INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BUDGET FOR Fiscal year 2009

Hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee

February 13, 2008

 

OPENING STATEMENT OF
HOWARD L. BERMAN
A Congressman from California

REP. BERMAN: (Sounds gavel.) The committee will come to order.

It's with real sadness and profound regret that I open the committee's review of the administration's international affairs budget request for fiscal year 2009. I had hoped that our departed friend and colleague, Chairman Tom Lantos, would take the gavel in hand to guide us today.

Before we engage in this process, I'd like to ask everyone here today to stop and reflect on the man who for the last year has led our efforts to hold the executive branch to account while also holding together the committee's respected tradition of bipartisan cooperation even when we disagree. The last three days have brought a cascade of tributes to our late friend Tom Lantos, so many fine words coming from every quarter and corner of the world. They are the heartfelt outpourings of the mighty and the small, heads of state and the humble, too, along with the legions of Tom and Annette Lantos' fellow laborers in the vineyard of human rights.

Tom would have appreciated the eloquence of these countless accolades. He was so very well-spoken himself. He would have reveled in the recognition of his hard work and that of his loving wife to build and to maintain the Congressional Human Rights Caucus over the last 24 years. And he would have been gratified, yet humbled, by the sweeping accounts of his legislative achievements in fields as diverse as nuclear nonproliferation, environmental protection and international scholarly exchange. And of course, history will remember Tom for his unwavering support of Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship. His life experience instilled him a deep and abiding commitment to that tiny state, an island of democracy and a true partner of our country.

So please join me in a moment of silence to remember our friend and cherished colleague, the late and much-loved chairman of this committee, and a moral force whose voice will be terribly missed, Congressman Tom Lantos.

(A moment of silence was observed.)

(Sounds gavel.) I also want to mention that Chairman Lantos attracted a wonderful staff, both in his personal office and on his committee. Their long service and their outstanding work bear testament to his leadership, and I want to express my condolences to them as well as to his family.

And now on to business at hand. In the bipartisan spirit of rigorous and responsible oversight befitting the memory of Chairman Lantos, we welcome Madame Secretary. I strongly support, Madame Secretary, the administration's overall international affairs budget request for fiscal year 2009. It surpasses current spending by nearly $3 billion, a welcome turn of events.

In his 2002 National Security Strategy, President Bush elevated the importance of diplomacy and development to be on a par with defense. Nobody believes they will be funded equally, but we should strike a better balance than we now have. The budget that funds the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development absolutely pales in comparison to what is requested for the Department of Defense.

The irony in this imbalance is that international affairs budget contributes directly to U.S. national security. The programs it funds help fight terrorism, prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and enhance the safety of our embassies around the world. The budget also funds an array of vital programs to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law to assist U.S. businesses abroad and to provide critical assistance to those suffering from extreme poverty in the poorest places in the world. And yet this budget typically comprises just 1 percent of total federal spending.

This new budget request starts to address the reality that we have been far too slow to face. Our civilian agencies are woefully unprepared to handle the unprecedented global security challenges confronting the U.S. today.

Here's just one example. A study just released by the RAND Corporation shows that despite the common notion that civil capabilities and military power are equally important to counterinsurgency operations overseas, the meager and infrequent bump- ups in the State Department budget have been dwarfed by massive increases in Pentagon spending. The report goes on to note, and I'm quoting here, "If Islamic insurgency is the greatest threat to the United States and its interests in the near to middle term, and if countering this insurgency requires a broad and balanced array of capabilities, the grim implication is that the United States is ill- equipped to counter the gravest threat it faces."

With increasing frequency, our men and women in uniform have been filling the gap in civilian capacity in our reconstruction and stabilization projects overseas. Combatant commanders and field artillerymen are building schools, mentoring city councils, usually without the needed language skills or long-term training for this ambitious work. As Secretary of Defense Gates has aptly observed, it is no replacement for the real thing -- civilian involvement and expertise. The need for this expertise will only become more pronounced, as many experts agree that the United States will be engaged in more, not fewer, operations that affect our national security.

One last point on the substance of this. The request for the peacekeeping account is based on an overly optimistic assumption, and it really is, to my way of thinking, absurdly low. At $1.5 billion, the fiscal year 2009 request is $800 million below what the administration is spending on U.N. peacekeeping this year. With the ramp-up of the U.N. Mission in Darfur; the situation in Chad; the anticipated need to sustain robust forces in Lebanon, Congo, Liberia, southern Sudan, Ivory Coast and Haiti, we can anticipate a sharp increase in the overall U.N. peacekeeping budget and the operations that support so many U.S. interests.

Madame Secretary, we look forward to hearing from you about how the Department of State intendeds to meet all of our country's foreign responsibilities, from stabilization to peacekeeping to increasing the diplomatic ranks.

And before I turn to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, I want to acknowledge our newest colleague, Mr. Rob Wittman of Virginia. As we all know, Mr. Wittman recently joined the House after the special election for the seat occupied by our colleague and former member of this committee, Ms. Jo Ann Davis. I want to extend a warm welcome from all our members on this side of the aisle to Mr. Wittman. Welcome.

And now I yield to my friend, the distinguished ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

 

OPENING STATEMENT OF
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN
A Congressman from Florida

REP. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (R-FL): Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

And let me start also by expressing our great sadness at the loss earlier this week of our beloved chairman and a great friend to all, Tom Lantos. And I know that he enjoyed a warm friendship with madame secretary as well. We all knew Tom to be a gracious man of great courage, a natural leader of unimpeachable character. He was loved and respected on both sides of the aisle. He set a high standard for himself and devoted himself to making the world a better place than the one he found, and we will surely miss him.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the statements that all of us made last night. And we look forward to the wonderful celebration of Tom's life tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. at Statuary Hall.

And turning to today's hearing, Mr. Chairman, there are certainly many troubling developments in the present that concern us all. But I would like to note a few that are of particular importance to me. Nuclear proliferation, heading the list is this topic -- the accelerating speed of the capacity to make nuclear weapons. And nowhere is this more dramatic than in the Middle East, where country after country have expressed their intent to pursue their own nuclear program. Virtually none of the projects can be justified in terms of economic terms, and it defies logic to attribute this sudden rush to a newfound concern over global warming.

The threat to the world's security is obvious. In an age where the nuclear fuel in a typical reactor can be used in so-called "dirty bombs," even the full range of international controls and inspections cannot provide an acceptable margin of safety.

So it is critically important that the United States and other countries, especially France and Russia, which have been so active in promoting their nuclear ties to Iran pause and consider the consequences of the developments in this region before agreeing to bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements with all of those countries in the region.

In North Korea, Mr. Chairman and Madame Secretary, our current efforts to persuade that country to give up its nuclear weapons program has encountered one obstacle after another. I believe that we are in danger of repeating the errors of the past.

It surprises me greatly to point to Libya as a guide for anything, but our success in ridding that country of unconventional weapons provides some useful and timely lessons. And our success, lead by our chairman Tom Lantos was rooted in a refusal to compromise with the regime until it first completely and verifiably dismantled -- not suspended -- dismantled its chemical biological and nuclear weapons facilities. Only after it had stopped to threaten the world did the U.S. begin to remove the sanctions and offer it any sort of legitimacy.

Given this example, we've got to be careful in our approach to the regime in North Korea and take full note of Admiral McConnell's judgment regarding North Korea's intentions. Last week he said -- he told the Senate Intelligence Committee, "While Pyongyang denies the program for uranium enrichment and they deny their proliferation activities, we believe that North Korea continues to engage in both." He further noted, "We remain concerned North Korea could proliferate nuclear weapons abroad."

So, Madame Secretary, I reiterate previous commitments that my colleagues and I made of the administration to provide full briefing for members of this committee and for Congress as a whole -- not just on the Six-Party Talks but also on the reported Israeli strike on a Syrian facility with suspected North Korean ties. And we look forward to a positive response on this request.

And of course, Iran's determination to lay the foundation for nuclear weapons program poses the greatest threat to the world's security.

We thank you, Madame Secretary, for your efforts to persuade members of the U.N. Security Council to strengthen sanctions against the regime in Tehran to provision in the current draft and the Security Council resolution encouraging active measures by all countries to prevent their citizens and their businesses from supporting Iran's nuclear missile program is very welcomed.

Another important provision is the one relating to the inspection of cargo bound for Iran. This parallels the administration's very successful PSI, proliferation security initiative, that has steadily increased its effectiveness over the past few years. We have intercepted vessels carrying materials or proliferation concerns. And I hope that this new U.N. mandate will have the same impact, the same effect that the enforcement of sanctions against Iran.

And currently those sanctions that are being undermined, for example by the transshipment of banned goods through the UAE, the United Arab Emirates, among other counties. And that -- for that reason I and several other members of this committee have sent a letter to Director McConnell asking for an assessment of the effectiveness of UAE's export control regime, especially regarding Iran.

On China and Russian, they continue to engage in policies that help Iran's nuclear missile program. And they've become a major arms merchants in the region. And I urge you, Madame Secretary, to make it clear again to the Russian and Chinese governments, including through the implementation of full range of U.S. laws, that we regard these shipments to be a direct threat to our interests.

On the China Olympics, Madame Secretary, although some see Beijing as becoming a responsible stakeholder in an international system, China's actions demonstrate something completely different. And I regret that the Olympics are being held in the capital of a country that does not respect the human rights of its own population. And it's dangerous to Americans as well. I hope that you consider issuing a travel advisory to warn U.S. citizens traveling to Beijing about the Chinese regime's actions against anyone who's expressing support for democracy.

On the broader issue of Darfur, Madame Secretary, thank you in selecting Ambassador Williamson as our new special envoy. I'd have the opportunity of meeting with him and I hope that we can make progress regarding the deployment of the hybrid force.

And turning lastly to our hemisphere, many of us are increasingly concerned about Iran's growing presence and influence throughout the region, especially its cooperation with Cuba and Venezuela. And in my letter to you last week, Madame Secretary, I requested that the administration investigate whether a recently reported petrochemical sector agreement between governments of Venezuela and Iran violates U.S. law. Since that letter was sent, I have learned that a Venezuela-owned bank, Banco Industrial de Venezuela, are headquarters in Caracas has been operating branches in my district, in Miami and Havana and Tehran, and I ask that any investigation be expanded to include this new information to make sure that U.S. laws concerning Iran and Cuba are fully enforced.

And on the issue of Afghanistan and Pakistan we know about the cease fire. How does this fit into the bilateral counterterrorism efforts? And what does it mean when viewed within the context of Monday's capture of the Taliban militia leader?

We have a pending issue about the U.S. victims of Palestinian terrorism, and so far the PA and the PLO have refused to pay those judgments of those U.S. victims. And recent reports indicate that State Department may issue a statement in favor of the PA efforts to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments won by American victims in U.S. courts. And I would hope that that would not happen.

