[background noises] >> the hearing will come to order. madam secretary, welcome back to the committee. as always, i think you know this to my great pleasure for us to welcome you here and have you here and it is enormously helpful for us to obviously, to hear your thoughts, especially at a time when we are facing so many different challenges and at the same time, i think, presented the so many opportunities. the demand for u.s. leaders, i

think, has never been higher, whether because of the issues raised by the arabs bring, buy a nuclear proliferation, climate change, particularly the challenge of iran in the middle east. budget realities come however, have placed a premium on protecting u.s. power, not all the effectively, but officially. i think that more than a at a recent moments we need a smart, coordinated, and strong budget in order to safeguard the american people and particular to fund the administration's pursuit of opportunities and to face the challenges that we are all too well aware of. obviously for anybody running for office, and i know you know this, madam secretary, cutting foreign aid and talking about the comparison between some

particular community at home where you are standing in our commitments abroad is a pretty easy applause line on the stump. needless to say, it is good foreign policy to correct an unsustainable fiscal course, so we need to do what we need to do in order to put our house in order, but at the same time, it seems to me that our expenditures on diplomacy are really minuscule compared to the return on investment. our international affairs budget is, in my judgment, is smart investment that ultimately yields outside returns and saves us money over the long haul. there is nothing conservative about starving our foreign policy budget of a few billion dollars today in order to spend a trillion dollars that ron when

an otherwise avoidable crisis strikes are an armed conflict looms. this year's budget request reflects a very difficult decisions and some obvious trade-offs. i commend the administration for identifying programs where we can save money, deepening reforms that state in usaid and leveraging u.s. funds and multilateral forums. he also all i know how crucial our military is to our national defense, and i think everybody on the committee in the administration shares the belief that we would never hesitate to use force when necessary, but clearly smart and able diplomacy and development policy can neutralize threats before they become crises and can manage crises if threats escalate and ensure security and stability after conflicts are resolved. all of this can be done at a fraction of the cost of military deployment.

diplomats and development experts support counter-terrorism efforts at this moment in countries like yemen, somalia, pakistan, afghanistan. programs to destroy a small arms and shoulder-fired missiles and deprive our enemies of the tools to attack us committee seen foreign military officers amelya and vowed to american values and skills greece the capacity that we can fight together and share burdens, training for law-enforcement and counter-terrorism officials and american invested in the techniques increases their capacity, their credibility, and our security. implementing stricter export controls, training international weapons inspectors, securing our borders allows us to guard against the most vicious of threats and that of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. so the stakes are enormous coming here in the coming years. we will have great opportunities to build and redefine our relationships around the world,

particularly in the middle east. the region is moving in many different directions, but one thing is clear. it is transformed before our eyes. as you know, madam secretary, recently traveled to in the middle east, spent a number of days in the region, and i can always more convinced than ever of both the opportunities that exist to help people the middle east seek their legitimate political and economic aspirations, but also a renewed sense of the fragility of this moment and the urgency of our engagement in that region. so i charlie fully share your perspective and the goals and middle east and north africa which will make sure that we have the tools and the flexibility needed to act proactively and take advantage of the opportunities when they arise. i look forward to continuing that conversation with you to make sure that you have those tools and also to try to ascertain the best way forward

with respect to the north african senate find in the middle east support lasting change and the continued hopes that we all share for a renewed effort in the middle east peace process. we all know the difference that the united states can make. our efforts vaccinate children, combat climate change, and gates at rescues, promote core u.s. special security interests. our global presence also does something else. it creates jobs. through opec loans and multilateral forums we both left the economies of low-income countries and simultaneously -- and this is important for americans to understand in terms of our own interest, we open markets for american businesses and recognize the connections between promoting our business and creating jobs elsewhere. energetic global leaders is a strategic imperative for

america, not a favor that we do for other countries. it is who we are, it is in the american dna. when the marshall plan to our response to the earth. >> in '80 and the floods in pakistan. it strengthens our security and makes a starter at home and in the world. as we carefully watch our expenditures, we also need to scrutinize the cuts that have been proposed. so we look forward to your comments this afternoon, madam secretary and talking to route the year about the state department priorities. >> mr. chairman, i join you in welcoming secretary clinton to the foreign relations committee once again and really for to discussing the message is foreign policy perris, but requests for fiscal year 20 yes, 13 -- 2013. i sent to us is your visit last year the american economy remains under great threat with the unemployment rate well above

historical standards at over 8 percent nationally and 9 percent in my home state of indiana. at the close of 2011 nearly 40 million americans are still looking to work, and millions more were underemployed. the national debt has risen above 15 trillion composting extreme economic risks for our country. american families continue to bear the brunt of these economic uncertainties. within this context the administration's request for resources must be prioritized to meet the requirements of budget austerity. while addressing the vital national security objectives that the chairman has so airlines. the staff has also brought further uncertainty overseas -- this last year has brought further instability. people are marking the anniversary of their protests

for democracy and accountability . for some these anniversaries have been celebrations of a break of the troubled past, for others they are a reminder that progress remains very elusive. in syria the world continues to bear witness to the violent repression by the gasol regime against the syrian people. as sedgy unfolds daily bringing with it in increasing death toll after the regrettable veto of the security council by russia and china earlier this month the un general assembly voted overwhelmingly, as did the united states senate to condemn the syrian regime is brutal use of force against civilians. during this of people are governments must pay special attention to serious weapons of mass destruction. now, in egypt a difficult transition to a democratic civilian government has been marred by changing lines in a

protest and sectarian violence. given this tentative transitioned, when resources or what resources to dispense ," and it harasses the ability of silicide organizations focus on elections and government transparency. i look forward to the secretaries of state on efforts to secure the release of those facing trial for their work on behalf of democracy. on these changes in their regions we face the ongoing threats of peace and the global economy posed by iran. as the iranian government continues to flout the will of the angeles the community to a verifiable and of nuclear weapons programs, the most recent inspections by the iea failed has iran refused to address the questions court to

grant inspection or access to the sites baja. the iranian nuclear program is a grave threat to our close ally, is well, and to our own security interests. a growing understanding is this crisis may lead to military conflict has that has helped push oil prices well above $100 per barrel, an increasing number of americans are paying $4 or more per gallon of gasoline, and most analysts believe prices will go higher. for years i thought -- talk to cut the risks to the unisys is a security of our dependence on foreign oil. i appreciate secretary clinton's recent reorganization in the apartment in this regard, which elevates the prominence of energy security within the state department, and i compliment you on this market will endeavor. given the intensity of multiple crises in the middle east and

the uncertainty and threats to our oil supply, fees are not limited to the current crisis with iran. incomprehensible off to meet that the president has rejected approval of the keystone xl pipeline. few national security decisions in the past several decades out more clearly at odds with core united states interests in the president's pipeline the late. the prospect with iran a destructive oil flowing into the street to frustrate of hormuz for a short time underscores the importance of having said insecure fuel supplies for the estate's. the iranian threat, as he testified, has a growing alliance with the regime in venezuela which kids used to support and teheran with its of oil supply disruptions and. our government should pitch was only one in venezuela that the

ads is with regards as a threat. difficult for american families and american businesses. without access is likely to be three years down the road on the worsteds. even if it is halted without resort to warfare, many who remain at risk for political manipulation and conflict. other emerging economies will reduce their capacity as just go oil supplies. the keystone xl pipeline is one of the best needs that are supposed to help overcome future difficulties now. moreover, the decision to delay sends a signal to the market and overseas enemies that we are not serious about ending united states energy dependence. pricing today incorporates

expectations and teacher supply. we must not leave any doubt that this country will break the oil dependence on unstable and and friendly regimes. that requires the united states government to support domestic drilling and requires stronger supply relationships with reliable allies like canada that require more alternative fuels and innovation to do more with less fuel. while bolstering energy security the keystone xl pipeline would create up to 20,000 new jobs for americans. reversing the cost to taxpayers. the a ministry, in my judgment, should reverse course, and i would encourage a secretary to recommend to the president, our national security interests should immediately approved the keystone xl pipeline. in closing i would like to express my appreciation for the dedicated men and women serving

in roles within the state department had usaid in an era of declining resources blasting in that view very difficult and wide-ranging challenge this, often at even greater risk, you're asking them to reduce threats from weapons of mass destruction, help mitigate epidemics and food insecurity, whatever the unisys business interests and travelers, promote democracy, and assistant combating terrorism. you're asking them to exceed the united states farm policy goals innumerable others in a global environment that is increasingly dangerous for diplomatic personnel. very grateful for their willingness to serve their country and are grateful for your willingness to serve our country, and we will look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, senator lagard. madam secretary, the floor is yours tamandua panera comments. >> thank you very much. i greatly appreciate the

chairman and ranking member and members of the committee appeared to be here once again to have the suburbs into the. i wanted thank you for the support that this committee has given to the state department and usaid over the last three quite consequential and i prayed to years and am especially grateful for the very kind words about our diplomats and development experts who are serving around the world, some in very difficult circumstances. you have seen the world has farming right before your eyes from arab revolution to the rise of new economic powers to a more dispersed, but still dangerous out, a debt and terrorist networks. and in this time only the united states of america has their reach, resources, and relationships to anchor a more peaceful and prosperous world.

the state department and usaid budget, we discussed today, is a proven investment in our national and economic security. it is also something more. it is a down payment on american when i took this job i saw world that needed america, but also one that questioned our focus and are staying power. we have worked together to put american leaders on a firm foundation for the decades ahead we have ended one war and are winding down another. we have cemented our place as a pacific power. we have also maintained our alliance across the atlantic. we have elevated the role of economics within our diplomacy, and we have reached beyond governments to engage directly with people, with a special focus on women and girls. we are updating diplomacy and development for the 21st century and finding ways to work smarter and more efficiently. after the first quadrennial diplomacy and development review

we created two new bureaus taking the work we are already doing on counter-terrorism and combining it with other assets within the sid department to create a much more focused efforts on cover terrorism and an energy. i really commend the senator because the -- it was his idea, it was his talking with me when i was visiting with them prior to my confirmation that may be determined that we would actually accomplish this. we have reorganized our access into a bureau-focused on the fragile state sen. like many americans in these tough economic times we have certainly made difficult trade-offs and painful cuts. we have requested 80% less for europe, eurasia, and central asia, preserving our most essential programs and using the savings for more urgent needs elsewhere. we are scaling back construction of our embassies and consulates in proving procurement to save

money and taking steps across the board to lower costs. our request of 51 billion represents an increase of less than the rate of inflation, and just over 1 percent of the federal budget. this is coming at the very same time that our responsibilities are multiplying around the world today i want briefly to highlight our five priorities. first of our request allows us to sustain our vital national security missions in iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan and reflects the temporary extraordinary costs of operating on the front lines. as president obama has said, the tide of war is receding, but mr. stenholm, thankfully, civilians remained to carry out the critical missions of diplomacy and development. in iraq civilians are in the lead of penitentiary emerge as a stable, seven democratic power. this increases our civilian budget but state in u.s. aid are

asking for one-tenth of the $48 billion the u.s. government spent as recently as 2011. the 2013 u.s. government-wide request for rock including defense mending is now $40 billion less than it was just two years ago. so we are doing what must be done to try to normalize our relationship at a far lower cost than what we have done in the past. over time, despite the tragic violence of this past week we expect to see similar government wise savings in afghanistan. this year's request will support the ongoing transition helping afghan stick responsibility for their own security and their own future, and ensuring that this country is never again as safe haven for terrorist said. we remain committed to working on issues of joint interest with pakistan, including counter-terrorism is, economic stability and regional cooperation.

