Transcripts For CSPAN3 State Department Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request 20150225

Again were live on capitol hill this morning awaiting remarks from secretary of state john kerry. Hes testifying here before the House Foreign Affairs committee. Likely to discuss the ukraine conflict with russia. Talks with iran and the use of military force against isis. Secretary kerry was on the hill yesterday as he appeared before the senate. Also this article from the New York Times this morning, secretary of state john kerry sought yesterday to rebut critics of a potential nuclear deal with iran, making his case on capitol hill a week before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of israel set to deliver his side in an address to congress. Quote Anyone Running around right now jumping in to say well we dont like the deal or this or that doesnt know what the deal is, mr. Kerry said. There is no deal yet and i caution people to wait and see what these negotiations produce. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of israel arrives next tuesday, cspan will carry live coverage of that, again, on cspan when it starts. Why am i being arrested . The hearing didnt start. Why am i being arrested . The hearing didnt start. Why am i being arrested . The hearing didnt start. Nobody what this hearing will come to order. All members take their seats today we hear from secretary of state john kerry. The secretary is just off yet another overseas trip, dealing with issues that well discuss here today and mr. Secretary, your dedication is clear to all. Secretary kerry comes to present his departments budget requests. Needless to say, given washingtons chronic budget deficit, wasteful spending is intolerable, even good programs may be unsupportable at levels we would want, but we must also appreciate the many serious challenges we as a nation and the department in particular faces worldwide. These challenges seem to grow by the day. Iran and north korea are pursuing Nuclear Weapons. Russia is gobbling up neighboring ukraine. We see beheadings crucifixions and emulation by isis. Cartoonists and jewish shoppers are targeted and killed on paris streets. Indeed, some days it feels as if the world itself is coming off of its axis. Regarding iran all of us want to see mr. Secretary, all of us want to see you get a meaningful lasting agreement. But the committee, as you know has real concerns about the direction of these talks. Im hearing less about dismantlement, and more about the performance of Irans Nuclear program. Thats particularly disturbing when you consider that International Inspectors report that iran has still not revealed its past bomb work. This should be treated as a fundamental test of the ayatollahs intention to uphold any agreement. Iran is failing that test. Also it is still illicitly procuring nuclear technology. Recently iran was caught testing a new generation of supersonic centrifuges. To be frank as this committee reads about us being on the brink of a historic agreement, you have a challenge in terms of congressional buyin. Meanwhile, iran and its proxies are wreaking havoc throughout the region. And in Eastern Europe russias military aggression is matched only by the size of its propaganda. Russia is spending more than one half billion dollars annually to mislead audiences, to sow divisions, to push conspiracy theories out over r. T. Television. Yet the Agency Charged with leading our response the broadcasting board of governors is, as your predecessor testified to us, dysfunctional. Last congress the house passed legislation authored by Ranking Member eliot engel and me to fix the bbg, the broadcasting board of governors. We hope to have the administrations active backing as we again push this reform. And in the middle east, isis is on the march. The administration was tragically slow to react to isis rise missing the chance to devastate them with airstrikes during the first seven months, eight months of isis moving from syria in to iraq town by town, taking these cities, air power was not used to devastate these columns out on the open road as it should have been applied. Today the kurds are still severely outgunned. Our training of the Syrian Opposition isnt off the ground. And arab allies complain they dont have the weapons needed. And while the administration is focused on the fight against isis in iraq today its still unclear what its plans are for syria tomorrow. As the Committee Considers the president s request for a military authorization against isis members need to hear a better articulation of the administrations strategy and see a strong commitment from the commander in chief. As terrorism from islamist terrorist groups spread, the committee knows that that puts more of our diplomats out there at risk. In the past half year the department has had to evacuate staff from two u. S. Embassies, libya, and yemen. On this note the committee stands ready to assist the department on Embassy Security. We passed a state department authorization, and Embassy Security bill last congress and look forward to working with you to get our next bill signed in to law. And as the Department Works to finalize its second quadrennial diplomacy and development review, know that we are ready to assist the department to be more effective and efficient to meet the demands of the 21st centurys diplomacy. We have policy differences but these should never compromise the daytoday operations of your department and certainly not the safety of its personnel. Mr. Secretary, our nation faces great challenges. Through it all, though, we must Work Together to ensure that america maintains its positive, and essential role in the world. That is our challenge. And i will now turn to our Ranking Member mr. Eliot engel of new york for his Opening Statement. Thank you mr. Chairman, mr. Secretary, welcome back. Were fortunate to have you as our top diplomat as we face so many challenges around the world. Whether its violent extremism or nuclear proliferation, Health Epidemics or Climate Change these are challenges that threaten our security and values. And that demands robust investment in International Affairs. Thats why the president has put forward a Strong International Affairs Budget and thats why his proposal deserves the support of congress. The president s budget would end sequestration, something long overdue, including a 7. 