U.S. foreign policy not defined by drone, deployments alone: John Kerry

President Barack Obama’s nominee for secretary of state Sen. John Kerry stressed at his confirmation hearing late on Thursday that the U.S. foreign policy should not be defined only by its military strength and urged Congress to fix the U.S. economy to ensure America’s role as a world leader.

 

The five-term U.S. senator and Vietnam War veteran, who was the Democrats’ 2004 presidential nominee, said the “first priority” in protecting his credibility as a diplomat was the country’s ability to get its fiscal house in order.

 

“Foreign policy is economic policy,” Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he has chaired for the past four years. 

 

“American foreign policy is not defined by drones and deployments alone,” Kerry said in outlining his views. “We cannot allow the extraordinary good we do to save and change lives to be eclipsed entirely by the role we have had to play since Sept. 11, a role that was thrust upon us.”

 

Faced with Iran’s nuclear program, Kerry said the United States will do what it must to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but he also signaled that diplomacy remains a viable option.

 

The senator said he was hopeful that the U.S. and other nations could make progress on the diplomatic front, but that Tehran needs to relent and agree to intrusive inspections.

 

“If their program is peaceful, they can prove it,” he said.

 

Kerry also said during the hearing that he would push for a revival of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, suggesting the United States could consider a new peace initiative despite the failure of Obama’s first-term efforts.

 

“We need to try to find a way forward, and I happen to believe that there is a way forward. But I also believe that if we can’t be successful, the door, window … to the possibility of a two-state solution could shut on everybody, and that would be disastrous in my judgment,” he said.

 

Thursday’s hearing is the first of three for Obama’s national security nominees, and the least controversial. The president’s pick of Chuck Hagel to be the next defense secretary will face tough questions about his past statements on Israel, Iran, nuclear weapons and defense spending at his confirmation hearing next Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

 

John Brennan, Obama’s choice for CIA director, will be quizzed about White House national security leaks and the use of unmanned drones at his hearing next month. 

 

 

Good morning. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to consider the next — the nominee for secretary of state have come to order. 

Let me again ask, as I did yesterday — since the full Senate has not yet passed the committee resolution seating members, I asked unanimous consent of returning members to allow our prospective members to participate in today’s hearing. And if there’s no objection, it is so ordered. 

Let me start with saying that you’re not at the — you’re not at the table yet, Senator, but we’re going to have you there shortly. (Laughter.) Wow, what a high-price staff member. (Chuckles.) Let me say, Senator Kerry, or should I say Mr. Chairman, since you are still our committee’s chair, that — deeply humbled to preside over the committee today as we consider your nomination. We’re honored to welcome you as the president’s nominee for a position you have most deservedly earned, from the first time you testified before Chairman Fulbright as a young returning Vietnam War hero in 1971 to the day the president nominated and announced your nomination as secretary of state. You may not be aware of it, but you will be the first member of this panel to ascend directly to the position since Senator John Sherman of Ohio became President McKinley’s secretary of state more than a hundred years ago. So you are clearly making history once again. 

Yours is a big chair to fill, and I will do my best today to live up to your example. I’ve watched your lead on the committee with an equally deep and abiding commitment to get to the heart of the matter, always probative, always open to debate, always ready to mitigate disagreements, always looking for the truth for answers, uncovering the facts, hearing all the evidence and then publicly speaking truth to power, based solely on what was the best interests of the nation. 

As a senator, as a member of this committee and as chairman, you have already built strong relationships with leaders around the world which will help you seamlessly into the role of secretary of state. You will need no introduction to the world’s political and military leaders and will begin on day one fully conversant not only with the intricacies of U.S. policy but with an understanding of the nuanced approach necessary to effectively interact on the multinational stage. 

When Vice President Biden sat in this chair, he said on more than one occasion: Good international relationships are always predicated on strong interpersonal relationships. I think we can all agree that you have set the highest standard for developing those relationships throughout your career, and as secretary of state, you will continue to strengthen those relationships on behalf of the president and the furtherance of American foreign policy. 

I’ll have some questions later on policies and your views, including how you will explain to world leaders how you could have been rooting for the Boston Red Sox instead of what the world knows is the New York Yankees as the team of the world — (laughter) — but let me say, Mr. Chairman, it’s been a pleasure working with you and looking forward to continuing to work with you on the issues you’ve championed over the years: fighting global terrorism; preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, chemical weapons; fighting for human rights and against HIV/A-I-D — AIDS around the world; fighting crime, corruption, drug trafficking and standing up, as you always have, for the interests of the foreign service around the world. 

In your new role, should you be confirmed — and I know you will — your portfolio will be greatly expanded. You will be center stage, representing the interests of all of us, from securing our embassies and protecting our overseas personnel to promoting commerce-enhancing, cross-cultural ties and keeping America secure through cooperation where possible and isolation where necessary, as in the case of Iran. 

And of course it goes without saying that you have truly been a world leader on one of the most consequential issues of our time: climate change. And it heartens me to know that someone with your commitment to the issue will be our voice to the world. 

The fact is, whatever the challenges we will face, in my view, the State Department could not be in better hands. When it comes to America’s role in world affairs, I know we agree that it is critical that the United States remain fully engaged, that we project not only the power of our military strength when necessary but the wisdom of our democratic ideals as we adjust to the new threats and new demands we will inevitably face. And there is no doubt you will be tested in your new role as secretary, nor is there any doubt that you will pass any test with honors, as you always have. 

Before I recognize Senator Corker, let me thank you on behalf of the committee for all you have done through your long and illustrious career here in the Senate and in the chairmanship of this committee. In anticipation of your confirmation by the full Senate, I wish you good luck and godspeed on the many journeys that lie ahead, and we will look forward to having a close working relationship with you as the next secretary of state. 

Let me now recognize Senator Corker, the ranking member, for his comments. 

SENATOR BOB CORKER (R-TN): 

 

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank our three distinguished guests who are going to introduce the chairman in just a moment. I want to say to the chairman, I want to thank you for your courtesy over the last six years as I’ve served on this committee. 

 

I look at you in being nominated for this as someone who’s almost lived their entire life, if you will, for this moment of being able to serve in this capacity. There’s no one in the United States Senate that has spent more time than you have on issues of importance to our country. The experience you develop while being on this committee and spending time abroad with world leaders with your wife, who’s at your side today — there’s almost no one who spent that kind of time and effort. So I’m happy for you. 

 

I know the many conversations we’ve had over the last two weeks — you’re very anxious to serve. You’re ready to go. My sense is your confirmation will go through very, very quickly. I do look forward to your testimony today. 

 

Secretary Clinton’s here today after a day of hearings both here and in the House. And I think you know you’re inheriting a department that, like many departments throughout government, has numbers of challenges. We saw systemic issues that need to be addressed, and they’re in the process of being addressed right now. 

 

Our nation has budgetary constraints, which means that in all of these departments, creativity is going to have to be utilized to make sure that we make the most of what we have in making sure that our U.S. interests are put forth. We have a world that is a dangerous world, and things continue to come over the transom, sometimes at surprising times. And I know as secretary of state, you’re going to have to lead our country in addressing those as they come about. 

 

I do hope that you’ll work closely with this committee, as you’ve worked very closely with this committee over the last many years, in helping us work with you to make sure that as we move ahead, we move ahead together and that it’s seamless. 

 

We have many challenges. And I know on Monday President Obama said that America will remain the anchor of strong challenges in every corner of the globe and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crises abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. 

 

I could not agree more. I look forward to, again, hearing your testimony today about what you hope to do in your new capacity. And I certainly welcome the three distinguished people who are here today to introduce you, which I know is a tremendous honor for you. 

 

Thank you for your service. I look forward to your testimony. 

 

SEN. MENENDEZ: Thank you, Senator. 

