being perpetrated. we tried to bend the supply and demand curve so we overproduced to cover these fixed costs because we were not efficient and thereby we supplied too much versus demand and we would dump them into rental fleets. what did that do? diminished the resale because we had to sell the cars at a lower price. the residual and the cost of ownership over to five years and enjoyed the description called leasing. people were overproducing to hold share and prices were coming down and it was a whirlpool. we shut down 14 plants. 14 plants. the disruption and dislocation was pretty significant. in europe we shut a plant down when we restructured post parent

bankruptcy and we were profitable when we were on a road trip and losing about a billion. including restructuring costs. i made a statement that we would get back to profitability. we were profitable by about 300 odd million in the first half of '11 and then lost about that much in the third quarter. when we were going through our crisis when we got downgraded as our national debt rating was downgrade and there was a lot of controversy in washington where we were going to lift the debt ceiling and the country going to default, think about we finally got that sorted out, but in europe, they are hearing about potential sovereign debt defaults twice a day. every morning when they get up and before they go to bed. it hurt their confidence and people stopped buying. i see it every day in the sales reports. same thing is happening.

everybody is doing what they call short weeks where we send them home and there are benefit packages. we still have the plants open. it is estimated there may be as many as 7 to 10 plants, excess across the industry. you take it from volkswagen or mercedes or bmw or fiat or all of them. we have to kind of right size our operations in order to gain or achieve profitability again. last year including a write down of good will which is a noncash charge and restructuring for another 200 million. a little over $700 million in europe. it is a very troubling situation. we have already taken action to address that. i think it will be a good year or two before we can achieve

profitability in europe again. we are not giving up and we are in discussions with our various constituencies and dealers and unions and management. to affect a solution that's satisfactory and optimizes the outcome for us. >> we are discussing the auto industry with chairman and ceo of general motors. we have a few minutes left for questions. yes, sir? >> i work at solar city for our nation's largest solar installer. about 20 months ago we launched our electric vehicle charging division and it's growing quickly. we see a lot of customers think about the energy powering their home tied to the energy that powers their vehicle in a way that it didn't exist before. the volt ties you to your customer's homes in a way that you weren't before. how does this affect your

company's strategy and what challenges and opportunities does it present to be so much more tied to your customer's home? >> we actually invested in a company that they build a little lean to. it has solar panels and you are home free. could that happen? in a carport. it's a good technical term. i like it. is that a solution? we do a lot of inductive. like with your cell phone, you put it on a pad. we invested in the company like that. you will see that in our models coming out and you take the cell phone and you don't have to worry about the jack and all convenience. you see that in the cars in upcoming years. someone said why don't we get one the size of your garage and

you drive on that. then you think of fido walking across there. you have to worry about all this stuff. you are thinking about everything. if natural gas is the solution and i have natural gas in my home, why not fuel your car at home? that wouldn't go down well with exxon and the boys because all of a sudden they have another form of distribution. we are thinking like that because what's one company's solution is another's bad news. there may be alternate plans for distribution in the coming decades. i don't know. you have to get the pressurized natural gas for residential into a car and pick the pressure up to get it in there. there a lot of practical problems that need to be solved or addressed. we are looking at everything and everything is on the table.

whether it's relay cars or why would gm do that? i think they are right. it's going to happen and we can't control the universe. we have to react to reality and we want to predict the future so we can be proactive. i don't know if it will be electric and infused into the architecture of the home and it's going to be natural gas. i don't think they will put nuclear reactors on cars, but if they did, we would think about it. >> do you have a charging station in your garage? >> yes and i love it. i have had one of the first volts of the captured test fleet. i drove for 2,500 miles and put 0.8 of a gallon of gas into it. we talked to 40 plus owners today and there was one fellow who had driven it 12 months ago

in the 13,000 miles and still has the initial gas that he got when he bought the car. on your volt it tells you how much you have got. with the volt i bought about a month ago, i have now used 0.1 of a gallon of gas. you are averaging 100 miles equivalent on these cars. that's good news and if you can get the density up instead of going 40 miles, you will go 240 miles. what's great about the electric range vehicle is this huge step forward. innovation and ingenuity but, also, you can drive that car from here to florida and back. it is not an urban car. it's a car with all the wonderful adjectives and a high degree of utility. you don't have to restrict your thinking and have range anxiety. drop a purple pill in that thing and it works really well.

