Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks at the Newseum in Washington, DC

Vice President Joe Biden published this op-ed, titled “The President's nuclear vision: We will spend what is necessary to maintain the safety, security and effectiveness of our weapons,” in the Wall Street Journal

The United States faces no greater threat than the spread of nuclear weapons. That is why, last April in Prague, President Obama laid out a comprehensive agenda to reverse their spread, and to pursue the peace and security of a world without them. He understands that this ultimate goal will not be reached quickly. But by acting on a number of fronts, we can ensure our security, strengthen the global nonproliferation regime, and keep vulnerable nuclear material out of terrorist hands.

For as long as nuclear weapons are required to defend our country and our allies, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal. The president's Prague vision is central to this administration's efforts to protect the American people—and that is why we are increasing investments in our nuclear arsenal and infrastructure in this year's budget and beyond.

Among the many challenges our administration inherited was the slow but steady decline in support for our nuclear stockpile and infrastructure, and for our highly trained nuclear work force. The stockpile, infrastructure and work force played a critical and evolving role in every stage of our nuclear experience, from the Manhattan Project to the present day. Once charged with developing ever more powerful weapons, they have had a new mission in the 18 years since we stopped conducting nuclear tests. That is to maintain the strength of the nuclear arsenal.

For almost a decade, our laboratories and facilities have been underfunded and undervalued. The consequences of this neglect—like the growing shortage of skilled nuclear scientists and engineers and the aging of critical facilities—have largely escaped public notice. Last year, the Strategic Posture Commission led by former Defense Secretaries William Perry and James Schlesinger warned that our nuclear complex requires urgent attention. We agree.

The budget we will submit to Congress on Monday both reverses this decline and enables us to implement the president's nuclear-security agenda. These goals are intertwined. The same skilled nuclear experts who maintain our arsenal play a key role in guaranteeing our country's security now and for the future. State-of-the art facilities, and highly trained and motivated people, allow us to maintain our arsenal without testing. They will help meet the president's goal of securing vulnerable nuclear materials world-wide in the coming years, and enable us to track and thwart nuclear trafficking, verify weapons reductions, and to develop tomorrow's cutting-edge technologies for our security and prosperity.

To achieve these goals, our budget devotes $7 billion for maintaining our nuclear-weapons stockpile and complex, and for related efforts. This commitment is $600 million more than Congress approved last year. And over the next five years we intend to boost funding for these important activities by more than $5 billion. Even in a time of tough budget decisions, these are investments we must make for our security. We are committed to working with Congress to ensure these budget increases are approved.

This investment is long overdue. It will strengthen our ability to recruit, train and retain the skilled people we need to maintain our nuclear capabilities. It will support the work of our nuclear labs, a national treasure that we must and will sustain. Many of our facilities date back to World War II, and, given the safety and environmental challenges they present, cannot be sustained much longer. Increased funding now will eventually enable considerable savings on both security and maintenance. It also will allow us to clean up and close down production facilities we no longer need.

Our budget request is just one of several closely related and equally important initiatives giving life to the president's Prague agenda. Others include completing the New START agreement with Russia, releasing the Nuclear Posture Review on March 1, holding the Nuclear Security Summit in April, and pursuing ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

We will by these initiatives seek to strengthen an emerging bipartisan consensus on how best to secure our nation. These steps will strengthen the nonproliferation regime, which is vital to holding nations like North Korea and Iran accountable when they break the rules, and deterring others from trying to do so.

Reflecting this consensus, Sen. John McCain has joined the president in endorsing a world without nuclear weapons—a goal that was articulated by President Ronald Reagan, who in 1984 said these weapons must be “banished from the face of the Earth.” This consensus was inspired by four of our most eminent statesmen—Messrs. Henry Kissinger, William Perry, Sam Nunn and George P.

Shultz.

Some critics will argue that we should not constrain our nuclear efforts in any way. Others will assert that retaining a robust deterrent is at odds with our nonproliferation agenda. These four leaders last week in these pages argued compellingly that “maintaining high confidence in our nuclear arsenal is critical as the numbers of these weapons goes down. It is also consistent with and necessary for U.S. leadership in nonproliferation, risk reduction and arms reduction goals.”

This shared commitment serves our security. No nation can secure itself by disarming unilaterally, but as long as nuclear weapons exist, all nations remain ever on the brink of destruction. As President Obama said in Prague, “We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.”

Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen delivered these remarks in Arlington, VA

Secretary Gates. Today, this department is submitting the fiscal year 2011 defense budget request, along with two important strategy documents—the 2010 Quadrennial and Ballistic Missile Defense Reviews.

The three requests are FY ‘11 base budget request of $548.9 billion, the FY ‘11 overseas contingency operations request of $159.3 billion, which will fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, and the FY ‘10 supplemental request of $33 billion, which covers the additional estimated costs of the president's new strategy for Afghanistan. To make sure we have the resources we need to support our troops in deploying to the theater, I will be asking the Congress to enact the supplemental by spring.

The objectives were to reaffirm our commitment to take care of the all-volunteer force, to rebalance our programs in order to institutionalize and enhance our ability to fight the wars we are in today, while at the same time providing a hedge against current and future risks and contingencies and reform how and what we buy, meaning a fundamental overhaul in our approach to procurement, acquisition and contracting.

To those ends, the FY'10 budget increased funding for programs that directly support those fighting America's wars and their families, and created an institutional home for the war-fighter by shifting many of these programs into the base budget so they would acquire a bureaucratic constituency and steady, long-term funding.