Thank you for your help with PETFAR and with the Civilian Reserve Corps Bill. I know that those are two issues that are very important to you.

And Mr. Berman, our chairman, has been helpful in trying to get an agreement concerning PETFAR. I hope that we're able to do that.

And I thank the chairman for his willingness to keep that conversation and that dialogue going. And I would appreciate hearing from you about PETFAR and the counselor corps as well.

And thank you to Rob Wittman. Welcome -- bienvenido.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. BERMAN: Thank you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

And now we expect there'll be votes around 3:00, so we -- let's go to your testimony. And then under the procedures that have been established on the committee, members will get to question you if -- in the order that they -- the ones here at the time of the gavel first.

Madame Secretary.

STATEMENT OF

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE

SEC. RICE: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Berman.

Thank you very much, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen.

Now on?

REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: Little closer.

SEC. RICE: It's on. Is it not --

REP. BERMAN: Closer, I think.

SEC. RICE: Is that better? We may have a technical problem with it.

Is it now working? No.

Do we have another mike because -- or I can try to speak very loud. Does that help? (Laughter.)

REP. BERMAN: Let's see.

Darned if I know what to do.

SEC. RICE: (Laughs.)

It's working for the --

Is that now --

REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: We can hear you.

SEC. RICE: All right.

Shall I proceed, Mr. Chairman?

REP. BERMAN: Yes.

SEC. RICE: All right.

First of all, let me join you in expressing my great sadness at the loss of our good friend and colleague, Congressman Tom Lantos. Not only has he been a good friend and a mentor here in Washington, he is someone that I knew during my time as a professor at Stanford. And I think it's fair to say he was a true American hero. He really represented all that is best in our country. He's going to be greatly missed. I feel personally that I have lost a great and inspirational mentor and we've certainly all lost a very good friend. And to his wonderful family and to all of his colleagues, my condolences.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I have a longer statement which I'll ask to be entered into the record.

REP. BERMAN: Without objection.

SEC. RICE: I'll just make a few remarks.

I want to thank you for for the opportunity to appear before the committee today in support of the president's fiscal year 2009 international affairs budget request. This is the last time that I will come to the committee as secretary of State for a budget. I want to thank you very much for the excellent support that this committee has provided to the Department of State. Even if we've not always agreed on matters of policy, we have certainly, I think, been able in a spirit that would have made the founders very proud, to have our differences, but to continue to promote the values and the interests of the United States for a freer and more prosperous world.

I want to note in particular that we've made a lot of progress over the last several years, and I very much attribute that to the bipartisan support of my authorizing and appropriations committees. We have been trying to rebuild the capability of the State Department and the civilian side. I think we all recognize that the 1990s was a time of perhaps cashing in on a peace dividend that turned out on the morning of 2001 to show us that it had been premature to think about a peace dividend. And in fact, thanks to the help of this committee, we've been able to increase foreign assistance by doubling it for Latin America, tripling it worldwide, quadrupling it for Africa. We've had the important initiatives of the President's Emergency Program for HIV and AIDS, for malaria. We have had the innovative new approach of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which has helped us to reward the work of governments that are trying to govern wisely and to invest in their people.

We, of course, have increased significantly the resources going to public diplomacy. Public diplomacy is going to have to be rebuilt over an extended period of time, but I think we've made great progress. We have increased again the number of foreign students who are studying in this country. After September 11th, those numbers collapsed to very low numbers, and I think that those of us who look to the long term know that when students from abroad get to know us and spend time here, and when our students get to go abroad, that is really the very best way for people to get to know America and to spread our values.

We've also made important changes to the way that the department operates. I made the decision that we needed to change, to redeploy our people out of -- many of them out of Europe and into growing places like India and Brazil and to China. It was the fact that we had as many -- almost as many Foreign Service officers in Germany as we had in India. It seemed important to have that redeployment. But even with those redeployments, it is absolutely the case that the Foreign Service is too small. Secretary Powell was able to redress some of the problems of the freezes in hiring that happened in the 1990s by increasing over four years 2,000 Foreign Service officers. The president in this budget has asked for approximately 1,100 Foreign Service officers as well as 300 people for USAID. And I think it is very important that we rebuild this civilian strength.

In that regard, we are asking our men and women to do things that were perhaps not expected for the Foreign Service. They're working in Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq and Afghanistan, supporting local and provincial development that I think is paying dividends in the stabilization of those countries. They are working far away from capitals in remote areas, delivering assistance, helping people to develop. And in that regard, the request that we fund fully the Civilian Response Corps, which Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen referred, is really, for us, a major step forward in restructuring the way that we think about reconstruction and development.

I think it's fair to say that we -- in post-conflict societies, we tried it one way in Afghanistan, which was what I'll refer to as the adopt-a-ministry approach with many, many different countries being involved. We appreciate very much that a lot of countries were involved, but frankly, we're still paying for some of the incoherence of that effort. In Iraq, we tried to do reconstruction by putting it under a single department, the Defense Department, which I think everybody there would say we were not fully able to mobilize the civilian -- the civilian capabilities that were needed for reconstruction.

And the truth is we really did not have, either in any department or in the U.S. government as a whole, an institution that could really deal with post-conflict stabilization. And yet, whether it is the major efforts in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, or smaller efforts in places like Liberia or Haiti, or we hope one day to help reconstruct a democratic Cuba, it is going to be necessary that we have the civilians who can do that. And the Civilian Response Corps will allow Americans to dedicate themselves for a year or so to taking their skills as city planners or as people in rule of law or as health experts and go and help to spread prosperity.

Because the final point that I'd like to make is that, very clearly, this administration has focused very heavily on the importance of uniting our interests and our values. While sometimes people may think that our values and our interests are in conflict in the short term, I am a deep believer that they can never be in conflict in the long run. If America does not stand for freedom and for liberty, for human rights, for the rights of the oppressed, and if we don't believe that there's no corner of the earth which should be condemned to tyranny, then nobody will. And the ability to use our foreign assistance to structure our foreign policy in a way that we can help spread those benefits is not only our moral obligation and shows the compassionate side of America, but it is clearly deeply in our interest and will make us a more secure country in the long run.

So thank you very much, over the years, for the support of this committee, and I'm very pleased to take your questions.

REP. BERMAN: Thank you, Madame Secretary.

I'll recognize myself first for five minutes.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell testified last week that Iran's nuclear program remains a serious potential threat. He stated, "We remain concerned about Iran's intentions, and assess with moderate to high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons." He also emphasized, and I'll quote again, "declared uranium enrichment efforts which will enable the production of fissile material continue. This is the most difficult challenge in nuclear production."

Madame Secretary, I -- and I do have a question on another subject after this, but -- so if you keep that in mind in your answer -- but do you concur with Director McConnell's basic assessment that Iran may have suspended but not terminated its nuclear weapons program, do -- does Congress and do the American people have reason to be worried about Iran's continuing efforts to enrich uranium? And in your view, is Iran determined to acquire a nuclear weapons capability?

SEC. RICE: I believe that Iran is a great danger both for its nuclear ambitions and for its support of terrorism around the world and the way it treats its own people. I'm very concerned, and I think Director McConnell was trying to make clear, that while the NIE talked about suspension of an element of the Iranian program, the troubling elements of both the delivery vehicles, delivery systems, there's continued work, and most importantly the enrichment and reprocessing, which is the key to building fissile materials is a great danger to us, yes.

REP. BERMAN: In December of 2006, Congress passed the Hyde Act, named after our former chairman, Henry Hyde. It established a framework for nuclear -- civilian nuclear cooperation with India.

That legislation, negotiated in great detail with the administration, included a number of important provisions to help preserve the integrity of the global nonproliferation regime. The bill terminates U.S. nuclear cooperation with India if New Delhi resumes nuclear testing. It restricts the transfer of sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technologies, and has a number of other features.

Before we take up the -- (inaudible) -- agreement, you have the IAEA safeguards issue and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which must approve a special exemption that allows member states, including the United States, to engage in nuclear trade with India. I'm concerned about the NSG. As I understand it, the U.S. representative to that body has circulated a clean exemption for India that doesn't reflect any of the restrictions contained in the Hyde Act. If that exemption were adopted by the NSG, we would essentially be creating two standards for nuclear trade for India, one for the United States and one for the rest of the world. It would seem to me that would undermine our nonproliferation goals and create a strong incentive for India to pursue nuclear -- purchase nuclear technology. Isn't it in the national interest of the United States -- purchase technology from Russia and from France -- isn't it in the interest of the United States to push the NSG to adopt an exemption for India that includes and follows the restrictions of the Hyde Act?

SEC. RICE: Well, we will support nothing with India in the NSG, congressman, that is -- that is in contradiction to the Hyde Act. It will have to be -- it will have to be completely consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act.

India is sui generis, and that -- and that's why we needed --

REP. BERMAN: So is the Hyde Act --

SEC. RICE: But it will -- everything that we do will be consistent with the Hyde Act.

REP. BERMAN: Well, if that's -- if I understand -- if you intend your answer to be what I understand, then we --

SEC. RICE: Yeah, we'll have to be consistent with the Hyde Act or I don't believe we can count on the Congress to make the next step.

REP. BERMAN: The gentlelady from Florida.

REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madame Secretary.

I wanted to ask about the Israeli-Palestinian issue, so I'll ask a few questions and await your response.

Reports indicate that the recent destruction of the border wall between Egypt and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip enabled significant numbers of weapons and Iranian-trained terrorists to enter Gaza, and this follows Egypt's continuing failure to stop terrorists and smuggling of money, of weapons and people through tunnels going in and out of Gaza. Therefore, regarding the administration's suggested conditions for the provisions of $1.3 billion in foreign military financing to Egypt, would you agree that the administration should not waive the condition that Egypt must first take concrete and measurable steps to detect and destroy the smuggling networks and tunnels that lead from Egypt to Gaza?

And continuing with that, in light of that recent destruction of the border wall, does the administration believe that Egypt's role vis-a-vis Gaza should change, particularly regarding the provision of food and energy?

And lastly, Madame Secretary, regarding U.S. provision of non- lethal security assistance to the Palestinian Authority, could you comment on what monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that such assistance does not go to members of the Palestinian security services who belong to terrorist organizations, including Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade(s)?

Thank you, Madame Secretary.

SEC. RICE: Thank you, Congresswoman Lehtinen.

First of all, on Egypt and the Gaza, I think it's fair to say that the Egyptians have had a rather hard lesson about the Gaza recently. It is not in Egypt's interest to have had the breaching of that wall. They have tried to reestablish security, including at Rafah.