second, in the asia-pacific the administration is making an unprecedented effort to build a strong network of relationships and institutions, because we believe in the century ahead that no region will be more consequential to our economic and security future. as we tighten our belts around the world, we are investing the diplomatic attention necessary to do more with less. in asia we are pursuing what i call for deploy diplomacy, strengthening our alliance and launching new strategic dialogue and economic initiatives, creating enjoining important multilateral institutions, even pursuing, if possible, opening with burma all of which underscores america will remain at pacific power. third, we are focused on the wave of change sweeping the arab world. as the nation transforms, so must our engagement. alongside our bilateral and security support we are proposing a $770 million middle east and north africa incentive

fund, this fund will support credible proposals validated by rigorous analysis and by congress from countries that make it meaningful commitment ticket democratic changed effective institution, and broad-based economic growth. in an unpredictable tides that lets us respond to unanticipated needs that reflects our agility and lead in the region. such a request to also allow us to help the syrian people survive a brutal assault and planned for a future that continues our assistance for civil society and its arab partners in jordan, morocco, too easy, and elsewhere providing a record level of support for our ally, israel, and makes possible our diplomacy at the un and around the world which is output in place, with your help, the toughest sanctions that the in the country has ever faced against the run . the first priority is what i call economic statecraft. in particular, how we use

diplomacy and development to create american jobs. with more than one douses the department's economic office is working to help american businesses connect to new markets and consumers to know we are pushing back every day against corruption, red tape, favoritism, distorted currency, and intellectual property theft. our investment and development also helps us create the trading partners of the future. we have worked closely on three free to -- free-trade agreements that we believe will create tens of thousands of jobs in america, and we hope to work with congress to ensure that as russia enters the wpl foreign competitors did not have an advantage over american businesses. finally, we are elevating development alongside diplomacy and defense, poverty, disease, hunger, climate change kind it can destabilize society and so the seeds for future conflict. we think we need to make strategic investment today in

order that we can meet our traditional foreign-policy goals in the future. through the global health initiative, our feed the future initiative we are consolidating programs, increasing our partners capacity, shifting responsibilities to host countries and making an impact in areas of health and under that will be a real credit to our country going forward. and as we transform development we really have to deliver measurable results. our long-term objective must be to empower people to create and seize their own futures. these five priorities are each crucial to american, and they rely on the work of some of the most capable, hardest working, and bravest people have never met, and the men and women of state in u.s. said the. working with them is one of the greatest honors i have had public life. the summits and the line from the arab world to the asia-pacific we simply cannot go back. investments in american leaders

did not cause our fiscal challenges, and retreating from the world will not solve them. let me in a personal note. americans means a great deal to me personally. it is my job every right go. after three years in 95 countries and 700,000 miles i know very well what it means to land in a plane that says yes is states of america on the side. people look to us to protect our allies, stand by our principles, serve as an honest broker in making peace, 500, party, and disease, stand up to bullies, and tyrant's everywhere. americans are not just respected to make is required. it takes more than just resolve. it takes resources. this country is an unparalleled force -- force for good in the world, and we all want to make sure it stays that way. i would urge you to work with us to make this investment as strong american leaders' staff

and a more peaceful and prosperous future that i believe will result. thank you. >> thank you, madam secretary. thank you, particularly, for those last comments. i think i can express the thought of ever ready on the committee in its present our gratitude to you for the enormous energy you have expended and the terrific job they have done in public diplomacy for our country, and that think we have seen that in many of the photographs coming back. i was particularly struck by the one of you which was an historic moment. those are the kinds of things that really do make a difference , so we complement to, list on that. i would like to ask you. i am confident colleagues will ask you specific budget questions with respect to specific countries.

up like to do, instead of rescue, perhaps, to be a little bit more broadly and expand and the comments you just made. since this is now your fourth budget, and buy your own decision, the final budget you will put before us and having now been in there for more than three years, i wonder if you could put a little meat on the bonds, perhaps even more of the importance of this budget number that we deal with here? egypt, for instance, is teetering on potential economic collapse unless the right to scissor may, and that would have profound implications on every other interest we have in the region. there are many parts of the world where we are simply not adequately staffed to be able to protect our economic interests

to promote american business opportunities and so forth. it seems to me that day during the foreign affairs budget, which as you said, is about 1% of the entire budget of the united states, but which has so much -- which touches on trillions of dollars of engagement one way or the other and profit and so forth, so, could you -- and it must be some measure of frustration and some degree. this budget is eight and a half percent lower than the president's request. and the president's request clearly is reflective of his sense of those pyrites and your sense. would you share with the committee what you think we did for this anti a particularly put this fun then there for the north african peace. i think that is part of this discussion. what are we missing in what are we losing for not being willing to be a little more critical

about a hundred billion dollars a year in military expenditures in afghanistan and these small amounts that to parcel out in these longer-term investment opportunities elsewhere. >> well, that is a question, mr. chairman, that i obviously spent a lot of time worrying about because, as we try to respond to the urgent demands that are made because of changes in the world, we often find ourselves having to reprogram, shift resources, coupled with what we can so that america is present comerica is a player, america is in there trying to influence the outcome of events. this past year has been unprecedented in the demands that we have faced. at the same time, while we are dealing with the urgent, even emergency humanitarian and political strategic demands we also try to look over the horizon which is one of the reasons why the so-called david

to asia is so important. we need to become a you know, very clearly presents. so is it not be an either or. and there are many other examples of that that i can give you. we need to be very clear right about how we interact in this fast-moving environment in which we find ourselves. ..

across the world so that we could be asking them what are we doing right, what can we do better. we are in an economic competition that has profound consequences, but it is primarily the work of diplomacy as our businesses are trying to open doors to come to our embassy, they come to the state department. what do we need to help me get to the right person so that mauney bid can be fairly considered. we are also seeing an increase in travel to the united states. as we have dramatically had to up our budget and presence in countries like brazil and china because business travelers, tourists, they want to come here, that's good for our economy. it holds forth of the possibility of greater benefits. we have to continue to counter violent extremism, and we've done i think a good job in going

after the top leadership of al qaeda including bin laden, but we can't rest. al qaeda is now made a coalition with al-shabaab, and i just came back from north africa and everywhere i went from to nisha to algeria we talking about security and about al qaeda and the moderate. we have to be not only responding with our intelligence community and military means if necessary, but we have to be on the ground picking up the information that can then be shared with intelligence and military professionals, and we also put together for the first time this past year a global counterterrorism forum where we have the major players from arnold the world and i hosted the first meeting with turkey in september. we are setting up a center to counter violent extremism. so these are all parts of the

multitude rolled up the diplomacy and the development experts that stayed in the u.s. aid performed every single day and obviously we think its important work because we do it with great pride. >> think you for that. the dewitt with great pride and great effect. i think one of the things i was struck by this isn't under the 150 account it is under the commerce account which i also serve, but when i was in hong kong, i remember there are about three foreign commercial service folks who are complaining that they didn't have either the place with other countries have to convene meetings and or the staff capacity and the we were literally missing, they said, "the billions of dollars of business because we were not as aggressive as other people in seeking at so i think this connection is something that we really need to try to underscore

to people. >> well, i appreciate your mentioning the commerce department because they have been our partners over the past many decades. their budget has been severely affected with of the result that they are removing commercial officers. here we helped to liberate libya from khaddafi and of the commercial officer that could be there to help guide american investments whether it be hydrocarbon or agriculture or you name it is not going to be renewed and throughout the world i've had a major conversations of corporations but also medium and small businesses in the country we are trying to double exports in the five years. you're close to meeting that goal. we have to keep upping the number so that we are always on our toes because that's where a lot of the new jobs are going to come from as senator lugar

pointed out we still have a lot of people hurting in our country and although i think we are making progress, we want to accelerate that progress and we have to get into those markets overseas and it's difficult for many american companies to navigate through that without expert help. >> thank you madame secretary. madam? >> madam secretary, in the budget he presented, the leading candidates for the recipient of the foreign assistance are israel and afghanistan, pakistan, iraq and egypt, in that order. what is a very sizable portion of money, 3 billion, the 2.5 for afghanistan, 2.2 for pakistan and so forth. my question comes down the fact long ago before you have any response of the the the united states decided to build the very largest in the see that we have

ever had in the world in baghdad. during many years those of us that visit that building or the general compound note that have important security was around all of it. only for the united states personnel, but for the iraqi who were working with us to try to build democracy and stability in that country. and now as we have drawn our armed forces and as you have pointed out, the diplomatic mission still remains remarkably vital and important, i ask this question along with a sidebar of afghanistan what's in this budget he presented contemplates building consulates across afghanistan, staffing them at significant cost. from the realities of the security situation, both of

these is there some possibility, and i'm not suggesting the rebuilding of the embassy, but how do we finally relieve the pressures not just the withdrawal of military people, but an ongoing situation, and one in which the exposure of our diplomatic personnel and for that matter the united states contractors who are not diplomatic personnel but who are in those countries because of our nation building ideas how to reconstruct an economy that might support a democracy you can't try to replace policy today in this hearing, but is there a discussion as to contemplate this budget and as we think about it as to how we move given these circumstances and how much building we should be doing or how we even secure what we have. >> senator, you ask very important questions.

with respect to iraq, you know, the planning for what we are doing now really began several years ago in the prior administration it set the date for the withdrawal and is set the date and the frame work through the strategic framework agreement for the relationship with iraq, and we certainly had planned to try to fulfill what we considered to be national expectations. we are doing everything we can to ensure the safety of our staff and our contractors in iraq. we constantly monitor the on the ground security conditions, but there's never a guarantee of safety, and all staff who are deployed to iraq are certainly aware of the press. they are getting out, they are working with their counterparts in government agencies,

businesses, ngos, but we are in the process of trying to right size our presence in iraq. i think we have to assume we are moving towards a more normalized relationships with iraq, and that means we've got to be very clear about what we can do and cannot do. because of our experience in iraq we are starting that process earlier afghanistan because we do have to the end of 2014 until the nato isf combat troops will be out but we are trying to get ahead of the curve. but your questions are absolutely the right ones. we do want there to be, you know, secure democratic governance and progress in both iraq and afghanistan, and how we allocate to the response abilities within the civilian work force is what we are trying

to determine. >> on a different subject, madam secretary, yesterday the keystone pipeline company announced it was going to construct a pipeline between mid oklahoma and houston texas. they pointed out this would not require any okay by the state department. there was a great relief to you perhaps. [laughter] >> at the same time it brings to the question of why the state department has been studying the things for three years to begin with. now, the usual answer is because it crosses the international boundary between canada and the united states. nevertheless, after the state department apparently have come to the conclusion that it had been studied enough, we recall a very large demonstration of citizens surrounding the white house one sunday in the latter part of last year demanding that

the keystone pipeline be stopped. there were many arguments. one of these have never was that we shouldn't be importing more oil into our country is an ardent team of those who are fighting time and change the fossil fuel, whether it be illegal, natural gas or coal creates co2 and problems for our children and grandchildren. nevertheless, even though it me be very powerful argument, it was an argument apparently that gave the president and of consternation that he recommended to go back to the state department for further review. maybe that is the february 2013 you might be able to come up and answer. my hope is that it happens more before that, but can you give us any idea of what kind of deliberation is proceeding and white alike in fact be a recommendation much sooner than that in the energy needs of our country and particularly given

the program of energy the president has presented that have a conspicuous omission of the baliles that might come from our neighbor, canada? >> senator, yesterday the president received a letter from transcanada indicating their intent to submit a new application for the pipeline which crosses the u.s.-canadian border and steel city nebraska. you are right under the law of the united states, the state's department is responsible for evaluating any request for such permits them to cross an international border. and at this point i obviously cannot make any comment on a hypothetical application and per met, but i do think that your concerns, and the concerns of

others about the pipeline, both pro and con suggest it's important that the process follow the ball the and the regulation because whenever the outcome is likely to be controversial whatever way the decision is finally made. it is taking place within the context of u.s. gas and oil supply is increasing would dramatically domestically in fact we are now beginning to export domestic supplies. i believe that we have to continue to develop supply is everywhere. that is an absolutely critical component of our energy security going forward, and i think that when you look at the request here, there were up until the

very end of the process that we were engaged in serious questions raised and most particularly from one of the state's on the pipeline, the proposed pipeline route, other states had made their own determination, but it wasn't until recently that nebraska began, and so i think that a new application triggered the process under existing regulations. we would be able to draw on some of the technical information that has already been compiled, but i think it is probably fair to say that until we get the application, until we actually have a chance to study it we won't be able to provide you information as to when a decision could be made.

