he didn't say, we have to have to have them, but he also didn't say that they were willing really to reconsider. he did bring up the 2012 appropriations bill in the context of his answer so that depending on what you want to read into it, it could mean that some of these policy riders, the fight to defund, prins prince, may end up moving to another discussion about funding the next fiscal year. but again, he didn't outright say that, but he will have to be -- it will be a period of time that he will be dug into those things. >> lots of discussion about who would be able -- discussion about not being able to get a bill off the house floor, if whatever they negotiate has less than $60 billion in cuts. are house republicans going to vote for democratic votes? >> the most logical scenario would be yes, that some democrats would support this in some part of the republican caucus. but because leaders and the freshmen are wedded to these spending cuts, the leadership, the republican leadership may not be willing to split the costs on this issue. >> do you envision a scenario where house republicans are willing to try to get this off the floor? >> well, there are only about two dozen house democrats who are qurd fiscal conserves would be enthusiastic enough about cutting spending that they would be possible allies on something like this. i think it has to do, it depends on what the policy riders are on the bill and what the spending level is. if it is off the charts, i don't think many democrats will be willing to come their way. on the other hand, more democrats than not voted with them to do the two-week extension to keep the government open, seeing no alternative. >> about 335-91 that voted this extension. what did that tell you, hum befment rto? >> that there are some democrats willing to vote for significant spending cuts, but again it is not clear whether mr. boehner is willing to split the caucus and allow that sweet spot number to come to the floor. >> humberto sanchez and -- thank you both for being here. >> the senate returns on monday to continue debate on a bill that changes procedures for issuing federal patents. >> coming up, secretary of state hillary clinton and proposed budget cuts for the state department. and a national foreign relations committee. defense secretary robert gates and chief chair mike mullen testify about the president's budget request for 2012. later, testimony from federal reserve chairman ben bernanke. >> i find the testimony of sports owners to be that they do not participate in the problems of those communities. >> tomorrow on "q & a" best-selling sports author sally jenkins on the intersection of sports and social responsibility. >> on tuesday hillary clinton urged lawmakers not to cut spending on diplomacy and foreign aid. she also told the committee that proposed cuts to the state department and the united states agency for international development, in her words, would be devastating to national security. after her opening statement, she took questions from the house committee panel. this portion is 2:20. >> madam secretary, it is a pleasure to welcome you to our committee. after i have my opening remarks, i ask you summarize your written testimony and then we will move directly into questions. in iran we have moved to the hezbollah ackyix. the union should never have supported a government with hezbollah. with hezbollah in control, what is the justification for continued u.s. taxpayer investments? in egypt and elsewhere successive u.s. administrations failed to move beyond the status quo and prepare for the future. we should not associate the protests in jordan and bahrain with events transpiring in tripoli, cairo, and beirut. there is one constant. we have failed to build strong accountable institutions to protect human rights. this administration's decision to cut support from pro-democracy civil groups and to only fund groups precleared with the mubarak government is a mistake that we must never repeat. then there is the mistake of the bush administration and continued under the current administration to conduct business as usual with the libyan regime following the lifting of u.n. security sanctions sanctions that imposed that included lives -- which included taking the live of two people. madam secretary, i have a letter that they have written requesting yours and director miller's help requesting information on muammar gaddafi's attacks on targets in the 1980's and 19990's. many of us objected to their deplorable human rights. their attacking their own people is proof the aggressors cannot be coddled or engaged. then the administration refused to do anything about libya's gross human rights abuses. days ago the council was forced to act due to gaddafi's regime's slaughter of hundreds of people in the street. however the security council did find time weeks ago to target our democratic al eye, israel. the united states needs to condition its funding to the u.n. on real reform. as administration officials talk about smart power, we neeth need -- need a smart u.n. they need to ramp -- dozens of peaceful protesters. this weekend, cuba sent its shameless thugs after the ladies in white. yet the administration has repeatedly eased regulations on the castro regime. the dictatorship announced its intention to seek a 2046 year -- 20-year prison sentence for allen gross whose trial starts friday. when it comes to those countries that do share our values and priorities, there appears to be no end to the stall tactics and empty rhetoric. our partners in colombia and pan maw have gone above and beyond meeting the politically determined and ever-changing benchmarks placed in the way of long-awaited free trade arrangements. hondurans who fought for their constitution and rule of law are still suffering under the veiled reprisals of our state department. these crystallize the complaints americans have about the state department. i am e-mailed at foreignaffairs .house.gov keep asking, what is the return on our investment? a letter published monday in the miami harold wrote "we are the most generous nation in america and friendly aid should go to shows countries that support our values." some attempt to secure the facts through novel ways of slicing and dicing the numbers. there continue to be significant increases in recent years. the $61.4 billion international affairs request is a 42% increase over fiscal year 2008 levels. the increases are more dramatic when we focus on the state department's own salaries and operations. the $12 billion state programs request say 25% increase over 2010 actual levels and nearly 75% increase since 2008. there is also a problem of misplaced priorities. the administration should also not propose increases while cutting forces in counterterrorism. particularly when they have sites set on american targets and americans are being captured and kille and killed by somali pirates. the country's transition to a more stable and democratic future must forever guide us. pakistan must also do more to meet the pressing united states concerns, including the release of raymond davis, our detained american diplomat, and shifting its approach to afghanistan away from armed proxies and toward constructive and legitimate political partners. we must makes those decisions in light of those facing our government and those that complain about international affairs funding need to ask themselves how much less would an insolent united states of america be able to do? our funding baseline has to change. the real question is not, is this activity useful? but rather, is this activity so important that it justifies borrowing money to pay for it and further endangering our nation's economy? at this point i would like to recognize my good friend and partner, the ranking member for his opening remarks. thank you. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. before i start my opening remarks, i would like to acknowledge the tremendous work of rich verna. rich is sitting behind the secretary. he's the assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs and he will be leaving the state department shortly. he was a fireless advocate for the secretary's agenda and the administration's agenda and for issues of tremendous interest to this committee, including the iran sanctions. i want to thank him for his service and wish him all the best in his next endeavor. madam secretary, thank you very much for being with us here today. geneva yesterday, washington today. it sounds like just a repeat of your regular schedule. we appreciate your opportunity to discuss the international affairs budget and the various policy initiatives you champion as secretary of state. madam secretary, in these challenging economic times, it is critical that we make the most of every taxpayer dollar. international affairs funds some of the most essential elements. i know you are getting the most bang for the buck. last december under your leadership, the state department places a welcome interest on continued monitoring and evaluation of programs, increasing transparancy of aid projects and on aligning priorities and resources. with all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the responsible approach taken in the qddr to achieve cost savings stands in stark contrast to the republican appropriations bill past by the house two weeks ago. the wreckless cuts in that legislation were chosen -- weren't chosen because they looked at programs and said, here's something that's not working or here's something that we don't need to do. no, the total level of rucks was purely arbitrary, plucked out of a hat, and totally unrelate today any thoughtful calculation of how much was needed and how much it should cost. their bill isn't about making government more cost-effective. it doesn't promote the kinds of reforms and streamlining needed to ensure our aid reaches those that need it in the most responsible manner, it is simply a slash and burn process with no consideration for all the critically important work that is being destroyed or how it undermines our national security. the bill satisfyages every program that pro-- savages the poorest. pakistan, haiti, i could go on and on, slashed by 50%. massive cuts in refugee aid. look what's going on in tune eeshia and -- tuni sifment a and egypt right now? programs to fight aids, malaria, and tuberculosis. meanwhile, the aide workers that carry out these programs salaries are also slashed. it ought to be we don't hand over money to contractors and other governments without adequate oversight and accountability. the supporters of the republican bill overlook two critical facts. first, as you madam secretary, secretary gates, and our senior military leadership have said repeatedly, america's national security depends not only on our men and women in uniform, but also on the diplomats and aid workers that risk their lives every day to support america's interests abroad. in fact, 15% of the fiscal year 2012 international affairs budget request is dedicated to supporting critical u.s. efforts in the frontline states of iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan. in the face of mounting deficits here at home, it is important to remember that these civilian efforts are much more cost-effective than deploying our military. second, aid to others isn't a gift. helping countries become more democratic and better at pulling themselves out of poverty is just as important to us and our national security and prosperity as it is for them. as americans we are inspired to see the people of tunisia and egypt and libya rise up to fight for the freedoms we hold dear. we also must guard against the possibility that these movements for change will be hijacked by those determined to restore an -- a form of government hostile to interests in the u.s. as we all know, the iranian regime is continuing its efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability. this remains one of the most pressing foreign policy challenges facing our nation and the economic community. when you testified for this body two years ago, you pledged the administration would pursue crippling safpkses -- sanctions against iran. we have moved in that direction. last year the obama administration had unprecedented success in building diplomatic support for tougher sanctions on iran at the u.n. security council. congress passed the divestment act, the most rigorous sanctions ever imposed on iran. that legislation signed into law helped galvanize international opinion and lay the groundwork. i look forward to working with you to