We do believe that there will need to be some more permanent arrangement, perhaps involving Egypt, possibly even the PA and possibly European monitors. But there are many details that will need to be worked out. But I think you would find the Egyptians very concerned about what happened on that border and recognizing that it was not in their interest to have that happen.

We also have worked through the Army Corps of Engineers to help them identify ways that they might deal with the tunnels. I think it's fair to say that we've not been satisfied with Egypt's effort on the tunnels, but that in fact those tunnels have been there for a long time, and it's been hard to stop smuggling whoever was trying to deal with that. We're in constant -- we're in conversation with the Egyptians as well as the Israelis about how that might be done better.

As to the $1.3 billion, we believe that this is aid that is important to maintaining Egypt's security forces. We appreciate the flexibility that was provided in the waiver, and I would just reserve to look at the cases as they come to me. But I think it would be important to note that we do have very intensive discussions going on with the Egyptians, as do the Israelis, about how both to manage that border and how to deal with Gaza more generally.

Gaza is not going to -- it -- the status quo there I think is not sustainable, and so we're going to try to look for a solution that involves all parties, with the exception of -- by the way, I just want to be clear: we have no intention of talking to Hamas about this. They have caused the problem. People are now trying to deal with the problem that Hamas caused. We've also been very clear that one of the answers has to be to stop the rocket attacks against Israel from Gaza.

As to the PA forces, General Dayton has put together a security plan. The funding provided is to be used in accordance with that kind of classical train-and-equip plan. There is vetting of the people who would be involved in that. I would just note that it is new territory for us in the training of Palestinian security forces. But if the alternative is to have Hamas's forces well-trained by Iranian backing, which is really where that is coming from, and not to have Abu Mazen have trained forces, then I think we have to try to move in this direction. We're trying to do it responsibly. We're doing it with as best vetting as we possibly can. And we've gotten good cooperation, by the way, from the Israelis as well in helping General Dayton in his mission.

REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you, Madame Secretary.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. BERMAN: Thank you.

And the gentleman from New York is recognized for five minutes, Mr. Ackerman.

REP. GARY ACKERMAN (D-NY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sure the committee will be afforded ample opportunity at some appropriate time to express our thoughts about former Congressman Lantos, but allow me at this moment just to say thank you to yourself for the very difficult task that's before you. Thank you for assuming the role of leadership of our committee. I'm sure you will prove, as you always do, to be thorough, thoughtful and fair.

REP. BERMAN: Thank you.

REP. ACKERMAN: Madame Secretary, I have two questions.

And the first is based on the op-ed piece that appeared in this morning's Washington Post by you and Secretary Gates. I assume it was occasioned by the widespread concern in Congress over what the future commitments to Iraq President Bush intends to make in the twilight of his presidency. I would like to ask you to reiterate for the record for the committee the four no's contained in that piece as well as hopefully your pledge to consult closely with us and to provide complete transparency as the negotiations with Iraq go forward.

SEC. RICE: Thank you.

Yes, I can very firmly say that it is not our intention to seek permanent bases.

It is not our intention to undertake security commitments to Iraq that would lead us to --

REP. ACKERMAN: Excuse me, when you say it is not intention, would you say we will not?

SEC. RICE: We are not seeking permanent basis. The commitment is also -- there's no commitment to combat forces. There's no commitment to troop levels. I think the way to best think about this agreement is that we have a number of SOFAs around the world; the Iraqis have wanted a more normal relationship; the U.N. Security Council -- the U.N. Security Council resolution right now is the way that we legally maintain our forces in Iraq; we need a basis going forward, and that is what this is intended to do.

REP. ACKERMAN: Tomorrow, Madame Secretary, as you know, is the third anniversary of Rafik Hariri's assassination. And our friends in Lebanon are under enormous pressure from the enemies of a free and democratic Lebanon to agree to a presidential candidate acceptable to Syria, as well as to concede to Hezbollah's ever-increasing demands for seats in the Lebanese president's cabinet. My question is, what are we going to do to put pressure on Syria and Hezbollah? And will you confirm for the committee that the administration has no intention of making a deal with Syria over the special tribunal established to investigate the Hariri assassination?

SEC. RICE: I can absolutely confirm we have no interest, intention, any such thing to make a deal with Syria. What we're trying to do is to help get the tribunal funded. I hope that there will be a positive announcement about the funding of that tribunal very soon. And we are working with the Arab states to try to help the Lebanese resolve their political crisis on the basis of what March 14th has found acceptable.

REP. ACKERMAN: And the issue of pressuring Hezbollah to --

SEC. RICE: Yes, we're working with the Arab states to do that. We've also, as you may note, made some other designations of Syrian personalities. And again, I think the best thing we could do is get this tribunal funded and make very clear that it's going to go forward.

REP. ACKERMAN: Final question. On Monday, Pakistanis go to the polls to elect a new parliament. Recent opinion polls indicate that the opposition parties are likely to constitute the overwhelming majority in the national parliament. Well, all of us want free and fair elections in Pakistan. All of us, that is, except President Musharraf, who is unlikely to benefit from that circumstance.

I think, however, that most of us would concede that the question isn't whether the elections are flawed, but how badly. If the administration cannot say that the elections are free and fair, will you at that point finally concede that President Musharraf is not the indispensable man, but in fact a liability?

SEC. RICE: Well, we've been very focused on the elections and elections that will be free and fair, and elections that will be credible to the Pakistani people. That's been the goal. There will be many European observers there, we will obviously have our people from our consulates and our embassies out and around. We will see what happens in the election, but we have encouraged that their moderates should come together after those elections to form a government that can govern Pakistan from the center.

I think it's fair to say that we believe that President Musharraf in taking off his uniform made an important step, that he lifted a state of emergency which we had believed was a mistake to begin with, but it was lifted. And now it is really the judgment of the Pakistani people that is being awaited. But we are asking that everybody at the time of the elections refrain from violence and try to resolve any differences politically.

REP. ACKERMAN: Thank you.

REP. BERMAN: The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.

REP. CHRISTOPHER SMITH (R-NJ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madame Secretary, on January 30th The New York Times reported on the recent arrest of a 34-year old Chinese dissident named Hu Jia -- Mr. Hu's crime, using his home computer to disseminate information on human rights cases. He joins, as you know, a huge, ever-growing number of dissidents including cyber-dissidents who are today being hauled off to jail simply for espousing democracy and basic human rights. The Times article suggests the obvious in the runup to the Beijing Olympics in August.

The PRC is attempting to crush all dissent. And as you know, China today is an egregious violator of human rights. Torture is endemic. Forced abortion is pervasive as a means of enforcing the government's draconian one child per couple policy, a policy that has made brothers and sisters illegal and has led to gendercide, the annihilation of millions and millions of girls, simply because they're girls.

Human trafficking is getting worse. There's no freedom of speech, assembly and labor rights don't exist.

My question is, in the runup to the Olympics and the fact that there are export controls on some things, like handcuffs, fingerprint detection materials and the like post-Tiananmen Square, the new technologies that are being employed that are going directly to the police from companies like Cisco, Honeywell, IBM, GE, United Technologies, include: routers to monitor Internet communications and pinpoint the exact computer on which a government critic is writing so that he can be detained moments after hitting or clicking send, software to analyze images captured on cameras in public places to identify suspicious gatherings like conferences or protests and software to intercept mobile phone communications and identify the location of the caller. What can be done, in your view, to prevent the sale of these technologies, particularly right now when so many people will want to make contact with the athletes and with the press -- especially with press -- in August in the -- during the Olympic games so that, again, the Chinese government does not reap a new bonanza of human rights dissidents that they send to the laogai, where they will be tortured and harassed and abused?

SEC. RICE: Well, I can't comment, Congressman, on any specific cases that you're referring to, but I can say that of course the United States has stood for the right of people to use the Internet and to use it freely, because we believe it's a really great tool for democratization. Frankly, it's been a tool for some not great things as well, and I think we all recognize that, but that is one of the prices of liberty.

I am -- what we've done is that when these cases have come up, we've been very, very active with the Chinese government to seek information, to try to make sure that these cases are not swept under the rug. I raise them with my counterpart. We raise them at very high levels. We want, also, not just to be in the business of raising specific cases, but we believe that we need to work structurally so that some of the laws and institutions that are used in China to these purposes should be undone, which is why we've made our human rights dialogue more focused on structural elements, as you know, as you and I have discussed before.

I do think that in the runup to the Olympics, China will be under considerable spotlight as well, and it is a time when these cases will be more evident and can be brought to the fore. So that is what we're trying to do. I don't know about specific equipment. One wants to be careful about too many restrictions on the very kind of equipment that ultimately, I think, are going to undo authoritarian regimes, because a government may think that it's controlling the Internet or having an effect -- I think in many places, we're seeing that it's having quite the opposite effect.

REP. SMITH: I would ask, if you could, the Global Online Freedom Act has passed out of this committee, is making its way to other committees of Congress. We would very much welcome the support of the administration for that legislation. Again, the new means by which governments can control and suppress and literally crush dissidents very often are of the high-tech variety, and as we're seeing right now, with impunity, the Chinese government is using that technology.

You know, handcuffs obviously have dual use in the hands of a legitimate police force or in the hands of a secret police with nefarious purposes. But we have a situation today, Madame Secretary, where they're taking this Cisco police-net state-the-art capabilities, a secret police now has it and they're using it, and they're crushing dissent.

We saw in the London -- I saw in the Telegraph of London a report that the British athletes -- and I think it's an accurate story -- are not going to speak ill of any Chinese human rights policy and are -- in a way of like prior restraint, broadcasting, they will say nothing about human rights. You know, I hope our athletes certainly don't do such a thing and will look -- freely talk to dissidents and raise these issues.

But this high-tech capability in the hands of a dictatorship will wreak unbelievable havoc and damage on the part of the dissidents. So we need to do something immediately.

REP. BERMAN: The time of the gentleman has expired.

And the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.

DEL. ENI FALEOMAVAEGA (D-AS): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Is this mike working? (Pause.)

Madame Secretary, it's always a pleasure to offer my personal welcome to you whenever you appear to testify before this committee. Thank you for your service to our nation. And I wish you continued good health and strength to carry out such a tremendous responsibility you bear in conducting our nation's foreign policies throughout the world.

Forgive me for my voice. (Referring to the hoarse sound.)

Madame Secretary, I have just returned from a trip to New Zealand, and I want to thank and to compliment you and the members of your staff in implementing a pilot program concerning the visa application program. You know, New Zealand's only about 2,500 miles from my district, and thousands of my constituents have had to carry a very heavy financial burden in doing this. Thank you, and I sincerely want to thank our ambassador and our consul general there for their service.

I also want to convey the best wishes of our mutual friend, the foreign minister of New Zealand, Mr. Winston Peters. In my collaboration with him, Madame Secretary, he simply reconfirmed the concerns that I have expressed over the years; the fact that our country is not giving enough attention to the needs of the problems of the Pacific Region. No presence of the USAID in the Pacific region.

