of that that we had today. it is a shock that it might become less confident. it is more of a risk. >> they are concerned >> is going to cost 200,000 jobs. you can not quantify the jobs we have saved? >> i was talking about that looking directly at the effects of demand. if you couple that with a long- term plan that shaves the deficit the overall effect could be more positive. >> you are not saying hour auctions will cost us 200,000

jobs. >> i would like to address the deficit on a long-term basis. >> thank you. i want to close by saying youth and ranking member frank and i have said unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to making critical plans for long-term reductions in our deficit, then we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth. that is something we can do. it seems there is agreement. hopefully in six months we will have some credible plans to demonstrate that commitment. some members have additional questions for the chairman. they may wish to submit it in writing. the hearing record will remain

open for 30 days to submit written questions and place their responses. this hearing is adjourned. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. c-span3 = = [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> republican and democratic leaders continue working on a spending bill for the rest of the year. watched the debate says barbara it c-span's congressional chronicle. find the full video archive for every member at c-span.org. >> in a few moments secretary of state hillary clinton calls for muammar gaddafi to step down. she testified on foreign policy before the foreign relations committee. then a hearing on preparations for the state department to take over iraq operations for the military. then a libyan leader muammar

gaddafi blames al qaeda for the uprising in his country. on "washington journal," we will talk about federal spending priorities with jim moran and daniel webster. we will discuss the role of nonprofit organizations with tim delaney. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on c-span3. homeland security secretary janet napolitano testifies about the budget request at 9:30 a.m. eastern. mexican president felipe calderon is in washington for meetings with president obama.

you can see that live on c-span3 at 4:00 p.m. eastern. this trip comes three weeks after gunmen killed one u.s. agent in mexico. >> mit american history professor is on "book tv" this weekend. she has written several books. her latest was published last year. join our conversation with pauline maier on c-span2. watch previous programs at booktv.org, critique -- redefined the entire schedule on lun. >> hillary clinton reiterated her call for muammar gaddafi to

step down. her remarks came at a senate foreign relations committee hearing on foreign policy priorities and funding for the state department. committee chairman john kerry says the international community should implement a no-fly zone over libya. >> good morning. this hearing will come to order. it is wonderful to welcome you here today.

i know you are back from a quick trip and we appreciate this enormously all of your efforts on behalf. i cannot think of any more relevant moment. we are happy to have you here. let me say up front we have joined with our allies and have heard loudly from you muammar gaddafi must go. he has lost all legitimacy. it is important to be clear we cannot be halfway about that goal. the people of libya are not asking for foreign troops on the ground. they are committed to doing what is necessary, but they do need the tools to prevent the slaughter of innocents on libyan streets.

i believe the global community cannot be on the sidelines while airplanes are allowed to bomb. a no-fly zone is not a long time situation. i believe we ought to be ready to implement it as necessary. it is clear that we are living through one of the most important chance formations in the history of the modern world. some have likened these protests to the revolutions of 1848 which changed the european landscape forever. there is no doubt these events will be studied for decades to come. in this moment as we gather here the full ramifications of the people that has happened from tunisia to tahrir square,

we don't understand yet exactly how that outcome is going to be defined. what we do know is this is a time of great challenge for the people there and also for people in other countries. events this powerful demand a powerful response. our commitment to the ordinary people risking their lives to win human rights will be remembered for generations in the arab world. we are working here in the senate with colleagues to create a package of longer-term financial assistance. it is an imperative because it

is key to helping to turn the new arab awakening into a lasting rebirth. >> to assist in this transformation is key to its long-term outcomes and our relationship to it. we will forge new relationships in a part of the world that will remain vital to our national security. we have been given the opportunity to demonstrate to the young men and women of the

world that al qaeda's believe that change requires violence is just plain wrong. that is one thing that really stands and in the events of the last six weeks. this is a repudiation of al qaeda's poisonous doctrine. across cultures and across religions to encourage an entire reason to move towards reform away from violence. as i mentioned, we all understand we face a budget crisis in our own country but we can either pay now to help people build a better democratic future or we will pay later in

much higher terms with increased threats to our own national security. the budget lays the foundation for our ability to fulfill our responsibilities to the american people and to people who keep faith with our values. $53 billion in core funding the president has requested is a very small investment for the kind of return we get. we will spend $700 billion this year on our military. the international affairs budget is less than one-tenth of what the pentagon spends. if you put the entire foreign service roster you could barely

staff one aircraft carrier. our diplomats are serving on the front lines of multiple revolutions. they are making vital contributions in afghanistan and iraq. it has cost thousands of american lives. in africa they are helping to midwife the birth of a new nation to resolve the situation in darfur and they are leading the fight against global challenges like nuclear proliferation and around the world they are providing essential humanitarian assistance preventing the spread of cholera in haiti and distributing food to refugees in kenya and providing shelter to

flood victims in pakistan. this is not the time for america to pull back from the world. just last week the house sent us a resolution for 2011 that imposes draconian cuts. the budget would cut humanitarian aid by 50%. aand putting thousands of lives at risk. it would cut two-thirds of the fund devoted to increasing resilience to climate change in the most vulnerable regions of the world. this means over 400,000 people would have received a life- saving treatment will now leader on waiting lists as their hiv diagnosis becomes a death sentence.

it would cut food and education for the world's poorest children. there is something about these cuts that i think does violence to the judeo-christian ethic by which so many claim to be guided in their public lives. these cuts are not abstractions. these are the values of our country. cutting these programs will do nothing to rein in our budget deficit but it will cost thousands of lives and cost us our reputation in the world. by reducing our capacity of around the globe we will increase the threats to our own country. i know secretary clinton feels just as strongly about these issues and the necessity of maintaining our global commitment.

we are very pleased to have her here today to discuss this budget with the committee. >> thank you. i join you in welcoming secretary clinton to our committee. i look forward to her thoughts on foreign policy priorities. our hearing today is taking place in the context of deep economic uncertainty coupled with other people overseas. the american people are still suffering from high unemployment. fiscal year 2010 budget deficit registered $1.3 trillion. the fiscal year 2011 deficit would be at least that high. our total national debt climbed

above $14 trillion. some businesses are returning to profitability but long-term growth is threatened by numerous forces including high unemployment with 9.5% out of work. overseas almost 100,000 american military personnel are fighting a difficult war in afghanistan. more than 1000 of our troops have been killed in afghanistan. meanwhile we are entering our eighth year in iraq. the deployment has cost more than 4000 lives and wounded 32,000. we still have more than 36,000 troops deployed in that country. tensions on the korean peninsula are extremely high with no

resolution to the problem of north korea's nuclear program. we want to prevent iran from producing nuclear weapons. the security of pakistan and their nuclear arsenal. in recent months this security environment has been complicated by the mass movements in tunisia and elsewhere that are reshaping the middle east. people who have been alienated from their governments are beginning to believe they have a personal stake in their country's direction. while this comes as high risk we know the long-term prospects for moderate should are better in a middle east in which the population actively participates

in their own government. secretary clinton and our diplomats and others are on the front lines of these issues. we appreciate very much the sacrifices they made and risks that they take daily on behalf of the american people. i would observe the situation in libya underscores the importance of three ongoing objectives that extends beyond management of immediate problems. the state department and other agencies must be devoted to the energy security. the destruction of oil has impacted world markets causing the price of oil to spite and

raising the price americans pay at the pump. these oil prices are a threat and a dependence on foreign oil limits our foreign policy choices. we're living in an age of extreme vulnerability. to end this dangerous reliance on oil imports we must find more domestic resources and improve international cooperation. i believe the administration should -- develop new forms of liquid fuel from domestic feed stocks and dramatically increase the fuel efficiency of our vehicles. the state department must work to devise supply routes and boost our energy trade in places

that are sometimes hostile. the situation in libya is extremely dangerous. we can be thankful the of people is occurring without a nuclear weapons dimension. the bush administration was successful in coaching libya to give up its nuclear weapons program years ago. this has been magnified by the current crisis. the state department also plays a key role in working with other governments to overcome the proliferation threat. regime instability wherever it occurs titans the chances governments will seek leverage for profit. it might come with transferring weapons of mass destruction

technology. the consequences of one attack by terrorists could be devastating for our economy and your children. last fall i led a delegation in east africa on improving security related to biological pathogens. officials throughout our national security apparatus must redouble efforts. food shortages and high prices for commodities have been issued in almost every country that experienced demonstrations. the u.s. is the largest and biggest exporter of food.

as large populations in china and india become more affluent. countries throughout africa and asia are suffering from severe malnutrition. the u.s. must give high priority to executing a food policy that creates export opportunities and agricultural businesses and addresses hunker in volatile regions that could negatively impact national security. i am grateful for the personal interest. i encourage the secretary to work with congress on this issue. we appreciate the time the appearance of the secretary before us today in the midst of a demanding schedule. we look forward to our discussion. thank you. >> thank you very much. we are delighted to have you here. >> i want to begin by thanking

you, chairman kerry for not just those two eloquent statements of our priorities as a nation by for your service and lifetime of leadership. these issues really do matter to america's security. it is an honor to appear before you. i recently took part in emergency meetings in geneva to discuss the events in libya. i would like to offer a brief update. we have joined the people in demanding muammar gaddafi must go without further violence. we are working to translate the world's outrage into action. marathon diplomacy with our allies has yielded aggressive steps to isolate libya's

leaders. we welcome the decision to suspend libya from the human rights council. u.s. aid is dispatching two humanitarian regimes to help stop the violence. our combatant commands are preparing to support these critical civilian missions. we are taking no option off the table so long as the government turns its guns on its own people. the region is changing. a strong american response will be the central. in the years ahead libya could become a peaceful democracy or could face civil war or fall into chaos. this is an unfolding example of

using the combined assets of smart power to prevent -- advance our values. this integrated approach is the most effective and cost- effective way to sustain our security. it is only possible with a budget that supports the tools in our national security arsenal. i understand and agree the american people are justifiably concerned about our national debt, economy and unemployment. i think americans understand the need for responsible investments in our security to keep markets open, to insure we remain a leader in the world. two years after president obama