 

We have a have a star-studded panel here to introduce the nominee, starting with — I’ll introduce you in order of your presentation, but I just want to start off by welcoming back the secretary again. And we appreciate you coming back to us so soon. And again, you know, the thanks of a committee and a grateful nation for an incredible service to our country. 

 

And my understanding, although I’m being told differently, are you going, Senator Warren — Senator Warren, who is our new colleague from the grate state of Massachusetts, is going to be part of introducing her senior senator before the committee, then Secretary Clinton, and then our distinguished colleague, a member of this committee now as well, Senator McCain. 

 

With that, Senator Warren. 

 

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): Thank you. Thank you, Senator Menendez. 

 

It’s an honor to be here with Secretary Clinton and Senator McCain to introduce my senior senator and my friend, Senator John Kerry. I have the privilege of speaking for a man I know will continue in the tradition of John Quincy Adams and Christian Herter as great secretaries from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

 

Although John learned much about diplomacy overseas and in the Senate, he would be the first to tell you that Massachusetts is also a great teacher of diplomatic skills, whether it was negotiating his way to make the ballot as a long shot underdog in a five-way heavily contested state convention back in 1982, or the way he brought labor and management to the table, locked the parties in his Senate office over a long weekend, brought in Dunkin’ Donuts and negotiated an end to the 92-day-long Brochton (ph) teachers nurses strike — nurses strike. If anyone wants to learn diplomacy, come try Massachusetts politics. 

 

John certainly has. 

 

John’s story is well-known to many of us, from his youth as the son of a foreign service officer, seeing diplomacy up close and learning about foreign policy around the dinner table each night, to his service in combat in Vietnam. Less well-known is the story of his foreign policy work inside the Senate, his 90 overseas trips that he made in 28 years on the Foreign Relations Committee, his work with Dick Lugar to ensure free elections in the Philippines, his work with Bill Frist on AIDS in Africa, his work as chairman of the New START treaty and his very public and successful diplomatic interventions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan. I think one day historians will judge his Senate years in terms of his impact on foreign policy much the same way so many recognize Senator Ted Kennedy’s impact on domestic policy. 

 

From his many years in the U.S. Senate, John has developed a very personal understanding that we represent not just states or government but also people. I once asked John why he loves the Senate. He said it’s the pride he feels in trying to get things done for people. For three years now he’s been working quietly to help a father from Newton, Massachusetts, Colin Bower, whose two sons were kidnapped and taken to Egypt. John even called former President Mubarak and had a screaming match with him about it. Five times he’s been to Egypt since then, and every time Colin has been at the top of his list in every meeting. 

 

Every senator here has a Colin Bower. It’s what we do. We fight for people back home. As secretary, John will understand that and bend over backwards to help us do that. He will be a terrific bridge from the Hill to the administration. 

 

I know that John cares deeply about our country and our national security. I know he believes through and through in the good that America can do in the world, because he’s seen it and he’s lived it all his life, from seeing the Marshall Plan in action with his father in post-World War II Europe to volunteering to serve in the military and then traveling all these years as a senator. 

 

John says, America isn’t exceptional because we say we are; we’re exceptional because we do exceptional things. When the airplane, the one that says on the side, “United States of America,” lands anywhere in the world, I will be proud that it will be John Kerry representing us. 

 

Thank you. 

 

SEN. MENENDEZ: Thank you, Senator. 

 

Secretary Clinton. 

 

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s very good to be back and to have this opportunity to join with Senator Warren and Senator McCain in introducing President Obama’s nominee to be the next secretary of state. I was very honored when John asked me to take part in this, because John is the right choice to carry forward the Obama administration’s foreign policy, and I urge his speedy confirmation. 

 

As we’ve heard from both the chairman and the ranking member and just now Senator Warren, he will bring a record of leadership and service that is exemplary. He has a view of the world that he has acted on, first as that young, returning veteran from Vietnam who appeared before this committee through the time that he served with such distinction as its chairman. 

 

He’s been a valued partner to this administration and to me personally. He has fought for our diplomats and development experts. He understands the value of investing in America’s global leadership. And as we work to implement the Accountability Review Board’s recommendations, he is committed to doing whatever it takes to prevent another attack and protect our people and posts around the world. 

 

Now, working together, we’ve achieved a great deal, but the State Department and USAID have a lot of unfinished business, from Afghanistan to nonproliferation, to climate change, to so much. We need to sustain our renewed engagement in the Asia-Pacific, continue ramping up economics as a tool for advancing American interests and jobs, pressing forward with unleashing the potential of the world’s women and girls, keep championing the kind of smart power that looks to innovation and partnerships with governments and people alike to promote peace and stability. 

 

John has built strong relationships with leaders in governments here and around the world, and he has experience in representing our country in fragile and unpredictable circumstances. He was in Pakistan and Afghanistan a few years ago, and we were consulting over the phone. He played an instrumental role in working with President Karzai at that time to accept the results of the election and to move forward. I had to call Harry Reid and ask Harry not to schedule any votes so that John could continue to stay there to see that mission through. 

 

But that’s what he does. He is a determined and effective representative of the United States; has been as a senator, will be as secretary. 

 

Let me close by saying that leading our diplomats and development experts is a great honor, and every day, as I testified yesterday, I’ve seen firsthand their skill, their bravery, their unwavering commitment to our country. I’ve been proud to call them colleagues and to serve as secretary of state, and I’m very pleased that John will be given the chance, subject to confirmation, to continue the work of a lifetime on behalf of our country. 

 

Thank you. 

 

SEN. MENENDEZ: Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

 

Senator McCain. 

 

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 

I am pleased to be here with Senator Warren and Secretary Clinton to introduce and speak — say a few words about my friend Senator Kerry to the committee. Obviously, the nominee doesn’t need to be introduced to the committee on which he has served for over a quarter of a century, and as its chairman for the last four years. So I can dispense with the customary summary of the nominee’s record of public service and qualifications for the office for which he has been nominated. They’re well-known to you and to all of our colleagues. 

 

But I’d like to take a few moments to attest to the personal qualities that Senator Kerry would bring to the office of secretary of state which I think are well-suited to the position. He and I have been friends for quite a long time now. We’ve had our disagreements, which is unsurprising given our political differences and is often the case in our business. Our friendship has been affected from time to time by our enthusiasm for our differing views and by the competitive nature of politics. But the friendship has endured. I believe it is based in mutual respect. 

 

Some observers have attributed that respect to the fact that when we were much younger, nicer and better-looking men than we are now, Senator Kerry and I spent some time, at the Navy’s behest, in a certain Southeast Asian country in less pleasant circumstances than we’re accustomed to in the United States Senate. 

 

While I’ve always respected and honored Senator Kerry’s service in Vietnam, my respect for John as a senator and my support for his nomination today originated in a very different experience. Although that experience too concerned the country and the war he and I were privileged to serve in, it did not require martial valor. On the contrary, it required, at least on Senator Kerry’s part, and considerably less so on mine, extraordinary diplomatic skills. 

 

The administrations of President Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush had pursued limited engagement with the government of Vietnam for the purpose of encouraging Vietnam to provide answers to the fates of many Americans who were still listed as POW/MIAs. That effort was led by a man both John and I respect enormously, General John Vessey, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who continued as the president’s special emissary to Vietnam in President Clinton’s administration. 

 

By the early ’90s, I think both John and I had come to the view that it would be better for our country to have a relationship with Vietnam that served our current and future interests than one that continued to nurse the hostilities of our recent tragic past. But we both understood that could never be the case unless we knew American soldiers were not still kept against their will in Vietnam and until Vietnam fully cooperated in helping us account for Americans who didn’t return home from the war. 

 

To help find answers to their fates, in 1991 then-Senate Majority Leader Mitchell and Minority Leader Dole appointed a select committee which John and Senator Bob Smith chaired, and I was appointed as a member as well. 

 

Members of that committee had passionate and conflicting views on the subject of whether or not Vietnam still kept American POWs. 