I recently introduced legislation that the State Department should establish the presence of USAID in the Pacific. It's passed the House, and I sincerely hope that I will get your support in this effort.

I also visited recently Cambodia, Madame Secretary, and I was deeply moved by the experience. My subcommittee will be conducting a hearing on the question of forgiveness or recycling of Cambodia's debt -- or debt obligations, which now runs well over $300 million to the U.S. -- (supposedly ?) have accrued from the five-year period during the time of the Khmer Rouge, which ruled Cambodia.

And knowing that the Khmer Rouge is one of the most brutal regimes of the 20th century, was responsible for torturing, slaughtering and murdering some 1.7 million Cambodians out of only a population of 7 million people; and knowing also that Cambodia was left with only 69 intellectuals to rebuild its ruined economy; and knowing also that the U.S. policy at the time in part led to the rise of Khmer Rouge, which brought about Cambodia's destruction, do you think the United States, our government, should in good conscience demand such repayment of such a debt, when Cambodia was going through such a difficult, difficult time during the time of the Khmer Rouge?

I wanted to ask you for your response to that, Madame Secretary, the question of Cambodia.

SEC. RICE: Well, obviously, we consider very important the developments in Cambodia, but of course, we've been disappointed thus far in some of the efforts at reform in Cambodia, and we continue to press for those reforms. We've made available assistance -- democracy assistance and the like -- in Cambodia and will continue to watch it, Congressman.

I take your point about the debt issue. I will have to look into it and get back to you, but we have tried to engage the government of Cambodia. We have tried to engage NGOs there. We would like to see further progress of economic reform and democratization there.

If I could turn for a moment back to the Pacific, and particularly to New Zealand, we very much value the increased activity, increased interaction, with New Zealand, and increased and improved relationship with New Zealand. As you know, Prime Minister Clark has been here to see the president. Winston Peters and I are close colleagues and we talk frequently. And I think our relationship there has improved, and again I will look at your, the bill that you are looking at in terms of USAID and what might be done there.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: Thank you, Madame Secretary.

REP. BERMAN: Thank you.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): Thank you very much.

Madame Secretary, welcome. And obviously you join with us today, and we all feel, this is one of those days quite frankly. First meeting without Tom Lantos, and he was one of my real heroes. I mean, he really was. I probably have a list of five heroes in my life, and he was one of him. And I certainly want to go on the record as making sure everybody knows just how much he was appreciated here from this member of Congress over the years.

But now it's all up to use. You know, just like when Ronald Reagan was around, we all depended on Ronald Reagan. Now Tom Lantos isn't going to be around, and that's even more of a responsibility, for those of us not to forget those fundamental principles which guided Tom Lantos's priorities. And he had a set of priorities that I think were so admirable. And on the top of that list was human rights, and that that should have a bearing on U.S. foreign policy.

So first of all, I'd like to get your reaction, Madame Secretary, to Steven Spielberg's withdrawal, from his participation in the Beijing Olympics, on humanitarian, and in terms of Darfur and human rights grounds. Should the United States not have a stand about the Beijing Olympics?

SEC. RICE: I believe that Mr. Spielberg has made a decision as a private citizen. I think he should do that.

I think the role of the United States here is not to make judgments about who participates in the Olympics or not, but to continue to stand for the very concerns that we have about human rights and freedoms in China, and to use the opportunity to continue to promote those.

REP. ROHRABACHER: I have found, whether it was the Clinton administration, this administration, that human rights considerations, in dealing with China, have not played a high priority, as Mr. Lantos would wanted to have played.

On another area, how much money are we asking for, is the administration requesting, for Afghan reconstruction?

SEC. RICE: Well we have -- let's see -- in the '09 budget -- let me get those numbers for you because there's an '09 budget request and then there's about $800 million that is also in the supplemental for Afghanistan. And so all total, it's about a billion dollars that's being requested.

REP. ROHRABACHER: I think that we have been just inexcusably lax in our commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan. I think that's one of the reasons why we have problems there today is we did not fulfill our promise to the Afghan people. I think it's very difficult for me as a member of Congress to take seriously when this administration claims that we are doing everything we can to help the Afghans to rebuild when they are asking for so little money in reconstruction as compared to, for example, AIDS and malaria for Africa. I heard the president's address, he's asking for $6 billion a year for something that's a totally humanitarian project versus, as you were saying, $1 billion a year for a project that is so vital to our national security.

SEC. RICE: Congressman, I think our commitment to Afghanistan over the last six years has nearly been $20 billion. And I would note that we've been --

REP. ROHRABACHER: That's reconstruction and military or just military?

SEC. RICE: No, in terms of -- it was $14 billion in terms of reconstruction before a significant infusion of almost $5 billion last year. So we've put a lot of money into reconstruction in Afghanistan. But I think that -- I was just there, I was just in Kandahar, I was just in Kabul, and where we've tried to concentrate our resources is in first the construction of roads. This is a country with no infrastructure and in the provision of electrical power to the population, again, dealing with the infrastructure problem.

One of the issues that I think we have -- I referred to it in my opening remarks -- is that the United States has been very generous in reconstruction assistance. In fact, there has been some considerable generosity from the international community as well, but I think it's not well-coordinated, and I think our ability to go into a region, clear it of terrorists, hold it and then reconstruct it is in part what is the problem here.

REP. ROHRABACHER: I would suggest one thing, and I know I'm running out of time here, just that we do have alternatives that we have not used. And there is a herbicide that we have talked about on numerous occasions that we have not used to eliminate the poppy production, just like in the potato famine, the only crop that was affected by that fungus was the potatoes, all the other crops were fine. We could eliminate the poppy production in Afghanistan and quite frankly, I've been pushing for this for probably six years now, and we haven't moved on step forward, I believe, in testing it. Am I wrong, or has the State Department finally agreed to test that herbicide?

SEC. RICE: I think this a conversation we would need to have in another setting.

REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay. Thank you very much.

REP. BERMAN: The time of this gentleman has expired.

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne.

REP. DONALD PAYNE (D-NJ): Thank you very much. Good to see you. And I might remind you that it was in 1980 that the U.S. did boycott the Olympics when Russia -- USSR invaded Afghanistan. And I think that what Spielberg has done is great, and I would hope that we would at least have a travel advisory to Americans who intend to go about the dangers of China.

Just quickly on Africa. I just came back from Asmara in Eritrea, and I was meeting with President Isaias, who said that he would like to see better relations with the U.S., and met with the Somali alliance there, that are willing to have a negotiations and zone of tranquility and humanitarian cease-fire in Somalia. And I would hope that we might -- I met with Sheikh Sharif, Sheikh Amain (ph), who heads that group. If we could put a little bit more diplomatic work in trying to have a solution there in Somalia -- I think, though, withdrawal of Ethiopian troops would certainly help.

SEC. RICE: Well we have -- let's see -- in the '09 budget -- let me get those numbers for you because there's an '09 budget request and then there's about $800 million that is also in the supplemental for Afghanistan. And so all total, it's about a billion dollars that's being requested.

REP. ROHRABACHER: I think that we have been just inexcusably lax in our commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan. I think that's one of the reasons why we have problems there today is we did not fulfill our promise to the Afghan people. I think it's very difficult for me as a member of Congress to take seriously when this administration claims that we are doing everything we can to help the Afghans to rebuild when they are asking for so little money in reconstruction as compared to, for example, AIDS and malaria for Africa. I heard the president's address, he's asking for $6 billion a year for something that's a totally humanitarian project versus, as you were saying, $1 billion a year for a project that is so vital to our national security.

SEC. RICE: Congressman, I think our commitment to Afghanistan over the last six years has nearly been $20 billion. And I would note that we've been --

REP. ROHRABACHER: That's reconstruction and military or just military?

SEC. RICE: No, in terms of -- it was $14 billion in terms of reconstruction before a significant infusion of almost $5 billion last year. So we've put a lot of money into reconstruction in Afghanistan. But I think that -- I was just there, I was just in Kandahar, I was just in Kabul, and where we've tried to concentrate our resources is in first the construction of roads. This is a country with no infrastructure and in the provision of electrical power to the population, again, dealing with the infrastructure problem.

One of the issues that I think we have -- I referred to it in my opening remarks -- is that the United States has been very generous in reconstruction assistance. In fact, there has been some considerable generosity from the international community as well, but I think it's not well-coordinated, and I think our ability to go into a region, clear it of terrorists, hold it and then reconstruct it is in part what is the problem here.

REP. ROHRABACHER: I would suggest one thing, and I know I'm running out of time here, just that we do have alternatives that we have not used. And there is a herbicide that we have talked about on numerous occasions that we have not used to eliminate the poppy production, just like in the potato famine, the only crop that was affected by that fungus was the potatoes, all the other crops were fine. We could eliminate the poppy production in Afghanistan and quite frankly, I've been pushing for this for probably six years now, and we haven't moved on step forward, I believe, in testing it. Am I wrong, or has the State Department finally agreed to test that herbicide?

SEC. RICE: I think this a conversation we would need to have in another setting.

REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay. Thank you very much.

REP. BERMAN: The time of this gentleman has expired.

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne.

REP. DONALD PAYNE (D-NJ): Thank you very much. Good to see you. And I might remind you that it was in 1980 that the U.S. did boycott the Olympics when Russia -- USSR invaded Afghanistan. And I think that what Spielberg has done is great, and I would hope that we would at least have a travel advisory to Americans who intend to go about the dangers of China.

Just quickly on Africa. I just came back from Asmara in Eritrea, and I was meeting with President Isaias, who said that he would like to see better relations with the U.S., and met with the Somali alliance there, that are willing to have a negotiations and zone of tranquility and humanitarian cease-fire in Somalia. And I would hope that we might -- I met with Sheikh Sharif, Sheikh Amain (ph), who heads that group. If we could put a little bit more diplomatic work in trying to have a solution there in Somalia -- I think, though, withdrawal of Ethiopian troops would certainly help.

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo.

REP. DONALD MANZULLO (R-IL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madame Secretary, it's good to see you here this afternoon.

On January 28th of this year, President Bush issued an export control directive. This is a package of reforms aimed at improving the licensing of defense items and services. The directive said that the director of the Defense Control -- Trade Control, DDTC, at the State Department would get, quote, "additional financial resources and that intelligence support would be made available for the timely adjudication of defense trade licenses," end of quote.

According to the president's FY 2009 budget, however -- request -- no additional staff is requested for DDTC licensing, despite an 8 percent increase in the number of defense trade licenses submitted to DDTC last year. The very modest amount of additional funding requested for DDTC licensing of $229,000 doesn't even keep up with inflation. Yet the rest of the State Department budget request is well over the rate of inflation -- in fact, a $703 million increase.