ensure our sanctions are fully implemented. my concern is this, we have not yet sanctioned any bank or energy company, even though we know several are engaged in sanctionable activities. companies need to know there are consequences for these types of activities. so far no company has any reason to think there are such consequences. finally, i do want to express my appreciation for the administration's recent veto of a security council -- which is a powerful credit to your support for israel leading to two states living side by side and israeli and palestinian peace. >> thank you so much, mr. berman. madam secretary, mr. berman and i are honored to welcome you before our committee today. the honorable hillary rodham clinton served for the united states since january 21st, 2009. the latest chathchapter in her four decades career of public service. she served as a united states senator for the state of new york, as first lady of the united states, and of the state of arkansas, and as an attorney and law professor. madam secretary, your full written statement will be made part of the record. if you would be able to summarize your remarks, we can move to the question and answer period in the hopes of getting all of our members to have a question before you depart. the floor is yours. welcome. thank you very much, madam chairman. congratulations on your assuming this post. i want to thank you publicably for -- publicly for traveling to haiti for our team on behalf of the efforts the united states is pursuing there, and i want to thank the ranking member for his leadership and support over these last years. late last night i came back from around the clock meetings in geneva to discuss the unfolding events in libya. and i'd like to begin by offering a quick update. we have joined the libyan people in demanding that gaddafi must go now without further violence or delay. we are working to translate the world's outrage into action and results. marathon diplomacy at the united nations and with our allies has yielded quick and aggressive steps to pressure and isolate libya's leaders. usaid is focused on libya's food and medical supplies and is dispatching two expert humanitarian teams to help those fleeing the violence and who are moving into tunisia and egypt which is imposing tremendous burdens on those countries. our efforts are to support these critical humanitarian missions, and we are taking no options off the table so long as the libyan government continues to turn its guns on its own people. the entire region is changing, and a strong and strategic response is essential. in the years ahead, libya could become a peaceful democracy or it could faste face protracted civil war or descend into chaos. the stakes are high. this is an unfolding example of using the combined assets of smart power -- diplomacy, development, and defense to protect american securities and interests and advance our values. this integrated approach is the most effective and most cost-effective way to sustain and advance our security across the world. it is only possible with a budget that supports all the tools in our international security arsenal, which is what we are here to discuss. the american people are justifyably concerned about our national debt. i share that concern. they also want responsible investments in our future that will make us stronger at home and continuing our leadership abroad. just two years after president obama and i first asked you to renew our investment in development and diplomacy we are already seeing tangible returns for our national security. in iraq, almost 100,000 troops have come home and civilians are poised to keep the peace. in afghanistan, integrated military and civilian surges have helped set stage for our diplomatic surge to support afghan led reconciliation to end the conflict and put al-qaeda on the run. we have imposed toughest-ever sanctions to reign -- sanctions for iran's nuclear ambitions. we have nuclear weapons treaties to protect our people. we have worked with sued knees officials to create a peaceful end to civil war. we are at a remarkable moment in the middle east and we support peaceful order earl irreversible democratic transitions in egypt and tunisia. our progress is significant, but our work is far from over. these missions are vital to our national security, and i believe with all my heart now would be the wrong time to pull back. the fy-2012 budget we discussed today will allow us to keep pressing ahead. it is a lean budget for lean times. i did launch the first-ever quadrenniel development and review to help maximize the impact of every dollar we spend. we scrubbed this budget and made painful but responsible cuts. we cut economic assistance to central and eastern europe. the caucusses in central asia by 5%. we cut development assistance to over 20 countries by more than half. this year for the first time, our request is divided into two parts. our core budget request of $47 billion supports programs and partnerships in every country but north korea. it is essentially flat from 2010 levels. the second part of our request funds the extraordinary temporary portion of our war emplets, the same way that the pentagon's request is funded. in a separate overseas contingency operations account known as o.c. o. we are n reflects our fully integrated military efforts on the ground. our share of the president's $126 billion request for these exceptional wartime costs in the frontline states is $8. billion. let me walk you through a few of our key investments. first this budget funds vital civilian missions in afghanistan, pakistan, and iraq. in afghanistan and pakistan, al-qaeda is under pressure as never before. alongside our military offensive we are engaged in a civilian effort that is helping to build up the government's economies and civil societies of both countries and undercut the insurgenceys. these two surges set the stage for a third, a diplomatic push in support of an afghan process to split the taliban from al-qaeda, bring the conflict to an end, and help stablize the region. our military commanders are emphatic. they cannot succeed without a strong civilian partner. retreating from our civilian surge in afghanistan with our troops still in the field would be a grave mistake. equally important is our assistance to pakistan, a nuclear armed nation with strong ties and interests in afghanistan. we are working to deepen our partnership and keep it focused on addressing pakistan's political and economic challenges as well as our shared threats. as to iraq, after so much sacrifice, we do have a chance to help the iraqi people build a stable, democratic country in the heart of the middle east. as troops come home, our civilians are taking the lead, helping iraqis resolve conflicts peacefully and training their police. . it proposes a new fund that would pool resources and expertise with the defense department to respond quickly as new challenges emerge. the budget also strengthens our allies and partners. it trains mexican police to take on violent cartels and secure our southern border. it provides nearly $3.1 billion for israel and support jordan and the palestinians. it helps egypt and tunisia build a credible democracies. it provides assistance to over 130 nations. some may ask what this gets us in america. let me give you one example. over the years, these funds have created valuable ties with foreign militaries and in egypt, they have trained a generation of officers who refused to fire on their own people. that was not something that happened overnight. it happened because of relationships built over decades. across the board, we're working to ensure that all who share the benefits of our spending also share the burdens of addressing common challenges. we are making targeted investments in human security. we have focused on hunger, disease, climate change, and humanitarian emergencies because these challenges bought only threaten the security of individuals, they are the seeds of future conflict. if we want to lighten the burden on future generations, we have to make investments that make our world more secure for them. our largest investment in global health programs, including those launched by former president george w. bush. these programs stabilize and hired six societies -- entire societies that are being devastated by diseases. they save the lives of mothers and children and stop the spread of deadly diseases. global food prices are approaching an all-time high. three years ago, this led to protests and riots in dozens of countries. food security is a cornerstone of global security. we're helping farmers grow more food, drive economic growth, and turned aid recipients into trading partners. our budget bills resilience against drought, floods, and other weather disasters. it promotes clean energy and preserves tropical forests. it also gives us leverage to persuade china, india, and other nations to do their essentials part in meeting the urgent threat. we are committed to making our foreign policy in force for domestic economic renewal and creating jobs here at home. we're working aggressively to promote sustained economic growth, a level playing field, and open markets. to give one example, the eight open skies agreements we have signed over to it appears will open dozens of new markets to american carriers. the miami international airport supports nearly 300 jobs seek a great deal of new business because of a deal with brazil and colombia. finally, this budget funds the people and platforms that make possible everything i described. it allows us to sustain diplomatic relationships with 190 countries. it finds political officers who are literally right now working to defuse political crises and promote our values. development officers are spreading opportunity and promoting stability. economic officers wake up every day thinking about how to put americans back to work. several of you have asked our department about the safety of your constituents in the middle east. this budget also helps to fund the counselor officers were evacuated over 2600 people from egypt and libya and nearly 17,000 from 80. they issued 40 million passports and served as our first line of defense against would-be terrorists seeking visas to enter our country. i like to say a few words about the funding for 2011. the 16% cut for state and usaid the past in the house last month would be devastating for our national security. it would force us to scale back dramatically on critical missions in iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan. as secretary gates and general petraeus of emphasized to the congress, we need a fully engaged and funded national security team. that includes state and usaid. there have been moments of temptation to resist obligations beyond our borders. each time we have shrunk from global leadership, events have seventh us back -- have summoned us thaback to reality. we're still paying for one of those in money and lives. generations of americans have grown up successful and safe because we chose to lead the world in tackling the greatest challenges. we invested resources to build up democratic allies and vibrant trading partners. we did not shy away from defending our values, promotingour interests, and seizing the opportunities of each new era. have trouble with any of the secretary of state and the last few beers. -- i have traveled more than any other secretary of state in the last few years. the world as never been greater need of the qualities that distinguish us. our devotion to universal values. everywhere i travel, i see people looking to us for leadership. sometimes i see them after they have condemned us publicly on their television channels and then come to us privately to say they cannot do it without america. this is a source of great strength. it is a point of pride. i believe it is an unbelievable opportunity for the american people. it is an achievement. it is not a birthright. it requires resolve and resources. i look forward to working closely with you to do what is necessary to keep our country safe and maintain american leadership in the fast changing world. >> thank you, madam secretary. i will begin with my questions. former libyan officials are claiming to have proof that the coffee -- gaddafi personally ordered the bombing over lockerbie. what are you doing to secure. for criminal prosecution of gaddafi and his henchmen? will the u.s. support the implementation of the no fly s zone over libya? when will the asset freeze be expanded to include those who have been identified by