unesco would be a grave mistake, any weakening of u.s. law would understood mine or credibility and give other agencies to grant recognition of a palestinian state. u.s. funding for unesco would only be restored if unesco -- prepared testimony is another example of misplaced priorities. the administration has requested an increase in funding for the general budget of the organization of american states, yet you cut u.s. contributions to the oas fund for strengthening democracy by almost $2 million. the administration is requesting financial assistance to nicaragua, bolivia and ecuador, three counties who continue to undermine peace in the atmosphere, disregard human

rights and ignore the rule of law. there can be no justification for an increase in funds to the these countries. that money was not used wisely as the elections in nicaragua were fraught lend and ran afoul of nicaragua's institution. this budget fails to hold abusers of democracy in the region accountable and cuts support for democracy. instead of standing in solidarity with the cuban and venezuelan people in their time of need, this budget turns its back on them. the castro regime orders its state security forces to beat members of the ladies in white as they leave church services on sundays, prisoners of conscience die while many worldwide turn a

blind eye to their plight. in venezuela, the chaves regime has demolished the authority of the national assembly and intimidated the opposition by leveraging control over the system. this administration does not appear to have a coherent strategy. the russians and the iranians clearly have a strategy and it can be summarized as actively support the repression by the syrian army. a nuclear armed iran is unacceptable and we must oppose any policy that relies on mere conme c containment. will the u.s. militarily back israel if it decides to protect itself from an iranian nuclear threat? finally madam secretary, i have

grave keconcerns about today's north korea announce, while it is good it mentions the uranium enrichment program, we must recall that regime's constant to many times before. the same announcement blurs the separation of humanitarian aid in the nuclear negotiations which has been maintained since 1995. the north koreans will view this food as payment due for their return to the bargaining table regardless of the transparency and monitoring we need to -- thank you madam secretary and now i'm pleased to recognize my friend, the yes man from

california t ranking mr. berman. >> at the outset, there's some differences in our view, i would like to commend you for your hard work on north korea. today's announcement that pyongyang has agreed to freeze long range missile launches, nuclear tests and uranium enrichment seems to be an important step on the long and difficult path. we all know we have been down this road before and it does remain to be seen whether the north will keep its promises this time. but in a more general sense, i would like to -- re-establishing the united states, not just as an indispensable power, but as an indispensable partner. you have made it your mission to show the world the best of who

we are as americans. eloquently and consistency -- you have elevated development alongside diplomacy and defense as a pillar of our national security. within the administration and in the halls of congress, you have fought to ensure that our diplomats and aid workers receive the recognize they need and the respect they deserve. they risk their lives every day to face -- it is important to remember that these civilian efforts are much more cost effective than deploying our military. today we're here to assess how the president's budget responds to the threats that we face as a nation. many people believe erroneously that foreign aid accounts for 20% or more of our budget. the truth is we spend just over 1% of our budget in diplomacy

and development. but these programs have arkansas an outside impact on our health and security here at home. with one in five american jobs dependent on -- our overseas programs are a critical part of strengthening an american economy. our security is threatened if nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands or if fragile and failing states fall into -- elic elicit narcotics. nearly a quarter of 2013 fiscal year international affairs budget requests is dedicated to supporting critical u.s. efforts in the front light states of iran, afghanistan and pakistan and the principles we cherish are undermined if we allow family -- in short helping countries become more deck

cattic, more stable, more capable of defending themselves is just as important for us and our national security as it is for them. to succeed we must ensure that our budget resources are allocated wisely, our international programs are carried out in the most efficient and effective manner. i would like to highlight go of my top and interrelated priorities, middle east peace and our efforts to prevent iran from getting nuclear capability. the palestinians simply refuse to engage seriously in peace talks. my sad conclusion is that palestinian leaders don't have the will or the desire to make the compromises necessary to achieve peace. they don't want to engage seriously because they know that in the end they won't be able to do the deal. that's what happened at camp david in 2000, at taba in 2001

and in the olmert talks in 2008. and now nearly two decades later, i have -- prospect that they will have to relinquish the so-called right of return and recognize israel as a jewish state, two critical elements of any peace deal. i find that disturbing. meanwhile the israelis continue to say they'll negotiate any time any place. if palestinian leaders really want state hood, they'll have to show it both through their public commitments and by engaging in serious negotiations with israel. if they try to circumvent negotiations by taking their case to the united nations, they'll get no recognition from the united states and they won't get the time of day from the u.s. congress. the only resolution that can bring peace and security to both parties is a two-state solution and is that only can become a reality through direct negotiations.