 

The subject was controversial and provoked the strong passions of many Americans, not the least of which were the families of the missing. Most Americans who cared about this issue were people of sincere good will and honesty. But there were also a few charlatans and con artists involved in the activist community who, for various reasons, promoted all kinds of conspiracy theories and implausible scenarios. 

 

On many occasions, our public hearings became a circus. Behind the scenes, arguments between members often became as heated and as personal as any I’ve ever experienced. Getting information about POW MIAs from the intelligence community was fraught with the usual objections and difficulties, and getting information from the Vietnamese even more so. It wasn’t a pleasant experience, to say the least. 

 

But through it all, John led the committee with fairness to all sides, with persistence in the pursuit of the truth and with an absolute, unshakable resolve to get a result that all members could accept. Really, no matter how contentious and at times crazy things got, John always believed he would eventually get all the committee to see reason and provide an answer that would be accepted by most veterans and most, if not all, Americans who cared so much about the issue. 

 

And he did. He got all the members to agree to an exhaustive investigative report that concluded there wasn’t credible evidence that Americans remained in captivity in Vietnam. It was a masterful accomplishment. 

 

After that experience John and I worked together to encourage the Clinton administration and the government of Vietnam to begin normalizing relations. 

 

I witnessed John’s diplomatic skills in practice again — his patience, his persistence, his persuasiveness, his tact, and his singular focus on getting the best result possible in negotiations with a diverse array of government officials in both countries, convincing a reluctant administration to make what the president’s advisers considered a politically perilous decision, and reluctant fellow citizen — senators to vote for a resolution recommending normalization. It was an impressive performance, to say the least. 

 

Helping to establish a relationship with Vietnam that serves American interests and values rather than one that remained mired in mutual resentment and bitterness is one of my proudest accomplishments as a senator, and I expect it is one of John’s, as well. Working toward that end with John and witnessing almost daily his exemplary statesmanship is one of the highest privileges I’ve had here. Should he be confirmed, and I’m confident he will be and become our next secretary of state, I’m sure we will have our disagreements, which I know neither of us will hesitate to bring to the other’s attention. But I know he will acquit himself in that office with distinction and use his many talents and his indefatigable persistence to advance our country’s interests. And I commend his nomination to you without reservation. 

 

SEN. MENENDEZ: Wow. You might want to rest your case there, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.) 

 

With our thanks to this distinguished panel — we thank you very much, Madam Secretary; thank you again to our colleagues; and now we call up Chairman Kerry to the — . (Pause.) 

 

Well, Mr. Chairman, we welcome you to the other side of the committee and look forward to your testimony and any introductions you may want to make. 

 

SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA): Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker and members of the committee, thank you very, very much. I’m in awe of the wonderful comments that were just made, and I appreciate them, and I’ll say a little bit more about them. 

 

Before I begin, I would like to have the privilege of just introducing very quickly. I think most of you know my wonderful wife, Teresa, who’s been part of this great journey for a long time. My brother Cam, who is serving over in the Commerce Department as counsel there, and I trust they know he’s here and have given him time off. And my daughter, Vanessa, and her husband, Brian, both of whom are working as physicians at Mass General in Boston. And another daughter is not here, Alexandra, and three stepsons, who likewise are spread around the world. But we are thinking about them as we embark on this wonderful journey. 

 

For 29 years I’ve sat up on the dais where you all are and I’ve kind of looked down at the witnesses and wondered what they’re thinking sometimes as we question them. And I don’t want this to affect your opening questions, but let me say I’ve never seen a more distinguished and better-looking group of public officials in my life. (Laughter.) Suddenly I am feeling a lot of sympathy for the folks who sit down here. (Chuckles.) I want you to know that a couple nights ago I was watching “Godfather II,” so be forewarned. If someone suddenly shows up with my long, lost brother back in the audience, all bets are off, folks. 

 

And I am enormously grateful for the generous comments of the chair and the ranking member. Thank you very, very much. Thank you also for your tremendous cooperation over the course of the last years. And providing that you get me out of here quickly, I will be able to congratulate you more fully when you officially assume your responsibilities. 

 

I will tell you, all of you on this committee, the new members particularly, that I have enjoyed chairing this committee and working with you as much as anything that I have done or been privileged to do in all of my career. 

 

I think this is one of the great committees of the United States Senate, and it is the only major committee that I have served on since day one when I arrived in the Senate in 1985. 

 

As you know, the committee carries special, consequential responsibilities with respect to the security of our nation, and I thank each and every one of your for the serious consideration that you give and have given to the challenging issues and for the remarkable cooperation that I have had as chairman of the committee. 

 

If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to work particularly closely with all of you as we tackle some of the toughest issues and challenges that I have seen in the entire time I’ve served on this committee. And I particularly welcome the new members in that regard. 

 

I’m very grateful to President Obama for nominating me and entrusting me with this important responsibility, and I am particularly grateful to Secretary Clinton, Senator McCain and Senator Warren for their introductions of me just now. I will not take it personally that this may be the one item in Washington that seems to unite Democrats and Republicans to get me out of the Senate quickly. (Laughter.) 

 

There — Secretary Clinton particularly has served above and beyond the call of duty. I think everybody on this committee would agree. Her service as been superb, and we all thank her for a job well-done, for her tireless efforts on behalf of our nation. She has set a very high mark for the stewardship of the State Department and her commitment to country. And I can pledge to you that with the consent of the Senate, I will do everything in my power, summon every energy and all of my focus to build on her record and on the president’s vision. 

 

Senator McCain, as he mentioned, is a longtime friend. We met here in the Senate, coming from very different political positions and perspectives, but, you know, we found common ground. I will never forget standing with him in Hanoi in the cell, in the Hanoi Hilton, in which he spent a number of years of his life, just the two of us, listening to him talk about that experience. 

 

I will always be grateful for his partnership in helping to make real peace with Vietnam by establishing the most significant process in the history of our country or of any country for the accounting of missing and dead in any war and then for working to lift the embargo and ultimately normalize relations with an old enemy. John had every reason to hate, but he didn’t. And instead, we were able to help heal deep wounds and end a war that had divided too many people for much too long. 

 

And as we talk about war and peace and foreign policy, I want all of us to keep in our minds, as I think we do, the extraordinary men and women in uniform who are on the frontlines even as we meet here today, the troops at war who help protect America. I can pledge to you that as a veteran of war, I will always carry the consequences of our decisions in my mind and be grateful that we have such extraordinary people to back us up. 

 

I also thank my new colleague Senator Warren for her generous comment. She is a longtime, fierce fighter for what is just and fair. And if her testimony has had effect today and helps win votes for my confirmation, she will become the senior senator of our state in a record few legislative days. I spent 29 years. (Laughter.) 

 

It’s humbling to here — be here before you in this new role as President Obama’s nominee for secretary of state, but my approach to this role, if confirmed, is also deeply informed by the 28-plus years that I have been privileged to spend in the Senate. That perspective will remain with me if confirmed as secretary, and I’m already excited by the many ways that we can work together and in which we must work together in order to advance America’s security interests in a complicated and ever more dangerous world. 

 

I would add that I’m particularly aware that in many ways, the greatest challenge to America’s foreign policy will be in your hands, not mine, because while it’s often said that we can’t be strong at home if we’re not strong in the world, in these days of fiscal crisis — and as a recovering member of the supercommittee — I am especially cognizant of the fact that we can’t be strong in the world unless we’re strong at home. 

 

And the first priority of business, which will affect my credibility as a diplomat and our credibility as a nation, as some — as we — as we work to help other countries create order, the first priority will be that America at last puts its own fiscal house in order. 