that u.s. sanctions list? when will we institute a travel ban? what is the role of our military in the region? humanitarian support along with our allies? on iran, and i remain concerned that the department is not fully implementing the sanctions law. can you comment on the status of the five countries they waived sanctions against because of a special rule based on their pledge to cease all investment in the iranian energy sector? how many investigations are currently open? will you commit to us to brief the committee and your staff on all investigations that the administration is undertaking on iranians sanctions law? i ask for u.s. protection for the many residents of the camp, many of whom are here today in the audience. they are concerned about their relatives. thank you. >> thank you, madam chairman. when it comes to libya, the united states has led the way in imposing very strict sanctions and preventing the assets from going to be gaddafi family or leadership. we have worked closely with the european union and member countries. they also have many assets from the libyans that they are tracking and freezing. we have passed in an aggressive manner a strong security council resolution on saturday that gives the entire world behind targeted sanctions, humanitarian assistance to. in geneva, i have the opportunity to discuss what more needed to be done. there will be additional announcements coming from other countries and the e.u. united states continues to look at every single lever eat can use against the gaddafi regime. we are aware of his ongoing >> is first and foremost in israel's interest. in addition to that, in the interest of presenting an affirmative effort in the midst of all of this turmoil and change. our work continues. we understand a changed landscape well. i was pleased that the supreme council of the armed forces declared that it would respect the camp david accords. we have made it clear to our egyptian counterparts. we expect that. given what is going on in the region, what is the chance for any kind of breakthrough resolution? we know it is difficult at any time. we believe this is an opportunity for israel. it was reported that the prime minister said he is well aware of the growing isolation of israel in the international community. that is not good for israel's position or leadership. i know the prime minister recognizes that we have tough decisions ahead of us. we work closely with the israeli government. the united nations is not the place for these kinds of negotiations. trying to get the parties back to negotiations remains our highest priority. >> across the middle east and africa, we're witnessing a transformational moment. these countries will need external support as they implement what we hope will be successful transitions to democratic governments. will we be able to see provide support to transitional governments in egypt and tunisia and be prepared to assist in other countries as needed. will we keep in place a policy that restricts u.s. aid from providing democracy and governance support to indios not registered and the egyptian ngo law? >> we will do everything we can to support the transition to democracy that is under way. each country wants something different from us. they either want economic aid for the full menu. it is our intention as we have already communicated with the teams we have sent out under secretary burns -- he just finished an intensive tour talking to a leadership in the key countries. we will stand ready as we have announced with $150 million of reprogrammed money in egypt. we're trying to better coordinate with our european and other partners around the world so that we do not duplicate what is being done. with respect to the question about getting money into certain organizations and individuals -- >> i am going to be a little ruthless. i want to get all of our members in. thank you so much. i know my good friend understands. please yield five minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on africa, global health, and human-rights. >> thank you, madam chair. madam secretary, welcome to the committee. i just returned from visiting our friend and ally japan. i spoke with members of the foreign affairs and ministry of justice regarding the fact that japan has become a destination country, a haven for international child abductions. our foreign service officers and consul general were extremely sympathetic. at least 171 children and 131 broken hearted parents are worried sick and have no access to see their children. all of us want japan to sign the hague convention on international child deduction. that treaty will not solve the current cases. they stand at great risk of being left behind a second time. what is the administration's plan to resolve the current cases? on at least five occasions, president obama has met with them. did he raise the issue of those children and their left behind parents? since 1979, brothers and sisters have been illegal in china as part of the bar. one child per couple policy. for over 30 years, the you and public relations -- the u.n. population fund has supported and celebrated the mass of crimes against humanity. the facts are uncontested. any chinese or to that woman without -- or tibetan woman without a permit can be forced to abort. all unwed mothers are compelled to abort their child. in what can only be described as a search and destroy mission, disabled children are aborted as part of a nationwide eugenics program. each day, a huge compensation fees are imposed on any woman who lacks permission to give birth or somehow evade detection. there is no doubt that the support of the one child policy in china has led to the worst gender disparity in history. where are the missing girls? dead. they were aborted because they were female. there were systematically destroyed over 30 years by sex selection abortion. there are as many as 100 million missing girls in china. gendercide is the evil twin of genocide. according to the world health organization, about 5500 chinese women commit suicide every day in china. it has become a magnet for sex trafficking in large measure because of the missing girls of china. in light of the massive ongoing crimes against women, i would like to know if you or the president raised directly in a face-to-face manner the issue of forced abortion and china when the chinese president was in washington. >> let me start with your visit to japan. thank you for bringing greater visibility to this problem i am deeply concerned about. a created in the department the position of special adviser on children's issues. it is something i have worked on my entire adult life. we actively engaging foreign governments to join the hague convention on child abduction and on adoption i have raised it in every meeting i have had with my japanese counterparts. i have had many japanese counterparts because of changes in their government. i know the president has also raised it. i appreciate your going to japan. i appreciate your kind words about the officers there. this is of highest priority level in the administration. it is not only japan. japan unfortunately has many more of these cases. we're also concerned about south korea and many other countries in asia. our special adviser hosted a meeting for all of our chief submissions from asian countries to encourage that this be put on the top of the list. with respect to the pending cases, it is my belief that if we can get the conventions approved, we will have a stronger argument on the pending cases. i think there will be a recognition that japanese society has changed its views about how the cases should be handled. i think that will open more possibilities for the families that are unfortunately suffering from the adoption of their children. with respect to china, the one child policy, forced abortion, forced sterilization -- >> i am sorry. thank you so much. mr. ackerman, the ranking member of the committee on southeast asia is recognized for five minutes. >> just when it was getting good. it seems like just yesterday the faceless, frustrated for a vendor devoid of a future set himself on fire. now, tomorrow ain't what used to be for most of the rest of the world. we have seen amazing things happen and taking place, things we did not necessarily anticipate. others are watching carefully as well. we see people demonstrating in the streets in countries that to our amazement are not holding up signs that say "death to america" or "death to israel." they're raising their own flags problem without burning hours. they are holding up signs in english. he referred to meeting with people who make statements on tv and in told you something different. their hopes and dreams are directed to us. they are talking to us in our language. it is fascinating. we have to have a plan. they are looking westward. others have been caught flatfooted as well. we see a young man who was one of the leaders in egypt, and islamist secular young man who was ousted wanted to meet. he said mark as a convezuckerbe. this is a new generation of people. they have not been sent out in the streets by their parents to die in the next generation. they have dreams. they're looking to us to help them. what are we going to do? the opportunity is here. why don't we come up with something creative. pick 500 of the finest young men and women from some of our business schools. give them each $10,000. maybe the israelis will do the same theor. send them into these countries. let them find their own future. let them find the way they want to go. this is a new direction. let's not wring our hands and said others will take advantage. the future is not there for us to react to. the future is to be made. do we have a plan? >> we do have lots of plans. i am very excited by your idea. i would welcome every member of this committee to offer ideas that would give us additional ways of interacting with the young people at the base of these transformational movements. let me just say three quick things. we do have a lot of ongoing efforts funded by this congress over many years for entrepreneurial training. the president had an entrepreneurial conference last year where we brought people from muslim majority countries. i run into them all the time when i am traveling in the region. we have a contact that helps to mention them. we can build on that and make it greater. we have other programs, the near east program, that have played a major role in bringing a lot of these young people to the united states on international visitors programs, reaching out to them where they were in their own countries. we have to continue that. this is a labor intensive person by person and outreach program. it is one of our hopes we will get the resources to do that. we have dramatically increased what i call 21st century statecraft so that we have a social connections system so that we're talking to people in arabic and farsi. that has never been done by our department before. we are encouraging young people to be connected to their counterparts around the world. we do have to be aware of what people want from us and what they do not want from us. that is evolving. our embassy, bill burns, and others have been meeting with rep groups, young people who come from the entire political spectrum. we do not want to make the mistake of not including in our dialogue those with whom we have some difficulty. we want them to feel that they can realize democratic aspirations. that is more than just having an election. there is a lot to be done. i think your idea is a very good one. i will follow-up on that. >> thank you, madame secretary. the committee chair on europe and eurasia is recognized for five minutes. >> we take an oath of office when we become congressman. you did as well to protect the united states from enemies domestic and foreign. one of the big concerns i have is our dependence on foreign energy. we import about 65% of our energy from outside the united states. when we had the oil embargo in 1972, we imported about 28%. we are importing more than double the amount of energy we did then. the concern i have is the unrest in libya, egypt -- hold that mop up there. if you look across the northern tier of africa into the persian gulf, you will see the potential for unrest is really severe. i know you are doing your best. nevertheless, there is still the problem. if the persian gulf is bottled up or they do something in the suez canal, we could lose 30% of our energy. we are dependent on that part of the world. this country has not moved toward energy independence at