The FY ‘10 budget proposal cut, curtailed or ended a number of programs that were either performing poorly or in excess of real-world needs. These programs, had they been pursued to completion, would have cost the American taxpayer approximately $330 billion. Conversely, futureoriented programs where the U.S. was relatively underinvested, were accelerated or received more funding. The FY ‘11 request builds on reforms begun in last year's budget, changes that were broadened and deepened by the analysis and conclusions contained in the QDR.

These budget submissions and strategy reviews are suffused with two major themes. The first is continued reform—fundamentally changing the way this department does business, the priorities we set, the programs we fund, the weapons we buy and how we buy them. The budget and the reviews are also shaped by a bracing dose of realism—realism with regard to risk, realism with regard to resources. We have, in a sober and clear-eyed way, assessed risks, set priorities, made tradeoffs and identified requirements based on plausible, realworld threats scenarios and potential adversaries.

Just one example: For years, U.S. defense planning and requirements were based on preparing to fight two major conventional wars at the same time—a force-sizing construct that persisted long after it was overtaken by events. The department's leadership now recognizes that we must prepare for a much broader range of security challenges on the horizon. They range from the use of sophisticated, new technologies to deny our forces access to the global commons of sea, air, space and cyberspace to the threat posed by non-state groups developing more cunning and destructive means to attack and terrorize—scenarios that transcend the familiar contingencies that dominated U.S. planning after the Cold War.

We have learned through painful experience that the wars we fight are seldom the wars we planned. As a result, the United States needs a broad portfolio of military capabilities with maximum versatility across the widest possible spectrum of conflict. This strategic reality shaped the QDR's analysis and subsequent conclusions, which directly informed the program decisions contained in the budget.

The FY ‘11 budget takes a number of additional steps aimed at filling persistent shortfalls that have plagued recent military efforts, especially in Afghanistan. They include enhancing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capacity, including a 75 percent increase, over the next couple of years, in the number of combat air patrols by the most advanced UAVs, increasing the availability of helicopters by procuring more aircraft—around $9 billion worth—of all kinds and adding two Army combat aviation brigades and growing Special Operations systems and personnel, with nearly 2800 people added to the U.S. Special Operations Command in FY 2011.

The second major objective is to prevent and deter conflict by better employing and integrating all elements of national power and international cooperation, and should those fail, by possessing superior military capabilities and the means and will to use them. To help prevent the conditions from arising that lead to crises or conflicts, we strongly support the increased funding for diplomacy and development provided for in the president's international affairs budget request.

And in a world where, arguably, the most likely and lethal threats will emanate from failed or fractured states, building the security capacity of partners has emerged as a key capability for this department—one that reduces the need for direct U.S. military intervention, with all its attendant political, financial and human costs.

To provide more resources, predictability and agility to this important mission, the department will seek an increase in the global train-and-equip authority in the FY ‘11 budget, authority that has now been extended to coalition activities. That increase will be from $350 million to $500 million. Furthermore, the department will continue to work with allies and partners to stem the proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials, and we will maintain a reliable and credible nuclear deterrent, which will be laid out in the upcoming nuclear posture review.

In summary, the cumulative effect of this and last year's budgets, along with the recommendations of the QDR, is to make sure this department is doing everything we can, and more, to prevail in the wars we are in while preparing our military to confront the most likely and lethal threats of the future. In closing, as I said last year, we must remember that every defense dollar spent on a program excess to real-world military needs is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in, and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable.

Admiral Mullen. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good afternoon. Let me state up front that the chiefs and I fully support the president's 2011 budget submission and the recommendations of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and the Ballistic Missile Defense Review. I'd also add that we support and greatly appreciate the process through which the secretary derived these documents. As with last year's budget request, he presided over a comprehensive and collaborative process, inclusive of all the uniformed leadership and integrated across various disciplines.

In short, I'm comfortable that the fiscal year ‘10 supplemental and the fiscal year ‘11 overseas contingency operations requests provide our troops what they'll need to complete a responsible drawdown in Iraq and execute the president's strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

By the end of this year, the remaining 10 combat brigades in Iraq will be reduced to six advisory and assist brigades, and all troops will be withdrawn by December of 2011. A key element of this transition is to maintain enough resources to outfit, train and sustain Iraqi security forces. While the government of Iraq is funding a significant part of this effort, falling oil prices and budget constraints make re-establishing the Iraqi security fund a priority. One billion dollars in fiscal year ‘10 and $2 billion in fiscal year'll will provide General Odierno the resources he has requested to assist the Iraqis in establishing a security structure that supports responsible drawdown and allows us to transition both to our civilian side, as well as to the Iraqi security forces.

In Afghanistan, likewise, a key focus is the development of competent Afghan national security forces, and our requests also make that a reality, accelerating ANSF and Afghan police growth, infrastructure, training and equipment. As for our own infrastructure and equipment, I'm delighted to see that we have kept faith with the secretary's desire to place a premium on force protection by procuring and fielding more MRAP vehicles. The fiscal year ‘10 supplemental calls for more than $1 billion to complete the MRAP program. And the fiscal year ‘11 request includes $3.4 billion to sustain it.

As we've seen firsthand through 8 years of war, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets are absolutely critical enablers for the war-fighter. With this funding, we will increase the unmanned Predator and Reaper orbits from 37 to 65, while enhancing our ability to process, exploit and disseminate information gathered by this game-changing technology.

Commander's emergency response funds, known as CERP, also have proven to be game-changers, inasmuch as they give our troops more flexibility to truly make things happen for the local populace, wherever we are. As one junior officer noted, in a counterinsurgency fight, CERP dollars are faster, more precise and more impactful than bullets.

Q. The QDR says that China's rise, and that of India, is going to continue to reshape the international system. China said this weekend that it's reducing contact—military-to-military—with the United States—certain strategic dialogues—over the Taiwan arms sales. Does this affect your plans to go to China this year, and more generally, how do you respond to China's complaints over the arms sales?