7 increase in International Affairs spending. Why is this increase so important . The Kaiser Family foundation reported recently that Many Americans believe we spend much more on foreign assistance than we actually do. Here are the facts. International affairs total just over 1 of our federal budget. And foreign aid accounts for less than 1 . With that narrow sliver of the pie, were keeping americans safe strengthening ties around the world, and promoting American Leadership abroad. Were getting a pretty good bang for our buck. Still, we can always be more effective, more efficient, and more focused. And id like to mention a few of my questions and concerns. Let me start with institutional and bureaucratic challenges at the state department. We need a department that can adopt to evolving Foreign Policy and National Security issues. We need diplomats equipped to deal with constantly changing demands. Are we recruiting the best talent . Do our diplomats have the tools and training they need to do their jobs right . Im curious about how the department will implement the forthcoming recommendations of the quadrennial diplomacy and development review. On our response to the ebola outbreak, mr. Secretary, i want to applaud you. The state department usaid and the thousands of heroic americans who play such an important role. This crisis has required tremendous resources, and our strategy is working. The situation in west africa continues to improve. But we must remain vigilant until this scourge has been eliminated. This crisis underscores the need for Global Health funding. Preventing future epidemics requires investment in research infrastructure, and personnel. So im disappointed by proposed cuts to Global Health programs dealing with tuberculosis neglected tropical diseases and other dangerous illnesses. Id like to find a way to avoid these cuts and keep giving these programs the resources they need. Turning to ukraine. I have serious doubts that the minsk agreement will end this crisis. Weve taken a handful of incremental steps but they have not been enough to get ahead of the crisis or deter further russian aggression. The United States is a major interest in europes stability and security. Decades of American Investment is on the line. I know dealing with the kremlin is delicate, but we must not allow ukraine to lose more territory or to fail economically. In the middle east, more than 11 Million People have been driven from their homes in syria. And more than 200,000 have been killed. This crisis has spilled across borders. Its created largescale vulnerability to Sexual Assault child marriage, hunger and other kinds of abuse and exploit exploitation exploitation. The budget prioritizes this humanitarian disaster, but much more needs to be done by both the United States and regional partners. This cry hayes has been fuelled by political instability in iraq and syria. The new Iraqi Program has taken some steps to make iraqs political system more inclusive. But we remain far from the point at which sunnis shia and kurds feel like they have a stake in iraqs future. The way forward in syria is even less clear. But we know one thing for certain. That countrys future should not include assad. As youve said, mr. Secretary, he is a oneman supermagnet for terrorism. So while we are going after isis or the Islamic State we should not forget that assad must go. He cannot be part of a syria for the future. On that note i welcome the president s decision to send congress a request for a new authorization to use military force aumf against isis. The president s proposal is a reasonable starting point, and this committee will continue our efforts to review the language, and the overall strategy to defeat isis. I look forward to working with you and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure we get this right. Briefly on iran, i said many times that my preference is a negotiated solution to the Iranian Nuclear crisis. However, were hearing troubling reports on the scale and duration of the program that iran may be allowed as part of the deal. As youve said many times mr. Secretary, no deal is better than a bad deal and so we must ensure that iran has no pathway to a Nuclear Weapon and that any deal we sign is a good deal. And finally i want to commend the proposed 1. 1 billion in funding to address root causes of Child Migration from central america. We need to ensure that these resources are targeted towards the most vulnerable communities that the children are coming from across the subregion. And finally getting back to europe, and ukraine, and russia. I really believe that nato hangs in the balance. I think if putin continues to push ukraine around and threaten other countries, and nato is not a sufficient deterrent we are sort of sending the word to putin that were really a paper tiger. So i wish you would talk about that a little bit, because i really do believe the future of nato hangs in the balance. Four countries give 2 of their budget to defense, as is required, and thats very, very troubling in terms of nato. So i thank you mr. Chairman and i look forward to the secretarys testimony. Thank you, mr. Engel. This morning were pleased to be joined by mr. John kerry, the 68th secretary of state. And mr. Secretary, welcome again here to the committee. Without objection, the witness full prepared statement will be made part of the country. And the members here each of you, will have five calendar days to submit any statements or questions or extraneous material for the record you may wish to submit. So mr. Secretary, if you open for five minutes, then well go to the members for their questions. Well, thank you very much mr. Chairman congressman engel, Ranking Member, all the members of this committee. To respect your time i will try to summarize my comments and mr. Chairman i hope i can do it in five minutes. Theres a lot to talk about. And your questions will needless to say elicit an enormous amount of dialogue. Which i really welcome. I cant think of a moment where more is happening, more challenges exist theres more transformation taking place. Some of it with great turmoil. A lot of it with enormous opportunity that doesnt get daily discussion. But all of it with big choices for you. For us. You representing the American People. All of us in positions of major responsibility at this important time. We rose to the occasion, obviously, and we like to extol it. We all talk about it. I did certainly as a senate. I do as secretary of state. And that is the extraordinary contribution of the greatest generation. And what they did to help us and our leaders did, republican and democrat alike, who put us on a course to win the battle against tyranny, dictatorship, and to win the battle for democracy and human rights and freedom for a lot of people. And no country on the face of this planet has expended as much blood, put as many people on the line, lost as much of our human treasure to offer other people an opportunity to embrace their future. Not tell them what it has to be. Its really a remarkable story. And now we find ourselves at a moment where we have to make some similar kinds of choices, frankly. I dont want to overblow it. Im not trying to. But this is a big moment of transport of transformation. There are literally hundreds of millions of people emerging on this planet young people count the number of countries where the population is 65 under the age of 30, 60 , 30 and under, 50 under the age of 21. I mean its all over the place. And if they live in a place where theres bad governance or corruption or tyranny in this world where Everybody Knows how to be in touch with everybody else all the time, you have a clash of aspirations. A clash of possibilities and opportunities. And to some degree, thats what were seeing today. That certainly was the beginning of the arab spring. Which is now being infused with a sectarianism, and confusions of religious overtones and other things that make it much more complicated than anything that has preceded this. By the way, the cold war was simple compared to this. Bipolar, pretty straight forward conversations. Yeah, we have to make big commitments, but it wasnt half as complicated in the context of dealing country to country, and with tribes with culture, with a lot of old history. And its a very different set of choices. In addition thats complicated by the fact that many other