 

I really can’t emphasize to you enough how imperative this is. People all over the world are looking to the United States for leadership. We are known as the indispensable nation for good reason. No nation has more opportunity to advance the cause of democracy. No nation is as committed to the cause of human rights as we are. But to protect our nation and make good on our promises, as well as to live up to our ideals and meet the crisis of this moment, it is urgent that we show people in the rest of the world that we can get our business done in an effective and timely way. It is difficult enough to solve some of the problems that we face. But I will tell you it becomes impossible or near impossible if we ourselves replace our credibility and leverage with gridlock and dysfunction. I’ve heard it in my trips, and Secretary Clinton has heard it in her trips. And any of you who travel will begin to hear questions about whether or not the United States can or will deliver. 

 

Moreover, more than ever, foreign policy is economic policy. The world is competing for resources and global markets. Every day that goes by where America is uncertain about engaging in that arena or unwilling to put our best foot forward and win, unwilling to demonstrate our resolve to lead is a day in which we weaken our nation itself. 

 

My plea is that we can summon, across party lines, without partisan diversions, an economic patriotism which recognizes that American strength and prospects abroad depend on American strength and results at home. It’s hard to tell the leadership of a number of countries that they have to deal with the IMF, balance their budget or create economic order where there is none if we don’t provide it for ourselves. 

 

It’s also imperative that, in implementing President Obama’s vision for the world as he ends more than a decade of war, that we join together to augment our message to the world. President Obama and every one of us here knows that American foreign policy is not defined by drones and deployments alone. We cannot allow the extraordinary good that we do to save and change lives to be eclipsed entirely by the role that we have had to play since September 11th, a role that was thrust upon us. 

 

American foreign policy is also defined by food security, energy security, humanitarian assistance, the fight against disease and the push for development, as much as it is by any single counterterrorism initiative. And it must be. It is defined by leadership on life- threatening issues like climate change or fighting to lift up millions of lives by promoting freedom and democracy from Africa to the Americas, or speaking out for the prisoners of gulags in North Korea or millions of refugees and displaced persons or victims of human trafficking. It is defined by keeping faith with all that our troops have sacrificed to secure for Afghanistan. American lives up to her values when we give voice to the voiceless. 

 

I share with the president the conviction that it is equally imperative that we assert a new role in a world of increasing failed and failing states. Burgeoning populations of young people, hungry for jobs, opportunity, individual rights and freedom, are rebelling against years of disenfranchisement and humiliation. A fruit vendor in Tunisia who ignited the Arab awakening wanted dignity and respect. 

 

He wanted to sell his fruit without corruption and abuse. That’s what led him to self-immolate. 

 

The youth of Tahrir Square who brought Egypt its revolution represented a generational thirst for opportunity and individual participatory rights of governance — not a religious movement. The developed world can do more to meet the challenge and responsibility of these aspirations. With the help of all the members of this committee, I am determined to help President Obama meet this moment. It is vital for our nation that we do so. 

 

The world is well aware we face a number of immediate, dangerous challenges, particularly in the Middle East and South — Central Asia. Given our extraordinary interest in nonproliferation, we must resolve the questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. The president has made it definitive; we will do what we must do to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And I repeat here today: Our policy is not containment. It is prevention. And the clock is ticking on our efforts to secure responsible compliance. 

 

This administration, working with Congress and an unprecedented international coalition, has put into place crippling sanctions on Iran. Mr. Chairman, you have been a leader in that effort and I know will continue to be. President Obama has stated again and again, and I want to emphasize this, he and I prefers a diplomatic resolution to this challenge, and I will work to give diplomacy every effort to succeed. But no one should mistake our resolve to reduce the nuclear threat. 

 

Nearly 42 years ago Chairman Fulbright first gave me the opportunity to testify before this committee during a difficult and divided time for our country. Today I can’t help but recognize that the world itself then was in many ways simpler, divided as it was along bipolar Cold War antagonisms. Today’s world is more complicated than anything we have experienced, from the emergence of China, to the Arab awakening, inextricably linked economic, health, environmental and demographic issues, proliferation, poverty, pandemic disease, refugees, conflict ongoing in Afghanistan, entire populations and faiths struggling with the demands of modernity and the accelerating pace of technological innovation invading all of that, shifting power from nation-states to individuals. 

 

With the end of the Cold War, Henry Kissinger pointed out in his superb book on diplomacy, he said, “none of the most important countries which must build a new world order have had any experience with the multistate system that is emerging. Never before has a new world order had to be assembled from so many different perceptions or on so global a scale, nor has any previous order had to combine the attributes of the historic balance-of-power system with global democratic opinion and the exploding technology of the contemporary period.” That was written in 1994, and it may be even more relevant today. 

 

So this really is a time for American leadership, a time for fresh thinking, a time to cross party lines and divide and come together in the interest of our nation, a time to find ways to work together to maximize the impact of all of America’s resources, including the great resource of this committee and of the United States Senate. 

 

If I am confirmed, one of the first things that I intend to do is sit down with Senator Menendez and Senator Corker and invite all the members of this committee to come together, hopefully at a time when there is no interruption and we can actually really dig in and talk, and talk about how we can have a constructive dialogue and a collegial relationship because, even as we pride ourselves on the separation of powers and the unique oversight role that the committee plays, the challenges in the world are so enormous that we would do our country a disservice if we didn’t identify the ways that we can help each other to confront a unique set of questions globally. 

 

If you confirm me, I would take office as secretary proud that the Senate is in my blood but equally proud that so too is the foreign service. 

 

My father’s work under presidents both Democrat and Republican took me and my siblings around the world for a personal journey that brought home the sacrifices and the commitment the men and women of the foreign service make every day on behalf of America. 

 

I wish everyone in the country could see and understand firsthand the devotion, loyalty, amazingly hard and often dangerous work that the diplomats on the frontlines do for our nation. Theirs is a service which earns our country an enormous return on investment. I will be proud and honored to represent them, and I will work hard to augment our public diplomacy so that the story is told at home and abroad. 

 

Everyone on this committee knows well that the road ahead is tough, but I believe just as deeply that global leadership is a strategic imperative for America. It is not a favor that we do for other countries. It amplifies our voice. It extends our reach. It is the key to jobs, the fulcrum of our influence, and it matters. It really matters to the daily lives of Americans. It matters that we get this moment right for America, and it matters that we get it right for the world. 

 

One discussion that I particularly look forward to beginning with you, my colleagues and with our country is about the commitment that we make in our foreign affairs budget: less than 1 percent of the entire budget of government at a time that the world is getting smaller, that our economy depends on its relationship with every other country in the world, that we face a more global market than any time in our history. 

 

So not just in my briefings at the State Department but in my conversations with business leaders, in my trips to crisis areas, to war zones, to refugee camps and in some of the poorest countries on Earth, I have been reminded of the importance of the work that our State Department does to protect and advance America’s interests and do the job of diplomacy in a dangerous world. And particularly, I think there is more that can be done to advance our economic capacity and interest. 

 

In this debate and in every endeavor, I pledge to work very closely with this committee, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, not just because it will be my responsibility but because I will not be able to do this job effectively, nor will our country get what it needs to out of these initiatives, without your involvement and your ideas going forward. 

 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I know there’s a lot of ground to cover. 

 

PROTESTER: (Off mic) — you’re killing thousands of people. The Middle East is not a threat to us. (Off mic) — see enough. (Off mic) — got people going — (off mic) — I’m tired — (off mic) — to the Middle East — (off mic) — 

 

MR. : Welcome Mr. Secretary — (off mic). (Laughter.) 

SEN. KERRY: Well, you know, I tell you, Mr. Chairman, I — when I first came to Washington and testified, I obviously was testifying as part of a group of people who came here to have their voices heard. And that is, above all, what this place is about. So I respect — I think the woman who was voicing her concerns about that part of the world — and maybe one of you have traveled there, some of you there were recently — Senator McCain, you were just there. You were in a refugee camp, and I know you heard this kind of thing. 

 

People measure what we do, and in a way that’s a good exclamation point to my testimony. 

 

So, Mr. Chairman, I know there’s a lot of ground to cover, and as a veteran of the committee, I know we do better when we’re having a good dialogue, so I look forward to having that dialogue. Thank you. 