>> senator cardin? >> madam secretary, let me join the chairman and members of the committee for your dedicated service to the country. very much appreciate you representing america throughout the world. you've done an incredible job. thank you. >> i want to talk about the issue of human rights for a moment. you stated in the last december ministerial meeting that lasting peace and stability depends just as much on meeting our citizens' legitimate aspirations as the to our military security that is certainly true with the russian citizens in the street demanding that their legitimate aspirations be taken seriously by their government. shortly we will be considering whether to grant to russia as the united states looks at russia joining the world trade organization. to me that presents an opportunity for us to advance

the aspirations of the people of russia. at its time it may have been controversial but i think today we all recognize that the inclusion of jackson put a spotlight on the world of the oppressive practices of the former soviet union. as we move to the p.m. tiahrt i would like to get your view as to how we can move that opportunity and assistant secretary gordon was quoted as saying when responding to what the congress might do on pntr said on human-rights we will see what congress demands. i would hope we could work together on this issue and i would welcome your thoughts as to how we could use this opportunity. >> welcome a first, senator, let me commend you for your lawn work on behalf of the helsinki commission and you're continuing interest in envy osce which i believe not only played a

important historical role but still has a role to play in maintaining an emphasis on human rights. promoting the universal human rights is one of the highest priorities for the united states. around the world we engage on behalf of human rights everyday everywhere our other priority which we don't think is in conflict but is certainly one of particular importance is promoting u.s. trade and boosting our economy. we strongly believe that voting for the pntr and russia is the vote to create american jobs, so we agree with you that we think it's important that we go ahead and do that. they serve a very important role in the past by helping thousands of jews to immigrate from the soviet union and we ought to lift it, failing to lift it. we will put our farmers and

manufacturers and workers at a disadvantage. at the same time, we would like to work with you. we need to send a clear and unmistakable message to russia that we care deeply about the ruble fall in russia, we care deeply about universal human rights and that russians have every reason to expect the government to protect their human-rights so i'm not standing back waiting. i would like to affirmatively offer the opportunity that we work together because i think we can do both to the we should strongly lift jackson and send a message about our continuing concern about human rights in russia. >> i look forward to working with you and i do think we can do both, and i know there are many members of the senate to agree on that. let me talk a little bit about an amendment senator lugar and i

were responsible for the dodd-frank legislation dealing with transparency of the industries and which you were extremely helpful in supporting the effort and having it included in the dodd-frank provisions. i would ask that you could perhaps share with us how you see that playing internationally. you know that that is important for investors to have transparency when the determine whether to invest in a particular company. it also leads to stability of government that are critically important to the u.s. interest. the international community is looking at the united states and sees the leadership here and i'm wondering if you could share with us how you think this will be effective internationally u.s. leadership on transparency of these companies so that the wealth goes to the people of the country rather than to fund corruption. >> first want to commend you and senator lugar for including the

principles that underpin the extractive industries disclosure requirements in dodd-frank. we know and we see every day how the development of the natural resources has fuelled corruption mismanagement. it's a so-called resource curse that he's the broadbased economic growth comes in use at a new standard for transparency and we are working very hard to try to make sure that it is implemented effectively to the we know that there are challenges in doing this. i hope the regulations expected from the sec reflect the clear intent of the law mainly to require all relevant companies operating in the sector to disclose the payments they've made to the foreign governments. i think everybody is benefited

by the disinfectants of sunshine and the spotlight to hold institutions accountable, and the section 1504 which is what the sec is promulgating the rules on complex other efforts at transparency that we are committed to come in and yet i hear a lot from people who are coming you know, concern about whether the sec is going to go far enough in our system they are the ones that have the responsibility for doing it, so we are encouraging them to go as far as possible because the e.u. is already considering provisions similar to section 1504 because we passed 1504. we are working on a program called the energy government did capacity initiative which is try to encourage the government to manage their oil and gas and mineral sector responsibly. as we have got a good start

here. usaid even has a multi donor trust fund to help countries know how to implement it. so i think our own government, all aspects of our own government should be as forward leaning as possible in giving full weight to what the intent was behind the legislation that you and senator lugar proposed and passed to the estimates before madame secretary. let me just say, and you don't need to response come and we appreciate the fact we are working to get him released from a cuban prison and continue to work on that issue. thank you, chairman. >> thank you. senator corker. >> madam secretary, thank you for being here today. i think then you have earned a well-deserved respect on both sides of the all the way that you've conducted yourself and the way that you forked with all of us and i think you for that, i really do. i know that i especially thank you for coming before the

committee that doesn't do authorizing, but you are presenting a budget and i realize that much of this is appointed to the appropriations committee and there may be a few committee meetings regarding this, but it is my sister to come up here any way even though we probably won't impact that in any way. one of the things that we didn't have to think was the start treaty and we worked very closely with rose and secretary tauscher to work through the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, and i supported the treaty. we worked very closely with your office to make sure all of the compliments of that treaty were put in place. one of the big components, and i think a lot of people would consider this to be rational and that is if we are going to reduce the number of nuclear arms that we have in this country, we ought to make sure the ones that we have work, and there was a pretty rational thing. we have a guided system that has

literally to this like a black and white television to at least have them operate as well if not on the blackberry might be a good thing to do, and so has a part of that, we worked out a very intricate plan, 1251 plan relating to the modernization. as a matter of fact, secretary gates said the modernization program was very carefully worked out between ourselves and the department of energy, and frankly where we can out on that played a fairly significant role in the willingness of the senate to ratify the s.t.a.r.t. agreement. secretary panetta recently said i think it is tremendously short sighted if they reduce funds for absolutely essential for the modernization. if we are not staying ahead of it, we jeopardize the security of this country. so for that reason i certainly would oppose any reductions with regard to the funding. now the s.t.a.r.t. treaty is in place and it passed with a majority. i helped do that among others,

and the budget that's come forth on the administration and this year almost totally negates the agreement regarding funding. i know again that you worked on that. psychiatry tauscher worked on that come a lot of trust was built. rose was appear nonstop. i'm just wondering within the department does that create any kind of integrity issue and how should those of us that relied on these commitments water from the president how should we feel about this as it relates to other serious agreements that may occur between the congress and the white house? >> welcome first, senator, you know, thank you for your engagement on that and other issues with me and with the department. i highly value this committee. i know how difficult it is to get an authorization done, but in effect, the constant consultations are very influential in determining our

policy, and with respect to the modernization, the level of funding requested in the november 2010 sections 1251 report for the nuclear modernization was unprecedented as you know since the end of the cold war. we have frankly neglected our nuclear stockpile. we did not make the kinds of investments, and as we've looked at what the sequence will be come the fy 2013 request for 11 and a half billion dollars will help achieve the nuclear security objectives and the underlining agreement that you referred to under s.t.a.r.t.. it is an increase, it's an increase of 4.9% over the fy 2012 appropriations, and was

developed as understand it because you know it's not in my budget, it's in the department of energy budget, it was developed closely in concert with the experts about how much money could to spend in a year to get this underway, and then looking out year after year to actually deliver. now if the congress doesn't fully fund the president's budget, and has laid out in the 1251 report, then the president will have to make a report to congress. >> if i could i know we'll leave time and i have tremendous respect for you to this is not meant to be disrespectful, but all that is history. i'm talking about in the budget that's just been submitted, you know, the president did not ask for the very funds that he committed to in the 1251 that was laid out. it was all part of this package that we worked so closely together on, so it is a reneging

if an agreement and i guess i would ask the question if we are not going to modernize the house was lead out by everybody involved as being very important in putting our chairman, should we consider reducing slowing the commitment on the treaty since we are not really living up to the modernization component that was so talked about in such detail with such commitment by all involved? >> well, senator, i don't think respect we all agree with the premise. there is a 4.9% increase in the budget request for fy 13. but 11 and a half billion dollars requested will go into the modernization agenda. owsley understand it, it is what the experts will be doing to work in the lungs and elsewhere believe can be effectively spent in a year. so i'm happy to take this

question for the record and have the department of energy respond to it, but i really want to say that i think given the budget that the president and the administration is meeting the assurances that were given to you and others, it is tough and a time of budget restraint, but $11.5 billion that will be this year's investment will be followed by more which will be followed by more because i mean, if you gave them $100 billion, they couldn't physically do the work, so i believe that we are on the right track, but let me take that and did the department of energy to respond. i'm glad i had the opportunity to raise the issue and again i want to reiterate we have tremendous respect for the way that you've dealt with us. the issue of iran, and i know there is not much time left, as obviously front and center i think most people in the country

watching what's happening believe there's a very good chance that we could end up with a military engagement with iran and the next 12 months, and i guess i would ask the question of you what is it that you would like to see the congress deutsch and not do as it relates to that particular issue? >> well, i think that we are absolutely on the same page. the administration has been unequivocal about its policy towards iran. with your good work and our efforts, we have passed the menendez kirk sanctions. we are implementing those sanctions. there has never been anything like them that the world has ever agreed upon. we are diligently reaching out around the world to get agreements from countries to whom it's quite difficult to

comply with our sanctions, but they're doing the best we can. we know what the stakes are here. we are in close, close consultation with israel, with europe, with our friends in the gulf and elsewhere, we are focused on the toughest form of diplomacy and economic pressure to try to convince iran to change course and we've kept every option on the table. so i think we are in agreement about the various aspects of our proposals, of our policy where we are today. the challenge is making sure that we are constantly evaluating where iran is and what its reactions are. >> senator corker, let me just say i appreciate you raising that issue also and i feel as if some of the party to that agreement having worked that

with you. i very strongly feel that the secretary has said the amount of money being spent is what can be spent and it's on track within the constraints of the budget overall but i think that commitment remains extent and obviously it needs to be made known and we work with you on that. senator menendez? >> thank you mr. chairman. madam secretary, thank you for your incredible service to our country. i remember when you were sitting here for your confirmation hearing and those to the cover for those that have questions and if you have more than dissipated those in questions and you done an extraordinary job. i want to talk about iran and i hope he would agree with me that our best peaceful diplomacy tool left to us to stop kuran's march towards nuclear weapons is the vigorous enforcement of the sanctions policy that we presently have, particularly the central bank of iran. would you agree that that is our

best piece of diplomacy tool? >> it is certainly probably the highest priority tool. the other tools, but i think that your characterization is right. >> and in that context with respect to the implementation of the central bank sanctions that would begin to take effect tomorrow with respect to non-petroleum transactions i have concerns about this objective criteria that will be used by the department to determine whether a country has achieved significant reductions in purchases of refined petroleum. i would have preferred that we have some scale, but i've heard the arguments why having a subjective criteria media better, but i cannot presume that in the absence of a national security weaver under

the law that all countries would be required to actually make significant reductions in their purchases during each of the 180 days. period. >> yes, our expectations and the direction that we are giving to the countries is that we do expect to see significant reductions, and i am pleased to report, senator, but we've been aggressively reaching out to and working with countries to assist them in being able to make such significant reductions. for some countries it's a lot harder than other countries and so we have really come in with a lot of suggestions to help them be able to do what we are asking them to do. >> i appreciate hearing that we expect to see them make significant reductions in each of those 180 per gross because i

think it sends a very clear message to our allies abroad joining with the europeans already are pursuing the oil embargo about the seriousness of the nature. in that respect, what progress can you tell us with reference to countries like china, india and turkey? >> i think with respect to china and turkey and india we have had a very intense and very blunt conversations with each of those countries. i think that there are a number steps that we are pointing out to them that we believe they can and should make. i also can tell you that in a number of cases both on the government side and on the business side they are taking actions that go further and