My question is, how does this budget request for DDTC licensing comport with the president's directive that the funding be made available and increased accordingly?

SEC. RICE: Well, first let me say the importance of the directive, because ever since I was national security adviser, we've been trying to improve the export control flow. I've -- very important that we not try -- be trying to control things that we shouldn't be trying to control and that we focus on the high-priority items.

I believe -- and I will get you a full answer and a breakout, but my understanding is that this is to be funded through fees, and that's why it isn't a budget request.

But let me get you an answer for the record. I'll write to you.

REP. MANZULLO: Thank you. I've given you this question also in a letter that we handed to your aide.

SEC. RICE: Thank you.

REP. MANZULLO: Thank you very much.

SEC. RICE: Thank you.

REP. BERMAN: The gentleman yields back the balance of his time, and I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler.

REP. ROBERT WEXLER (D-FL): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Madame Secretary, over the past month, startling revelations have come forward that specifically relate to your conduct prior to 9/11 and in the run-up to the war in Iraq. A recently released study by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity revealed that you, along with President Bush, top administration officials, made a total of 935 false public statements in an orchestrated attempt to take this nation to war. Here's a stack of these false statements right here, all 935 of them.

This study has found that you, Madame Secretary, made 56 false statements to the American people where you repeatedly pump up the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and exaggerate the so- called relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Madame Secretary, can you please tell us that isn't it true that you had intelligence that cast doubt on your repeated claims that Iraq did not (sic) have weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RICE: No, it's not true, Congressman. With all due respect, I think if you look back at the key judgments of the intelligence estimate about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, you will see that those judgments supported the views of many intelligence agencies worldwide, the views of the United Nations inspectors that Iraq must have been hiding something.

Our own intelligence estimate said that Iraq had reconstituted its biological weapons program, its chemical weapons program. And the only disagreement was whether or not they had reconstituted their nuclear weapons program, although there were certainly elements, including the CIA, that believed that they were in the process of doing so.

Now, Congressman, I take my integrity very seriously. And I did not at any time make a statement that I knew to be false or that I thought to be false in order to pump up anything.

Nobody wants to go to war. Saddam Hussein was a threat to this country. We had gone to war against him in 1991. President Clinton had gone to war against him in 1998. We were in a state of war with him. This was a cessation of hostilities, not an armistice, because let us remember that our pilots were actually flying missions, Southern Watch and Northern Watch, and being shot at by his -- by his air defenses.

And so --

REP. WEXLER: (Off mike) --

SEC. RICE: I'm sorry, Congressman; because you've questioned my integrity, I ask you to let me respond.

Now, we have learned that many of the intelligence assessments were wrong. There have been many, many investigations of that, including Senate Select Intelligence and a number of others. And we have gone to extraordinary lengths to reform our intelligence agencies so that they can make better assessments of situations in which you have non-transparent governments that will not answer the just demands of an international community that had sanctioned and had resolutions against Saddam Hussein several times.

REP. WEXLER: Madame Secretary, if I --

SEC. RICE: So, no, Congressman, at no time did I intend to or do I believe that I did --

REP. WEXLER: I simply --

SEC. RICE: -- put forward false information to the American people.

REP. WEXLER: I simply asked if you had intelligence that was contrary to the intelligence that you reported repeatedly to the American people --

SEC. RICE: Congressman, I would --

REP. WEXLER: -- that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction.

SEC. RICE: Congressman, I would suggest that you go back and read the key judgments of 2002. I think that will answer your question.

REP. WEXLER: Yes. The answer to the question, Madame Secretary, is that in fact there were contrary reports. You chose to weigh the reports that supported your -- (inaudible word).

SEC. RICE: Congressman -- no, Congressman, I chose to use --

REP. WEXLER: (My point is ?), Madame Secretary --

REP. BERMAN: (Sounds gavel.)

SEC. RICE: I'm sorry. I'm going to answer this.

Congressman, I chose to use what every administration uses, which is the collective wisdom of the intelligence community that is in a National Intelligence Estimate. I again ask you to go back and read the key judgments from 2002 about the state of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, and I think you will see that it was the judgment of the intelligence community as a whole that he had reconstituted his biological weapons program, reconstituted his chemical weapons program, and was seeking to do so with his nuclear weapons program and might do so within a year if he got foreign assistance. That was the collective wisdom of the intelligence community. I will be the first to say that it was not right.

REP. WEXLER: Madame Secretary, unfortunately, the American people were denied the opportunity to hear the other side.

You may have rightfully or wrongfully reached your conclusion, but a legitimate question is why weren't the American people told that there was contrary --

SEC. RICE: Congressman, I am sorry. I sat through the briefings for the Congress and for the Senate done by the intelligence community. We were there to provide policy advice that George Tenet or John McLaughlin gave those briefings. And Congressman, the American people were told what their intelligence community as a whole believed to be the assessment concerning Iraq's programs. I just want to repeat to you that not only was it our intelligence community, there were other intelligence communities that believed the same. If we didn't believe that, it's very strange that we put Iraq under several Security Council resolutions, numbering 16 or 17, demanding that Saddam Hussein answer for his weapons of mass destruction program; that the Resolution 1414 -- 1441, which was an unanimous resolution of the Security Council saying that he had to answer for his weapons of mass destruction programs.

I'd be the first to say the intelligence was not right. And we've gone to great lengths to reorganize it so that we can have better intelligence. But to claim, Congressman, that there were other things that we somehow hid from the American people is simply not right.

REP. BERMAN: The time of the gentleman has expired.

And the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, is recognized for five minutes.

REP. JOE WILSON (R-SC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, I want to wish you well and best wishes.

As chairman, we all have benefitted from the service of Chairman Tom Lantos and I'll always cherish the times that expressed that he was the most optimistic member of Congress.

And I know he would want to be here, Madame Secretary, and with your fond comments for him. And I want to thank you for your very successful efforts in protecting American families and by representing our country so well.

Additionally, on your most recent visit to Iraq earlier this month, I'd like your assessment as to the political situation there, the executive, legislative, grassroots levels. How do you feel about the developments in Iraq?

SEC. RICE: Well, thank you, Congressman. I would first make the point that obviously, the men and women in uniform in the surge have improved the security situation. It's still fragile, but it's improved. And the Iraqis have taken advantage of that opportunity in several ways. First of all, at the local level, local citizens committees, people who are coming out to defend their communities and their districts against al Qaeda, against special groups that would terrorize them -- the awakening group of Anbar is perhaps the most famous, but there are these committees in the neighborhoods of Baghdad in the south and many other places.

Those efforts are supported by provincial, local, district councils that are coming alive. We have supported them through our Provincial Reconstruction Teams that are able to get down to the local level and help people to provide for their citizens at a local level. And we're finally even really seeing movement at the national level. I think we know that it has been slower than we would have hoped, but they have passed in the last few months a pension law, an investment law, a de-Baathification act called Accountability and Justice Reform. Just today, they passed a provincial powers law that should provide a basis for the relationship between the provinces and the center and also provide the basis on which provincial elections can take place. They also passed a 2008 budget and they passed an amnesty.

So I think they are moving along. It's tough. It's not easy to learn to use politics for other than tyranny and violence, but they've made some progress.

REP. WILSON: I particularly appreciate you citing the success of our military. I've had two sons, Army and Navy, serve in Iraq. I visited eight times. As I see the young people who are protecting our country, they are making a difference and I'm so grateful for the leadership of General David Petraeus. Additionally, I have a great interest in Afghanistan.

My former National Guard unit, the 218th Brigade, is led by General Bob Livingston, is leading the effort to train the Afghan national police. We have 1,600 troops from South Carolina, the largest deployment, since World War II, of troops from our state.

What is your assessment of the activities for the police and army in Afghanistan?

SEC. RICE: I think the general assessment, and I was just in Kandahar and in Kabul. The general assessment is that the army is doing well. I think they're going to increase the number in the army to maybe as many as 80,000, maybe a little bit more, because the army is a truly national institution, and people believe that it is fighting well.

The police are a more difficult matter. And if there's anything that I've learned, whether it's Colombia or Haiti or Liberia or Iraq, the police tend to be harder to form. But I met a really fantastic American one-star general, who's working with the International Security Assistance Forces in the South. They have a good new program for police training, mentoring of police, building police stations in communities, so that people feel secure.

But we're going to have to take a really hard look at how to increase the police capability. Because in counterinsurgency, when you clear with the army forces, you need to be able to hold with police forces, so that you can then build -- (off mike). So that's the story of the police in Afghanistan. I think we will want to look to make it better, and particularly to make sure that the international efforts to build police are completely coordinated with what is being done by our own forces.

REP. WILSON: I appreciate, earlier you stated, greater emphasis on provincial reconstruction teams. And I have had the opportunity to visit in Khost and Jalalabad. I've seen firsthand wonderful people, USAID, making an effort to help the people of Afghanistan. Thank you, again, for your leadership, again, protecting American families. Thank you.

SEC. RICE: Thank you.

REP. BERMAN: The time of the gentleman has expired.

The gentleman from Massachusets, Mr. Delahunt.

REP. WILLIAM DELAHUNT (D-MA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madame Secretary, I welcome your statement regarding keeping the Congress informed regarding the proposed bilateral agreement, and particularly your reference to full transparency. I think it's important, because I believe that the American people deserve to know as much as possible about their future, and the relationship between the United States and Iraq, as we go forward, prospectively.

My committee, along with the committee chaired by Mr. Ackerman, have had three hearings on the so-called declaration of principles signed by President Bush back in November. And on each occasion, we invited a representative of the Department of State. I had sent you a letter and had received no response.

So is it safe for me now to conclude that, at the next hearing, that we will have a representative of the Department of State?

SEC. RICE: Absolutely.

REP. DELAHUNT: Thank you.

You know, let me go back to that op-ed piece that you penned this morning with Secretary Gates. Because I think this is a very, very important issue, because it dictates the future course of the relationship and our responsibilities and concomitant responsibilities on the part of the Iraqi government.

You mentioned in that piece that the United States has a number of these status of forces agreement. I also note the use of the term strategic framework agreement, which I'm guessing is somewhat different.

I don't want to go into that now. But I can't find a single status of force agreement that confers on the United States military the authority to engage in military action to defend the host country from foreign or internal aggression. And if you can consult with your very able staff and get back to me on that, I would like to have that information, if it exists, made known to myself and to my constituents and, I'm sure, the rest of the American people, because I don't know what the agreement is, but it certainly doesn't appear to be a so- called typical SOFA.

And let me just conclude with one question, another question. You are very clear and you stated here unequivocally that there is no binding obligation to act in the common defense in the event of an armed attack on Iraq. Of course the declaration of principles would lead you to another conclusion: not only from foreign aggression but internal aggression. And that can be the subject of future hearings.

