he following is the transcript of the hearing on the nomination of Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State as recorded by FDCH e-Media, Inc.

RICE: The way that we've chosen to do this is that the Europeans worked very closely with us. And we're trying to see if, indeed, the process that they're engaged in is going to bear any fruit.

BIDEN: I understand that. And I think you've given me a straightforward answer. And I want to make sure I don't misunderstand you. When I talked to our European friends, who are the three, their foreign ministers and/or their parliamentarians who are engaged in this, they what they say to me is essentially what you just said. I think the Europeans would be willing to cut a deal with the Iranians now, relating to economic help, if there was a verifiable forswearing of production of nuclear weapons and a missile program. But the truth is -- and I'm not being (inaudible) you understand it -- even if they did that, as long as they were continuing to support Hezbollah, as long as they were exporting the destabilization of Israel -- efforts to destabilize Israel -- as long as they were engaged in human rights abuses, then the administration's position would be, even if the Lord almighty came down and said, We guarantee you we can verify this, guarantee we can verify a compliance with no nuclear weapons and no missile technology, we still wouldn't go for that deal, would we?

RICE: Well, I think we would have to say that the relationship with Iran has more components than the nuclear side. But let's see how far the Europeans get and take a look at where we are.

BIDEN: I appreciate that. I would just suggest we have a real relationship with China, and their human rights abuses are terrible. The watch group looking at Russia has now put Russia in the category -- I can't find the exact quote. My staff has it -- of being non-democratic. We continue to have relationships with them. And my worry is -- I'll be very blunt with you, with regard to both Iran and Korea -- is that I'm not sure we're ready to take yes for an answer. I don't know whether they would go forward. But I do believe one thing firmly, that there's no possibility of any fundamental change in the nuclear program in Korea or Iran, absent the United States, actively, deeply engaged in a negotiation. We're the 800-pound gorilla. We're the outfit, they want to know where we are.

BIDEN: And it concerns me that we say the single most dangerous thing -- as my friend from Illinois said, that both candidates agree -- in the world is the spread of nuclear weapons and their access, possible access, by the bad guys, beyond the nation states. And so, we seem to be able to delineate when we deal with Russia. We seem to be able to delineate when we deal with China. I would argue the human rights abuses in China are not fundamentally different than the human rights abuses in Iran. And so, anyway -- and it was -- by the way, I'll end -- Freedom House who has categorizations. I know you guys know this, I couldn't remember the outfit, that now labels Russia as, quote, not free. So anyway, I think, as my grandpop used to say, the horse may not be able to carry the sleigh that you all are insisting on. But, anyway, thank you very much.

LUGAR: Thank you, Senator Biden. Senator Hagel?

HAGEL: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Dr. Rice, can you share with us what diplomatic initiatives President Bush will be carrying to Europe next month?

RICE: We are working currently, and indeed discussing with our European allies, how we might structure this very important trip. I think what we want to do, and what the president wants to do, is to unite this important alliance behind the kind of great goals that we all have. There is a calendar that permits some potential movement on the Middle East. We can hope for that. For instance, there's a conference in London on March 1st that Prime Minister Blair is hosting and that should therefore provide an area where, in the run-up to that, which the president's trip will be, we can have a discussion about how we move forward on Middle East peace. I think we'll want to have a discussion about how we move forward in Iraq. In the wake of elections -- elections will have just been held -- what are the tasks, who's going to play what role, what, with a new government in place, we can do to support that government?

SEN. SARBANES: Is it your view, then, that a secretary of State would not invoke executive privilege in testimony before the Congress?

MS. RICE: Well, I believe that the secretary of State would come and testify before the Congress and testify fully. Whether a secretary of State might choose to keep private some conversation that that person has had with the president or not, I think that's another matter. But certainly the secretary of State would appear before this body and others on a regular basis --

SEN. SARBANES: What's your sense of your responsibilities, if you were the secretary of State, to deal with the Congress in a -- either a nonpartisan or bipartisan manner, however one wants to describe it?

And I'm prompted to ask that question by the fact that you did at one point make a rare trip to Capitol Hill for separate closed-door briefings with Republicans and Democratic lawmakers. I don't know if you recall that. You met with Republican representatives for well over an hour; did not meet with the House Democrats, met only with the Republican members of the House. You came to the Senate side, had a lengthy meeting with Senate Republicans, and then a very brief meeting with Senate Democrats, cut short by a vote that was scheduled by the leadership, I guess. But in any event, there was a marked difference in the extent of the meeting and the consultation between Republicans and Democrats.

Presumably, as secretary of State you wouldn't intend for anything of that sort to happen, I would take it?

MS. RICE: Senator, I will conduct this in a completely bipartisan way. Let me just say that I will check, but I believe that we've generally offered to both sides -- both sides of the aisle and both houses. And I was prepared to stay in that Senate meeting as long as desired, but as you said, it was cut short by a vote.

SEN. SARBANES: What about the House side?

MS. RICE: I believe we offered, but I will check to see, because it was my view that the national security adviser also needed to deal in a bipartisan way, and I believe I've dealt with members of the committee, Democrat and Republican.

SEN. SARBANES: Ordinarily, at the start of each new Congress, the administration conducts a review of signed treaties to determine which ones to send as priorities for Senate advice and consent or ratification. The administration did not submit a treaty priority list to this committee in the 108th Congress. Are there plans or intentions to send up a list of treaty priorities to this new Congress?

MS. RICE: There are plans to do so, Senator. We will.

SEN. SARBANES: You plan to do that?

MS. RICE: We plan to do that, yes.

SEN. SARBANES: Now, let me ask you to come back to the economic questions. Do you think it's to America's advantage for the dollar to be the world's main reserve currency?

MS. RICE: Senator, I'm going to demure here. I will -- think these questions better asked of the Treasury. I have a strong interest in our economic well-being, I have a strong interest in what I can do as secretary of State to promote our economic well-being, particularly through free trade and through the establishment of good partners in trade and a level playing field in trade. But I really don't feel that I should comment on currency matters.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, it goes back to our discussion this morning. I, frankly, concluded that round with some concern because you kept talking about the president's economic team, as though that's something separate and apart from the concerns or the responsibilities of the secretary of State, even though at one point you stipulated that the strength of America's economy is fundamental to its ability to assert strength in the world. And these all play together.

And I mentioned this book this morning, this -- "The United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy." And one of the points made in that book is that the euro was specifically designed to challenge the global hegemony of the dollar. And, of course, we've seen the value of the euro rise very substantially in recent times. In fact, we now know in 2001, Middle Eastern oil-producing countries kept 75 percent of their currency reserves in dollars. That figure is now 60 percent; it's dropped substantially, with much of the rest of it in euros. And Chinese and Russian central bankers are also shifting their reserves. Does this cause you some concern?

MS. RICE: Senator, there are many reasons for what has happened to the relationship between the euro and the dollar. But again, I really think it best that I not comment on currency matters.

I will do what I can as secretary of State to try and enhance the prospects for a strong American economy. I think I can do that principally through the promotion of free trade, through the promotion of a level playing field, in using the diplomacy to carry economic messages when we need to do, as we've done, for instance, with the Chinese on intellectual property rights.

I'll be an active and interested participant, but there are some matters that I really feel are best left to the Treasury. And that's the commentary on currency.

SEN. SARBANES: Last month China's president, Hu Jintao, embarked on a 12-day tour of Latin America. He wound up making commitments to invest 30 billion in the region. China is now Brazil's second largest trading partner and Chile's largest export market. In trade, technology, investment, education and culture, China has been displacing the United States all across Asia and is now starting to do the same in America's backyard. Are you concerned about this expansive China?

MS. RICE: Well, this is an area that I think bears some watching and some activity, and I would work very carefully and very closely with those in trade and economics to try and deal with this. We do face a rising China. There's no doubt about that. And the way that we've tried to deal with the fact that China's economic strength is growing and that China's influence is growing along with its economic strength, and its penetration of markets and its own market are growing exponentially, is to embed China in the World Trade Organization and to make certain that it lives up to the rules of a rule-based international economic system. And we have a lot of work to do because China is not always completely attentive to some of its obligations under the World Trade Organization.

The other thing that we can do, Senator, is that we can assert our still considerable global reach and our still considerable regional influence through organizations like APEC, which we attend and which we are nurturing and which we're pushing forward with a very active agenda. We have had problems with ASEAN because of the presence of Burma, but we have had meetings and discussions with the countries of ASEAN.

I was in China, Japan and South Korea in June of this past year and I will say that I think most of the countries of Asia look to us to continue to be a major influence and an active player in Asia because they don't want to see China supplant, quote-unquote, the United States. We also have to remember that the Chinese economy, for all of its vigor and all of its robustness, is still a developing economy whose size is not going to approach the size of the American economy for quite a long time. It is a China that is dealing with tremendous difficulties with inequities between its interior regions and its coastal regions. It is still a developing economy. And while it is a huge market and is doing very well in our own markets, I think it's important to recognize that it is at a different stage of its economic development than the United States.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, it's interesting because they seem to be doing pretty well if that's the case. I mean, our accumulated debt to foreign investors is now 28 percent of our gross domestic product. That's nearly double the share of four years ago, and most of it is being funded by borrowing from foreign central banks, primarily those of Japan and China. In fact, it's staggering, the increase of foreign official assets in the United States, this run up, China and Japan.

Mr. Chairman, in closing I'd just note that in the 1990s, you know, the U.S. admonished Mexico and Argentina to get their economic houses in order. This month the Chinese premier gave Washington a similar lecture, and we just -- by not taking the important corrective measures we need to take with respect to our economy, we're allowing them to run up these balances and increasingly are, as I said this morning, dependent on the kindness of strangers. We're in their hands, and I can't help but believe that that will be brought to bear in other areas of the relationship, U.S.-China, if and when it becomes relevant.

MS. RICE: Well, Senator, I agree with you, and I think the president would agree, that the issue is for the U.S. economy to be as strong as it possibly can and as competitive as it possibly can, and there are a lot of measures being undertaken to do that. My role, I think, will be to try and enhance our economic growth and our economic strength through our openness in trade, but also by making certain that those with whom we trade are dealing with us on a level playing field, and I'll be completely dedicated to that.

SEN. SARBANES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LUGAR: Well, thank you very much, Senator Sarbanes.

Let me just indicate, Dr. Rice, that I appreciate the point you're making as to what the scope of the State Department may be and your role and what have you, but I would have to agree with Senator Sarbanes, the issue that he's touching upon, and this would be the subject for a couple of days of good hearings. It is profoundly important. It finally comes down to how we're going to pay for our foreign policy, and we really have, it seems to me, a critical juncture, given the circumstances of the foreign exchange situation, our own exchange rates and so forth.

So I suppose we're taking advantage of the fact that you are perceived as a super-competent person and perhaps prepared to take all of this on on behalf of the president, but I would encourage you to visit with the president about this, as you probably have, because I'm sure we'll all be getting back to it again and again. We'll not be able to solve it today, but I would just underline that there are some dynamics here that all of us find difficult to comprehend: the growth of China and the growth of India as economies, a third of the population of the world, going out now to try to find energy resources everywhere, sort of sucking up the resources of the world. So this is good for the soybean farmers of Indiana and we're grateful for anything that comes along that way, but it's going to be tough with regard to energy and other things.

So I don't want to occupy any more -- take more time, but I just am moved by what Senator Sarbanes was saying because he works on the Banking Committee, and other members of this committee are active in that area, and we have sort of interchanged disciplines in our own way, as you do.

But please, if you can, take under advisement at least our conversation today.

MS. RICE: Absolutely. Thank you, Senator, I will.

SEN. LUGAR: Senator Chafee.

SEN. CHAFEE: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I agree with your comments and Senator Sarbane's comments also concerning the financial issues, particularly the rise of the euro and the potential for OPEC to move in that direction could be alarming.

Thank you for your time, your stamina, and your breadth of knowledge, both remarkable. In fact, at the lunch we were joking that we were going to find an obscure country to ask you about --

MS. RICE: (Laughs.)

SEN. CHAFEE: -- but we agreed it would be futile: you'd know all about it.

MS. RICE: (Laughs.)

SEN. CHAFEE: I'd like to follow up on some of Senator Biden's comments about there seems to be a hypocritical approach to our foreign policy in some ways, in particular how we deal with some of those democracies such as Russia -- Senator Biden said uneven or undemocratic -- or some of the -- Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan, even Musharraf, President Musharraf, and then, on the other hand, have a completely different view of, say, Iran. As Senator Biden was saying, it seems the way we magnify our differences on one hand, and then, on the other hand, we magnify our similarities. And in particular, after having just come back from South America and meeting with President Chavez, here he has been drawn before his people, high, high turnout, just had a referendum. And as one of the people from our embassy said, he cleaned their clocks and kicked their butts. And it seems to me to say derogatory things about him may be disrespectful to him, but also to the Venezuelan people. How do you react to that?

MS. RICE: Well, I have nothing but good things to say about the Venezuelan people. They are a remarkable people. And if you notice, Senator Chafee, I was not making derogatory comments, I was simply recognizing that there are unhelpful and unconstructive trends going on in Venezuelan policies. This is not -- this is not personal.

SEN. CHAFEE: There aren't in Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan and Russia, and --

MS. RICE: And -- and we -- and we speak out about those --

SEN. CHAFEE: -- Pakistan?

MS. RICE: -- we speak out about those as well. But some of this is a matter of trend lines and where countries have been and where they are now going.

SEN. CHAFEE: Are their governments unconstructive?

MS. RICE: Well, the Russian government is not unconstructive in a lot of areas. It's quite constructive in many areas. It's been more constructive on Iran in recent years, it is constructive on -- to a certain extent, in trying to deal with the kind of Nunn-Lugar issues that we've talked about. It's been constructive in Afghanistan. It's constructive on a number of areas. But that doesn't excuse what is happening inside Russia, where the concentration of power in the Kremlin to the detriment of other institutions is a real problem. And we will continue to speak to the Russians --

I think we do have to remember that it is also not the Soviet Union. The Russians have come quite a long way from where the Soviet Union was, and we need to always keep that in mind when we judge current policies. But where they are going is simply not very good. It is something to be deeply concerned about, and we will speak out. And countries are going to meet at -- going to move at different speeds on this democracy test. I don't think there is any doubt about that. But what we have to do is that we have to keep the agenda, keep this item on the agenda. We have to continue to press countries about it. We have to support democratic forces and civil society forces wherever we can.

I would just note that Ukraine I visited in 2001, not long after I'd become national security adviser. And I, frankly, when this happened in Ukraine was pretty stunned by how effective civil society was how effective the Ukrainian people were in making their voices known. Some of that is because we and the EU and others have spent time developing civil society, developing political opposition, working with people, not to have a specific candidate in any of these countries, but to have a political process that's open. And we have to do more of that.

We're going to spend some $43 million this year -- I believe that's the number -- on Russian institutions, trying to help with the development of civil society there. We need to do more of that kind of thing, because while we put it on agenda, while we confront the governments that are engaged in non-democratic activities, we also have to help the development of civil society in opposition.

SEN. CHAFEE: You and Senator Boxer were having a little bit of a debate over credibility. And to me it seems as though trust is built with consistency. Is it possible for you to say something positive about the Chavez administration?

MS. RICE: It's pretty hard, Senator, to find something positive. Let me say this --

SEN. CHAFEE: I don't understand that, after -- after --

MS. RICE: Let me say this -- let me say this --

SEN. CHAFEE: -- Tajikistan, Pakistan, Russia. It seems as though, as I say, magnifying our differences to some countries, and magnifying our similarities with other. And as I said, I think trust is built with consistency. I don't see consistency in some of your comments.

MS. RICE: Well, the state of behavior in the Western Hemisphere, the state of affairs in the Western Hemisphere is such that we've had democratic revolutions in all of these places and we don't want to see them go back. We have some places where the democratic revolution is still to take place, and we just have to understand that there are differences in that regard.

But I have said we hope that the government of Venezuela will continue to recognize what has been a mutually beneficial relationship on energy, and that we can continue to pursue that. We certainly hope that we can continue to pursue counter-drug activities in the Andean region, and Venezuela participates in that. But I have to say that for the most part, the activities of the Venezuelan government in the last couple of years have been pretty unconstructive.

