defending themselves, and better at pulling themselves out of poverty is just as important for us in our national security as it is for them. to succeed we must ensure that our budget resources are allocated wisely, our international programs are carried out in the most efficient and effective manner. but before closing, i'd like to highlight two of the my top and somewhat interrelated priorities. middle east peace and the effort to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. madam secretary, for the past three years, the palestinians have simply refused to engage seriously in peace talks. my sad conclusion is that palestinian leaders don't have the will or the desire to make the compromises necessary to achieve peace. they don't want to engage seriously, because they know that in the end, they won't be able to do the deal. that's what happened at camp david in 2000, at taba in 2001, and at the olmert talks in 2008. and now, nearly two decades after oslo, i see no evidence that the palestinians have begun in the slightest to prepare their public for the prospect that they may have to relinquish the so-called right of return and recognize israel as a jewish state. two critical elements of any peace deal. i find that disturbing. meanwhile, the israelis continue to say they'll negotiate any time, any place. if palestinian leaders really want statehood, they'll have to show it both through their public commitments and by engaging in serious negotiations with israel. if they try to circumvent negotiations by once again taking their case to the united nations, they'll get no recognition from the united states, and they won't get the time of day from the u.s. congress. the only solution to the israeli/palestinian conflict that can bring peace and security to both parties is a two-state solution. and that only can become a reality through direct negotiations. let me turn to another issue. what i consider the greatest security challenge facing both israel and the united states, namely the threat of a nuclear-armed iran. i believe it was during your first testimony before this committee in 2009 that you first said that our goal was to impose crippling sanctions on iran if the regime doesn't suspend its uranium enrichment program and otherwise comply with the demands of the u.n. security council. now the sanctions are finally starting to have some bite, and within a few weeks or so, the congress is likely to pass new legislation for the president to sign. legislation that tightens sanctions and that gives the administration new authorities to tightening sanctions still further. the house passed its version of that legislation, the iran threat reduction act, by an overwhelming vote late last year. can you give us a status report on the impact of sanctions in iran and on whether there is any sign that they are starting to have the desired effect on the thinking of iranian decision makers? thank you, madam secretary. i look forward to hearing your testimony. >> i thank the ranking member. it is the chair's intention to continue the hearing during votes. and now it is an honor to welcome the secretary to our committee today, the honorable hillary rodham clinton has served as the 67th secretary of state for the united states since january 21, 2009, the latest chapter in her four-decade career of public service. she has served previously as a united states senator from the state of new york, as first lady of the united states, and of the state of arkansas, as an attorney and a law professor. madam secretary, without objection, your full written statement will be made part of the record if you would be so kind as to summarize your written remarks, we can then move quickly to the question and answer discussion under the five-minute rule and the hope to getting to all of our members before you have to depart. madam secretary, welcome again, and the floor is yours. >> thank you very much, madam chairman, and ranking member. it is very good to be back here. i am grateful to your committee and the members for the support and consultation that we've enjoyed over these past three years. i look forward to your questions. i will submit my entire statement to the record and look forward to having a chance to exchange views with you today. thank you. >> thank you. so we can get right to the question-and-answer, madam secretary? delish. thank you so much. so the chair recognizes herself for her questions. madam secretary, i've heard from a number of my constituents. as you know, i represent south americas, who are worried that alba countries led by chavez continue to pressure, to invite cuba to the summit of the americas in april, even though the castro dictatorship does not meet the criteria to join the meeting, as you know. will you pledge here today that if cuba is invited, that president obama and you, madam secretary, will refuse to attend the summit meeting? and secondly, and i'll ask it all at once, so you can answer, madam secretary, on iran in the western hemisphere, just last month, ahmadinejad's tour of tyrants, as i called it, his trip to venezuela, nicaragua, cuba and ecuador, reaffirmed iran's commitment to undermine u.s. national security interests. i'm concerned about iran's willingness to attack the united states homeland or our critical allies, such as israel. with the rising threat posed by the qods force and its iranian proxies such as hezbollah in our region, will we dedicate more attention to these illicit activities in the annual terrorism report? and