the world. and when we try to provide a partner with money and that money gets used for other than its intended purpose, we're not only denying the taxpayers in our own country the accountability that is demanded but we're denying the purpose for which the foreign assistance was being made available. i also mention this context the extracted industry in which senator lugar and i are encouraging stronger participation in the united states and in the eiti. as you know, oil wealth and

mineral wealth is a curse in many countries because it encourages corruption in a country. we encourage you to make sure we have strong accountability built into the programs and an expectation that there must be progress in dealing with the corruption issues among our partner countries. >> i could not agree more, senator. first, thank you for your continuing work with the osce. we view that as an important forum. we are trying to become more engaged and involved. we have a new ambassador teed up to go. so we're very much focused on what we need to do to support the broad initiative, the broad agenda of the osce. on the question of corruption, this is the cancer that eats away at societies.

and it's particularly apparent in these resource-rich societies where it is the oil curse. you know, when you go to a country like nigeria, whose social indicators are falling despite the oil health and the corruption is so endemic that the people are just encouraged and turned off by their own country's efforts, it's so distressing because think of what could be done properly managed. so we're doing several things. we are working very hard in support of anticorruption initiatives internationally. the u.n. has some efforts underway. we want this to be a topic in other multilateral fora including the osce where i think it could be quite important. we're also pushing the extractive transparency initiative because we agree with you that this mineral wealth should be protected as much as

possible so that the revenues flowing from it are for the benefit of the people. and we look forward to working with you and others on how we enhance the tools that we have on the extractive industries transparency initiative. i think we have to think outside the box so to speak. how do we get more accountability? we have to have more conditions-based aid. you know, i know a lot of people see aid as something that america should do. and in certain instances like in the aftermath of haiti, i agree with that. but it's always a choice, you know, there are many priorities in the world that we could spend the hard-earned taxpayer dollars on. and so when we're looking at aid, i think we have to have more of an approach that says, what are you going to do in return for that aid? and how do we prevent the diversion? what are the techniques that we use? some of the diversion is straight out corruption. it goes into people's pockets.

it goes into, you know, swiss bank accounts. but some of it is diversion so that if we're putting money into a health program, then the government takes their money out of the health program. so we're not getting additive and we're never getting ahead. we keep putting money in and others are putting money in. we have to enhance the contributions from the local communities. i mean, a simple example is, you know, when we used to give away malaria nets it wasn't as effective to make people pay a little tiny bit of it. and there's good lessons learned in the aid programs going forward and if we can enhance transparency of all kinds and i'll just end with this because i could go on about this. we could use transparency as an anticorruption tool. when we help fund cell phones going in the hands of their people. they can do mobile panicking. in a country like the democratic

republic of congo where there are no banking system and no roads in the country, in order to pay the military a bag of money starts off and by the time it gets to the troops in goma there's nothing left. but if we can set up a mobile banking system, we cut out the middle people. and one of the biggest differences we could make with our aid investments is helping to build transparent anticorrupt e-government systems. and some countries are very open to that. and we're working with them and we're also sending this sort of little squat team we have of high tech young people around the world working to enhance these programs. but we're -- we're taking this anticorruption campaign very seriously. >> well, i appreciate that response. there's nothing wrong with conditioning aid because americans expect accountability in the use of our taxpayer dollars so we have a right to expect the countries are fighting corruption.

i would also add to that list the gender issues that are integrating women into the programs. you've been a leader on that and it give us a chance to advance that issue. let me in the minute i have left i want to just continue to raise the concern of the refugees from iraq. that are in syria and jordan. there was a student at goucher university in baltimore who was a iraqi refugee living in syria that was fortunate enough to be able to make it to the united states. his story about so many people in his family that didn't make it because of the refugee status. we have a responsibility in regards to the people who are still refugees from the iraq conflict and i would just urge you to continue our intention to get iraq the region and the international community along with the united states focused on how we can help the lives of those people. >> we completely agree with that.

and we have a concerted effort that is looking at how we can do more to help iraqi refugees and try to resettle them back in iraq if that's their choice. >> thank you, senator. >> i want to thank you for your terrific diligence in pursuing the helsinki commission efforts. senator shaheen. >> welcome, secretary clinton. we're delighted to have you here and appreciate the leadership that you're providing to the department of state and to our diplomacy, diplomatic efforts all around the world. thank you. last week i had the opportunity to travel to the balkans with senator voinovich who as i'm sure you know is quite a hero in the balkans just as former president clinton is.

and it was remarkable to see the progress that has been made there. but as you know, that region still is the missing piece as we seek to see a europe that is whole and free and at peace. and bosnia in particular, i think, remains a concern. i was pleased to see your recent speech about the future of nato and the commitment to leave the door open. for prospective nato leaders who meet the alliance criteria. i hope and i appreciate the leadership that you're providing to say to those countries in the balkans that if they can achieve the alliances criteria, they will be welcomed as members of nato. and i wonder if you could speak to that.

