to increase transparency, we secured a commitment from the heads of all new york-based u.n. funds and programs to disclose publicly online all internal audit reports starting this year. our reform agenda is based on four key pillars. first, economy. a leaner u.n. that does more with less. second, accountability. a cleaner u.n. with robust oversight mechanisms, ethics enforcement, whistle-blower protection, and greater transparency. third, excellence. an insistence on delivering real results and upholding the highest standards. and fourth, integrity. a more credible united nations that lives up to its founding principles and values and does not tolerate individuals or states that bring dishonor to the institution. this brings me to another

every day we stand with israel to oppose hostile efforts to challenge israel's legitimacy and security at the united nations. we remain vigilant on the palestinians' unilateral bid for u.n. membership and enhanced status. there is no shortcut to statehood. tough issues can only be resolved through direct negotiations between the parties. and we always fight against anti-israeli resolutionth in the general assembly, human rights council, and elsewhere. allow me now to draw your attention to the long-standing legislative restrictions on paying our assessed contributions to u.n. specialized agencies that admit palestine as a member state. these laws run counter to u.s. national security interests. because they enable the

palestinians to determine whether the united states can continue to fund and lead in u.n. agencies that serve a wide range of an important american interest. cutting off funding for agencies like the world health organization, the iaea, and the world intellectual property organization, would deal a major blow to global health, nuclear nonproliferation, and the protection of american businesses. our participation in unesco is also valuable. therefore, the administration's budget requests includes funding for the u.s. contribution to unesco and a statement of intent to work with congress to find a solution that would waive restrictions on paying our financial contributions when doing so is clearly in our national interest. we appreciate greatly this

committee's long-standing efforts to help us meet our commitments to the united nations. staying up to date with our contributions has helped us deliver some of the most significant accomplishments to advance u.s. interests and promote u.n. reform in more than a decade. the active and full support of this committee remains essential to our efforts. i thank you and i welcome your questions. >> thank you very much. we'll go as we have before in seniority as you were seated in the -- in this room. i'm going to ask the question having to do with what you just said. but also referring to senator clinton when she told the committee that she wanted waiver authority to allow funds to go to unesco and other agencies. and we took the position we did from this subcommittee in our

bill to put everything we could possibly put toward the palestinian authority staying at the peace table and working it out with israel. so my question would be, if there is going to be a ask for a waiver, a waiver put, what specific conditions do you think should exist before a waiver should be granted? >> madam chairman, let me discuss both unesco specifically and then the broader problem we have. with respect to unesco, unesco is anrgush rightly determined the united states ought to be part of. why? because as he basically put it and we understand it, it's essentially an anti-expremiumist organization. it does important things like holocaust education. educating girls and women in places like afghanistan. providing literacy training for police and other personnel in places like afghanistan and

elsewhere. it is from girls education to tsunami warning that serve u.s. interests. t of it. now, the palestinians did something reprehensible that we strongly opposed and that was to try to take a shortcut to membership of unesco prior to a negotiated agreement with the israelis. we oppose that. we think there ought to be consequences for that. but the consequences should not be to put a gun to our own head and force ourselves ultimately into a position where we can no longer fund programs that are in our interests, and indeed, ultimately will lose our vote in this organization. meanwhile, our israeli allies and partners continue to provide certain voluntary contributions to important unesco programs that they value, including holocaust education, a program called the sesame project in

jordan, and we believe and expect that after a one-year hiatus in 2012, they will resume their contributio t so that they are not liable to lose their vote as we will be losing our vote. so we need to look at this and ask ourselves, how do we put practical brakes on the palestinian efforts to march through these agencies that deter the palestinians without harming our ies palestinians? now, the waiver is there because thecoun is in the budget because we do hope and intend to work withleva members a way to solve this problem. this is a problem thatom legisl enacted with good intent back in 1990 and 1994 when the world was a very different pursuing a negotiated two-state solution was in a very different place.