SEN. CHAFEE: Well, thanks very much. I'll go back to what I said earlier; it seems disrespectful to the Venezuelan people. They have spoken.

MS. RICE: Thank you.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you, Senator Chafee.

Senator Dodd.

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD (D-CT): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll try and move along on this as well.

Let me just pick up on one of the points that Senator Sarbanes was raising earlier with you, and that is, if course, the apparent contradiction, obviously, of having an NSC adviser not be able to appear with any regularity before the committee, yet appearing with rather significant regularity on national television. I also note -- and I'm sure you're not the first NSC adviser to do this, but just in the fall of this year, according to staff work here, that you made some 10 speeches in the fall of this year in battleground states, I guess except one, involved in the politics. And I always -- I know that the secretary of State historically has not, secretary of Defense -- and I commend Senator (sic) Powell and Senator (sic) Rumsfeld for not having been involved in the campaign.

Would you make a similar commitment? Obviously, the president doesn't run again, but obviously there are mid-term elections. And would you share with us your opinion on whether or not it's wise, given the historic efforts to try and create bipartisanship when it comes to foreign policy, to have an NSC adviser out on the campaign trail, and certainly as secretary of State. Could you quickly give us some sense of where you think that ought to --

MS. RICE: Certainly. As national security adviser I spoke a lot, actually, and I tried to get outside of Washington and to speak. I went to --

SEN. DODD: Were these campaign stops?

MS. RICE: I went to places that were non-partisan. I went to places like World Affairs Councils and universities. Anybody could come. I was thoroughly questioned about American foreign policy, and I thought it only appropriate at a time in which we were a war. They were not a part of the campaign, and I think the fora that we chose would demonstrate that.

But you can be certain that I will respect the tradition of this office, of the secretary of State, should I be confirmed. I think it has to be bipartisan. I think it cannot be political in any way. And I, in my comments, mentioned how important I thought bipartisan foreign policy is, and I'll do everything that I can to make it that way.

SEN. DODD: Well, I don't want to dwell on it, but it's an important point. And again, I'm not sure what the precedents are of those who preceded you in the office of NSC adviser. But I think it's just bad business in those periods to get involved in this stuff. It does create problems, and I think it's a wiser course to follow.

Let me quickly jump to the issue of the Justice Department's opinion memos regarding torture and interrogation. In response to a question for the record, you indicated that the Justice Department opinion memos on torture and interrogation were provided to the National Security Council for review while staff -- in draft form. And you indicated at the response that you were not involved in reviewing the draft opinion.

Just a series of three or four questions, if I may.

Did you ever read the opinions?

MS. RICE: I did not read the opinion.

SEN. DODD: And did you have a view at the time about them at all?

MS. RICE: Senator, I did not think it my role to try and give legal advice to the president. But that legal advice was then discussed in a policy context, and at that point, the policy of how we would treat detainees in this new kind of war -- and we did face a very difficult and different circumstance. I mean, you were dealing with al Qaeda on the battlefield, people who were not living up to the laws of war; this is a different kind of combatant, people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and people who were -- who plotted 9/11 and clearly were not part of any organized army.

We did have a series of difficult choices to make, but --

SEN. DODD: You were aware, I presume, of the State Department concerns at that time about these memos?

MS. RICE: I was aware. And in fact, we made certain that before the president made a final decision on this matter of how Geneva would be applied, that he had the advantage of hearing from all of his advisers.

SEN. DODD: You want to share with us what your opinions were?

MS. RICE: Senator, I gave my advice to this -- to the president on this matter, and I really would prefer not to talk about what advice I gave him.

He came out in a place that I think was consistent with both living up to our international obligations and allowed us to recognize that the Geneva Conventions should not apply to a particular category of people.

Now when we got to Iraq, there was no question that the conflict itself was covered under Geneva. Iraq was a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and we believed that the conflict was therefore covered.

SEN. DODD: Let me just ask you very briefly: What are your views? Let's go back to the bottom, because we can fool around with the language here. But what are yours views on things like water- boarding and nudity? What are your views on that? Is that torture, in your view, or not?

MS. RICE: Senator --

SEN. DODD: And should it be -- should the United States stay away from that activity, or is that -- or do you have sort of a mixed view on that? I'd just like to get some sense of it.

MS. RICE: Senator, under no circumstances should we or have we condoned torture. And the president has been very clear that he expects everyone to live up to our international obligations and to American law. And the Justice Department makes a determination on any interrogation techniques that are used that they have to be consistent with our international obligations and with American law. I --

SEN. DODD: You're familiar, now, aren't you, with the draft opinion that was submitted. Just let me wonder what -- now that you know what the draft opinion was, now going to what you thought at the time, would you have raised objections to it, had you been aware of what was included, to that?

MS. RICE: I didn't say I wasn't aware of what was in the opinion. I didn't read the full opinion, Senator.

SEN. DODD: Okay.

MS. RICE: But I believe that the president, as a policy matter, decided that in order to protect American interests but also in order to live up to our obligations internationally, even though this was a very different kind of war, different kind of set of circumstances, that the right policy call was to treat the detainees, even al Qaeda detainees, consistent with our obligations or consistent with the principles of Geneva, consistent with military and security necessity. And I think that was the right call. And it -- I just can't emphasize enough how difficult it is when you're dealing with a totally new set of circumstances.

Now we have talked about what we might do to engage the --

SEN. DODD: Let me just come back to the point. I just want to make this simple question.

MS. RICE: Yes.

SEN. DODD: Is it your view, as a human matter, that water- boarding and the use, as we saw, in prisons in Iraq of nudity -- is that torture in your personal view, as a nominee here for the --

MS. RICE: Senator, I'm not going to speak to any specific interrogation techniques, but let me talk about Abu Ghraib, because that was not acceptable.

SEN. DODD: I'd like to just get your views on just a simple matter. It's a simple question I'm asking. I'm not --

MS. RICE: Well, you asked me about the incidents in Iraq, and --

SEN. DODD: (Off mike) -- asking about some very specific techniques that were used, whether or not you consider them to be torture or not.

MS. RICE: Senator, the determination of whether interrogation techniques are consistent with our international obligations and American law are made by the Justice Department. I don't want to comment on any specific interrogation techniques. I don't think that would be appropriate, and I think it would not be very good for American security.

SEN. DODD: Well, let's leave it, if that's your answer, there. It's a disappointing answer, I must say. The face of U.S. foreign policy is in the person of the secretary of State, and it's important at moments like this to be able to express yourself aside from the legalities of things, how you as a human being react to these kinds of activities. And with the world watching, when a simple question is raised about techniques that I think most people would conclude in this country are torture, it's important at a moment like that that you can speak clearly and directly without getting involved in the legalisms questions. I understand these involve some legal determinations, but as a human being how you feel about this, about to assume the position and be responsible for pursuing the human rights issues that this nation has been deeply committed to for decades, is a very important moment.

MS. RICE: Senator, I maintain the commitment and will maintain the commitment of the United States to norms of international behavior and to the legal norms that we have helped to --

SEN. DODD: Let me ask you this, then. What would happen if someone did this to an American? What would happen if we saw on television that a captured American was being subjected to these kind of activities? How would you react to it?

MS. RICE: Senator, the United States of America -- American personnel are not engaged in terrorism against innocents.

SEN. DODD: I wasn't asking you what they have been charged with. I'm asking whether or not, if you saw an American be treated like this, how would you react?

MS. RICE: We expect Americans to be -- because we are parties to the Geneva Conventions, we expect Americans to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

SEN. DODD: Of course we do. And do you consider these kinds of activities to violate the Geneva Conventions?

MS. RICE: We believe that there are certain categories of people, the al Qaeda, for instance, who were not covered by Geneva, that in fact it would have been a stretch to cover them under Geneva, would have weakened Geneva to cover them. But the president said that they had to be treated, as military necessity allowed, consistent with the application of Geneva.

SEN. DODD: Do me a favor. At the end of all of these hearings, I'd like you to spend about 15 minutes with John McCain and talk to him about this stuff. I think you'll get some good advice when it comes to the subject matter, someone who has been through this, about what the dangers are when we have sort of waffling answers about these questions and then Americans can be apprehended and what happens to them.

Let me move on, because I don't want to take up the committee's time on this particular point, but I'm troubled by your answer.

Let me ask you about, if I can, the HIV/AIDS issue. Let me move to the Caribbean again, come back to this region of the world. During the consideration of the legislation on 2003, I attempted to add countries to the HIV/AIDS legislation, Caribbean countries. And let me tell you why I did.

We have a staggering percentage, high percentage of people in the Caribbean who are HIV positive. I know we do a lot already as part of this program in Guyana in Haiti, and I won't list all of the island nations in the Caribbean, involving some 600,000 people who have almost as high a rate of AIDS contamination as some of the most seriously affected countries in Africa, and yet we've left these countries out because we never passed the legislation.

It's an important issue. I won't go through all the details with you here, but there are 10 million Americans who visit these island nations, not to mention the tremendous number of people who come to our own country, far more so than have contact with some of the nations that are very adversely affected in Africa. And I would hope that you might, as we look at these programs here, expand the coverage to these countries.

The average -- today the average Haitian man can expect to live only 47 years, the average woman 51 years. It's the single highest cause of death in the Caribbean nations of men under the age of 45. It really deserves far more attention than it's getting. Do you have a quick answer, a quick response to this?

MS. RICE: Yes. The president's emergency plan was intended to deal with the 14 and then 15 most affected countries. I think it's an excellent plan, and if we meet our goals we will be providing treatment to 2 million people and preventing 7 million infections and getting 10 million people into contact with educational and other programs. And it's a very fine program. It's not all that we do. We do a lot of other assistance, bilateral assistance. Some 85 or so countries are affected by the assistance that we give. And of course, the Global Fund, to which we are by far the largest single contributor, is also very active in that.

I think we made a very big step forward. And I know Senator Kerry and others have been long proponents of an international effort on AIDS. We have made a major breakthrough in the president's emergency plan. We wanted to have a number of countries where we could worry not just about the disbursement of money, but about helping to build delivery systems that would actually get the job done. But I would just emphasize that it's not the only assistance that we do.

SEN. DODD: Take a good look at this, please. The Dominican Republic is on the same island, shares the island of Hispaniola with Haiti. Haiti's covered, the Dominican Republic is not. That's ridiculous on its face, given the cross-contamination that occurs from just populations that move from Haiti to the Dominican Republic as we speak here because of the cane-cutting season and obviously the potential there.

I see my time has expired. Let me just -- just quickly, and I'll come back. I said one round, Mr. Chairman. I apologize; I may have to come back for a few more questions.

But I want to emphasize again -- I know you'll come back to this Venezuela issue and Latin America. We've got to be thinking a bit differently. No one's going to argue about some of the decisions that have been made in many of these countries, things that they do that we find very different from how we would approach issues. But what Senator Chafee has said I think is an accurate description. We've got to be more balanced about this view. It strikes many of us as sort of being sort of domestic politics rather than foreign policy when it comes to these issues.

I mentioned earlier statements have been made. It's good politics in Latin America too often to attack the United States. Here was our good friend Chile, for instance, when the issue came up in the vote in the United Nations on Iraq, where we threatened them not to complete the Chilean-U.S. trade agreement. It was only as the result of the intervention of Spain which put it back on track again. That word is widely known -- that conclusion widely known in the region. That's not helpful as we're trying to build these relationships. And I'd urge you not to get caught in this mind-set, sort of to use your own experience, the Pavlovian sort of reaction to some of these people, and to try and engage in a positive and constructive way.

I'll guarantee you that certainly in Venezuela today they're watching very carefully what's been said. That's not to say we agree or applaud decisions being made that we would disagree with, but we need to try something differently here if we're going to succeed in building different relationships.

And I want to come back to that, but I've been disappointed in the way that -- I don't expect you necessarily to agree with Democrats up here, but we've got to be thinking in a way that shows we're going to move where the world is headed in many ways, looking for different ways to establish better relationships.

I want to come back to that when we finish a round.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you, Senator Dodd.

Senator Allen.

SEN. GEORGE ALLEN (R-VA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have some questions I want to get to on competition and corruption, but let me follow up on some of the cross examination of Senator Dodd.

On the question of -- I understand you don't want to use the word "torture" but maybe the word "abuse" is appropriate insofar as the conduct of our military, some of our military people in Abu Ghraib prison. Now we all can agree that this conduct, whatever you want to call it -- whether it's abuse, whether it's torture -- the bottom line is, as far as Americans are concerned, this is a violation of our standards -- standards of conduct and expectations that we have of our government. And therefore, the Bush administration, and not just the administration but the United States, indeed is going after those who are culpable and are -- and in fact are being prosecuted and punished. Charles Graner just received a 10-year sentence for his actions and activity and responsibilities for it.

So I would say, Dr. Rice, that this administration and the United States government is on record finding that deplorable, regardless of what phraseology one wants to use to describe this conduct.

MS. RICE: Yes, Senator, let me just be very clear. I didn't have a chance to say: Abu Ghraib was unacceptable. It was abuse. And people are being punished for that. The question came about broader detainee policies, but what happened at Abu Ghraib made everyone sick to their stomachs, and the good thing about the United States is that we actually prosecuted the people who did it. And we'll continue to as the investigations unfold.

SEN. ALLEN: Thank you. I wanted to adduce that response, which I figured was actually your sentiments on it. You're getting kind of tied in all the legalistics there.

On the issue of competition that Senator Sarbanes brought up -- and you mentioned a fair or level playing field -- I very much agree with so many of the things Senator Sarbanes is saying as well as what you've brushed on generally. And the chairman mentioned India and China being concerns long term. I look at India differently. India is the largest democracy in the world. We have great and strong bilateral ties with India and also more recently with Pakistan, and somehow we ought to be able to help continue the rapprochement with India and Pakistan.

Insofar as China, though, China is not a democracy. And China -- there are concerns that you're going to be facing as far as China with the Europeans potentially selling arms to China.

But on the area of what you mentioned, corruption -- this is on page three of your statement: "Corruption can sap the foundation of democracy." And indeed, if you look at the trade practices of China, they cheat on a variety of fronts -- textiles, furniture. They have in semiconductor chips as well. Mr. Zoellick, who's going to be with you, has helped prosecute some of those to various degrees, but finally got them on the cheating on the semiconductor chip matter, as well as South Korea doing that as well. But the one area that they wholly fail as well in is intellectual property. And they -- there's no adequate protection of intellectual property, which is stealing from Americans, their creativity, our ingenuity. And I'd like your view on what we can do -- and you said corruption can sap the foundations of democracy, and part of that corruption, in my view, would be China's unfair trade practices. I have worked with this committee to increase funding to trade law enforcement and judicial systems around the world on the protection of intellectual property. We have funded -- it's $5 million to help IP laws, intellectual property laws, and make these countries, many of whom are unaware, apparently, of violations. And they need to be educated on it. I do think, though, China is educated on it. They -- this is not a question of unknowing violations. I would like to hear from you what steps that you can foresee the United States taking to help combat corruption in other nations, and in particular the violations and the theft of our intellectual property, which is so key to the competitiveness of our country in the future.

MS. RICE: It absolutely is. And we have been very active and, in fact, aggressive with China about the IPR problem, trying to get them to have more stringent laws and, more importantly, enforcement when they find pirating. We make the point to them that if they begin to invent themselves, they are not going to want a world in which intellectual property rights are stolen, but rather, in which intellectual property rights are protected.

I think we've gotten a little movement forward, but not enough. And we need to keep pressing this agenda. We are pressing the agenda, by the way, also with Russia, where pirating is a very big problem and where actually there have been fewer prosecutions than in China. So I think we need to press those issues.

As to the broader concerns about corruption, there is no doubt that corruption, which leads to legal systems that allow pirating of technology, allow terrorists to flourish, allow drug runners and arms dealers to flourish, it's all a part of the same problem. And so, having police forces that are properly paid, trained and loyal, having judges that are properly paid, trained and loyal is a very important part of a wide -- worldwide effort that we have to help with corruption. Especially in some countries like Nigeria we've offered assistance in these ways. We also, Senator, have tried to get the international development banks to be more concerned about corruption in the granting of aid, that when aid goes in that it's clear that the tax isn't going to be a corruption tax on top of the aid that goes in. And we've made some progress.