Secretary Gates. Well, first of all, I don't know whether I'll be going or not. I have not heard anything, and so my current plan is to continue to plan on that trip. The United States, as you're well aware—the Taiwan Relations Act commits the United States to providing a certain level of support to Taiwan so it is able to defend itself. We went through this kind of a downturn in the last year of the Bush administration, when there was an arms sale to Taiwan and we saw a reduction in military-to-military relationships. They have clearly announced that they intend to reduce those contacts now, again.

I will say that one of the points that I made to General Xu when he was here—the vice-chairman of the military commission—was that I'd hoped that in the future, we could shield the military-to-military relationship from the political ups and downs in the relationship. I think that we have a lot to learn from each other. I think that stability is enhanced by contact between our military, and a greater understanding of each other's strategies. So I hope that if there is a downturn, it is a temporary one, and that we can get back to strengthening this relationship.

President Barack Obama delivered this statement in Washington, DC on the 40th anniversary of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

President Obama. Forty years ago today, in the midst of a Cold War, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) entered into force, becoming the cornerstone of the world's efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Today, the threat of global nuclear war has passed, but the danger of nuclear proliferation endures, making the basic bargain of the NPT more important than ever: nations with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament, nations without nuclear weapons will forsake them, and all nations have an “inalienable right” to peaceful nuclear energy.

Each of these three pillars—disarmament, nonproliferation and peaceful uses—are central to the vision that I outlined in Prague of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and seeking a world without them.

To promote disarmament, the United States is working with Russia to complete negotiations on a new START Treaty that will significantly reduce our nuclear arsenals. Our forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review will move beyond outdated Cold War thinking and reduce the number and role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, even as we maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent. In addition, we will seek to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and negotiate a treaty to end the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons.

To prevent proliferation, we will build on the historic resolution that we achieved at the United Nations Security Council last September by bringing together more than 40 nations at our Nuclear Security Summit next month with the goal of securing the world's vulnerable nuclear materials in four years. At this spring's treaty review conference and beyond, we will continue to work with allies and partners to strengthen the NPT and to enforce the rights and responsibilities of every nation, because the world cannot afford additional proliferation or regional arms races.

Finally, to ensure the peaceful use of nuclear energy, the United States seeks a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation among nations, including an international fuel bank and the necessary resources and authority to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency. For nations that uphold their responsibilities, peaceful nuclear energy can help unlock advances in medicine, agriculture and economic development.

It took years of focused effort among many nations to bring the NPT into force four decades ago and to sustain it as the most widely embraced nuclear agreement in history. On this 40th anniversary, the United States reaffirms our resolve to strengthen the nonproliferation regime to meet the challenges of the 21st century as we pursue our ultimate vision of a world without nuclear weapons.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks in New York City, New York at the UN Commission on the Status of Women

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks in Washington, DC on World Water Day at the National Geographic Society

Secretary Clinton. Water—it kind of goes without saying—certainly deserves the attention it's receiving today. Because in many ways, it does define our blue planet. It's critical to almost every aspect of human endeavor, from agriculture, to industry, to energy. Like the air we breathe, it is vital to the health of individuals and communities. And both literally and figuratively, water represents the wellspring of life on earth.

Now, of course, water can also bring devastation. Floods and droughts now touch more people than all other natural disasters combined. And inadequate access to water supply, sanitation, and hygiene cause the deaths of more than 1.5 million children each year. Water challenges are most obvious in developing nations, but they affect every country on earth. And they transcend political boundaries. As water becomes increasingly scarce, it may become a potential catalyst for conflict among—and within—countries.

As I speak today, a young family in North Dakota is huddled together praying that the Red River won't overflow its banks again and destroy their home. A farmer in Southern China is realizing that amid the worst drought in 60 years, he just may not be able to plant his crops this Spring. A mother living in Ethiopia is carrying a jerry can of water back to her family, hoping she won't be attacked along the way. Water issues are an urgent concern every day of every year for individuals, communities, and countries around the world.

And as pressing as water issues are now, they will become even more important in the near future. Experts predict—and many of you are in this audience who are experts—that by 2025, just 15 years from now, nearly two-thirds of the world's countries will be water-stressed. Many sources of freshwater will be under additional strain from climate change and population growth. And 2.4 billion people will face absolute water scarcity—the point at which a lack of water threatens social and economic development.

But water challenges are not an inevitable cause of crisis. With the right policies and priorities, and with the will, many countries in arid climates are managing water resources effectively. In the process, they are delivering tangible results for their people, encouraging sustainable economic development, and promoting stability across their regions.

Access to reliable supplies of clean water is a matter of human security. It's also a matter of national security. And that's why President Obama and I recognize that water issues are integral to the success of many of our major foreign policy initiatives.

The United States is making major investments to combat preventable diseases and improve child survival through our Global Health Initiative. Increasing access to safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene will help save lives that are now being lost to preventable diseases.

Seventy percent of the world's water use is devoted to agriculture, and the outcome of our work to promote global food security depends in part on having a successful water policy and sound water management. Floods and droughts can wipe out crops, and decimate economies that depend on agriculture.

We are also working to empower women around the world, because depending upon which continent we're talking about, the average is 60 percent of the farmers are women. In addition to that, women who gain access to sanitation, who are freed from the burden of walking for hours each day just to locate and carry water, will find it easier to invest time and energy in their families and communities.

The stability of young governments in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other nations depends in part on their ability to provide their people with access to water and sanitation. A lack of water, sanitation, and irrigation we know leads to economic decline, and even can lead to unrest and instability.