lastly, what is the administration doing to ensure cooperation from our allies in the hemisphere, with respect to iran and to hold accountable those countries that are supporting and enabling iran's threatening activities? thank you, madam secretary. >> thank you very much. with respect to the question about the summit of americas, we do not believe there is any intention to invite cuba. we've made our views on that well known. they don't fit the definition of democratic countries and the development of democracy in the hemisphere. so at this point, we see absolutely no basis and no intention to invite them to the summit. regarding iran and the western hemisphere, you know, obviously, iran facing these very effective sanctions and their aggressive enforcement is becoming increasingly desperate, looking for friends wherever they think they can find them. and they're not getting the kind of response. on that tour of tyrants that you referenced. our analysis of what happened is that it fell very far short of what the iranians hoped for. that said, we are concerned about the activities of iran and hezbollah in the western hemisphere. we continue to monitor the situation closely. we will take appropriate action to counter any threat that may arise. we are aware of and concerned about allegations that some latin american drug trafficking organizations are linked with hezbollah and iran. we've not found information to verify a lot of the allegations. but, of course, the recent incident concerning the attempted assassination of the saudi ambassador is a very large question mark and wake-up call. we're continuing to look for direct links and we're engaged very extensively with our partners in the hemisphere, both to educate them about the dangers posed by iran and hezbollah and also to work with them to heighten our intelligence sharing. we did impose sanctions in 2008 and extended them last year on the venezuelan military industries company for violating a ban on technology that could assist iran in developing weapons. so if we find information that we can verify, we are committed to taking action. but what we instead are seeing, much to our encouragement, is that our partners in latin america are really understanding the threats. recently at the iaea, argentina, brazil, mexico and chile joined us in voting for a resolution calling on iran to address concerns about the nuclear program. last year chile, mexico and brazil voted to create the u.n. human rights council i will on iran and our close ordination with mexican authorities actually was instrumental in breaking up the assassination plot against the saudi ambassador. so i think, madam chairman, we are alert to this. we are watching it closely. we are building a very strong international and hemispheric coalition against any efforts by iran and hezbollah in our area. >> thank you, madam secretary. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. berman. >> thank you very much. the obama administration is the first administration to use congressionally mandated sanctions on iran in a robust way. and you deserve considerable praise for that. i know that the president and you and numerous officials at state, treasury, defense have put in literally thousands of hours trying to persuade foreign officials and foreign businessmen to respect our sanctions and to help isolate iran. in that regard, i think it would be helpful to put to rest concerns of some observers that the administration has resigned to iran's becoming a nuclear tl threshold state. three months ago the israeli deputy minister issued a joint statement that spoke of preventing iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability, end of quote. and a pentagon publication last month also said that u.s. seeks to "prevent iran's development of a nuclear weapons capability." so when senator graham yesterday asked whether the administration seeks to deny iran the ability to become a nuclear threshold state, you responded by saying that it is the position of the administration to prevent them, meaning the iranians, from obtaining nuclear weapons. so i think it's important to clarify. is it in fact administration policy to prevent ire ran's developme iran's nuclear weapons capability or is it to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons? and what's the real difference between these two? does the administration have a red line beyond which it will not allow iran's nuclear program to progress? >> well, congressman, i think it's absolutely clear that the president's policy is to prevent iran from having nuclear weapons capability. and that has been the stated position of this administration. it has been backed up and reiterated. so let there be no confusion in any shorthanded answer to any question, the policy remains the same. and certainly in pursuant -- pursuance of the policy, we worked closely with the congress to implement the most far reaching sanctions that have ever been imposed. and after three years of intensive diplomatic effort, we have developed an international coalition that recognizes the importance of preventing iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability. three years ago we didn't have that in the international community. there was a lot of unwillingness and resistance even to going along with tougher sanctions. but from the beginning we've had a two-track policy. pressure and engagement. and as we talk today, are the pressure is ratcheting up. we are aggressively working to implement the sanctions. we