>> well, first, senator, as i expressed to senator voinovich earlier in the foreign service appropriations committee, thank you for going to southern europe and the balkans. there's a lot of unfinished business there. we can be proud of the role that the united states played. but we can't rest on any laurels because there are still some volatile situations that have to be addressed. with respect to nato membership, i believe strongly in leaving the door open. i also believe it needs to be left open for the european union although we have no direct role in that. and i think it's particularly important for bosnia. now, we have been trying to persuade bosnia to do the necessary constitutional reform that will enhance the prospects for unity and not division within that country. and some people have argued, well, that should be -- that

should be the carrot that is held out to them so that if they do the constitutional reform then they can get into the map process for nato. others have said, no, let them in and then don't let them become members until they do it. however you look at it, i think that we want bosnia to be looking toward europe ...

>> so i hope that the administration will continue to remain engaged with the e.u. to keep an open process and open effort to encourage the countries of the balkans to consider future membership. and maybe you could talk about what we're doing to try to encourage that to continue. >> senator, we are encouraging the european union to do more to demonstrate the benefits to bosnia of european integration, and to work with, to work with the government in bosnia to try

to understand what it must do to be eligible for e.u. membership. there are other countries that are also seeking that kind of path. serbia, which i think is very important to be, you know, focused on europe and the west. so it has been one of my highest priorities in terms of our european policy. i'm not satisfied with where we are, because i think there's been changes going on in europe with host lisbon. there was a desire on the part of the europeans to, you know, kind of take care of their own business first but we're keeping them focused on the balkans. we have a lot of work to do, and we don't want to see any moves to break up bosnia.

and we worry about that a lot. this is a long list of concerns, but the nato peace of that i am watching very closely because i share your concerns that we won't bosnia herzegovina to feel like they are welcome. and they may not be there yet, but with a little bit more effort they could be. >> thank you. i appreciate that. and let me just be clear when i was referring to concern over enlargement fatigue in the e.u., it wasn't just in bosnia-herzegovina that we heard that. it was in serbia and the other parts of the balkans. so i think that is a very real concern, and one that we should continue to pursue with our friends in the e.u. with respect tomato, as i said i very much appreciate the speech that you gave recently on the nato. as the strategic concept draft is being developed, what are

your main priorities for that new concept? >> well, as i spoke about in my speech and as secretary gates reiterated the following day, we believe that nato must continue to be a strong effective a light in the 21st century, just as it was in the 20th. and we have to take a hard look at how we are defining our roles and responsibilities within nato. we have to reform nato so that it is more streamlined, more manageable, than many people believe it is now. we have to look at what the sort of out of area challenges are from piracy to cyber terrorism and figure out what response we're going to have. we have to determine the way forward on missile defense, which we think is critical to

nato's future. there's just a long list of what our new responsibilities for nato to assume. but out of albert is chairing the strategic concept to me and doing an excellent job. so i think will get a good result out of that work and then he'll be up to the member countries to hammer out the actual content of it. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam secretary. i frankly don't know how you do this. really, i watch sometimes the amount of travel and try to run the state department at the same time. it is an incredible challenge and i really appreciate your service in doing this. these are really tough times for us economically. but i am very pleased to see that the administration decided to have a sizable increase in the department of state funding. i mean, i've traveled to

afghanistan, iraq several times and our troops are magnificent. but when you're there, you have to kind of be not thinking to say how do we stop this am happy before it happens. and i think that anyone who thinks about that, for having a strong, smart, big department of state, can act as an incredible prevention. so we don't have to send our magnificent troops out there and put them in harm's way. and i know that you have no better supporter in this and it's really a great time and that's secretary of defense gates. he really is articulate about it. i notice that in this bill you mention in your statement that you are a complex crisis for the pakistan counter. can you talk a little bit about why that makes sense in light of the roles of state and defense? >> thank you, so much senator kaufman. thank you for your service to

the committee before you were a member of it. secretary gates, before i ever for secretary of state, understood from his many decades in government service, and particularly over at the defense department now, that our national security was out of balance at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. we had come to rely so heavily on our military, and it wasn't just for their being warriors on behalf of our security, but they were doing development reconstruction, humanitarian projects, just so much. and they are so good at it, and they have, you know, more than what, 12 times the resources that the state department and usaid do. that it wasn't the kind of the balance national security policy

that's in the long-term interests of the united states. so secretary gates started sounding this alarm two years ago. and i'm very grateful for his support. so what we're trying to do is to rebound by moving back and maybe for the first time into the state department and usaid what were known as 1206 funds. but, of course, the kind of pre-and post-conflict work that should be led by civilians. there's a lot of room for partnership with the military. but we got to train up a civilian capacity to be able to do this work. and look at what's happening in iraq. it's a perfect example. we have a deadline to withdraw our troops. it's a deadline to go should with the iraqi government. so we are expected to leave. but the iraqi government has certain requests that it has made of us. one of them is to do advanced

level police and law enforcement training. the military's been doing that. they have all the resources. they have the helicopters. they have the hardened facilities. we don't have any of that. so if we're going to have a chance of getting in and doing what is expected of us, we have to have the resources to plan for and then execute and deliver on what that mission is. so i think that this is not easy to do, and we are asking for some additional resources to be able to do it. but even with our just, you know, our civilian response corps is in infancy, but we sent people to haiti. we sent people to afghanistan. we're beginning to have more expeditionary personnel and the resources to match. there will always be a role for the military and humanitarian assistance, as we saw in haiti.