 

SEN. MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your very thoughtful presentation. 

 

Let — on behalf the committee, we welcome Teresa and all of the family, and we thank you for your commitment as well, because obviously it is a commitment of family as well to the service that Senator Kerry will provide as secretary of state, and there are sacrifices in that. So we appreciate it very much. 

 

Let me start off with a round of questioning. The chair will recognize himself. And let me say that we — I think we all appreciate and embrace your offer of the engagement (with the ?) committee. We look forward to that. And having come from the Senate, I know that we will particularly appreciate your understanding of this institution and its importance and — of the committee. And so we really embrace that offer and look forward to that moment. 

 

Let me start off with Iran. In the last 13 months Congress has passed and the president signed three major sets of sanctions against Iran. They have been tremendously effective in reducing Iran’s oil revenues and at least nominally bringing Iran to a negotiating table. 

 

However, Iran remains defiant, entrenched in its nuclear weapons ambition. It has not slowed its enrichment activities. The IAEA believes that Iran has conducted live tests of conventional explosives that could be used to detonate a nuclear weapon at the Parchin military base, to which it denies IAEA entry. And between May and August of this year Iran has more than doubled the number of centrifuges at its fortified Fordo facility, which is buried deep inside a mountain to protect it against strikes. 

 

Now, Iran claims it needs higher-grade uranium for the purposes of peaceful nuclear programs. But a country with peaceful ambitions doesn’t enrich uranium in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions. It doesn’t fail to disclose its operations or hide them inside a mountain. And a peaceful nation doesn’t breach the international inspections regime compelled by the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. So Mr. Secretary, in this — (chuckles) — Mr. Senator, in this respect — 

 

SEN. KERRY: Sorry, I — (inaudible) — (laughter) — I thought this could be quick. (Laughter.) 

 

SEN. MENENDEZ: I have — I have a sense — I have a sense of clairvoyance. 

 

In this respect, many of the sanctions are overseen by the Department of State in terms of enforcement. And it’s crucial that that enforcement can bring a verifiable agreement, hopefully, with Iran. Under your leadership, will the department be committed to the full enforcement of the sanctions passed by the Congress and to multilateral efforts to ensure the adherence of other nations to these sanctions? 

 

SEN. KERRY: Yes, totally. And I might just quickly add, and very quickly, the rial has dropped by about 80 percent. Other nations have been extraordinarily cooperative in reducing their dependence on Iranian oil. There is a clear indicator of the impact these are having, and I think the Congress deserves credit, together with the administration, for having put the toughest sanctions and the biggest coalition together in history. 

 

SEN. MENENDEZ: In that respect, as we hope that the — while the president said all options are on the table, we hope that the sanctions, which are a peaceful diplomacy tool, ultimately drive us to a successful conclusion. What would be the basic parameters in the P- 5 plus one effort in terms of enrichment capacity, retention of enriched uranium, the Fordo facility inspections? What would you seek as part of any agreement? 

 

SEN. KERRY: Well, we’d seek compliance with the requirements of the IAEA and the requirements of the U.N. resolutions that have been passed with respect to it, and compliance with the NPT itself. 

 

Now, I’m not going to — it would be totally inappropriate for me here to begin to negotiate with myself and the committee with respect to how they would come into compliance or what would be required. I can tell you this: It is going to be imperative that they come into full compliance. And there are several ways in which we might be able to get there, most prominently, obviously, the P-5 plus one; but the president has made it clear that he is prepared to engage, if that’s what it takes, in bilateral efforts, and hopefully there’s a negotiation going on right now for the next meeting of the P-5 plus one. I think everybody’s very hopeful that we can make some progress on the diplomatic front now. 

 

And so I’d simply say, Mr. Chairman, that Iran — I’d say this to the Iranians. I hope they listen. They have continually professed the peacefulness of their program. It is not hard to prove a peaceful program. Other nations have done that and do it every day. And it takes intrusive inspections. It takes living up to publicly arrived- at standards. Everybody understands what they are. 

 

The allies in the P-5 plus one have made it clear — and that includes very powerful entities, obviously, people who have been supportive of Iran in other ways at times, China, Russia — they have made it clear that we are all united in this standard and that we are looking for the full compliance with the NPT. 

 

So I think the process itself has to flesh out the details, but the Iranians need to understand that there’s no other agenda here. 

 

They — if their program is peaceful, they can prove it, and that’s what we’re seeking. 

 

SEN. MENENDEZ: Let me move to Afghanistan. President Karzai was here with President Obama. In essence, they announced a series of agreements that would ultimately, as we move in that transition, we would have the largest civilian mission in the world in Afghanistan. 

 

Can you articulate what you believe the administration’s end goals are in Afghanistans (sic), and what metrics would you use to guide our continued presence? Is it our intention to focus, for example, on strengthening institutions, supporting civil society, achieving development goals, or will the mission be guided by success in counterterrorism? 

 

SEN. KERRY: Well, the mission is really a twofold mission, Mr. Chairman. It is to, number one, turn over responsibility to the Afghan forces, for them to be able to assume responsibility for security, which is slated to begin in earnest — I mean, it’s begun already, but a milestone will take place in the spring. President Karzai, in his visit here, moved that date up himself and has asked for it to be accelerated. 

 

It’s the judgment of General Allen and others that we’re on target to be able to meet a more rapid rate of turnover, and that will mean our troops in the near term, at some point this year, will not be in the lead and will not be the ones principally taking the brunt of any kind of activities, offensive activities. 

 

The second purpose is to maintain a capacity to prevent the kind of basing for terrorism which took us there in the first place. 

 

So there will be a counterterrorism mission that will continue. President Obama has been very clear about the fact that that counterterrorism mission will continue beyond 2014 and that the training will probably continue beyond 2014. 

 

So there’s going to be, according to the president’s own statement, some measure of engagement, but the effort is to have the Afghans in the lead, the continued training of the forces, build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan and support an Afghan-led reconciliation — not a U.S.-led but Afghan-led reconciliation, if it is possible. And obviously, the strategy is to have a sufficient capacity within the ANSF that if it isn’t possible to have that, the government of Afghanistan is still sustained. 

 

SEN. MENENDEZ: Finally, the Western Hemisphere. 2013 will be a year of great change in the Western Hemisphere, particularly in Latin America. The impending change of leadership in Venezuela will have a profound internal impact but also ripple effects on the political and economic relations throughout the hemisphere. The newly elected president of Mexico is talking about refocusing his bilateral relationship, emphasizing economic cooperation while continuing to prioritize security concerns. The Colombian government’s peace talks with the FARC have the potential to turn the page in a long-running conflict. 

 

Public security questions throughout the region, the desire of the region to engage in more critical ways in a broader-based agenda — it would be my hope that upon your confirmation, Mr. Secretary, that your leadership would consider more strategic-level approaches to the region, taking advantage of changing political tides and opportunities to enhance multilateral efforts on counterterrorism, narcotics trafficking, transnational crime organizations, opening up new markets and of course a commitment to our democracy programs throughout the region and, (for that fact ?), throughout the world. 

 

So can you briefly talk to me about your views and vision as it relates to what I think is a new and momentous opportunity in the hemisphere? 

 

SEN. KERRY: Well, I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. It is an opportunity that’s staring at us, and I hope that we can build on what Secretary Clinton has done and the Obama administration has already done in order to augment our efforts in that region. You have the Merida Initiative, working with Mexico. There’s been increased effort on anti-narcotics, anti-violence. There’s been the Central American Regional Security Initiative. There’s been development assistance in Guatemala, Honduras, energy initiatives with Brazil and — energy and climate initiatives, I should say, with Brazil. There’s increasing economic integration. 

 

But as we all know, there have been some outlier states that have not been as much a part of — not been as cooperative or as — in a position to be as cooperative, and we all know who they are. And I think depending on what happens in Venezuela, there may really be an opportunity for a transition there. Likewise, I would hope that in Bolivia, Ecuador, we could make progress. 