Now, we know that this challenge is much too large for the United States—or any one nation—to address alone. Even if all of the world's development aid were directed toward water and sanitation efforts, the resources still wouldn't be enough to meet the needs of developing countries. So we need to work together to leverage the efforts of other nations, the international community, and partners in the nonprofit and private sectors. Today, I want to discuss five streams—that's my speechwriter—five streams—who's wonderful, by the way—five streams of action that make up our approach to water issues.

First, we need to build capacity at the local, national, and regional levels. Countries and communities must take the lead in securing their own water futures. And, particularly in areas where we have serious, committed partners, we should work to expand their ability to address water challenges.

We are looking at ways to work with international partners to support the development and implementation of countryled water and sanitation plans. The Millennium Challenge Corporation is supporting countries that are committed to making needed reforms, improving governance, and taking on the tough development challenges that surround the issue of water. USAID is working at a grassroots level and with national ministries to improve governance and capacity-building.

We need to strengthen regional cooperative mechanisms for managing water resources that transcend national boundaries. Now, we usually look at maps and see political units. But in order to meet the challenge presented by water security, we need to start viewing the water in terms of natural water boundaries such as watersheds, river basins, and aquifers. There are more than 260 river basins in the world that flow through different nations. We cannot address the water challenges of these countries in isolation. We should view every regional watershed or aquifer as an opportunity for stronger international cooperation.

Done right, there could be huge political and economic benefits from regional water diplomacy. The Nile River basin, for example, is home to 180 million people spread throughout ten East African countries. Many of these nations are mired in poverty, and seven of them have experienced recent conflicts. But experts estimate that cooperative management of the basin's water resources could increase economic growth—increase it enough to pull many of these countries out of poverty and provide a foundation for greater regional stability.

We are also looking to take advantage of regional platforms, such as the African Ministers Council on Water and the soon-to-be-established Center of Excellence on Water in the Middle East. We hope these programs will serve as hubs for connecting local countries to each other, and also to universities, laboratories, and research groups worldwide that share an interest in water issues.

Now, of course, the National Geographic is ahead of all of us, as always, with this wonderful special issue on Water: Our Thirsty World. And one of their handy maps that I used to have to study all the time when I was in school, has a World of Rivers, a new mapping of every river system, really giving life to what it is we are proposing.

Second, we need to elevate our diplomatic efforts and we need to better coordinate them. More than 24 UN agencies and other intergovernmental bodies are engaged on water issues. And multilateral development banks, including the World Bank, and other international financial institutions have acquired deep experience working on water challenges. But the work of these bodies has often suffered from a lack of coordination and high-level attention. The joint G8-Africa Leader's Statement on Water at the last G8 Summit in L'Aquila sent a message that water issues are a priority for the international community. And we are committed to following through on that by elevating water issues within intergovernmental organizations, the international financial institutions, and other regional and global bodies.

Water is actually a test case for preventive diplomacy. Historically, many longterm global challenges—including water—have been left to fester for years until they grew so serious that they could no longer be ignored. If we can rally the world to address the water issue now, we can take early corrective action, and get ahead of the challenges that await us. And in doing so, we can establish a positive precedent for early action to address other serious issues of global concern.

The third element of our water strategy is mobilizing financial support. Managing water issues requires resources. And in some cases, the United States will be able to provide assistance. We've seen how relatively small grants can have a vast impact on water security. Ten years ago in Ecuador, USAID began several years of technical assistance to support the establishment of a water trust fund for the future protection of Quito's watershed. Today, thanks to the work of many partners, that fund has grown to $6 million; it provides $800,000 a year for conservation efforts. For the American people—and for the people of Ecuador—that represents a spectacular return on our investment. Other U.S. grants are targeted to support hygiene and sanitation projects or water quality improvements that involve smallscale hardware such as household water purification technology. And we are making critical investments in programs that promote behavior that contributes to good sanitation and hygiene.

In some instances, we are also providing assistance for larger infrastructure projects as well. In Jordan, USAID has helped build a desalination plant, a wastewater treatment facility, and water supply and sanitation systems that serve more than two million people. We are backing similar large-scale projects in several countries that are receiving assistance through the Millennium Challenge Corporation. MCC-supported water programs are improving irrigation systems, rebuilding critical infrastructure, and increasing access to clean water and sanitation. Overall, the MCC has invested $1.3 billion so far in country-led water programs. Now, we won't be able to provide that type of support everywhere. But we hope that these projects will send a message to governments in developing countries that if they adopt sound policies and serious reforms, the United States will help them deliver sustainable water solutions that benefit their people. And a government's success in providing water and sanitation services is a leading indicator of its determination to deliver other vital services.

The United States is also working to strengthen capital markets and provide credit enhancements with the goal of mobilizing resources inside developing countries. In many cases, there is enough capital in developing nations to fund water projects. But the money sits in financial institutions rather than working for the public good. USAID has pioneered the use of innovative tools to manage the risk associated with investing in water and sanitation infrastructure. As a result, we've been able to mobilize local capital to help solve water issues. In some cases, they have leveraged U.S. funds at twenty-to-one ratios.

And also, we are very interested in the not-for-profit organizations like Acumen and others that are helping to create forprofit models in India and elsewhere, which have been proven to be quite successful thus far.

Fourth, we must harness the power of science and technology. There is no technological silver bullet for dealing with water scarcity, although we have had success with simple solutions such as ceramic filters and chlorine disinfectant. But there are a number of areas where science and technological innovation can make a huge impact, and U.S. Government agencies are on the cutting edge of many global efforts to assess and address water challenges. Researchers working in U.S. agencies have discovered better techniques for disinfecting and storing drinking water, for predicting floods and droughts, and for improving the productivity of water for food and economic growth. We have also seen progress on new technologies for waste water treatment, desalinization, and the use of global information systems. We need to work harder to share this knowledge with the rest of the world.