But I guess -- as I reflect, I guess my key question is, would the proposed agreement, whatever you want to call it, give the United States the right -- not the obligation but the right -- to defend Iraq from foreign or internal aggression? And if it does, do you conclude that it confers -- it would confer sufficient legal authority to use military force to defend Iraq from either internal or foreign aggression without congressional authorization?

SEC. RICE: Oh, Congressman, the first point that I'd like to make is about the SOFA point, which is that these SOFAs -- I think if you look at them around the world, they're highly tailored to the specific circumstances. And the principal concern here is that our forces be able to continue to operate in Iraq after the expiration of the U.N. Security Council resolution, because whatever we as a country, the next president, whoever decides they want to do, I think there's an understanding that there are going to be some things that we want our forces to be able to do --

REP. DELAHUNT: If you would allow me to interrupt --

SEC. RICE: Yes.

REP. DELAHUNT: -- a typical SOFA confers immunity from prosecution by the host country. That's the commonly accepted understanding of the term SOFA, status of forces agreement.

And as I look at the 115 countries with which we have these status of force agreements, that's what it's about.

SEC. RICE: Well --

REP. DELAHUNT: It's not about the authority to engage in military combat.

SEC. RICE: Well, we also have one with Afghanistan that is somewhat different. We also -- some of them are really very detailed, down to the question about postage and postal services.

REP. DELAHUNT: And I understand all of that.

SEC. RICE: And so they're very varied.

But the point that I wanted to make to you, Congressman, is that obviously our forces are still operating in Iraq. And we've come to a point at which the Iraqis, I think rightly, in asserting their sovereignty, want to move to a more normal relationship. I think we will work with them, and we will continue to brief the Congress and keep you apprised, to determine hat kinds of protections we need for our forces so that they can do their work there.

In terms of whether or not we would be defending at some point or choosing to operate there to defend Iraq from external or internal attack, I think, of course, those are questions of our own national interest and how we would view a particular circumstance at a particular time.

And under those circumstances --

REP. DELAHUNT: Now the likelihood it would be -- and again, I apologize, let me interrupt.

SEC. RICE: Yes.

REP. DELAHUNT: The next administration could very well have a significantly different definition of national interest than the Bush administration.

SEC. RICE: Yes. Absolutely. And this does not tie the hands of the next president, but it does permit that on December 31st our forces would not be without protection in Iraq.

REP. DELAHUNT: Can I just add --

REP. BERMAN: Well, you're kind of over a little, Mr. --

REP. DELAHUNT: If the chair would just indulge me for one further observation --

REP. BERMAN: I indulge him, yes.

REP. DELAHUNT: I would be point out to the secretary, however, that under Order 17 of the CPA, the coalition provisional authority, that conferred immunity on American troops -- that still would exist and was swept into the Iraqi constitution so that if the mandate expires and American troops are still there, they are protected in terms of any legal responsibility or culpability as far as Iraqi law is concerned.

SEC. RICE: What we don't want, Congressman, is any uncertainty about the authorities under which our forces are operating. And given that this is a sovereign government, given that the U.N. Security Council Resolution will expire and the Iraqis do not want to extend it, I think going to a normal basis for our troops is extremely important.

REP. BERMAN: The time of the gentleman is expired.

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Fortenberry.

REP. JEFF FORTENBERRY (R-NE): Mr. Chairman, first, let me say thank you for your kind remembrance of Chairman Lantos. He graced our panel with such dignity and eloquence and incisive wit and clearly had formidable command of the most intimate details of foreign operations. I, as well, considered him to be a dear friend and a mentor -- be missed.

And Madame Secretary, welcome. I greatly appreciate your perspectives as well on our foreign operations, as well as your dignified responses today.

Our foreign assistance programs represent the face of the United States overseas. Their effectiveness, the integrity in which they are implemented, and the values that they convey speak volumes as to who we are as a people. The United States, it's important to note, is the most generous benefactor to the suffering throughout the world, and whether we embrace it and want it or are fatigued by it, the mantle of leadership in world affairs, I believe, falls to our shoulders.

In that regard, Madame Secretary, in our previous gathering we had the opportunity to dialogue on a renewed spirit of diplomacy in the Middle East, a diplomatic surge, if you will, to complement and enhance our security efforts. And I wanted to follow up with you on that. I believe we now have a fledgling opportunity to strengthen new regional security cooperation. I would like to hear an update on any progress made in that regard and the resources being applied there, with the responsible neighbors in the area.

SEC. RICE: Yes, thank you. I do think that we have an opportunity first of all with the Gulf states, our long-time allies in the gulf states. We've had interests there since Franklin Roosevelt. But there's a renewed interest in cooperation, defense cooperation. There are some defense cooperation items before foreign notification that have been notified to the Congress because given the regional changes, particularly, frankly, the threat of Iran, I think it's important that we make clear that we're going to be a presence in the Gulf and that we're going to help our allies defend themselves. We've also, out of the Iraq engagement, begun to engage Iraq's neighbors through an Iraq's expanded neighbors conference.

I will have just accepted the invitation of the Kuwaitis for a meeting of that that will take place toward the end of April. It also provides the kind of forum in which these interests can be pursued.

And I would finally note that we are working -- working very intensively to make sure that Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and others have the -- and to a certain extent the Palestinians -- have the kind of increasing security capability themselves that they can be stabilizing factors in the region, not destabilizing factors. I think the security situation of the United States has the chance to improve for the long run as a result of these efforts.

REP. FORTENBERRY: So they are being formally institutionalized? That's what we spoke about the last time. And I realize it's fledgling at this point.

SEC. RICE: Yes. Yes. The Gulf Security Dialogue is bilateral, and Bob Gates has been engaging people multilaterally as well. We have the GCC plus Egypt and Jordan, which is another form. I wouldn't expect anything that looks like too formal an organization, but I do think that what we're providing is intensified bilateral ties and then multilateral fora in which those efforts can be strengthened and supported.

REP. FORTENBERRY: Any projections on potential outcomes there, timeline?

SEC. RICE: There's a lot of interest. It's a different region than most places, and I think there's some reluctance to have too formal structures, but I would say that if you think of it as kind of wheel and spokes, we've both intensified those efforts and strengthened our security position and that of our allies.

REP. BERMAN: The gentleman's time has expired.

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Meeks.

REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D-NY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to add my word that we will all miss Chairman Lantos, who really did a great service to this country and indeed to the world. And he will be missed. And I know that we'll have the appropriate time to make further statements in that regard.

Likewise, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your chairmanship and look forward to working with you. You are a man who has distinguished himself long ago in this Congress, and now to have you as a chair of this committee and for me to serve under is an honor for me. So I look forward to working with you.

Madame Secretary, good day. I want to move to a different region, but before I do, I just wanted to make sure, because I wasn't sure that I heard a(n) answer to one of Mr. Delahunt's questions about whether or not there was -- that you feel you had sufficient authority without coming back to the Congress in regards to acting as an ally to -- in Iraq and as far as using our forces against -- (inaudible word) -- et cetera.

So I just -- I didn't hear an answer. Maybe it was. I was wondering if you could just tell us, do you have enough -- do you have authority or do you have to come back to Congress?

SEC. RICE: Well, I would just say, Congressman Meeks, of course we're in the midst right now of military operations in Iraq, and I think the president is going to do on advice of his commanders what we need to do to defend ourselves, to defend the interests and the concerns that we have in Iraq. And we are in the midst of a -- an engagement there.

I think the question probably arises to what would happen in the future. And there, I don't want to limit any president's authority because, of course, this is a long-standing constitutional issue. But I think you would see that there has been a tradition, both with our administration and with others, of consultation with Congress about these matters. And I would expect those to continue.

REP. MEEKS: Let me go to now the subject matter that I wanted to go to, another continent, our neighbors to the south. Extremely concerned about South America, Central America, the Caribbean. And I know that in the president's fiscal year 2009 budget, I'm thankful for the additional two percent, $32 million, that are in that budget after it had been cut for, I guess, four years or so.

Not included in that budget though, and you know I'm very supportive of Plan Colombia and now with what we're looking to do for Mexico, but that's a substantial part of the budget. And a number of other, and I hear from leaders in South America and in a number of the other countries, is the need to help for social programs and the alleviation of poverty and education and the income inequality. We don't seem to be putting any substantial amount of money in those areas, equivalent to what we put into security and counternarcotics, which is causing some problems.

And I'm going to tie this into another concern of mine, because it seems as though what I'm concerned is that South America becomes divided, and some of that is around who can be, who are our friends, and who's not our friends, and they're trying to align themselves. And, for example, when I, and I know it's difficult because of the words that go across the bow between us and Venezuela, Venezuela and us. But it seems as though that Bolivia and Ecuador side on one side, and then we have Colombia and others standing someplace else. I talked to some of my colleagues in Brazil who feel that they're twixt between the two sides.

My question there is, for example, the last elections that they had, where the Venezuelan people decided that they were not going to give President Chavez the opportunity to be president for life. But president Chavez indicated that he would abide by the people's decision, which he did, which seems to me to be some form of democracy that is taking place, and that the Venezuelan people are determined to take a stand when they feel that they have to take a stand.

I saw a similar situation when I went to Venezuela at the referendum of his presidency, where people waited in long lines. And I saw democracy actually at work. It may not have been the outcome that we liked but in fact, there was some, there was democracy that was taking place. And it seems as though that we missed the opportunity to possibly get to a diplomatic position where we can talk, soften words, when we do see democracy taking place.

And so I'm wondering: have we missed some opportunities, I mean, particularly given the fact that when there was a coup d'etat, we did in fact acknowledge the coup government at that time, and that wasn't a democratic process at -- you know, back in nineteen- -- I think it was ninety- --

SEC. RICE: In two thousand- --

REP. MEEKS: -- two thousand-two.

So I'm just wondering about the whole stability of South America and our positioning there and whether we're missing some golden opportunities.

SEC. RICE: Well, first, Congressman Meeks, thank you for your interest and your continued work there. I know it's been a very -- you've been very active.

The first point that I'd make is that if you look just at assistance, we've of course doubled foreign assistance to Latin America during this administration. And even if you back out the Merida Initiative this year, there's still an increase in assistance to Latin America. So it's not all security assistance.

Plan Colombia has been moving with more and more in the way of support to institutions, to justice reform and less directly to the -- not just to the army. So I think we've been moving in those directions.

I would just make one point, which is if I could do one thing in Latin America, it would be make sure that we get these free trade agreements through, because Colombia, which was on the precipice of being a failed state in 2000, first with the Clinton administration and then with our administration, we have helped the Colombian people take back their streets. I was just in Medellin, a place that had -- was synonymous -- as a matter of fact, Congressman Scott was there with me -- it was synonymous with trouble --

REP. MEEKS: I agree with you.