let me turn to another issue. what i consider the greatest security challenge facing both israel and the united states, namely the threat of a nuclear armed iran. i believe it was during your first system before this committee in 2009 that you first said that our goal was to impose crippling sanctions on iran if the regime doesn't suspend its uranium enrichment program or otherwise comply with the u.n. security council. within three weeks the congress is likely to pass new legislation for the president to sign, legislation that tightens sanctions and gives the administration new authority to -- the house passed its -- by an overwhelming vote late last year. can you give us a status report on the impact of sanctions in

iran and whether they are having any affect on the thinking of iranianian policymakers. >> it is the chair's intention to continue the hearing, now it is an honor to welcome our committee today. the honorable hillary rodham clinton has served as the 62 and -- the latest chapter in her four-decade career of public service. she has served previousy as a united states senator from the state of new york, as first lady of the united states and as the state of arkansas as an attorney and a law secretary, your full written statement will be made part of the record, if you can summarize your written remarks quickly to the question and answer discussion and hopefully getting to all of

our members before you have to support. >> thank you very much madam chairman. i am grateful to the committee and the members for the -- enjoyed over the past three years, i look forward to your questions, i will submit my entire statement to the record and look forward to having a chance to exchange views with you today. thank you. >> thank you, so we can get right to the question and answer, madam secretary. delish, thank you so much. madam secretary, i have heard from a number of my constituents as you know i represent south florida, the gateway to the americas who are worried that alba countries led by chavez continue to pressure to invite the -- even though the castor dictatorship does not meet the criteria to join the meeting as

you know. will you pledge here today that if cuba is invited that president obama and you madam secretary will refuse to attend the summit meeting and secondly, on iran in the western hemisphere, just last month, ahmadinejad's tour of tyrants as i called it, his trip to ve venezuela -- i'm concerned about iran's willingness to attack the united states homeland or our critical allies, such as israel. could the -- proxies such as hezbollah in our region, will we dedicate more attention to these illicit activities in the annual terrorism report? and lastly, what is the administration doing to ensure cooperation from our allies in

the hemisphere with respect to iran and to hold accountable those countries that are supporting and enabling iran's threatening activities. >> with respect to the question about the summit of americas, we do not believe there is any intention to invite cuba, we have made our views on that well known. they don't fit the definition of democratic countries and the development of democracy in the hemisphere. so at this point, we see absolutely no basis and no intention to invite them to the summit. regarding iran and the western hemisphere, you know, obviously iran, facing these very effective sanctions and their aggressive enforcement is becoming increasingly desperate, looking for friends wherever they think they can find them. and they're not getting the kind of response on that tour of

tyrants that you referenced, our analysis of what happened is that it fell very far short of what the iranians had hoped for. that said, we are concerned about the activities of iran and hezbollah in the western hemisphere. we continue to monitor the situation closely. we will take appropriate action to counter any threat that may arise. we are aware of and concerned about allegations that some latin-american drug trafficking organizations are linked with hezbollah and iran. we have not found information to verify amount of the allegations, but of course the recent incident concerning the attempted assassination of the saudi ambassador is a very large question mark and wakeup call. we are continuing to look for direct links and we are engaged very extensively with our partners in the hemisphere. both to educate them about the