deeper than perhaps their public statements might lead you to believe, and we are going to continue to keep an absolute foot on the pedal in terms of our accelerated aggressive outreach to them, and they are looking for ways to make up the lost revenues, the lost crude oil. that is a difficulty for a lot of these countries not the just the ones you mentioned, as we've had to put together entire teams to assist them in thinking through ways of doing that. >> i appreciate that because i think that the stronger and more uniform the message is, the less challenges we will have been having countries to join us in common cause towards something that is in their mutual national security interest, not just about the united states come in on just about israel and certainly not even about the european union. it's about all of that region

and certainly beyond. one final question in this regard, i know that several of us wrote a letter to the president about the p5 plus one talks and where the with head and some of us are concerned that the iranians to gain time what simply enter into a negotiation thinking that either the sanctions would cease or that the enrichment facilities and centrifuges would not be a part of the discussion on the table. can you give me the sense of the conditions that we are going to be looking at as it relates to any such talks? >> as we have done since 2009, within the p5 plus one, we have pursued this policy, and we have had a policy of pressure in a policy of engagement, and we have used these escalating

sanctions as a way to persuade iran to engage with us, and there's two things we've been very clear about. first, as outlined kathy afton's letter to iran, any conversation anywhere with iran has to begin with a disposition of the nuclear program and that is the number-one issue, and iran's response to the letter appears to acknowledge and accept that. second, we have been working with our colleagues in the p5 plus one to set for the actions we expect them to take the would have to be verifiable and have to be sustainable because there has to be some guarantee to the international community that assuming they were willing to come into compliance with their international obligation that they would actually do so in a way that was not reversible or

certainly not immediately reversal will. so we are a long way from having any assurance as to what iran would or would not do in the p5 plus one, but i can certainly assure you, senator, that is not going to be any front loading concessions on our part. this is going to be a very hard note negotiation and we are joined by the p5 plus one in that kind of approach i would close by saying. not everything can be a priority in the world and i am sure everything is important in the world certainly i want to call your attention to what's happening here in our own hemisphere, and i appreciate that probably more than any other secretary of state your travel to the hemisphere has been an extraordinary importance

to us when we see the erosion of democracy within the hemisphere, the erosion of free press in the hemisphere, the influences that iran and china are seeking in the home front yard to it i will continue to work with you on that and have a question for the record on can't ashcroft i'm concerned about the transition of what goes on and looking to your response. >> thank you. senator menendez? >> circuitry clinton, not going to dwell on this because you spent quite a bit of time on it, but i didn't vote for the treaty but almost the with the promises that it made and there's been a lot of discussion as to whether the promises are being kept or not, and i don't think it comes as a surprise to you that there are a good number of people on my side of the ogle that feel that the promises are not being

kept, and the good chairman of this committee acted in very good faith in soliciting votes and making commitments. the president made commitments in writing. so when you take a question for the record i don't think that i would focus on so much as what can be done as to whether or not the commitments are being kept. so that is my two cents' worth it moving to iran for just a minute, as you try to work through this were a mixed kube and try to get a handle on this and try to get things ratcheted down, it's always best to start with what is the other side thinking. you read this stuff and you just -- it's hard to comprehend why they continue to push the envelope and why they continue to pursue something that everyone in the world doesn't want them to do. what is your theory on that? is a homegrown politics? what is it that is motivating them to continue to do this?

>> well, senator, first very briefly on the question about nuclear modernization, will certainly provide you with information that i hope makes it as as possible that we took our obligations seriously and we are fulfilling them. there may be debates about how fast we are going, where we are doing it. that, i don't have any expertise on, but i want to reassure you that certainly i acted in good faith and so i do believe -- >> i believe you did act in good faith but the comfort level needs to be raised. >> i will do what i can. i will have the answer delivered with macaroni and cheese and other comfort food that makes that case. >> that will get you everywhere. >> thank you, senator. i know that last week the director of national intelligence, former general clapper, the director of the cia, former general petraeus,

the chairman of the joint chiefs, general dempsey comes secretary leon panetta testified in front of other committees here in the senate that it is the conclusion of our intelligence committee that the iranians have not yet made the decision to produce a nuclear weapon. the explanation that i think came from those very credible sources compatriots all is that there's a continuing debate going on inside of the regime and its and especially complicated debate for anyone on the outside and i daresay some people on the inside to understand because there is a lot of power struggle going on. there are personality clashes, the supreme leader who is the hit of the clerical prisons

institutionally within iran and the revolutionary guard, the parliament and the president. we just get a lot of static and intelligence reporting and analysis from not just hour own sources, but international sources. so i think there is a debate. there's no doubt they are pursuing nuclear power. they have a right under the npt to pursue peaceful nuclear power, and there is no doubt that a lot of what has been discovered by the iaea points in the direction of a nuclear weapons program, and there is no doubt that they raise all kinds of suspicions by putting a lot of their work in their nuclear program into very remote inaccessible places and recently denying the iaea the right to

investigate so i think it is understandable, senator, why you and why millions of people who are concerned and worried about this are trying to discern what they want and what they are trying to achieve and that is one of the reasons i support our dual track of intense pressures and of being willing to engage because i want to gather as much information about actions and intentions, and we have very deep ongoing consultations with israel, the gulf arabs, the europeans, but others. there isn't anybody of any stature in the world and any government that really is not concerned about what the iranians are doing, and it is a source of constant discussion.

so what we are intending to do is ratchet up the sanctions as hard as fast as we can, follow what's going on inside iran which seems to be a lot of economic pressures that we think have an impact on decision making, continuing to be vigilant, responding quickly to threats like the threat about the straits of hormuz leaving no question in the mind as to what we would do, should they take any for reaction. having the carriers go in and out of the gulf, consulting and planning with a lot of our partners, so that is the state of play right now. the question you asked is the question asked every day in the intelligence community and the foreign affairs agencies around the world.

>> thank you. i appreciate that and i would think that someone in their decision making authorities in iran would look back at the recent history in iraq and look at what saddam hussein did. what a reckless thing to do to take the world and make them believe something that isn't even necessarily true. so thank you very much for your analysis. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator casey. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for appearing before us. i have two questions. one first on pakistan and then on iran. with regard to pakistan this august, senator whitehouse, senator blumenthal and senator michael bennett and i traveled to those afghanistan and pakistan was really one focus of the trip and that was this question of the ied and the material components thereof. and the four of us to send you a letter just recently that you

may have gotten a number of days ago and i would just about that topic. to focus your attention on the pakistanis have done or not done despite the assurances they gave us on our trip and i mean assurances that the highest level of their government that they would take this matter more seriously, that they would institute a plan that they had in writing and that they would present it to us and it's my judgment that they have been to say that they are very slow in implementing that especially focusing on the networks that are moving these component parts that become the foundation of the roadside bombs that are killing our troops on a regular basis and afghanistan wounding

them. thank you for your leadership. you've been focused, vigilant and persistent pushing the pakistani leadership to help us on this. from your observation of the actions or inactions on this are there any measurable steps that they've taken to specifically go after the networks because that is what a lot of us are waiting to see what their professed plans become a plan of action and specific steps can you tell us about where you see it? >> welcome senator, i appreciate your leadership on this issue and as i be ported to you some months ago i raised it at the very highest level to the pakistani government one more time i discussed it at some

length the foreign minister and it's very clear the need to do more and the need to do more for the south. our concern is very much rooted in the terrible attacks that took place in pakistan against our soldiers and our other targets there, but, you know, in 2011 there were 1,966 terrorist attacks in pakistan which resulted in 2000 '90 -- 200-0391 deaths the majority of which were the ied. so our point that pakistan has been, this is not about the u.s. nato allies have come afghanistan alone this is also about you. but they have done is to have introduced legislation in their national assembly. i've been told they expect to pass it shortly. it is focused on the transport of calcium, ammonium nitrate.

they have an implementation plan in the works. we have had several expert meetings with them on their national counter strategy that they approved in june, 2011. they are working actively with their afghan counterparts to improve the coordination on the border to restrict fertilizer imports. we've had several productive meetings between the government of pakistan, the government of afghanistan and i sat over the past year, and so we are making progress, and i just have to say, senator, that when i raise it directly with the very highest levels of the military and civilian governments in pakistan, there was a lot of confusion. they did not understand how fertilizer that many of them told me the use on their own farms was such a problem so i

explained to them after the oklahoma city bombing we had to reach the same conclusion, and we had to go after the use of fertilizer, and so they are like ten to 15 years behind us in terms of thinking through what this means and how to do it so they are making progress but are not doing enough and they are not moving fast enough and you're sitting with the leadership back in may i remember seeing the video and you called me and i remember them making that point of the time. but i hope that we can all continue to be as persistent as you have been and others have been to make this point because as you said, it really is about protecting their own people as it is the urgency that we feel about protecting our own troops, and that is remarkable the land to which our armed forces and military have gone to protect

soldiers to prevent and deal with the aftermath of the horror of those explosions coming and you know pennsylvania well. we have a lot of folks that served both in iraq and afghanistan. we are at 79, last count 50 about 80 now but last summer i saw 79 killed, 573 wounded. so it is a major issue for our families. in the remaining time i have, let me go to another aspect of this of the question. there was a report that was recently released the institute for science international security released a report about the efforts to prevent iran from gaining access to illicit nuclear material. here's what the report said in pertinent part. it said, quote, they're remains significant steps notably the week implementation of the u.n. security council resolution by china. china remains vulnerable to iran's smuggling of the vital goods for its nuclear program,

smugglers use the front companies to buy from chinese suppliers or the western high technology's located within its borders there remain concerned about the continued ability to shipped the goods to the companies with weak implementation or trade controls commonly called countries of, quote, transit concern. you may have to elaborate on this in writing, and then you can say about this efforts to urge china to what it should do in terms of preventing this transfer. estimate is one of our highest priorities, and we are working with the chinese. they have made some progress. they have eliminated some of the companies that were engaging in that illicit trade, but they have not done everything that we've would like to see them do. so i will get you more detail. as of that will have to come any

classified section, but i will respond to that. >> thanks very much. >> senator rubio. >> thank you. good afternoon. how're you. a few months ago i had the unique opportunity to travel to libya in the aftermath of the transition i don't have a point of reference having never been there before but was startling to watch pro american graffiti on the walls and people walking up to you on the streets and thinking america and they also need to turn their back on them and i hope will pay a dividend in the future. we are now several months into that transition and the u.s. involvement. so my question is to parts. number one, how's that going in the money we are spending and how the budget anticipates our ongoing involvement with libya and then the second question is one that is hopeful there will be a transition similar to that in syria very soon and what lessons have we learned or are learning that from the libyan

exfil riggins as far as what role we can play particularly in things like making sure the sophisticated weapons, and pads and so forth don't fall on the wrong hands but the other things going on so in essence how was the transition of libya going as far as our role is concerned and what lessons are we taking from that that could potentially be applied to the syrian transition >> senator, thank you for that visit. i remember very well getting briefed about it, and you are right. i think the united states has a very important opportunity from libya through to nisha through algeria to larocco. if we do what we need to do in those four countries we can really help them move to open their economy and produce results for people. libya is more challenging because ghadaffi does for all the institutions the they don't

have institutions that they can move people from and phill people with because it was such a personality cult. they are making progress. the new prime minister will be coming to visit in just a few weeks. i would urge it it's not already on the schedule that he meet with members of this committee and explain to you what he is doing, what his government is doing. they have cooperated with us on going after the man had. we have implemented a plan that we worked through with them, and we are also working with them to fulfill their signing of the conventional weapons destruction technical arrangement, so they have been very cooperative. we know they faced problems in combining all of the militia

into a coherent organized military presence. we are certainly supporting them in their efforts to do so. i think that we've got a chance here to really respond to their very positive attitude towards the united states. this is something that can bring dividends and not only how they develop, but in our own standing and leadership in the region. reintegrating these members into civilian life and into the security services is the biggest challenge. they are getting very economy up and going. we are working with them on chongging to help with their wounded warriors, something that i know is important to several members of the senate. the people in libya still seem to be quite optimistic about how things are going.

but it's like starting from scratch. they really are working as hard as they can and i think it is in our interest to support them. ..