and i ask you to renew our investment we are seeing tangible returns. in iraq almost 100,000 troops have come home and civilians are poised to keep the peace. civilian and surgeons have helped set the stage to support afghan reconciliation that can put al qaeda on the run. we have imposed the toughest sanctions yet to rein in iran's nuclear ambitions. we have engaged in our own hemisphere. we have signed a trade deals to promote american jobs to protect our people. we worked with sudanese to achieve a peaceful referendum. we are working to open a political systems and societies at this moment in history in the

middle east and to support peaceful irreversible democratic transitions. our progress is significant but our work is ongoing. these missions are vital to national security and now would be the wrong time to pull back. the 2012 budget will allow us to keep pressing ahead. i launched the first ever diplomacy and development review to help us maximize the impact of every dollar we spend. we've made a painful but irresponsible cuts. we cut economic assistance to central and eastern europe. we cut development assistance to 20 countries. this year our request is divided into two parts. our korff budget request is $47

million. it is essentially flat from 2010 levels. the second part of our request funds a temporary portion of our war efforts. this is the same way the pentagon request is funded. instead of covering war expenses we are now taking a more transparent approach that reflects our civilian effort on the ground. our share of the president's request for these wartime costs is $8.7 billion. let me walk you through a few of the investments. ins fund's vital missions

afghanistan and iraq. al qaeda is under pressure. alongside our military we are engaged of both societies and help undercut the insurgency. these searches set the stage for the third surge, a apush in support of a process to split the taliban and help stabilize the entire region. our military commanders are in fact. they cannot succeed without a strong civilian partner. retreating with our troops in the field would be a grave mistake. equally important is our assistance to pakistan. a nuclear arms nation with strong ties and afghanistan.

this is a fresh trading relationship. we are grateful for the chairman for his helpful intervention. we are working to deepen that partnership and focused on addressing the economic challenges and our shared threats. we have a chance to help the iraqi people build a stable democratic government in the heart of the middle east. what we are hoping will happen in egypt and libya is happening in iraq. it is in. it as our troops come home our civilians help iraqis resolve conflicts peacefully training police and inculcating things at the root of any democratic society. shifting responsibilities actually saved taxpayers a great deal of money.

the military's total request worldwide will drop by $45 billion while our costs will increase by less than $4 billion for iraq. every business owner would gladly invest $4 to save $45. we are working to prevent tomorrow. this budget promotes sustaining a strong u.s. presence in volatile places where our interests are at stake. in yemen it provides security and humanitarian assistance in the midst of the headquarters on the arabian peninsula. it focuses on the same goals in somalia and has helped northern and southern sudanese -- it proposes a new global security

contingency fund. we are trying to tear down the walls of the bureaucratic obstacles that too often prevent the u.s. government from being as sufficient as it can be by bringing our government assets together. this trains mexican police to take on violent cartels and provides $3.1 billion for israel and supports jordan. it helps egypt and tunisia and supports security assistance to 130 nations. these security funds have created a valuable time is to foreign militaries. we saw that in real time with egypt. because the u.s. military trained a generation of egyptian officers and it built relationships between american

military leaders and the egyptian leader's we saw the egyptian military to refuse to fire on their own people. there were many conversations going on between people who were not picking up the phone for the first time but to trade did other. we are trying to insure all who share the benefits of our spending also share the burdens of addressing common challenges. we are making investments in human security. thank you so much for your constant pointing out that this is in america's interest and the world's interest. we have ameliorated the effects of disease and these challenges not only threaten individuals at home but they are the future

conflict. if we want to lighten the burden we have to make the investment we will make our world more secure. our largest investment is in global health programs including those led by president george w. bush. these programs to stabilize the entire society that has been devastated by hiv and other diseases. they stop the spread of deadly diseases. global food prices are approaching an all-time high. this led to protests in dozens of countries. food security is a cornerstone of global security. i look forward to working closely with congress as we try to sharpen this program. climate change threatens food security and national security.

our budget helps to build resilience against drought and other weather disasters. it preserves tropical forests. it gives leverage to us to persuade china and other nations to do their part as well. we are working aggressively to promote sustained economic growth come and open markets and create jobs at home. we are fighting for large and small companies. our economic officers in the philippines helped when a $21 million contract that will create jobs throughout tennessee. this budget funds the people that make possible everything i have described. it allows us to sustain relations with 190 countries.

it allows development officers spreading opportunity and economic officers who think about how to put americans back to work. several of you have asked the department about the safety of your constituents in the middle east. they evacuated 2600 americans from egypt and libya and 17,000 from haiti. they served as our first line of defense against would-be terrorists seeking visas to enter our country. i would like to say something about funding for 2011. the 16% cut that passed the house last month would be devastating to our national security. it would force us to scale back dramatically on critical

missions in pakistan. we need a fully engaged and fully funded national security team include, in state and u said. have been always moments to resist obligations beyond our borders but each time we have shrunk from global leadership events have some of us back to reality. we save money in the short term when we walked away from afghanistan in the cold war but that came at an unspeakable cost when we are still paying 10 years later. generations of americans have grown up successful because we chose to lead the world in tackling its greatest challenges. we are the ones who invested resources to build up allies and trading resources.

we did not shy away from seizing the opportunities at each new era. i believe as i have traveled around the world the world has never been in greater need of qualities that distinguish us as americans. our determination and devotion to universal values. i see people looking to us from leadership. this is a great opportunity for the american people by it is and achievement. it requires resolved and resources. i look forward to working closely with all of you to do what is necessary to keep our country safe and maintain leadership in a fast changing world. >> thank you. i think that was a terrific statement and overview of the issues at stake.

let me ask you if i can -- we received the unsettling and sadness the minister of minorities was assassinated this morning in islamabad. he is the only christian member of the cabinet. i wonder if he would comment on the implications of that and where we find ourselves at this moment with respect to that relationship. >> thank you because i was shocked and outraged by the assassination by al qaeda terrorists of the pakistan federal minister of foreign affairs. i think this was an attack on the values of tolerance and respect for people of all backgrounds that had been

championed by the founder of pakistan. i had the opportunity to meet with the minister. he was a very impressive man. he was a man of great conviction. he cared deeply for pakistan and dedicated his life to helping the least among us. when i spoke with him he was aware of the threats against him. despite those threats when the cabinet was reshuffled he continued his work as the minister for minorities affairs. on behalf of the u.s., i extend our deepest condolences to his family and friends. i have to say as i spoke before the house yesterday been the

intolerance towards minorities that we are seeing not only in pakistan but elsewhere in the region, the attack on christians in iraq, the attack on minority islam sects in pakistan is a matter of deep distress. it runs against all of our values. we will be doing all we can to support the freedom of religion and to work with governments everywhere so they uphold universal values. >> thank you that is an appropriate response all the members of the committee associate with your comments.

you gave a very comprehensive overview of the implications of the budget cuts with respect to our foreign policy interests. i wonder if you could personalize it to the average person as these choices come before congress. there is a huge misconception out there across the country. i had a town meeting recently. we ask people how much foreign aid we give. people think it is a huge amount. people are shocked when they hear it is only 1.5% of our total budget. just a simple grass roots explanation of what is at stake here?

what do we risk losing with this kind of reduction at this moment in transformation of the world. >> let me speak about a lot of the specifics. you included in number of those on your opening statement. we will be cutting back on our support for global help. particularly through the project started by president bush which has been continued and is strongly supported by president obama. thousands of people will be cut off of their life sustaining drugs. we will see a decrease in the number of people treated for other diseases including malaria and tuberculosis. we will see a stop in the

outreach for women and children for pregnancy related complications. we had made child health one of our priorities. we are certainly backing off from the commitment to food security to feed the future initiatives. we really worked hard to get the input right because what we had done over the last 20 years was moved away from working with farmers so that they would better produce for themselves and the u.s. would be providing expertise and technology. instead what we had been doing was providing emergency food relief which was not teaching anybody how to fish. we began to reverse that.

that would be severely impacted in the cr that was passed. we have also seen a complete dismissal of the work on climate change and energy security. we have a lot of support in the pacific ocean region. a lot of those countries have voted with us in the un and are embracing our rebellious. they believe contrary to what some might think that they are sinking. all they had asked for us is some recognition with their efforts to be more resilient when it comes to the effects of climate change. we had a small amount of $21 million we would spread across

this island countries. we are in a competition for influence with china. let's put aside the humanitarian do good side of what we believe and. let's talk straight politics. we are in a competition with china. take poppa new guinea, a huge -- exxon noble is producing it. china is in there every day trying to figure out how it will come in behind us. they are supporting the regime that is now in charge of fiji. they have brought all the leaders of these nations to beijing. if anybody thinks our retreating on these issues is somehow going to be irrelevant to the maintenance of our leadership in a world we are competing with

china and iran, that is a mistake. i would strongly support this on humanitarian grounds that we do the right thing, but i also look at this from a strategic perspective. >> senator lugar. >> you have called for $150 million of reprogramming of money in our egypt situation. let me couple my question about this with questions we have raised in this committee of others about the so-called kerry lugar program for pakistan. $1.5 billion for five years. as we visit with our colleagues

they have some skepticism about our advocacy. it is not clear what these programs are intended to do. who supervises the expenditure of the money? who spends it in the country in the case of the egyptians? who do we deal with currently who has a government function in egypt war in pakistan? who are we dealing with in regards to the $1 billion? much of that has not been spent, although it is important diplomatically. you have had to face public meetings in pakistan explaining this. trying to trace through with us now you are attempting to bring closer to objectives and

supervision so that this can be more transparent to american people and the egyptians and pakistanis, because that confidence level is critical. >> i agree with that completely. let me start with egypt. we plan to use those funds to support an array of efforts that are under way by egyptians to prepare for constitutional amendments for free elections, setting up political parties to support civil society groups. we are certainly looking for ways to support the economic conditions in egypt because there have been allot of economic consequences. darrent tourist industry employs a lot of egyptians has dried up.