For that reason, we are taking a whole-of-government approach to this issue. Beyond the State Department, USAID, and the MCC, we are harnessing the expertise of our technical agencies, the knowledge of the intelligence community, and the best practices from those who have been working on these challenges right here in the United States.

One example is a joint USAID-NASA initiative to create an earth observation monitoring and visualization system in the Himalayas. The glaciers in that mountain range serve as the water tower of Asia, providing the water supply for more than 1.3 billion people. In cooperation with nearby countries, USAID and NASA are developing a system that will provide a clearer picture of water supply and demand for the region and facilitate efforts to adapt to climate change.

Just as we are reaching out across the U.S. Government to help deal with these challenges, we also need to leverage the full-range of our relationships beyond government. That's why the final aspect of our water efforts is broadening the scope of our partnerships. By focusing on our strengths and leveraging our efforts against the work of others, we can deliver results that are greater than the sum of the parts.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered this statement in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. Tuberculosis kills more than 1.7 million people every year, making it a leading world-wide cause of infectious disease deaths. TB is both a disease of poverty—with transmission rates higher in over-crowded conditions—and a contributor to poverty. It destroys families, undermines economic opportunity, and holds back progress.

On this World Tuberculosis Day, let us reaffirm our commitment to tackle this deadly disease together.

The U.S. is a leader in the global effort to battle TB. We support the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria. And across the federal government—from PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to the U.S. Agency for International Development, which assists TB programs in 40 countries—we have made this fight a priority.

President Obama's Global Health Initiative will build on these efforts, forging partnerships to improve outcomes for patients and develop stronger, more sustainable, more accessible health systems around the world.

So I encourage everyone–nations, organizations, institutions, citizens everywhere—to join us in renewing the commitment to combat TB. Together, we can make progress toward ending this global scourge.

Thank you very much.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Secretary Robert Gates delivered these remarks in Washington, DC before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Secretary Clinton. I thank you for the opportunity to testify alongside Secretary Gates, because we are very much committed together on behalf of our civilian and military efforts in the front-line states. We don't think that they can be separated because the challenges we face demand that we draw on all of the tools of American leadership and American power, and the strategies we now have in place in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq do exactly that.

This whole-of-government approach has shown results and it has also enabled us to more clearly understand the challenges we face. That's why we're coming to you today with a $4.5 billion supplemental request. Without this new funding in 2010, we will fall short in all three of the front-line states. I am well aware of the economic strain we all face here at home, and I believe, along with each of you, that every dollar must deliver clear results. Our request addresses urgent demands that will advance our efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan and Pakistan and ensure a smooth transition to a civilian-led effort in Iraq.

First, with respect to Afghanistan, we are implementing the strategy President Obama announced in December. Success requires a fully integrated civilian and military effort, one in which security gains are followed immediately by economic and political gains. As new troops arrive, our civilian surge has already tripled the number of civilians on the ground, and it is these civilian-led efforts that will translate the bravery of our troops into stability for Afghanistan and security for Americans. The challenges are still great. The enemy is still determined. But we are recapturing the momentum in Afghanistan. New funds in 2010 will give us the capacity to move forward at a time when every day is crucial.

Let me briefly describe what we are currently doing in Marjah and the surrounding areas—for Marjah is a proving ground for our strategy and the story thus far is an encouraging one. Our civilians were on the ground within hours and days of the military operation. They quickly stood up a district support team that has helped already to open two schools and a prosecutor's office. They've registered more than 7,000 farmers to begin receiving supplies for licit crops. They've employed more than a thousand residents a day through cash-for-work projects. A nearby USAID-built airstrip has allowed the Ministry of Agriculture officials to reach Marjah's farmers, and a USAID contract is paying a woman-owned Afghan firm to rebuild the highway.

The military offensive rightly may get the headlines, but what happens behind the scenes is equally important. As our military leaders put it, after clearing, we must hold, build, and transition. And Marjah's residents have made it clear they will judge the Afghan Government and us on our ability to help build enduring security and credible governance. Our $2 billion request for Afghanistan supports efforts like those in Marjah which we are ramping up quickly and which need additional assistance and operational funding in 2010. New assistance will help Afghans provide for their families and revitalize the agricultural sector, which is crucial to reducing poppy cultivation and drawing insurgents back into society.

We also have funding for governance and rule-of-law programs as well as the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, which helps build capable institutions. These will work in conjunction with U.S. support for the Afghan National Security Forces, which I also would urge you to fully fund. And through all of this, we have maintained our focus on expanding women's opportunities, one of our best tools for combating extremism and spurring progress.

In Pakistan, our efforts are vital to success in Afghanistan, but also to our own American security. We've made it a strategic priority to strengthen our partnership with the Pakistani people. And I'm under no illusion that success in this arena will come quickly or easily. But think about where we were a year ago. The extremists were 100 miles from Islamabad. They met little resistance in launching attacks on American troops from border areas. Since then, the Pakistani Government has launched important offenses in Swat, South Waziristan, and throughout the country.

We're moving in the right direction, and the progress that we've made is possible because we have demonstrated a clear commitment to work with the people and the Government of Pakistan. Yesterday at the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue, we worked very hard—in fact, late into the night—to advance the resolve that we have begun building with the Pakistani leadership. The $370 million we're requesting for assistance and operations in this supplemental will allow us to expand civilian cooperation at a critical moment.

The military offensives have created new humanitarian needs that, if not addressed immediately, could make these areas ripe for extremism. And in much of the country, water, energy, and economic problems create new challenges. So our success depends on rapidly and sustainably scaling up our efforts, especially in high-impact projects that visibly demonstrate our long-term commitment on helping the Pakistanis build capacity while ensuring accountability.