dangers posed by both iran and hezbollah and also to work with them to heighten our intelligence sharing. we did impose sanctions in 2008 and extended them last year on the venezuelan industries -- assist iran in developing weapons. so if we find information we can verify, we are committed to taking action. but what we instead are seeing, much to our encouragement is that our partners in latin america are really understanding the threats. recently at the iaea, argentina, brazil, mexico and chile joined us in calling for a resolution, calling on iran to address concerns about the nuclear program. last year chile, mexico and brazil voted to create the u.n. human rights council on iran and our close coordination with mexican authorities actually was instrumental in breaking up the

assassination plot against the saudi ambassador. i think we are alert to this, we are watching it closely, we are building a very strong and hemispheric coalition against any efforts by iran and hezbollah in our area. >> thank you, ma'am ddam secret. i yield back my time. >> the obama administration is the first administration to use congressly mandated -- you deserve considerably praise for that, i know that the president and you and numerous officials at state, at treasury at dpoef have put in thousands of hours trying to persuade foreign officials and foreign businessmen to respect our sanctions and to isolate iran. all for the purpose of implementing a policy intended

to lead iran to abandon their weapons program. i think it would be helpful to put to rest that the administration is resigned to iran becoming a nuclear threshold state. i think it's very important to reassure us on that point. based on my understanding of the administration's policy, i think you should be able to do that. three months ago, on december 1, secretary of state burns and israeli deputy foreign minister issued a statement and i quote preventing iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. and a pentagon published paper says that iran seeks to -- when senator graham yesterday asked whether the adnien iran to becor

threshold state you respond by saying that it is the portion of the administration to prevent them, meaning the iranians, in obtaining nuclear weapons. i think it's important to clarify, is it in fact administration policy to prevent iran's development of a nuclear weapons capability or is the policy merely to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? and what's the real difference between these two? does the administration have a red line beyond which it will now allow iran's nuclear program to progress, is it the administration's policy to make sure iran remains well short of the ability to produce nuclear arms. >> well, congressman, i think it's absolutely clear that the president's policy is to prevent iran from having nuclear weapons capability. that's been the stateded position of this administration. it has been backed up and reiterated so let there be no

confusion in any shorthand answer to any question, the policy remains the statement. and certainly in pursuance of that policy, we have worked closely with the congress to implement the most far reaching sanctions that have ever been imposed and after three years of intensive diplomatic effort, we have developed an international coalition that recognizes the importance of preventing iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability that is working with us. three years ago we didn't have that consensus in the international kmircommunity. there was a lot of unwillingness and resistance even to going along with tougher sanctions. from the beginning, we have had a two-track policy, pressure and engageme engagement. as we talk today, the pressure is ratcheting up.

we're working to aggressively implementing the sanctions, we this position from the recent report by the international atomic energy agency pointing out all of the suspicions and questions about iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. and we have seen finally a response from iran that they're willing to discuss their nuclear weapons program with the p-5 plus one. so we think that the sanctions are affecting the thinking of the iranians in the leadership. but we have to remain vigilant. we have to keep the pressure on. >> thank you very much. i got a question and answer in 44 seconds. >> or you could yield back and give others more time as i did. >> all right. well, that appeal, too. >> thank you, sir. thank you. and being the wise legislator that he is, dr. paul, elected to stay here.

and sow gets to ask his question. congressman paul of texas is recognized. i learned not to say anything negative about ron paul. >> welcome madam secretary. i do want to get your comments on a bit of the stir that was caused by the apology over the koran. i think you expressed a point this doesn't help your job any by stirring up the resentment. excuse me. the whole issue of an apology is an interesting one from a national level. i recall what happened after mcnamara wrote his memoirs and was apologetic about what happened and why he orchestrated the vietnam war. a reporter asked if he should apologize. he says what good is an apology?

you should change the policy. so a lot of emotions come out on this issue. i keep thinking those that criticized him, i don't think they criticized the last administration when the president apologized for using the koran as a target. so sometimes they're not -- apologies aren't always all equal. but even that said, there's -- there were torture photographs before. they were very aggravating. recent think was urinating on bodies, on corpses.

