one of the big com poponents is we are going to number of nuclear arms we have in this country, we ought to make sure the ones that we have an we have guided systems that have tubes like all the black and white televisions and to at least have them parade as well as my blackberry might be a good thing. we worked out a plan, 1251 plan relating to modernization. secretary gates said the modernization program was worked out between ourselves and the department of energy. frankly where we came out on that played a fairly significant role in the willingness to ratify the starred agreement. secretary panetta recently said i think it is tre mend onnously

short-sided if they produce funds that are essential for modern. we jeopardize the security of this country. i would oppose reductions with regard to the funding. with the treaties in place and it passed with the majority, i helped do that among others. the budget that came forth almost totally engaged the agreement regarding funding. i know that you worked on that. a lot of trust up here nonstop. i'm wondering within the department, does that create integrity issues and how should those of us who relied on this letter from the president, how should we feel about this as it relates to other serious agreements that may occur between congress and the white

>> first, thank you for your engagement. i highly value this committee and i know how difficult it is, but in effect the constant consultations are influential in determining our policy. with respect to nnsa modernization, the level of funding requested in the november 2010 for nuclear modernization was unprecedented since the end of the cold war. we neglected our nuclear stockpile. we did not make the kinds of investments and as we have looked at what the sequence will be, the fy 2013 request for 1

$11.5 billion will help achieve the objectives and the underlying agreement you referred to under start. it is an increase. it's an increase of 4.9% over the fy 2012 appropriations and developed as i understand it because it's not in my budget. it's in the department of energy's budget. it was developed closely in concert with the experts about how much money can you spend in a year to get this under way and looking out year after year to actually deliver. if the single doesn't fund the budget as laid out in the report, the president will have to make a report to congress. >> for i could and i know we don't have time and i have tremendous respect for you and

this is not meant to be disrespectful, i'm talking about the budget that was committed. the president did not ask for the very up ifs he committed to in the 1251 that was laid out. it was all part of this package that we worked so closely together on. it's a reneging of an agreement. i would ask the question if we are not going to modernize as was laid out, which we consider reducing and slowing the commitment since we are not living up to the modernization component that was so talked about in s detail with such commitment. >> senator, i don't think respectfully i agree with the premises. there is a 4.9% increase budget request for fy 13. the $11.5 requested will

go into modernization agenda. as i understand it, it is what th work at the labs and elsewhere believe can be effectively spent in a year. i'm going to take this question for the record and have the department of energy respond. i really want to say that given the budget the president and is assurances that were given to you and others. it is cough in a time of restraint, but $11.5 billion will be followed by more which will be followed by more. if you gave them $100 work. i believe we are on the right

track, but let me get the department of energy to respond. >> i'm glad i had the opportunity to raise the issue. we have tremendous respect for the way you dealt with this. the issue of iran and i know there is not much time left, but it's obviously front and center. i think most people in the country watching what's happening believe there is a good chance we can end up with a military engagement with iran in 12 montyou, what would you like to see congress do and not do as it relates to that particular issue. tnk we are absolutely on the same page. the administration has been unequivocal about the policy for iran. with your good work and oureffo

menendez kirk sanctions and implementing the sanctions. there has never been anyt worl agreed upon. we are diligently reaching out around the world to get agreements from countries for whom it's quite difficult to comply with the sanctions. they are doing the best they can. we know what the stakes are here. we are in close consultation with israel and europe and 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 have kept every option on the table. we are in agreement about the aspect of our policy and where we are total.

the challenge is making sure we are constantly evaluating where iran is and what the reactions are. >> i appreciate you raising that issue also. i feel as if we are em partied to that agreement and having worked that with you. i strongly feel that the secretary said the amount of money being spent is on track within the constraints of the budget overall. that commitment remains to the extent and obviously needs to be made good on and we will work with you on that. senator menendez. >> madam secretary, thank you for your incredible service to our country. i remember when you were sitting here for your confirmation hearing and those of us had questions, you have dissipated the questions and have done an extraordinary job.