In Iraq, we have different challenges. But in the wake of this election, we're at a moment of great opportunity to consolidate stability and forge an enduring partnership sustained by a strong diplomatic presence. Our $2.1 billion supplemental request should be seen in light of the more than $15 billion decrease in Defense funding. As we prepare to move from a Defense-led to a State-led mission in Iraq at the end of August, new funding will allow us to make sure our civilians can work safely in still-dangerous places. It will allow us to move from an intensive, Defense-led police training program to a smaller, State-administered program for police leadership. And our support of Iraqi civilian law enforcement, like support for the Iraqi security forces, is critical to the success of their new democracy.

Now, in putting this supplemental together, I've had to make some tough calls and had to have some tough conversations about priorities. And the decisions reflect that. The result is a request that addresses only urgent needs directly related to our security interests. And I want to emphasize all of these programs have been designed with careful attention to accountability and a determination to learn from past mistakes. Waste and corruption are fundamental threats to our success, and we're serious about combating them.

So we have more funds for strengthened oversight by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and takes into account the problems highlighted by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. We'll also be working with the Congress on updated benchmarks.

Just a brief word on Haiti, Mr. Chairman: Despite the work the United States has done to respond to the disaster, there is still too much suffering. And our rebuilding, along with the international community, is an important commitment to the people of Haiti and to our hemisphere. Of our 1.6 billion Haiti supplemental request, about 500 million will reimburse relief efforts by State and USAID. The rest will go to strategic investments coordinated with our international partners.

I thank the Congress for the ongoing bipartisan support of these efforts. And Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this committee's continuing work on behalf of the missions and the priorities of our country.

Secretary Gates. I recently returned from a visit to Afghanistan. There, I had the chance to talk to our military commanders, Afghanistan's leaders, and our troops serving at the tip of the spear in Kandahar and Helmand provinces. Overall, I believe there are grounds for guarded optimism as our campaign to roll back the Taliban gains momentum and as the Afghan Government shows an increasing willingness to take on additional responsibilities. Nonetheless, there will be many long and tough days ahead. And it may take several months to produce visible results, as most of the additional forces ordered by the President have not yet arrived in theater and begun operations.

I would also caution against an overly ambitious view of what true stability and security will look like in a place that has known nothing but war for three decades. For most Afghans, a roof over their heads, an opportunity for their children—both boys and girls—to attend school, and the ability to provide for the basic needs of their families, free from violence, would be considered a pretty good life. The scale of the international coalition's efforts and ambitions should reflect that basic reality.

The FY2010 supplemental request totals $33 billion for the Defense Department, almost all of which is to support operations in Afghanistan and the additional 30,000 troops being deployed as a part of the President's strategy announced in December. We remain on schedule to see overall U.S. troop levels reach 98,000 by the end of the fiscal year. The request includes $1.1 billion on top of the one—11.3 billion already enacted to field and sustain lifesaving, mine-resistant, ambushprotected vehicles and MRAP all-terrain vehicles for troops already in theater and for the additional forces being deployed. Finally, this supplemental contains $2.6 billion to strengthen the Afghan National Security Forces. The goal of the President's strategy and our supporting military efforts is to create conditions that will allow for a full transfer of security responsibility to the Afghan Government.

Earlier this month, I visited the combined fielding center at Camp Black Horse, near Kabul, and had a chance to speak with Afghan troops undergoing training. I told them that Afghanistan is their country, and ultimately this is their fight to win. I know many of you have concerns about the Afghan security forces. I share those concerns, as do our military commanders. The Afghan army has made real progress over the last year and many Afghan soldiers are shedding their blood for their country. Increased Afghan involvement in operations is critical to success and is being demonstrated in Marjah. Significant work remains to be done with the police force, but there, too, changes are underway that will, I believe, yield progress. As you consider this request, I would emphasize that successfully accomplishing the training mission represents both our exit strategy and the key for long-term stability in Afghanistan.

The supplemental request also includes $1 billion to strengthen Iraqi security forces. These additional resources will be used this year to strengthen Iraqi capabilities in areas General Odierno believes are important to ensure that the Iraqis are fully prepared to assume internal security responsibilities. The money will be spent by U.S. forces in Iraq, not provided directly to the Government of Iraq.

In Haiti, as the President requested, the Department is providing continuing support in the wake of January's earthquake. Due to the urgent need for an immediate response, the Department used funds from existing accounts, with the understanding that these accounts would be replenished in a supplemental. As such, the $655 million is part of an amendment for Haiti that was recently submitted to Congress and will include funding to cover these costs.

All of these operations are fuel-intensive. Due to rising prices, our fuel costs this year in operations has been greater than anticipated. And so included in this request is $2 billion to partially offset the resulting shortfall in the Department's base and overseas contingency operations, operating accounts, and to ensure uninterrupted operations.

I should note that this Department has moved most funding for programs not directly related to the war into the base budget. The budget request being discussed today is a true supplemental, as they were originally intended, for the purposes of funding immediate and unforeseen requirements—in this case, primarily the troop surge associated with the President's new strategy for Afghanistan. And I urge approval of this request by early spring to prevent costly and counterproductive disruptions to the Department's operations.

Before closing, I'd like to say just a few words about the Commander's Emergency Response Program, CERP, which continues to be a powerful tool for military commanders in carrying out counterinsurgency operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. General Petraeus has called it the most important—his most important authority. And I would urge the Congress to fully fund the CERP programs contained in the budgets—the Department's budget request. Having said that, I understand there is concern, some concern, on this committee about the way CERP has been used in recent years. The Department is currently performing an internal assessment of existing processes, which includes consideration of a single departmental coordinator, additional dedicated CERP managers, and contracting personnel in theater, and increased pre-mobilization and in-country training. Nonetheless, even with improved execution and oversight, it is unrealistic to expect a tool like CERP, whose very effectiveness and existence is tied to its flexibility and the discretion granted to local commanders in a war zone, to attain a zero defect standard.