all in the last 40 years. we were importing 28% back in 1972. it is now 65%. our dependency has continued on. we say we want energy independence. t. boone pickens was in to see me a few weeks ago. i have talked to others who say we have the ability to become independent if we really want to do it. because of environmental concerns, we're not moving. we're not drilling off the continental shelf. we're not drilling in the gulf of mexico. we're not drilling in the and bar. we have shale that can be converted into oil. we're not doing a darn thing about it. we are increasing and continuing to depend on foreign sources of energy. this administration is doing nothing to deal with it. they are impeding our ability to become energy independent. we have to do something about that. if we have everything go to hell in the middle east and if our good friend in venezuela, mr. chavez, if they decide to put the kibosh on us, we're really in trouble. can you imagine what would be like to lose 40% of our energy from foreign sources because we're not getting energy in the united states? my question is this. why is this administration -- you are one of the leaders that are supposed to make sure we are protected from enemies domestic and foreign. you know the problems we have in the middle east. you know of the problems we have in venezuela. you know of all these problems. you know of our increased dependence on foreign energy. why is it? can you take a message back to the president and say it is time to get on with it? we need to do what is necessary to become energy independent. the experts with whom i have talked tell us that we can become energy independent in the next decade if we really want to. t. boone pickens says if we did one thing, convert our 18 wheel tractor-trailer units to natural gas, we could cut our dependence on foreign oil by 50% in the next decade. that is one thing. we're not doing a thing about it. this administration is being derelict in its responsibility. i implore you to go back to the president and say that this is not just an economic issue. this is a national defense issue. we're not doing a thing about it. we need to get on with it. i would like to have your response. >> i agree that our energy dependence is a national security issue. when i served on the armed services committee, offered some early legislation so that we would begin to look at alternatives and begin to use the large defense department budget to explore what can be done. i do not think there is any one answer however. i followed up on them by having the first ever international energy coordination -- coordinator. i recommended we have a whole bureau devoted to energy. i do see it as a critical part of our national defense. i would take issue with respect your characterization of what the administration has done. there is a lot that can be done now to make us more energy efficient. there were a lot of programs and funding to move towards energy efficiency. every expert i talked to said it can have a dramatic impact on our foreign and domestic sources. that does not mean we should not look carefully at other things. that is a longer-term prospects. i am worried about right now. i think some of the short-term decisions being made by congress undermine our march towards energy independence. we look -- we have to look at a menu of what can be done. >> ranking member on asia and the sub pacific. >> is always a pleasure and honor for me to welcome you before this committee. i am sure the nation deeply appreciates your service and the outstanding demonstration of your leadership. the president is the chief diplomat in representing our nation and the world. you made a very important speech before the united nations human rights council in your. this morning, you will be making a serious effort to save what is left of the state department ' s proposed a dozen 12 budget. our friends in the majority are proposing to cut by as much as 50% what the administration has requested in order for your department to carry out your many responsibilities throughout the world. it is ironic that you are here as the president's most senior member of his cabinet. your department's budget is less than half a percent of the u.s. gross domestic product or 1% of the entire federal budget. it is my understanding that some of our colleagues -- the majority and suggested we should utilize the 2008 budget operations as the benchmark for the 2012 budget cycle. that means a reduction of about 42% in the administration's proposed budget. my question is whether your department will be able to function with these kinds of proposals that we are considering seriously in the congress. >> it was seriously affect the missions that the state department and usaid have been assigned by this president and the prior president. when the bush administration signed the should teach it framework agreement with iraq, it was filled with the kinds of work that was supposed to be ongoing to solidify the relationship built after our military leaves a rock i cannot stress how strongly it is imperative that we continue the mission in iraq. we're talking about democracy in the middle east. they are trying to figure out how to have a democracy. >> you are going to be hurting. >> not me, personally. it is our country, interest, and security that will be devastated in my opinion. i do have a laundry list for your consideration. i submitted a strong letter to assistant secretary in your department concerning the current crisis by the chilean military forces against the people of easter island. i have not received any response from the secretary or any department or agency. i do not know if he is sick or just did not care or bother to respond. i want to know if the state department has any information or details concerning the plight and suffering of tens of millions of indigenous indians in latin america. they have problems economically and socially in terms of their critical situation. the administration recently announced that you were going to bring usaid back to the pacific. with the budget cuts, does that mean there will be no usaid for the pacific regions? i am talking about 16 island nations that have a need for the program. unexploded ordnance cluster bomb issue for the countries of laos and cambodia that has been going on for 30 years -- and still do not understand what happened there. i think my time is about ready to go. >> i will get answers on all of these. let me respond on usaid presence in the pacific. here is an area where we're finding large energy deposits. i am sorry that congressman burton is gone. in the new guinea planned mass there's a huge deposit that exxon-mobil is developing. we're in competition with china. it is unbelievable. they're spending enormous amounts of money. they have a huge diplomatic presence across the pacific. it would be great to have usaid office in new guinea to fly the flags of people know we care about them. that will be on the chopping block. it stands for a bigger challenge we're facing in that region of the world. >> china has about a $600 million development program for the pacific island nations. what do we have? zero. >> the chairman of the subcommittee on oversight and investigation is recognized. >> madam secretary, let me compliment you on your energy and clarity after arriving here from meetings in europe and arriving late last night. i do not know how you do it. you do a terrific job in educating -- advocating for what our administration wants to abdicate. i would like for you to be specific. did president obama confront president hu during his visit to washington on the issue of forced abortion? i think that could be answered with yes or no. >> we consistently raised that with the chinese. >> is that a yes? president hu was confronted by president obama? >> i cannot answer yes or no on that particular visit. i can tell you that we consistently raise a in our diplomatic in counters with the chinese. >> as president hu been confronted with the issue of forced abortion by our president? >> this is an issue i started racing in 1995. i continue to raise its. i am the chief diplomat. i raise it in every setting that i can. >> if you cannot give us a yes or no now, maybe you could get back to us. we will call you on this as to whether president hu has been confronted himself on the issue of forced abortion. >> i will certainly do that. >> i only have a couple of minutes to ask you some questions. i agree with the question. and is also doing mr. smith of favor. -- i was also doing mr. smith a favor. [laughter] i would like to ask you about the nature of foreign aid. it seems when we are talking about the amounts of money being spent, the billions of dollars we spend, does it make any sense at all for us to be borrowing money and china -- from china and giving it to other countries, especially giving it back to china? i noticed in your budget request and you are asking for $1.3 billion -- it says here for the global fund. the global fund assistance program, happens to be the fourth largest recipient -- china happens to be the fourth largest recipient. it has received almost $950 million. what sense does it make to borrow money from china and then give it back to them and the grant? we are paying the interest on the money we borrowed from them. this is insane. >> you will not get an argument from me. in an indirect way, as part of the lasted ministries in that balance the budget. i wish we had stuck with it. we find ourselves in a challenging position because of what happened between 2001 and 2009. i believe we have to be smart and tough and do what is necessary to balance the budget. i do not believe it can be done by slashing the foreign aid and state department budget. we do support the global fund. it has been an efficient way for the united states to amplify our own efforts with respect to pefar. china has been a recipient. they have taken greater responsibility from the time when they used to deny even had an aids problem. hiv is a communicable disease that affects the world. we want to stamp it out wherever we find it. >> yes, it does make sense for us to borrow money from china and give it back to them as a grant as part of the global fund assistance? we can disagree as to who caused the problems for the economy. let's just note that we are $1.5 trillion more in debt this year and the year before since this administration has taken power as compared to the last year of the bush administration. as to who is responsible for that, we can talk about that later. let me talk about aid to pakistan. pakistan has received billions of dollars for its aid, and yet they have a u.s. citizen who is being held under questionable circumstances. are we still going to give our money away to people support the taliban? >> we are working hard to achieve the release of mr. davis. we believe the combination of aid is in our interest. >> let me just rush and say that it is great to see you again. let me commend you for the work you do. i am also distressed that h.r. 1 as it relates to our foreign affairs issues on international family planning, a debt restructuring for haiti -- there's a 49% reduction in disaster assistance funds that help clean water, emergency shelter, health care, the sector -- etc.. there is a 17% decrease in the peace corps. everyone says it is the greatest program in the world. there's a 29% reduction in the millennium challenge corporation. we could go on and on. it is insane where it is indicated the 1% of our budget goes to foreign affairs. . it will not solve anything to have 0.5% going to alleviate problems in the world. >> i would hope there would be some changes made on the budget question. let me quickly ask some questions in regard to south sudan with the recent elections. it will prevent us from getting in there and assisting the new government. i am concerned that we do not give up tough sanctions on the regime until things are concluded in south sudan and the darfur situation. i would also hope we can step up our support for the transitional federal government in sudan. i think there is a new offensive going on. if we can support the african peacekeepers will try to have the new offensive, i think we can secure the area in somalia. i will stop there and give you the opportunity to answer a couple of those questions. >> i appreciate your listing the cuts in h.r. 1. those will have a dramatic ability -- impact on our ability to wield our power. that is what i am interested in. i am interested in results for america. if we're going to people empty- handed, having to