we could not have done what was done absent our military being there in force. but we've got to be better positioned to do our part on the civilian side, and that's what we're attempting to achieve. >> that's great. and you talk a bit about the public diplomacy and i see the future of public diplomacy? >> i would strongly encourage the committee members are interested in public diplomacy to get a briefing from our new undersecretary for public diplomacy. but, of course, this is not faulting anyone, because when we merged, u.s. i.a. and all the other public diplomacy elements of government that had done so well during the cold war in the late '90s into the state department, they were still independent agencies. the mission was not clear. do you know give the bush

administration their due, they try to get how best to do this. it's really hard. and it's not a pr job. it's not a propaganda job. it is a management job. we have enormous resources spread around the world. we need a clear line of communication, and a message that is repeated over and over again. and let me just give you two quick examples. when we went into haiti, it was a joint military civilian operation, but odyssey the military had a much bigger footprint. there were some media outlets around the world who immediately put a negative picture out there of the united states. and attitude previously was, well, what can you expect from these countries. their anti-american or their outlets are anti-american. and we said no, we're going to go right at them. and we did. we called them up and we said

that's wrong, that story is unfair. we will give you people who you can talk to. so we're actively engaging with even outlets and countries that are not always considered friendly to our interest. we can't leave these stories just out there you know, to become conventional wisdom. and pakistan to a number of stories, and our embassy personnel that historically have been told not to respond. if there's a story, don't respond to it. well, that is not the way modern communications work. so every single day we monitor, you know, what is said on the public media. we need to know what's being said to people in countries where we are operating, and then if we think they're saying something that's not true about the united states, we try to get in there with an alternative point of view. so our undersecretary judith mchale came from discovery, so she was a media executive, not an advertising person or a pr person. so she knows how to look at this

systematically. and that's what we're trying to do, to change the message, to change the urgency. when i was in qatar i met with the board of outages or. we're putting people on there. we are responding. but, of course, this is one of the most powerful media presence in the world that we are engaged with. so we're not saying well, what can you expect. we're saying no, you can do better. we were giddy people to talk. will give you somebody to put on the television show. we're not going to change their perspective overnight, but would not going to let go unanswered either. >> march 10 the secretary undersecretary mchale is coming. with former undersecretary lieberman and glassman. so i think this is absolutely and clearly important as we look at the world that it is much more complex one that we have public diplomacy. thank you. and thank you, mr. chairman,. >> thank you very much, senator kaufman. i think what secretary just said

is terrific. i'm delighted to hear it as i'm sure we all our. just a few quick a few quick wrap ups before we off. senator lugar may have additional questions, but can you just share with us very quickly what the current status assist on the haiti rebuild? of the plans to assess and >> yes. first, there will be a donors conference on march 31 that united states is cohosting with the u.n. and other major donor countries. at the u.n. in new york. we have been engaged with the e.u., with late countries like france and brazil and others who have put forward, canada, significant contributions. but every country in our hemisphere has contributed something. and so we're working to enhance those contributions. there is an effort underway to coordinate the haitian government and united nations with u.s. and other donors through a development authority

that the haitian government would set up and run, but which would be given lines of accountability from the donor countries as well. as you know, mr. chairman, we had a plan, a well-developed plan that we had worked on with our haitian partners prior to the earthquake. and we are working to implement that, as part of the recovery with certain changes. for example, focusing on agriculture as one of the big issues we are trying to further. so we will give you and probably about two to three weeks a very thorough report. will also include all the information we have about what other countries are doing. >> who is setting this up before the state department? >> rod shaw is the leap urban a chairperson and by the present and mike chief of staff cheryl mills is our state department. spent would've a once in the one supreme court making all this?

>> well, right now roger is the designated director. >> and the timing of the supplemental request, he said so that? >> we hope the next few weeks. >> on the qddr and the coordination presidential study, i assume, are we going to have two different concepts here? what's going to happen? >> well, that serve not our intention. we're working very hard to coordinate those and to have one voice coming from the administration. there will be other elements in the pst because the if these and ask him and all the rest of it but we want the general concept to be adopted administration wide. >> and finally, just on the pccf, which is going to come to you guys directly this time, and laughter when it came to you, you senator wicker to the defense department again.