does that still keep us on track for the goal of putting 6 million victims on life sustaining treatments by 2013? does it keep us on that trajectory? >> it does, and i would look and the agility to provide you with more specific information, but i just want to briefly say that we have brought down the cost of the drugs dramatically. we have also leveraged american support for the global fund to do the same. so i am confident that we are on

the track to bringing down the number of infections and brain up the number of people on treatment. as you referenced, senator, we do have a chance to have an aids-free generation begins the evanesces compelling that treating people very early helps to prevent aids. and the requests that we have given would give us the maximum impact in our investment in fighting hiv aids, but i will give you details on it because this has had bipartisan support. this was a really historic program started under the bush administration, began by president bush, fully supported on a bipartisan basis. it buys us some much good will. you really, if you go to of

sub-saharan africa, it is one of the reasons why people have a positive view of the united states. so we think we are on track, but i will give you additional information. >> eighty. senator. >> they do, mr. zell men. secretary clinton, after apologized. i missed your opening remarks. i was resigning over the private -- said at the time. adjure ensure you all remember. let me begin by expressing my agreement with your words of caution about the serious situation. it is enormously complex geographically, culturally, diplomatically, and that think we are right to try to proceed very carefully for no matter what you -- we end up doing. impressed him one of the more terrifying moments of my life was when i was a journalist and beverage in 1983. remember how complicated that was buried in the middle of a very complicated fire fred emery turnaround of me and said, sir, never get involved in a 57

argument. i would like to ask you all a couple of questions with respect to this region. the first is, i am interested in learning more about this millie's in north africa said funds. opec cut 2 billion. 500 million existing funds being reallocated. considerable money to of be given to other countries in the region. i am curious to learn from you, what programmatic in particular ways you see that fund is working? >> this file and the idea came out of the two experiences, senator. one experience about what happened this past year when we were constantly trying to carve out money to respond to the

emerging needs in tunisia, egypt and libya. and how we could make sure we were demonstrating whether humanitarian or in the case of trying to create enterprise funds, debt swaps, the kind of things that would send a clear message to these new arab transformations' that we were on their side. the second source of experience is what we did at the fall of the soviet union back in 1989, for example. we have support for democracy in eastern europe where we provided assistance for hungary and poland and a $1 billion fund level, and it gives us flexibility. we could be as hell about it. so what we are asking here is to give up some of that -- give us some of that flexibility. you'd obviously come back to the congress and notify the congress. you look at projects based upon

rigorous analysis as to what could work, you know, helping to democratic transformation. i just came back from tunisia. you know, here is and as long as -- islamist chevron sang all the right things on human rights cullman's rights, economic reform. they have a huge budget gap. by their standards. it is a billion dollars. they have a very well thought out plan about how they will firm their economy and open it up, but any help from where there are to where they're headed. they, you know, basically said, what can the united states to for us? can you help us leverage would you can do the countries. well, that is the kind of request that we want to respond to because it is in our interest to do so. it is being with existing bilateral and regional programs, but it would give us flexibility to look and be as smart as possible. >> thank you. we have about 12 billion in this

budget request going to iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan. about 48 billion iraq. for 6 billion into afghanistan, and 24 into pakistan. which actually reflects an increase in the funding for pakistan military as compared to last year. the first question i would have on this goes to some correspondence that we initiated out of our office last year expressing concern about how pakistan has been expanding its nuclear program, even as our assistance programs have continued over these years. and wanting to know whether we have a clear way, have a firewall in the moneys that are going into pakistan so that they

do not directly or indirectly assist in the expansion of the nuclear program. >> well, we certainly have constructed one. i think, you know, the fair question is, even with the firewall, if you provide aid for the purposes, does that permit the government then to prevent -- divert funds that should be spent for health, education, energy, except to that program and it remains a serious concern of mine, senator, you know, part of our ongoing and very tough dialogue with pakistan is around the reforms that they need to make for their own people. you know, they have invested the great bulk of their revenues into their military establishments, including their nuclear program to the great cost of, you know, providing basic education, health care, electricity, the kinds of things that would demonstrate to the

people of pakistan that they have a government that, number one to mike harris, number two, produced. so i can answer the direct question, yes, we have a fire wall, but that is that the end of the dialogue. they're going to keep pressing hard to make sure that, you know, the irs and the world bank and we and others are working toward the kind of reforms that are going to stabilize pakistans a long-term . >> we had a number of discussions with admiral mullen on this subject. it is something that, i think, we should really put at the point of our highest security priorities, and i understand how that can be taken in a different way from the pakistani side. you cannot mocks -- you cannot now let's get the wedding of expanded nuclear program and, you know, not wanting to try to

figure out whether we are directly or indirectly assisting it. aiming at a time. i'm doug to say here i hope we can find the right kind of off ramps in terms of the amount of money we're spending in these transitional occupations and in tennessee operations like we have been iraq in afghanistan for the good of our own country . but a way that does that destabilize the region. again, i apologize that being here at the beginning in appreciate everything you have been doing. >> the question, we are very committed to off-ramps, and i would like to have our team, and brief you if you have any ideas about that i certainly would welcome them, and i also want to publicly thank you for the great preliminary groundwork that you did with respect to burma. it made a big difference. >> thanks you very much, and i look forward to that meeting with some of your people.

thank you. >> think you, senator web. senator demint. >> think you, mr. chairman, secretary clinton, thank you for the way you have represented this around the world and for being here. i certainly agree with you that american power is a stabilizing force around the world, and i am sure you will agree with me that any perception of american weakness is a destabilizing force around the world. and in terms of some circles today, i think the costs of the perception that we are overextended in financial trouble here at home and maybe tires of intervention that our determination to continue to be a stabilizing force is in question. as i like your budget and budgets, i guess, throughout the federal government now, have to look at it not so much as i once did as well we want to do what we should do, but we are financially able to do given the

fact that virtually half of the money and we will be spending through the state department is either barred are printed money, so we have to make that money work for us, and i agree with your priority. certainly facilitating in expediting international business travel. fd supplies are key to america's interest. but i do question, and i guess looking at history, our attempts to, let's say, by friends and parts of the world, they have not part -- appeared as successful. countries we spent decades supporting, relatively quickly. so i am very concerned that how we spend our money, particularly the fact that we don't have enough to do the things we need to do domestically, and so i have a number of questions about the budget, but i will turn to one of them because maybe it will set some light on others.

again, in the context of money meaning something and that we mean we say. as you know, last year in the u.s. the poll finds in accordance to u.s. law. when the organization decided to grant to palestine. they have not changed their position on palestine, but the administration is now requesting 78 million a waiver from congress in order to find. so i would just like you to take a minute to explain. why we are changing, if we are, previous policy in as the four wave of u.s. laws instead of insisting that they comply with the u.n. agreements about palestine that have been going on for decades. >> senator, thank you. our position is absolutely clear that, you know, it cannot be any

premature recognition of palestinians in any international body because that is not the way to bring about lasting peace through our negotiations over a 2-state solution. and we believe, as we said at the time, that palestinian was premature and unhelpful in the overall goal that we were seeking. we continue to make that clear. we tell everyone that we are against it, and that we have legislation that requires us to withdraw. now, state department's does believe that some benefits accrue to the united states. in these organizations. and as was what to that in my earlier hearing before the senate foreign of subcommittee of the appropriations committee,

israel remains a member despite the palestinian. and in our conversations with israelis, you know, they basically point out that there are a number of areas where the action is helpful to the israelis. so this is -- we have very clear instructions from my legislation , but we also think it is in america's interests to dissing -- do things like holocaust education programs which unsc does. stand-up for the freedom of press and expression. the waiver would give us the a virginity to evaluate specific circumstances, and it would also give us the chance to react if by some unforeseen circumstance some of the major u.n. organizations, like the world

health organization or the international atomic energy agency were to be so levelheaded to extend, now, those are organizations that we really have a big stake in. so the policy is one that we agree with. we obviously follow the legislation needs to but as we have done in many situations over the years, providing some national security waiver would allow us to make case-by-case decisions. >> but aren't you afraid that this is going to send a signal to the united nations and the whole world that are threats don't mean anything? i mean, we warn unsc not to take this action. he warned them personally. for us less than a year later to come back and say, well, never mind, we are going to find you again. it just seems like we are just telling the world that we just our word doesn't mean anything.

>> i think, senator, that, you know, all of these issues that we are confronted with have different, you know, different factors. certainly we have made it abundantly clear that we would stated away at the security council to any attempts to try to provide a short cut to the palestinians. that is the real issue, to me. they will never be a member of the united nations unless they negotiate a solution with his realm. we do worry that there are a lot of initiatives that are undertaken by these organizations that directly help israel, directly contribute to the potential for negotiations, and then there are other actions that have very much in the united states interest. i mean, if there were some new flu virus that arose out of somewhere in the world that was

killing people on the way to the united states working with the world health organization would be in the interest of our people so i agree with you that we have taken the stand. it is based in our law, but we cannot predict the future to and i think some flexibility that would be only exercise very prudently might be worthwhile considering. >> the key, and thanks, again, for your service. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, what economic colleagues thanks for all of your effective and hard-working service for our country and around the world. of and i would like to also echo what you had to say about the role that our embassies play a round the world in promoting american trade and business interests. my office had the opportunity to help organize a trade mission to india.

the business people who went on that mission would not have had the same prospect for meetings to offer opportunities to do future business without the support from our embassy in india. so thank you very much for that effort. as i like abbott the top five recipients of u.s. foreign assistance, number two on that less, the headlines, the last several weeks because of concerns about trust between the united states and afghanistan's, certainly on the military side. there have been concerns raised about whether our strategy of being able to turnover security to the afghan forces has been an effective london. and i wonder if you could talk about what you are seeing on the

economic forces inside and whether you see those same kinds of strains and what concerns you have about how our efforts there are working. >> well, senator, thank you for the kind comments about the work of the embassy in india, and i well remember, you know, how difficult it was for you have a plan such an excellent chip and then being kept because of senate business, and able to go. but that is what we like to do, to try to promote that kind of interaction, and we think it pays off. with respect to afghanistan, you know, we do see progress on the civilian side in terms of our investment in the mess with our partners as brought. there is still a very long way to go, but if you look at, you know, health indicators, maternal mortality has dropped

significantly in afghanistan, and that think that, you know, that could not have been possible without investments on the part of the u.s. and others, but also, a real commitment on the part of afghans themselves. you know, education, you know, energy, infrastructure. so, you know, we do see progress , but i hasten to add, we see a lot of instability, and we see a very difficult road ahead for afghanistan. you know, the transition that is agreed to to have the end of combat and troops in 2014 is one that we are working to try and support because, like we saw in iraq, when 2014 comes and troops leave from nato, the civilians in the united states and other countries will be there and we will be, you know, and dredging

with the government, working with businesses, with citizen groups. so we are intent upon doing everything that we can to try to strengthen those parts of the equation. it is a difficult environment, but i think, if you, as i did recently, talk to the hundreds of our civilians who are serving across afghanistan and ask them what they were doing on rule of law, and women's empowerment and so much else, they are proud of what they're doing. they feel like they're making a difference. so we have to protect them, and we have to enable them to continue to and do what they need to do and to be prepared with whenever the right size mission is for a relationship after 2014 for safety. as you know, we have a serious situation in egypt that also has been on the headlines, in the

headlines as a number of very effective ngos, employees have been arrested in records of been taken. i wonder if you could speak both to the situation there and we think the prospects are for an effective resolution that releases those americans are being held and allows them to continue to do their work or not , but also. >> guest: it in the context of the effort to we have spent in egypt over the years in terms of providing foreign assistance and, again, is in the top five of those countries receiving foreign assistance and how we explain to the american public about the effectiveness of that foreign assistance and what they are currently seeing being expressed by egyptians in

the news today. >> well, first, as you know, senator, the great majority of our foreign assistance over the last three decades has been to the egyptian military. and it did create a very positive working relationship that was, certainly, to the benefits of the camp david accords enforcement, the peace treaty between egypt and israel, and also to the united states. and it helped, greatly, and avoiding what we're now seeing in syria when the egyptian revolution began. long ties between american and egyptian officers played an instrumental role in encouraging the egyptian military not to intervene boss a great bloodbath in the streets of egypt's.