other parts of the economy are under stress. we intend to use some of that to support the economic recovery in egypt. we are looking at creative ways of doing that. we started on that before tahrir square occurred. it was reaching out to young people in -- we set up a web site through which they could obtain business advice. we would like to link what we are doing in economic aid with university sites where we could help young people become entrepreneurs. there are so many university graduates. we want to look for ways to help them start their own businesses. we are looking to identify local businesses that have a greater

capacity. we would like to look with partnering with job training skills with unions that have arisen, because they have been a leader for secular change in the economic arena. there is a lot we have on the drawing board that is promising. the egyptian government right now which is run by the supreme council is very cautious about taking outside help of any sort. that is the message they have given to us to everyone who has approached them. i said to secretary burns he had a number of meetings with those inside and outside the government. there is a wariness across the egyptian society about not looking like they are being influenced by any outside force.

we are working to be as careful and sensitive to this needs while still being affected. in pakistan, and i was here testifying two years ago there was no doubt the taliban was in -- had the momentum and extremists were in the driver's seat. the government had made a deal to permit their own extremists to basically govern. i said at that time it was a terrible mistake for them. thankfully they began to reverse that policy and began to go after the extremists. two years is a lot of time to us. two years is not much at all for

pakistani years. they have moved troops of the indian border and have targeted extremists. they have worked with us to target our adversaries. they have moved on the military front. economically, it is a much more complex story. they have made some decisions that we support and we were intended to encourage but they have also run into political difficulties because this is a political system dominated by the rich. they want to keep their big land and don't want anybody to ask them to support education or anything for their people. as a result, those powerful interests dominate politics in pakistan.

we have been working with those ministries on the right track for reform. we have been working with ngo's that we think can support those changes. the floods came along and up and did everything. they cost -- cost so much money. i would say despite how challenging the relationship is and how much internal pressure their government faces, we are in a better position than we were two years ago in confronting the real problems. we are not attending they can be ignored. >> thank you for that answer. >> let me add one fought. you have spoken eloquently about the broadcasts. i would hope that we will be moving more

money towards communication with china. as we heard with north korea yesterday, more complex as to how you get the message. this is still a great -- we are doing better in iran and the middle east as we saw in tunisia and egypt, but hopefully you can bring us good news about the more aggressive policies. >> i want to thank you for the report you did on the broadcasting board of governors and all of the problems it had experienced. i agree that walter is an excellent choice. the board is a very integrated group of republicans and democrats. we are engaged in an information war. during the cold war we did a great job in getting americans messages out.

unfortunately we are paying a big price for it. our private media cannot fill that gap. cultural programming often works at counter purpose to what we truly are as americans. i remember having an afghan general tell me the only thing he thought about americans is all the men wrestled and women walked around in bikinis. the only tv he ever saw was "baywatch." are in an information war. we are losing that war. aljazeera is winning. the chinese have opened up a global english language television network. russians have opened up the english language network. it is quite instructive. we are cutting back. the bbc is cutting back.

here is what we are trying to do. in the state department we have pushed hard on new media. we have an arabic twitter feed. have a group of experts out there putting out young arabic speaking diplomats so they are talking about our values. walter is working hard with his board to try to transform the broadcasting efforts because most people still get their news from tv and radio. we cannot forget tv and radio. i would look very much to your cooperation to try to figure out how we get back in the game. >> thank you. thank you very much. senator boxer. >> thank you so much.

we welcome you. you are working so hard and are doing a tremendous job advancing u.s. interests at a time when change is every hour on the hour. your response to senator kerry's question on why the 1.6% is responsible. i thought it was on the mark. i would like to put it up on my website. is that ok with you? i can give you more information, especially on women and girls. i know that is one of your highest priorities, senator. >> when senator kerry said, just speak to the grass-roots folks out there, did not change a thing about it. i would just like to put it up because i would like every american to read that.

we'll have our theories on why people are crying out for freedom because they know more about it. some are looking to us, some are looking to other parts of the world, and some are looking inside. it is a delicate issue. it is different in every country. in the meantime, we are winding down our war in iraq. it is entering its eighth year. it cost the united states more than $750 billion. when we look at a budget, we have to look at that, $750 billion and more than 4400 american lives. president obama states his intention to begin withdrawal of combat forces this july in afghanistan.

both the administration and congress have worked tirelessly to enact the toughest sanctions to date in iran could but iran is continuing to -- in iran. but iran is continuing its pursuit for a nuclear weapon. despite recent repeated attempts by the united states to bring lasting peace to the korean peninsula, korea seems to be doing everything to encourage conflict. in egypt, a prominent opposition leader mohamed elbaradei said, "if we go too fast, if we organize elections in four months or five months, it will be all over for the revolution. the old regime will perpetuate itself in another guise." secretary clinton, do you share his concern about the proposed timeline for transition for a new civilian government that was announced by the egyptian military? >> we are trying very hard to

support the egyptians in what they're doing because, obviously, this was the egyptian,-instigated an egyptian-lead and it should be. we are mindful of that. i think that being prepared for the elections, due in the constitutional changes that are necessary, the legislative changes that are necessary, setting up the apparatus, being prepared to actually implement an election is quite an undertaking. there are many, not just the united states, but the united nations, other nations who are engaging with their egyptian counterparts to go through what it will take to have an election that has a fighting chance at producing a democratic outcome. we have also made clear that one election is not enough. a lot of regimes have won elections and then they declare that that is enough of that and that they will stay in power.

or somebody hijacks the election. there are many yellow blinking caution lights that i think the egyptians themselves are raising and the united states, as always, stands at the raheem devaughn to west -- stands at the ready to assist. >> it is up to the people of to make the decision. any misquoted comment, the secretary of defense gates said, "any future defensive back terry who revises the president to send -- any future defense secretary who advises the president to send an army in that area should have their head examined." although you as opposed publicly committing to the deadline, he was openly convinced because he

was convinced that president cars i could take responsibility for the war. in your opinion, as president karzai taken more responsibility sense president obama's announcement of withdrawal of american troops in july 2011? >> yes, i believe that is a fair conclusion. i agree with secretary gates. starting the transition in july 2011 put the afghans on notice. it also has contributed to the improvement in the training, retention, and performance of the afghan security forces. >> madam secretary, i introduced legislation with others with a plan for the redeployment that includes an end date for the withdrawal of combat forces from afghanistan. i will not ask your opinion of that. in an intellectual level, i

would ask you this. if in fact telling mr. karzai, president karzai, that we will begin deployment and that secretary gates is in support of that and that is a signal to the president that he should take responsibility for the defense of his own country, would not setting an end date, even with benchmarks on it, continue to move him in the right direction? >> i agree with that, senator. it was adopted by our nato staff allies in lisbon that the troops under this mission will be completed in 2014. >> thank you very much. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam secretary. as always, it is a pleasure to have you here. we thank you for the great work you're doing. i want to thank you personally for the way that you work with

our office, you and your staff. i know you are working hard with a lot of complex issues. again, we thank you for that. the chairman mentioned early on how some of the things that are happening that bofa and do day in christian principles -- that offend judeo-christian principles, we do have this rub. one principle that we are violating as common decency as a country is spending $1.20 trillion when we're taking in $1.30 trillion. as a country, we cannot do what we're doing any longer to a future generation. i think all of us believe that is morally reprehensible. what is really happening right now is because we have chosen so far not to really deal with

those issues, entitlements, try to sustain them for the future. all of those things, if you will, being off the table has put intense pressure on discretionary spending. forre here today fighting your programs as one would expect you to do. but the reason there is so much pressure on your programs is at our inability as the congress thus far -- i have hope we will deal with this in the next three months to four months and there are people who are working on that -- so far, we have not shown the knowledge or the courage to deal with all of those other issues which, basically, are crowding out your program. would you agree that is a problem? >> that, plus the idea of that only defense spending is national security, when we talk about cuts, they are phrased in

non-defense discretionary spending. >> as long as we lack the will to deal intelligently with our fiscal issues, you will be under incredible pressure. my guess is that there will be stress on state department spending. i think you know that. it will be disproportionate to the overall budget because we do not have the courage, the knowledge, something to deal appropriately with their spending issues. it is my hope we will do that. i just want to point that out. this pressure is because of our inability to deal with all the real spending that is really creating the unsustainable situation which deals with entitlements and putting them on a longer-term path. let me move on -- i think the administration, not your pay grade, is missing a tremendous opportunity to deal with this issue. hopefully, the president will come to the table and, with all

of us together, will solve this problem. due to the -- this is a great opportunity to solve this problem. with that, afghanistan, i was just there and also in pakistan. did we change these in 10 minutes? ok. i think the administration, generally speaking, has done a great job in communicating. i want to support this season in afghanistan. that fighting season will end in october. hopefully, there will be great gains. the one night -- the one area where the administration is not communicating clearly with the american people is the amount of state building and nation- building this is far from the

mission. i know you refer to, while we have troops in the field, secretary gates has talked about our ticket out of afghanistan being one where troops will take over for afghan forces. i believe we will be there for long, long time. we have raised the expectations beyond what is it -- what is sustainable in afghanistan. 12 others believe we will be there for generations. will we move out quickly, as soon as our troops move out, with the nation-building efforts that are under way there now? >> senator, i would characterize what we're doing in afghanistan as capacity building. 10 years ago, it may have been an idea in the minds of decision makers on both sides of the

aisle, in both administrations, that we could nation-building or state build. i think that our assessment now is that we have to get to a level of stability where al qaeda it is degraded and defeated, unable to operate in the tribal border areas, that the taliban is not able to bring down the government of afghanistan, takeover population centers, including kabul, and that there is enough of a governing stability to maintain its independence and sovereignty against continuing threats. what we're doing is aimed at trying to help get its finances straight, tried to help it get its basic services and governance operating. after 2014, nato, including

united states, has said there will be some kind of a continuing relationship with afghanistan in a supportive role to make sure that these goals for them are achievable and sustainable. what that will look like, that is something we're just beginning to have a conversation about. the status of forces agreement which obama sped up without any loss of our ability to maintain stability in iraq, but then the strategic partnership agreement that talks about an enduring relationship with iraq. in both iraq and afghanistan, that is what we're working on and trying to get the input right to figure out what the end state is that we can support. >> my time is up, unfortunately. i will not as a long question.