countries today are growing in their economic power. Growing in their own sense of independence. And not as willing to just take at face value what a larger g7 or g20 country tells them, or what some particular alliance dictates. So thats what were facing. And i heard the chairman say, you know we shouldnt compromise the daytoday operations of the department. But let me say to you the daytoday operations of the department are not confined to making an embassy secure. We need to do that. But if thats all we do folks were in trouble. Were not going to be able to protect ourselves adequately against these challenges that were facing that well talk about today. The United States, you know we get 1 of the entire budget of the United States of america. Everything we do abroad within the state department and usaid is within that 1 . Everything. Thank you the businesses we try to help, to marry to Economic Opportunities in the country, all the visas, the consulate work, the diplomacy, the coordination of dhs, fbi atf, i mean all the efforts that we have to engage in to work with other countries intelligence organizations, so forth, to help do the diplomacy around that is less than 1 . I guarantee you more than 50 of the history of this era is going to be written out of that 1 and the issues we confront in that 1 . And i ask you to think about that as you contemplate the budgets. Because weve been robbing peter to pay paul and weve been stripping away our ability to help a country deal with those kids who may be ripe for becoming part of isil. Weve been diminishing our capacity to be able to have the kind of impact we ought to be having in this more complicated world. Now, im not going to go in to all of the detail because i promised id summarize. But i believe the United States is leading extraordinarily on the basis of that 1 . We have led on isil, putting to the a coalition for the first time in history that has five arab nations engaged in military activity in another arab country in the region, against you know, sunni against sunni. I dont want to turn this into that sectarian but its an important part of what is happening. We have we help to lead in the effort to transition in iraq a government that we could work with. Part of the problem in iraq was the sectarianism that the former Prime Minister had embraced, which was dividing his nation, and creating a military that was incompetent. And we saw that in the context of mosul. So we wanted to make sure that we had a government that really represented people and was going to reform and move in a different direction. And we worked at it and we got it. We have it today. Is it perfect . No. But is it moving in the right direction . You bet it is. In afghanistan, we rescued a flawed election, brought together the parties were able to negotiate to get a unified unity government. Which has both of the president ial candidates working to the to hold afghanistan and define its future. And create and negotiate a bsa that defines our future Going Forward and give afghanistan a chance to make good on the sacrifices of 14 years of our troops, and our contributions and so forth. On ebola, we led that fight. President obama made a brave decision to send 4,000 Young American troops there in order to set up the structure so we had a capacity to be able to try to deal with it. 1 Million Deaths were predicted by last christmas at the time that we did that. And not all the answers were there for questions that were real. But the president sent those people in. We have made the difference, and now theres a huge reduction in the cases, in liberia, sierra leone, guinea, and were getting not finished but were getting to a place where youre not seeing it on the nightly news every day and people arent living in fear here that theyre about to be infected. On aids were facing the first aidsfree generation in history. Because of the work that we have done. On the ukraine weve held together europe and the United States and unity to put in place sanctions. The ruble is down 50 . Theres been 151 billion of capital flight from russia. Theres been a very Significant Impact on daytoday life, on food product availability. The economy is predicted in russia to go in to recession this year. And we are poised yet to do another round potentially depending on what happens with minsk in these next few days. On iran, weve taken the risk of sitting down. Of trying to figure out, is there a diplomatic path to solve this problem . I cant sit here today and tell you i know the answer to that. But i can tell you its worth trying before you go to more extreme measures that may result in asking Young Americans yet again to put themselves in harms way. We are pursuing the two most significant trade agreements of recent memory. The tpp, in asia pacific, and the ttip in europe, both of which represent about 40 of gdp of the world. In order to have a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. If we can achieve that we will be achieving a major new structure with respect to trade rules on a global basis. In africa, we held the African Leaders summit, an historic summit with more than 40 African Leaders coming to washington out of which has come a series of events that will help, we hope, to meet our obligation to help transform africa. And finally on climate there are other things, incidentally. Im just skimming the surface some of the most important. I know not everybody here is a believer. In taking steps to deal with climate. I regret that. But the science keeps coming in stronger and stronger and stronger. On the front page of todays newspapers, the stories about an alaskan village that will have to be given up because of what is happening with Climate Change. It is theres evidence of it everywhere in the world. And we cut a deal with china improbable as that was a year ago, the biggest opponent of our efforts has now stood up and joined us because they see the problem and they need to respond to it. So theyve agreed to target for lowering reliance on fossil fuel and a target for alternative Renewable Energy by a certain period of time. And weve set targets, and thats encouraged other countries to start to come forward and try to take part in this effort. So i will i will adamantly put forward the way in which this administration is leading. I know not everybody agrees with every choice. Are there places where we need to do more . Yes. Well talk about those, im sure, today. But we need to work to the. Ill end by saying that historically historically that 1 has produced more than its monetary value precisely because your predecessors were willing to let Foreign Policy debate and fight become bipartisan, let politics stop at the waters edge, and find what is in the common interests of our country. Thats what brings me here today. Thats why im so privileged to serve as secretary of state at this difficult time because i believe america is helping to define our way through some very difficult choices and frankly, and last thing, this is counter counterintuitive but its true. Our citizens our world today is actually despite isil, despite the visible killings that you see, and how horrific they are, we are actually living in a period of less daily threat to americans and to people in the world than normally less deaths, less violent deaths today, than through the last century. And so even a concept of state war has changed in many peoples minds and were seeing more now asymmetrical kinds of struggles. I would say to you that i see encouragement when i travel the world. I see people wanting to grow their economies. I see vast new numbers of middle class. People who are traveling. I see unbelievable embrace of new technologies. I see more democracy in places where it was nonexistent or troubled. Big changes sri lanka, and other countries. We can run the list. But i hope you will sense that it is not all doom and gloom that we are looking at. Tough issues yes. But enormous opportunities for transformation if we will do our job and continue to be steady, and put on the table the resources necessary to take advantage of this moment of transformation. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, youre certainly right, it is not all gloom and doom. But, the reality for us is that even as we discuss these issues there are still ramlies going on in iraq in which the refrain is death to america, death to israel. Evens we attempt to engage and we hope that we get a verifiable agreement. But even as we attempt this we still have the ayatollah, and we still have the cadres that come out and say death to the great satan, death to little satan and thats a reality that we have to face, because sometimes when people communicate those types of threats, they mean it. And i mentioned my concern about the direction of iran talks. And of course we understand were still negotiating on this. And i understand youve cautioned not to judge a deal we havent yet seen. But its important that the administration know the committees concerns, as you negotiate. And one thing we do know is that iran has continued to stonewall International Inspectors. Concerning its past bomb work. And as youve acknowledged, this is a critical part of these negotiations. And its a fundamental test of irans commitment. And its been well over a year i think, and ive talked to the secretarygeneral of the iaea about this. You know i saw press this morning, i dont know if this is correct or not, and we could go in to closed session at some point to discuss it but the concern of a secret facility. But the concern i have at the moment is what the secretarygeneral says. And he indicate ss that hes concerned about signs of military related activities including a including iran designing a Nuclear Payload for a missile. Inspectors in iran the iaea inspectors have amassed over 1,000 pages which Show Research development and testing activities on technologies needed to develop a Nuclear Weapon, and of the 12 sets of questions that the iaea has been seeking since 2011 iran answered part of one of those, and so id like to ask you for a response on the concerns on the part of the iaea. And us on the committee. Well, theyre legitimate. And the questions have to be answered. And they will be unless if they want to have an agreement. Well we had 350 members write you expressing deep concern about this lack of cooperation, and of course from our standpoint in unless we have a full understanding of irans program, were not going to be able to judge a years breakout time with certainty. Thats the conundrum we face here. And theyre withholding that information, and without going into detail again, but, as you know, i have concerns about the fact they were caught with that supersonic centrifuge testing that, and the whole procurement let me just say on that centrifuge when you say supersonic. They have some advanced centrifuges that do more than the centrifuge they have today. Were well aware of that. Weve been tracking all of that, and really there was a misunderstanding of the language in the interim agreement which did allow current testing. There was a question about whether that had been current. We raised it, and immediately, within 24 hours, it ceased, there was no question, and theres been no further effort on that. In fact, the iaea has signed off that iran has complied with every single component of interim agreement. And let me we raise these questions regarding the iaea mr. Chairman and as i said, theyre going to have to be answered. So thats part of the discussion right now. Theres a piece today in the New York Times. Inspectors say iran is evading questions as Nuclear Talks enter a crucial stage. Per my conversations with the iaea i know those concerns are there. I want to just turn to broadcasting reform to discuss that with you because i know in an exchange you had yesterday in the senate you expressed your frustration that our effort to confront russian propaganda is simply nowhere near where it ought to be. Its an area where mr. Engel and i also share frustration on that. We know that putin is dominating the essential information battle on the ground. Thats not thats but this isnt just about resources. It is also about what we can do with an initiative that for the broadcasting board of governors, to overhaul that institution, and make it effective, myself and mr. Engel put that bill in to the senate last year. We were not able to get it up and passed. And the question i wanted to ask was, for your assistance on the senate side in getting our legislation through this year, so that we can gets reform that this troubled agency needs and get up and running with the type of broadcasting that you and i, i think, want to see to offset what president putin is doing right now. All i can say is, mr. Chairman im with you 100 on this. I look forward to working with you further. I appreciate your leadership on this issue. Youve been champion of reform on the bbg and i am absolutely committed to the reform of the bbg and our next meeting is on april 29th. Ive had long conversations with our undersecretary for Public Diplomacy rick stengel, who is very seized with some things we need to try to achieve. Now there are two issues here. One is sort of the reform of the bbg and the second is what we ought to be doing on a global basis with respect to the propaganda thats coming out of russia. On the bbg, weve just weve had a slight difference with you on the issue of whether or not we are whether its improved to have a situation where you have two boards and two ceos. I think you know i raised that. And also, i think state given our engagement with it, needs to be part of that process. Im confident we can find a way to drive this more effectively. The bigger issue is what is congress prepared to do in terms of putting some resources on the line to help us do this . I have found when i have traveled to the baltic region, or to poland, or to bulgaria recently and elsewhere, theyre just getting flooded with propaganda. And propaganda is exactly that. Its propaganda. It has the ability to affect the minds of those who hear it if they dont hear alternatives. Well mr. Secretary, were on the same page with you. I think your request was 1. 