as we try to certainly do this, i guess that doesn't make sense. is that going to happen this year or are you up and ready? >> we are up and ready. we are going to be administrating this year. >> that's great to hear. senator want to make a comment with a. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary clinton, as you know people were held recently in haiti as result of their travel there to attempt to assist some children in haiti. most of them were from idaho. and as a result of that, they were held for some period of time. their families in idaho were very stressed over the situation that they were being held. and i just want to thank you on behalf of of them, your team, both a team that you signed your you didn't easy and the team that was on the ground in haiti, particularly ted coley from your

operation and katherine who was on the ground there in haiti, were very, very helpful to the people in idaho. and were very responsive when we, some of us, congressional delegation jumped in and attempted to assist those people. as you know, many americans are unaware of the difficulties they face when they get instead an ecosystem in other countries. and they can be very befuddling. they don't understand what it don't have the same constitutional rights. they don't understand the facilities in which they are being held, up to the same type of facilities here in the united states. but your organization was very, very responsive. i want to thank you for that. when the media asked me i told him secretary clinton runs a tight ship, particularly in these type of instances. so i want to pass that onto. we've also received communication from some of the families thanking us and thanking your organization. so i want to pass that onto.

thank you so much for what you did. without any reference to what the facts of the situation were there, or what actually happened as far as factual situation. just as far as what the state department was able to do and did, and we're appreciative of that. tank. >> i will pass on those kind words, senator. >> senator lugar? >> secretary clinton, i have just three quick items i will mention and the nasa or your comment on any of them. first, of all, on the policy statement educated in your speech on internet security and cybersecurity, but just in minnesota important. i'm curious as to whether there are any budget figures or additional positions that may be available that would buttress that position that you are talking. suppose, secondly, we have

worked actively on this committee on the program, hiv-aids program. and there's been a recognition by some that we cannot trade our way out of these problems. prevention is turbine important that it would appear that the prevention efforts might be in for a reduction in the budget, and so if you take a look at that and at least the rationale for the program as you see it. because i know it does continue on a very broad scale and very humane way. finally, i'm just curious, given the outcome of the election in ukraine, what new initiatives you might be pursuing their. obviously many of the things we've attempted to have been frustrated largely by problems within the administration of the government. that may still be the case, but hope springs eternal, and you know, clearly the affairs in

crimea are very important. so this is a sidebar. i want to raise this. >> thank you, senator. we are very serious about implementing a robust, comprehensive internet security cybersecurity policy. it's got many aspects to it where we are we organized within the state department so we can be more effective in the halloween of cybersecurity and better interact with our intelligence community, defense department, and others who are similarly focused. with respect to our efforts to open up the internet and keep it open to protect the freedom of expression in the virtual freedom of assembly and countries like iran, we are going after this with intense focus. we are providing funding to groups. we are working with private sector partners that often have the intellectual property and

the access that is needed. it would be perhaps of some interest to you and other members of the committee to give you a classified briefing at some point in the future. and on our prevention and treatment efforts, we are attempting to maintain and certainly fulfill our obligations on the treatment side, even increasing, but we are moving more aggressively in the prevention side. and in building systems. so i will give you an answer in detail about that, because eric has given a lot of thought to how we can best do that. and partnering with some countries that were not our partners to integrate extent before like south africa, where we are now very deeply engaged in helping them. and finally on ukraine, general jim jones will lead a delegation

to the inauguration tomorrow. how we're going to begin exploring we can do. we want to be responsive and supportive of his free fare fair, incredible election process which has led to a new president. it is difficult. we have to wait to see how the government is formed and what their attitudes might be, but we want you going to know the united states stands ready to be a positive partner with them for the future. >> clear the idea that the new president is going to europe first and russia's second was a significant statement. >> that's right. >> and maybe offer some promise. >> i agree. >> madam secretary, i wanted to give you a chance to perhaps say word if you want to about one issue before the congress, before us, and before you right now and that's a conference committee, conference on the iran sanctions bill.

deputy secretary will does expressing concerns that the legislation won't would weaken rather than strengthen international community and support for our efforts. i know you have submitted a number of opposed changes at this point. so do you want to share what you might hope would come out of the congress, and why at this moment? >> i appreciate this opportunity, mr. chairman. we very much support congressional action. we want a very broad global sanctions regime that isolates iran, encourages it to change its strategic calculus. and we think that there could be a very good partnership between the congress and the obama administration in order to achieve that. our goal is to support the

purpose and principles of the congressional bills that have been passed that are now in conference, but to work closely with you with some suggestions about how they would better fit into our agenda in the security council, in a multilateral world, to give the president some flexibility so that we can come out of the legislative process with a really strong tool and not just a statement of concern that won't, you know, that won't really dovetail with what we are trying to achieve. so we have a team led by assistant secretary ridge burma, you know, ready and willing to work with the congress, the conference committee in order to explore how we can come up with the best result. >> good. i appreciate your comments on the. we have tried within the senate for the passage to get some of that done. it was a possible but hopefully in the conference we can get there, and i push it what you are try to do.

thank you so much. i think you have covered an incredible amount of ground and done so with clarity. we are enormously appreciative of how comprehensive the afternoon has been. so thank you very, very much. >> thank you so much, senator. >> we stand adjourned. >> secretary clinton, what about the $3 billion were providing? >> the committee is not in order for questions of that kind at this point. so ask you to respect the rules of the committee and the senate. thank you. the record will be left open for two days. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> we will also hear from executives at google and other technology companies. live coverage from the senate judiciary subcommittee on human rights and the law starts at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3.