i will just make a statement. i think the people on the ground in kabul and throughout the country that we have and that are doing great work, i think that we need to move quickly to change the expectations of what we will be doing in afghanistan. we are paying -- we have cash- for-work programs. we are paying the taliban for work in a vineyard consider taking up arms. the security forces on the ground, their security forces, over $7 billion a year in expenditures. they'll have a $1.3 billion budget. when we talk about contingency operations, these are not contingency. they are going on for a long, long time. given expectations to the afghan people that are way beyond what we will be able to sustain as a country, i hope we will move quickly to recalibrate that. thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your services. >> i look forward to having a

good discussion with my colleague about how the effort applies and the debate on the budget. i think it is an important one to have, but probably not here. senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, i want to congratulate you on your statement yesterday that the u.s. is seeking the prosecution of muammar gaddafi for the 1988 pan am bombing that killed my ians.w new jerse i hope you will give us a sense of how we will verify disinformation. i felt -- i hope we get access to the justice minister soon and what time frame we might expect a decision on when to prosecute

gaddafi for such a heinous crime. i and other of my colleagues on this committee issued a report on the release of the convicted pan am 103 bomber, which was released, we believe, from a scottish prison under false pretences. i want to urge and consider requesting of any potential new libyan government that may come out of a result of what is going on in libya. i know it is premature to say that, but i want to put it on your radar screen that i hope that, if there is a new libyan government, when we engage with that government, that we will consider asking for the magrahi to of almug rockal finish his sentence rather than living in the lap of luxury. >> thank you. i represented new york and

several of the victims were from syracuse university. i have met with family members and it is a heartbreaking experience. justice must be served. what we're doing is reaching out based on these recent reports to the fbi and the justice department, which have the jurisdiction over any continuing prosecution, to ask that they believe try it to take whatever actions are possible. i was given a letter yesterday by two of the family members in the house hearings, which outlines a number of ways that we could proceed. i said that over to the justice and fbi. i do not think it is only gaddafi. i think there may be others as well who were involved in some way and, like you, i would like the families to have whatever information they can finally get and then whenever legal

action we can finally take. >> i hope the libyan garment will consider -- if we send a message that you can kill americans and ultimately walk away from jail, then we send a message that is horribly wrong in our global challenge against terrorism. i want to change to iran. i am concerned about what is happening in the events that in egypt and across north africa and the middle east that the world's attention will be diverted from the dangers of iran's nuclear program. i am worried that iran will use this opportunity to speed up its nuclear program and crackdown on opposition and human rights activists. and i am concerned of the support of the administration's budget for this department.

that we do not use the law we passed here to find that we have not been sanctioned one non- iranian foreign company for its investments in iran's energy sector. the administration has yet to sanction a non-iranian bank, despite the report from several banks who continue to deal with iran's financial institutions in violation of the law. i know that the state department, based upon previous testimony here by former undersecretary burns, that there is a series of violations that continue to go on. what are those violations? there is a 180-day clock. when will we see sanctioning of some of these companies that are clearly in violation of the law? >> senator, first, as you know, i became the first secretary of

state to impose any sanctions. you are right. it was on a swiss-based iranian- owned firm. but we are moving as expeditiously as we can to review increases -- any cases. we have also reviewed the sanctions that you passed last year to convince a number of companies, including shell, a vienna, and others to withdraw from iran and not to further business. we have also monitored a lot of activity. as a result, we are seeing some decisions made by companies, a number of shipping companies who have discontinued services to iran. several maritime shipping insurers said they will no longer provide coverage for iran-bound vessels from wherever. major energy traders have discontinued sales of refined specs to iran. as a result, we have seen iran have to take steps that we think

is adding to their economic mismanagement and instability. we will continue to gather information, work with our allies and partners on this matter. since we are the first administration to ever rigorously enforce any sanctions against iran, we have a lot of catch-up to do. there are cases that are still in the review process and we are to open investigations in several cases. we have engaged with a lot of those companies to try to get them to discourage further investments or withdraw. last week, i made a certification as to how we would

treat a couple of companies that are classified, which we can review on. we are moving, but here is the challenge. we have the united nations sanctions, which we have been more successful with the than many thought to get the world to enforce. we have additional sanctions, the european union has additional sanctions, other countries like japan, korea, etc., have added on sanctions, to get some of our partners to follow sanctions that are not u.n. sanctions has been challenging. but we are at it every single day and we will keep it up. there will be more to report to you in the near future. >> thank you for that. i just hope that you can submit for the record how many are under review and what is the 180-day tolling period look

like. >> thank you. >> good morning, madame. >> good morning. >> i want to talk with you about the national debt. in is a national issue an regards to national security. how does it affect our ability to affect events around the world? >> i think it is an incredibly important issue. i clearly agree that the united states must be strong at home in order to maintain our strength abroad. at the core of our strength is our economic strength. i am well aware, having sat for you and know sitting for eight years, the necessity to take action to begin to rein in our debt and, particularly, our indebtedness to foreign

countries, the top of the list being china. i also know quite a bit about how challenging its is because it was at the end of the 99 d is where a bipartisan deal was struck where we had a -- at the end of the 1990's where a bipartisan deal was struck where we have balanced the budget. i sat on the budget committee in the senate in early 2001. i believe that we made decisions, starting in 2001, that undermined our capacity to actually do what i think both of us agree must be done. so i hope there is an appetite for a bipartisan agreement that will deal with our debt without undermining our strength, which is so needed in the world today.

that is the balancing act. it is a tough one. certainly, i support efforts to do that. >> to summarize what we're both saying, it is your belief that the united states can establish a plan to make our debt manageable yen and it will strengthen our hand in the world. >> yes. it will not surprise you to know that something's need to be done on the revenue side as well. a good to some countries where rich people will not contributed a penny to pay for services. there is a mistaken belief where people in the 20th-century will not demand more. i think there has to be a compromise on a bipartisan basis, like we did in the late 1990's, where we put spending and revenues and entitlement on the table. >> briefly, if i could turn your attention to the western hemisphere for a moment, in the

hemisphere, it appears that basically countries are headed in one of two directions. there is the rise of the autocratic type of such regions like in nicaragua and bolivia and venezuela. you can join cuba in that list. on the other hand, there's the promise in places like brazil, chile, and columbia. those are all colored by a growing loss of influence in the region by the united states vis- a-vis other nations stepping up. i think you said that we are in a competition of in floods with china. that is true in the western hemisphere. even iran is attempting to do so. how about encouraging nations to follow the route of brazil, chile, and columbia? in particular from other free- trade agreement with colombia has language for some time -- has languished for some time. where exactly are we waiting for? >> senator, thank you for

turning our attention to the western hemisphere which often does not get the attention it deserves. the countries in our hemisphere are our biggest trading partners, our biggest energy suppliers. they have notable exceptions, like cuba and a few others like venezuelan and nicaragua who have moved into an era of sustainable democracy and economic growth. so there is a lot for the united states to be very proud and grateful for. but, again, i've _ your point. there are other nations that are competing with us. to columbia, for example. this congress and previous administrations invested in a lot of money in the effort to support columbia in the fight against the farc and the drug traffickers. by far, that has been a successful american partnership. yet we are watching columbia

signed free-trade deals with canada, the european union. they are either in negotiation or about to be with china. we have a free-trade agreement that we're still not able to act on. certainly, this administration is moving as rapidly as possible to resolve outstanding issues. i want to get that at this year. i think is -- it is definitely an american business economic interests. until the same way about panama. those are tangible signs that the united states is really engaged with our friends in the region. you talk about brazil. one of the things that brazil did -- i do not want to sound like a broken record -- they have the highest taxed to gdp ratio in the hemisphere and they have used that money to invest in social inclusion, to approve their education and health care system. and brazil is booming. we view it now as a real success story. other nations, like chile, have

similarly had good leadership, good investments, and chile makes a free-trade agreement with everybody they can come including us. it benefits them and it benefits us. it provides an economic base of stability that allows democracy to floors. we're looking at how we can enhance security assistance to our friends in central america. we are using the american initiative to work with mexico. -- we are using the merida initiative to work with mexico. president calderon will be here soon. there is a bigger agenda for us to do and i am very pleased that president obama will go to brazil, chile, and all salvador this month. but we have to do -- and el salvador this month. but we have to do even more to tighten our partnerships. >> thank you. >> secretary clinton, thank you very much for your incredible service to our country. i share your view about global

development policies being one of national security. it is important that we have adequate resources. i think it also speaks to our values, as you pointed out. it is also cost-effective. i would much rather use development assistance rather than use our military. from every point of view, you're absolutely correct. this needs to be part of our discussions about national security in which we need to make sure we have adequate resources. the amount of money that we're spending on our international development programs are relatively small. i want to move to a second part of this equation that you and i have talked about before. i will be chairing the subcommittee that deals with international development assistance. i want to know a little bit more about accountability. we talked about this several times. our involvement in other countries needs to advance gender equity, needs to make sure we are not participating in corruption so that the money

into the pockets of some despot rather than going to the development of the nation. can you share with us ways in which you can engage this committee to make sure that we get the proper return in regards to american values as we participate in other countries? >> senator, thank you and thank you for your long term attention to this issue. in the first-ever quadrennial diplomacy and development did review, which set forth recommendations, many of which are under way, to improve how we deliver aid, how we hold it accountable, how we that partners, how we move contract functions inside and thereby save money. the usaid for agenda that russia is implementing is a result of the work that -- that raja is

implementing as a result of the work that went into it. we are seeing results. we are seeing that those who got contracts are held responsible. some of them are prohibited from further contracts because of their financial irregularities. we're looking to streamline aid deliveries so that we are not duplicating throughout the united states government. that was one of the goals behind our efforts to have a whole government approach with our ambassadors, our chiefs of mission responsible for everyone, so that if we have a going into justice or agricultural or commerce, it is not in a separate direction that we try to focus it and try to better organize it. we are doing that as well in the state department where we are inventing a lot of our programs, try to better organize them -- a lot of ourttinvetting

programs, trying to better organize them. >> you mentioned trade agreements, which obviously can be very beneficial to america. but we do not have a level playing field the protection of intellectual property. it is costing us jobs, thousands of jobs, if not more common in this country. i want to put that on your radar screen as you have your discussions international to make sure that we make that a priority it also. >> i agree completely. i think there is a grand bargain to be had here on trade, in addition to the free-trade agreement with korea, panama, colombia. we have trade adjustment assistance. we have the andean preferences. we have the general system of preferences. all of that should be looked at as our comprehensive trade policy. imbedded in those are and should be protections for intellectual property rights.