3 million to confront russian propaganda in this budget. Correct. Were on the same wavelength mr. Engel and i and the committee with you on this. Just, if i could just turn to one other issue thats going to be a topic here of this hearing today. And that is the question that is on our mind in terms of aumf to ensure that the commander in chief has the authority needed to decisively defeat the enemy, and that will be part of our dialogue here with you this morning. I will turn now to mr. Engel for his opening questions. Thank you mr. Chairman. Again welcome mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, i mentioned to you just before the hearing began my concern about a report, it was in yesterdays New York Times, that says negotiators plan to phase out nuclear limits on iran and essentially its saying that we could possibly be would accept a fudging so to speak, of how many years iran would be prohibited from these various moves to have Nuclear Weapon, whether it would be ten years, 15 years so on and so forth. But it essentially would ease limits on irans production during the later years of an accord in saying that by doing that it would be an attempt to bridge the differences between the two sides over how long an agreement should last. Can you talk about this . Because its very disturbing. Obviously i believe and others believe that the and i know you believe that the longest amount of time preventing iran from gearing up to have a Nuclear Weapon is preferable. And if were sort of fudging it those reports are true, at the end, its very concerning. You know, no one here certainly not you, needs to be told about the threat of iran, and that iran having a Nuclear Weapon would be a game changer. We need to support our ally israel. Iran is an existential threat to them. And so when i hear that the end portion of this agreement is sort of nebulous or going to be a little cloudy about it its very disturbing. So id like you response to the report in the New York Times. Absolutely. Couldnt be a more important topic. I absolutely welcome the chance to talk about it. I regrettably cant talk about it as much as i would love to talk about it because we dont have a deal yet. And so i am not going to go into Great Lengths and detail here for that reason and i would caution others not to be running around combatting the deal that hasnt been made. Secondly i will say mr. Ranking member you just said the language you used was we dont want to see a reduction of these measures that might then permit iran to go build a Nuclear Weapon. Please understand there is no reduction at any time that permits iran to build a Nuclear Weapon. Iran is forever forbidden from building a Nuclear Weapon. That is the nature of membership in the nonproliferation treaty, which they are a member of, and that is the nature of certain responsibilities that you accept in the context of verification and transparency. Now im not going to go in to all of that here today. Except to say to you that obviously thats got to be adequate. Unlike north korea, which is not a member of the npt iran has certain obligations that go forever. So dont get lured in to believing that because something might change or be reduced with respect to you know some component theyre allowed to do or install there countries that live by the npt are permitted to have a Peaceful Nuclear program. That means they can produce power for their nation. Within a nuclear plant. Japan has very intrusive inspection and they enrich and theyre engaged in producing fuel and doing their capacity. Now iran hasnt already mastered the fuel cycle, folks. They did that a number of years ago. When president george w. Bush was president in 2003, the Bush Administration policy was no enrichment. And they went iran went from 164 centrifuges to 19000 that are installed, and theres claims of some others being out there. Which were going at. So you know, theyve learned how to enrich. By the way, a Different Administration had an opportunity to stop them or do something and they didnt. So we are where we are today. They know how to do fuel cycle. And the question is going to be what restraints can you put on that now in a way that guarantees you that you know theyre not going to build a Nuclear Weapon . Weve said there are four pathways to that Nuclear Weapon. One is through fordau, another is through iraq another is through natanz, and a fourth is through covert. Covert is hard. Thats the hardest. So were now negotiating the methods by which we can show that the four paths are cut off. And that theyre not cut off, folks, for two years, three years, four years, five years, theyre cut off forever. For as long as theyre living up to the npt. And you have to build some process of a Knowledge Base and of a system that gets you there over a period of time. Thats what were trying to do. So mr. Chairman im not today, i dont want to jeopardize these talks. I dont want to mischaracterize them in any way. Theyre tough. Theyre hard. Theres some very big issues yet to be resolved. We are not there. But, were not going to wade in on a piecemeal basis and we certainly dont think its appropriate to condemn it before Everybody Knows what it in fact, is, if there is an is. Mr. Secretary i want to ask you a final question about ukraine. I believe that the United States should provide ukraine with defensive weapons. I know that germany and france have resisted it. I really think whats happened with ukraine under the 1994, as you well know budapest memorandum ukraine gave up their Nuclear Weapons with assurances from the u. S. , the uk, china and russia that they would be protected. That we havent, in my opinion, lived up to the 1994 budapest memorandum at all and as i said in my opening remark i think that the credibility of nato is hanging in the balance with putin bullying all the countries around ukraine. Im wondering if you can comment on the defensive weapons to ukraine to help them repel putins aggression . Well weve sent a lot of different items to ukraine, actually. Over a period of time, were one of the more significant donors. Weve been sending counterbattery radars. Weve been sending night vision. Weve been sending communications gear. Mwraps. I mean theres a long list of items that we have sent. And in addition, weve been, let me just run through, weve got about 118 million weve given in training and equipment. 52 million including body armor, helmets, advanced radios explosive ordnance, disposal robots, fir aid kit supplies 47 million in protective gear for state Border Guard Service vehicles, up armored suvs, heavy engineering equipment, thermal imageing monitoring equipment, patrol boats uniforms, generators, and weve provided training and equipment to six companies, and headquarters elements, thats about 600 personnel, and Ukrainian National guard and theres more. So were weve been doing a lot. I think everybody understands that were not going to be able to do enough under any circumstance that if russia decides to match it and surpass it, theyre going to be able to do it. Everybody knows that, including president poroshenko. The debate is whether or not there is some some weapons that could be given to them that give them a greater ability to defend themselves in order to prevent the creeping land grabbing thats been taking place, or at least raise the cost. Thats a very legitimate discussion. President obama has not yet made that decision. Partly because even yesterday there was a meeting in paris of the Russian Foreign minister the Ukrainian Foreign minister, and the french and German Foreign ministers, to measure the implementation of minsk and to see if they can move further some weapons have been pulled back troops, some troops have been pulled back. Obviously debaltseve was the site of a continued battle. Thats a violation. Continued battle. Thats a violation. There have been many violations of the ceasefire since then. So the measurement now is are we on a downward track to actually seeing an implementation or is there now