 

One of the great stories of Latin America is Colombia. I can remember when I was working on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee and Senator Dodd was here, and others, and we were very engaged at that period of time. We — there had recently been an assassination of 13 members of the Supreme Court in one room in Colombia, that presidential candidates were assassinated. You couldn’t run for office. 

 

And frankly, President Uribe stepped up at a critical moment and began the process of rescuing that nation. And President Santos now is doing an amazing job. We’ve created our greater economic relationship by passing the trade agreement. We have to build on that. 

 

And I think that is an example, really, for the rest of — the rest of Latin America as to what awaits them if we can induce people to make a better set of choices, frankly. 

 

I think there are some other things that have contributed to the gap between — in our relationship with some of those other countries. I hope to perhaps be able to try to see if there’s a way to bridge some of that, and I would do it in close consultation with you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee, but I think there are some ways to improve and augment our efforts in Latin America. 

 

SEN. MENENDEZ: Thank you. Senator Corker. 

 

SEN. CORKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and — Mr. Chairman. I really was touched by your opening comment, and I am — as I mentioned, I think you’ve led a life that brought you to this moment. I’m happy for you that you’re going to be able to express yourself in this way as secretary of state and for your family. So I really am thrilled that you’re in a position that I know you’ve longed for and think you can make a major difference in. 

 

I also want to say that I asked you 73 questions in advance, and I appreciate the responses that we received this morning, and I know we’ll have a few more, but thank you for your diligence. I know it took a lot of time. And many of the detailed questions, we’ve already spoken about. 

The president has nominated someone for secretary of defense. And we all will be meeting with him, and his hearing will be next week. 

 

He was part of a group called Global Zero, and for those of us who care deeply about our nuclear arsenal and modernization and that type of thing, some of the things that were authored in this report candidly are (just ?) concerning. 

 

Typically, there’s a tension. The Defense Department presses for weaponry and making sure that our country is safe. The State Department presses for nuclear arms agreements and reductions. And so in the event this person is confirmed, that balance is not going to be there. 

 

You and I have spent a lot of time on the START treaty. I helped you in that effort. You let me be involved in the ratification. Modernization was to take place at a pace that is not occurring. And I’m just wondering if there’s something you might say to me that sees our future in a way that with these — with the combination of possibly these two people, one leading the State Department but one leading the Defense Department in a role that’s been very different than previous defense leaders — is there something you can say to assure me about our nuclear posture in the future and the role that you’re going to play in that regard? 

 

SEN. KERRY: Absolutely. Not a question I was anticipating, but I’m really happy to be able to speak to it. 

 

First of all, again, not requested, but I will say this. I know Chuck Hagel, and I think he is a strong, patriotic former senator, and he will be a strong secretary of defense. 

 

And I have dealt with him in any number of fora. He’s been the head of the Atlantic Council. That is a mainstream, thoughtful foreign policy/security engagement. 

 

And I think some of the things that have been, you know, sort of — some of the efforts to color Senator Hagel’s approach on some of these things don’t do justice — 

 

SEN. CORKER: But on Global Zero — 

 

SEN. KERRY: Well, let me come to it. I’m going to come to it. 

 

SEN. CORKER: OK. 

 

SEN. KERRY: I absolutely intend to come to it, because I think it’s very important to think about it. 

 

SEN. CORKER: Yeah. 

 

SEN. KERRY: When that initiative sort of first came out and we began to hear about the potential of people who said let’s get no nuclear weapons, I sort of scratched my head. And I said, what? You know, how’s that going to work? Because I believe in deterrence, and I find it very hard to think how you can get down to a number in today’s world. 

 

But the whole point is, they’re not talking about today’s world. Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker, I think Jim Schlesinger, former secretaries of defense, many others, have all agreed with that as a goal for the world. It’s a goal. It’s an aspiration. And we should always be aspirational. But it’s not something that could happen in today’s world, and nor could any leader today sit here or in any other chair and promote to you the notion that we ought to be cutting down our deterrent level below an adequate level to maintain deterrence. 

 

Now, the military has very strong views about what that is. We’ve cut down some 1,500 now. There’s talk of going down to a lower number. I think personally it’s possible to get there if you have commensurate levels of inspections, verification, guarantees about the capacity of your nuclear stockpile program, et cetera. 

 

Now, Senator, I know you’re deeply invested in that component of it, the nuclear stockpile (proposal ?). And I may — we can come to some of that maybe later in the he hearing here. But I believe we have to maintain that because that’s the only way you maintain an effective level of deterrence. 

 

And the Russians certainly are thinking in terms of their adequacy of deterrence, which is one of the reasons why they have missile defense concerns. 

 

So I’m — I don’t think Senator Hagel is sitting there or he’s going to go over to the Defense Department and be a proponent — you know, this is talking about conflict revolution, change — resolution, changes that have to take pace in societies that we’ll — you know, it’s worth aspiring to, but we’ll be lucky if we get there in however many centuries the way we’re going. 

 

SEN. CORKER: I mean — 

 

SEN. KERRY: And so I think we have to be realistic about it, and I think Senator Hagel is realistic about it. 

 

SEN. CORKER: Thank you. I especially appreciated your opening comments about the fiscal issues we face. For a moment, I was wishing you had been nominated for secretary of treasury, but I do appreciate both those comments and the ones you just made. 

 

You’ve been a senator for 29 years. You’ve got a vast amount of experience. The president was actually under your tutelage when he came in as a member — junior member of this committee, like we all are when we first — 

 

SEN. KERRY: I distinctly think he would object to the concept of being under anybody’s tutelage, so — (chuckles) — I’d like — 

 

SEN. CORKER: Well, I’ll let him call and object. I would just say that you have strong opinions, heartfelt feelings about what we ought to be doing as a nation in foreign relations. 

 

SEN. KERRY: That’s right. 

 

SEN. CORKER: And I’m just wondering, in the meetings that you all have had together — yesterday Secretary Clinton alluded to differences that she had as it relates to North Africa and how we deal with al-Qaida. Have you all been able to talk through some of those issues, and what’s been the relationship, and do you see any of those — do you see any major differences in your view of the world and the ones that the president has laid out? 

 

SEN. KERRY: The president has purposefully — and I have purposefully — kept away from any deep-dive discussions during the nominating process, partly because he hasn’t had time and I haven’t had time. But we do intend to sit down next week, and I look forward to having that conversation with him. 

 

SEN. CORKER: Did — you spent a lot of time with Assad in Syria, as many of us have from time to time. And I know you spent a lot of time really trying to move him more towards a Western alliance. You know, I know he — I know he saw himself as that bridge between Iran and us, and I know you spent a lot of time with him in that regard. Obviously, things have taken a different turn since that time. And was there anything about those negotiations or discussions that you’ve taken away and that has, if you will, informed you as you move ahead? 

 

SEN. KERRY: Well, the answer is yes. There — it sort of reinforces the notion that sometimes there are moments where you may be able to get something done in foreign policy, and if the moment somehow doesn’t ripen correctly or get seized, you miss major opportunities. 

 

I think that there was a moment where Syria had an interest, because of its burgeoning youthful population — young people — I remember President Assad said to me, I have 500,000 kids who turn 18 every year, and I don’t have a place to put them; I don’t have jobs for them; I need to be able to change what’s happening here and, you know, clearly, thinking down the road, you know, he wanted to try to find some way to reach out to the West and see if there was some kind of an accommodation. 

 

History caught up to us. That never happened. And it’s now moot because he has made a set of judgments that are inexcusable, that are reprehensible and, I think, is not long for remaining as the head of state in Syria. 