Finally, in something like the Millennium Challenge Account, the president's made very clear that corruption, which is one of the indices that leads to a country being eligible or not, that corruption is an index that we ought to look at very, very carefully, because if you have a corrupt government, that aid is just going to be wasted.

SEN. ALLEN: Well, thank you very much. And I look forward to working with you, and I know this whole committee will, on this issue of protecting intellectual property rights, and the issue of corruption as well because it does undermine freedom and democracy and the respect of the rule of law.

Finally, let me just bring up this area of question, and this is the South Caucasus or the Black Sea area. I've been one who believes that we ought to be looking at maybe basing more of our NATO forces in the Black Sea area closer to the Middle East, the areas that are of greatest concern, because of the proximity, obviously. And it seems clear that, I think, the United States ought to be working to shore up -- it's not even shore up, but it's actually enhance our alliances with the new countries in Central Europe that have joined the European Union, joined NATO.

How do you envision the administration working with countries in the Caucasus, Southeast Europe, to promote their democratic reforms, but also the views on integrating them into the European Union and also into our NATO operations?

MS. RICE: Well, certainly some of the countries of that region have already begun to integrate in very fruitful ways. A number of them have already acceded to the EU, as well as to NATO.

One of the ways that we can encourage that integration is what used to be Partnership for Peace is now in many ways -- in many cases NATO membership. And as NATO refines its capabilities to be responsive to the threats of the 21st century, rather than sitting and waiting for the Soviet Union to come across the German plains, as much of the forces looked like, the ability of those countries to play specialized missions within NATO's overall portfolio is very important, and it gives opportunities for training, for civil military interaction, for the kinds of things that strengthen democracy. And I happen to think that what we did with Partnership for Peace, and what we continue to do in some countries that are not yet capable of accession to NATO, like, for instance, Georgia, that those programs which ensure contact between democratically governed militaries and militaries in those societies, the kinds of seminars that we were able to conduct under Partnership for Peace, those all have very positive effects, and I would hope that those would continue.

But the future for most of these countries is a further integration into Europe's great pillars, and we need to work toward that.

SEN. ALLEN: Thank you, Dr. Rice.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say in conclusion here, Dr. Rice, thank you for your wonderful leadership that you have provided, and I look forward to working with you in the years to come. I know we're going to have some debate here and some votes. But I feel very comfortable that with you as our secretary of State, and this administration, and I think reflecting all the highest and best aspirations of America, you will help us advance freedom, our security, but also for freedom for people all over the world. And thank you, and good luck to you. And thank you for putting up with a lot of cross-examination today, but it will be nothing compared to the achievements that you will see in the next four years.

MS. RICE: Thank you very much, Senator.

SEN. ALLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you very much, Senator Allen.

Let me just broach with the committee two scenarios, one of which is that we would have a business meeting at some time this evening and vote on the nominee, or that we will continue, in either case, to have questioning so that members have an opportunity to have their questions, but continue again tomorrow. And suggest, perhaps, a vote so that members can be alerted in mid-morning tomorrow morning.

I have -- I just ask this in terms of the preferences of the committee, in terms of other schedules. Senator Boxer, do you have --

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA): Yeah. I just would like to say myself that what's happening here is the questioning's so good from both sides of the aisle that it raises other issues. And I don't agree it's cross-examination; I think it's our job. And so I think we ought to do this tomorrow. I think we ought to maybe hear from Senator Kerry as the closer -- it's a thought -- and come back in the morning and continue.

SEN. LUGAR: Well, we'll come back in the morning, in that event, and anyway. But we'll continue this evening, so that every senator who is here has an opportunity to ask questions.

SEN. BOXER: Okay.

SEN. LUGAR: I'm not prepared to end the hearing. My thought was just simply we might have a vote at the end of the questioning this evening, thus obviating the need for a meeting tomorrow. But in the event that senators are not prepared to vote this evening, then we will continue it tonight anyway and continue tomorrow, and proceed.

SEN. BOXER: Are you saying we would continue questioning tomorrow as well and then have the vote?

SEN. LUGAR: In the event that we are still meeting tomorrow, that we be -- that we'd be open for questions tomorrow morning.

SEN. GEORGE ALLEN (R-VA): Was -- Mr. Chairman?

SEN. LUGAR: Yes, Senator Allen?

SEN. ALLEN: Just for the senator from California, the term -- I'd use the term "cross-examination," not in a derogatory sense. It's normal, just questioning people and adducing answers from people. So don't take any offense from that.

SEN. BOXER: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. LUGAR: Very well.

Senator Kerry.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): I don't know if I want to get in the middle of this. (Laughter.)

I wonder, Mr. Chairman -- I know I heard Dr. Rice say earlier she's willing to stay and stay and stay. But I wonder if, you know, there's sort of a limit of decency of how long we want to --

MS. RICE: Well, I'm perfectly happy to stay, Senator. I look forward to further exchange.

SEN. KERRY: You want that job, and the faster you get --

MS. RICE: Yeah. I look forward to further exchange.

SEN. : (Off mike) -- together.

SEN. KERRY: Fair enough.

I'm reading from an article on December 15th, which says -- by David Ruppe -- "Invoking comments by then-presidential candidate Senator John Kerry, a senior Energy Department official said yesterday that the Bush administration would defy critics and finish securing 600 tons of Russian nuclear weapons materials by 2008." And it goes on to explain the distinction between sites and tons, and how they're going to try to do it.

So I'm glad that some people heard what we were talking about. But in a debate with the president, we were both asked -- I think it might have been by Bob Schieffer -- what we thought the most important issue was. And I answered nuclear proliferation globally, and the president agreed.

Now this in 2004 that the president agreed that this is the most pressing issue, globally and nationally, to our security. And yet the fact is that by the end of this year, we will have secured maybe 46 percent of the material that's out there and 70 percent of the sites. The fact is also that this administration has requested less money than the Clinton administration did in its last year. And each year this administration has either cut or flat-lined the money for this enterprise.

In 2002 the administration unveiled its G-8 global partnership against weapons of mass destruction, pledging to spend $10 billion. But if you look at what was then being spent -- it was about a billion dollars a year -- in effect, that was 10 billion (dollars) over the next 10 years -- same amount of money, no additional commitment of funds to the most significant threat the country faces.

Now a number of years ago, I remember, a suitcase was captured -- I think it was in Amman, at the airport -- with something like 250 grams of radioactive material, and the sale was several hundreds of millions of dollars on the back market. That's the suitcase we caught. As a former prosecutor, you always wonder about the suitcases you don't catch and the people you don't catch.

No threat has been greater to us, according to, I think, everybody, than the potential of a dirty bomb and the threat of terrorists securing these materials, and you explained earlier about the sort of marketing in this process.

You know, I don't say this as a matter of politics at all, but just as a matter of common sense. I don't understand how the administration can choose to spend -- now we're going to be close to $300 billion in Iraq, to disarm weapons that weren't there, and yet $1 billion a year to secure weapons that we know are there, potentially, because every fissionable site is a potential weapon -- real, ascertainable, tangible.

So my question to you is -- there are a series of steps that could be taken very simply, as a matter of common sense, for the United States of America to lead the world, as we ought to, with respect to proliferation. One is accelerating even further this securing of sites. That material is subject to theft, some of it poorly guarded by people who are poorly paid. It is insecure. Senator Lugar and Senator Nunn and others put enormous energy into this effort, and the administration even allowed money to be cut at one point with respect to this effort. That hardly defines a serious commitment.

So, one, will the administration -- will you press for a global effort that meets the seriousness of the threat and that puts the United States back into the position of leadership with respect to securing fissionable material that we know is there?

MS. RICE: Senator, I think that we are working to do exactly that. There are a lot of reasons that the schedule is what it is. We've talked about some of the bureaucratics of this not just here, but principally in Russia. We're on a schedule to do this in four years. I think we will get it done in four years. We're also on a very active program of securing nuclear sites with the Russians through Nunn-Lugar.

I'm completely and totally dedicated to this program. I think Senator Lugar would tell you that I've been one of its biggest advocates inside the administration, and I will continue to be one of its biggest advocates.

SEN. KERRY: All right, but you see, what you just said doesn't ring with what has happened. I mean, we secured more nuclear fissionable material in the two years prior to 9/11 than we did in the two years after 9/11, when we supposedly had an even better relationship with Mr. Putin. Now the fact is that you've allowed summit after summit with Russian President Putin to go by without any action that has been taken to overcome -- in fact, at the last, the most recent summit in September of 2003, the United States and Russia laid out an agenda for that -- for that effort and it didn't even include the subject of securing nuclear stocks; wasn't even on the agenda.

MS. RICE: It is part, Senator, of what we call the checklist, which is a vehicle that we have for working with the Russians on very concrete projects that we have going forward. And we've just had discussions in the strategic dialogue with the Russians about what more we can do to push this agenda forward, and I think it will be a major issue when President Putin and President Bush meet in a couple of weeks.

SEN. KERRY: Yeah, I know. But global diplomacy, as you know well, is defined by the issues that a president of the United States chooses to publicly put on the table and to publicly announce accomplishments on. And you know, whether it's a checklist that's private versus a major agenda issue makes a distinction.

MS. RICE: The checklist is public, Senator.

SEN. KERRY: But it wasn't on the agenda.

MS. RICE: Senator, the president has not only put this, nonproliferation, on the agenda, but he's made proposals for how we might deal with the multiple aspects of nonproliferation that we have to deal with at this point.

I mentioned the proposals that he made at National Defense University, which we've taken up in the G-8 and we've tried to press. The global partnership to which you referred, which multiples American assistance to this area --

SEN. KERRY: It's the same amount of money. It didn't add a cent.

MS. RICE: Senator, this is a program that we've worked out jointly with the Russians on what can be done when. The amount of money that is dedicated to that particular part of the program is the amount of money that we believe we can spend on the programs that are in the queue. We are going to accelerate the securing of these materials to the point that it can be done in a period of four years, not 13 years. This is a very high priority, and we have funded the program. We have put emphasis on it. We have run into some bureaucratic obstacles. And I've just represented to Senator Lugar that I intend to try and break through those bureaucratic obstacles.

SEN. KERRY: Well, I appreciate that. And I certainly obviously hope you will.

A second initiative that could be taken with respect to this is to actually push for a global clean-out of potential bomb-making materials, and that could be done in four years. We've got highly enriched uranium that can be used to create a bomb. I gather it's being used to fuel over 130 research reactors in more than 40 countries right now. I've set out a plan that would allow us to be able to secure that completely.

I think your current plan, the Bush administration took three years to even get to the point of saying that it would take another 10 years to achieve. Now I believe that could be done in three or four years. Is there any reason that the administration couldn't similarly accelerate that?

MS. RICE: Well, Senator, I'd love to sit down and talk with you about your plan and what it entails and to see what could be done. I do think that we spend an awful lot of time trying to work with the Russians to make full use of Nunn-Lugar and other aspects. Now in terms of a global way to deal with this material that is around, we have a G-8 partnership that might allow us to do that. But I'd be very pleased to talk with you about your plan.

SEN. KERRY: What do you think about pursuing an effort which many nations support -- there's a lot of international support for this -- to embrace a ban on all production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for use in nuclear weapons, and that would, in effect, permanently freeze current stockpiles.

MS. RICE: In the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty that is being -- we've said that we favor the negotiation of Fissile Material Cut- off Treaty. We've been prepared for some time to live up to its terms. The problem has been that we did an extensive review and we do not believe that we can get adequate verification of such a treaty. But we're still prepared to pursue a fissile material cut-off, and we've made very clear to our partners that we're prepared to do that.

SEN. KERRY: And what about any initiatives or discussions with President Musharraf and the Indians with respect to fail-safe procedures in the event -- I mean, there have been two attempts on President Musharraf's life. If you were to have a successful coup in Pakistan, you could have, conceivably, nuclear weapons in the hand of a radical Islamic state automatically, overnight. And to the best of my knowledge, in all of the inquiries that I've made in the course of the last years, there is now no failsafe procedure in place to guarantee against that weaponry falling into the wrong hands.

MS. RICE: Senator, we have noted this problem, and we are prepared to try to deal with it. I would prefer not in open session to talk about this particular issue.

SEN. KERRY: Okay. Well, I raise it again. I must say that in my private briefings as the nominee I found the answers highly unsatisfactory. And so, I press on you the notion that, without saying more, that we need to pay attention to that.

MS. RICE: We're -- we're very aware of the problem, Senator, and we have had some discussions. But I really would prefer not to discuss that.

SEN. KERRY: Okay. Let me get to the question of North Korea. North Korea has quadrupled its weaponry capacity according to public --

SEN. LUGAR: Senator, would you -- your final --

SEN. : Come on --

SEN. KERRY: Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize.

SEN. LUGAR: That's all right. Proceed, but then make it the final.

SEN. KERRY: No, no, no. That's fine. I'll come back. I'll --

SEN. LUGAR: The chair is going to declare a recess of 10 minutes. We've been at it for over three hours, and you have been responsive for that period of time. Then we will come back. We have five senators who are -- remain to be heard. And so, we will hear those five, and then conclude for the evening at that point, and then we will start at 9:00 tomorrow with the thought the senators hopefully will be prepared for a mid-morning business meeting and vote.

SEN. : Mr. Chairman, you said 9:00. Is that true?

SEN. LUGAR: Yes.

We'll have a recess for 10 minutes in the event that you would like to recess for this point.

SEN. LUGAR: (Strikes gavel.) The hearing is called to order again.

The chair now calls on Senator Coleman for his questions.

SEN. NORM COLEMAN (R-MN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, Dr. Rice, I do want to thank you for your strong remarks about international student exchanges. I think you said that we need to do something to reverse the trend. And we do. My colleague from Tennessee talked about it as an economic development -- competitiveness issue for the United States. I also think it's a national security issue; that we're losing the ability to have relationship with folks who are going to be the prime ministers and the generals and others.

And so I have actually introduced legislation which -- two things it touches upon. One, the computer system, the (SVIS ?) system, needs to be improved. It tends to get bogged down, and doesn't attracts students. And another little piece of it is we've got a 50-year-old requirement under the law that requires students applying for visas, student visas, to demonstrate strong ties with their -- you know, with the country they come from. But it's hard if you're a 19-year-old kid. You don't have a mortgage, you may not have a spouse. And so we put some requirements on folks that I think if we took a more common- sense approach we would be able to increase the flow. And in the end, I think there's both economic and competitiveness issues and public -- national security issues.

I also want to echo the comments of some of my colleagues about Latin America. And we've talked about that and we had a chance to visit -- need to increase American involvement. I do want to make one comment about Venezuela. It's clear that Chavez won an election. There are a number of us who want to engage; we want to engage more. But I also think it's fair to say that in our business, actions matter and words matter. And the rhetoric from Chavez has to change.

MS. RICE: Right.

SEN. COLEMAN: You can't be, you know, proclaiming sympathy with folks who are killing Americans in Iraq. You can't be -- my colleague and friend from Connecticut noted that Lula -- President Lula had said some things, but he said them 20 years ago. Chavez said them last week, last month.

SEN. DODD: It wasn't 20 years ago. I hear you, but I mean --

SEN. COLEMAN: But in any case, but there are -- and I think it's fair, there are a number of us, we need to figure out a way to engage, but there's got to be a two-way street here, and words matter, actions matter.

My question for you is about Colombia. After decades of terror, we're seeing killings down. President Uribe is doing -- I think providing outstanding leadership. Folks are actually able to travel on the roads, which they weren't able to do before. The economy is responding positively to some of the increased security.

Clearly, Plan Colombia is working, but Plan Colombia expires at the end of this fiscal year. Our president, I'm pleased that one of his first trips right after election was to Latin America and visited Colombia. I have two questions for you. One, if you can reflect on the situation in Colombia and discuss the future of Plan Colombia; where are we going? And then the second issue is that one of the things Uribe is doing with the Colombian military is that they are disarming -- one of the largest demilitarizations of a paramilitary group probably in history. Because of limitations put on us in the foreign operations bill, this is going on without the participation of the U.S. government. And I would appreciate your reflections on what you believe to be the proper role of the United States in this effort to demilitarize a paramilitary group.