with respect to our ngo, we think they have been working in good faith to support egyptian aspirations, their transition to democracy. they're respective organizations they have been working with the goal of trying to assist in all the work that needs to be done. not just holding elections. they don't favorite group. they don't favor individuals. they are providing what we would call non-partisan education and information. we are working very hard to resolve this ngo problem. we have had a lot of tough conversations with various egyptian leaders, and we hope that we will see a resolution soon. >> thank you. my time has expired, but i do want to let you know that i will be submitting for the record some specific questions about the nato summit coming up in chicago in may. i think it offers a tremendous

opportunity for us to highlight this still critical economic and security ties of our trans-atlantic partnership. so i look forward to your responses. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, secretary cuts and, for joining us. i want to join the chorus. you have heard from my colleagues praising you for your hard work and our country's service. every time i watch the news i wonder whether they ever allow you to sleep. i hope they do. rest assured, the american taxpayer is getting his money's worth out of your service to monday appreciate our work you put in. a follow-up, first of all, some of the questions about egypt's. you know, in your fiscal year 2013 request is a request for an additional sum going up from

one-and-a-half billion in the previous fiscal year to just a little more. i am wondering, what level of cooperation do you feel like we're getting an of egypt in exchange for that? specifically, do you feel like to egypt to shown a commitment to honoring its treaty obligations to this man? >> yes, i do, to that last question. we have no evidence or even any intention to expressed by different centers of power within egypt's that a decision has been made not to, and we have no evidence that there is any concern there yet. we, obviously, consult closely with the egyptians and israelis about the challenges they face

and the sinai, for example, so at this time, senator, that is not a concern that we have to address. we also believe that they carried out credible elections, and that was no easy task high, given where they started. but we have to judge them on what they both say and do. they don't yet have their government in place. we are really unable to draw conclusions until we see the new parliament acting, until they hold elections for the presidents, and then me will have more data on which to make decisions. >> okay. and you feel like they did we give to egypt is a component of that, part of what is keeping them, maintaining the buy-in with respect to those who hard fought treaty obligations, the

treaty obligations that we and israel had so long hoped for that need to be kept intact. do you feel like that is strengthening that position? >> it's certainly has historically, and, again, sitting you today i have no evidence on which to draw any other conclusion. i also know that we're going to learn a lot more above the new governments in the months ahead, and we will be very vigilant, but at the end of the day i think the egyptians understand that peace is in their interest. they have a lot of work to do to build their economy, to get their democracy up and going. if i were certainly in their shoes i would not be wanting to abrogate -- aggregate agreements and cause problems when my plan was already more than full. >> and if they call you for a vice i hope you will council the. >> i have said that ahead than.

>> wanted to untested conducted last year by the british government, multilateral aid review. in that study the british government undertook an examination of the performance of various u.n. organizations against criteria including cost control, delivery of outcome, transparency, and other related factors. the review found that performance was severely deficient among several of these new entities, including the international labor organization , un habitat, and the food and agriculture organization. it found the performance was so poor on those criteria that the british government chose to withdraw at least as core funding to those same programs. the british government also concluded that various other un

entities, while not scoring quite as bad as those, were jeopardized enough that they recommended that their quota, as a matter of of salute urgency, ," the u.s. and implement special measures to try to and implement those programs. so my question to you, what the united states continuing to provide support to the u.n., including the same programs, do you feel like the u.s. funding for those programs is being utilized? responsibly? is it money well spent? >> senator, we are a staunch supporter of un reform. we have made it very clear that we expect reforms at the level of the u.n. and at every constituent group.

we led efforts to cut the size of the 2012-13 u.n. budget. we are pushing into be more efficient. so we do think that the u.n. does an enormous amount of good work, work that helps to share the burden of everything from peacekeeping to keeping, you know, airplanes safe in the sky. they do a lot of very important work, but they have got to reform, and they have got to adapt to the expectations of more accountability and transparency in their operations, so we are adamant about that, and we are going to continue to press it. we have made some progress in the last year or two, but i am not satisfied. we have to expect more. >> what reviews, if any, has the state department conducted or will the state department be conducting that are comparable to this multilateral aid review conducted by the british

government? >> low, we participated in a number of such reviews. i will take that for the record and give you a full accounting of that. the british government to cut through their development agency, conducted their own review, but we have been involved in supporting independent, i guess of or refuse, and that would be glad to provide that to you. >> thank you very much. i see my time has expired. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam secretary, for your outstanding service. you have demonstrated remarkable vision in a difficult time in oral history, and i want to applaud you and the administration for leading a strong foreign policy that is based not just on the fence, but also the policy and development, and i was grateful for the chance to witness firsthand the joint delegation trip for the event. at the is critical that the united states continued to

demonstrate support for a democratically elected leaders in africa as well as other places in the world to encourage the rule of law and good governance, and i am also grateful you continue to elevate, as you did today, economic statecraft and development among the five principal priorities the you put forward this year. and number of the senators who preceded me have tustin the issues of real concern to me. the case in cuba, iranian sanctions and making sure we continue. the path forward with egypt. lots of good ground cover, and i want to associate myself with the senator's comments, but if i just wanted to move, if i could amount to between concerns of trade and governance and how an american values agenda around governance and transparency in rule of law also helps promote economic opportunity, economic statecraft, as you put it. you recently commented at the first-ever state department global business conference call america's foreign policy can champion u.s. business abroad

and drive recoveries your home. describe for me, if you would, little details the tools pursuing these critically important objectives in africa in particular in this fyi 13 budget request and the we're doing around trade and investment, and if we could come and go on to a question about governance. >> senator, thank you, and thank you for your passion and commitment to africa and thank you for traveling with us to liberia. i think that is an excellent question. you posted with respect to africa. it obviously could be more generalized, speaking in africa specifically, you know, our approach combines several different. first, a trade mission is to africa, assistant secretary johnny carson just took a large delegation of american energy first africa to meet with government officials, to me with utility companies and businesses

and talk about how the products and expertise of american energy companies could really enhance developments of the energy sector in africa. secondly, we are doing a lot of other energy work through our newly constituted energy bureau because africa is so blessed with energy resources that are either not developed or underdeveloped and underutilized or being developed in ways that are not good for sustainable development, so, you know, we are interacting at the highest levels of government to try to work on that. thirdly, the african growth and up to these acts is a tremendous tool, and we have actively worked the last three years to help countries take better advantage of it. a lot of countries that our members don't really utilize to the fullest, and also to work

with countries that could benefit from it. we have the partnership for growth, we have the feed the future, the global health initiative. you know, these are development objectives, but there are development objectives that are really focused on enhancing the capacity in african nations. the millennium challenge grants, which are operating in africa do some of the same work. we also have encouraged greater regional integration like the development in east africa of a common market among some of the countries. you would like to see that all of the continent. if african nations with open up their borders to one another, if they would trade with another, knock down barriers, if they would develop transportation networks, that would add dramatically to the ability of africans. so the final thing i would say

is, probably no part of the world has benefited more from the advanced information technology, particularly wireless technology especially mobile phones in africa, so we have a lot of interesting initiatives underway to help people do mobile banking got to help them get a link to in to the future market on their phone. just all kinds of really innovative -- innovative ways that we have promoted both from outside, but also from within by running contests for young african entrepreneurs. i could go on for a long time, but it is a very important part of our agenda. >> they cute. let me transition, then cut to the other part of what i think is our shared agenda, which is promoting america's core commitment to a transparency to rule of law to democracy to internet freedom, to human rights. many of us are relieved that the elections proceeded without significant violence that raises

the underlying question whether national leaders constitution's with the free and fair elections an account at weather has the state progress toward democracy in the last decade. what can we do to encourage and sustained good governance and africa, what prairies are reflected in that budget in that regard mckinley be doing together that will help bring together these twin strands. how that mobile phone revolution made possible transparent elections in nigeria in just the same way they're making possible access to the marketplace information for small farmers in,. so advancing the american values >> you're right to point out what technology has meant because we have invested in helping as countries modernize their voting system, making

elections more transparent. we did a lot of work in kenya, and the constitutional referendum there really demonstrated the impact that technology could have because we were able to get technology distributed among votes counted without going through a lot of hands to muscle we are emphasizing the use of technology to empower citizens to hold the government's more accountable to have elections that are free, fair, and credible. we are also pushing very hard on how we interact with leaders by supporting those who are legitimately elected by president ouattara. a case where there was a credible election, he was elected, and the former president would not leave. but, we waited very heavily. we are trying to demonstrate that our commitment to technology, our commitment to

elections, good governance goes hand-in-hand with what we think africans across the continent want, which is more affection in five societies that give them at a better future. >> i have additional questions i will submit for the record. thank you for your lead. >> thank you. let me take a moment to thank you for your tremendous energy and diligence and enthusiasm in your head lead on the african foreign subcommittee. it has been terrific in much appreciated. all right, senator, hear from the opening gavel to the last question. i'm happy to recognize. >> thank-you, chairman. thank-you, secretary clinton, for being here. thank you for your sent them enough. i think you have been here for more than two hours, and i really appreciate that, you taking some final questions here

. its seems to me in listening to a your travels, you might be one of our most traveling secretaries of state, and you may have set some records there, so i know all of us very much appreciate that. i have been a proponent of an accelerated transition in afghanistan, and i believe it is important that afghans begin to take a lead role in protecting their country so that they can begin to gain the experience and the capability before the drawdown of u.s. forces. and i believe this will help stabilize afghanistan and lead to a faster drawdown of u.s. combat forces. and i don't believe, madam secretary, as some have asserted, that this mes demand time abandoning afghanistan. i believe a strong diplomatic training and other terror mission will likely be necessary to support the developing afghan

governments. what i am wondering about is whether the state department has begun considering what secretary panetta posed recently about exhilarated and transition of combat responsibilities to afghans by mid or early 2013. as the state department been considering this option? the implications, do you look forward to what is going to happen with the nato summit in may, chicago, is that going to be a part of the discussion occurs to back. >> is certainly well. we agreed with all of our nato partners to have a transition that would beginning a year ago transfer the lead responsibility to afghan security. we are doing that. we are transferring districts throughout afghanistan on a regular basis.