 

I think the time is ticking. And I think you saw the comments recently of a special envoy of Russia, Mikhail Bogdanovich (ph), who said that it seemed as if the opposition was moving now and winning, and we’ve seen the exodus of a certain number of Russians who were lifted out of Syria. So I think the process is moving in a way that now makes that ancient history, but it does underscores how if you, you know, get the right pieces together at the right moment, things might conceivably be different someday. 

 

SEN. CORKER: Thank you for your opening comments, for your — for your answers here, your answers in advance. I do know that your confirmation is going to be speedy, and I look forward to having the same relationship we’ve had in the past. I may call you “sir” in the future, but thank you so much for being here today and for taking this responsibility on. 

 

SEN. KERRY: Well, Senator, thank you very much. You’ve been a gentleman in all of our dealings and candid and I appreciate that. I look forward to continuing that with every member of the committee. 

 

SEN. MENENDEZ: Senator Boxer. 

 

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER (D-CA): Thank you. Senator Kerry, thanks for stepping up to this challenge. It is — it’s a daunting challenge, and I think there’s maybe a handful of people in the nation who could do it, and you’re one of those. 

 

I’ve sat very near you in a couple of committees — this one many, many, many years; Commerce Committee, many years — I’ve worked with you on climate issues; I’ve worked with you on women’s issues. And again, I just feel you are the right person for this moment. 

 

Many foreign policy experts and historians have written that the low and sad status of women around the world is hurting entire regions of the world to achieving democracy and economic growth. 

 

And you covered a lot of ground in your opening statement, but you didn’t get into this area, which is of concern to a number of us here. So I have a couple of questions on that. Under Secretary Clinton’s leadership, the State Department has fought to protect the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, to end the use of rape as a weapon of war in the Congo, to promote women’s economic empowerment in places like Asia, Africa and Latin America and to ensure that women play a meaningful role as new governments and political structures take shape in the Middle East and North Africa. 

 

If confirmed, will you ensure that the position of ambassador-at- large for global women’s issues is retained at the — and that the office is effectively resourced? 

 

SEN. KERRY: Yes. 

 

SEN. BOXER: Senator Landrieu and I wrote a bill to expand scholarship opportunities for women in Pakistan, and we wrote it after the — well, the heart-wrenching attack on Malala Yousafzai. And we dedicated this bill to her. And we don’t create anything new, but we call for an expanded scholarship program in Pakistan for disadvantaged young women. 

 

I know you haven’t seen the legislation. Would you commit to me to see the legislation and work with us, and if you think it’s well- done and if it meets your standard, would you help us in getting it through here? 

 

SEN. KERRY: Absolutely. 

 

Senator, let me just say that Secretary Clinton and Melanne Verveer, who is her appointee, special ambassador with respect to global women’s affairs, have done an outstanding job. 

 

And obviously Secretary Clinton has made this a high priority. 

 

SEN. BOXER: She has. 

 

SEN. KERRY: I think, as you know, I’ve made a priority on the committee — 

 

SEN. BOXER: You did. 

 

SEN. KERRY: — because you chair a subcommittee that — I included women’s and girls’ — 

 

SEN. BOXER: Yes. 

 

SEN. KERRY: — and all women’s issues under that aegis, and you’ve been the chair of that and have done a terrific job on it. We had a trafficking hearing here — 

 

SEN. BOXER: Yes. 

 

SEN. KERRY: — which I thought broke new ground. Secretary Clinton has put a serious focus in the State Department on human trafficking. I intend to continue that. I think it is critical. 

 

But more importantly, what you’re talking about with respect to women and girls, in South Africa, in Guatemala, in other parts of the world, in Africa, women have stepped up as peacemakers. 

 

SEN. BOXER: Yes. 

 

SEN. KERRY: Women have made the difference in many of these instances with respect to the security of those — of communities, the attitude of a state, its willingness to reach out and be inclusive, as we all know in Afghanistan. When we went into Afghanistan, there were 800 — I think it was about 800,000 kids in school, and no girls. Today there are close to 9 million kids in school, and almost 50 percent are girls. It’s an extraordinary story, and I think everyone in the Congress should be proud of it. I think we need to continue that, and I intend to. 

 

SEN. BOXER: Well, I’m very glad — and the reason I’m pressing you on specifics is to send a message from this hearing to these women and girls around the world that they won’t be forgotten, that in fact you will continue, that you have been a champion of this. 

 

There was a national action plan. It was announced by the White House. It’s being implemented by executive order. It ensures that the United States makes sure that women are included in all conflict prevention and resolution efforts, such as ensuring that women are at the table during the peace processes. And it sounds so simple, but I’ve met with many women from Afghanistan who are just devastated that there aren’t enough women sitting at the table. 

 

And you’ve made the point that women, in many of these places, are the peacemakers. They do come forward with the right attitude. So I am asking you if you intend to commit to the continued implementation of the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. 

 

SEN. KERRY: I do. And I actually was reading it last night. President Obama issued that, and I think it’s really important. 

 

And with respect to Afghanistan, we have made it clear — the administration has made it clear, and I will support that if and when I become secretary of state, and that is the commitment that if there is a negotiation with the Taliban, one of the conditions is they have to give up any association with al-Qaida, they have to give up — they’ll commit to nonviolence, but most importantly, with respect to this issue, they must commit to respect the constitution of Afghanistan and the current status of women and girls within their society. 

 

SEN. BOXER: I have two more questions. You have been a supporter of CEDAW before, the Convention to Eliminate all forms of Discrimination against Women. I know it’s a tough issue here. I don’t think it should be, but it is. I just want to make sure you continue to support the ratification. And then I have one quick question on another subject. 

 

SEN. KERRY: The answer is yes. And let me just say on that, I look forward to meeting with the committee privately sometime, hopefully down at the State Department, and we can talk about treaties and America’s interests. And I look forward to that. 

 

SEN. BOXER: Good, because I think there could be some reservations that we could agree on that could resolve some of the underlying current of disagreement here, which I think we could — we should move forward on it. 

 

Now, I have — the last question is about the Keystone XL pipeline. 

 

How will you ensure that any administration decision regarding the presidential permit for Keystone takes into consideration the potential impacts of the pipeline on water and air quality and mitigates any increases in the carbon pollution issue? 

 

SEN. KERRY: Well, Senator Boxer, as I think you know, there is a statutory process with respect to the review that falls to the State Department and elsewhere, and that is currently ongoing. And I’ve already checked into it. It’s under way. It will not be long before that comes across my desk. And at that time, I’ll make the appropriate judgments about it. 

 

But it does require — we are responsible for the environmental review, and there are specific standards that have to be met with respect to that review. I’m going to review those standards to make sure they’re complete, obviously, in my own judgments about it, but work with the Legal Department at the State Department — which, incidentally, is a superb, unbelievable group of lawyers with great skill. And we will analyze it and make a judgment. 

 

SEN. BOXER: Thank you. I want to just say thank you so much, Mr. Chairman — I still call you that — and just say how much I look forward to voting for you. Casting that aye vote will be a great honor and privilege for me. 

 

SEN. KERRY: Thank you, Senator. Appreciate that. 

 

SEN. MENENDEZ: Senator Risch. 

 

SENATOR JAMES RISCH (R-ID): Thank you — (off mic). 

 

SEN. KERRY: Senator. 

 

SEN. RISCH: While you and Teresa are out globetrotting, I want you to be assured that Vicki and I will look carefully after your Idaho property. I know you dream about retiring there someday. 

 

SEN. KERRY: (Chuckles.) Thank you. 

 

SEN. RISCH: I want to talk about — 

 

SEN. KERRY: Will you come with the property if I go back? (Laughter.) 

 

SEN. RISCH: Like my dad said, we’ll see. 

 

Senator, I want to talk about the relationship with Russia and the arms control agreements that we have had and that we are — you had made a statement previously that you wouldn’t be able to come before this committee and recommend new arms control measures until compliance and verification issues regarding existing agreements were fully settled. 

 

You and I have sat through some classified briefings, and I don’t — I don’t want to get into details that we shouldn’t get into, but I’d like your — I’d like your thoughts on where we are at the present time regarding compliance and verification in a general fashion. 

