give food aid to north korea. this is from the former pollitt bureau member. doing so is the same as providing funding for north korea's nuclear program. what had transpired is wang wapp they basically took hard currency and that's what they needed to build their weapons program and they would get it any way they could. and one of the ways they get it is by the financial support, you know, that receive. and so i was going to say that i think it's wise counsel from north korean defector that is we not do that. i was going to ask your opinion. >> thank you so much, madam secretary. >> i'm glad you agreed. >> and i think, mr. meeks, of new york is recognized. he's the ranking member on the committee. >> thank you, madam chair. madam secretary, it's so great to see you and i want to first commend you and all the diplomats under your charge for

the tremendous efforts of the state department to ensure u.s. security and prosperity in these challenging times globally through your skills, advocacy around the world rebuild partners and reliable partners and bilateral engagement you're making indeed america a safer and a stronger nation. i also want to thank you -- we have within our office a pearson fellow by the name of nancy cohen who was a foreign service officer and she's done a tremendous job and just exemplifies the great people you have in the foreign service. now, there's too many questions to ask but and time is limited so i'm going to ask some questions later -- we'll put down for the record but before i get to the questions, i also want to preference my statements by an overarching concern with the current budget that has been proposed by the republican majority. the current administration inherited a geopolitical reality riddled with anti-americanism. now that our reputation is being

restored and there is such an opportunity for positive change, is this the time that we really to pull back funds that support critical programs and initiatives. this is more penny wise and pound foolish it is down right dangerous to our national interest. and, you know, when you talked earlier in regards to europe, even though they were tightening their belt, you know, they are also putting more money into foreign aid and one of the questions i would have is the partnership we have with europe, whether or not, you know, there's a prestige whether or not we begin holding up our end of the bargain when we're talking about a foreign aid. which brings me to the specific points of, you know, almost half of the funding being cut from the population refugee and migration budget. you know, i'm deeply concerned about vulnerable populations like afro-colombians and the indigenous that live in the crossfire of conflicts that are

not of their own making. will we lose any of the progress that we've made and make our own hemisphere or secure. and my question, madam secretary, since the united states is a leader in protection of displaced populations, what impact could funding cuts for the migration and refugee assistance account -- have on assistance of refugees overseas? how could reducing funding for assistance and programs that serve forcibly displaced populations impact the united states interest in such areas as pakistan, afghanistan, iraq, and sudan? and what are the major concerns the department of state has regarding the consequences of drastically reducing assistance to refugees? >> well, thank you so much, congressman. and thank you for raising the refugee assistance issue. the united states has been and i hope will remain the leader in

dealing with refugee challenges internally displaced people, people fleeing from conflict. and it has been one of the areas where we're able to claim that we put our values into action. because we're there on the ground. you've been in refugee camps. you see the usaid big sign there. you know what it means to have experienced development experts who provide the base for a safe place, whether it's in eastern congo or from a flood in pakistan or in haiti or anywhere else. so this is a particular concern that we be prepared to continue the humanitarian work that undergirds that many of us know around the world. to be sure, when we go into these post-conflict post-disaster situations, the united states brand is front and center. there was when i got there a

feeling that maybe we shouldn't be so to speak trumpeting other own horn. my attitude is if the it is the american taxpayers that are putting the money out there. if people don't want american aid, if they don't want usaid and our programs to be there helping them, then we won't thereby. but if they're going to take it, then we're going to be advertising it. so i think it's a big part of what we're doing because what i found as i started traveling around the world is that a lot of people don't know what we did. you know, they said well, wait a minute, you know, the chinese are doing this. and the saudis are doing that and, you know, the so-and-so's are doing this and i said, yeah, we've got more money in there than those guys combined. and we're going to get credit for it. so it's not only doing the right thing, which should be the primary reason we do it. but, frankly, i want to build the american brand again so that when people get food, clean water, shelter they know where it came from. it came from the generosity of the american people. this is for me a big issue. and we're doing even more to try

to get that message out so that we can be the leader that i think the american people with their generosity want us to be. >> let me just ask this -- i know you won't get a chance to answer it but the other concern i wanted to raise was are the northern distribution network. and how effective it has been for the u.s. efforts in afghanistan and what can be done to utilize the network to improves relations more broadly in central asia. again with mr. samuel ovega being on the trip with him and we haven't connected with all the countries around the world. >> absolutely. that's big part of it. thank you. >> thank you so much. and now i'm pleased to give 5 minutes to mr. chabot of ohio our new subcommittee of middle east and south asia chairman. >> thank you, madam chairman. before beginning my questions, madam secretary, let me remind some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who keep

bemoaning the cuts in the c.r. that we're broke and the only reason -- this congress is even dealing with the c.r. is because the last congress couldn't even pass a budget for the first time in 34 years at least in the house and couldn't pass appropriations bills that could keep the government functioning. that being said, let me begin my first question with libya. madam secretary, it's difficult to look at the initial u.s. response to the unrest in libya and think of any word other than tepid. although the administration has suggested its initial reaction was tempered in order to avoid provoking a hostage situation such fears did not seem to hinder other nations. the chinese dispatched a frigget in the british dispatch in at least two warships and employed c140s in the british operation. at the same time our rented ferry was stuck in port because it could not initially make the journey across the

mediterranean. everything we've learned about the gadhafi regime over the past decades indicates its leadership responds to force or the threat of force. for example, back in 2003 when gadhafi -- after looking at the ease with which the u.s. military at least at first dispatched the iraqi army, they feared that he might be next. his response was to agree to renounce all terrorism and hand over to the u.s. his entire wmd program. by sending ships to the libyan coast, the british and chinese effectively told gadhafi that there would be a steep price intervening in their evacuation. why did we not do the same? although we are now repositioning forces off the libyan coast, our unwillingness to threaten to use force to the citizens that this is a sign of america's weaks in no, sir will. what lead the administration to believe that threatening force to protect our own citizens

would have been provocative? >> well, congressman, first, let me say other countries don't have the same history with libya that we do. and if you looked at some of the early statements that were coming out of gadhafi and his leadership team, they didn't talk about the chinese. they talked about the americans. our embassy was overrun in libya in 1979. we feel that we did this in a prudent and effective manner. and we did it in a way that did not raise the alarm bells around the region and the world. that we were about