MS. RICE: Well, thank you very much, Senator. First of all, on Colombia, I think that Colombia has outstanding leadership in President Uribe. And what he has done is to mobilize Colombian society, the Colombian people, to take on the terrorism, the narcoterrorism in a new and renewed fashion. And he went to the people in a democratic way and he said here's what we have to do and here are the resources that we have to put behind it. And he's starting to have a lot of success. It's a very tough environment but he's also taking very tough policies toward the FARC. And we have very good cooperation on that piece of it.

I think that many of the aspects of Plan Colombia that dealt with alternative livelihoods, that dealt with dealing with the crop, all of those have worked to improve the circumstances in Colombia to the point that now it is possible for President Uribe to have this very tough policy. And it's always a struggle, but it's beginning to work. And we just need to support this democratically elected president who went to his people and said we've got to defeat the narcoterrorists, and he's doing it.

The dismantlement or the disarming of militias, including the AUC, is an important part of this revitalization of Colombia and dealing with its past problems. Obviously, there are some things that we can't do. We have gotten a little bit of flexibility to help some in some of the efforts that he needed toward the FARC, and that was much appreciated.

I would like to -- we would like to be in a position to do whatever we need to do to help h him and to have him tell us what that is.

And I'm sure that in the demilitarization we could do more. But the one thing that we've made clear is that while the AUC needs to be demobilized, demilitarized, and while he's talked about reconciliation with certain aspects, not with blood on their hands. And that's been a very important admonition to this government. But Colombia is becoming -- I won't declare yet, but is becoming a success story because you've had very determined leadership, and I think we've been a good partner for President Uribe.

SEN. COLEMAN: I mean, I think the challenge is the -- you can't do what -- you can't give a free pass to folks with blood on their hands. But we need to somehow have an ability to continue forward --

MS. RICE: That's right.

SEN. COLEMAN: -- with getting guns out of the hands of narcoterrorists. So --

MS. RICE: It's the most important thing that they must do next.

SEN. COLEMAN: I would hope that we would be able to have a more assertive role in that, and perhaps some guidance from State down the road.

Just to follow up in terms of what we can do to support President Uribe, what do you see as the next phase? With the expiration, then, of Plan Colombia, but with obviously still great needs, still security concerns, what is our role in the next two, three, five years for Colombia?

MS. RICE: Well, I think there's no doubt that we are going to have to explore with Colombia its economic development. It is a country that has potential but has really been -- a lot of the potential has been held back by the terrible security situation produced by narcotrafficking. And as the narcotrafficking situation is brought under control, we obviously will want to be a partner with Colombia in how they build a vibrant democracy. Part of that is that they have asked us to discuss with them what we might be doing in the area of free trade. I think that's something that we will want to explore with them. Obviously, it has to be seen in the context of what we're trying to do with the Free Trade Area of the Americas. But we've not been shy to go ahead and look at what we might be able to do bilaterally in trade. And I know that trade is an area that Colombia is extremely interested in.

SEN. COLEMAN: One of the areas where we've been successful is cutting down on the hectares of cocaine -- coca that's being grown there, and spraying has worked in Colombia.

MS. RICE: Yes.

SEN. COLEMAN: When we met with Allawi in -- excuse me, Karzai in Afghanistan, I know in Afghanistan there are concerns about spraying. The good news there is that we're hearing that their folks are actually voluntarily stopping poppy growing. I -- we're still waiting to get confirmation of that, but we've had a number of those -- of reports --

MS. RICE: Right.

SEN. COLEMAN: -- and I think the climate may be more fertile for other things to grow there.

But I would hope that we would at least give evidence to the Afghanis (sic) about spraying and that it can be done with environmental concerns being met and that it can be effective, if some of the other things that they're doing don't work to the degree that we think they should.

MS. RICE: I agree, Senator. In fact, we asked the Colombians and they agreed to talk to the Afghans about their experience.

But Afghanistan -- we're exploring, or pursuing with Afghanistan a kind of five-pillared approach to the counternarcotics problem, which really is now, I think, in many ways the most urgent issue in Afghanistan: first of all, to look at eradication -- to look at eradication both aerial and manual. At this point manual is all that we can do, but we'll see whether aerial is needed and what we can do in that regard. We are working on alternative livelihoods. We're working on legal reform and police training so that we can help with that. Prosecutions of people need to take place. And then there's a very big public affairs campaign.

Karzai made the point to us that he needed, after many years of no democratic contact with the society, to de-legitimize in the eyes of the people the growing of poppy and he has been very aggressive on that. He has appointed a minister for counternarcotics. He went to the people and said this is a stain on Afghanistan that we have this. And so there's a lot of work to do, but I think we have a government that's dedicated to the counternarcotics fight. And we'll see what role aerial spraying has to play.

SEN. COLEMAN: We saw last week great success in Afghanistan. Some people talk about the hustle factor. I mean, the people there, they're proud of what they've accomplished, proud of what they've done with their election, proud of where their country is going. But the opium trade threatens to undercut all of that. And that's a -- we spoke to our European allies, NATO, about that, but that is the one issue that could derail the incredible success we are having.

So I appreciate your perspectives, and I look forward to supporting your nomination and know that you will serve this country with great distinction and great skill, as you've done already. And I know you'll continue to do so.

MS. RICE: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you, Senator Coleman.

Senator Feingold.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Rice, thanks for all your time today. And I want to start this round -- it will not be a full round -- but I do want to commend you for your strong statements on the need to focus in a much more serious way on public diplomacy and particularly to ensure that our efforts involve a real dialogue and exchange, not just broadcasting our opinions or handing out cassettes or pamphlets.

We have to show people the basic respect of listening to them, even when we disagree. It is so important, and particularly in political cultures in which ideas about humiliation are so prominent.

I hope to work closely with you on these issues. Every time I travel, I become more and more convinced of the importance and the value of involving more and more Americans -- our farmers, our artists, our teachers -- in this kind of an issue. I think Americans want to contribute in this way, and I very much hope that you will consider me a true ally in your efforts in this regard.

On the other hand, I am deeply troubled by your response -- or rather your failure to respond clearly and directly -- to Senator Dodd about torture and interrogation techniques. We went through the same kind of process with the nominee for attorney general in our Judiciary Committee, but frankly this was even more troubling.

It is simply not okay to equivocate on torture. It is not okay from the point of view of the safety of our own troops, it is not okay in terms of global perceptions of this country, and it is not okay because it is not who we are as a country. America is better than that. We stand for something, and we do have standards. And I just felt I wanted to say that before I proceed to one other area.

Less than 10 days ago a comprehensive peace agreement was signed that we all hope will mean a lasting end to the tremendously costly north-south civil war in Sudan, which the chairman mentioned. I congratulate the administration, which worked tirelessly on this issue, on this accomplishment.

But as we all know, the crisis in Darfur continues to fester. And despite the fact that Secretary Powell acknowledged that we were dealing with genocide, the United States and the international community have basically taken no effective action to stop the violence.

Last week I met with refugees who had fled to desolate camps in eastern Chad, and I heard the fear in their voices as they told me that they cannot return home until there is some kind of meaningful security on the ground. To date, the administration simply has proven unable or perhaps unwilling to exert enough pressure on the government of Sudan to convince it to change its behavior.

Of course, one of the many difficult issues in addressing Sudan is something that has come up in other contexts today, is the tension between the desire to have a solid counterterrorism relationship with Sudan and, on the other hand, our reaction to the kind of unacceptable atrocities we see in Darfur right now. We see this tension in other places as well, such as Uzbekistan. How can this kind of tension be managed?

MS. RICE: Thank you, Senator.

First, let me try to be clearer. The United States doesn't and can't condone torture. And I want to make very clear that that's the view and the policy of the administration, the policy of the president, and that he's made very clear to American personnel that we will not condone torture.

As to Sudan, it is a very difficult problem, and you -- I thank you very much for the recognition for what we've been able to do on the north-south issue.

And I want to just say that Senator Danforth did a fantastic job on that. The president, when he first came into office, said that he wanted to try to do something about Sudan. He enlisted Jack Danforth, and we did get something done on the comprehensive peace between north and south. We have hoped that that would give us some leverage to deal with the Darfur issue because Khartoum now has more at stake. If, in fact, we're going to move forward on a relationship having resolved the north-south issue, Darfur has to be resolved, too. And so there is more at stake for Khartoum in resolving the Darfur issue.

We were early and we have been consistent in trying to deal with the humanitarian crisis, getting access for the nongovernmental organizations, having opened up an additional access route with Libya, spending money. I met with NGOs that were operating there. I think they believe that the American effort on the humanitarian side was really quite active. The problem, as you note, is that Khartoum has been difficult to deal with, particularly on the security issue, where we've been saying to them you've got to disarm this Janjawid, you've got to stop the atrocities against people. We do believe it is -- that it rises to the level of genocide, and we are pressing Khartoum very, very hard on those matters. There also has to be a political process ultimately, and we've tried to help sponsor one.

Frankly, this is a place where I am really disappointed in the response of some others in the international community. The reason that we couldn't get a tougher Security Council resolution isn't because the United States didn't want one; it was because certain members of the Security Council refused to have one. And one of the problems in working in a multilateral environment is that sometimes you are blocked by others.

Now we are impressing, and I think we need to -- one reason that we thought it important to call genocide genocide was to put pressure on members of the Security Council who have been reluctant to even talk about the future -- a future that might include sanctions, that it was important to put pressure on those other Security Council members. And so we'll continue to press this case.

We also need, I think I mentioned earlier -- and this is actually a broader issue within Africa -- our policy has been to try to improve the capability of African institutions to involve themselves in civil conflict of this kind. We did it with ECOWAS in Liberia. We're working with the AU in Sudan. But again, right now the feeling -- we believe 3,300 peacekeepers ought to be there; Khartoum has allowed 1,100.

So we are really going to have to have an international effort in order to bring greater pressure on the Sudanese government.

But we are trying to raise the spotlight on it, we are trying to pressure others to raise the spotlight on it, and we're doing what we can in the meantime to deal with the humanitarian circumstances.

SEN. FEINGOLD: I think your comments are fair with regard to the lack of cooperation from other countries in past months with regard to Sudan, but based on the extensive conversations I had last week in that region, my guess is that the combination of our counterterrorism interest and the commitment to the north-south agreement in Sudan will provide too much momentum in the other direction and that the Darfur situation will not be resolved unless we do something fairly dramatic.

Let me reiterate my call and the call of others that a special envoy be appointed to deal with this issue. You mentioned Senator Danforth. He did a tremendous job as a special envoy in the north- south problem. This situation, this genocide, as your predecessor called it, will not be resolved unless we do something dramatic, and it makes perfect sense to take that step. So let me urge that on you.

And finally, just to go back to the torture issue for a minute, I appreciate your general statement that you abhor and reject torture. Senator Dodd got it down to specific types of activity that are reprehensible. You were unable to say that those particular kinds of conduct were unacceptable forms of torture. And I'm afraid that that is absolutely the wrong message we want to send today, with all respect.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS. RICE: Thank you.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you very much, Senator Feingold.

Senator Voinovich.

SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH (R-OH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to talk to you a little bit about budget and management. The 150 account, Function 150 is what funds your agency. And it's about 1 percent of the total federal budget outlays. That's as compared to the Defense budget, which represents about 17 percent of budget outlays. The president, and I pat him on the back for this, requested a 7 percent increase for the department in his 2005 budget. We unanimously agreed to that, and unfortunately my colleagues on Budget and Appropriations came up with one point 8 billion dollars short.

There is some talk today around that the president's going to be asking all agencies other than Defense and Homeland to prepare options for cutting current spending by 5 percent, with the intention of holding non-defense resources to 1 percent of growth in the 2006 budget. What impact would this have on your 150 account? Number one. And do you believe the State Department should be included in such national security exemptions in a way similar to the Defense Department, intelligence and Homeland Security?

MS. RICE: First of all, I do understand the budget constraints that the country is operating under at this point and the need to have budget discipline. I fully understand that. I believe that we will be able -- and obviously, the budget numbers are not yet available, not yet final.

I do believe that we will be able to execute the American foreign policy. We will be able to keep momentum in the very considerable improvements that have been made in management, in people, in the diplomatic readiness initiatives, in technology --

SEN. VOINOVICH: Do you -- do you believe that the State Department should be part of the national security exemptions, just as the Department of Defense, intelligence and Homeland Security? That's the -- I would like to know whether you think it should be an exemption or not.

MS. RICE: I think the important thing, Senator, is that we are able to perform the functions that we need to perform. And that's what I'm going to be watching. If at any time I don't think we will be able to perform those functions, I'll make that known not only to OMB, but to the president.

SEN. VOINOVICH: Well, it's pretty important, because we've heard a lot today -- there's a lot of areas where people want money. And I was -- just only so much that's there.

MS. RICE: Well --

SEN. VOINOVICH: And I do believe that your department is as important to our national security as the Defense Department. And we're going to have to start to re-evaluate the way we spend our money around here if we're going to deal with this new challenge that we have of global terrorism.

The second question I have is the issue of management. Do you know when the last time was when the Department of State had a management audit to find out whether or not it was organized the way it ought to be organized? And second of all, when was the last time that somebody looked at how the department sets its priorities?

MS. RICE: Senator, I don't know when the last management audit was, and I -- I'd have to assume that they looked at priorities on a yearly basis. I know that this has been a very fine management team that Secretary Powell has set in place, and they've made a lot of progress. But I want to assure you that I feel very strongly about the need to manage a department very well. I -- it -- without the management of your resources -- and that means budget, people, technology, buildings, all of those things -- it's very hard to actually conduct policy. And you have my word that this -- the management agenda will be a very important part of my agenda. And if there hasn't been a management audit or a review for some time, then there will be, because it's an important thing to do.

And if I just might --

SEN. VOINOVICH: I'm going -- I'm going to be paying a lot of attention to that part of it, not only as a member of this committee, but also because of the chairmanship of the Oversight of Government Management and Governmental Affairs. But I just -- I'm really interested in that, because if you don't have the people, you know, to get the job done, then we've got some real problems.

MS. RICE: I -- I agree, Senator. Let me just say, on the budget matter again, we can meet our obligations. We -- probably, if there is a supplemental, we will look forward to obviously being a part of it for a number of our requirements, for a number of things that have to get done. But I just want to emphasize, we will look at the resources that we have and can we do the job, and I won't hesitate if I think that we have problems in that regard to make certain that the president knows of it.

SEN. VOINOVICH: Right. And I'd really like to know who's going to be doing this stuff, because I know if Bob Zoellick comes over, I don't know, is he going to be the -- I mean, you're going to be so busy with all kinds of things -- and we're talking about special envoys to other places, and you're saying, well, maybe we won't do it if you get involved in the Middle East and start, you know, shuttle negotiations or something.

Somebody's got to pay attention to who's running the shop, and I'm really concerned about it.

One other thing I'd like to bring up, as I mentioned, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. Part of that act is to create the Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. I'd like to know, when is that office going to be created?

MS. RICE: Senator, I will have to look into that. I know that we need to create the office. I know that they've looked at creating it. There is some question about where it will be located. I will look into that as soon as I'm hopefully confirmed and get back to you with an answer.

As to who will manage, clearly the deputy has an important role to play in the management. So does the undersecretary for management. But I just want to emphasize I know that I'll be doing a lot of things, but I was chief operating officer of Stanford University as provost. I cared a lot about the management issues. I understand the management of big organizations, and I know that if you're not watching all kinds of things can happen that are to the detriment of your objectives. And so you can be certain that it's something I will be paying attention to.

SEN. VOINOVICH: That's great because your people will be -- they'll want to know you care. (Chuckles.)

MS. RICE: Well, it's -- the first briefing that I actually had was with the undersecretary for management because I wanted to understand what the management challenges were, what the future looks like. Secretary Powell and Deputy Secretary Armitage have done a fine job of managing. We have to continue that tradition and push further.

SEN. VOINOVICH: One other issue again deals with management. Our European subcommittee had a hearing on crime and corruption in Southeast Europe, in that area, and you've got the FBI, you've got the State Department and other agencies involved in it. And I would suggest that someone look at the way that's organized because the conclusion I drew was that everybody's involved, but there doesn't seem to be an orchestra leader or somebody that's coordinating it. I don't know whether it's the State Department or the Justice Department, but I really think that -- I think you understand, and you mentioned it in your remarks, that crime and corruption in some of those parts of the world are a much greater threat than terrorism. And if we don't really have our act together in that regard, many of these new democracies are going to be undermined.