close offices, and cut back programs so we do not have the relationship that enables us to turn around and say, remember us? we did that with the egyptian military. we trained you. here is what we think you can do. we will be weakened. that is the bottom line. it is not a pleasant thing to say. at this moment in history as much as any, it is not like there is no competition out there. iran and china are competing with us. we have people more than happy to step forward and fill the void that we leave behind. i was struck that the conservative government in the united kingdom actually increased their development budget. they were cutting everything else. they said that if we do not compete and are not present, we're really going to be off the map. they are actually increasing their development budget. on these issues like south sudan, darfur, somalia -- the united states is the major player. i think we deserve a great deal of the credit for helping the sudanese referendum for south sudan to go peacefully. we are deeply engaged in working to resolve abia. we're still focused on darfur. we're the largest supporter of the african union forces taking the fight to al shabab that is allied with al qaeda. i could go around the world and point to where our diplomatic efforts coincide with our security challenges and what our military is doing in places where our military is not present where we are the only representation of american power. it is up to congress to make this decision. as i said in my opening remarks, every time we pull back, we have paid a bigger price. that is what i worry about. >> it has an impact on our chocolate industry. that is a big industry in new jersey. we are interconnected financially. >> thank you, mr. payne. the subcommittee chairman on asia and the pacific. >> thank you madam chair. madam secretary, is good to have you here. i represent the 16th congressional district of illinois, not too far from park ridge. 26% of our manufactured items are exported. we have over 10,000 jobs directly related to foreign direct investment from denmark, sweden, germany, italy, israel, and other countries. this past week, i led the largest congressional delegation ever to new zealand and australia to discuss the trans- pacific partnership. i appreciate your going there in december of last year and signing the wellington declaration that strengthens our ties with that part of the world. we got out two hours and 21 minutes before the earthquake hit. it was fortuitous on our part. our relationship with new zealand and australia is extremely important. i am delighted that the prime minister will visit the united states next week and speak before a joint session of congress. as a result of our discussions, i learned the new zealand government is in the process of free authorizing their patent system. that will remove patent protection for software. we discussed that at length with the trade minister , to grossman -- tim grossman. the australians are in the process of adopting the rules for tobacco. and adversely impacts the use of trade marks. many people see the use of the patent system to enforce social change as being adverse to our strength as we know it. these issues concerning loss of patent protection for software and for trademark protection are disturbing to the nine countries involved in those negotiations. those go back probably 10 years through several different administrations. that is especially in light of china's continuous theft of intellectual property and outright theft of american businesses, including a couple in my congressional district. my question to you is, are you aware of these patent issues and trademark issues? i would like to know your thoughts on them. i would like to know what america is going to do to try to turn around new zealand and australia to a higher level of patent protection. >> congressman, first of me say how pleased i am that you and your large delegation were safe. we had some very tense moments trying to make sure that all of the americans who were part of the large delegation were accounted for. thank you. with respect to the tpp, the state department does not have the lead on this. it is the united states trade representative. we work closely with them. it is essential that we work with our friends and allies in countries like australia and new zealand to make sure they understand the implications of their internal, domestic legislative changes. we are doing so. i share your concern. we have the biggest stake in the world in improving the protection for intellectual property. we do not want to see close friends and allies remove those protections. china remains the largest violator. we've tried to push them to recognize that as they develop, they will also want the protection for their own intellectual property and need to be part of an international regime. we are aware of this and working on it. i will keep you informed of how the negotiations proceed. >> thank you. i yield back my time. >> wowee. thank you, man of the year. the ranking member of on terrorism, non-proliferation, and trade. >> i join with him in amazement at your energy that is exceeded only by my amazement that don yielded back part of his time. i think this is your first of four hearings with two congressional committees over the next few days. i have so many areas to pursue, i will mostly put down questions for the record. you will have a few minutes of relaxation. the free-trade agreement, what worries me is goods coming into the country duty-free, manufactured by north koreans with chinese labor. the automobile could be 65% made in china. it could be taken to south korea where it would be finished by chinese guest workers residing in barracks in south korea. the car could into the united states duty-free having never been touched by a south korean worker. of greater concern is something outlined in a letter to the president. i know your staff is working on a response to that. it deals with the special industrial zones in north korea. north korean slave labor is provided to south korean companies. the south korean ambassador to the united states is on the record as saying he believes the caribbean free-trade agreement will pave the way for goods entirely produced in these slave labor zones to enter the united states duty-free. if you review my letter, if you will see it looks like the south korean ambassador has a very good legal point. that is all the more reason why we need to change the agreement before we submit it to congress, particularly the annexes described in my letter. i applaud your efforts to liberalize our export controls without hurting our national security. the goal has got to be jobs. sometimes liberalization leads to exporting the jobs. if something is taken off the munitions list, it could be manufactured in china and imported into the united states. if you license the export of tools, dies, plans come and technology, that could lead to goods produced abroad. i hope the prioritization is given to projects that will provide more jobs rather than more of shoring --off shoring to the american economy. i think the ranking member did an outstanding job in pointing out how important this is. the state department began a number of investigations, particularly of chinese companies, back in september. under the law, the state department is to complete that within six months, next month. the question for the record there is whether the u.s. is prepared to sanction of firm located in a major trading partner of the united states, also known as china. if we're not willing to sanction any company in china, if we're looking to delay decisions where six months ought to be long enough to make a decision, we make a mockery of our policy towards iran and the rule of law in the united states. the law does require certain actions. . . a number of well respected foreign policy experts have said the mek should be taken off of the list. want to mention, general james jones, olli richardson, and others recently. i asked for a classified briefing of the relevant information and they refused because of the litigation. the intelligence committee provided it. frankly after the classified briefing, i thought it was something but a century that justified the mek being on that list and provided ammunition to the belief is part of a peace offering to iran. i hope you will personally review the decision the court has ordered your department to review. finally, the issue of libya. in may in the future be good policy for us to armo them if they have a functioning provisional government. i wonder to have looked over u.n. sanctions than the one lot if it is decided to be law. if, god forbid, there is a major effort, let's make sure the right side wins. i yield back. >> without exception, members may have five calendar days to submit questions for the record for the secretary, mr. sherman, which we will get some answers. >> have been like to ask unanimous consent to that my letter be included in the record. >> madam secretary, on the question of libya, i think one of the important resources could be libyan americans for their input. one lady and has testified is here this morning. samantha power in the administration had some observations. some of these had to do with would be did not do in bosnia and in terms of jamming radio stations. i carried legislation on doing this, but we cannot get it through until the bombing started. i think if we look at the lesson in rwanda, one of the lessons is that when a dictator is telling people to kill his own people and there is an opportunity, especially given the fact that he is jamming anyway, why do not put the assets up to take care of that? in any way, it is a information more. i just wanted your response to that. i wish just going to ask you briefly in terms of another problem on the african continent that your very bothwell barrera of wit -- very well aware of with the lra. he exists to pillage. he grabs children's soldiers. we now have passed the authorization over for that plan. i was going to ask you about implementation at that point to remove him from the equation. thank you. >> the idea is that you have offers regarding libya as ones that we are seriously considering as part of the package of potential actions that are being looked at by both our civilian and military teams. this is an information more to a great extent. when we have done in the last two years is to try to rebuild our credibility. i did a web chat with an egyptian website and we gave them two days notice. they went out in tahrir square and got 7000 questions. people are really anxious to hear from us. as you rightly pointed out, they are anxious to point from each other like the egyptian shoulder idea which is a great one. -- egyptian soldier idea. i could not agree more about the horrors of the lra. this is when the great criminals of the last 50 years who has pillage, rape, adopted, kidnapped, killed in every way known in the worst of barbarism. we are very focused on that. as you know, he has been harder to get than we would have thought. we have had a lot of support from allies and partners but unfortunately he has escaped accountability. we're going to continue to do that and we appreciate you keeping that in the spotlight. >> one last question i was going to ask which went to the request that north korea is making to the administration for today. we have had meetings here in which a french ngo traced to the food aid they had given and found that it ended up on the p'yongyang food exchange being sold for hard currency for the regime. she testified to us as a representative of the ngo is the same information we have also received from the minister of propaganda, i guess you would call him, for 50 years and he defected. one of his former employees in north korea had told the press yesterday the same thing he once told us. the quote is "we must not give food aid to north korea. during the same as providing funding for their nuclear program." what had transpired is that he explained to us how they took hard-currency, what they needed to build their weapons program, and they would get it anyway they could. one way they got it was by the financial support that they received. i was going to say that it is wise counsel that we do not do that and i would ask for your opinion. >> thank you so much, madame secretary. >> i am glad you agreed. >> mr. meeks of new york is recognized, the ranking member on the subcommittee for european eurasia. >> thank you, madam chair. madam secretary, great to see. and to commend you and all of the