In conclusion, I'd like to thank the committee for your support of the men and women of the military, extraordinary Americans who have fought our nation's wars, responded to natural disasters, and protected our interests around the world. I know their health, safety, and welfare will be your top priority in making these difficult decisions in the weeks ahead. Thank you.

President Barack Obama, Secretary Hillary Clinton, Secretary Robert Gates, Admiral Michael Mullen, and Under Secretary Ellen Tauscher delivered these remarks in Washington, DC at the announcement of the New START Treaty

President Obama. Good morning, everybody. I just concluded a productive phone call with President Medvedev. And I'm pleased to announce that after a year of intense negotiations, the United States and Russia have agreed to the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades.

Since taking office, one of my highest priorities has been addressing the threat posed by nuclear weapons to the American people. And that's why, last April in Prague, I stated America's intention to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, a goal that's been embraced by Presidents like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

While this aspiration will not be reached in the near future, I put forward a comprehensive agenda to pursue it—to stop the spread of these weapons; to secure vulnerable nuclear materials from terrorists; and to reduce nuclear arsenals. A fundamental part of that effort was the negotiation of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia.

Furthermore, since I took office, I've been committed to a “reset” of our relationship with Russia. When the United States and Russia can cooperate effectively, it advances the mutual interests of our two nations, and the security and prosperity of the wider world. We've so far already worked together on Afghanistan. We've coordinated our economic efforts through the G20. We are working together to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations. And today, we have reached agreement on one of my administration's top national security priorities—a pivotal new arms control agreement.

In many ways, nuclear weapons represent both the darkest days of the Cold War, and the most troubling threats of our time. Today, we've taken another step forward by—in leaving behind the legacy of the 20th century while building a more secure future for our children. We've turned words into action. We've made progress that is clear and concrete. And we've demonstrated the importance of American leadership—and American partnership—on behalf of our own security, and the world's.

Broadly speaking, the new START treaty makes progress in several areas. It cuts—by about a third—the nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia will deploy. It significantly reduces missiles and launchers. It puts in place a strong and effective verification regime. And it maintains the flexibility that we need to protect and advance our national security, and to guarantee our unwavering commitment to the security of our allies.

With this agreement, the United States and Russia—the two largest nuclear powers in the world—also send a clear signal that we intend to lead. By upholding our own commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities.

I'm pleased that almost one year to the day after my last trip to Prague, the Czech Republic—a close friend and ally of the United States—has agreed to host President Medvedev and me on April 8th, as we sign this historic treaty. The following week, I look forward to hosting leaders from over 40 nations here in Washington, as we convene a summit to address how we can secure vulnerable nuclear materials so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. And later this spring, the world will come together in New York to discuss how we can build on this progress, and continue to strengthen the global non-proliferation regime.

Through all these efforts, cooperation between the United States and Russia will be essential. I want to thank President Medvedev for his personal and sustained leadership as we worked through this agreement. We've had the opportunity to meet many times over the last year, and we both agree that we can serve the interests of our people through close cooperation.

I also want to thank my national security team, who did so much work to make this day possible. That includes the leaders with me here today—Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, and Admiral Mullen. And it includes a tireless negotiating team. It took patience. It took perseverance. But we never gave up. And as a result, the United States will be more secure, and the American people will be safer.

Finally, I look forward to continuing to work closely with Congress in the months ahead. There is a long tradition of bipartisan leadership on arms control. Presidents of both parties have recognized the necessity of securing and reducing these weapons. Statesmen like George Shultz, Sam Nunn, Henry Kissinger, and Bill Perry have been outspoken in their support of more assertive action. Earlier this week, I met with my friends John Kerry and Dick Lugar to discuss this treaty, and throughout the morning, my administration will be consulting senators—my administration will be consulting senators from both parties as we prepare for what I hope will be a strong, bipartisan support to ratify the new START treaty.

With that, I'm going to leave you in the able hands of my Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, as well as Secretary of Defense Gates and Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen. So I want to thank all of you for your attention. Hillary.

Secretary Clinton. Well, thank you all very much. This is a good day for America and our security. And as President Obama just reiterated, it is one of the highest priorities of the Obama administration to pursue an agenda to reduce the threat posed by the deadliest weapons the world has ever known. President Obama set that forth in his speech at Prague last year. And today, he and President Medvedev reached an agreement to make significant and verifiable reductions in our nuclear arsenals.

Long after the Cold War's end, the United States and Russia still possess more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons. We do not need such large arsenals to protect our nation and our allies against the two greatest dangers we face today: nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

This treaty represents a significant step forward in our cooperation with Russia. We were committed from the beginning to reset the U.S.-Russia relationship, because we saw it as essential to making progress on our top priorities—from counterterrorism, to nuclear security and non-proliferation.

Now, we will continue to have disagreements with our Russian friends. But this treaty is an example of deep and substantive cooperation on a matter of vital importance. And more broadly, it shows that patient, principled diplomacy can advance our national interests by producing real results, in this case results that are good for us, good for Russia, and good for global security and stability.

The treaty also shows the world—particularly states like Iran and North Korea—that one of our top priorities is to strengthen the global non-proliferation regime and keep nuclear materials out of the wrong hands. The new START treaty demonstrates our commitment to making progress toward disarmament under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the socalled NPT.