MS. RICE: Understood. Thank you, Senator. I'll look into that. Thank you.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.

Senator Boxer.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA): Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to make a couple of comments, and then I'm going to continue the questioning on the torture issue.

I hope that you'll consider what colleagues have said on both sides of the aisle about a lack of consistency in our foreign policy. For example, Senator Dodd at one point said we were in trouble in Latin America. And I would say, having come back from a six-day conference with Senator Lugar, bipartisan, on Central and South America, it's true because they don't sense a consistency. As Senator Chafee points out, you praise Uribe for democracy even though we were told at this conference that he's trying to pass a law which would forbid sitting governors and sitting senators from running against him, and you condemn the head of Venezuela, Chavez, after having the administration -- not you personally -- briefly praise a coup. And it wasn't until the OAS spoke up and said, well, wait a minute, that's wrong, then we backed off. So we really do need more consistency here.

For example, in Mexico, where the PRI is coming back, we've got to pay attention to Mexico. And I hope that will be a priority because I know they're very distressed and disappointed that they don't feel they were a priority. We've got immigration issues in my state that I know you're very aware of, coming -- being a resident there. And we've got to deal with these issues. And we have a situation where the PRI now is trying to disqualify someone who wants to run.

So we've got a lot of democracy issues there, and I think we need to be evenhanded.

And also, I think Senator Biden's point -- and I think Senator Lugar might have picked up on it, I'm not sure -- that for the "axis of evil" countries we have a certain set of criteria, but yet it doesn't extend to other countries like China and Russia and other places that I think Senator Chafee mentioned.

I put this out there because I know it's all tough, and we play the game and we need all of our friends to be with us, and we overlook certain things. But we will lose credibility. So I hope you can think about that as you, I believe, will try to restore credibility for this country.

Now, we sparred over the weapons of mass destruction, and I just want to place something in the record because I don't want to go on and on because we just won't agree. So we might as well say you see it one way, I see it another. But I thought what I'd put in the record is a statement by the president's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, right after the war started.

And I ask unanimous consent to place this statement in the record.

SEN. LUGAR: It's placed in the record.

SEN. BOXER: At a press conference he said, "The fact of the matter is we're still in a war, and not everything about the war is known. But make no mistake, as I said earlier, we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."

That's Ari Fleischer. I'd like to place that in the record because we're not going to agree, but at the end of the day -- that's why I'm trying to put in statements that say that my view is not coming from me, it's coming from people who were all around you.

Now, Senator Dodd gave you a great moment in history to show your humanity on the issue of torture. He said I'm not talking to you as a nominee, I'm talking to you as one human being to another. And you answered in legalisms. Then Senator Feingold gave you another chance and you didn't take the opportunity. Now, I respect that, but I'm distressed about it. And I agree with Senator Dodd, it's very, very disappointing.

So I'm going to press you a little further not only on what you've said on it, but what you've actually done on the issue.

What you said today: "What happened in Abu Ghraib was unacceptable, was abuse. It made us all sick to our stomachs. And I think we could all agree."

Did you see the photos, all of the photos that were available from that prison?

MS. RICE: I saw -- I don't know if I saw all of them, but I saw enough of them to know that it was a stain on our country.

SEN. BOXER: Well, I appreciate that. I went up to see the photos. And at my age we take stress tests, also because of the work we're in, we take stress tests. And they tell you when you get up on that machine, just keep on going until you can't take anymore. That's how I felt when I was watching those photographs. I saw things there that will be burned in my memory forever. And that's why I'm so supportive of making sure that America stands tall -- tall -- the leader in the world against torture.

And I am very upset at certain things that occurred, and I want to tell you what they are. You said on July 1st, 2004, when you commented on the abuses that took place in Abu Ghraib -- and we're going to just put this up here -- you said, "What took place at the Abu Ghraib prison does not represent America. Our nation is a compassionate country that believes in freedom. The U.S. government is deeply sorry for what happened," and so on. You said that about Abu Ghraib. I thought your remarks were very appropriate.

Now last Thursday we find out that after the Senate unanimously approved an amendment to restrict the use of extreme interrogation measures by American intelligence officers, you wrote a letter, along with Mr. Bolten, to the members of the conference committee, asking them to strike that language from the final bill. And unfortunately, that is what they did, at your request.

Now -- (to staff) -- can you bring this over here, so I can see it? I want to read you the operative language that you asked to be struck from the bill, that was struck from the bill. "In general" -- and by the way, this was written by Joe Lieberman and John McCain -- John McCain, a man who knows what torture is. So he wrote this, with Joe Lieberman.

"In general, no prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." Pretty straightforward, pretty elegant, bipartisan -- passed the Senate, that amendment, unanimously, every single member.

A letter comes, and the newspaper writes that at your request, "At the urging of the White House, congressional leaders scrapped a legislative measure last month that would have imposed new restrictions on the use of extreme interrogation measures by American intelligence officers. In a letter to members of Congress sent in October and made available by the White House on Wednesday" -- this is last week -- "Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, expressed opposition to the measure, on the grounds that it, quote, 'provides legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled under applicable law and policy.'"

Now my understanding of this is that it is a restatement of what the law is. So again, I am so distressed that we hear from you -- even though you had a chance today to put your personal touch on it, we hear good words about how it was terrible, what happened at Abu Ghraib -- and again, I know you're aware that the overwhelming number of those people were set free from Abu Ghraib.

So those people stand in that pyramid who are being sexually abused. They were set free, the vast majority of them. And yet when we had a chance, the bipartisan senators voted to say this has to end, this has to stop. Who writes a letter? You do, telling them to drop this.

Why on earth did you do that after we passed this unanimously? And you say that what happened in Abu Ghraib was unacceptable and it was abuse. It is to me rather stunning. So can you explain to me why you wrote that letter?

MS. RICE: Senator, it was our view in the administration that, first of all, this was covered in the Defense Authorization Bill, which the president did sign.

SEN. BOXER: But this has to do with the intelligence community, not the military.

MS. RICE: And secondly --

SEN. BOXER: So it's not covered.

MS. RICE: But all government agencies were covered in the defense authorization.

SEN. BOXER: This was just the intelligence officers. Go ahead.

MS. RICE: All government agencies were covered in the defense authorization. So intelligence was covered --

SEN. BOXER: No, it wasn't.

MS. RICE: -- was our view.

Secondly, we did not want to afford to people who did not -- shouldn't enjoy certain protections those protections. And the Geneva Conventions should not apply to terrorists like al Qaeda. They can't or you will stretch the meaning of the Geneva Convention.

But Senator, I have to go back to the broader point here.

SEN. BOXER: One second. Excuse me, I just want to clarify something.

MS. RICE: Yeah.

SEN. BOXER: (Confers off mike with aide.) Got it. Thanks.

Go ahead.

MS. RICE: Nobody condones torture. Nobody condones what was done at Abu Ghraib. In fact, you had everyone from the president of the United States on down, in effect, offer an apology to those who had endured that treatment. The people who perpetrated it have been punished and are being punished. It's being investigated. It's looked into as to whether there was a broader problem. The United States reacted the way that democracies react when something goes wrong. And something definitely went wrong at Abu Ghraib. And nobody condones or excuses what happened at Abu Ghraib.

The problem of how to deal with unlawful combatants, though, in a different kind of war is, frankly, a very difficult problem.

You have people who kill innocents with impunity. You have people who burrow into our country and try to harm us. You have people who have engaged in large-scale acts against children in Russia and against commuters in Madrid. And this is a different kind of war, and these are combatants with which we're not accustomed.

SEN. BOXER: So do you, then, oppose that language in the defense bill? You seem to oppose it in the intelligence bill --

MS. RICE: We didn't oppose the language in the defense bill. The president --

SEN. BOXER: I'm asking you now. You said that you should --

MS. RICE: -- the president signed it.

SEN. BOXER: No, no, no. I'm asking about you. You said --

MS. RICE: The president signed it.

SEN. BOXER: No, no, you're -- you're missing -- you're not listening to the question. You said you don't want to extend these international laws to all prisoners. However, it is extended in the defense bill. And this was just extending it to the intelligence officers. Now you're -- so that's why I'm asking you, since you said you can't extend it, do you support it in the defense bill? Whether the president signed it, I'm asking your opinion.

MS. RICE: Of course I support it in the defense bill, Senator.

SEN. BOXER: But you've gone in the intelligence bills and --

MS. RICE: No. Senator, we think the intelligence are covered in the defense bill. It was unnecessary to have it in your bill.

SEN. BOXER: But then you go to say that these -- that these agreements are not covered.

MS. RICE: I was making -- I was making a broader point, Senator, which is that the Geneva Conventions should not be extended to those who don't live up to the obligations of the Geneva Convention.

SEN. BOXER: Okay. Okay. Well, let me just say this, Mr. Chairman. The person who wrote this, Dick Durbin, Senator Durbin, senior senator from Illinois, he offered the language to the Defense Department bill. He then said the Senate Intelligence Reform Bill would have simply extended these requirements to the intelligence community.

Now, I'm getting two messages from you. One is you -- we didn't need this because the intelligence community is already covered. If that was the case, why not leave it in, so the world can see that we're not only willing to put it in the defense bill, but in the intelligence bill? Because obviously, colleagues here -- John McCain kind of knows what he's doing in legislation, and so does Senator Lieberman. They're the ones who did this -- a hundred to nothing, it was passed through the United States Senate. I think people felt it was important in light of Abu Ghraib to stand up and be elegant on the point. And I'm going to read it one more time, if you'll hold it up, because what they said was quite elegant. And it doesn't have, you know, any extra words at all: "In general, no prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." And everyone in the Senate, Republican and Democrat, it was a shining moment for us.

And then in a letter -- and it just comes to light last week -- that you write, you ask that this be stricken. And I have to say that's the problem I have. There are beautiful words, and then there's the action.

MS. RICE: Senator, it's --

SEN. BOXER: (Inaudible word) -- there's contradictions. And I don't think --

MS. RICE: Senator, it's the law of the land.

SEN. BOXER: -- that you have explained it, because by saying we didn't need it, it was in the defense bill, A, people don't agree with that in the Senate; and B, so what if it was duplicative, that we said it twice that torture is wrong and we will obey international laws?

I think it just shows that this is not an issue that you feel very comfortable with. You had an opportunity when Senator Dodd asked you, you had an opportunity to say how you felt personally about it. You had a chance to embrace this language, which was embraced by Senator McCain and Lieberman and every member of the Senate. And yet you write a letter, and as a result, it's dropped. And I just think it's a sad day for us. That's how I feel.

Thank you.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you very much, Senator Boxer.

I will call now on Senator Obama. Let me just announce, while there are still senators here, that after consultation with many parties, and not unanimous consent but certainly majority consent, it is the chair's view that we'll commence our hearing tomorrow morning at 9:00. We'll have a round of questions for clean-up purposes, limited to five minutes to senator. At 10:00 we'll have a business meeting of the committee at that point and at that point we will have debate and hopefully a vote on the nominee.

I appreciate this inconveniences some senators and the witness. On the other hand, Senator Biden had obligations this evening; so have two senators who shall remain nameless who had television appearances and other things that needed to happen. So we're attempting to do the best we can to try to be fair to everybody involved.

But we'll continue this evening, and Senator Obama will ask questions and take a regular round. We'll go back to other senators then who wish to continue the questioning at that point.

Senator Obama.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Rice, I appreciate your stamina. I've got one very specific question that I'd like maybe a brief answer to so that -- even though it's a large question, and then maybe I want to engage with you a little bit on this public diplomacy issue.

You know, I think that you've done a commendable job in helping the United States rethink its international aid and development programs. So I know the Millennium Challenge Account, you were very active in.

I understand the president pledged $10 billion by fiscal year '06. To date, 2.5 (billion dollars) has been appropriated; my understanding is very little has been spent. The president also pledged, in 2003, $15 billion for HIV/AIDS, something that all of us care deeply about. But to date, only around $2 billion has been appropriated for HIV/AIDS, leaving $13 billion to be appropriated and spent over the next three years.

So my very specific question is, are you planning, and would you pledge here to make full funding of these commitments a central priority of the administration in its budget request for Congress?

MS. RICE: The MCA is a very important initiative for us, and we have been trying to get it right, and so it takes some time to negotiate compacts with these countries and to make sure that they are prepared to take on the obligations of receiving MCA funding. And so -- and we were also about a year late in -- not a year late, but a year in getting the Millennium Challenge Corporation up and running.

And so what we will do is we will make sure that the funding is there for the program that is before us. And we will, over time, certainly fulfill the president's obligation to, by 50 percent, increase American spending on development assistance.

SEN. OBAMA: Okay. The reason I make this point I think is not that I want us to spend money willy-nilly, and in the same way that -- on social programs if programs aren't well thought through and you throw money at them, it may be a waste of money, and we don't have money to waste, the same is certainly true on the international stage.

On the other hand, when we publicly announce that we're making these commitments, and if it appears that we're not following through, then that undermines our credibility and makes your job more difficult. And so I would urge that there is a clear signal by the administration in its budgeting process this time out that we're moving forward on this. And if in fact it turns out that the spending on this money was overly ambitious because we don't quite know how to spend all of it wisely, then that should be stated publicly and clearly and the time line should be extended. But there should be a clear signal sent by the administration on that. So that's the relatively narrow point.

The broader point I think draws on a number of themes that have been discussed earlier. The issue of public diplomacy, some of it is technique, it's technical. Do we have the equivalent of a Radio Free Europe in the Middle East that's effective?

You know, what are we doing with respect to exchange students and visas? I mean, I think there are a whole host of technical questions that we can deal with.

But you know, effective public diplomacy, at least from my perspective, isn't just spin; it's substantive. Part of the problem we have overseas is not just a matter of presentation; it's profound disagreements with our approach to certain policies. And I think that one area that this comes up, and I think Iraq highlighted, and I see in your statement I think it may highlight it as well -- when I read in the third paragraph of your testimony or opening statement today, it says, "Under the vision and leadership of President Bush, our nation has risen to meet the challenges of our times, fighting tyranny and terror, and securing the blessings of freedom and prosperity for a new generation." Part of, I think, the concern that I have here, and this has been a concern for critics of the administration for some time, is the conflation of tyranny and terror. And that may be where the mixed signals or the lack of consistency that Senator Chafee and Senator Boxer and others were alluding to arises.

We are unanimous in wanting to root out terror. It appears that even within the administration there's ambiguity with respect to our views on tyranny. Tyranny is problematic, but if engaged in by an ally of ours or a country that's sufficiently powerful that we don't think we can do anything about it doesn't prompt military action. In other cases it does. Part of the, I think, debate and divisiveness of Iraq had to do with the fact that it appeared that the administration sold military action in Iraq on the basis of concern about terror and then the rationale shifted or at least got muddied into an acknowledged desire to get rid of a tyrant.

And I guess what I'm trying to figure out here -- and this is particular to military action and military incursions -- do we have a well thought through doctrine that we can present to the world that explains when we feel that military action is justified and when it is not? Apparently, it's not justified in Sudan, where there's a genocide taking place. It wasn't justified in Rwanda, despite, I think, a unanimity that that was one of the greatest tragedies that occurred in my lifetime. There are a number of circumstances in which we have felt that such incursions or nation-building are not appropriate, despite the evidence of great tyranny, and yet in Iraq and perhaps in Iran and perhaps in other circumstances we think it is.

And so what I'm looking for is some clearly articulated statement as to when you think, as secretary of State, military action is appropriate. Or do you think, alternatively, that we should just be -- the administration should be able to engage in sort of ad hoc judgments as it goes along, as to whether, well, you know, "let's take these folks out, and let's not take these folks out"?

MS. RICE: Well, it's a very interesting question, Senator. It's one that actually is debated in academy (sic) around the world, when -- how can you think about a standard for the use of military force. In fact --

SEN. OBAMA: Right, although -- not to interrupt, but of course this is not academic --

MS. RICE: No, of course. Of course, but it's --

SEN. OBAMA: -- because we have 150,000 troops over there right now.

MS. RICE: -- but it's exactly my point, that when you're not debating it in the academy, it's a bit more difficult to have a hard and true definition of when one would use military force and when one would not, because circumstances differ, and one has to, when choosing a policy course, look at the mix of tools available to you.