>> in 2008 the u.s. supreme court struck down washington, d.c.,'s ban on handguns. citing an individuals right to possess firearms under the second amendment. this morning the court will hear oral argument on whether that right applies nationwide to states and other municipalities. now, a panel of legal scholars will preview today's case. mcdonald the chicago and its implication for gun rights. >> all right, show we get started here? i want to welcome you to the cato institute. my name is roger pilon, i am the director of cato's center for constitutional studies which is your host today. we are here to talk about a case that will be argued before the supreme court tomorrow morning,

mcdonald v. city of chicago. and it is one might say the second act in the second amendment series that began a year ago in the heller decision in which the court for the first time decided that the right to keep and bear arms, which is discussed in the second amendment protects your right not simply as a member of the militia, but you're right as an individual to keep and bear arms. it was of the first time that the court had decided that case, or that matter quite so proudly. and we now have the question before us, does this right applies against the states? because heller was the case that was brought against the district of columbia, and so it involves only the federal government. the issue arises, of course, because the bill of rights was originally written and applied against the federal government,

and not until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868 did the bill of rights applies against the states. and then it became a question of what rights in the bill of rights were applicable against the states. the unfortunate event that followed five years after ratification was the slaughterhouse cases. and those cases, the court eviscerated the privileges or immunities clause from the 14th amendment section, and thereafter the court would try to do under the less substantive due process clause what was meant to be done under the more substantive privileges, or immunities clause your candidate in a very vexing issue thereafter. there emerge for example, the theory of substantive due process, which has given many conservatives, including those on the court, some sleepless nights because they see it as an

opportunity for judicial mischief to find rides nowhere include among our, even our own enumerated rights. well, the case tomorrow raises the question not simply does the second amendment applied against the states, but on what grounds does the second amendment applied against the states. most people are of the view that the court will find the amendment does apply, that the individual right is also good against states and municipalities. and so draconian statutes like that in chicago will be found to be unconstitutional. after all, one of the key purposes of the 14th amendment ratified outside of reconstruction in 1868 was to allow the newly freed slaves and white unionists to defend themselves against the southern reprisals by protecting their right to keep and bear arms.

and so, the question, the second question tomorrow will be whether this will be decided under the due process clause as all other rights protected by the bill of rights have been found to be protected, or under the privileges of immunities clause. in other words, will the court for the first time since 1873, revived the privileges or immunities clause, and therefore allow for a wider array of rights to be protected against the states are in particular, various economic liberties. and that's what the issues that we will be discussing here at this form today. and we have with those three experts that i'm going to introduce just before they speak. were going to start with tim sandefur, who wrote the brief that the cato institute filed in mcdonald v. chicago. 10 is a principal attorney at the pacific legal foundation in sacramento, california. he is also an adjunct scholar

here at the cato institute. at plf, he is the lead attorney in her economic liberty project. he works to protect businesses against abusive government regulation. he also works to prevent the abuses of eminent domain. having litigated important in that domain cases in california, missouri, and elsewhere. and having to present a significant eminent domain cases, including in the new london case. is a prolific writer. his book cornerstone of liberty property rights in 21st century america was published by the cato institute in 2006. and he has published many scholarly articles on long to wait on a wide range of subjects from eminent domain and economic liberty, to copyright evolution and creationism, and the legal issues of slavery in the civil war. he's also a contributor editor, contributing editor to liberty magazine. he has written for many magazines and newspapers,

including national review online, the humanist, san francisco chronicle, regulation, and the "washington times." in february 2006, tim became one of the youngest attorneys ever featured on the cover of california lawyer magazine. is a frequent guest on radio the television programs at his been on the jim lehrer news hour, now with a day would c-span booktv he. is a graduate of hillsdale college and of the chapman university school of law. please welcome tim sandefur. [applause] >> thank you very much. i would like to talk more generally, not particularly about gun rights, but about the more abstract constitutional issues that are involved in the mcdonald case because this is one of those cases that i think if the supreme court goes the way that i certainly hope it goes, it will be one of these cases where tenure so that we will look back on this as a

major decision of the u.s. supreme court. to understand the issues involved in the mcdonald case, requires us to examine some issues of constitutional structure and political philosophy. the 14th amendment was intended to be the final word in a debate over the nature of individual rights and the relationship the federalism that had occupied the 19th century. that debate was alternately the cause of the civil war, and with the end of that war, the leaders of the victoria street union, that is, the republican party of course, wrote the 14th amendment in order to make their model of sovereignty and individual rights a permanent part of the american constitution. now as with all things in intellectual history, it's hard to categorize things neatly, but i will try to do so by labeling the two sides to this debate, the states rights of you and the republican view. now republican, of course, somewhat inaccurate because that's when they only took in

the 1850s when they organize the republican party. but it's as good a term as an. as i explain at greater length both in the brief i wrote and in my article, privileges, and i brought copies of this for everybody out on the table. if we run out or for the members of the television audience, if you want one just a me an e-mail and i am happy to send you one. as i explain in greater length in the article, conflict between these two groups dates back to a debate between john locke and william blackstone on the nature of and limits of sovereignty. according to locke of course government is limited by our natural rights. we are all born equally free and independent. and while we can form a government to protect our rights, governments powers legitimate powers are limited by those rights. no government made a private. as james madison put quotes the sovereignty of the society as vested in exercisable by the