we worked hard with the chinese to begin to get more protection. frankly, to make the case that comes as china develops, they will want intellectual property protection, which until now they have not seen as in their interests. there is a lot of work on that front to be done. >> it seems to be very blacks when it comes to stopping piracy, which is thievery against american interests. >> absolutely. i have been jammed by the chinese several times, starting in 1995 and most recently with my internet speak. they are quite efficient. i understand completely. in all our dealings with them and other of our trading partners, we are making this case because, you are right. our intellectual property is the lifeblood of our innovation. it is economic opportunity and begins the leading edge of where we go the 21st century.

we have to do a better job of protecting it. >> i want to thank you for your attention to the refugee issue. our role is changing in iraq and i think it is important that we continue to point out to the iraqis of the refugee problems as its relates to iraqi refugees being in syria and other neighboring countries. i appreciate tension you have given it. i want to ask you one question that deals with the circumstances in libya. each of the countries are different. you point out that the egyptians do not want to see outside forces dictating how their government will be formed. in libya, those who are standing up to gaddafi are asking for international assistance. can you tell us what role the united states for the international committee can play in regards to libya? >> first, senator, we are sending humanitarian teams to

both tunisian and egyptian borders with libya. we are working with the united nations to stand up humanitarian operations. we have done a survey of medical supplies and food supplies that are in the region that we can quickly move to assist the people in libya. the tough issues about how and whether there would be any intervention to assist those who are posing -- who are opposing libya is very controversial within libya and within the arab community. the arab league just issued a statement today, early today, saying that they disapproved and rejected any foreign interference with in libya on behalf of the opposition, even though they have called for gaddafi to leave. we are working closely with our partners and allies to try to

see what we can do. we are engaged and in active consideration of all possibilities available. >> we want to try to keep everything going. you may want to vote and then come back and then we will get two question rounds. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, thank you for being here. this has been very informative. the chairman and you have mentioned and apparently growing problem fowith religiously- motivated violence in different parts of the world. i know that i did understand there is a strong link between political-economic and religious freedom. we look at countries where we are shedding blood and it is

concerning when the government's support appeared to be at least complicity in afghanistan, where someone converted to christianity was threatened with execution and even democratic allies like india where we see religious violence. the government has resisted visas for congressional delegations to try to observe what is happening. the u.s. commission on international religious freedom in 2010 reports that, just in afghanistan, it is on the watch list. they concluded "the u.s. policy properlynot been prioritized religious rights.

my question to you is, while we hear these reports and the media seems to informally document them, is the state department actually trying to track and quantify these crimes in afghanistan and other countries where we support with foreign aid? what are we doing? what can we do to stop it and express our concerns? >> senator, thank you for raising that. i know this is an issue of great importance to you as it does to me. we are tracking it. we're trying to make it a major part of our human rights reporting. we're trying to increase our attention paid to it and speaking out forcefully against it and engaging with governments. you know, it is a foreign concept, unfortunately, too many people around the world. we are trying to work with a lot

of our fellow nations in crafting a proposal that says we support religious freedom and we support freedom of expression because there has been a move to try to criminalize what is called defamation, a leading always to execution in some places. we have worked steadily on this for two years. we are slowly making some progress. but it has been a very hard discussion. a lot of other cultures -- their idea of religious freedom is that you get to be our religion that is religious freedom. the idea that we respect here at home is hard for many to accept. this is on the top of my personal list and i would welcome any suggestions you would have. we will do everything we can to

raise the alarm where necessary and keep the conversation going. >> i hope a lot of our aid and assistance in the future to countries will be conditional on an understanding that these principles of freedom that, while we do have different cultures, we certainly have to respect that, when our soldiers are dying, the idea that they could not practice the faith that they believe in these countries that they are dying for is a concern to many. as you look ahead, i am sure that you know how complex the situation in the middle east is getting and in northern africa with what is happening in egypt. organizations like the muslim brotherhood, there has been mixed signals over whether they are secular or not. the record seems to show that they are much less than secular. as you look at egypt and how we

will deal with that -- i know you cannot give a clear answer and we are not in control of what happens -- but how do we deal as a nation and hopefully as an ally with groups like the muslim brotherhood? what signals do you plan to send to them as far as u.s. support of egypt in the future? >> we have been consistently saying that any political party that participates in an electoral process must respect democratic institutions, the rights of minorities, including religious minorities, has to be supportive of independent judiciary, independent media, to not have an armed wing or militia associated with its. it has been interesting because we have gotten a lot of reporting back, not just from our diplomats, but just from european and others who have gone into egypt.

they have been meeting with a lot of the opposition groups, including young members of the muslim brotherhood. i think they are in an internal debate about exactly how they will participate in a democracy. we want to encourage what we would view as answers that would protect the exclusive nature of muslims and caustic christians living peacefully together in egypt and recognize a political process in a democracy. you have to be able to get along with people, have different opinions, different religious beliefs. again, this will be an ongoing effort. one thing, senator, we could use help in confirming our ambassador for religious freedom. i know you have raised some questions. part of the reason that the administration and i personally support rev. cook is because she has a personality. she has the ability to connect with people.

sending her into places where she would be listening and talking, i think, would give us a base for religious freedom that is not necessarily expected and could, based on what i know of her and her work and how she is an accepted as a woman preacher by her male counterparts and broken new ground in some areas, in new york and the baptist convention, etc., she would be some that i think would be especially well- suited to deal with a lot of these issues now. it would not be in a threatening way, but a persuasive way that would build a personal relationship. >> thank you, senator. i will yield to the senator. >> thank you. secretary clinton, thank you for your testimony today and your great work. it is a remarkable schedule you keep and we are grateful for your time.

i was especially grateful for what you said at the beginning of your testimony regarding minister body. some of us met on two different occasions. it just demonstrated -- i do not know how use it -- uncommon, remarkable courage in the face of a threat. he seemed to have had been at peace with that. he knew he was under threat and would not allow that threat to prevent him from doing the good work he did. grateful for your recognition of that, to advance the same values that he espoused. i wanted to ask you about maybe two areas or three years. number one, first and foremost, ammonium nitrate -- you and the department and the late richard

holbrooke and others have worked long and hard on this issue. for those who have not paid close attention to it, it is really the main ingredient in improvised explosive devices. it is outlawed in afghanistan. unfortunately, not in pakistan. almost like they're rushing current, ammonium nitrate coming from pakistan as well as other places into afghanistan. i want to ask you about two areas. number one, can you tell us a little bit about and provide a report in terms of our own work, a press report. secondly, the legislative efforts within the government of pakistan to not just impose statutory remedies, but also to better regulate it. >> senator, thank you for leadership on this important

issue. this is a direct threat to our troops and also to the people of afghanistan and pakistan. in november 2010, the united states launched what we call operation global shield. it is a multinational law enforcement effort involving 60 countries and international organizations aimed at stemming the flow of ied components, including ammonium nitrate. 60 country participating, including this year and office of drugs and crime and the customs organization and interpol. there has been an interception of 68,000 kilograms of explosives components. we continue to work with the government of afghanistan and

pakistan to get them to take more concrete action to disrupt the flow of these chemicals. we are working with them. pakistan established last november a counter ied forum to bring a whole of government approach. we pressed them to do more on the regulatory and legislative framework. because ammonium nitrate, even in our country, is a legal substance, we have to figure out how to stop its flow, but not cut it off from construction and agriculture. it is obviously much harder with a country like pakistan that does not have a regulatory framework really where a lot of this could already be housed. but we remain absolutely committed to this. we'll do everything we can. we welcome your leadership and any suggestions you have and how we can be more effective. >> thank you very much. and we have limited time because of the vote.

we may allow you to have a little bit of a brick, i hope. -- bit of a break, i hope. when i was there in july for the first time, i was stunned by and media should not have been -- by the overarching and dominant hizbollah has ins belonge that part of the country. the prime minister move doubt because of the strength of hizbollah. i want to get a sense -- i know your department has statutory obligations based upon the 2009 supplemental appropriations that. you were directed to report on the procedures in place to enforce that no funds are

provided to any individuals or organizations that have any known links to terrorist organizations, including hezbollah. i want to get a sense of that in light of the change there. what can you tell us about that? >> senator, as you know, the government has not yet formed and we are waiting so that, once it is, we will review of competition, its policies, and its behavior and determine the extent of hezbollah's political influence over it. it is important that we continue planning so that we be ready if there is an opportunity to work with this new government. i believe, still, at this point, we should continue supporting the lebanese armed forces. i know that has been the subject of some debate here in the congress. it is considered a nonsectarian institution. it is national in scope. it has the respect of the

lebanese people from all sects. it continues to state its support for security council resolution 17 01, which is our primary security-related goal in lebanon. if corporate with the united nations mission in the south to try to keep the peace there. -- it cooperates with the united nations mission in the south to try to keep the peace there. its capabilities will rapidly deteriorate. security in the south along the border of israel will be at risk. and we do have a good relationship. our military-to-military ties with the lebanese armed forces is strong. it has served as well with the egyptian military. looking at the congress -- looking at the budget, we will continue to look at our partnership with the lebanese armed forces. >> thank you.