Military force should really be a last resort, certainly not a resort that is early on in the process, because so much at stakes and -- so much is at stake, and lives are at stake, and war is an unpredictable blunt instrument. And so it is indeed, outside the confines of the academy, very difficult to have a specific definition of when you use force and when you do not.

I think that when one looks at Iraq, you look at a circumstance in which an awful lot of factors came together to make the case of Saddam Hussein approachable, really, ultimately only through the use of military force; that it was, in that sense, a last resort, because you had had 12 years of failed diplomacy after a war in which he'd fought a war of aggression, in which he had then signed on to certain obligations, not kept those obligations. He signed on to the obligations, by the way, in order to end the 1991 conflict.

He then didn't live up to those obligations, flaunted them before the international community, continued to threaten his neighbors, continued to threaten our pilots trying to enforce the no-fly zones.

We did have someone with a history and a present and a shadow of the future concerning the world's most dangerous weapons. And we had someone who was an ally of terror and was in the world's most dangerous region. I think he had the whole package.

SEN. OBAMA: Dr. Rice, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I know that I'm going to be running out of time soon. I see that yellow light going off.

I guess my point is is not to relitigate the Iraq issue; I think it's to move forward. The concern that many of my constituents in Illinois express is that we went into Iraq, at least in their minds, because of a very specific threat of terror -- not tyranny but terror. Had the administration sold the plan to go into Iraq based on this complex mix then it's not clear it would have generated public support. That's past.

What now as we move forward and we look at Iran or we look at North Korea or these other circumstances? I think it's important for us to be clear that the American people have to have an honest accounting of why we're going in because once we're in we're stuck.

MS. RICE: Yes.

SEN. OBAMA: And we're now going to be spending at least $200 billion in Iraq, and we've lost over 1,300 lives and it's counting.

And so part of the public diplomacy, both internationally as well as domestically, requires this administration to at least be able to articulate these reasons in a way that are coherent and somewhat consistent. I understand that the world is complicated and it's not always going to be fitting into the neat boxes of the academy. But right now at least it seems like it's moving target, both for the American people and for the international community.

MS. RICE: Senator, I appreciate that, but if I could just speak to the moving target notion, because I don't think it's been a moving target. And the fact is tyranny and terror are linked. They are linked.

We know that if we deal with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and the organization that did 9/11, we're still going to be dealing with its spawn, and we're still going to be dealing with the ideology of hatred that it's been perpetrating. And we know that the ground in which that ideology of hatred has grown and matured and prospered is the ground of places in the world where there's a freedom deficit, and where the anger and hopelessness has been channeled into these very malignant forces.

SEN. OBAMA: Absolutely. But again -- and I -- again, I know I'm out of time here, but, that's true in Sudan. There's a lot of anger in Sudan. There's a lot of anger all through sub-Saharan Africa, and yet we don't make these decisions.

So I'm not disputing that if you have a vibrant democracy and a healthy, functioning free market system, there's less likelihood of terrorism. And I think all of us recognize that connection. But we're making very specific calculations on the basis of flawed information, or flawed intelligence, and finite resources. And so, we've got to make the best judgments we can in these circumstances. And so, the fact that there's a link somewhere between terror and tyranny is not sufficient for us to be making decisions about spending $200 billion to $300 billion or sacrificing the lives of American servicemen and -women.

MS. RICE: Senator, I appreciate that, but I have to say, I don't think it's a vague link. When you talk about the Middle East, it's a pretty clear link. You're talking about the rise of Islamic extremism, you're talking about jihadism, you're talking about the ground in which it grew up. And you're talking about a very narrow definition of terrorism if you only talk about trying to take down the al Qaeda organization.

SEN. OBAMA: I think that's fair. And if that's the case in the -- again, I don't want to belabor this, but -- I'm just trying to give you a sense of where I think our public diplomacy fails. There is certainly a link between tyranny in Saudi Arabia and terrorism. And yet we make a whole series of strategic decisions about accommodating the Saudi regime. And I'm not saying that's a bad decision. But what I am saying is, is that the degree to which you as the spokesperson for U.S. foreign policy is (sic) able to articulate greater consistency in our foreign policy, and where those links exist between tyranny and terror you are able to apply those not just in one or two areas but more broadly, then I think your public diplomacy is going to be more successful.

MS. RICE: Thank you.

SEN. OBAMA: Okay.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you very much, Senator Obama.

I will pass on this round and recognize Senator Dodd.

SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD (D-CT): Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll -- there are a number of areas to cover, and I -- let me mention first on a positive note, as Senator Voinovich and others, I think maybe the chairman raised earlier -- in fact, I want to thank you. You came by, and we had a pleasant conversation, I think in December, or early January, I've forgotten which now, in our office --

MS. RICE: December.

SEN. DODD: -- and I appreciate the time and the willingness to do that.

One of the things you and I talked about in that meeting was this issue of the -- at least statistically we're told in the press about a declining number of graduate students coming to the United States.

I think you were talking about this earlier, the visa issue and this problem we're having with the, I think, 45 percent decline in graduate schools, about 8 percent in undergraduate degrees. We ran into, in this trip that Senator Nelson, Senator Chafee and I took, at our embassies, in talking to other people, a declining number of applicants coming through our office because of the bureaucracy, just waiting for a decision whether or not they can come. Given the opportunities to choose other universities around the world who are competitive with our own, they're making choices to go elsewhere.

And I think one of the great strengths in this post-World War II era was the opening of America's doors, our universities, and the tremendous benefit to us; to them as well, going back. How many of us have run into students, leaders today, that went to American universities; came here as students and had a wonderful effect on their decision-making process as young adults? And I'm hopeful that we can get back to that issue again. I realize there are modern considerations in the wake of 9/11. That's where we have to weigh in all of this. But I think we do so at our own peril if we don't get this right soon, in my view.

I link that up because I was -- I won't go back, as time is limited here, but in your opening statement you made a couple of wonderful statements here that I certainly agree with. You speak eloquently about the visionary leaders we had at the end of World War II. And I think too often we forget about how visionary they really were in many ways and things they did.

I say that because -- in talking about this subject matter earlier when I raised the issue of torture in these questions -- and I say this because I remember growing up and getting a constant diet of this. My father was about a 35- or 36-year-old lawyer when he went to Nuremberg. And Winston Churchill and others at that time, when they talked about the defendants in the first round of prosecutions, who were some of the most vicious people that mankind had ever seen -- whether they wore uniforms or not, they brutally murdered 6 million Jews and 5 million others, civilians, not to mention the millions who lost their lives as combatants. And Winston Churchill and others argued at the time that we just ought to summarily execute these people.

But the American team argued, without any basis -- there was no Geneva Convention that I'm aware of in those days -- and said that they believed very deeply that the place at Nuremberg was so appropriate because that was the site of the Nuremberg Laws that gave the Nazis the legal justification for the final solutions. And the Nuremberg trials occurred in that city, and we insisted that every defendant there get a lawyer. They could present evidence before that court, that tribunal made of the allies. They did so not because there was some body of law someplace that said they had to, but because we wanted to tell the world who we were. We were very, very different not just in terms of our economic plans and political plans, but how we viewed mankind.

And what I think we're getting at here in these questions to you is not about the legalisms of this, but in these troubled times -- and we are dealing with great threats of fundamentalism that threatens our way of life -- that we are different out there. We stand for things that are different, based not so much on laws or statutes that get passed, but go right back to our Constitution in this country. When we wrote and our founders did, they didn't talk about people who were blessed enough to either be born here or live here when they talked about mankind, and that's what we're getting at with these questions.

So I know you've got a job to follow the law and read the statutes and so forth, but I wanted to give you as an opportunity to talk as that very visionary generation did. In the wake of World War II, with all of the anger, all of the feelings they had, they insisted that we send a different message to the world: that even these brutal, cruel human beings who did what they did to innocent civilians, we treated them differently than they ever would have treated their own victims.

That's the issue really, not what the law says; not dotting the i's and crossing the t's, but speaking more fundamentally as to who we are as a people. That's really what's at the core of this issue. And I wanted to give you a chance to talk about that because that's important to people around the globe. So that's the reason I raised it.

And it goes to a third issue, which I want to get to in a minute. But if you want to respond to this, again, I'd like to give you another chance to do so because your answer was very troubling to me.

MS. RICE: Well, we are and have been different. We have now friends who have similar views of international law. And the United States has been a leader. And, Senator, I understand what something like Abu Ghraib does to our image, and not just our image, but to people's desire to really hold on to America as something different. I understand that, understand it fully. It's one reason that it was so hard to watch, and so hard to respond to, and so hard to know exactly what to say. It's a rare thing that the president of the United States apologizes for something like that, but he did, and I thought it was the right thing to do.

And I know, too, that we're struggling with the fact that we are in a different kind of war even than the war of -- World War II, when there were certainly terrible atrocities; but now a war in which we are trying to prevent the next attack through information by the people who are captured on these battlefields, and the like, and people who blow up innocent civilians, and who drive airplanes into buildings, and who behead people, and who slit the throat of Daniel Pearl. I mean, it's a -- it is a different kind of war. I think you would agree with me that these are enemy non-combatants that we --

SEN. DODD: Don't become like them.

MS. RICE: No, I --

SEN. DODD: Don't become like them.

MS. RICE: -- I agree. And, Senator, if we were like them, we wouldn't have punished the people for Abu Ghraib. If we were like them, the president of the United States wouldn't have apologized. If we were like them, we wouldn't have so much concern about how not to have that happen again.

SEN. DODD: All right.

MS. RICE: But may I just say one final thing about this, because probably the answer to the tensions between trying to live with the laws and the norms that we've become accustomed to and the new kind of war that we're in is to really have a kind of international conversation about this problem. I've been talking to other national security advisers when they face terrorism, I've talked to attorneys general and interior ministers around the world. They feel the tension too. And we'd like to look -- I know Judge Gonzales mentioned this -- we'd like to look at what other kinds of international standards might be needed to deal with this very special war. Because we are a country of laws; we're going to maintain them.

SEN. DODD: Well, make sure you come up here and talk with us on these treaties because they're important. I'm sure the chairman would underscore that point as well, that we'd like to be involved.

MS. RICE: Absolutely.

SEN. DODD: Let me jump quickly, because the time's going to move here. Senator Martinez and others have raised the issue of Cuba, and again, no one's here apologizing or defending Fidel Castro at all. But one of the things that struck me -- and again, your opening statement talked to this, and I think you rightly point out, in '89, '91, I remember being in the Senate and watching those miraculous events occurring -- and you are so right to point out this just wasn't a victory of that year; this was a victory that took years to achieve.

And one of the things that I think contributed to it -- and I presume you'd agree with this -- in addition to our military prowess, which was very important -- but was the amount of access we had, the amount of information we punched in to those Eastern Bloc countries, that created people or gave hope to people like a Lech Walesa and a Vaclav Havel and others, who, because there was that communication and contact back and forth -- and, I think, contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. You may not argue it was an overwhelming reason, but it certainly was a major factor.

What troubles me here is that we're certainly -- we're going in the opposition direction, in a sense, in dealing with Cuba, in many ways. And I hear no idea to change anything at all. Tonight, if I walked out here, I can go to any country in the world, if they would accept me. I can fly to Iran. I can go to Iraq. I can go to North Korea. They may not let me in, but my own government will let me go there. The only place in the world that I can't go to -- nor can a Cuban-American see their family -- is the island nation of Cuba. Why do we make such a difference and distinction on that country if we're trying to break down those barriers and to demonstrate to the Cuban people we're different? Why is it we deny Cuban-Americans, second and third generations, the opportunity to go and visit their families, put limitations on the remittances that go back? Isn't there a greater possibility, given our earlier experience in the latter part of the 20th century, that we might have a greater chance of effectuating change there, than keeping it isolated and closed off?

MS. RICE: Well, Senator, there are those who believe that that's the case.

SEN. DODD: Well, didn't it work in part in Eastern Europe?

MS. RICE: Well, it worked in part in Eastern Europe, but it worked in part in Eastern Europe after a long time in which we had -- in which those countries were actually quite isolated. That -- it didn't happen overnight in Eastern Europe.

SEN. DODD: Well, we had Radio Free Europe. We had all this activity --

MS. RICE: These were countries that it was possible to actually access a civil society. It was possible to actually access university students and the like.

Castro keeps such a tight lid and such a tight handle on that regime --

SEN. DODD: (That's not ?) my point. Let him turn me down if I show up to go in. Why are you telling me I can't go?

MS. RICE: Well, part of --

SEN. DODD: But I can go to North Korea, right? You could --

MS. RICE: The reason --

SEN. DODD: I can fly to North Korea. You would let me go there, wouldn't you? There's nothing in the law --

MS. RICE: Yes, if you'd like to go. (Chuckles.)

SEN. DODD: No, but there's nothing that prohibits you from going.

MS. RICE: Right.

SEN. DODD: I can go to Iran. I can go to Iraq tonight, if I wanted to.

MS. RICE: Absolutely.

SEN. DODD: The only country you won't let me go to is the island nation of Cuba. Why distinction --

MS. RICE: Because the Cuban regime would use your travel and the skimming off the top of that travel --

SEN. DODD: And North Korea wouldn't do that?

MS. RICE: -- to continue to strengthen the hold of that brutal regime. And that's what Castro does. He uses humanitarian efforts by people with their families. He uses travel. He uses every possible way to skim the money to --

SEN. DODD: But Doctor, you're not going to tell me you're going to make that distinction there and tell me that all these other places I've mentioned are not equally as brutal -- arguably, more brutal.

In fact, some of them are directly involved in exporting terrorism, shipping weapons around the world. You can't say that about the Cuban government at this point. They may have earlier, but not today.

MS. RICE: Senator, not that many people are going to go to North Korea.

SEN. DODD: That's not --

MS. RICE: Castro has -- Castro has made a living of siphoning money off of travel, off of mules that he sends, off of humanitarian packages. The Cuban regime needs to be isolated in this hemisphere.

SEN. DODD: Well, all right. (Inaudible) -- my point is, there's -- enough said. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you, Senator Dodd. Senator Chafee.

SEN. CHAFEE: I pass.

SEN. LUGAR: Senator Chafee passes. Senator Kerry.

SEN. KERRY: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Rice, for your patience and hanging in here.

I've got a few areas of inquiry that I'd like to pursue, if I can. Number one, have you read this article in the New Yorker by Sy Hersch? Are you familiar with it?

MS. RICE: I'm familiar with it, but I've not read it, Senator.

SEN. KERRY: "The Coming Wars." Just to quote from it for a minute, he says -- he talks about the administration conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer. He talks about the administration looking at the region as huge war zone, and next we're going to have the Iranian campaign. This is a quote from the Bush administration former high-level intelligence official, quote: "Next, were going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah. We've got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism."

There's one particular -- I'm not going to ask you to comment on anything classified, but I am going to ask you to comment on this. "A former high-level intelligence official told me, quote, 'They don't want to make any WMD intelligence mistakes as in Iraq. The Republicans can't have two of those. There's no education in the second kick of a mule.' The official added that the government of Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan president, has won a high price for its cooperation: American assurance that Pakistan will not have to hand over A.Q. Khan, known as the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, to the IAEA or to any other international authorities for questioning."

Do you know whether or not that's accurate?

MS. RICE: I will just reiterate what was said about that article by the Defense Department. It is filled with inaccuracies, and it's credibility is sorely lacking.

The --

SEN. KERRY: But on that specific point.

MS. RICE: Let me -- let me just speak to the handling of A.Q. Khan. What we have been concerned about is that we are able to get the information that we need to break up the network. We have not made any deals about what happens with him.

SEN. KERRY: I'm sorry.

MS. RICE: We have not made any deals about what happens with him, but we have been concerned with the Pakistani government to get access to as much information as we possibly can. This is a matter that's being handled by the Pakistanis. It is not our place to talk about what should or should not happen with the IAEA, and we have not.

SEN. KERRY: So what about our own interests and our own efforts with respect to A.Q. Khan?

MS. RICE: Our own interests are being very well served by the fact that A.Q. Khan is now off the market, that we are working with the Pakistanis to get information about what he knows; very well served by cooperation on several -- with several other governments about members of his network. Several of them are in custody, some will be prosecuted. And so our interests are very well being served in this regard.