So as we uphold our commitments and strengthen the NPT, we can hold others accountable to do the same. I know that Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen will say more about the details of the treaty, but I want to make clear that we have adhered to the Russian proverb that President Reagan frequently employed, “trust, but verify.” Verification provides the transparency and builds the trust needed to reduce the chance for misunderstandings and miscalculations.

Secretary Gates. This treaty strengthens nuclear stability. It will reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons that both Russia and the United States are permitted to deploy by a third, and maintains an effective verification regime.

America's nuclear arsenal remains an important pillar of the U.S. defense posture, both to deter potential adversaries and to reassure more than two dozen allies and partners who rely on our nuclear umbrella for their security.

But it is clear that we can accomplish these goals with fewer nuclear weapons.

The reductions in this treaty will not affect the strength of our nuclear triad. Nor does this treaty limit plans to protect the United States and our allies by improving and deploying missile defense systems.

Much of the analysis that supported the U.S. negotiating position was provided by the Defense Department's nuclear posture review, which will be released shortly.

Admiral Mullen. Good morning, everyone. I would only like to add that I, the Vice Chairman, and the Joint Chiefs, as well as our combatant commanders around the world, stand solidly behind this new treaty, having had the opportunity to provide our counsel, to make our recommendations, and to help shape the final agreements.

We greatly appreciate the trust and confidence placed by us—placed in us by the President and by Secretary Gates throughout this process. And we recognize the trust and confidence this treaty helps foster in our relationship with Russia's military—a trust complementary to that which the President has sought to achieve between our two countries.

Indeed, I met with my Russian counterpart, General Makarov, no fewer than three times during the negotiation process. And each time we met, we grew closer not only toward our portion of the final result, but also toward a better understanding of the common challenges and opportunities our troops face every single day.

The new START deals directly with some of the most lethal of those common challenges—our stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons—by dramatically reducing these stockpiles. This treaty achieves a proper balance more in keeping with today's security environment, reducing tensions even as it bolsters non-proliferation efforts. It features a much more effective, transparent verification method that demands quicker data exchanges and notifications. It protects our ability to develop a conventional global strike capability should that be required. And perhaps more critically, it allows us to deploy and maintain strategic nuclear forces—bombers, submarines, missiles; the triad which has proven itself over the decades—in ways best suited to meeting our security commitments.

In other words, through the trust it engenders, the cuts it requires, and the flexibility it preserves this treaty enhances our ability to do that which we have been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United States. I am as confident in its success as I am in its safeguards.

Q. Madam Secretary, congratulations. Obviously a couple of deadlines were missed on the way to today's announcement. What were the sticking points and how were they ultimately resolved?

Secretary Clinton. [W]e made a decision that we wanted not just to have the treaty agreed to; we wanted the protocols agreed to. Sometimes treaties in the past have been submitted while the work on the protocols still goes on. But we thought it was important that we really went through all the technical work in the protocols so that when we went to our Senate or when the Russian government went to the Duma, it wasn't just, okay, so what's going to be in the protocols; it was, okay, we can look at the treaty, we can look at the protocols. So that was also some of the time that had to be taken in order to really get to the point where we both felt like we had the package necessary to go to our legislative bodies.

Q. [F]or Secretary Gates, is the Pentagon uncomfortable at all about the President's go-to-zero campaign, considering we do depend on nuclear weapons for our national security?

Thanks.

Secretary Gates. Let me first say a word about ratification from my perspective. There has been a very intense continuing consultation on the Hill as the negotiations have proceeded. Two of the areas that have been of concern in the Senate, among senators, are, are we protecting our ability to go forward with missile defense and are we going to make the investment in our nuclear infrastructure so that the stockpile will remain reliable and safe.

We have addressed both of those. Missile defense is not constrained by this treaty. And we have in our budget, the President's budget that went to the Hill for FY ‘11, almost $5 billion for investment in the nuclear infrastructure and maintaining the stockpile. So I think we have addressed the concerns that there may have been on the Hill and so I echo the sentiments of Secretary Clinton, that I think the prospects are quite good.

In terms of going to nuclear—to zero nuclear weapons, the President has been very realistic in terms of—you know, when he originally discussed this—perhaps not in his lifetime. And we realize that other countries have substantial numbers of nuclear weapons; others are attempting to develop them. So we will do this in a realistic way.

But what this treaty does, and some of the other steps—trying to get control of fissile material, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and so on—are concrete steps to move in that direction. But I don't think anybody expects us to come anywhere close to zero nuclear weapons anytime soon.

Q. Madam Secretary, to what degree in the preamble will missile defense be addressed? And did the Russians in any way, shape, or form insist upon some kind of linkage on future missile defense plans with the United States? And is there any concern that you have about Russian dissatisfaction with the Bulgaria-Romania component that they believe was not adequately conveyed to them before it was released in those two countries?

Under Secretary Tauscher. Thank you, Madam Secretary. President Obama and President Medvedev met in July and discussed and had an agreement that this is a strategic offensive weapons treaty, and that there is an inter-relationship between strategic offensive and defensive. But that is the discussion—where the discussion ended. So I think when you see the treaty and the protocol, there are no constraints on missile defense. When it comes to Romania, the phased adaptive approach is in phases, as you can see—2011, 2015, and 2018 deployments. And we have gone to extensive lengths to brief the Russians. Frankly, the phased adaptive approach has been up on the Web. The Ballistic Missile Defense Review has been up on the Web for weeks and months. So we've gone through extensive briefings with the Russians. We don't pre-clear any kind of conversations we have with allies and friends when we do things with them—with anyone, including the Russians. But we certainly talked to the Russians soon afterwards, and they knew about the Romanian invitation for the 2015 SM-3 deployment.