SEC. RICE: -- and Pablo Escobar, and it's now a functioning city. And what we need to do is we need to continue to support governments like Colombia as they come out of the horrors. They still have work to do on human rights, on impunity, all of those things. But they're going to be better off with our support, not without it, and they need to be -- we need to be clear in that.

I believe that if you think about what we've done with our policies in Latin America, the president's made very clear that we don't have a side, that we're on the side of democracy.

And it really doesn't matter if you're a government from the left or a government from the right. We have excellent relations with the large state there, Brazil. We have equally good relations with Chile, very good relations with Uruguay, all governments of the left. We have excellent relations with Peru, a government that we would not have thought -- and even with a country like Nicaragua, where we have a long history, so to speak, with that government. The Millennium Challenge program that we have in Nicaragua has been popular whether you're a Sandinista mayor or not, because the -- benefits of that program to the people.

So we've tried to stand for not left or right, but for democracy and prosperity, open markets and social justice.

And I'd be the first to say that I think the social justice part of our message has gotten sharper and stronger over the last couple of years. And that has helped us in Latin America.

They still have a lot of challenges, but it's a part of the world that's come a long way, and we need to continue to be good partners.

REP. MEEKS: Thank you.

REP. BERMAN: The time of the gentleman has expired.

We have about four or five votes, depending on Republican strategy -- (laughter) -- coming up. And -- but perhaps we can get one more question in this round, and I would like to recognize our new member, our new colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman.

REP. ROBERT WITTMAN (R-VA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a great honor and a privilege to be part of this committee, and I also would like to reflect upon Chairman Lantos's legacy here with this committee.

I only knew him for a short time, but he was a man of extensive knowledge in foreign affairs and a deep passion. And I know that we will all miss him.

Madame Secretary, since the last time you testified before this committee, Iran had continued to progress in its nuclear program, in violation of two U.N. Security Council resolutions. And according to the recent NIE, if Iran continues its enrichment activity, it will likely be able to produce sufficient fissile material or fuel for a weapon by the early part of next decade, and a weapon shortly thereafter. What's the current status of the UNSC resolution on Iraq? And what's included in the resolution? And what do we expect our allies to do once the resolution is passed?

SEC. RICE: Thank you. Well, I -- recently in Berlin, a couple of weeks ago, the six parties, Germany plus the P-5 came to agreement on the elements of a resolution. That resolution is now being put together and debated and shared with broader in the Security Council. And I would hope that within a few weeks, at least, we would be able to get a vote -- an affirmative vote.

I do think that these Security Council resolutions -- they're not as strong as the United States would like, but they have the effect of reminding Iran that it's isolated from the international community. In this case, as Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen mentioned, this one has a new provision on cargo inspection, which we think could be very important. Again, it's not as strong as we would want but it opens a new direction, which would be very important. It also deepens some of the sanctions on asset freezes and the like.

We have also been able to use measures outside of the Security Council, whether they are the treasury 311s that permit -- prevent the Iranians from using the international financial system for ill-gotten gains. That's why we designated the IRGC, designated the Qods Force. We're going after their finances. We're going to keep going after their finances. And we want our friends around the world to be more aggressive on that side.

I frankly think that the immediate aftermath of the NIE was to cause people to relax a little too much. But as Director McConnell said, that should never have been the reading of the NIE because the piece of this that's really dangerous is the enrichment and reprocessing activity. And I think we've gotten people gathered again around that recognition and we'll continue to pursue this.

There is some evidence that the isolation is starting to have an effect. We're not looking for moderates in Iran. We're looking for reasonable people that may not want to be isolated, and we'll continue to pursue these policies to try to achieve that.

REP. WITTMAN: Thank you, Chairman.

REP. BERMAN: Thank you, gentleman. The gentleman's time has expired. Committee will now recess.

We will find you a place to do your business, because this could be a 30 to 40 minute stretch, and then we will come back for the remaining members who wish to question you. Mr. Sherman would be the first person to be recognized.

SEC. RICE: Thank you.

REP. BERMAN: Thank you, Madame.

(Recess.)

REP. BERMAN: Madame Secretary, there's still one more vote on, and we won't tell you what we're doing with that vote, but we're basically ignoring it. And -- but we thought we'd get started so you can finish sooner.

And it's now my time to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman.

REP. BRAD SHERMAN (D-CA): I have a lot of questions for record and --

REP. BERMAN: Five minutes.

REP. SHERMAN: Yes. For the record, for last -- for the fiscal year currently in progress, the administration requested $35 million for Armenia. The Congress provided $58 million. Now, your current budget request not only is less than what we provided for this year, 58 (million dollars), it's less than what you requested last year. You're down to 24, and we see an increase in the funds for Azerbaijan. And this seems to add injury on top of the insult where we were asked not to take up the Armenian Genocide resolution. One would have thought that given that Congress acquiesced on that that there would more in this budget for Armenia.

The second thing is -- picks up on Mr. Manzullo's question and the DT -- DDTC -- what we have is $122 billion of U.S. exports, all of which have to funnel through 44 licensing officers. In order to get this program on target, it's going take another $5 million. If we fail to get it on target, you're going to see the off-shoring of arms production, and that's not only bad for jobs, it builds up the capacity of arms manufacturing outside the United States and undermines the whole goal of DDTC, which isn't just to make sure our arms don't get in the wrong hands, but to make sure that bad people don't get the capacity to do bad things.

A year ago, you committed to coming up with a solution. A year went by, then the president said, well, you've got 90 days to come up with a plan. And now, in response to Mr. Manzullo, you're proposing additional fees. In this town, I can't imagine that you're going to get additional fees adopted by the end of this administration. And here we are, for want of $5 million, not having fast review of some $122 billion of exports. So I would hope that you would supplement your request and ask for the $5 million. I assure you that the increased income taxes by the companies involved will more than pay for it.

We had a public law passed requiring that the State Department process fiance and immediate relative visas -- that they ought to be processed within 30 days, and non-immediate relatives within 60 days. That's once a person is eligible for an interview, all the documents have been received by DHS, that that should go through within I believe 30 days. I hope you'd respond for the record as to whether the administration is achieving the objectives set forth in public law 107-228.

Building on the discussion on Iran, I'd like to put into the record the reports of both CRS and the GAO, which outlines so many investments -- over $20 billion of investments -- in the Iran oil sector. Now, the --

REP. BERMAN: Without objection, those reports will be included in the record.

REP. SHERMAN: Now, it appears that there is just one person in the economics bureau who is responsible for reviewing the Iran -- investments in Iran's oil sector. And this may be one person too many, because it seems as if the administration is well aware of investments and has taken the view that at least this particular act of Congress is not a statute, it's just advice.

I've heard many high officials of the State Department say that the Iran Sanctions Act is a wonderful act, but that really you're not going to comply with the letter of the statute; just you like the kind of overall spirit.

And I wonder if you could, and maybe you could answer this here, commit to having the Economics Bureau review each of the transactions identified by the GAO report or the CRS report, and determine whether or why they believe this triggers the next step in the Iran Sanctions Act, to process, which is for the administration to determine whether to waive sanctions or whether to go through the process of -- whether to impose sanctions or whether to go through the process of waiving them.

Can you commit to at least reviewing what CRS and GAO have produced?

SEC. RICE: Well, thank you. I've not actually seen what CRS and GAO have produced, and I'm just concerned, Congressman, to take on an obligation. I don't know what the numbers are; I don't know how many cases we'd be committing to.

I will assure you that we are very cognizant and very concerned about oil investments in Iran, and I personally spend a lot of time trying to convince people not to do them. I also think that we are in a complex situation here where we're trying to get voluntary compliance from a number of countries and a number of companies with the kinds of financial sanctions that we think actually are having a real impact, not just on the economy as a whole but on the oil sector as well.

So I beg your forbearance but I certainly will take a look at the request and see if we can fulfill it.

REP. SHERMAN: Well, I think you're an eloquent advocate for the idea that the Iran Sanctions Act is a bad idea in that it involves imposing sanctions on basically companies in friendly countries. It just chagrins me to think that you just, when you see a statute that requires one course of action and you advocate a different course of action, voluntary negotiations as opposed to a name and shame and perhaps sanctions process, that the statute really is just advice.

SEC. RICE: I don't want to be misunderstood, Congressman. I believe we should use the act. I've told you, I think it's very useful. My only point is that we're in a complex set of arrangements here, because we are trying to get voluntary sanctions as well. That was the only point.

REP. SHERMAN: I would hope that, I mean, you can't possibly apply the act if you don't review the individual transactions. We'll provide a copy in the record.

And thanks very much.

SEC. RICE: All right.

REP. BERMAN: The time of the gentleman has expired.

If you'll bear with us just a few minutes, I might gratuitously add, on the point from my colleague Mr. Sherman, that the way the law is structured, there's waiver authority.

SEC. RICE: No, I understand that.

REP. BERMAN: It's getting people to make the finding that we haven't been able to do, and I believe just the existence of that statute has deterred some investment. My guess is a couple of sanctions would have a ripple -- I understand the complications it may cause you in promoting the multilateral sanctions agenda. But look at what some of the unilateral actions on banking have done.

SEC. RICE: I agree, Congressman. I don't think we're in disagreement here. I'm not hesitant to do it. I just didn't want to take on -- I don't know how many cases --

REP. BERMAN: Oh, no.

SEC. RICE: -- and whether or not they would meet our test. But I'm not hesitant to sanction and/or waive if it makes sense to waive, or to let a sanction stand if it doesn't make sense to waive.

REP. BERMAN: Well, we'll just be in recess here rather than -- (referring to vote) -- us keep thinking of questions to ask you while we -- (inaudible).

SEC. RICE: (Laughs.)

REP. BERMAN: The last vote is now closing, so --

SEC. RICE: Well, perhaps I could say a word about the Armenia question that the congressman asked, which --

REP. BERMAN: Oh, sure.

SEC. RICE: I believe we think we've met the development needs as we see them, but I just would remind, in terms of our support for Armenia, Armenia is, of course, also a recipient of an MCC, which is a very strong statement of our support for Armenia.

REP. SHERMAN (?): Even with -- with the chairman's indulgence, I'll point out that even then, it's far below -- even if you added $10 million (dollars) from that fund, you'd be far below what we provided last year.

REP. BERMAN: All right. We're just sort of talking while --

REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: I'm ready. (Laughter.) Thank you. No problem whatsoever. I'm ready to talk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary Rice, on a topic that has not been brought up but that Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin and so many others have been involved with, and that's concerning the workplace inequities that are facing gays and lesbians in the U.S. Department of State. I'm sure that you've heard a lot about the former ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, who brought out a lot of the unfair treatment that are faced by gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers and their partners.