we didn't particularly apologize for those, did we? i mean, there weren't apologies there. but some of these things are emotional. but what about the whole idea of invading a country and occupying a country and disturbing their country? creating hundreds of thousands of refugees and suffering? does it ever get to a point where apologizing about the koran is rather minor to some of the other problems that we have created in this country? could you comment on that? >> congressman, first, i appreciate the very measured comments you made about our presidents, not only this one but prior presidents offering apologies when we are deeply sorry for unfortunate incidents that occurred that were not intentional and which we know have emotional resonance with people. have emotional rez nens with people. and the larger question you ask, ooms i think it's also important to put into context president obama promised to wind down the iraq war. he has done so. he's in the process of

transitioning out of afghanistan in a manner that is done appropriately in keeping with the very large decisions that have to be made about helping the afghans defend themselves, working with partners and allies in that effort. and i think the underlying premise is certainly one that can be debated among americans of good faith. i believe that we were justified in going through afghanistan which is -- >> i want to apologize. i don't want to get on that subject. >> sure. i accept your apology. >> i do want to touch on something else to get a different perspective on the nuclear enrichment in iran. you know, we hear different stories. even in israel there are different debates. they say if they get a weapon, it's not an existential threat to israel.

so i'm sure there's a more nuanced debate in israel than there is here sometimes. but isn't it true that iran has the right to enrich up to 20% for peaceful purposes? the way we talk and hear the discussion, they have no right to enrich. and don't they have that protection under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? but it never seems to have a balanced approach to that. the best i can tell from what i read, there is no evidence that they have a bond. there's no evidence that they're on the verge of getting it. and even the administration whether it's panetta or clapper or general dempsey, they're saying it wouldn't make any sense to have a preemptive attack on there. could you give us a sense of a proper balance here? because a lot of people are convinced it's syria and then iran. and i'm personally concerned about that. the last thing the american people need is another war. we don't have the money. we don't have the resources. and the military is not ready for another war.

>> nine seconds. >> congressman, i would direct your attention to the most recent general's report from enter atomic energy agency, which outline it is concerns of nonpeaceful use of civilian nuclear power. there's increasing evidence that what the iranians do is not consistent with, you're right, their right to have the peaceful use of nuclear power. i'll be happy to get you a copy of that. i think you ask important questions. >> thank you madam secretary. mr. ackerman. >> thank you. welcome, madam secretary. always great to have you here. it's exceptional to me, sometimes you can't win for winning even with unprecedented

victory victories have had in the foreign policy area, some people continue to look at it. i guess i would call it the goldilocks game. the porridge is too hot or cold. i think you have the bowling ball guy, balancing the balls, sticks on his knees, nothing sticks with the plates on top that he's twirling in the air and nothing ever falls to the ground. it's more difficult, because you're really twirling somebody else's dirty dishes. nonetheless, you seem to have everything pretty much together. i don't want to jinx it, with all the unprecedented problems in the world we're facing all at the same time. i want to thank you and congratulate you and the administration.

three ears, north korea, egypt, iran, hot spots. first on egypt, congratulations, we just received that the flight restrictions on the americans has been lifted. i think that's miraculous. i know the great effort and work you've put into this behind the screens as well as publicly and how delicate this negotiation has been. does this indicate to us some sense of power shifting and shuffling in egypt is going and who is exercising it at least at this very sensitive moment, or don't we want to speculate on that? >> well, congressman, we do not have information that the travel ban has been lifted. we hope it will be. we will continue to work toward that. the reporting is encouraging, but we have no confirmation. >> we always get stuff from the ap first before we hear that.

north korea, congratulations on that as well. i know there's never any nexus between humanitarian aid and shifting policies. congratulations on the great coincidence of 240 metric tons of humanitarian aid and it's happening coincidentally at the same time the north koreans have at least apparently agreed to a lot more transparency than they have had before and cessation of their nuclear program. were other countries parties for obers with this bilateral discussions that we had. did the north koreans orr chinese play any role or was that just us? >> the meeting was held in beijing. the joop knees and south