majority may do anything that can be rightfully done by the unanimous concurrence of the members, the reserved rights of individuals in becoming parties to the original compact being beyond the legitimate reach of sovereignty, whatever vested or however viewed, and to quote. now on the other side was william blackstone, writing in the 1760s who explicitly rejected locke's theory that he argued that parliament sovereignty was supreme in resistible absolute uncontrolled authority, and quote. and apartment could do quote, anything that is not naturally impossible. it's no surprise that nearly ended his life, thomas jefferson expressed some concern over the increasing popularity of blackstone. before the revolution come he wrote in his last letter to james madison only five months before he died, sir edward cooke was the universal elementary book of law students. and a sounder whig never wrote. our lawyers within all weeks,

but when the honey words of blackstone became a student home, from that profession, the nurse of our congress begin to slide into toryism. now he was right in that american voters were relied on glaxo throughout the 19th century to form a theory that upon separating from england, parliaments absolute supreme in resistible authority went to the states. the states enjoyed power not limited by the natural rights of individuals. this is of course a very convenient idea for defenders of slavery to embrace. opposed to these a states rights there is were the liberals would formulate the republican party. the most interesting one to me is john quincy adams. of course of john quincy adams was the son of john adams, an intimate with the founding generation and after the president he served in the house of representatives and became basically the leader of the anti-slavery movement in congress during the 1830s and 1840. he published a series of

monographs touching on the political and legal implications of the declaration of independence and its natural rights philosophy. john quincy adams believe that the declaration was not just political rhetoric, but a binding legal document. part of the organic law of the united states. and just separate america from britain. it also set limits on the powers of the state and national governments. adams explicitly dismissed blackstone's notion quote, that sovereign must necessarily be uncontrollable, unlimited power as quote a hallucination. because quote sovereignty thus defined is in direct contradiction to the deck question of independence and incompatible with the nature of our institutions. the states rights dokken said he was arguing against threatened to render the three of the declaration of independence of philosophical dream, he said. and to allow quote uncontrolled despots oddities to travel with impunity through a long career

of after ages. in terminal or exterminating war with one another upon the into feasible and unalienable rights of man, and quote. john quincy and was enormously influential among the rising generation of anti-slavery leaders, probably as close as protége was charles sumner but william seward published the first boundary of junk which adams and of course add them served in congress with the then little-known illinois congressman abraham lincoln. the dispute and the republican followers of locke wasn't just about the nature and limits of sovereignty. but also about the location of sovereignty. before 1787, we were governed by the articles of confederation. and that worked more like a treaty among sovereign states. the most important achievement of the 1787 constitution was to replace that model with a single unified national model. under congress, under the articles, congress' power had been delegated by state legislative but under the

constitution congress and the federal government enjoyed sovereignty directly from the consent of the whole people of the united states. but beginning in the 19th century, proslavery politicians led primarily by john c. calhoun of south carolina devised a constitutional theory to resist federal power and rising anti-slavery opinion. which denied that the federal government was offered and held instead that the states alone were sovereign and that the federal constitution was still just a treaty among sovereign states. now if you combine these two, the idea that state power is supreme and absolute and irresistible, and the idea that the federal constitution is just a treat among sovereign states, you basically have a recipe for totalitarianism. state governments with no practical limit on what they can do to the people. and this was the argument of the states rights party led by people like calhoun and a man named jeremiah black was a chief justice of the state of pennsylvania. black is very interesting

figure. because in 1853 come he issued a decision, sharpless versus mayor of philadelphia that really articulate this natural rights theory very clever. when america declared independence, he wrote, the transcendent powers of parliament were transferred to the states who enjoyed supreme and unlimited power. that is, quote, if the people of pennsylvania given all the authority which they themselves possess to a single person, they would have created a despotism as absolute in its control over life libbey and property as that of the russian autocrat that although black and to devastate the delegate some of their power, he concluded a state legislators retained a vast field of powerful and uncontrolled in the use of that power can be limited only by their own discretion, and quote. that chief justice black left his seat as the supreme court, as a chief justice a pennsylvania supreme court when he was appointed united states attorney general by his fellow pennsylvanian james buchanan.