>> i am a vietnam veteran and i understand you served off the coast of vietnam. i was wondering if can you say a few words for the sailors serving off the coast of iran, and what would happen if they engage in military conflict there and gasoline prices rise. how can gm rally to adjust to the much higher gasoline prices? >> thank you for your service. i was in the navy for five years and did not serve in vietnam. i was in the sixth fleet which was in europe. we faced off against the then soviet union. i think that's beyond my pay grade. i have unlike a lot of people in this country today, i believe in our political leadership that they'll come to the right decision.

i think it's a benefit to have served in the military because those are the last who want to go i would think seriously and to the war. deeply and hard with committing our young men and women to combat whether it's iran or vietnam or iraq. that's a citizen in me. i don't want to speak as a -- i want to restrict my commentary as a role of ceo of general motors. i hold these young men and women in the highest regard. it breaks your heart when you hear they give so much to us and we are a big sponsor of everything to do with veterans. we have 3,000 veterans and we made a choice if someone goes. back in the day as they say, as i say to my children,

when one of our employees goes away, we still pay them the same. they get paid $3,000 and we will make up the 2,000. the benefits continue. we want them to feel like their families are protected. we in conjunction with the uaw give the wounded warriors and i am very involved with veterans affairs. we have an affinity group that is active. they do food baskets and send stuff, send cell phones for s d soldiers everywhere in the country. we support the wounded. we saw the army/navy game that i go to all the time. it's very important that we mead with the wounded veterans. i share your concern and pray for peace. >> we will have to end it there.

thanks to dan akerson, chairman and ceo of general motors. i'm greg dalton. thank you all for coming. coming up on c-span 3 secretary of state hillary clinton on her department's budget request for next year. then, three mayors, michael bloomberg of new york, antonio villaraigo villaraigosa, and emanuel talk education reform. the u.s. house of representatives to households nationwide and today our content of politics and public affairs, nonfiction books is available on tv, radio and online. >> we have even had advice that we do not do as i did today and come in with a plain old white shirt and a summer tie. heaven forbid.

now i don't know whether my colleagues feel this would be a better decorum for the senate and i see the distinguished senator staffer nodding no, but perhaps the people of ohio would be glad to make a judgment on what they want to see me attired in here in the united states senate. so, mr. president, these are just a few of our concerns here in the senate and i'm sure none of us will do a thing differently in the senate of the united states now that we are on television. thank you. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies as a public service. tuesday morning on c-span 3 a house armed certificaservicese hearing on u.s. military operations in afghanistan. marine corps general john allen, top military commander in afghanistan, will testify at 10:00 a.m. eastern. you can watch the hearing live here on c-span 3.

the obama administration's budget request for the state department next year totals $52 billion. the slight increase over this year. secretary of state hillary clinton testified before the house foreign affairs committee recently about the budget and u.s. foreign policy. this is two and a half hours. the meeting will come to order. because the secretary must leave at 4:00 after opening remarks, i will ask the secretary to summarize her testimony and then we will move directly to the questions from our members. given the vote situation the ranking member will be recognized to deliver his opening remarks, if we are going to be interrupted by votes but here you are and there's no problem. i want to give my remarks and then yours because you were

going to be -- without objection members may have five days to submit questions for the record. madam secretary, welcome back to the committee to discuss the administration's foreign relations budget request. all of us have great respect for you, madam secretary, our nation faces unsustainable deficits so we must justify every dollar we spend because 5 cents of every dollar is borrowed. coming in at $5.1 billion below last year's request. but i disagree with the priorities and programs funded with those limited resources. in iraq and afghanistan, both these governments must be pushed to take the necessary steps to be our long-term reliable