we also know that there has to be continuing training in order to equip the security forces to do what they are expected to do. so this is an agreed upon transition sequence that was adopted into and is being works from both the military and civilian side, will be further refined in chicago, and we are certainly, you know, geared up to follow through on that. >> thank you. the issue in your opening statement came up where you talked about pivoting to asia, and we know the president has talked about murray's and australia. you recently gave a speech talking about the south china sea and activities there. what -- could you just talk in a

broad general way about what this actually means for the united states to put more of an emphasis upon the specific? are we talking about containment of china? and me to my how this china relate to this whole thing? what roles are we trying to fill? >> well, i think senator, we have always consider ourselves so blessed by geography that we were both an atlantic and pacific power, and that unique position has granted the united states significance strategic advantages that have been accompanied by economic benefits and so much else. but because of our heavy emphasis, starting on september 11th in going after those who attacked us also the war in iraq with a broader emphasis on the middle east, there were many in asia who taught that we were either by

intention or by default abandoning our role in the pacific, and it was our intent to reestablish that role, which we had done. we have initiated this deasy dialog in the region. he became a full and active partner in strengthening our alliances. we have joined the east asian summit. we signed the treaty of amity and cooperation and began the lower initiative to work with countries that are dependent upon the mekong. we have work going on with indonesia and the philippines, the major trade agreement with korea. we came to the aid of our good ally, japan, after their disastrous. we were having this open. we are actively involved in what is going on in the asia-pacific because we think it is very much

an american interest to be so, and i think that includes being able to project of civilian and military power. and as we looked at where we had forces operating we saw some, you know, some gaps, and that is what the president addressed on his recent trip to australia. we think that there is a great deal for america to gain by, you know, being very much involved in and supporting the incredible growth of the region, so that is what we are positioned to do. >> thank you. i just returned several weeks ago, maybe a month ago from india. and we had an excellent trip. one of the things that was remarkable was seeing the activity out in the villages and seen the cooking and seeing the pollution by the way they cook,

and i know that you have been a real advocate of these kind of modern stoves. if they are utilized i think they do a lot of things from pollution to using less fuel to make it a healthier nominal that could you just in the last couple of seconds that we have left here describe how you're doing that and what you're doing? >> well, first, let me thank you for caring about that, senator, and asking a question about it, because it is one of those long-term projects that i think has tremendous payoff, but it is not in the headlines, so thank you, sir. we are actively driving an initiative we helped to put together called the global cookstove alliance, the alliance for global cookstove. we are working with dozens of other countries with the united

nations and organizations to help create a market for cleaner-burning cookstoves in developing countries because you are right, this has tremendous benefits. cuts down on respiratory illnesses for women and children it also helps keep the environment clean by cutting down this said, the black carbon that goes into the atmosphere. it is a security issue to the extent that many women and girls are put at risk when they go out together fuel in many of these countries. so we have looked at the data, the national institutes of health have been one of our partners, that in terms of cleaning up the atmosphere, reducing health problems, this is one of the most effective approach is the take we have a

display of clean-cut stow's that we just opened last -- a few days ago. when i was in india i was in san night. we had an exhibit set up and do are working with an indian university that was actually taking measurements of the pollution that goes into women and children's lungs and the atmosphere. that is related to an announcement that we made last week that in our effort to try to help the environment the united states has joined with five other countries in setting up a new coalition to fight, you know, the climate forcers, set among black carbon, sarah. obviously a part of that. so this is a kind of initiative that i think is worth investing in. it will pay dividends down the road. it is not a quick fix, but it is

something that we are able to do with public-private partnerships. >> thank you for your efforts. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for your patience. do you have anything additional? >> at this moment we have taken a little longer, and i apologize. thank you for being patient and stay with us. we are going to keep the market opened. there is one additional issue. and you're very familiar with the case taken to egypt, and he is, as you know, an extraordinarily difficult time trying to get a resolution. i raise this not because it is a of vast importance, but i want the embassy and the egyptian government to take no said make sure this is increasingly a concern among colleagues about

respect of law and respect for family and and individual parents rights as well as this international legal system, so i hope that we can continue to have that issue raised in the context of your diplomacy, and we will continue to raise it obviously. the final comment i would say to all of you who are wearing yellow jackets here, i want to express my respect for and appreciation for the way in which you have been present today. yours is an issue that is of no to all of us, and we are concerned about it in pursuing thoughtful approach is to it, but i am particularly appreciative in a respectful way for which she had taken part in this hearing. we thank you for that. madam secretary, thank you so much for being with us today and we stand adjourned. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. [applause]

[background noises] [background noises] >> secretary of state and will again testify about her department's annual budget tomorrow. before the house foreign affairs committee. live coverage of. beginning at 1:30 p.m. eastern time. >> coming up next on c-span2,

the defense department briefs about its them that -- mishandling of cells is remains. defense secretary leon panetta testifies on capitol hill about the pentagon budget. later secretary of state hillary clinton's testimony on today's senate foreign relations hearing. >> tomorrow on washington journal, utah congressman jason states assesses republican primary results from a scene in arizona and the role of social issues in the 2012 campaign. in new york representative carol mahoney previews wednesday's testimony by federal reserve chairman ben bernanke before the house financial-services committee on monetary policy and the state of the u.s. economy. we will carry that hearing live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. also in washington journal, our weekly spotlight and magazine series continues with roger lowenstein a bloomberg business week. plus, your e-mails, phone calls,

and tweets. washington journal live wednesday at 7:00 a.m. easternx3 on c-span. >> scheduled to review his proposal for balancing the state budget for this fiscal year today, a budget $900 million in the red. mostly cloudy. 37 degrees at the airport, 38 in barstow, and 38 in mid then to hear you're listening to shreveport news and weather station newsradio. >> this weekend, book tv and american history tvx what the history and literary culture of shreveport, louisiana, hamas saturday starting at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2, author and dairy joinder on the union army failure in louisiana from when them wonder from beginning to end who, the campaign in '80 64, and delicate the over 200,000 books house at the lsu shreveport archives. a walking tour of shreveport and budget city with the of johnson

and unamerican history tv on c-span sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern from barksdale air force base, a liggett the base's role, plus the history of the b52 bomber. also, the founding fathers autograph collection at the louisiana state visited museum. from the pioneer heritage center, medical treatment and medicine during the civil war. shreveport louisiana this weekend on c-span two and three. >> the panel investigating the mishandling of service members remains over air force base mortuary has released his report. it is. the problems to a lack of oversight and technical training general abizaid, the head of the investigation, briefed reporters on the findings. >> it is a complex subject and will require me to. i am going to use some charts that i don't normally do, but i think in order to understand what happened here here you have

got to take a look get it. i would like to publicly thank the members of the panel, a very distinguished group of americans that included general fred -- general fred franks; caleb cage, gary huey, vernie fountain, jackie taylor, mortuary subject matter experts. bruce parts, medical examiner expert. dr. vic snyder, a former member of congress and also medical doctor and very importantly, mrs. root stow's seifert, who is a gold star mother. it was very important ever on the panel as well. want to make sure you understand what we were told to do and what we were told to do, so you can put this in perspective. of course, we were told to look in on a four desolating manner about whether or not we're moving in the proper direction to correct the defense -- deficiencies out at dover that were noted in a number of different reports. and we were told to look at

policies, techniques, procedures to make sure that date there were -- those those that were having deficiencies that are being corrected -- that we note that to the secretary of defense that they have been corrected and liggett overall systems to see if they are working right or if they worked right previously. we were not told -- as a matter of fact, we were precluded from looking at any of the disciplinary matters associated with the various investigations that have gone on. i think you'll see later today for the secretary of the air force about those matters -- some of those matters. but again, that was not the charter of our committee. the committee was composed of -- or the panel was composed of a very, very solid group of experts, and i think we were able to, over a timeframe of two months, looked as closely as we could in that sort of an amount of time at apostasies, the procedures, the activities, that chain of command, in order to understand how to fix it.

the good news -- and there is good news is, and i will get more to the news that probably is not so good as well, but the good news is that there has been a lot of progress made it over. the air force but a new commander in there, a new commander, colonel tom joyce, a very effective commander. he is doing an exemplary job in moving forward to correct the matters that were noted in the various investigative reports. captain craig mack is the medical examiner at dover. he is also a very fine commanded that's moving toward correcting many of the deficiencies that were noted. an awful lot of the problems associated with the mishandling of remains, the final point of resting for the fallen -- these are points are, i think, addressed in manners that people will appreciate and we commend the air force in particular but the other services as well for moving forward in a positive way

. however, there's a lot of things that need to be done there to correct problems that we saw, and its importance to understand that these problems need to be corrected right away. there's nothing more important in ensuring that our troops in the field know that if they give their full measure that the country will do everything for them to make sure that they are treated with dignity and respect and honor a reverence of the way to their final resting place, and that's use the importance, and that was one of the most important themes that pervaded everything that the subcommittee did. at once to bring to your attention that we did make reports the defense of borden centennial which was a public report. that transcript is truly going to be available sometime. i don't know exactly when, but it will be very shortly.

an awful lot of good discussion that can help you understand some of the more detailed technical issues from the airport. but it is critically important, i think, that we own up to what the problems were up there, correct them and understand that this is not suggest an air force problem. this is a department of defense issue. there were policy issues that were not clear, executive agents not strongly exercise, that chain of command and command oversight was not readily connected adopted the oversight was almost nonexistent, rules, regulations were not properly understood, disseminated and taken into account the way that i think we all can appreciate. so what i'm going to do, if you'll bear with me -- because i

know you have questions and i want to get to your questions -- if you'll bear with me, let me talk about the organization is a you know how things link. it's very complex, but unless you understand these relationships and the organization, you probably can't put this in proper context with regard to our recommendations. so we have here the important organizations : the air force mortuary affairs office, who received most of our time and attention, the armed forces medical examiner service, the joint personal effects depot and various service liaisons'. and i'd urge you to focus on these four organizations. i think from the report, you probably know what they do. a s in a zero is the mortuary. the medical examiner is, in civilian parlance, the corner. the joint personal attacks deep but takes the final -- the equipment personal effects from the fallen and gives them to the proper point of destination they

also take the personal effects from anybody in the field and remove those. so it is a very big job that they have. the service liaison officers are the point of interface between the families and the air force mortuary affairs office and the armed forces medical examiner service. what is done there is partially in conjunction with a fm radio. and then there is some coordination responsibility all along that line. we have found the points of friction. the armed forces, parses were unaccounted for or improper and

of accountability took place. it also found that from time to time the service liaison offices are unable to get the proper permission to the families in a timely manner. and when you look at this chain of command here and then you realize how it's been reporting, jped reports up through the army channels, the armed forces medical examiner reports to the medical research and material command of the u.s. army, a medical chain of command. afmao reports right now to the assistance or a one of the air force -- that's the personnel officer -- and this service liaison officer reports directly to their respective services. next slide. can you go back, please? a couple of other things here to make sure people understand. the department of the army is the executive agents for

mortuary affairs for the department of defense so where possible not only for. [inaudible] okay. so the army is the executive agent for the department of defense, and they are responsible for harmonizing policies across all these various organizations. end of course, the army has a very important role outside of the mortuary, in the activities that go on on the field when volunteers are collected on the battlefield, and transported back home. and it's a huge operation that the army runs there. as the war progressed, it was found necessary to form a centralized joint mortuary affairs board, which was responsible for coordinating all these various activities to ensure that the work was done properly, that there was some

degree of policy oversight. it was chaired by an army colonel, and the members of it were primarily civilians and military members in the '06 level of frank -- captains in the navy, colonels in the army. and of course, the department of defense ust for personnel and readiness, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, is charged with overall policy oversight of this. next slide. so this is the historic chain of command that prior to 2008 was in effect. and if you take a look at it and you see these comments on this side here : to many commands channels, kind of a very difficult chain of command to start your way through. the air force thought it necessary to streamline the chain of command, so they moved

to -- next slight -- this chain of command this chain of command is the commander at afmao. it goes on up through the assistant personnel officer of the air force to the 3-star personnel officer for the air force, the chief of staff of the air force. now, when we looked at this command, this command structure, we figured that there was very little command oversight possible from a. first of all, the afmao commander did not have uniform code of military justice party which all commanders need. he was not what i would call a centrally selected commander. the a 1s was a civilian ses at the time and had no command authority of his own. and of course, the 3-star above the a 1s has no command authority either. so you have a commander in name

who has no command authority, and a troop command authority, reporting to a chain of command that is a staff change, that is not responsible to commanders. and this, in our opinion, showed lack of command oversight. if any of you think that organization within this building would better supervise the field activities than commanders in the field, i think you need be mistaken. i think you probably know that. so that's important to understand that. next slide. the other portion that you need to understand is that within the chain of command there's a requirement for oversight of inspection and that requirements was not fully exercised throughout the operations that were conducted at afmao. so commander oversight,

inspection oversight were lacking. technical oversight was also lacking. in other words, outside of the very small group of -- who are, by the way, very excellent and bombers and morticians that operates from afmao -- there was nobody of independent technical oversight that could show them the way head or could brief them on the most modern techniques work could brief them on the most modern techniques. so here you see one of the real elements under way between the armed forces medical examiner and afmao. but you have to understand is this is a diagram will building that they work from, and this really shows that activity between afmao and the armed forces medical examiner was intermingled with in this activity, within this building, and this facility.