And although it is true that some of those inequities could be dealt with by legislation, we believe that you do have legal authority to address a range of basic concerns through internal regulatory changes, and that is access to training, including language and security classes for same-sex domestic partners, et cetera. And we will be sending you a letter soon detailing some of these changes that are within your purview to make without needing legislative authority. And we hope that you will consider the inequities that are facing many of these wonderful men and women who are in -- sometimes in very tough assignments and do need that workplace protection.

SEC. RICE: Well, I appreciate that, and I look forward to receiving your letter. I think we have tried to be a department that is sensitive to the need of domestic partners, and we've tried to do that overseas as well as in the department. I pride myself on trying to run a department where everybody is welcome and where we don't have any tests of -- certainly of issues like sexual orientation. This is something that I consider very important.

I have begun to look at some of these issues on my own, particularly the issue of security training, which I think may -- that is something perhaps that we really ought to be looking at aggressively and urgently. So I look forward to getting your letter and responding.

REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: Well, thank you so much. Thank you for your openness in that.

And if I may ask an additional question, Mr. Chairman? In my introductory statement, I had alluded to a letter that I had sent to you last week regarding the partnerships that Iran and Venezuela have entered into. And of course, being two sovereign nations, they can do as they wish.

My concern has been whether there are any subsidiaries of any U.S. business interests related into some of these energy and petrochemical deals that are operating in order to do the end run about -- around the Iran Sanctions Act or any other sanctions policy that they might -- that we might have and that have become law. And it's noted with interest that for some of these deals their bank accounts are actually housed in the British Virgin Islands, which makes one think that perhaps it's done in a way specifically to do an end run about -- around our sanctions. And if you could comment about these energy deals and any subsidiaries that have U.S. involvement in them.

SEC. RICE: Well, we would be of course very -- look very much with disfavor on anything that tried to get around the sanctions, particularly the 311 sanctions that have been imposed.

We are aware that these governments are always trying to find other ways to -- you know, if we go after the central funding, the more reputable international financial institutions, that they'll look for other ways. It's a combination of intelligence and Treasury tracking to try to make sure that that's not happening. And I'm aware of the -- your -- and I want to thank you for raising the question. Of course we're looking into it.

REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. BERMAN: The secretary must leave in about eight minutes and particularly -- well, never mind.

SEC. RICE: Sorry. (Chuckles.)

REP. BERMAN: At least the people on our side of the aisle would be sensitive to it.

So I'm going to recognize -- I'd like for the people who haven't asked a question -- love to get them a few questions in, but I ask the members who are going to ask those questions to try to be restrained in terms of comments and -- so we can get all -- because we have four people here, and we have eight minutes.

The gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TX): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me in this room offer my expressions of sympathy to the loss of our very outstanding international humanitarian Tom Lantos. And I think we can clearly say, Madame Secretary, that his spirit will live on in American foreign policy.

Let me thank you as well for your service. And to our disappointment, we may not see you in this capacity in discussing budgets, and we thank you for your presence and your service as well.

Very quickly, why don't I go to the budget and express my disappointment on several issues and -- if you could comment on them, and then I'll just yield.

The issues dealing with child survival and health programs -- we notice that the budget going forward cuts those dollars. And I think we can clearly say that there is a continued need in terms of the work we do as it relates to children internationally.

We know that the refugee problem continues. Those numbers are there. I don't want to cite the numbers. It will take up my time. The refugee problem continues and particularly the refugees in Iraq. And I'd like to know why we have a cut in refugee assistance, since I think the numbers in Iraq are growing, and what are we doing with them.

Peacekeeping operations, particularly as relates to Africa and the Sudan and our work with the U.N. -- monies are being cut in peacekeeping operations, and I think that is something -- that it does a disservice to our foreign policy.

Lastly, as you know that I'm looking to go to Pakistan, and I want to know what kind of cooperative efforts are we engaged in to ensure impartial, safe elections on this coming Monday.

Are we working with the U.N., are we supporting monitors to help this?

And thank you.

SEC. RICE: Thank you.

And first of all, thank you for going to Pakistan. I think it's very important. We think this election needs to be credible in the eyes of the Pakistani people. We've made that point. The EU will have a huge monitoring operation there. We will, obviously, depend in part on them, on other NGOs. We have our own people in our confluence throughout the area and we will have them stand out, but I think the work that you'll be doing is going to be important to the efforts. So I look forward to talking with you before you go, and after.

In terms of child survival health -- and health, we have asked for what we -- the president's request has actually not changed from the appropriated -- yes, it's come down, but we think that this is important to support the president's malaria initiative, the support to HIV and AIDS, it's something -- maternal health -- these are things that we take very seriously. And finally, on refugees, we --

REP. JACKSON LEE: And peacekeeping.

SEC. RICE: -- refugees -- I'm sorry?

REP. JACKSON LEE: And peacekeeping.

SEC. RICE: Oh, and peacekeeping. I was explaining earlier that there's a kind of cashflow approach, really, to peacekeeping. We think we can meet our obligations if this is fully funded. Sometimes, we've gone to supplementals for specific peacekeeping operations like Darfur. If we can just make sure that we're fully funded, we think we'll be able to meet our obligations.

And finally, as to refugees, we will be asking for more in the supplemental on refugees. We believe that the numbers we've given you will fund the operations as we know them. And as to Iraq, there are quite a few people now returning. And one of the things that we're trying to do with the U.N. and with the Iraqi government is to have a more systematic way to accommodate those people who are trying to return, including the rebuilding of housing in places like Ramadi.

REP. BERMAN: Thank you.

Again, the secretary has about five minutes. And the gentleman from Colorado, I think, is the next up.

REP. TOM TANCREDO (R-CO): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madame Secretary, let me tell you -- first of all, I am one who believes entirely in your integrity and I think you have done an enormously important job for this country and I admire and respect your efforts. It is therefore with some degree of consternation that I have to bring up again an issue that puts in jeopardy not your integrity -- I mean, not jeopardy, but it questions it -- but certainly that of the department. When we have a situation where there is a law that's been passed by Congress, it's very specific, USE 1253 reads: "Upon being notified by the attorney general that the government of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen of that country after the attorney general asks whether the government will accept the alien, the secretary of State shall" -- doesn't say, "may," doesn't say if there's any kind of decision-making process that goes on as to whether or not you want to do this -- "secretary of State shall order consular officers in that foreign country to discontinue granting immigrant visas or non-immigrant visas or both to citizens of that country until the attorney notifies secretary that the country has accepted the alien.

Now there's a long list of countries that are presently not accepting their aliens back, including, of course, China and Iraq. We are now starting to resettle Iraqi refugees in the United States. All of that seems to me to be -- not the resettlement but certainly the fact that we have not fulfilled the responsibility, that the department hasn't fulfilled the responsibility under the law -- it begs the question, why not? And will -- do you plan on doing it?

I know the president, I think it was in the State of the Union message, and I'm not mistaken -- there was perhaps a sentence where he said something about the fact that we intend to work with Congress on this issue. And I don't know what that means and would be really interested to know until you -- until we get a change in the law, which is as I assume what you're hoping for, will you obey the law that has been passed?

SEC. RICE: Well, Congressman, we are always obligated and take seriously obeying the law. We have tried to work with governments to get people returned when these issues come. And I would just ask you to look at the efforts that we've made with China and with others on these issues. Sometimes there are questions about whether people can be returned, and on human rights grounds there are questions.

So I just -- I think it's not quite so cut and dry but I want to assure that we want to obey the laws. The president said we'll work with you, but these are cases that we take very seriously and we work very hard with these governments to have people returned.

REP. TANCREDO: There are presently 40,000 --

REP. BERMAN: The time of the gentleman is expired.

REP. TANCREDO: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I -- I mean, we did not see that.

REP. BERMAN: You have time for --

SEC. RICE: Perhaps I can take -- I've got to -- I have about two minutes. Can we take one more question? And I apologize for having to leave.

REP. BERMAN: Ms. Woolsey is next.

SEC. RICE: And I will take any questions that people have for the record and I will respond urgently.

REP. BERMAN: Great. You've been very generous with your time. It's not your fault we had a 45-minute break.

REP. LYNN WOOLSEY (D-CA): It ends right with me, so I will be very quick. Madame Secretary, one of the leading Republican candidates for president has been quoted over and over about saying that "I will be in Iraq for 50 to 100 years." So my question to you is, what is your response to that? Second, what is the administration bringing -- doing to bring the occupation in Iraq to an end? And three, what does the declaration of principles that the administration's trying to reach with Iraq have to do with bringing our troops home?

SEC. RICE: Well, on the final point, Congresswoman, I think you -- there was an op-ed that Secretary Gates and I did this morning about the agreement that we're seeking with the Iraqis.

It's principally so that our forces have a legal basis to continue to operate there. Whatever the next administration may choose to think that that operation needs to be, whether it's training or whatever, we need to have a legal basis for our forces, and that legal basis will expire with the U.N. Security Council resolution at the end of the year. And it's a SOFA-like agreement, and that's the principle here.

I don't want to comment on any one specific comment about Iraq except to say that I think we all understand that America's role in the Middle East and America's role in Iraq are inter-linked. We expect to continue to have a relationship with Iraq -- political, economic, the training of their security forces and the like. And I don't know how long that relationship will go on, but if it's a democratic Iraq that is contributing to stability in the Middle East, I hope that it will be a relationship that lasts.

REP. WOOLSEY: Well, do you think that you would bring that to the Congress?

SEC. RICE: We have done many, many SOFAs. They don't -- have never required congressional authorization. I think if you read what we're trying to do, it's simply to give our forces a legal basis to stay and do the things that the -- our president and the next president may want.

But if I would just close, Congresswoman, I really hope we'll stop this language of occupation. I've been out there with our forces, as I'm sure you know. You support them; I know you do. They are men and women who are sacrificing every day, paying the ultimate measure. They're trying to help decent and innocent Iraqis build a decent society. They're fighting al Qaeda. They're fighting special forces -- special squads, death squads that go after innocent Iraqis. They don't think of themselves as occupiers, the Iraqis don't think of them as occupiers, and so I sure don't. And so that's language I hope we will abandon.

Thank you very much.

REP. BERMAN: The time of the gentlelady has expired.

Madame Secretary, thank you very much. To my colleagues that I didn't get to, I apologize. And I --

SEC. RICE: I do want to be clear I'll take any questions for the record, gladly.

REP. BERMAN: We will -- if we get some, we'll send them on.

Thank you.

---

Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control - Iraq Watch

About Us | Contact Us | Subscribe

Copyright © 2003- 2012
Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control
1701 K Street NW, Suite 805
Washington, DC 20006 USA
Tel: 202-223-8299, Fax: 202-223-8298