diplomats under year for the tremendous efforts of the state department to insure security and prosperity during the challenging times. through your skills using advocacy around the world to rebuild reliable partners and bilateral engagement, you're making, indeed, america a safer and stronger nation. we have within our nation -- are office a pearson the fellow who has done a tremendous job commanding foreign service. there are too many questions to rassa san time is of the essence. i will ask questions later, but before i get to the questions, i want to preface my statements with an overarching concern with the current budget proposed by the republican majority. the current administration inherited a jew "cold reality riddled with anti-americanism. now that our reputation is being restored and there is such an opportunity for positive change, is this a time that we really want to pull back on the support of critical programs and initiatives? this is more than just a penny wise and pound foolish but downright dangerous to our national interests. when you talked earlier in regards to europe, even though they were tightening their belts, they are also putting more money into foreign aid. when the questions i will have would be the partnership we have with your pen whether or not we then began holding up our end of the bargain when we talk about foreign aid. this brings me to the specific point of almost half of the funding being cut from the population, refugees, and migration budget. i'm concerned above all marble populations like after-colombian and the indigents that live in the crossfire of conflicts not of their own making. do we lose in the progress we made to make their lives more secure as a result of our own hemisphere? my question, madam secretary is since the united states as a leader of the displaced populations, what would the funding cuts for the refugee assistance account have on the assistance of refugees overseas? how would reducing funding force displaced populations in areas such as pakistan, iraq, sudan? what problems do we have about the consequences of drastically reducing the system to refugees? >> thank you, congressmen, and thank you for raising the refugee assistance issue. the united states has been, and i hope will remain the leader in dealing with refugee challenges, internally displaced people, people fleeing from conflicts, and it has been one of the areas where we are able to claim that we put our values into action because we are there on the ground. you have been in refugee camps and you see the usaid sign and you know what it means to have experienced development experts to provide the base for a safe place whether it is in the eastern condo or a flood in pakistan in haiti, or anywhere else. this is a particular concern that we be prepared to continue the humanitarian work that undergirds a lot of what people know about us around the world. i thought to be sure that when we go into these post conflict, post-disaster situations that the united states brand is front and center. when i got there, and there was a feeling that we would be there trumping our horn. it is the taxpayers putting the money out there and people do not want american aid, if they do not want usaid and/or programs to be there helping there, then we will not be there, but if they're right to take it, we will be advertising. it is a big part of what we're doing, because when i found traveling around the world is a lot people do not know what we did, you know? they say the chinese are doing this and the saudis are doing that and the so-and-so's are doing this. but we have more money in their than those guys combined. we will get credit for it. it is, doing the right thing which should be the primary reason we do it, but frankly i want to build the american brand again so that when people get food, clean water, shelter, they know where it came from. it came from the generosity of the american people. this is, for me, a big issue, and we're doing even more to try and get that message so that we can be the leader that i think the american people, with their generosity want us to be. >> that me ask this, the other concerns that i wanted to raise were the no. distribution networks and how effective that has been for the u.s. efforts in afghanistan and what can be done to utilize that works to improve u.s. relations more broadly in central asia? again being on this trip recently, we have not connected with all of those and it is such an important part of the world. >> that is an important part of it. think of. >> thank you so much. i am pleased to give five minutes to the gentleman from ohio. >> before beginning my questions, madam secretary, let me remind some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to keep bemoaning the cuts in the cr that we are broke. the only reason this congress is even dealing with the sea are is because the last congress could not even pass a budget for the first time in 34 years, at least in the house, and then could not pass appropriations bills to keep the government functioning. that being said, let me begin my first question with libya. madam secretary, it is difficult to look at the initial u.s. response to the unrest in libya and think of any word other than "tepid." although the administration has suggested that their initial reaction was tempered in order to avoid -- to avoid provoking a hostage situation, it did not hinder other nations. the chinese, the british, and others in dispatched two warships and employed air evacuation operations. at the same time, our ferry was stuck in port because it could not initially make the journey across the mediterranean. everything we have learned about the khaddafi regime over the past decade indicates that their leadership responds to force or the threat of force. for example, back in 2003 when gaddafi, after looking at the easter which the u.s. military in dispatched the iraqi army, they feared that he might be next. his response was to agree to renounce of terrorism and hand over his and tired of the of the program. -- his entire wmd program. they said there'd be a steep price in intervening. there's our unwillingness on the threat to use force. it has left many pointing to this as being weakness of american will. will lead to believe that the threat of force would have been provocative? >> other countries do not have the same history with libya that we do. if you look at some of the early statements that were coming out of gaddafi and his leadership team, they did not talk about the chinese. they talked about the americans. our embassy was overrun in libya in 1979. we feel that we did this in a prudent and effective manner. we did it in a way that did not raise the alarm bells around the region and run the world that we were about to engage. if you follow, as we do, of the websites that are looking at what is happening in the middle east, you see a constant drum beat the united states is going to invade libya and take over the oil and we cannot let that happen. well, we're not going to do that and we're going to side with the libyan people in their aspirations so the last thing in the world we want this to start off with military assets and we very effectively gut our people out. the seeds for high for all of the other evacuators, so i disagree fundamentally with your assumption. i see no evidence that anyone thinks less of us because we were smart about how we got our people, not only our embassy but our citizens who are working in libya are safely. as soon as we did, we pivoted very quickly and led the way at the security council, have led the way in pushing beyond the rhetoric which europeans and the others and it is easy to make a speech and harder to impose sanctions to target the arms and etc.. i think we handle this in a very effective way and without a single problem for any american. >> madam secretary, let me move on. we have limited time. on the iranian nuclear program, to talk about that next. during the latest renegotiations with the iranian regime in istanbul, they were adamant in emphasizing their right to indigenous in richmond. a recent bipartisan letter from numerous senators this reflects the overwhelming view of congress on this question. it is still, however, on a clear, what the administration's position is. the letter cited reports suggesting that the administration is open to an indigenous and richard capability, albeit under certain capabilities. d.r. einhorn plan will allow them to maintain 4000 centrifuges. he even went so far as to suggest during an interview with the bbc that iran has the right to enrichment. article for the nonproliferation treaty caught -- to become the source of their climb, is not clear on this point. what is the administration's feelings on their claim that they have a right to an enrichment program on their soil. does the administration believed the current regime should be allowed to enrich or reprocessed domestically? >> it has been our position that under very strict conditions iran would sometime in the future having responded to the international community concerns and irreversibly shut down their nuclear weapons program have such a right under iaea inspections. that is the position of the international community along with the united states. >> thank you, madam secretary. the ranking member of the said committee on oversight and investigation. the reason i interrupt is because we have limited time and everyone wants to ask questions. i apologize, madam secretary. >> welcome, secretary clinton. personally for the work they do and on behalf of the people represented in missouri, we appreciate you being a one- person voice of america at a time when we really need it. thank you. i wanted to submit to the questions to you in writing, what about our continued work. we had an oversight subcommittee hearing last year and we heard from stohr: -- stuart bowen. we would like to hear on reconstruction efforts in ever like to get a written question and to you about the ongoing engagement with the bosnia for constitutional reforms and the need for u.s. engagement with the eu. i would like to focus my question really about the voices of democracy that are rising across the middle east, north africa, and elsewhere and the need to reevaluate our public diplomacy tools. certainly looking beyond our traditional state to state diplomatic efforts the bounces and the citizen diplomacy and the cost effectiveness of that. i would respectfully remind you of that. this past week, we had a bipartisan town hall meeting with congresswoman emerson at washington university. a student came up to me there who strutted in cairo the previous year and was continuing to have contact with students there in cairo and those kind of engagements are so critical in those countries. could you talk about that? >> i agree completely, congressman. if i could double or triple our student exchanges, particularly into this region right now where we have more of our students going to cairo, to tunis, to iman were young people are voicing their desire for democracy and more people coming from those regions. we try to increase our international visitors program and specialized programs, but i'm a big believer in the people the people diplomacy in public to see is doing even more of that. >> what about the use of immediate? >> we are moving very rapidly on the use of the media. i have an extraordinary team of young people, as you might expect who are leading the charge on this. it has totally changed how we are communicating. twitter, facebook, they are in real time. you cannot overlook broadcasting, and frankly i wish we were doing a better job in our broadcasting efforts. i met with walter isaacson here is the new chairman of the broadcasting board of governors. al-jazeera is 247. the chinese have started in english language television network, the russians have started an english language network. we should be, by far, the most effective in communicating. yes, social media is very important, but still most people get their news and images from television and radio. we cannot forget old media what we try to break new ground in the new media. >> finally, i wanted to touch on another hearing we had last year with ambassador of large talking about women's empowerment, worldwide. i really have serious concerns about the recently passed c.r. with the reinstatement the global gabbro, the reductions in international family planning, global health assistance. some the programs of president, george w. bush was so supportive of them. could you talk about how this would impact