partners, we are not seeing such a commitment from karzai or maliki. too much american blood and treasure have been invested in both countries for us to have governments in place that threaten american interests. iran's belligerent and unhelpful role in afghanistan and iraq is worrisome, particularly with reports indicating their co-option of those governments at senior levels. so madam secretary, what additional pressure can we bring to bear to offset the iranian influence in afghanistan and iraq. in pakistan the level of cooperation as we know that we get from the government continues to fall short. serious questions persist about whether elements of the pakistani government support prominent insurgent groups fighting against our troops in afghanistan. in other middle eastern countries i've had concerned from day one about the

administration's approach to the arab spring and to the forces that work there, including radical islamist groups. the administration seems focused on spending a lot of money in search of a policy. your budget request doubles down on that approach by requesting a $770 million middle east and north africa incentive fund, a fund with almost no restriction on how it can be used. even though press reports indicate that egypt may have decided to lift the travel ban on our ngo workers, we should not reward egypt with aid when it is demonstrating hostility to western democratic entities and it is engaging in an ongoing dance between authoritarians and the muslim brotherhood the administration did the right thing by cutting off funding to . unesco. after it undermined peace by admitting the nonexistent state

of palestine. your request to now change the law and second $80 million to unesco would be a grave mistake, any weakening of u.s. law would undermine our credibility and give a green light of other agencies to grant recognition of a palestine 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 proposing 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 these countries. that money was not used wisely as the elections in nicaragua were fraudulent and ran afoul of nicaragua's institution. they spent more money on environmental program than counter narcotics operations or good governance. 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. repression continues unabated in cuba. 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 judicial 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. the iranian regime pursues nuclear weapons capabilities. a nuclear armed iran is unacceptable and we must oppose any policy that relies on mere containment as a response to this mortal threat. president obama has said that the united states has an ironclad commitment to the security of israel. will the u.s. militarily back israel if it decides to protect itself from an iranian nuclear threat?

finally madam secretary, i have grave concerns about today's north korea announcement, which sounds a lot like the past. while it is good it mentions the uranium enrichment program, we must recall that regime's constant duplicity. quef bought this bridge several 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 hope to secure in the future. thank you madam secretary and i look forward and the members do as well to receive your

testimony. now i'm pleased to recognize my friend, the gentleman from c california, the ranking member, mr. berman. >> thank you for being here. at the outset, 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 activities and allow the iaea back in 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 recognize the tremendous commitment you have shown 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 spoken up for women, for the poor, and for those whose human rights and dignity had been trampled. 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 resources they nad and the respect they deserve. they risk their lives every day is to support american interests at home. 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 an outside impact on our health and security here at home. with one in five american jobs dependent on trade, our overseas programs are a critical part of strengthening an american economy. and getting america back to work. our security is threatened if nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands or if fragile and failing states fall into -- help counter the flow of elicit narcotics and control and spread of organized crime. 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 families to go hungry, children to die and easily preventible diseases and girls to be kept out of school.

in short helping countries become more democratic, 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. but before closing, i would like to highlight two of my top and interrelated priorities, middle east peace and our efforts to prevent iran from getting nuclear capability. madam secretary, 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 after oslo, i see they have the prospect 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 solution 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 testimony 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. now sanctions are finally starting to have some bite and 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 tighten sanctions still further. the house passed its version of that legislation, the iran threat reduction act, 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 effects on the thinking of iranian policymakers. thank you, i look forward to hearing your testimony. >> i thank you. it is the chair's in to continue the hearing, now it tension is an honor to welcome our our secretary to 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 previously 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 professor. madam secretary, your full written statement will be made part of the record, if you can summarize your written remarks we can move to quickly to the question and answer discussion under the five minute rule

and hopefully getting to all of our members before you have to depart. >> thank you very much madam chairman. it is very good to be back here. i am grateful to the committee and the members for the support and consultation we have 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. so the chair recognizes herself for her questions. 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 cuba to the summit of the americas in april even though

the castro 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, i'll ask it all at once so you can answer it, madam secretary. on iran in the western hemisphere, just last month, ahmadinejad's tour of tyrants as i called it, his trip to vebs venezuela, nicaragua. i'm concerned about iran's willingness to attack the united states homeland or our critical allies, such as israel. with the rising threat by the force and its iranian proxies such as hezbollah in our region, will we dedicate more attention to these illicit activities in the annual terrorism report? anst