some other effort that may be taking place, which would immediately merit a much more significant response, which is teed up and that could be very serious next level of sanctions coupled with other choices the president may or may not make. We go now to the chair of the middle east. Thank you so much mr. Chairman. Welcome, mr. Secretary. I will ask about iran, cuba, venezuela and palestinians. You testified in the senate yesterday that, quote, the policy is iran will not get a Nuclear Weapon, end quote. However, last month your deputy testified that the deal being negotiated is meant only to constrain irans breakout capabilities. So is it con training or eliminating . And if the deal is to prevent iran from ever acquireing a Nuclear Weapon, why are we allowing iran to enrich, to keep some of their stockpiles and centrifuges centrifuges. Your agreement is based on the assumption that we can verify if iran cheats, but the Science Board and former cia director have stated that our capability to detect irans undeclared or covert Nuclear Sites is either inadequate or does not exist. So can we catch q iran cheats and when they do cheat, not if but when, what consequences will iran suffer and reports surfaced yesterday as the chairman said of an undeclared enrichment site. What information can you share about this new site and will this Development Impact, how will this Development Impact the negotiations . On cuba mr. Secretary, yesterday in the senate you said, quote, the change that we are making, we believe, assists to promote the democracy and the rights that we want for the people of cuba, end quote. However, cuba spy thats leading the castro delegation said that havana will not accept a u. S. Embassy that will assist cubas Civil Society and said that, quote, change in cuba isnt gauchable, end quote. Now the regime has arrested over the last two weeks. Only three weeks ago, she was sitting in your chair testifying before our committee on the gross human rights abuses going on in cuba today. She returned to cuba on a saturday. She was arrested sunday. Yet the u. S. Castro talks are still scheduled to go on on friday. But the u. S. Didnt even get one cosmetic commitment to democratic reform from the castro regime and the regime keeps demanding more from us. Pay us billions of dollars from the losses we suffered from the embargo, utterly ridiculous. And just yesterday, mr. Secretary, castro bestowed metals on those whom your administration pardoned, including the one responsible for killing u. S. Citizens on the very anniversary of the killing of our citizens castro gave a medal to his killer, a killer who was pardoned by this it administration. Of all the bad deals that we have seen, isnt this cuba deal the weakest one yet . And on venezuela mr. Secretary, yesterday, just a few days ago a 14yearold child was killed by police thugs, actually just yesterday, 14 years old. He was shot in the head during a peaceful protest. We in Congress Passed a sanctions law to punish such acts, but you have not fully implemented our law. States decision to deny some visas to some people is only a small slap on the wrist. People are dying in venezuela and all were hearing are excuses. Enough is enough, why have you not fully implemented every one of the sanctions laws that we passed against human rights violators in venezuela . How many more peaceful demonstrator demonstrators must die before you sanction them. And lastly on the palestinians, our courts just a few days ago ordered the Palestinian Authority to pay for terror and yet the pa has hired a d. C. Lobbying firm. We all know that money is fungible, so isnt our money to the palestinians actually paying for their court order terror penalties and their lobbying efforts here in congress . Well let me answer the last two very quickly and ill talk about the others. The answer is no, that money is not paying for it. That money is not flowing right now because of the icc and what is going on. And the pa is nearly bankrupt at this moment. It is in nobodys interest madame chair, for this to for the pa to fall apart. And on cuba . So we dont want that to happen. On the 14yearold venezuelaen that is horrendous. Venezuela keeps moving in the wrong direction and making the wrong choices. And the answer is the sanctions are being implemented right now as fast as possible. Were working with the National Security council. Were working with the department of treasury and other agencies to implement the provisions of the law as rapidly as we can. So we have no disagreement whatsoever on the agreeegregious behavior the arrests, the false accusation accusations against us, they are emanating out of venezuela. We invite the president to realize that theres a completely alternative set of options available to him. We hope he will take them. But he can commit these acts because nothing happens. We really arent implementing the sanctions. It is being implemented. Everybody thinks you slap them on day one. Theres a very specific set of requirements in the law for what you have to do to prepare but the killer of this 14yearold, we know who did it. Why dont we just why didnt we sanction them yesterday . We have the video. Were going to have to keep moving. Im just going to suggest coupuba, dont measure it by where it is today. Measure it by what begins to happen as this process of normalization takes place and we have an opportunity to be able to press those issues and shed more light on them and create the change we hope will take place. And i can go on at some length about that. But i want to get to the other things you mentioned very quickly. On iran, theres no equivalent si. The secretary was talking about with respect to preventing them from getting a weapon and the question of what happens with respect to their compliance with respect to their Nuclear Program. If you have a year of breakout time, by the way, everybody, i think its a publicly known number that has been banted around in the press that prior to our joint agreement, the breakout time was about two months, maybe three max but somewhere around two months. We have already extended that. And our effort is to get a period of time, im not going to say how long, but a period of time during which they have to live by a oneyear breakout. Now one year breakout does not meantime it takes to get a bomb. One year breakout is time it takes to get enough material for one Nuclear Weapon, which they havent yet designed or been able to test or put. On a war head. Thats many more years it takes to get there. We dont lose one option that we have today, not one option during that period of time. Slap back on the sanctions make them worse than they are today or if you have military option. We dont take away any option. We expand the period of time during which we can determine whats going on. Israel is safer today with the added time we have given and the stoppage of the advances in the Nuclear Program than they were before we got that agreement, which by the way the Prime Minister opposed. He was wrong. And today hes saying oh, we should extend that agreement. Will you share the agreement with netBenjamin Netanyahu . Our department is on the phone to the National Security adviser and having calls. Im going to make a suggestion to the members here. Members, if you use the five minutes to ask your questions, were just going to go on to the next member. And well do the response in