have very strong support for this position from the recent report by the international atomic egy suspicions and questions about iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. and we have seen finally a response from iran that they're willing to discuss their nuclear weapons program with the p-5 plus one. so we think that the sanctions are affecting the thinking of the iranians in the leadership. but we have to remain vigilant. we have to keep the pressure on. >> thank you very much. i got a question and answer in 34 seconds. >> or you could yield back and give others more time as i did. >> all right. well, that appeal, too. >> thank you, sir. thank you. and being the wise legislator that he is, dr. paul, elected to stay here. and sow gets to ask his question. congressman paul of texas is recognized. i learned not to say anything negative about ron paul. >> welcome madam secretary. i do want to get your comments on a bit of the stir that was caused by the apology over the koran. i think you expressed a point this doesn't help your job any by stirring up the resentment. excuse me. the whole issue of an apology is an interesting one from a national level. i recall what happened after mcnamara wrote his memoirs and apologetic about what happened and why he orchestrated the vietnam war. a reporter asked if he should apologize. he says what good is an apology? you should change the policy. so a lot of emotions come out on this issue. i keep thinking those that criticized him, i don't think they criticized the last administration when the president apologized for using the koran as a target. so sometimes they're not -- apologies aren't always all equal. but even that said, there's -- there were torture photographs before. they were very aggravating. recent think was urinating on bodies, on corpses. we didn't particularly apologize for those, did we? i mean, there weren't apologies there. but some of these things are emotional. but what about the whole idea of invading a country and occupying a country and disturbing their country? creating hundreds of thousands of refugees and suffering? does it ever get to a point where apologizing about the koran is rather minor to some of the other problems that we have created in this country? could you comment on that? >> congressman, first, i appreciate the very measured comments you made about our presidents, not only this one but prior presidents offering apologies when we are deeply sorry for unfortunate incidents that occurred that were not intentional and which we know have emotional rez nens with people. and the larger question you ask, i think it's also important to put into context president obama promised to wind down the iraq war. he has done so. he's in the process of transitioning out of afghanistan in a manner that is done appropriately in keeping with the very large decisions that have to be made about helping the afghans defend themselves, working with partners and allies in that effort. and i think the underlying premise is certainly one that can be debated among americans of good faith. i believe that we were justified in going through afghanistan which is -- >> i want to apologize. i don't want to get on that subject. >> sure. i accept your apology. >> i do want to touch on something else to get a different perspective on the nuclear enrichment in iran. you know, we hear different stories. even in israel there are different debates. they say if they get a weapon, it's not a threat. and, you know, to israel. so i'm sure there's a more nuance debate in israel than there is here sometimes. but isn't it true that iran has the right to enrich up to 20% for peaceful purposes? the way we talk and hear the discussion, they have no right to enrich. and don't they have that protection under the nuclear pro proliferation treaty? but it never seems to have a balanced approach to that. the best i can tell from what i read, there is no evidence that they have a bond. there's no evidence that they're on the verge of getting it. and even the administration whether it's panetta or clapper or general dempsey, they're saying it wouldn't make any sense to have a preemptive attack on there. could you give us a sense of a proper balance here? because a lot of people are convinced it's syria and then iran. and i'm personally concerned about that. the last thing the american people need is another war. we don't have the money. we don't have the resources. and the military is not ready for another war. >> nine seconds.money. we don't have the resources. america is not ready for another war. >> nine seconds. congressman, i would direct your attention to the most recent general's report from enter atomic energy agency, which outlines the noncivilian use of nuclear power. there's increasing evidence that what the iranians do is not consistent with, you're right, their right to have the peaceful use of nuclear power. i'll be happy to get you a copy mr. ackerman. of that. i think you ask important >> thank you. welcome, madam secretary. always great to have you here. questions. >> thank you, mrs. secretary. it's exceptional to me, sometimes you can't win for winning even with unprecedented victories in the area, some people continue to look at it. i guess i would call it the goldilocks game. theporridge is too hot or cold. i think you have the bowling ball guy, balancing the balls, sticks on his knees, nothing ever falls to the ground. it's more difficult, because you're really twirling somebody else's dirty dishes. nonetheless, you