SEN. KERRY: Are they being served if we don't have direct access to them?

MS. RICE: We believe that we have a working relationship with Pakistan on dealing with the A.Q. Khan matter. At this point, we are getting cooperation from Pakistan on what we need with A.Q. Khan.

SEN. KERRY: But are they being served if we don't have direct access to them?

MS. RICE: They're being served at this point.

SEN. KERRY: Adequately?

MS. RICE: We are getting the information that we need to deal with the A.Q. Khan network.

Senator, I don't know what we will need to ask in the future, but at this point, we have a good working relationship with Pakistan on this matter.

SEN. KERRY: And with respect to Iran, are you also denying or discounting any of the allegations in this article?

MS. RICE: The article has -- it is inaccurate.

SEN. KERRY: With respect to Iran?

MS. RICE: The article is, as Defense said, inaccurate.

SEN. KERRY: With respect to Iran?

MS. RICE: Senator, the article does not represent our policies toward Iran or our expectations of policy toward Iran.

SEN. KERRY: Coming back, if I may for a minute, to Iraq. What steps are you going to take in the immediacy of your confirmation in the next days prior to -- if you've thought about this, or if any -- prior to the election to put in place the kind of political reconciliation that I talked about at the very beginning, in the morning? Have you thought that through?

MS. RICE: Well, the Iraqis are trying to put in place a means for political reconciliation to the degree that -- what is needed for political reconciliation after the elections.

SEN. KERRY: You don't think we have a specific role to play with the Europeans and Arab community?

MS. RICE: Oh, we certainly have a role to play in -- and we have played that role -- in doing what we can to encourage contacts between the Sunnis and the other members of -- certainly the members of the Iraqi interim government. We've tried to help with that. We've tried to facilitate it.

You know, they have their own contacts that are, frankly, much better even than our own. They are reaching out to the tribal leaders. Sheik Ghazi Al-Yawar, the president of Iraq, is himself an influential leader in Mosul, an influential Sunni, and as he says, many members of his tribe are also Shi'a. He is actively engaged.

We help them, we talk to them, but really this has to be an Iraqi process. I don't think we want this to be an American process.

SEN. KERRY: Oh, I agree with that completely, which is really what I'm getting at, because it has been, it is, and is still perceived as such. And the question is whether or not -- I mean, this is what was raised with me with almost all of the leaders that I met in the region, is the urgency of this sense of reconciliation coming together. I don't think they believe it is going on. And I'm just reporting to you what I've gleaned in the last few days, real, serious concerns that it isn't going on. And within the country itself, deep concerns.

I mean, I think it was -- I can't remember if it was in Mosul or Kirkuk that the governor -- who, incidentally, just a tribute to a lot of the Iraqis, and I agree with you, so many of them want to vote, so many of them want the freedom. We understand all that, and I'm very sympathetic towards it. But this fellow was the governor. His brother had been killed, his son had been killed, his cousin had been killed, and he still assumed the role of governor, which says something. But he and others were all complaining about just sort of the lack of communication, lack of contact, sense of divorce and alienation from Baghdad and so forth.

So the urgency seemed to leap out everywhere, whether it was Sunni, Shi'a, secular, religious leaders, whoever I met with, and especially leaders in the surrounding countries, who feel that a major effort is going to be necessary, almost a convening -- I don't know if you're familiar, how -- I'm sure you're familiar with it, but whether it's right in the focus right now -- but in the 8 June resolution in the United Nations, Section 5 specifically invites the government of Iraq to consider how the convening of an international meeting could support the above process, the above process being the forming of the transitional government and this kind of reconciliation I'm talking about.

MS. RICE: Well --

SEN. KERRY: So you really have this already solidly laid out within the resolution itself, but there doesn't seem to be the kind of organizational effort or initiative or leadership on the table to say this is what we're going to do. And there's a post-election process so you avoid any kind of post-election chaos.

MS. RICE: Well, I think that they are very focused -- I really do think that they're very active in reaching out. All that we hear from the embassy and from others about the contacts is that they're almost constant at this point. It is an Iraqi process. Some of it is transparent to us, some of it is not. But that they are actively engaged in trying to reach out to all aspects, I have no doubt about that.

As to the international piece, we have had one international conference, and the King of Jordan just recently on January 6th brought people together. And the Sunni leaders from around the world, or around the region, like the King of Jordan and like the Saudis and others, are speaking out. When the meeting took place, the Egyptians spoke out. When we recently had a meeting in Egypt the grand religious leader of Egypt spoke out to encourage Sunnis to participate in the vote. I think there is a lot of activity.

Now, as to the post-election period, how to bring about a process of reconciliation after what will be a difficult and probably imperfect election, but nonetheless a tremendous step forward for the Iraqi people that they will hold this election, that is a process that I think the Iraqis themselves are discussing and trying to come to terms with how they are going to use the process of putting together their transitional assembly, and then the process of writing the constitution to begin to overcome their divisions. But I have to say, Senator, I've been impressed with the degree to which they recognize the importance to use this next step as a step in the process of national reconciliation. They're not saying we're going to have elections and that's it. They're saying --

SEN. KERRY: Well, I know they're not saying that. But with all due respect, I was in Jordan the night before that meeting. I met with several of the foreign ministers who were at that meeting -- including the Syrian, may I add. I mean, you've been pretty tough on Syria here today, but Syria tried to cooperate and sent its foreign minister -- and specifically stood up and said, Yes, the elections ought to take place. And each of the foreign ministers that I met with there, as well as King Abdullah, as well as President Assad and others, talked about this Sunni alienation -- as well as intimidation, but alienation beyond the intimidation.

And there's a lot of curiosity, you know, because there's such a history here. I mean, I -- you know, I don't know if you've had a chance to ever read a book I happened to read going over there, it was "Desert Queen" by Gertrude Bell. You read about her meetings in Cairo in 1919 as she's sitting there, you know, talking about Mesopotamia -- Iraq didn't exist -- and how they were going to divide up completely separate interests between Shi'a, Sunni, Kurds, Jews, Christians et cetera, none of whose interests mix. We're doing the same thing.

MS. RICE: Well, Senator, I think it's better than that. I mean, this wouldn't be the first time in history that countries, through a process of democratization, through a process of building institutions, start to overcome differences that seemed irreconcilable in the past. This wouldn't be the first time that that's happened. We're watching a process in Afghanistan where precisely that is happening. And I don't think you would have bet on Afghanistan to be able to carry that forward, either.

SEN. KERRY: Actually, I did.

MS. RICE: Good.

SEN. KERRY: And I supported that, if you'll recall.

MS. RICE: I know you supported it. But there were many people who didn't think that they would ever reconcile Pashtun and the various ethnic groups of Afghanistan.

SEN. KERRY: But they are very different in a lot of ways. And that's what concerns a lot of people who are struggling with this now.

Look, I'm not -- I don't pretend to be an expert, but I know how to listen to people who have lived their all lives and who, you know, talk through the history. And I think they all have an interest in seeing things stabilized and work. And I come at this from a position I want it to work. We all want it to work.

MS. RICE: Well --

SEN. KERRY: But I'm just relaying to you that there is a deep- rooted skepticism in the region among people who are potential players, and existing players -- some more visible than others in some countries, and some very much on the line, like Jordan or Egypt, who are deeply concerned about the lack of a sense of how this reconciliation itself is going to take place.

MS. RICE: Well, what we've been saying to them is that they can translate that concern into action because this is an Iraqi process, but it's also a process that can include the neighbors. And in recent weeks, I do think that the King of Jordan and others have made more efforts to reach out to Sunnis themselves and to be part of the reconciliation effort. You know, it's one thing for them to express concern.

It's another thing for them to realize that they actually have a role to play in the reconciliation and stabilization of Iraq, and I think we're beginning to see that.

SEN. KERRY: But it's another thing also for them to put their political necks on the line when they've seen a series of, frankly, unilateral and, to them, insensitive steps taken that have worsened the situation and not made it better. And for a population in Jordan that is majority Sunni and for a population in Egypt majority Sunni, likewise in Saudi Arabia, this is complicated. So it doesn't come easily to step in if they don't see how it's going to play out, which is why I'm saying this international effort -- you know, and I heard it in Europe from the European leaders likewise. I think there's a readiness for it, and if I were you I'd embrace it and want to get in there, and I think you'll be surprised pleasantly at the possibilities. But if we stand back and we're not willing to share some of the, you know, both decision-making and listening, I think we're going to invite more problems.

MS. RICE: I appreciate that, Senator. I just want to assure you that we are reaching out and we are encouraging international partners to be as active in Iraq as they possibly can be. There has been some hesitancy. I think the security situation has made some people uncomfortable about certain kinds of activity. But we are all hands on deck. We believe very strongly that a free and democratic Iraq, a stable Iraq is going to be in everybody's interest, and the opposite is true if Iraq doesn't find stability; then that's going to be to everybody's detriment. And that's the message that we've been carrying, and I think that after these elections we'll try to carry it even more strongly.

SEN. KERRY: I do have some more questions, but I see my colleague's waiting also. So why don't I pass to him, and then I'll come back.

SEN. VOINOVICH: I'm just --

SEN. LUGAR: Senator Voinovich.

SEN. VOINOVICH: -- staying here to keep the chairman company. (Laughter.) I've asked all my questions.

SEN. LUGAR: All right. Senator Voinovich passes, and we'll divert back to Senator Kerry.

SEN. KERRY: Thank you.

North Korea. There are a lot of observers, and I heard this throughout the campaign and we obviously went back and forth on the subject of six-party versus alternatives. Your predecessor, Secretary Powell, at one point announced that the administration was going to proceed forward with bilateral talks, following up on the Clinton administration, and even while Kim Dae Jung was here the president announced otherwise from the Oval Office. And since then we went through a period where there was no discussion at all, no dialogue at all, and then finally, under pressure, the six-party talks came together.

But generally speaking, observers have indicated to me that those six- party talks are really waiting for U.S. leadership and for a change in U.S. position that moves it forward.

Is there any -- do you have any feeling at this point that you might be prepared to recommend to the president or that the president will and you will engage in bilateral discussions that might try to resolve this question of non-aggression versus progress on the nuclear program?

MS. RICE: I think, Senator, that the North Koreans should be well aware that the United States has no intention to invade them or attack them -- we've said that -- and that there are multilateral security assurances that are available to them if they choose to take them. Now obviously, if there are multilateral security assurances, the United States would be one of the parties to those security assurances. We did put a new proposal on the table at the last round of the six-party talks. The North Koreans were unresponsive. Some say that they wanted to bide their time a bit and that they will get back to us now that they are trying to position themselves for the president's second term.

But I really do think that we have to step back and recognize that what happened in the '94 agreement -- and by the way, at the time it was probably the right thing to do, but we know now that the North Koreans within just a couple of years perhaps were violating that agreement by pursuing a separate route to a nuclear weapon -- highly enriched uranium route.

Jim Kelly, the assistant secretary for Asia was all set to go to North Korea and say here's a bold approach on how we can change the nature of North Korean-U.S. relations. And it had all the things that you might imagine in it about economic -- what role we might play in economic assistance, what we could do in humanitarian assistance, so forth and so on. On the way to that, we learned in a definitive way that was not available to the Clinton administration about this HEU program. And so when Jim got there, he told them we also know you have an HEU program. First they admitted it, then they shut down. And the bilateral route at that point was really closed to us. And it had not been effective.

And our strong view is that the six-party talks has the advantage of not letting the North Koreans play us off against the others. It has the advantage of having China at the table, and China has much greater leverage with North Korea than we will ever have. And it has the advantage of having the parties in the region work together on a serious security problem.

Now, I'm hopeful that the North Koreans, seeing no other option but to recognize that they are going to have to give up their nuclear weapons in a verifiable way, that they are going to be persuaded to come back to the talks. But as to the question of what they have to fear from the United States, the president has been very clear that we don't have any intention to invade them, any intention to attack them, and that there is another path that could be there for them, that the roadblock on the path is the North Korean problem -- the North Korean program. And so, sometimes there is a tendency to think that the problem is U.S. policy. The problem is a North Korean regime that has not yet made a fundamental choice, and we just have to press them to make a fundamental choice.

SEN. KERRY: That is different from what one hears from some of the other parties to the talks themselves, who believe that we haven't put something sufficient on the table. Now, we're not going to iron this out here and now, but I'd love to pursue that with you at some point in time, because we're -- I mean, if that's true, and they're now, let us say, up to the published publicly number of eight weapons, and it is again, as we have said about Iran, unacceptable that they do this, what do you view as the options that are on the table?

MS. RICE: Well, we still believe that this is something that we can resolve diplomatically. We are committed to that course. Of course, the president never takes any option off the table, but I think we all know that this is something that needs to be resolved diplomatically.

SEN. KERRY: Given the intransigence and the cheating, why does this lend itself more to being resolved diplomatically than Iraq?

MS. RICE: Because, Senator, despite the problems with North Korea, it's actually not sitting in the middle of the Middle East. We haven't gone to war with them two in recent years.

SEN. KERRY: Well, no, no. I'm talking about before we went twice. We were working on once.

MS. RICE: Oh, but they had -- well, they invaded Kuwait. That was the reason for the --

SEN. KERRY: No, no, no. I'm working after that. During the WMD inspection process.

MS. RICE: Well, the WMD inspection process was simply not getting anywhere. I think the inspectors will tell you that while they were in the country, they were able to make some headway, but of course, Saddam Hussein --

SEN. KERRY: I think the inspectors said -- I don't want to go back and re-debate it, but they said they were partially in compliance and partially out.

MS. RICE: Well --

SEN. KERRY: That was the last report of Hans Blix.

MS. RICE: -- partially wasn't good enough when you were talking about --

SEN. KERRY: Well, I understand that.

MS. RICE: -- somebody who had used weapons of mass destruction. And so we couldn't accept partial compliance. But you asked me, Senator, what's the difference? And my --

SEN. KERRY: Well, the difference is, why couldn't you have gotten full compliance? You don't know the answer to that, because you made a different decision.

MS. RICE: Well, I don't think you were going to get full compliance from Saddam Hussein. With American --

SEN. KERRY: We know you don't think that, but --

MS. RICE: Well, with American forces building -- American and coalition forces building up on his shores, he still decided not to comply with his international obligations, so it's pretty good evidence that he wasn't going to be convinced to comply.

SEN. KERRY: But again, this goes into process, which I don't want to really go to for a number of different reasons, but I think that I'm just trying to find the root of your confidence about this resolution with North Korea.

MS. RICE: Well, I didn't say that I was confident that it would be resolved, I said that I thought we still had room for a diplomatic solution.

We also, of course, have a vibrant deterrent on the Korean peninsula in the person of our alliance with South Korea. But if anyone is going to do anything about the North Korean nuclear program, it's going to be the combined pressure of its neighbors, not the United States alone. And when we put the proposal on the table, one that, by the way, was discussed and vetted and talked about with our closest allies, Japan and South Korea, before we put it on the table, people did think that it was a step forward. The North Koreans have not responded. We'll see if we can get them to respond.

What I'd really hope that they would see is that there is another path. They don't have to be on this path. But they are going to have to recognize that there is no good path in international -- in the international system as long as they try to hold on to their nuclear weapons program.

SEN. KERRY: And how do you distinguish that from Iran, the --

MS. RICE: From Iran?

SEN. KERRY: Yeah. And the possibilities there.

MS. RICE: Well, we -- well, for one thing, I think with Iran we're dealing with a country that is not nearly as isolated as North Korea. The Iranian people are not going to eat bark, as the North Koreans do. And so I think that we have some other instruments of pressure, if we are willing and able to mobilize them on Iran. We're also in a somewhat earlier stage with Iran. And the IAEA I think is starting to try to function there in an effective way. We have some bilateral ways to try and deal with the Iranian nuclear program. I mentioned earlier that the Russians and their requirement with the Iranians that they sign the additional protocol and bring back the spent fuel. We simply have different tools with Iran than we had with North Korea, and different tools with North Korea than we had with Iraq. That's the nature of dealing with these very different regimes.

SEN. KERRY: Do you believe that we would be better advantaged with respect to Iran if we were to be either leading or at least joined into, more directly and openly, with the British, French and Germans in their initiative?