writing. Were going to go right now to mr. Brad sherman of california. I have a lot of questions for which id just like a response in writing and ill end with one id like an oral response. I had hoped to encourage dialogue. It had the opposite effect, mr. Chairman. Im happy to listen to an hour worth of questions. I want to commend you regarding ebola. I want to be the first to commend the administrations approach to iraq and syria. We kept chemical weapons out of the area. Otherwise they would be in isiss hands and we repelled the tax on the mosul dam and baghdad all without u. S. Combat casualties. A lot of people throw out other ideas. Maybe they would have made things better and things would have been worse. Than any other strategy could have. As to the partnership, you say it shouldnt be a race to the bottom. But vietnam is 30 cents an hour. That is the bottom. And were told that were going to get free access to the markets of vietnam, but they dont have freedom and they dont have markets. They were told theres going to be labor rights for woerks. They dont dare assert them because the human rights situation is such that they risk their own lives. With the rules of origin in our other agreements goods that are 50, 60 80 made in china can go. To another country, get slapped with a tag and come into the United States duty free. The chairman raised the broadcast. Ing board of governors issue. I just want to raise one small part of that. This committee has voted to spend to do that. Theres no population more important to world stability than that of pakistan. Theres no place where theres crazy ideas than pakistan. If youre trying to reach a population, you cant just do it. As senator kerry, you championed recognition of the genocide. We now are about to have the 100th anniversary. And i would hope youd show the courage that you are personally known for and on april 24th use the word genocide to describe what happened 100 years ago. In your earlier testimony you said that iran is not permitted to have a Nuclear Weapon ever because there are members unlike north korea. North korea was a member of the npt. They withdrew in 2003 and id hope youd clarify for the record that north korea is not entitled to have a Nuclear Weapon and that iran does not become permitted to have a Nuclear Weapon should they at some future time decide to withdraw from the npt. I hope that you would furnish for the record a statement that once yourself in the npt, you cannot get out. Otherwise, every country is just one letter away from being permitted to develop Nuclear Weapons. Youve talked about one year to break out. But im concerned about one year to sneak out. The mek sometimes gives us accurate information. They are the ones that told the world about the Iranian Nuclear program. They now say that theres a secret facility at. One approach is what id like to know is are you willing to accept an agreement in which they dont have the right to go anywhere on short notice to look at undeclared or potentially undeclared or credibly believed to be undeclared Nuclear Sites or are we going to settle for the cat and mouse game in which you can tell us its a year to break. Out and the iranians have undies closed facilities and we cant even check them out. Id ask him to be allowed to answer that for the record. Do we have time . I hope you have time for that one last question. Well do the last question but well need to keep moving. We only have five minutes for each member and we want to get as many as possible. I will just say clearly iran does not have a right to step out of the npt and then go. If they began to do that, we will hopefully, and this is part of what is being negotiated, have the ability to know immediately if theres any. Movement in that direction. Well have all our options that are available to us. Going a step further, on this secret facility were well aware of the allegations regarding that facility. It will obviously have to be any questions would have to be answered to have any kind of an agreement. People should rest assured that should take place. And we are negotiating for the appropriate standards and process that they need in order to be able to answer appropriate questions. Thats a critical part of compliance with any npt country and there is a process, as you know, that is required in order to achieve that. So thats obviously part of the negotiation. Mr. Chris smith of new jersey. I want to thank you for your service and your leadership. I certainly like the use of your phrase race to the top if only that were true for respect for human rights among many countries around the world including china and cuba. We cochaired that hearing just three weeks ago and sat right where you sat. We were all concerned about her wellbeing go back and of course, she was arrested for speaking the truth. On friday her case and that of all the disdents hopefully will be front and center. A couple years ago raised i chaired 49 hearings on human rights abuses. I cant even get a visa to go there anywhere. We had had five daughters who testified their fathers are political democracy prisoners. All of them in unison as the hearing went on asked to meet with president obama. They said he has two daughters. Hell understand. I tried for months to arrange that meeting five, ten minutes with these unbelievably wonderful five daughters speaking out for their dads in prison in china. We couldnt get in. I respectfully ask perhaps you can help make that help. And perhaps you might even meet with them as well. Let many ask on nigeria. Will you seek to restart and significantly expand Critical Military training. On iran the status of robert levin ston from the Washington Post that they will be free soon. And on child abduction, several have arrived pursuant to the International Child abduction prevention and return act. I want to thank you publically again for your strong personal support for the new law including the process to develop and to enter appropriate procedures with countries with unresolved child abduction case like india, japan has been breathtakingly unresponsive especially to abductions that occurred prior to the radification of the convention. Iraq war vet from northern new jersey and numerous parents from the ngo back home have been utterly frustrated, even to meet with their children, much less get them back. And then theres the issue of ind india. A new jersey mother of twin boys abducted to india six years ago. Testified before our subcommittee two years ago and this past monday i met in my office in new jersey and pleaded with you, mr. Secretary, to help her to get her kids back. I just want to ask you because you have a heart for this. Did president obama raise child abduction cases with Prime Minister mody when they met . Did you raise it on your trip earlier in that month . And if so, what was mr. Modis response . Well, we have raised those cases. We raise them in every conversation that we have. We raise all of our missing citizens we have a number of them in various parts of the world. And we raise them on a consistent basis not only through our embassies but any time that i visit either here or go somewhere and we meet at high levels we raise these issues by name. We have raised the names of the folks most recently when i was in geneva a couple days ago and we consistently we actually have a process place where were working them privately with respect