i want to talk about iran. i hope you agree with me that our best peaceful diplomacy tool left to us to stop the march is the vigorous enforcement of the sanctions that we presently have, particularly the central basic of iran. is that the best tool? >> it is personal probably the highest priority tool. we have others, but your characterization is right. >> in that context respect to the implementation of the central barchgz sanctions that begin to take effect tomorrow with respect to non-petroleum transactions, i have concerns about the subjective criteria. that will be used to determine whether a country has achieved significant reductions and

purchases of refined petroleum. i would have preferred we had some scale, but we heard arguments why having a subjective criteria may be better. i can presume that in the absence with the security waiver under the law, all countries would be required to make reductions in the purchases in each of the 180-day period? >> yes. our expectation and direction we are giving is that we do expect to see significant reductions. i am pleased to report we have been reaching out to and working with countries to assist them in being able to make significant reductions. for some countries it's harder

than others. we have come in with a lot of suggestions to help them be able to do what we are asking them to do. >> i appreciate saying we expect them to make the reductions and each of those periods, it sends a clear message to allies abroad joining with the europeans that are pursuing an oil embargo about the seriousness of this nature. what progress can you tell us with reference to the countries like china, india and turkey? >> with respect to china and turkey and india, we had very intense and very blunt conversations with each of those countries. i think that there a number of

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 their government side and on their business side, they are taking actions that go further and deeper than perhaps their public statements might lead you to believe. we are going to continue to keep an absolute foot on the pedal in terms of accelerated aggressive outreach to them. they are looking for ways to make up the lost revenues. the lost crude oil. that's a difficulty for not just the ones you mentioned. we had to put together a team to think through ways of doing that. >> i appreciate that. the stronger and more uniform

the message is, the less challenges we have in having countries to try to join us in common cause towards something in their mutual national interest and not just about the united states and not just about israel and not even about the european union, but all that was region and certainly beyond. one final question in this regard, i know that several of us wrote a letter to the president about the five plus one talks and where that would head. some of us are concerned that iranians are simply entering into a negotiation thinking that either the sanctions would cease or the enrichment facilities and centrifuges are part of the discussion on the table. can you give me a 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, we pursued this track policy. we have had a policy of pressure and a policy of engagement and used them as a way to engage with us. two things we have been clear about. first as outlined in kathy ashton's letter to iraq, any conversation anywhere with iran has to begin with a disposition of their nuclear program. that is the number one issue. iran's response to her letter appears to acknowledge and accept that. second, we have been working with our colleagues and the p 5 plus 1 to set forth the actions we expect them to take that

would have to be verifiable and sustainable. there has to be some guarantee to the international community that assuming they were willing to come into the compliance that they would do so in a way that was not reversible and not immediately reversible. we are a long way from having any assurance as to what iran would or would not do in the p 5 plus 1. i can assure you that there is not going to be any front loading of concessions on our part. this is going to be a very hard nosed negotiation. we are joined by the p 5 plus 1 in that kind of approach.

>> everything cannot be a priority in the world although i'm sure everything is important. i want to call your attention to what's happening here in our own hemisphere and appreciate your travel to the hemisphere has been important to us when we see the erosion of democracy. and erosion of free press and the influences that iran and china are seeking in our own front yard. i hope we will continue to work with you on that and i will have a question for the record on them if i am concerned about the transition. i look forward to your response there. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary clinton, i'm not going to dwell on this, but i didn't vote for the treaty.

but the administration almost took me with the promises that it made. there is a lot of discussion as to whether the promises are being kept or not. i don't think it am of comes as a surprise that there a good number of people on my side that feel that the promises are not being kept. the good chairman and make commitments and the period made commitments in writing. when you are taking questions for the doe, i don't think i would focus on what can be done as to whether or not the commitments are being kept. over to iran, as you try to work through the rubiks cube and get a handle on this thing, try to get it ratcheted down, it's best to start with the other side of thinking? you read this stuff and you --

it's hard to comprehend why you push the youthful and why they continue to pursue something that everyone in the world doesn't want them to do is it homegrown politics or what is motivating them to continue to do this? >> senator, briefly on the question about nuclear monitorization, i will certainly provide you with information that i hope makes it as clear as possible that we took our obligation seriously and there may be debate about how fast we are going and where we are doing it. that i don't have any expertise on it. i acted in good faith. >> i believe you did, but the comfort level needs to be raised. >> i will do what i can.