as attorney general he continued to make these arguments. sovereignty is in its nature in resistible and absolute. moral abstraction, their medical prince was of natural justice do not limit the legal authority of the sovereign. no government ought to violate justice but any supreme court but whose hands are tied at three can violate it with a purity. the idea that national citizenship was paramount to state citizenship and a state could not trample on natural or common law rights was quote inserted into the greed of the abolitionist because they supposedly get sort of a possibility to their violent intervention in the internal affairs of the states, end quote. blacks believe in supreme in resistible state sovereignty was so strong that after the war he devoted himself to defeating the program of reconstruction. and he finally succeeded in that effort we agree to serve as one of the attorneys represent the state of louisiana in the slaughterhouse cases. just as black and other states rights theorists held that the states were ultimately

sovereign, republicans held that the nation was offered, not the states. upon declaring it depends from great britain, the sovereignty formerly enjoyed by parliament did not flow to the states, but to the nation as a whole, to the whole people of the united states. the united colonies had declared independence. not 13 separate socrates. and the constitution was issued in the name of the people of the united states. they believed american citizenship was therefore different from state citizenship. scholars have named this there is are about national citizenship, and the reason it's so important is that it meant that all americans enjoy that sort rise because they were americans, not because they were georgians or new yorkers or pennsylvanians. these republicans of course believe the decision of baron versus baltimore had been long, and that the bill of rights protections should apply to state as well as to the federal government. i hope i have made clear that there were basically two parties in the united states in the united states in the years leading up to the civil war.

on one hand, states rights party led by people like jeremiah black who agreed with blackstone that sovereignty was absolute and unlimited. and belong to the states and not to the nation. to them the constitution was a treaty among sovereignty who had the power to restrict or limit individual rights at will. on the other stand, on the other hand were people like john quincy adams, charles sumner and other republicans who three of paramount national citizenship held that sovereignty was limited by our natural rights and that the nation was sovereign. so that all americans enjoyed their rights as americans, not as citizens of a state. after the civil war, republicans saw the opportunity to and grabbed their third of paramount national citizenship into the constitution. of course, they thought this had always been constitutional law, but they hope to remove any ambiguity by amending the constitution to clarify that the american nation was paramount over the states and that american citizenship had federal protections for individual

rights took precedence. and if you read the 14th amendment, that's how it works. that's the order goes in. it starts up i think all persons born and naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states, and of the state wherein they reside. the first time the constitution had ever defy citizenship, and it starts with natural citizenship. then goes on to say no state shall make a law that bridges communities of citizens of the united states. that it would buy underbite this achievement but in the main history of paramount national citizenship that the slaughterhouse cases made its most fundamental error. there's a lot to complain about in the slaughterhouse cases, but the most important legal air was filled to give effect to the third of paramount national citizenship that as justice stephen field said in 1873, before this a mimic, the state has agreed authority over all these matters and the national government instead could afford no protection to the individual. after the civil war had closed, the same authority was observed

at the 14th amendment was not as we held in the slaughterhouse cases primarily intended of the negro race to get a much broader purpose. it was intended to justify legislation extending the protection of the national government over the common law rights of all citizens of the united states. it recognize if they did not create a national citizenship, and declared that their privileges or immunities which embrace all the fundamental rights belonging to citizens of all free governments should not be abridged by any state. now, it's interesting to note a parallel develop in state law as well as federal law as far as the 14th of them is concerned. in 1857, the california supreme court issued a decision called billings versus all striking down a law that took private property a way from absentee landlords. in that case the supreme court held the republican view that states were limited. it has been a mostly supposed by

many that the legislation of a state may do any act except was expressed accredited by the constitution. the supreme court said that the supreme court of california that others contend our boundaries set to the exercise of the supreme sovereign power of the state that it is limited in its exercised by the great fundamental principles of the social compact. however, in 1870 the same court, the california supreme court reversed this completely. by 1870 of coarse californians were engaged in the war against chinese immigrants. one of the ways of engaging in this war was to pass a law saying no chinese person could testify against a white person in court. which is basically a license to kill for white, right? at a violent crime is going to be committed against a chinese person, usually the witness are going to be other chinese persons who now can't testify against the defendant that the california's supreme court upheld the cost is tally of this august the 14th amendment challenge. the great mass of governmental powers are reserved to the states, the court said. the absolute right of

uncontrolled local legislation upon all subjects most intimately connected with individual rights was reserved. the federal government was created by the compact of sovereign states and their continued existence and the uncontrolled exercise of their powers is an essential element of our system. if the 14th amendment had been intended to restrict state powers, the court concluded we should regard it as we should a lot apparently legalizing murder or robbery, end quote. this same retreat from the doctor of their amount national such it can be recognize in the slaughterhouse cases when justice those opinions to the privileges or immune because only protects those rights that go there existed a national citizenship. he is right about that taking out of context, but then he goes on to say that those rights of national citizenship aren't very narrowly limited set of such privileges as the right to travel to washington, d.c., the right to demand federal protection on the high seas against what? the state of arkansas? they don't have a navy.