and in fact, the legislation at that point had a deterrent effect as intended. it no longer does. the palestinians and the rest of the world knew about our legislative restrictions before they took the vote in unesco. we have actively and aggressively made sure before and after that vote that they understand the consequences should the palestinians go to other organizations. we have every expectation that should the palestinians take that decision, the legislation won't deter the majority of member states in the united nations from voting them in. so we end up potentially on the outside of critical organizations like the world health organization, the iaea, organizations that manifestly serve the interests of the united states and protect our citizens. we need to rethink that. wed ensure that it is the palestinians, if they pursue this path, that suffer the consequences, rather than the united states of america. >> and what consequences would

you suggest? >> madam chairman, this is something that i think would be something we ought to discuss with other responsible members of the administration, including at the state department. you have legislation that you enacted in december that already puts in place consequences that i think are meaningful and that i believe have gotten the palestinians' attention, including funding limitations for them if they continue on this path, including potential consequences for their mission here in washington. those kinds of things are steps that the palestinians will have to weigh as they make their calculations. but they don't harm us directly. they don't prevent us from advancing american interests in critical organizations. >> i understand. mrs. loy. >> thank you very much. before i go on to another area, the next target for the p.a. seems to be the world health

organization. and i wonder if you can comment on that and how real it is and what is the state department doing to prevent the palestinians from further pushing their membership request at the u.n. >> well, let me refer both to the world health organization and other potential steps. the reality is, congress woman loy, we don't know for sure. i'm not even sure the palestinians know for sure what their next steps may be. as you know, they made the decision back in september to present a membership application to the united nations security council. that issue was discussed and dealt with through the normal challenges. but through diplomatic efforts led by the united states, it became clear to the palestinians over time that not only would they not succeedapplication bec states would oppose it, but they did not havehe affirmative votes that would be necessary for that application to be approved by the security

council even in the absence of a u.s. veto. so that is more or less been on ice for a few months. the palestinians have withheld further nations as the discussions that the jordanians have facilitated have been ongoing. they have continued to do so even as those discussions have been paused. and we although i would go so far as to say necessarily that we are confident, we wouldu see the wisdom of continuing to refrain from this when through the genera specialized agencies. that said, we recognize that they may at a certain point change their mind. very vigilant that they might take from the general assembly to world health

organization, iaea, and others. our posture is to underscore the consequences, not only to the peace process, to palestinian interests, to the wider interests of the united nations should they choose to do that, and of course our relationship with the palestinian authority. but also to impress upon each and every member state that ultimately gets a vote in this regard, the consequences for the peace process, for advancing the goal ultimately of a two-state solution. we think these actions, in fact, would set that goal back rather than bring it closer. and, of course, to underscore to member states that we degrade and discredit the united nations when we allow countries or prospective countries, rather, to try to jump the queue and get a degree of membership or status that is not yet warranted. so we're very active, i can

assure you, across the board in trying to prevent this. and if necessary confront it. but i think you know, and we know, that the math is not in the united states' favor on issues of this sort when it comes to the entire membership. >> with regard to iran, the united states has i think been very effective in imposing tough sanctions on iran. and i strongly support that policy. both bilateral and multi-lateral, to stop iran in its tracks. i think everyone would agree sanctions seem to be having an impact on the iranian economy. the real has probably deflated 50%. do you see regime is seriously interested in ending or even delaying its >> let me reiterate what i said, and this is the starting point for any discussion on iran.

as president obama has repeated, the united states will not tolerate and willita nuclear we. and we will take t actions to prevent that from occurring. we think the surest way to underscore and rule out any future prospect of aan nuclear weapon is for iran to do as other countries have done, and that is to give up its nuclear program affirmatively and permanently. the best means of accomplishing that negotiated agreement. and that is why we have increased the pressure successively on iran with the aim of trying to change its calculus so that it comes to the negotiating table in earnest. the sanctions that we imposed in resolution 1929 at the u.n. security council was a huge step

forward to substantially increase the pressure. the actions this congress taken, both through e mdaa thatn europe, in asia, and elsewhere have taken, have brought us to the point which you just described where iran is truly facing crippling economic pressure. and we do think that it is now very timely, as iran has said its ready to come back to the negotiating table, to test whether that presse sufficient to change their calculation. i can't predict the answer to that question until we get there and have the opportunity for a series of discussions. if it is not, the pressure will increase. fit is option off the table. >> i just want to follow up. because experts onas kareem sajapoor, feel even if ce iran you couldn't trust them. they'll say one thing on monday and switch their pos

he and others also believe that evenf the table, even if there were regime change and no one believes they will regime change because this regime is so ensconced, the next regime would look at libya, ul look at north korea, and pursue so i'd just be intereste few minutes, because i think my time is almost up, how do you respond to people like kareem believe that the iranians would ever come to a table in good faith? >> well the record is one to make those doubts legitimate. we have no illusions about iran's record at negotiations. having said has never been wha is today. and it is only months to come,

cumulative effect of the pressure on the central ba oil additional measures that we and others are taking, are going to tighten the noose to a point that it has ver. and we believe that there is a reasonable potential for that degree of pressure to, in fact, cause the iranians to reassess their interests. and the relative importance that they attack to pursuing their nuclear program. can we be certain? of course not. do we think it must be tested? absolutely, yes. because it is the only certain way to end the program as opposed to delay it or set it back for a brief period of time. >> i think my time is up but thank you and i hope you're correct. >> thank you very much. we'll call the members. if you'll watch the timing very carefully. if you'll make your answers as succinct as possible --