seem to have everything pretty much together. i don't want to jinx it, with all the unprecedented problems we have in the world at the same time. i want to thank you and congratulate you and the administration. three ears, north korea, egypt, iran, hot spots. first on egypt, congratulations, we just received that the flight restrictions on the americans has been lifted. i think that's miraculous. i know the great effort and work you've put into this behind the scenes publicly and how delicate this negotiation has been. does this indicate to us some sense of power shifting and shuffling in egypt is going and who is exercising it at least at this very sensitive moment, or don't we want to speculate on that? >> well, congressman, we do not have information that the travel ban has been lifted. we hope it will be. we will continue to work toward that. 9 reporting is is encouraging but we have no confirmation. >> we always get stuff from the ap first before we hear that. north korea, congratulations on that as well. i know there's never any nexus between humanitarian aid and shifting policies. congratulations on the great coincidence of 240 million tons of humanitarian aid and it's happening coincidentally at the same time the north koreans have at least apparently agreed to a lot more transparency than they have had before and cessation of their nuclear program. were other countries parties for the bilateral sessions? did the chinese or that just us. >> the meeting was held in beijing. south koreans were intimately involved in the back and forth negotiations. we also kept them informed but no one else was a direct participant besides the united states and north korea. >> in reading all the reports of that, it says they will allow inspection at yeonpyeong. other sites or is that clear? >> that's not clear yet. that was our principle objective. obviously we have to keep building on what was achieved. >> like others you deal with more than others, they are masters at the shell game. lastly iran. congratulations that the biting effect that the sanctions are finally grabbing them and taking effect to a tremendous extent. there seems to be a lot of indication some of our allies one in particular interested in laying down markers rather than saying all options are on the table. i suppose that's going to get more play in coming days. what are the red lines the iranians cannot cross? are we going to make that public or do quiet negotiations on that? >> i think i smarter for us to be pressing on the sanctions and negotiations while we keep our objective of no new nuclear capability instead of bench marks publicly. >> i want to thank you not strutting your stuff and delivering on the steak and not worry about the sizzle. >> my colleague, wise man for staying around. >> thank you. i learned from the best, you. madam secretary, thank you so much for being here today. as you know, recently we marked the 14th anniversary of of the february 24th shootdown of brothers to the rescue airplanes. as you know four americans were murdered over international airspace by the castro dictatorship. subsequent to those murders, the u.s. congress and then president clinton signed and passed into law the helms burton bill, which has never been fully implemented as you well know because of a provision that allows a waiver or suspension every six months to that law for implementation of that law. and that suspension i believe takes place around every january or february and midyear as well. we probably have just recently seen the obama administration suspend the helms burton law as it has been done twice a year since 1996. the rational allowed in the law for spending implementation of the law is two-fold. number one, that it serves u.s. interest. and number two, that it would expedite a transition to democracy in cuba. given what we've seen during the last few years during the obama administration and what's occurring in cuba, the wave of repression against human rights activists and dissidents. given the deaths of several hunger strikers, given the recent persecution against the ladies in white, peaceful activists in cuba that have been calling for democratic reform, given the stern rebuff that former secretary richardson received in cuba to his recent overtures or negotiations, can you tell us just in the last few years of the obama administration that the helms burton law has been suspended, how has that expedited a transition to democracy in cuba. >> congressman, we take a back seat of no one in our condemnation of the denial of human rights that is a continuing feature of the castro regime. the particular ones you mentioned are of great concern to us. we do think increasing people to people contact, supporting civil society in cuba, enhancing the free flow of information, promoting the capacity for more independence economically and politically from the cuban authorities is in the interest of the cuban people and is in the interest of the united states. >> we may agree to disagree on that. i'm just wondering if there's any evidence of results as a result of that policy that the obama administration has been pursuing. do we have any evidence at all of any inkling of democratic reform or a movement towards democracy? is there anything positive that has resulted from the obama administration policy toward cuba that we have evidence, tangible evidence? >> well, in the last three years there have been considerable changes in cuba's economic policy, which we see as a positive development. we