 

SEN. KERRY: Well, Senator, I appreciate your concern about this. And we’ve had a lot of conversations, especially with the ranking member and previously with Senator Kyl. 

 

And I think it’s fair to say this, that we have made significant progress towards a full funding of the amount of money that was committed. As Senator Corker remembers, I think it was about $85 million over — billion dollars over 10 years. The — I went and reviewed the amount of money that is now scheduled over the 10 years. It’s slightly below that. But it’s not way below it. There’s no — there’s no sort of undermining, if you will, of the fundamentals of the commitment. There is an increase. In fact, there is a 5 percent increase this year over last year. And it is probably one of the few, if, you know — I’m not going to say only, but one of the very few parts of the budget that has grown and that has increased. I think it was about 7 billion (dollars), 6 (billion dollars) or 8 (billion dollars) last year. And then the first year it had the full amount of funding that it was supposed to have, and the next year it fell off by about .2 or something to that effect. In the ongoing years, it’s slightly below where it was. But the laboratories and the folks involved in it say this is in no way diminishing our stockpile efficiency. 

 

So I think we’re on track. And what we need to do is sit down — Senator Corker, you, myself, Senator Risch, others who are interested — with the budget folks, with the administration, and kind of work through, you know, what’s going to happen here. 

 

But what I want to emphasize to you, because I made the commitment in a serious way — it is important for any administration to keep faith with the commitments it makes to senators, and particularly in the course of an agreement to a treaty. And if people’s votes depend on that, there’s an even higher obligation in the Senate. So I recognize that, and I respect it. I don’t think we’re so far off that any senator ought to sit there and say somebody hasn’t kept faith. That’s number one. 

 

Number two, there was also an agreement that there should begin negotiations with respect to the reduction of tactical nuclear weapons. That dialogue is taking place. You — I’m not going to sit here and tell you it’s a formal negotiation, but there is a dialogue ongoing, in keeping with that provision. And hopefully we can get the relationship with Russia back to a place — I think it would be disingenuous and naive of me to sit here and not acknowledge to my colleagues that, you know, that’s slid backwards a little bit in the last couple of years. And with the most recent decision of Russia with respect to adoptions, we have some ground to try to make up. 

 

What I — what I don’t want to is prejudice that possibility here today or in the next days. I would like to see if we can find some way to cooperate. We need their help and cooperation with respect to Syria. 

 

I would also say that with respect to Russia, Russia has helped on a number of different things that are critical to us, and people should not overlook them. They did cooperate on the — on the START treaty itself. They did cooperate on the P-5 plus one and are cooperating today in that initiative. They have cooperated on the sanctions. They have cooperated with respect to the PNTR and trade and WTO accession. 

 

And I think it’s fair to say that everybody here knows that our — they warned us and said, if you do X, Y or Z on such and such a thing, we may respond, and we’ve gotten into that little back-and- forth. So we’re going to have to work our way through it. I’m confident we can, and I’ll look forward to working with you. 

 

SEN. RISCH: Senator, appreciate your candor on the acknowledgement of the slippage. 

 

Having been a member of this committee as long as you have — and I know you have a deep appreciation for the constitutional process regarding foreign relations matters — there are a lot of us that are becoming increasingly concerned about all this talk regarding executive agreements as opposed to treaties that are negotiated by the executive branch as contemplated by the Founding Fathers and ratified, if appropriate, by this committee and eventually by the full Senate. Can you give us your view on matters regarding executive agreements? How do you feel about that and the bypassing of the committee? 

 

SEN. KERRY: Well, we — every administration in its history — 

 

SEN. RISCH: Appreciate that. 

 

SEN. KERRY: — Republican and Democrat alike have entered into executive agreements and — 

 

SEN. RISCH: You agree the better process would be to submit it to this committee — 

 

SEN. KERRY: Well, it would depend — I would say to you, Senator, that it would depend on what the subject matter is and what the sort of scope is and whether or not it falls under a traditional treaty purview or it falls under executive agreement purview. 

 

I can’t — I don’t want to be commenting in some prophylactic way one side or the other without the specific situation in front of me. But I’m confident the president is committed to upholding the Constitution. He’s — I don’t think he’s — you know, and I think — and I’ll say this to all of you. 

 

There’s no better way to guarantee that whatever concerns you have about the president’s desire to move on an executive agreement would be greatly, you know, nullified or mollified if we could find a way to cooperate on a treaty or on the broader issues that face the nation. But you know, I think — I think there’s a lot of frustration out there that some of the automatic ideological restraint here that prevents the majority from being able to express their voice has restrained people and pushed people in a way where they’ve got to consider some other ways of getting things done. 

 

SEN. RISCH: Well, and that’s exactly what concerns us, Senator Kerry, is the fact that it’s OK to do this through the regular order if it gets done, but if it’s not going to get done, then it’s — the ends justify the means; it’s OK to end-run around the Constitution. 

 

SEN. KERRY: Listen, I’m going to say — 

 

SEN. RISCH: And I got to tell you that I feel strongly that that is not the appropriate way to do it. The Founding Fathers didn’t say do this if it’s convenient, and it’s OK to not do it if it’s not convenient. I have real difficulties with that. 

 

SEN. KERRY: Senator, I would agree with you. 

 

SEN. RISCH: Thank you. 

 

SEN. KERRY: And I’m not — I’m not suggesting that that is the standard. But I am suggesting to you that there — and I think you know exactly what I’m talking about — that there are times around here when, in recent days only — and I don’t want to get deeply into it — where certain arguments that are not necessarily based either on fact or science or anything except the point of view of some outside entity have prevented certain things from being able to be done. 

 

And I think what we ought to do is sit down, all of us on this committee — and I look forward to doing this — and let’s have a discussion about what the facts tell us. Let’s have a discussion and see if we can arrive mutually at agreeing that there is actually some truth about something. And if there is some truth about it, maybe there’s a way for us politically to be able to do it, in keeping with what you would call the regular order. 

 

And so I’m not saying we ought to do it. I’m just saying I understand the frustration that leads people to think about it. And as I say to you, I’ll comment on it, on any particular instance, when it’s relevant. 

 

SEN. MENENDEZ: Thank you. 

 

Senator Cardin. 

 

SEN. RISCH: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 

SENATOR BEN CARDIN (D-MD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 

Senator Kerry, it’s been a real pleasure to serve with you in the United States Senate. I thank you for your extraordinary record of public service, from your military days to your service here in the Senate. We — people have talked about your service on different committees. I remember your chairmanship of the Small Business Committee and your advocacy for small businesses. The same — the same energy you brought to the chairmanship of this committee you brought to helping small businesses in our — in our country. 

 

So I applaud you and thank you for your willingness to continue to serve our nation, and I’ll look forward to you serving as secretary of state. It’s going to be great for our country. 

 

I must admit I had prepared two sets of questions, one much more difficult than the other, depending on the outcome of this weekend. 

 

SEN. KERRY: (Chuckles.) 

 

SEN. CARDIN: It worked out well. 

 

SEN. KERRY: (Chuckles.) God, I’m taking it — I’m taking it for the Red Sox. I’m taking it for the Patriots. (Laughter.) If the standard here is which team you root for, I’m screwed. (Laughter.) 

 

SEN. CARDIN: As long as the outcome is OK, we’ll forgive you. But you’ll have to show some of your diplomacy here. 

 

But it is — it’s interesting. Secretary Clinton really advanced the integration of our national security baskets, with working with the secretary of defense on the use of our traditional military and the use of diplomacy and international development assistance, recognizing that all three are interrelated into our — into our national security needs; that if we’re going to have a country that is reliable, we need to have a sustainable economy in that country, that the country needs to respect the human rights of its citizens. 

 

And that has been certainly, I think, the hallmark of what we’ve tried to move forward. 

 

We’