>> is this red light what i should be watching? >> yes. >> okay, thank you. >> is the light working? >> yeah. >> oh. it wasn't before. >> how long is the -- >> five minutes. and that intiess and your answe. so if -- sorry, i don't mean to be disrespectful. iflong, i can't get to their questions. >> is that what your call -- >> was i diplomatic? about? i hope so. we're going to go ahead. mr. cole. >> thank you, madam chairman. usually the problem's the length of our questions, not theanwers around here. you mentioned in your testimony, ambassador, about libya. let me ask you a question. there was a lot of skepticism, i think, on the hill because the administration chose to engage in military activity without coming, honestly, to congress in any kind of formal way and asking for consent.looking forw

possibility in s syria or might occur with iran, do you think the administration, under those circumstances, would come to congress or congress in order to receive authorization for the use of force in either of those two cases? >> well, sir, let me say first of all that i'm not a lawyer, nor am i the administration official responsible for those kinds of judgments or recommendations or determinations. but i will say this. what we did in libya was the right thing. we had the support of the international community, the support of the region, and we protected the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians that were at imminent risk of slaughter. the decision that the united statess security council took a year ago this week has proved its worth. gadhafi is gone. the libyan people are now

working to constitute, under great challenge, a democratic future, a democratic system. their transition is on track. we were able to accomplish this without a single loss of american life. in a shared operaon burden-sharing after the united states played a critical role in the early days. our nato partners and arab partners took the lead and sustained the operation with u.s. support. so i think that proved its worth. i can't speculate, sir, in all honesty, on where we may end up in any other circumstance or contingency. i know that the administration and the president fully and completely respect the role of congress in decisions on war and peace. and we will take the appropriate steps to consult and gain the appropriate authorization -- >> i would suggest to you there's a lot of bipartisan skepticism that that indeed happened. and honestly i don't think it

did. and with all due respect to our, they didn't take the lead. we did 65% of the sorties, 40% of the combat sorties, 79% of the refueling, 99% of the air lifts. so to pretend that this was anything other than a largely american operation through nato, that's my opinion -- now, let me ask you a question. i'll give you another one to respond on. again, going back to libya -- and i agree withougadhafi's a t i have no doubt the world's a better -- better off without but given the fact that he had suspended his nuclear program, his weapons of mass destruction, had turned over those materials to the united states, did not allow al qaeda to operate in his territory, had pulled back from what earlier in his career had been terrorist activity, if you were sitting in tehran or in north korea and you saw what happened to him after he did all those things, what incentive

would you have to follow the same course and say we're going to get out of the nuclear weapons business? i would suggest there's probably people in those countries arguing look what happened to him the minute he cooperated with the united states. >> no, sir. i would very much disagree with that perspective because in the first instance the reason why the united nations, nato, arab countries acted in the instance of libya was not anything to do with nuclear weapons. it had to do with an imminent threat to hundreds of thousands of civilians. >> i agree. the question is would we have acted if those weapons were there? there's serious slaughter going on in syria right now. but they also have a wmd cache and a different level of defense. and that seems to have some impact on the decisions we're making. >> i disagree. i disagree both because i think you're mixing apples and oranges in that comparison but also because i think the message to countries like iran, like north korea is that when you are as

isolated as libya ultimately proved to be, when nobody in the international community would stand up and prevent the kind of multilateral action that was taken against gadhafi, and that isolation is nowect ui iran now ever, north korea, that's not a situation you want to be in. so i would actually take the opposite lesson -- >> we have a very different view. because if i were them, i would hang on to my weapons before i would abandon them given that action. >> so what is the conclusion you draw from that? that we shouldn't have done libya because it -- >> well, first of all, i would have liked to have a full debate on libya in the congress of the united states, which we did not have. to commit forces on that scale with no debate, no discussion, and no congressional authorization i think is unconscionable. that's my view. >> but going back -- you're making a point about nuclear weapons. would doing nothing in libya

have sent a better message to iran and north korea? >> i don't know. my time's up. i'd love to pursue it later. but thank you, ambassador. >> mr. rothman. >> thank you, madam chairman. dr. rice, it's great to have you with us. and thank you for your outstanding work at the u.n. >> thank you, sir. >> not only innitestates of amea and our interests but for the interests of the united states' most important allies and friends. thank you so much for your work, your good work, and effective work. i do have a question about unesco. and i understand the point that you were making that there will be consequences to the palestinians for going against the u.s.'s advice and directive not to pursue independence through the united nations. and then avoiding direct negotiations with the state of israel. the most important strategic ally and friend the united states has in that region.