when men, who are so vital to development and how would impact those communities and translate to our economic security? >> this is very close to my heart. a woman-and complications in childbirth every minute. about 529,000 each year. we have made a lot of progress but we have a long way to go. i am worried that the house 2011 budget proposes $1 billion in cuts to global health and that means 5 million children and family members will be denied treatment or preventive intervention on malaria, 3500 mothers and 40,000 children under the age of five, 60,000 being newborns, when market access to child survival intervention. will have to turn away and 4000 people who require by sitting treatment against hiv/aids. 6 million people been denied treatment for debilitating tropical diseases. children and sharon -- family members will be denied treatment for tuberculosis and will have 18.8 million fewer polio vaccinations and 26.3 million your measles vaccinations. that affects us. i woke up this morning and was listening to the news and i heard about the effort to find some woman wandering around washington with measles. this is not just what we fail now to do for others. that is how it will come back in fact our own house here at home. >> thank you matter -- madame secretary. mr. paul from taxes. -- texas. >> i wanted to comment about the demonstrations in the change of government going on in the middle east and the mediterranean. i'm a toys hopeful. i am hopeful, not overly optimistic, because of the long- term history, if they do not readily adapt to true liberty. the one thing that might be different is the use of the internet which is a very positive indian government is very strong and that is the first thing they shut down because the last thing that governments want disinformation to get out. a lot of people in this country have come to the conclusion that our policy has been inconsistent and sometimes we support the bad guys and bad guys become our enemies. for instance, we worked with osama bin laudanum when he was fighting the soviets. we were allies with saddam hussein when he was fighting the iranians. we propped up the shop ran for 26 years and that bred resentment and hatred and assured in an age we are dealing with with the radicals in iran. it goes on and on. now we have propped up saudi arabia for a long time, sold a lot of weapons, and yet 15 of the saudis were part of the 9/11 disaster and even the 9/11 commission said our presence there had a lot to do with that. we keep supporting algeria, morocco, yemen, all these dictators, yet we pretend that as soon as a list of the dictator my father we're for democracy, freedom, and against the dictators. i do not think the people there understand and i do not think our people quite understand either. you mentioned in your comments about libya that nothing should be taken off the table which is coming to me, a little frightening because the previous administration would say that when asking questions about pre- emptive war, nuclear attacks and it scared the living daylights out of me when nothing is taken off of the table. i dread the fact that we may consider military activity in libya. we are flat out brokenly of these countries. the war is expanding. we're bombing in pakistan, dealing with young men. we really do not have total control of iraq and partial control of afghanistan. it goes on and on. the question i have is is there not a limit to supporting these dictators? i take a position which is the least of all the better when dealing with people on different terms rather than saying we will buy our friends. a friend bought is not a friend. a friend coerced by military power is not a friend and breed resentment. what would be wrong with swearing off support and aid for all dictators? just think of what might happen in the middle east if you did that? we supported the chip to. they have a lot of weaponry there. now, who knows what friends they will have with israel? why would israel not be a lot better off if we swore off all aid to all dictators in that country as a moral position and a good position for our natural defense and our national security as well as a good position for israel. >> congressman, you make a very passionate argument and my response is that the united states over the course of its entire diplomatic history has had to make some very difficult decisions and we try to balance what we believe to be in our interest, sometimes, and most times beget a right, sometimes we do not. taking gypped, for example. i believe it was in the american interest and in israel's interest to support egypt following the camp david accord. 30 years of peace between egypt and israel, albeit not a warm and fuzzy peace, but nonetheless peace, was an essential elements of the israel ability to develop and continue to strengthen themselves in a very tough neighborhood. the fact that we did have those relationships in inject with possible for us to have very frank conversations and parental renouncing going on in libya. >> mary interrupt to ask is there no chance in the world that israel may not be better off under these conditions? it seems like they could be worse off with what is happening over there. these dictators will have our weapons and they may well be turned against israel. >> the qualitative military edge we guarantee israel protect against that. certainly in my conversations, we prefer predictability, stability, and do not want a backing tree and that could lead to very bad outcomes. >> i want to thank you for the service you give this country and all those years the have and the way icarian represent america to wrap the world. thank you very much. secretary gets made a statement that was very curious. he said any secretary of defense that i could recommend we use ground forces should have his head examined. the wars that we are in, all of the billions of dollars that we need to bottle the deficit, is that a recognition that unless it comes from the people of those countries that we really should not go in with armies? we're just going to squander our resources and we will not get anywhere. >> with the secretary of defense was saying should be heeded. it is a very strong warning. i also believe that there are situations where we have no choice and we need to be very clear that it is the only in the best choice available to us. >> i am concerned about these countries and i hope we do not get ourselves in a ground war. the second situation has to do with cuba. we seem to be making concessions and we seem to be doing all of the things that the government wants, yet it the same time they are one of the biggest abusers of human rights. they put more people in jail, and they beat up people and we appropriated money and we have not spent a dime of it. >> we are committed to spending that money. we're trying to do so that will strengthen engagement with the cuban people. you are aware of the terrible abuses by the castro government against cubans but the holding one of our usaid personnel who was trying to get aid into cuba. we remain committed to a dancing policies that will assist cubans on the ground. -- we are committed to advancing policies to cubans and the cuban people. >> i went to columbia for the swearing in of the new president. i thought that it was a little weak in terms of representation for mayor state department that we have this -- from our state department. we did not see too many people from the state department. now i see the president will fly from brazil, over colombia, to el salvador. i hear about what a great neighbor colombia is but we do not do the right thing. they have made remarkable changes. i go there rjust about every year. is it not time that we move on colombia and panama? >> thank you for going. the representation from the united states is on the part of our engagement with president santos. we have maintained a close relationship with him and his government. we think we're very proud that the united states has been a partner for the colombian people for a long time so they can realize the benefits of the development that you have attested to. we are strong supporters of the colombian and panama free trade agreement. it is in america's interest and we're working very closely with them and the congress to make sure we can do that. >> thank you, madam chairman. >> mr. pence, the vice chair of for the committee on the eurasian and the middle east. >> it is good to see you back before the committee. i also want to thank you specifically for the efforts by the administration to further isolate libya during a time of extraordinary tragedy in the streets, a tragedy of which we are probably only partially aware. i want to continue to encourage and urge the administration to stand with those who are standing in the bifurcated country to use all means at our disposal to provide support. i support mr. royce's comments on isolating communication and would appreciate your efforts at geneva and elsewhere to facilitate a coordinated international response including a no-fly zone. gaddafi must go. i'm grateful to hear the secretary of state and the administration to take that position unambiguously. i would think you for mentioning president george w. bush's initiative in your testimony. we have not gotten as much praise about that and the the last couple of years which i think is warranted and your comments are most welcome. let me take you back. in your testimony today, you make reference to the 16% cut for state u.s. aid as being "devastating to our national security." i allow your your opinion on that, of course. let me say that i'm more associate with your statement on september 10th, 2010, in which were quoted on saying as, "our rising debt levels pose a national security threat." those were remarks to make to the council on foreign relations. a couple of facts that i would love to get your response to them. you use the no. 16% and i will not question your staffs arithmetic. we have a pretty long debate over the inclusions, but as we have broken it down, the projects that were eliminated in the based tax, for your information, include $300 million in the contribution to clean technology, $75 million eliminated in the strategic climate fund, $55 million eliminated from the u.n. population fund that has been a source of great controversy, $5.75 million eliminated from cultural preservation, global diversity trust took a $10 million head. you'll forgive me if i see none of those as devastating to our national security. in terms of their reductions of programs, even after you factor in the programs we are eliminating and those that are reduced, as the chairman pointed out, we still have a rather significant increase over 2008 levels. at a time when we are facing a $1.65 trillion deficit, a deficit contributed to by leaders of both political parties come let me stipulate, a $14 trillion national debt which could very well double to over the next 10 years, i find myself more associated with your sept. comments on the council of foreign relations than the assertion that a 16% cut in the budget that has been greatly expanded and to use your words "devastating to our national security." i would raise that by way of asking for your response. where do we cut? where do we began if we cannot do without programs like the clean technology fund, strategic climate fund, the fund for cultural preservation, if we cannot suffer a modest reservation that still leaves us above the 2008 levels. i would welcome your response, where do we begin to put our fiscal house in order? i was one of the members of this committee that helped to engineer a couple of times the passive -- the passage of the program. i cheerfully expose my republican record. the passion of the american people as expressed in a manner in which we help other nations in the two-thirds of the world in need. we are in trouble. this country is going broke. we have to ask the department of this government, with the exception of those who are downrange in the field in uniform and our veterans, we need to look at every aspect of the government to see where we can save. where is the right place to start in what remains of the time? >> i appreciate your thoughts of question and i recognize the dilemma. i guess my plea would bee we lok hard at what we are doing that as part of national security. i would like to see what we are doing in the front line states, for example, treated in the same way as the military overseas contingency operations. what will happen is that the obligations we face in iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan, which