i will have the answers delivered with macaroni and cheese and other comfort food that helps make that case. >> that will get you everywhere. >> thank you. senator. >> i know last week the former general clapper and the collector of the cia and general pe trees and the chairman of the joint chiefs all testified in front of other committees in the senate. it is the conclusion that they have not yet made the decision to produce a nuclear weapon. the explanation that came from those credible sources, patriots all, is that there is a continuing debate going on and

it's complicated for anybody on the outside and some people on the inside to understand. there is a power struggle going on and personality clashes and the supreme leader who is head of the clerical presidents institutionally with iran and revolutionary guard and the force and the parliament and the president. we get a lot of static in intelligence reporting and analysis from our own and international sources. there is a debate. no doubt they are pursuing nuclear power. they have a right under the npt as a sig tori to pursue civil power. no doubt that a lot of what has been discovered by the iae

appoints in the direction of a nuclear weapons program and no doubt they raise all kinds of suspicions by putting a lot of their work into accessible places and denying the right to investigate. i think it's understandable why people who are concerned about this are trying to discern what they want and when they are trying to achieve. that's one of the reasons why we are willing to engang. i want to gather as much information not only about actions, but intentions. we have deep ongoing

consultations with the arabs and the europeans and others. there is nobody of any stature in the world of any government that is not concerned about what the iranians are doing. it is a source of constant discussion. what we are intending to do is to ratchet up the sanctions as hard and fast as we can and follow what's going on inside iran that seems to be a lot of economic pressures that we think do have an impact on decision making and continuing to be vigilant and responding quickly to threats like the threat like the strait of hormuz leaving no questions as to what they should do and should we take fool-hearty action. consulting and planning with a

lot of our partners. that's a state of play right now. the question you asked is a question that is asked every day in the intelligence and foreign affairs agencies around the world. >> i appreciate that and that someone in their decision making authority in iran would look back at recent history in iraq and what saddam hussein did, what a reckless thing to do to take the world and make them believe something that is not even necessarily true. thank you very much for your analysis. i appreciate that. >> senator casey. >> thank you mr. chairman and secretary clinton. thank you for being with us. thank you for appearing before us. one on pakistan and then iran.

this august senator winehouse, bloomenthal and bennett and i traveled to afghanistan and pakistan with one focus of the trip. this question about ieds and you sent a letter you may have gotten and want to ask about that topic. we wanted to focus your attention on what the pakastanis have done or not done. i would argue that despite the assurances they gave us on our trip and assurances that they would take this matter more seriously and implement the plan they had that they presented to us. it's my judgment to say that they are slow in implementing that and focussing on the networks that are moving these

parts that become the foundation of these roadside bombs and whatever we refer to them as that are killing our troops on a regular basis in afghanistan or wounding them. let me ask you one question. as a predicate to that as well, we want to thank you for your determined leadership. you have been persistent in pushing the leadership to help. i am grateful for that. the basic question is, from your observation of their actions or inaction, do you think there measurable steps they have taken to specifically go after the networks? i think that's what a lot of us are waiting to see. whether or not, what their professed plan is becomes a plan

of action and specific steps. can you tell us how you see it? >> i earthquakes appreciate your leadership on the issue and as i reported to you some months ago i raised it at the very highest levels of the pakistani government one more time and discussed it at some length last thursday in london with the foreign minster.l it's against other targets. there were terrorist attacks in pakistan and resulted in 2,391 deaths. the vast majority is ieds. this is not about the u.s., nato and afghanistan alone, but about you.

it is focused on calcium ammonium nitrate and have a plan in the works. we had several meetings with them on the strategy that they approved in june of 2011. they are working with their afghan counterparts to improve coordination on the border and restriction fertilizer imports and we had several meetings between the government of pakistan and the government of afghanistan and isaf over the past year. we are making progress. i just have to say that when i raised it directly with the very highest military and civilian

governance and pakistan, there was a lot of confusion. they didn't understand how fertilizer that many told me they use on their own farms was such a problem. i explained after the oklahoma city bombing, we had to reach the same conclusion and go after the use of fertilizer. this is in terms of thinking what this means and how to do it. they are making progress, but not doing enough and moving fast enough. >> when you were with the leadership in may, i remember seeing the video and i remember you making that point at the time. i hope we can continue to be as persistent as you and others have been to make this point. as you said, it is about our own

people as much as the urgency of protecting our own troops and it is remarkable, the lengths to which our armed forces and military intelligence have gone to protect soldiers and prevent and deal with the aftermath of the horror of those explosions. you know pennsylvania well. we have a lot of folk who is served in iraq and afghanistan. we are a 79 and above 80. the families. the remaining time, let me go to another aspect of the iranian question. it was recently released for science and international security released a report about