it did not include of coarse the common law right to earn an honest living. i ride that had been protected by english and american common law for at least two and a half centuries by that time. miller of course is not discuss the legislative history of the amendment or anything about why it was drafted, the doctor of paramount national citizenship or anything that is a great tragedy in the years after the civil war federal and state officials abandoned the effort of reconstruction to establish the principle of paramount national session ship that the resurgence of state rights ideology in the years that followed in the event of natural rights and was in the 19th century a limited federal protection for many fundamental human rights. segregation, eugenics, censorship were all about. along with a violation of voting rights, property rights, freedom of contract and other fundamental human liberties. during the civil rights movement from the 1950s to the 1970s there was a revival for protection of some of these rights, and courts didn't praise the doctor the doctrine to a

degree. and other constitutional provisions like the due process or equal protection clauses or under the statutes like the civil rights act of 1964. unfortunately though state and local governments today are still permitted to violate and ignore fundamental human rights. this includes only the right to defend oneself against violence by possessing and using firearms, but also the fundamental human right to earn a living as one chooses. this is the same right that the state of louisiana violated in 1868 leading to the litigation that started the slaughterhouse cases. today entrepreneurs and business owners are still basically unprotected against abuses at the hands of state and local governments. occupational licensing laws and other restrictions deprive people of the right to earn a living, the right to make economic choices, choices about employment, about running their own businesses and the burdens of these districts typically fall heaviest on those with little political power to defend themselves, precisely those people who need a constitution

to defend them. take for one example the case of adam sweet, an oregon college student who started a moving come because two brothers moving to help put himself through college. he found that oregon law required him to get a license for it and to get a license, you had to basically ask permission of all the existing moving companies. you laugh at this but this is a way that every major metropolitan city in the united states regulates taxicabs. by the time, it's not surprising that the state organ had not issued any new licenses for several years. the state had created a cartel in the movie business that harm consumers, that stifle entrepreneurship, and did not benefit the general public. the general public was not allowed to issue an opinion on the subject. this law violated his right, not to protect the public but to protect established companies against their competition. we challenge the constitutionality of that law. arguing among other things that it violates the privileges or immune response of the 14th

amendment. of course, that part of our complaint was dismissed pursuant to the slaughterhouse cases. although i'm glad to say that the state of oregon thanks to our lawsuit repealed that law last year. today the right of free speech, the right to freedom of religion freedom of the press always a relatively good strong protection from courts. but state legislators today enjoy basically unlimited power to restrict the freedom of america's wealth creators. if the supreme court chooses to overrule the slaughterhouse cases and to restore the privileges and immunities clause and the constitution division of paramount national citizenship it will be a welcome day for all americans. make you. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. will now hear from doug kendall. doug is the founder and president of the constitutional accountability center which is a think tank law firm and action center dedicated to fulfilling promise of our constitution's

text and history. he proves he founded interactive the community rights counsel, constitutional accountability center's predecessor organization. duck is represented clients in state and federal appellate courts around the country and his co-authored more than a dozen briefs filed before the u.s. supreme court. he is the co-author of three books and lead author of numerous reports and studies. doug lots of help direct the judging environment project, cognitive effort to highlight the environmental stakes in the future of the u.s. supreme court and appointments to the federal bench. he has appeared on television programs including nightline, 2020, fox news sunday, world news tonight, and radio broadcast on npr, cbs news, his academic writings have appeared in scholarly journals including the virginia law review. is commentary has run into new republic, the american prospect, and dozens of major papers including the "washington post," u.s.a. today and "the los

angeles times." doug is a blog at having to post it to receive his degrees both undergraduate and law at the university of virginia. please welcome doug kendall. [applause] >> and thanks, roger, and thanks for having me today. the one thing that roger did mention is we also filed a brief in the mcdonald case. not on behalf of constitutional a capital. but on behalf of a collection of some of the most preeminent legal scholars in the country. and really across a broad spectrum, broad spectrum of ideologies ranging from jack who is a yale law professor, i think self-described liberals to steve who is one of the founders of federalist society, including

ranging, across that spectrum. there are a preeminent scholars, and it really builds upon a much broader collection of scholarship. that includes some of the i think recognize charts of constitutional law, over the last 30 years from charlie black to john hart easy, that the constitution's privileges or immunities clause has been badly mistreated by the supreme court for about 104 years. really, nowhere does a disconnect between the constitution's text and history and the modern supreme court doctrine more pronounced than its interpretation of the privileges or immunities clause. the broad consensus that our brief in bodies indicates that the privileges or immunities clause was supposed to be the centerpiece of the 14th

amendment and the way in which fundamental substantive rights, liberty interests are protected against infringement by the government. up a 10 almost universal agreement that the supreme court badly aired in the 19 -- 1873 slaughterhouse case. and subsequent rulings that effectively read the clause out of the constitution. as a kid tomorrow is a constitution law professor at a yale law school has said, virtually no serious modern scholar left, right or center believes that slaughterhouse isn't plausible reading of the 14th amendment. and that's really the consensus that the brief we filed in this case embodies. and the reason this matters is because with the privileges or immunities clause read out of the constitution, the supreme

court turn to the due process clause as a vehicle for applying substantive protections against the states, and for recognizing and protecting unenumerated rights and liberties. starting with the case of meyer versus nebraska which is about the right to control the education of children and go through a line of cases that are probably as controversial as any in modern supreme court law that includes ropey weight and the right to reproductive choice and lawrence versus texas and the right of sexual intimacy. the result is a doctrine of substantive due process, and for reasons i won't rehearse here, substantive due process is less than a perfect constitutional actor for the role. this has led to the constitutional equivalent of a food fight f t