MS. RICE: I think the British, French and Germans know that we are coordinating with them, that we -- we're skeptical that this going to work, but we certainly hope that it's going to work, and we will see how far the Europeans get. Someone needs to test the Iranian willingness to live up to their international obligations, and that's what the EU is going to be doing.

SEN. KERRY: Why -- why not be part of it?

MS. RICE: I think it's always very important, Senator, that the Iranians know that the United States is not prepared at this point to take away the possibility that the real course ought to be here to declare them in -- not in compliance and take them to the Security Council.

SEN. KERRY: Don't you always have that option anyway? Isn't the option of sanctions and greater action always on the table?

MS. RICE: I think we think the best course right now, Senator, is to let the EU Three see if they can get this agreement. We -- we're skeptical about it. We've --

SEN. KERRY: I mean, is this a "good cop/bad cop" routine, or is it something more thoughtful than that?

MS. RICE: Well, I think it's probably not a good thing for us to be involved in negotiations about which we're skeptical. And let them -- let's let them explore with the Iranians, and we will see what steps are needed by the United States.

SEN. KERRY: Is it possible that your own skepticism breeds a failure?

MS. RICE: I don't think so. I think if the Iranians are going to live up to their international obligations, the EU Three have given them plenty of reason to do it.

SEN. KERRY: The Iraqi Stabilization Group that you were put in charge of, October 2003 -- by almost everybody's judgments, it has disintegrated. People have left it. It has not been successful. And I wonder if you would speak to that. I mean, there were a half-dozen agencies or so that were supposed to identify and resolve problems. How would you characterize the work and effect of that group?

MS. RICE: The Iraq Stabilization Group, Senator, was actually an internal NSC group. It was not an interagency group. It --

SEN. KERRY: But you had a half-dozen agencies that were part of it, that were reporting to you as part of it, were they not?

MS. RICE: No, the role of the Iraq Stabilization Group was to improve the information flow during the period of time when we had the CPA in place. It was to try and de-bottleneck back here when there were problems for the CPA. We were very active and, I think, played a very important and useful role in the governance issues, so that Bob Blackwill, who at time -- at the time was heading the Iraq Stabilization Group on Governance and had an undersecretaries group on governance -- he was very active in working with Lakhdar Brahimi in bringing about the Iraq interim government. So that was a very successful outcome of having the Iraq Stabilization Group.

But it was a group that was really there for the period in which the Coalition Provisional Authority was moving from one that had been almost exclusively in the chain of command for the Defense Department to one that needed more interagency backstopping back here.

Many of those functions have really now been taken over by the United States embassy and by the State Department.

SEN. KERRY: Well, in The Washington Post, and maybe they got it wrong, but they characterized it as the new group to be led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and drawn from more than a half-dozen Cabinet agencies --

MS. RICE: Let me just make the distinction.

SEN. KERRY: -- is intended to -- (inaudible word).

MS. RICE: The Iraqi stabilization group was an intra-NSC group.

SEN. KERRY: No, I understand that.

MS. RICE: It reached out to and tried to help the CPA by bringing together interagency teams when it was necessary to try and get something done. We tried to improve the information flow, we tried to improve the coordination back here, we tried to de-bottleneck for the CPA. When the CPA needed some help, for instance, on the currency forms, we worked with the Treasury to get the right people out there from Treasury to do the currency reform, which was actually very successful.

SEN. KERRY: Was this an effort to try to straighten out what the military itself was not able to do or not doing?

MS. RICE: It was an effort to move from a stage at which it had been almost exclusively Defense Department and military to a period at which you needed better interagency support for what the CPA was doing.

SEN. KERRY: How successful would you say it was?

MS. RICE: I think it was successful in a number of ways. If you look at several projects, the currency reform, I think, was very successful; I think that we were very successful on the governance issues. Again, Bob Blackwill, who was the chair of the governance Iraq stabilization group, was very active with Lakhdar Brahimi in bringing about the Iraqi interim government. I don't think it would have happened without the activities of that group. So it had its successes. Bottlenecks also remained and we continue to work on them. I think it's a much smoother system, frankly, with an embassy and an ambassador who can oversee those things with the backstopping of the State Department and the interagency process of which the State Department is in the lead.

SEN. KERRY: Has been -- ?

MS. RICE: I think it's been smoother --

SEN. KERRY: Smoother.

MS. RICE: -- with an embassy in place that can be the coordination in the field. We've always had the view that most of the interagency coordination ought to actually be done in the field.

SEN. KERRY: And how does that reconcile with the pretty strong opinion you had that you wrote in Foreign Affairs when you said the president must remember that the military is a special instrument; it's lethal and it's meant to be; it's not a civilian police force; it's not a political referee; it's most certainly not designed to build a civilian society.

What happened?

MS. RICE: Well, we found ourselves building a civilian society, and we, frankly, as a country don't really have the tools outside of the military to do it, which is why the work that Senator Lugar has done in sponsoring this Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization is such important work. We need a civilian corps that can do the kinds of things that we had to put together in a really rather ad hoc fashion in Afghanistan, in Iraq, even, frankly, in Bosnia-Herzegovina going all the way back. This has been a need that -- a set of skills that I think we will want to have in a more coherent and directed way, and that's why I think we have to give very great support to this Office of Stabilization and Reconstruction. It would have been very helpful to have it in the past couple of years.

SEN. KERRY: Do you think that that misjudgment about what it can or can't do -- and I say misjudgment in broad terms -- has complicated choices that you may face and the president may face today as a result of the stretching pretty thin of our military forces, numbers of divisions, active duty, equipment? I mean, the commanders over there tell me that in, you know, a matter of months you put on several years of wear and tear on equipment. There's going to be a huge equipment deficit at the back end of this that America has yet to really see the bill for. I gather one year there is worth seven years on an aircraft.

MS. RICE: Well, we've been at war, and we have -- we've had to use our forces and use them hard. I think that Secretary Rumsfeld is giving a lot of attention to how to deal with the obligations that we have and the structure of our forces. We believe we can continue to meet obligations that we have globally with the forces that we have, but there's no doubt as to the matter of how one transitions from war to peace and that intermediate stage that we need new skills and new organizations in order to be able to do that. The military fights and wins the war.

There's a period of time, I think appropriately, where the military is really the dominant force on the ground. But as you move to civilian reconstruction, you need people who understand legal reform and understand how to build a civil justice system and a police system, how to trade a -- change a currency, and that's what we're going to try to build.

SEN. KERRY: Well, I know that Senator Lugar has long been concerned about this; a lot of us on the committee have. But I must say to you that I am deeply concerned -- I mean, I recommended that we add another 40,000 troops. I gather there's going to be an addition of some 30,000 without formally creating new divisions.

But I think we are way behind the curve in terms of this civilian side combined public diplomacy component. And I don't think the budget begins to match what it needs to. And when you look at the other side of the costs I just described -- the back-end military equipment, et cetera -- the American taxpayer, to pursue this properly, has a -- you know, it goes back to what Senator Biden was saying earlier about kind of telling the American people what's expected of them.

I don't personally think it's all on the table sufficiently when you combine the needs of the counterproliferation efforts with various challenges of the human condition, with various challenges of the narcotics and other environmental and other kinds of efforts that are all sort of growing rather than receding. I hope that -- and then you added to what Senator Sarbanes has been saying about our overall fiscal challenge here.

We have some very, very tough choices ahead of us. I hope the administration and you will really put them to the Congress and to the American people, because the outcome is obviously gigantic. But we've got to be on the right track.

With that in mind, I'd just to ask you a couple more quick things. And I appreciate your patience.

You wrote or said -- I can't remember -- (inaudible) -- in speech -- that the terrorist ideology is the direct heir to Communism and Nazism and Fascism. That struggle against terror is fundamentally a struggle of vision and values. Do you really see terrorism as an ideology? Isn't it really anarchy?

MS. RICE: Senator, I think it is really -- terrorism is the tool of Islamic extremism. That's really what I was referring to in that article.

SEN. KERRY: You wouldn't really think of it as an ideology, as a --

MS. RICE: I think of Islamic extremism as an ideology.

SEN. KERRY: So do I.

MS. RICE: And it --

SEN. KERRY: Terror is the -- ?

MS. RICE: Terror is -- right. And we've talked a lot about this. The fact is that early on what we've had to do is to talk about terrorism in order to delegitimize it. And I think we are doing a good job internationally of delegitimizing it. Saying that no cause can be served by the use of terrorism is an extremely important message. But there's no doubt that when you talk about al Qaeda or you talk about the threats to the Middle East or the threats to Pakistan or what operated out of Afghanistan, that you're talking about a virulent form of extremism coming in large part out of the Middle East which is a perversion of Islam.

SEN. KERRY: Do you believe that we can do a better job than we have been of bridging that gap, of reaching out to moderate Islam, bringing mullahs, clerics, imams, et cetera together along with leaders of other religions and having a much more concerned global dialogue on this?

MS. RICE: I do think that interfaith efforts are very important and should be done. I think a lot of it is going on in the private sector, and I actually am not sure that this is something that the U.S. government would do better than letting the private sector --

SEN. KERRY: Well, isn't it really a part of public diplomacy?

MS. RICE: It -- it is --

SEN. KERRY: I mean, there's no way to --

MS. RICE: It is certainly a part of public diplomacy, Senator, but I often think that we are too narrow in our definition of public diplomacy if we only think it's something the U.S. government is going to do.

SEN. KERRY: Well, this will be the first time this administration left a faith-based analysis lying by the wayside. (Laughter.)

MS. RICE: (Laughs.) Well, the faith-based analysis here I would agree with. But I think the need for interfaith dialogue is important. I would hope it would happen in the society more broadly. But on the debate that's going on within Islam itself, that is also an extremely important debate. And we have -- we cannot be the ones who carry that debate. Moderate imams, moderate mosques, moderate universities have got to do that.

SEN. KERRY: Of course. But they're anxious. They're anxious. I met with one of the principal leaders of Islam in Cairo. And they're fighting their own struggle.

MS. RICE: That's right.

SEN. KERRY: And I think they're interested in seeing us and others reach out in a way that tries to help bridge the gap, because it has serious implications in their countries.

MS. RICE: I -- I couldn't agree more. And we should be doing that. We're trying in some ways.

You know, the broader Middle East forum, the Forum for the Future, allows for moderate voices -- civil society, business groups, other groups -- to come together in kind of a space that they can engage each other, and I think that's very important.

You take a country like Pakistan. You know, it's come a long way. It was three-and-a-half years ago on the brink of really going -- be completely to extremism, and with its ties to the Taliban, with thorough penetration of al Qaeda. And if you look now at the way that they fight, instead, al Qaeda, and if you look at one of my top 10 speeches that any leader has given in recent years was the speech that Musharraf gave on December 12th after the bombing of the -- or the attack on the Indian parliament, in which he said that extremism and modernism cannot exist side by side in Pakistan. And that has given rise to very promising developments, if you think about it, in South Asia, as India and Pakistan start feeling toward a better future. I think in part that's been fueled by Pakistan's unwillingness to be associated with extremism and India's democracy and a very healthy set of developments there. It's a -- they're small steps still and it's still fragile.

SEN. KERRY: Well, I would -- yes, they are, and I agree with you. And I hope you will really take a look at this. I think it does follow. I think it is an important mark of current leadership because I -- there are such political and obviously security overtones attached to this so that it can't be left exclusively to the realm of whatever religious initiatives that are going to take place. And secondly, it's paramount because we have an urgent need to isolate the terrorists rather than having them isolate us having the extremists isolate us. And in many parts of the world we have been the ones, and I think you know that.

A couple of last, quickly.

You also wrote at one point that you moved our nation beyond antiquated theories like mutual assured destruction and moved forward with the deployment of missile defense. To the best of my knowledge, obviously -- and I'm -- not (to be cute ?) -- we don't have a ballistic missile defense yet, and the outlook as to when we might have the kind of defense that really obviates, you know, mutual assured destruction is anybody's guess. Do you really believe it is, quote, "antiquated" after your experience as a student of the Soviet Union and what we succeeded in doing and what Ronald Reagan succeeded in doing and all of this?

MS. RICE: Senator, it was meant really to reflect a change in the relationship between the United States and Russia. I do think mutually assured destruction was antiquated in regards to the United States and Russia.

SEN. KERRY: I see.

MS. RICE: With the United States and the Soviet Union, there was nothing standing between us but mutually assured destruction.

SEN. KERRY: But you're not referring generically.

MS. RICE: And the change here was to say to the Russians that when we're no longer enemies, mutually assured destruction doesn't make any sense; we need to have a different kind of relationship. And by the way, on ballistic missile defense we will, I think, have initial operating capability fairly soon. But the important thing is that we're exploring the technologies now, working toward the development of the systems, and we're getting a lot of interest in these systems from some corners that one might not expect. We've even had discussions with the Russians about what we might do to deal with the threat of ballistic missiles.

SEN. KERRY: Well, I support the research and the development. I'm skeptical of a rapid deployment prior to its being adequately tested and proven, particularly given the financial concerns that we face as a country. But obviously, we ought to pursue it, and if it's feasible, I think there are ways to make it safer.

MS. RICE: Well, we will deploy -- the president -- we actually have begun deployment and will continue deployment because we believe that sometimes it's important to start getting the initial capability in place.

SEN. KERRY: If I can just say, summarizing, a couple of things. Number one, you said earlier that you support the State Department's new Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization so that our skills in nation-building can be honed and we can do the job. And we need to do that, and all of us agree. But regrettably, the State Department itself issued a report saying that it's own plan for that kind of stabilization and effort in Iraq was ignored.

So we had a process here, and I'm not going to go through it all, but I think a lot of us are hoping -- I mean, I think -- let me just take this instance to say something about your predecessor. I think Colin Powell pushed as hard as he could. I think he wanted to do those things. I think he is obviously an exceptional public servant. We owe him a great deal, a great debt of gratitude for that service. And I have great respect for him.

And I know that he fought for things and was skeptical about things that others were more certain of and went forward notwithstanding his advice and counsel. And I know that the State Department had very significant plans and concerns that, had they been adequately embraced and adequately implemented, might have really saved us not just lives, but money and prestige and relationships in the world.

You don't have to comment on this, but you know, you pick up the newspapers almost anywhere, and you read about how the president is going to be going to Europe shortly in order to "repair" relationships. Now you might not use that language, but the language is used universally, around the world.

And so my hope is -- and I say this, you know, with the deepest commitment to working in a bipartisan way, when we can; when we can't and when criticism is appropriate, I intend to level it -- but after 20-plus years on this committee, and working with people like Senator Lugar and others, and watching the balance shift here so many times, we all know that we are strongest when we're together. We're strongest when we're bipartisan.

Historically, in the old days, with Senator Vandenberg and others, foreign policy picked up in bipartisan fashion almost always, and politics ended at the water's edge. I think that's how it ought to be, if it's properly done.

But that requires a level of consultation, a level of respect, a level of listening and of dialogue that just has been absent, unlike any period of time since I have served here in the Senate. I think there was greater dialogue and greater discussion and greater trust and less ideology with President Reagan, with George Herbert Walker Bush, and going back in history.

So my hope is that you are going to herald a new period. Everybody knows the trust that the president has in you. Everybody knows the closeness of your relationship. You have the president's ear. You wouldn't be here. So we're all really asking for an opportunity to try to bind the wounds up, bring the country together, find the common ground.

I think the world is waiting for a different approach. And I'm confident that if the president offers the genuine opportunities for this kind of mutuality, not just here but abroad, you will be able to advance the interests of our country and of the planet, and I think that history can be written in a different way than it has been the last four years.

So I hope you will seize that opportunity, and I hope that we have the opportunity to work together.

And I pledge to you that if you reach out, and there are ways to find that common ground, in the interest of our country, I'm prepared to meet you half-way, which I think we need to do.

MS. RICE: Thank you, Senator. And I fully accept and look forward to working with you.

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

SEN. LUGAR: Well, thank you very much, Senator Kerry, and that's a good note on which to conclude today, the reaching out to work together. And I thank you, Dr. Rice, and members of the committee for over 9 1/2 hours of testimony today. We look forward to seeing you again tomorrow morning at 9:00. Providence willing, we will have a business meeting at 10.

MS. RICE: Thank you.

SEN. LUGAR: The hearing is adjourned.

MS. RICE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LUGAR: (Gavel.)