are really in support of our military that has sacrificed so much, is either going to save the games or lose the cams. >> thank you, madam secretary. >> i like to add my voice as well to thank you for your passionate defense of american values as you travel over the globe as our top diplomat. there were reports about the iaea quarterly report that have disclosed new information that iran is exploring ways to affix a nuclear weapons on long-range missiles. the report stated that iran is trying to move into reducing the time needed to produce weapons- grade fuel. iran is continuing to expand production of nuclear fuel according to the iaea and they now possess over 8,000 pounds of uranium, enough to build two or three of nuclear weapons should they go forward. the president stated that their development of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable and that we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening. i ask, madam secretary, if you could speak to the efforts of the administration specifically in enforcing success to date and then i will follow up. >> thank you, congressman. we have put together, thanks to the work of this committee and others, a very effective sanctions regime which we're constantly looking to improve, to tighten, to strengthen, and we welcome the advice from this committee particularly. when we passed that, it was on top of the iran sanctions act. i oppose -- and i impose sanctions for the first time on the swiss-based iranian own firm, nico, a major investor in a number of projects in iran. we took advantage of what was in the bill to begin this sanction on human-rights. we have more designations in addition to what we already have coming. we want all of them to withdraw and promised not to do any further business in their oil sector. we have worked with the number of our partners to see these kinds of developments. a number of shipping companies have discontinued service. major energy traders and as a result of restrictions on gas exports, they have been producing low-quality gasoline costing them millions in revenues. they have reduced their gasoline subsidies increasing the prices 400% and 2000% for diesel fuels. that has had an amplifying effect on negative trends in the iranian mismanaged economy. we continued our international outrage and we have informed firms that we will add additional sanctions. we think we make progress, but we have more that we think we need to do. >> i appreciate that condom -- i appreciate that, madam secretary. how is the department dealing with the chinese continued ignorance of the sanctions. what can we do to force compliance? >> we have worked closely with the chinese, but it is a never- ending effort. they are hungry for energy. they do not see iran as a threat to them so after much diplomatic effort and arm twisting, went along with the sanctions act of the security council but it is a constant, committed, a determined effort to keep them abiding by the sanctions they agreed to. we literally work on it every day. >> the office of terrorism finance is charged with enforcing these sanctions and it runs, at least with respect to iran, a staff of four people. the question i have is it will we be jeopardize international security if they do not have the appropriate funds in order to enforce the sanctions that exist? >> we have such a terrific team of the treasury department and the state department. i was the first person to set up a designated sanctions operation inside the state department because we went for all of the trouble to pass sanctions on north korea and iran and did not follow this -- follow through the way i wanted to. >> thank you, madam secretary. >> it is important to keep doing that. >> the secretary of state was back on kalpoe hill testifying to the senate foreign relations committee on wednesday. she reiterated her call for muammar gaddafi to step down and talks about proposed cuts to her department's budget. this portion is about 35 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> good morning. i know you are back from a fresh trip, and we appreciate enormously all of your efforts on our behalf. i cannot think of a more relevant moment for you to appear before the committee, so we are happy to have the. let me just say up front that we have joined with our allies and we have heard loudly and clearly from you, madam secretary, that gaddafi must go. he has lost all legitimacy. i think it is important to be clear that 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. they do need the tools to prevent the slaughter of innocents on libyan streets, and i believe the global community cannot be on the sidelines while airplanes are allowed to bomb. a no-fly zone is not a long-term proposition. assuming the outcome is what all desire, i believe we ought to be ready to implement as necessary. it is clear that we are living through one of the most important transformations in the history of the modern world. some have likened the wave of protests sweeping the middle east to the revolutions of 1848 which changed the european political landscape forever. there is no doubt that the events of this year will be studied for decades to come. in this moment, at this time as we gather here and the events unfold in the region, the full ramifications of the upheaval that has happened from tunisia to tahrir square to tripoli and beyond, we do not understand yet exactly how the outcome will be defined. what we do know is that this is a time of great challenge. particularly for the people there but also for people in other countries with interest, families, and connections there. events this powerful demand a powerful response. our commitment now to the ordinary people who are risking their lives to win human rights and democracy will be remembered for generations in the arab world. we have to get this moment right. we are working here in the senate with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to create a package of longer-term financial assistance, as contrary as some might think that is with our budget today, which we will discuss, it is in fact imperative because it is key to help turn the new arab awakening into a lasting reversed. -- rebirth. in the event that our involvement is not about sending troops to remake the region and in our image, it is about sending economists, election experts, and humanitarian aid to help the region remake itself. we have not worked out any numbers for details and we will work with the administration, but i am convinced that a significant financial commitment by the united states to assist in in this monumental and uplifting transformation is key to its long-term outcome and to our relationship to it. we are being called upon to forge new relationships in a part of the world that has been and will remain vital to our national security. we have been given the opportunity to demonstrate conclusively that the men and women of the muslim world and beyond that of qaeda -- that out qaeda's belief is wrong. that is one thing that really stands out in the events of the last six weeks or so. the arab awakening is a repudiation of their poisonous doctrine. we now have one of history's greatest opportunities to reaffirm the universal appeal of democratic values to people across cultures, across religions, and encourage an entire region to move towards reform and away from violence. as i mentioned to come and the secretary knows this better than anyone, and we all understand that we face a budget crisis in our own country. we can either pay now to help brave people build a better democratic future for themselves, or we will certainly pay later in the much higher terms with increased threats to our own national security. the budget that we are here to discuss this morning lays the foundation for our ability to fulfill our responsibilities to the american people and our responsibilities on a universal basis to people that keep faith with our values. the $53 billion in court finding that the president has requested for international affairs is, in fact come a very small investment for the kind of return that we get. consider this. we are to spend $700 billion- military. by contrast, the international affairs budget is less than one- tenth of what the pentagon spends. as secretary gates himself has pointed out, if you put the entire foreign service roster, aircraft carrier. yet our diplomats are serving on the front lines of multiple revolutions and wars. they're making by the contributions and planning the contribution for the military mission to a diplomatic ones that we can cement the political progress that has cost hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of american lives. in africa, they are helping to midwife the birth of a new nation in south sudan, to resolve the situation in darfur, to forge a new relationship in khartoum. they're leading the fight against climate change. in countless communities around the world, they're providing essential humanitarian assistance preventing the spread of cholera and haiti, disturbing food to refugees a conflict in northern kenya, and providing shelter to flood victims in pakistan. this is simply not the time for america to pull back from the world. it is time to step forward. yet, just last week the house said this a continuing resolution for 2011 that imposes draconian cuts. they would slash our humanitarian aid by 50% coming decimating our ability to provide food, shelter, and medicine after a natural disaster and put hundreds of thousands of lives at risk. it would cut nearly two-thirds of the funds devoted to promoting seen energy and increasing resilience to climate change in the most vulnerable regions in the world. it would cut over $1 billion in the global health funding which means over 400,000 people who would have received a life- saving treatment will not linger on waiting lists as their hiv diagnosis becomes a death sentence. it would slash food and education for the world's poorest children by 15%. there is something about these cuts that i think that is the violence to the judeo-christian ethic by which so many claim to be guided in their private and public lives. these cuts are not obstructions. these are people. they are the values of our country. cutting these programs will do almost nothing to rein in our budget deficit, but it will cost thousands of lives and certainly cost us our reputation and our commitment to in the world. by reducing our diplomatic capacity around the globe, believe me, we will increase the threats to our own country. i know secretary clinton feels just as strongly, as powerfully about these issues and the necessity of maintaining our global commitment. she has been a hard an advocate and careless practitioner of global diplomacy. -- and dave tireless practitioner. sen. lugar? >> i join you in welcoming secretary clinton, as always, to our committee. i look forward to her thoughts on the state department and foreign policy authorities. hour hearing today is taking place in the context of the economic at home coupled with crises overseas. the american people still suffer from 9.5% high employment in my own state. the fiscal year 2010 budget raised us to about $1.30 trillion and a 9% of gdp. under president obama's budget, the 2011 budget would be at least that high. our total national debt has climbed about $14 trillion. some businesses are returning to profitability of long-term economic growth is threatened by numerous sources including skyrocketing high unemployment with the nine fought -- 9.5% out of work. overseas, almost 100,000 military personnel are fighting a difficult war in afghanistan. more than 1,380 of our troops have been killed with 10,000 wounded. we are entering our eighth year in iraq, and a climate that has cost more than 4400 lives and wounded roughly 32,000. we have more than 46,000 troops deployed in that country. as we discussed in our hearing yesterday, tensions on the korean peninsula are extremely high. we continue to pursue international support to prevent the iranian nuclear program from producing nuclear weapons. we remain concerned about stability in pakistan and the security of their nuclear arsenal. there are counter terrorist threats emanating from east africa, yemen, and many other locations. but in recent months, this tenuous security environment has been further complicated by the mass movements in tunisia, egypt, libya, and elsewhere reshaping the middle east with unpredictable results. people have been alienated from the governments with the political power. political power.