but what are the consequences, or what would the consequences be to -- under a waiver to unesco, the body that actually voted in favor of the palestinians' request? i've got a couple of these, dr. rice. >> okay. >> madam ambassador, if you could. so i'm going to list them quickly. so consequences to unesco -- i know we have 22% of their regular budget. so that's a significant stick if we wanted to use it. also, do you know anything about the presence of russian troops in damascus? i read a piece the other day that the russians had landed in damascus. is there any truth to that? and if so, what were they doing there and what were their intentions? also, what are the -- if you can speak in public session about what the status is of negotiations between iran and the five plus one with regards to nuclr program.

where is that status? also, it's been said that the swift program -- are you familiar with that? the society for worldwide interbank financial telecommunications, which has just said that they're not going to work with iran in passing money back and forth from iran to its customers, they're going to shut thatwi have a signific on iran. do you know anything about that, and can you comment on that? i have a zillion moregh for now. >> let me see how many i can get lestian e the red light -- negotiations. [ laughter ] time's up, right? thank you, madam -- >> thank you for your comments about my service. let me begin with unesco. you say how do we ensure there are consequences for unesco. unesco the organization that is carrying out holocaust education

and girls' education and literacy training and other anti-extremist programs are, as you know, a collection of international civil servants doing this work on the ground. they're not the ones that we intend to punish. it's the member states individually who belong to unesco and belong to the general assembly and everywhere else that cast these votes. so we need to make that distinction. and that's part of the problem with the way our current legislation or law is drafted. it doesn't make adistinction. it's a very blunt instrument that ends up boomeranging against u.s. interests. it's not in our interests for these critical programs to go without 22% of u.s. funding. itt were, we wouldn't have funded them in the first place and you wouldn't have been generous in your support of them. now, how do we punish individual member states? if that's our objective. we can discuss that. each of them, as you know, is individual, and we can discuss

and consider how to ensure there are consequences there. i think that's difficult to do. there are many votes that are taken in u.n. agencies on individual issues with different countries that we disagree with. but let me say a couple things quickly. you know, the same states that we may be very frustrated with in terms of their vote on unesco may be the very same states that are voting correctly, as over 130 countries did, on syria, for example. or that voted overwhelmingly to condemn the iranian-backed plot to kill the saudi ambassador here in washington. so for every vote that we would deplore there may be several that we would welcome. and so how you calibrate that in our relationship in dealing with individual member states is tricky. but we don't need to punish the entity and we don't need to punish ourselves. and we have talked about ways to make sure there are consequences for the palestinians.

russian troops. i've seen the press reports. i've also seen very clear-cut denials from moscow about these reports. i have not seen any information to corroborate these reports. that's all i can say on that. with respect to iran and the p-5 plus one, as you know, the iranians have said they're prepared to return to the negotiating table. kathy ashton on behalf of the p-5 plus one has said the p-5 plus one is ready to come back to the table. they're negotiating the timing and modalities. and so the expectation is that should happen before too long. and finally, on swift, i'm not the expert. and i certainly wouldn't want to get into a matter of technical interest that the treasury department is more expert on, but obviously, this is a positive step. it is one in a series of positive steps that have increased the pressure on the iranian banking and financial system in a way that i think is

having real impact, real negative impact. >> thank you, madam ambassador. thank you, madam chairman. >> mr. dan. >> madam chairman. madam ambassador-b g. to be with you. just following up on representative cole's comments, i was one of the few folks on my side of the aisle to support the administration's retroactive action in libya on the house floor. i thought it was the correct thing to do. obviously, i had some questions about how we conducted the operation but i thought it was the right thing to do. but in that situation we had u.n. support obviously, nato support, arab league support. and that's important. but with respect to syria we don't have u.n. support quite clearly. and it seems to me that as long as the russians and chinese have a seat at the security council table they're going to veto anything that comes up on syria that's meaningful. i guess the real question is if we really want to -- if we really want to make an