>> senator web. >> thank you. i'm sorry i missed the exchange because i had to vote. i hope i do not ask you anything that is redundant of anything you have already said. as i said many times, i express my admiration to the energy you put into your job. you have been a great service to your country. in an exchange earlier about the free trade agreements, you briefly mentioned afterwards the korean free trade agreement. just as the comment, i have two questions. i cannot overstate my hopes that we can get this korean free trade agreement in place for strategic as well as economic reasons. the northeast asian area is the only place in the world where the interests of china, russia,

japan, and the united states directly intersect and right in the middle of that is the bull's eye of the dividing korean peninsula. we have every reason for the economic well-being of the country and for the strategic opportunities in the region to move forward with that agreement with all due haste. there was a comment by senator boxer but the situation with ending our involvement in iraq. i would like to echo my concerns about that issue. we tend to focus on the crisis of the moment, as we're doing now with these other issues in that region, rather than conclusively ending ongoing commitments that were not intended to be permanent. we have been in iraq for eight years. ending some hussain's regime, was over it in a matter of

weeks. we have been involved in a very costly occupation since then. i read that the strategic -- i read the the strategic framework agreement. it is clear that we should be out by the end of 2011, but it is -- there is language in there that allows an extension. i would like to hear from you whether you believe that there are any circumstances that to compel us to stay longer. >> first, senator, i agree completely with you about the caribbean free-trade agreement. i think it is very much in america's strategic and economic interests. i hope it will be submitted soon and acted on some by the congress. with respect to iraq, there are no plans that i am aware of. but you're right that the iraqi garment does have certainly -- the iraqi government does have the opportunity to request additional assistance on the military side.

we have committed to civilian assistance, which i think is appropriate. at this point, do not have any insight is as to whether or not to the iraqis have any interest in making such a request. they seem to have their hands full getting their government set up, which they have not yet accomplished. the only recommendation i would make and it would not be intended as a statement of approval or disapproval is that we have made long-term commitments to a country like korea, for example. we were there while they had a less-than-perfect democracy with coups and assassinations and corruption of the most egregious kind. would we say that 50 plus or 60 years of expenditure was worth it or not? i think many people would argue that it probably was. could it have been cut short? probably, under certain circumstances. it is still one of the most

dangerous places in the world, absolutely. i think each of these situations has to be looked at and evaluated independently. i think iraq is a very important piece of the puzzle about what happens in the middle east. we are all asking ourselves can egypt and tunisia become democracies? i'm equally important question is can iraq remain a democracy and move to improve that democracy? can it withstand pressures from iran? i do not know the answers to those questions. as we move toward with iraq, i think we have to factor in any kind of ongoing involvement in what is in our strategic interest as well. >> i would like to reiterate my long-held view that there are completely different strategic reasons when we look at the

korean peninsula vs that part of the world. i believe it is a negative force to occupy power in a part of the world whereas, if you look at northeast asia, the volatility of the part of the world over history has been because of the interaction of china, russia, and japan and the presence of the united states since world war ii. they have a stability that has not been seen previously. we only have one and half minutes. i have just to this other question because it regards the comments that have been made regarding potentially the use of military force in libya. we can all agree on the negative characteristics of the current regime. i found your comment earlier regarding the statement from the arab league about basically warning of american military involvement and i am very conscious of history in this

part of the world and the unpredictability of history in this part of the world when it comes to situations after these opposition movement run their course. iran is the classic example where we treated the shock of the marin -- the shock of iran for the ayatollah khamenei. -- the shah of iran for the ayatollah khamenei. what would commend them to our government to level that we would exit consider military intervention and cooperation with them? >> senator, that is the key question. i think it is fair to say, as you probably heard from secretary gates and admiral mullen yesterday, there is a great deal of caution that is being exercised with respect to any actions that we might take other than in support of humanitarian missions. there may well be a role for

military assets to support getting equipment and supplies into areas that have need of them and where we are welcome. but i think that it is a big reminder to us that we do not know the outcome of this. we do not know these players. we just open an embassy for the first time in two years. in 2009,. we're just getting to know these people. we are not as aware even of what went on in egypt and tunisia. i have to admit to a certain level of opacity about both of those circumstances. so i take your caution and certainly our military leadership does as well. the only point that i would make is that we faced a similar situation in the balkans where there were many, many reasons why it was not viewed with favor that we would set up a no-fly

zone for a lot of similar reasons, the difficulty of it, the minutes of it, the appearance of it. eventually, it was determined that it was in the interest of peace and stability in the region, etc. i believe your statement is certainly very much in the mind of our government who have to make that decision. i wanted to end on something about iraq. i value your opinion greatly. i am not advocating this. we need to have a debate about it. our troops will leave. they're leaving. there will be gone. that is in accordance with the status of the forces agreement. we will not be an occupying force in the country any longer.

if the iraqi government comes to that u.s. government and says we have no air defenses, we have no air force, we have no intelligence abilities, no surveillance abilities, we have this hungry neighbor on our border and we do not want to be taken over by them any more than they are influencing us, can you stay in some capacity at our invitation? that is a debate we need to have. at that point, you could take the position it is not in our national interest. it is not a strategic region. i would disagree with that. and that what we are facing in the environment with iran is as much a competition for our future positioning as we face in the past with china and russia. i think this is a debate, we're nowhere near it. no one has asked us for anything and they may never because of

their internal politics. >> this is a debate for another time. as long as i am in the senate i would be glad to participate. thank you for your testimony. >> thank you. >> thank you en thank you, secretary clinton for being here today and for the face to represent for america around the world. we're all very grateful. i would be remiss if i did not at the outset of my time comment on the back and forth we heard from our colleagues of output data and the importance and all of us recognize how critical that is for the country. as senator corker pointed out, trying to address dealing with the debt on the 12% of the budget that is non-defense discretionary spending, i do not think makes sense. i appreciated and i am in

agreement with your comments that not only do we have to look at the spending side of our budget, entitlements and defense are a big piece of that, but we need to look at revenues and tax reforms. we're not going to get where we need to go unless we address that as well. thank you for making that point and for pointing out the history of how we got here. i will go back to afghanistan. yesterday, we heard from centcom we are looking at increasing the numbers of afghan security forces about the recent target of 305,000. there is an acknowledgement that the cost of sustaining this kind of force would be over $10

billion a year while the government takes in $1 billion in revenue a year. i know that the point has been made by a number of people that it is cheaper for the afghans to be fighting this battle then for us to be paying for the american soldiers to fight it. that still does not address the costs and developing this force. as we think about how the forces continued to be paid for, what do we think is going to happen? >> thank you for your opening comments for the need for everything on the table as we try to do with our deficit and our debt. with respect to the afghan national security forces, there

is an ongoing analysis you heard about what it would take for afghanistan after 2014 to defend itself. and that is not only their military but their police forces and however you factor in the local village protective forces that they are creating. i think one of the ways we're trying to address this as i working with the afghan government to help them increase their revenue. there has been work done about the resources that afghanistan has. if those are managed correctly and that is a big if. if there managed correctly, there would be a steady stream of increasing revenues for the afghan government which would give it the capacity and needs to take on greater responsibility for defending itself in the future.

are we talking to our allies on the ground about potentially helping to pick up the cost for a longer period of time as well? >> at the nato summit in lisbon, there was a position adopted that nato would have a continuing relationship with afghanistan after 2014. the content of that is in process, being developed by secretary-general rasmussen and our allies. we are looking toward 2015 when we want to see afghanistan defending itself. it is fair to say it would have to be continuing support from the united states and other nations in nato.

>> as we're looking at civilian efforts, i was pleased to see the creation of the civilian court major -- corte nadir. concern that the coordinator still lacks the authority to provide overall coordination that was envisioned when this position was created. i wonder if you could speak to that and whether we think there needs to be more authority given to this position and how to accomplish that if so. >> i think there will be increasing authority and the exercise of it by the civilian court later over the next years. we have just got the input on the military surge right for the first time about six months ago.

i think it is fair to say that when president obama came into office, he inherited a deteriorating military situation. the taliban have the momentum. there was no doubt about that. sitting on his desk was requests for additional troops that had not been enacted. -- not enacted upon by the previous administration. it is acting as it was intended. the civilians are getting up to speed and you will see more of an effort to be sure that we are doing all we can to maximize the international civilians present. >> president cars that has made a number of statements in the last month or so that have raised questions in my mind about how he envisions reintegration and reconciliation efforts and i wonder if you

could speak to whether we are on the same page with president karzai or if we think there are better ways to address this case? >> we are on the same page but there are many pages to go in trying to figure out how to bring about an end to the conflict in a way that does not undermine any future stability in afghanistan. we want this to be afghan lead. the u.s. has to play a major role. our new special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, ambassador mark grossman is in consultations as we speak and met with karzai yesterday when he was in london and is meeting with the contact group of 47 nations including 13 muslim nations hosted by the organization of the islamic

conference in saudi arabia. there are many voices that are involved in trying to organize and move forward with this process and we are conscious of a need for afghan lead but it cannot only be afghan involved because it has regional implications and we are aware of that and working to facilitate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. i want to thank the secretary for your leadership and focusing on the nexus between development of diplomacy and defense. i returned from a week-long trip to afghanistan. i saw firsthand a critical and essential partnership between our military and civilian missions in all four of those countries. i would agree with your

characterization. they are standing up and our troop morale is good and the afghans were grateful for our commitment and sacrifice. the progress in my view was matched with a real sustained progress in pakistan and i have some concerns about their unwillingness or disinclination to go after extremists and close this deal and give us a sustainable opportunity for success. my first question, what are we doing as a nation to ensure that the very extremists who slipped your fingers in afghanistan into pakistan are not able to find a promising second to move to an end there were disturbing developments in yemen. what are we doing given the huge

scale to ensure that we are paying sufficient attention to sub-saharan africa to make sure we are partnering military and civilian to prevent moving into another base of operations? >> that is a critical question made more so by the events of the last week. we are working on counter- terrorism efforts in the places you have mentioned. we are supporting the african union in support of the transitional federal permit in somalia against the group that is allied with al qaeda. we have alliances with a number of north african and south saharan countries against al qaeda and related groups that are part of a syndicate of terrorists. it is a big order. there is a lot that we are trying to do in order to

degrade and defeat al qaeda and undermine all its related organizations. we have made progress against core al qaeda. corte al qaeda it does not have the reach or the capacity. it still serves as a financing mechanism. as an inspirational focal point for a lot of jihadists around the world. it does not have quite the impact. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, al qaeda here and there, particularly in iraq for we have 1000 al qaeda sympathizers who are members which is another reason we have to keep our eye on iraq, it is the highest priority of this government, of this

administration. it is a government effort and we are literally working as hard as we can every day. there is no doubt al qaeda and its affiliates continue to plot against us, plot against european allies and many other countries. one of our biggest concerns is libya descending into chaos and becoming a giant somalia. right now, it is not something we see in the offing. many of the al qaeda activists in afghanistan and later in iraq came from libya, came from eastern libya which is now the so-called free area of libya. there's a lot of moving parts to this that are difficult to put in neat little boxes and stack

up somewhere. so your question goes to the heart of what we're doing in afghanistan and pakistan and other places. that is trying to go after those who attacked us and put them out of business. >> as you have assembled your budget for this year, and this committee under -- respects the fact that we are under pressure, we have to trim and eliminate and focus spending. in sub-saharan africa, there were 19 countries that face cuts. how do you strike the balance in deciding which countries in such a fluid environment should continue to receive u.s. assistance and where we simply say we cannot afford it? >> it is a multipronged analysis. i doubt we have zeroed out in -- any country in sub-saharan africa because there are many funding streams that go into those countries and other

programs that are present. these are hard choices. a trade balance is what is the right amount of american presence diplomatically, developmentally, defensively, in order to protect our security, advance our interests, and further our values. it is much an art as a science and we are constantly calibrating it. one thing i know for sure is we not -- where we are not present, others will be. we just had set a goal to expel the iranian ambassador and diplomats because they found them selling arms within senate all. you know china is extremely active diplomatically and commercially.