and there -- in the civilian world you would recognize the corner as being very separate and distinct from the mortician. said -- next slide. in the reorganization that's taken place, they've completely separated those two activities, and they have made a clear line in the sand of responsibilities between organizations in the many recommendations that we made -- we made 20 of them -- i'll highlight the ones in command and control. the secretary of the air force these to direct that the commander at afmao be given uniform code of military justice party, that he be essentially selected, and that he be trained well in advance of accepting his position. it's also very clear to us that the air force -- next slide -- cup back to the first slide, please -- that the air force

needs to establish a responsive chain of command, and we recommend that that be an air force 2-star, either from an existing command or a new command -- but i imagine the air force a public figure a way through services commands to figure out how to get the oversight. but our recommendation says that we have to strengthen its chain of command by giving the air force a clear line of command authority for afmao, that the air force medical examiner also needs to be given command authority, and that the service liaison officers need to become directly responsible to the commander at afmao. i know this is confusing. i know there's an awful lot of moving parts and boxes in there. but i think if you read the

report and understanding this line-and-wire diagram, you understand some of the changes that we -- that we recommended from a command perspective. we also recommended that decentralized joint mortuary affairs board have the general officers at the top, above the level of afmao -- at the top be part of the cg -- cjmab. senior army general officer or assist -- this is the secretary of defense chair that are have direct authority, said did not have previously, to make policy recommendations to alter the chain of command to make sentra. drug all this you can see that in order to make all this work you have to have an overall @booktv overarching department of defense inspector general or some form of suspects in agency designated by the secretary of defense elected all of this to make sure that the problems which reorganizations are fixed and properly accounted for.

we think that just like in the nuclear issue ready business we need to understand that this is 100% no fail. and that means the same level of care needs to be taken with regard to the final resting place of our fallen that we do in safeguarding our navicular minute -- nuclear munitions. it is easy important to understand, is a no-fail mission. perfection is expected, and there has to be very stringent oversight. and by the way, the air force can do this. they have a very excellent oversight program for nuclear weapons security, and accountability. and the stepping standards and organizational readiness inspections should also be implemented here. and, of course, the secretary of defense has -- and the secretary of the army have roles in making sure that this system works as well. there are also training issues

that we found at afmao. these training issues -- of the the people there are quite skilled and what they do, the training issues are more of a routine training needs to be connected overtime. we found some issues with regard to manning in terms of whether it was robust enough -- robust enough. we also found some other resources issues the routes afmao that need to be addressed. and the air force, by the way, is addressing it. finally, it's important to note that as you looked through the report there are many other recommendations that we urge the air force to make, but for the panel, it's clear test that correcting the lack of oversight for command, lack of oversight for technical committees, lack of oversight for policy, all of these things need to be fixed, and the report provides a way for them to be fixed in a very timely manner.

the panel also recommended the establishment of a board of visitors, of technical experts, not unlike the board of -- the board, the panel that we assembled to be able to report through the defense health board on technical oversight matters and assisting afmao getting their job done, in particular. so i presume you've all read the report. all quit talking now and i'll answer your questions. yes, sir. >> general to mike craig with luck with the post. in a your review has been to the current operations and how to improve things going forward, but it seems to me there are some startling revelations about things that happened in the past at the port mortuary. >> startling? >> well, to meet. >> at the startling -- i would say is startling, when you don't have an effect in a chain of command. >> well, let me ask your characterization of this.

it seems to imply in a couple of places that the unidentified remains, porches, than the sum of the nine / 11 victims that had been recovered from the pentagon attack and from jacksonville were incinerated and down to a landfill. i don't think we've heard that before. can you verify that? were you surprised by that? >> no, i can't really clarified that. i can clarify that the process for unidentified remains -- by the way, all the remains of all of our fallen have been a genocide. -- identified. you have to also understand the way the remains come into the mortuary from time to time -- not all of the time, but unfortunately, we too often, where there are either many pieces that happen to be mixed as a result of the terrific explosions that take place from ieds. and so what happens, craig, is

the unidentified remains, and you can imagine, there's a lot of unidentified remains -- and you can also imagine that there are subsequent remains, portions -- these are not whole bodies. i mean, the idea that whole bodies were ending in a landfill is not correct. what happened was -- sister libya's second-in-command to you -- what happened was unidentified portions of portions that the families elected not to have joined up with the already buried major portions of the fallen, went to a crematorium. they were cremated there. from the crematory, they were, and some sense or other, mixed with -- and we can't really tell for sure. we don't have the full information. and i'm sure you'll have to talk to the air force about what exactly happened, but they were

either mixed in with some portion of medical waste -- so your taking the remains, you are cremating them, then you of missing them and with some medical waste -- i can say what it is because we just couldn't figure out. and then it goes to a incineration. and in the incineration -- eight is down even further -- and then from the incineration, it was turned over to medical waste contractors, and that's where the notion of it ending up in the landfill. and as far as we're concerned that's what happens. >> yes, sir. i understand. >> and by the way, we don't think it should have happened. we think that our fallen deserve what they're getting now, which is the fallen remains are taken out to sea in their buried at sea, or there are other things that you see in the report about the veterans a ministration providing other options that we

think that apartment and put into effect. >> discuss there. i guess of unmasking has to do with september 11 victims, because previously the airforce describe the procedure you just did. but they had said -- the only had records of this happening going back to 2003. heat what your report says -- >> well, i think what -- >> please, let me -- i just want to clarify, because i think it is important. other people in the public are -- want to know what happened with this. it says that this -- visas and racism that unidentified parses a burmese -- >> can you give me the page that that's not? >> at the gets paid six of one of your subsequent sections, under section two, background an introduction. if you look on page 65. >> right. >> -- of the third full paragraph, it says, this policy begins shortly after september 11th, 2001, when several courses of remains from the pentagon attacked and. ♪ well, pennsylvania, crash site could not be tested are

identified. >> right. >> these cremated portions were then placed in sealed containers that were provided to biomedical waste disposal contract. the contractor then transported these containers and incinerated them. then it said the residual material was disposed of in a landfill. is that referring specifically to september 11th victims? and do you know how the assistance of this was? >> no i don't know how extensive it was, and it was only those victims of art -- that went through the port mortuary. >> adelle many of those were there? do you know? >> no, i don't know. >> and is there a way to find out? >> i don't know that there's a way to find out. what you need to understand, the reason that we put that comment in their is that there is a starting point for understanding how this happened. in other words, while i understand how sensational the notion is, there was a point where people considered going to the crematorium. and in some states, it's lot that that is the final disposition of the fallen.

and so it goes from the -- what many have considered the final disposition -- which we don't agree with, by the way, we think the final disposition is to be the final resting place, and we believe 55 that in september 11th, you can trace back the origins for why that happened, happened. we believe -- we only have records that really go back -- the air force only has records that we know of that only go back -- this is anecdotal evidence that was told to us by the people that we interviewed. >> yes, sir. but then, in appendix c of your report, it lists on the timeline , 25 july 2002, a memo from acting director of army casualties and marjorie to dispose of group f remains from the attack on the pentagon through incineration. so it sounds like there's a memo that talks about it. then seven august -- >> right to.

>> 2002, and there's another note about crib death remains. so it seems like it's not just anecdotal. this paper work that directed that these be incinerated. >> well, you can see where the big board is to make you can go try to track it down. but i'm telling you -- i'm telling you, that was that the focus of this panel. this focus of the panel was to look forward, to see what was wrong, to correct what was wrong or making a 4-looking sort of recommendation and what needed to be fixed. we did not spend a great deal of time and effort and energy looking into what you're talking about. next question no, sir. i'm sorry. but this is -- these are -- >> i'm sorry, we're going to the next question. it's my report, but is of the focus of the report. next question. yes sir. >> that there do seem to be in this timeline a series of -- of the incidence that make responsible officials, military and civilian, our problems or at

least questionable and activities of the mortuary, i mean over a series of years. >> there were -- i will readily admit that there were a series of investigations that took place within the mortuary, network command-directed inspections, that we looked at and we concluded that the results of those inspections were not properly taken into account. in other words, corrective actions were not taken. and with a dysfunctional, isolated chain of command, it could not have, which is the point i would like to come back to. i appreciate the fact that you are looking deep, but we didn't look deep. we spent 5 percent of our time looking back for information that was not our charge. our charge was to look forward. and we think that the recommendations we have made -- which is really what i would like to talk to about -- are

recommendations that will fix the problem and restore the confidence. yes, ma'am. >> one thing i did want to ask is about the lack of oversight. >> pillhead. >> not to -- not to go too far into the past, but you know, you look at this time line. there are a number of events. why do you think that it's taken so long for there to be a sort of come-to-jesus moments? and do you think that there are any factors that will keep the chain of command from being tightened? >> love, we think the recommendations we made will strengthen its chain of command and will give it the oversight that's necessary. there weren't proper memorandums or organization of understanding between the various organizations. this chain of command was really not a chain of command. -- what the chain of command that they adopted in two dozen they did, essentially, was isolette the command. it was an isolated, often command, i would college, that really didn't have the proper

oversight. and whenever you put things in staff channels as opposed to commands channels you're asking for trouble, and that trouble identified through the whistle-blowers coming public and various investigations that were undertaken, were -- clearly happened, and i think it's primarily a result of lack of command oversight. yes, sir. >> general, julian barnes, street journal. from my reading of the earlier reports, a lot of the problems of the missing portions were due to the seams and interactions between the medical examiners and afmao. >> correct. >> why not a more radical chain of command recommendation for your subcommittee, whereby you have a single commander at the port mortuaries in charge of both groups? >> yeah, we did look at the

possibility of a joint command and/or a joint agency. but you have to understand that the armed forces medical examiner is not completely doing work on a fallen troops. it's working for the broader medical command and armed forces of the united states, does toxicology, dna, does dna for the entire armed forces of the united states. it does not only autopsies, which is where it impacts here with afmao, but that's probably only 10%. so we thought about -- i mean, at first glance, you say, well, really we need to put a joint command in year. let them know we look at it, we say, no, we need to keep this medical line of command to the unforeseen medical examiner, and then me to strengthen the airforce services command line to the air force mortuary affairs office. we need to make this service liaison officers and elements

come it , under the supervision of the department of the army for minimum standards of training, manning, tore linked, and they need to be made what i would call tactical command under the afmao commander. now, the strengthening of the chain of command here also comes from properly resources and what goes on in the u.s. tea cnr, with the current person is one -- the current office that supervises mortuary affairs is one person deep been unable to really handle these very, very serious and difficult operational issues that,. and then you -- so you have to strengthen that office. then you have to strengthen the army's executive agency oversight. you have to up the level of directive authority within the centralized join mortuary for spare -- affairs board. radical surgery is liable to

make it worse. so i think that we have given a path ahead here that is very important to fixing the lack of oversight from the technical manner as well as a command matter. yes, ma'am. >> could you talk of a little bit more about the recommendation 20, whole-body cremations should not be conducted at the p.m.? eight -- so it seems -- if i'm reading this case was incorrectly, it seems there was an incident with a master sergeant who was cremated there in september of 2011 and was cremated in a hardwood casket, and so it was -- 85 basically in cardboard. >> writes. >> so i mean, obviously, that instance is troubling, but how did you make the leap from that to know cremations? >> well, there is a new crematorium that was built there. that crematorium, there had been times when families have asked for it that -- their fallen

family member, the personal -- the person that's authorized to direct disposition, to be cremated at that facility. and we think that it's a bad idea for the department of defense to be in the creation business, especially at such a quick point in the notification process to families, and that families make that decision once the body has been turned over to them for their disposition. because sometimes the mother may want the body cremated, father may not -- i mean, these are filled with all sorts of difficult sorts of issues for the family. so we think it best only use them -- only use that crematorium absolutely when necessary. >> that was crematorium right after the allegations that there were animal remains in this, right? but was it -- so it's relatively new. is that the one you're referring to? >> it's a brand new one, yeah. yes, ma'am. >> is a couple things on page e-

4. >> we will come back to you, greg because i can see -- i can see. >> yeah, i mean -- ..