there are many different forces at work. i wish we were back -- sundays i believe it would have been nicer being secretary of state during the cold war. we had a clear view. here's how we calculate it. it is much more complicated. i do not want us to lose ground. even while we work on trying to get our budget. the africa budget, i was just handed, it grows by 10% over fiscal year 2010. that is because we think we have to stay active and involved in africa. >> one more question. >> i also was encouraged by what i saw in jordan and in the palestinian authorities in terms of progress and security and in particular the training center to see how the u.s. and allied

trainers are delivering sustained quality training that is helping the palestinian authority to deliver more security on the ground and that program is one that is a joint defense and state program where it is under state leadership. can you give me examples of encouraging exemplars of how the military or diplomatic lead emissions are collaborating effectively given i think we will see more need for this in these sorts of environment's going forward. >> that is the case in iraq and pakistan. it is the case in horn of africa and many parts of latin america and the case in our efforts in parts of asia where we are cooperating. it is most visible in the front- line states of iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan. the example you are giving up

our joint training for the palestinian security forces along with a partner like jordan is one we will have to do more of. it is my goal that we better integrate our civilian and military capacities which is why i am adamant that it cannot talk about national security and leave out the state department and u.s. aid. we had a tradition where financing goes through the state department for reason. we want to build a broader relationships with military that gives them some sense of why it there is civilian control. there is reasons that this requires a government approach.

>> if you were to list the priorities of the cuts that have been named in terms of restoration, where would you began? >> one thing i am worried about -- what i am worried about is with this large cut coming out of the house, there will be pressure for us to meet as much of our mission in iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan to the detriment of the rest of the budget. we will see a very serious impact on all the initial initiatives, global health, climate change, clean energy technology, those were

specifically zero out in the house. we will see a great decrease in our ability to fulfill our missions. we will have to close aid programs in a number of countries where we think it will be to our disadvantage to do so. we have unfortunately a combination of threats here with such a large cut coming out of the house that will severely undercut our ability to meet any of our requirements. the idea of cooperating with the military which i think is one of the offenses we have made over two years, the military will get that money. they will say, the state department budget could not get the money but give us the money. and there will be doing functions that should much more

be done with -- not with the military face but with a few civilian face. it would have a very serious impact on us. >> i know when you came in initially, one of their goals was to expand the language capacity in some of the foreign representation itself. have you been able to do that? is this going to mean we are going backwards from the events as we made? >> we will go backwards in the numbers of personnel. we will go backwards in the talents and skills we are training them to have. one of my goals has been to save money by better integrating state and u.s. aid training so we have the a.i.d. training. getting -- we have been woefully

on resources and thanks to your support and senator lugar, we have built up our capacity again. it will be very difficult for us to put people where we need them. we tripled the number of civilians going to afghanistan. when i got there there were 300 so there were not long -- they were not there long enough. we have 1100. they have full term deployments and they are full partners with the military. we are going to have to make cuts to meet budgetary restraints. >> we touched on that before and you give a terrific answer. i want to bear down if i can. at a town meeting, someone says that is all well and good.

i have some people here who need a better school and i have people here who are having a hard time putting food on the table and so forth. ballots for them what the cost is to them by not doing this. they're not getting out from under something and in your role, you have a lot of examples and it would be good to share. >> i would say what you have said in your town halls. foreign aid, the diplomacy budget is 1% if you look at the state and if you add treasury, the peace corps, it is 1.5%. it is not that 10% or 20%. robb budget. -- raw budget. let's start with factual basis. it is a leverage with our military that cuts at the level that are being discussed would

profoundly compromised our national security. half of the state budget increase from fiscal year 2008 has funded the military to civilian efforts in iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan which we knew we had to fund if we were not going to see a deterioration in security in both -- all three countries. in the middle east, proposed cuts would force us to scale back our help and undercut influence at a time when the u.s. needs to step up and try to influence the course of events in the middle east. we would sacrifice economic opportunities for american businesses. we worked every day on trying to bring jobs and create economic growth in the united states. we would sacrifice american safety opportunities. we would no longer have as many counselor officers during their first line of defense against

those requesting phases and making sure they're not coming here for the purposes. it would be cutting back our peacekeeping efforts. we get a considerable advantage by working with international community's and making our contribution in the condo and -- congo and darfur. dramatically cut our efforts to combat climate change to help lead the world with clean energy. we would cut back severely on what we were doing for children and women around the world. and denying them treatment. we would walk away from our humanitarian aid and food security efforts. there is something in all of this for nearly everybody. if you think that america should be standing up for our national

security which i think is our primary priority, we will be undermining that. if you think we should be looking to open up markets and create jobs for americans, we will be undermining that. if you think we have a moral mission in the world, we will be walking away from 5 million children and family members who would will not treat for malaria and walking away from 3500 mothers and more than 40,000 children under 5 who died because they do not get an effective intervention and we will be turning away people from programs like pepfar and hiv/aids and denying treatment for debilitating tropical diseases. we are generous and we respond to disasters and we often say, why isn't our government doing more on x, y, or z.

we were making progress on delivering aid and having a diplomatic presence and we will be undermining a lot of that work. >> i'm sorry, you unprepared for that. >> i could go on and on but the time is running. >> a superb answer and i am glad i asked the question. i appreciate the answer. >> could add one more? this goes to the heart of it. -- could i add one more thing? we would have 26.3 million fewer measles vaccinations. yesterday on the news, there was an announcement in washington about some visitor from somewhere who had measles and this person had been seen in this bus and restaurant. if you were the between three

and five or on the bus between six and seven, you need to be checked. this all comes home. we do not live in the world any longer we are effectively protected by these great oceans. where are now fully integrated and interdependent and if we do not lead on these issues, i do not know what will happen. >> i will not ask -- i want to get a date pinned down for you and secretary gates on afghanistan. are there any other questions? >> i do not want to preempt the hearing. let me ask this question. our foreign policy in recent times has been characterized by the fact that we were attacked by al qaeda and therefore we

responded by going to afghanistan. president bush it because there was a belief that iraq had a nuclear weapon or even if they did not, we needed to have a nation building exercise in iraq so there would be a state in the middle east that share our values and might influence the others. we came back more strongly in afghanistan because al qaeda -- the instability was apparent and there were problems that invited our attention. president obama when he met with congressional leaders after he came into office indicated we would be leaving iraq and that -- appears to be the case. at the same time later on, i am

sure you were engaged in this frequently, he had meetings with congressional leaders in which he talked about a time of departure from afghanistan. and -- in two -- in 2011. there was a push back from people who said you are signalling the enemy that you're going to leave and this was unacceptable. i would not say the president changed his mind but he said this is the beginning of the process. and bit by bit with european discussion, we got into the 2014 situation. at some point, there appeared to be a promise of some type of evaluation by secretary gates, by yourself, by the president, all of you. what is the course of activity in afghanistan? where are we headed?

press accounts province by province are not promising on some occasions. on other times, there is testimony by our military officers they have made a great deal of headway. members of congress and senator corker have been there, he can speak for himself but others returning find it disturbing conversation with president karzai about his course of action or what he is about apart from others in the country. there is unease as to where and how long and in the middle of this, the rest of us -- there is the rest. what we need is something, some summary judgments or conference

as opposed to there being a sense of drift lower the inability to take decisive action simply because the losses to our military, the losses with regard to our budget and so forth are horrendous. it does lead as you point out to the type of problem we had this morning. the state department budget is being compressed. that trend has been evident for least a decade if not longer. the thought was that diplomats do not get it by you need hard military force and this is where you put your money and there are other things that might be done in a humanitarian way. the thought that secretary gates expressed is that there are things that state department should be doing better, we have been trying to appropriate money and that needs to be discussed candidly.

we're not going to be able to resolve these problems but i would say that i sense a drift with regard to the afghanistan situation and pakistan. i do not know what will happen in iraq but the few poles and others of the iraqi people indicate that there is a great deal of unhappiness. on the one hand, the leaders are afraid we will leave and a good number say you had better get out. we're tired of you. the american people say, after all we have put into this, we have tried to do the infrastructure and on and on. this is not working well. i throw this out maybe for our next time together either on a public conference or in private meetings because i think there are basic issues. absent that, we will have some strange votes in the senate and

house and there will be reflected in budget items because people do not know where to strike and make their voices heard as opposed to it rational discussion where the country is and where we have been. >> i appreciate you're putting into words what i think are the concerns and feelings of many in this body and even outside. i do think we need both the hearings that chairman kerry has referred to and some private discussions. briefly, let me say that the strategy that president obama adopted after very serious consideration, and i can guarantee you when he came into office, the last thing he wanted was to be faced with having to increase our military and civilian resources and assets in afghanistan. he concluded and i agreed that we worked in a never never land.

we were not succeeding. we were not failing. we were just marking time. it was not a good position to find the u.s. in. as a result, the president made what i think were very difficult choices. and that have to make some difficult choices removing commanders and saying clearly to our allies who have the same kinds of concerns that you are to it -- you are expressing. where are we today? i believe the military inputs are right in the civilian inputs are far closer to right than they were. we not only believe that ourselves but we have convinced our nato allies who have also very questioning public's to put in a lot more troops and civilian assets. we have a total of 150,000 troops, 50,000 nato isaf and we

convince 13 muslim majority countries to participate. that is not in any way to discount the difficulty of the road ahead. there is no doubt that it is. we're in a much better position to achieve our goal of transitioning out by the end of 2014 with some confidence that what we're going to be leaving behind has got a fighting chance for success. your reference iraq and certainly, no point in going back and reliving the history of how we got there. but as american troops withdraw, you do not see americans fighting over it. there is a recognition and acceptance that we have done whatever we could do at great cost and life and treasure. we're leaving. we're leaving them a fighting chance for a democratic future which is not read in the bone at

all. there will have to figure out how to do. the significance of having a shiite majority country that is try to be a democracy, trying to balance the sunni, the kurds, and other interests, is being looked at and followed closely. i think in afghanistan, we want to position ourselves to be in a similar place in the next three years. i am well aware of the pressures, the budgetary pressures, the public questioning, just as i lived through what we did in iraq and well aware of how difficult that was. your conscience and questions are incredibly timely and we will do our best to try to enter them. >> thank you. >> thank you and thanks for your patience. also to you, madam secretary. i want to add on where to what senator lugar was talking about in my earlier round of

questioning. we went into afghanistan with not enough troops, things happened, i agree with your assessment that when the president came in, we were in a place that was twixt and two. i support this fighting season with all the resources in place. here is what i am concerned about. i do not think we have articulated yet and pressured down the things we're going to need to pressure down regardless of if there are budgetary constraints are not. we have to do with the partners we have. none of them are perfect. let's face it. the president there is a great politician and plays both sides against the middle and that is what he's doing now. we all understand that. i understand why he does that.

i do think we have got to put downward pressure on our effort. we have went from a place of not knowing exactly what we were going to do to all the sudden this overpowering effort on both sides. i understand wife. that downward trajectory of the building side, the development side to me has to accompany the troop withdrawal process and we need to be honest with ourselves about the budgetary support that will be necessary to maintain their security forces. they could not pay one seventh of their security forces with their own budget. i hope we will have some hearings and we will talk about that were clearly. one other thing. pakistan in order to maintain a program relations, i will not publicly articulate my feelings after meeting with leadership there.

>> thank you. >> that is well said. we can move on to and there. >> that is the most disheartening place in the world to be. when you are talking about the type of relationship we have and these are editorial comments. we wanted to show we were partners, our relationship was not transactional but it is kind of transactional. in every place, helmand cop -- province, everywhere, they are fighting criminality. they are fighting criminality in afghanistan. you go to prison there, we have 80 people that are zealots and the rest of the 1500 were just criminals.

our forces, this huge footprint we have is basically fighting criminality in afghanistan because all the command and control has taken place in pakistan and you want to pull out your hair. they want to pull out their hair and they're watching to see what kind of success we're going to have. there has been that -- some discussion about additional funding to pakistan and i understand the country is a mass regardless of our relationships. i want to tell you as one senator. i supported the efforts and i thank the two leaders for making the strides they did. i will be very slow -- is transactional -- it is transactional and our side is the only one that is being fulfilled. in many ways, we get played like

a piece of music sometimes. factors and of getting -- not the leadership is bad actions, the end of getting u.s. money. i hope we will talk more about this situation and be very slow to talk about additional funding until we see a different behavior pattern and i know we have created our own problems and we have a decade of generals that do not have relationships with america so the unintended consequences of previous legislation left us with a major problem. i am not criticizing you. i am saying, it is hugely disheartening to see what we're doing in afghanistan taking place, knowing that the center of all this is in pakistan and there is no effort to do with it on their part. >> i look forward to our discussions in the hearing

setting and privately. i very much appreciate the seriousness of the comments you have made. >> thank you. let me say very quickly that i also appreciate the seriousness of the comments and as the secretary knows, we are engaged in conversation right now with folks in pakistan. i do think in fairness and the secretary alluded to this earlier, they have also made a lot of choices that one did not expect and the imf and other things have forced a very difficult political decision. they have raised prices and they have done a lot of other things in terms of their economy that creates problems for them internally.

they have done without a huge amount of assistance because the money only began to flow within the last year. they have put 127,000 troops in the western part of that country and take a lot of casualties which nobody fully thought would necessarily happen so there is a balance here. it is a very complicated place with some extraordinary down sides to the options. we do have to have a very serious conversation about the choices we face with respect to it and i will forward to having those with you. you always approached this seriously and listen carefully and work at it hard. we can do this in a thoughtful way. the message is an important one today. i am confident the secretary welcomes it as i do in terms of trying to work through your. if we could spend a minute here. we appreciate again. let me say it publicly.

you have done a superb job today and certainly made it clear to the senate what is at stake and will have an interesting budget debate and you have helped us to frame that. i thank you very much. >> thank you. >> with that, we stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> the people of libya have made themselves clear. it is time for gaddafi to go now, without further violence or delay. >> as the unrest continues, world leaders continue to speak out about the future of a gaddafi-led libya. listen at the c-span video

library. listened when you want. a hearing on preparations for the state department to take over iraq operations from the military. in two hours, niannar gaddafu wynns al qaeda. -- moammar gaddafi blames al qaeda for the uprising in his country. tomorrow morning, we will talk about federal spending .riorities with democratic re james moran. " washington journal" is like every day at 7:30 a.m. eastern.

a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network. homeland security secretary janet napolitano testifies about her budget request at 9:30 a.m. eastern. and mexican president felipe calderon is in washington for meetings with president obama and congressional leaders. he is speaking tomorrow afternoon at the woodrow wilson center. you can see that live on c-span3 at 4:00 p.m. eastern. the trip comes three weeks after alleged drug gunmen killed an agent in mexico and wounded another. >> there is a new way to get a concise review of the day's events. it is "washington today." will take it to capitol hill, the white house, and anywhere news is happening. we will take you to the experts, the politicians, and journalists as we put the day's events in perspective. the stories that matter to you

the most on c-span radio. you can listen in the washington-baltimore area at 90.1 fm on xm radio or c- span.org. you can download the program as a c-span podcast. but the state department will be ready to take over operations in iraq following the u.s. military's withdrawal on december 31. according to a top department official. proposed budget cuts would affect the transition. undersecretary of state patrick kennedy testifying before a house subcommittee along with a on a commission on wartime contract in. this is less than two hours.

>> committee will come to order. we exist to secure to fundamental principles. americans have a right to know that money is well spent americans deserve to know -- have a efficient government. our responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to bring genuine reform. this is the mission of the oversight and government reform committee. i want to welcome everyone here today. this is an exciting time. on a personal note, i appreciate the opportunity to serve as the

chairman of this subcommittee. it is truly a thrill and an honor and i hope to live up to the high expectations i think people have in the roles and duties in this seat. this is the first meeting of the national security homeland defense and foreign operations subcommittee. welcome thee to wra ranking member. while we may disagree, we can be united in our love of country and the function of this committee. i want to welcome those who are here for the first time at the new members who have joined. looking forward to an active year. we're examining the challenges facing the defense department, and the state department as a transition to civilian led effort. november 17, 2008, the bush administration decided agreement which set a december 31, 2011

deadline for the departure of all u.s. forces. the u.s. has withdrawn over 90,000 personnel, 40,000 vehicles, and 1.5 million pieces of equipment. there are fewer than 50,000 u.s. forces in iraq. the state department is ramping up. the department will continue to have a large civilian mission in baghdad to meet the president's goal for an iraq that is sovereign combustible, and self- reliant. in support, the state department will train the iraqi police, operate 8 office of security cooperation to manage sales and train equipped the military and insure that ongoing reconstruction projects are properly transferred. the state department will

employ 17,000 personnel. the cost will be in the range of $6.27 billion in fiscal year 2012 alone. the state department will rely on the contractors for services from food supplies to counter mortar and rocket fire. many have concerns about the ability to meet this daunting challenge and rightly so. the state department's mission is diplomacy, not combat. the commission stated that there is not enough evidence of a thorough, timely, and disciplined planning approach to the transition. commission maintains the state department is not ready. written testimony questions the state department's capacity to execute program elements in the post dod setting. and simply to function in the

unpredictable security situation that will exist after withdrawal. these are echoed by ambassador patrick kennedy. in 2007 he stressed that the state to power would have to duplicate the capabilities of the u.s. military to fulfill the security mission. without the transfer of military hardware including helicopters and mraps armored vehicles -- the defense department [unintelligible] cooperation has been generally praise. the senior leadership of the departments in washington may be playing off on a different sheet of music. the state department may be less

than transparent. personnel have begun restricting the oversight committees access to critical information and personnel. if this is the practice, it must end. this administration must be transparent and forthcoming with the inspectors general said they may fulfil their obligations to oversee the transition. the central issue is whether state department is ready to assume the mission. from all our appearances, the answer appears to be now. or a huge question mark. the administration must work to get this right. members have given their lives. i would like to recognize the distinguished ranking member. >> thank you and congratulations.

to think our witnesses here today. some of us have been old friends as work on this. this is a topic that has been much discussed but it is worth continuing on that examination in light of the budget discussions that are going on right now. we did agree that by the end of 2011 and they have been sticking to that agreement and they are on track. there has been heroic sacrifice at a cost of over $1 trillion. now the task is to make sure that all that hard work and the gains are not squandered and the fragile stability of iraq is not

lost. the president has charged the state department with the responsibility of supporting iraq once the military has left and that transition of operations marks a new role for state. it has been asked to oversee functions under the purview of the department of defense. of concern is the capabilities of the state department operationally and financially. to undertake activities and oversee the increase in contractors operating in theater on a budget that has many orders -- has become many orders of magnitude smaller. the state department is taking on these new functions, we cannot accept the contractors will fill the void entirely. one of the objectives in establishing the wartime contract thing commission -- contracting commission is to insure contractors were not performing functions that were properly reserved for government personnel. during previous oversight

committee hearings, the necessity of identifying either governmental functions living up to this transition was found. in spite of those concerns, [unintelligible] when the hostilities began eight years ago. the transition threatens to make the situation worse. not only do we have functions that have not been clearly defined but according to reports, contract thing is the default option out of necessity for the state department. it does not give much comfort the state is aware of their problems if it does not have the time and resources to properly address them. in written testimony, an expanded presence will require the state to take on contractor