to the abduct eded child abduction, i worked on that very, very hard when i was here. I worked on it as the secretary and had a very tragic case from my state in massachusetts of gentleman whose kids were stolen and taken back to egypt and we have been trying to get access and back and so forth. We have a case load of a thousand international abduction cases and we are trying to expand the Abduction Convention to efforts throughout the world. We have approximately 75 professionals who are fulltime assisting parents with respect to this horrendous plight that they faced. Theres nothing worse. And i applaud and thank you for your constant focus on these issues. Youre really the primary focus of the entire congress on this. We appreciate it enormously. With respect to nigeria, i visited there recently in order to try to keep the election process from leading to violence. We knew there was possibility of delay. Now were trying to make sure this delay does not become an excuse for trying to rig the election. Were working hard to have a transparent election which would then give us leadership one way or the other prepared to move forward on the military training on the efforts to coordinate on boko haram. As you have seen the neighbors come together in an effort to try to put pressure on boko haram and im confident that over time well be able to. We have done the proper vetting with respect to the units that we were training in nigeria. I assure you that has not been the problem in our Training Program disruption. Unfortunately, equipment was not delivered to them internally and frankly there have been some leadership challenges with respect to that. So hopefully this election can clear the air and put us in a position to move forward on an effort against. Boko haram and to do some of the training that you have talked about. Thank you, mr. Secretary. We go to mr. Gregory meeks of new york. Mr. Secretary, its good to see you. Some have said that the United States no longer leads. I think they mean leading in a unilateral way. I want to complement you on leading and thin administration because leading in a multilateral way and what you and this administration have done is bring a lead by bringing countries together whether its bringing the countries together on the p5 which those sanctions is what put iran in a position that its currently in whether its bringing countries together to fight ebola, whether we deal with the russian situation, bringing countries together to deal with isil. Thats leadership. And its difficult leadership when everybody had their own competing interests. And i think that the leadership that were doing today so that we can share this world has slunk. We cant do it it our way with no one else is real leadership its hard work and it is sometimes not thankful. So i appreciate the work that youre goingdoing in those regards. Its difficult because when i look at my constituents for example, even going back to 2003 they have had a sense of both hope and skepticism when negotiations regarding Irans Nuclear program was initiated. There have been many stops and starts since that time. My constituency has expressed strong concern about the prospects of an agreement with iran. The current multilateral negotiations are no exception. Today we are at a dead line set by the plan of action. So my question simply is, and i want to ask three questions and be quiet so i can answer them all. Should my constituents that are so concerning, concerned and emotional for them because they are concerned about the threat for israel. And about iran having a Nuclear Weapon. So should there be hopeful or conservativeful at this point in the current negotiations and what would you consider a comprehensive agreement know inging we cant do that and or how does the budget support that end. Thats on iran. Quickly, i went to asia just last week. I visited singapore, malaysia and japan. Being on the ground was very helpful. We look at tpp, for example, just on an economic side. As i talked to some of those countries, they were looking at how important it was for us to have a presence in the region. So how important is tpp with reference to gee owe politically and maybe talking about Capacity Building in iran. Let me keep quiet and give you a few minutes i have. I wanted to know whether we had any other tools. Can you clarify the second part of the question which is how do we support that end . What was the the question is i wanted to know whether or not with my constituents who are skeptical. I think its fair to be skeptical until you see the agreement. And its important to be hopeful. And thats the way i would put it. Im not sitting here expressing confidence. Im expressing hope. I think we are better off with a viable acceptable good diplomatic agreement than with the other choices. But it remains to see whether or not we can get that kind of agreement. I think its healthy to approach something with certain amount of skepticism until proven otherwise. But i wouldnt be damning it on the skepticism. I would wait and be hopeful and see what we can produce. Remember how many people, i can remember sitting here, and i wont go into who said what, but there were plenty of folks in this committee saying youre give giving away the store, this cant work, they wont live up to it. I sat and listened to all of that. I said the proof is in the pudding. Guess what, folks. They have lived up to every single piece of it. Fuel has been shipped out, stockpile is lowered, they have given us access to the storage sites of centrifuges, they have given us access to the milling, the mining, we have had they have stopped iraq. They didnt do any further work on it. Anything they said so in effect they agreed to roll back their program and they rolled it back. So were beginning now with a frankly baseline of a year of measurement. And you cant just dismiss that and throw it out the window. So i think thats cause for hope. Thats all id say at this point in time. Of course, theres a component of this. If the rules of doing business are written by people who dont adhere to our standards of doing business, thats a race to the bottom. And if were not helping to bring countries together to create an understanding of how were going to treat each other in business of what kind of access we have of nontariff barriers of being eliminated of fair trade in certain products. If there arent rules that raise the standards, were in trouble. Ill tell you right now labor standards, environment standards, business standards are all going to be written into this agreement in ways that they havent been previously. And in a place like vietnam i know vietnam pretty well because i was involved in the effort to open up end the embargo and then the normalization. I have seen the transformation thats taken place. People are living a higher standard of living. People have the right to strike. They do strike. There are labor rights. Its not as uniform as in the United States but a huge transformation is taking place. Is and theres no question in my mind that being able to implement this will be a game changer for peoples attitudes and possibilities as we go forward in the future. And china has actually said to us could we join this ultimately . And we have said, of course, you can, if youre prepared to adopt the standards. So this is strategic it is vital to americas presence in the region and i urge everybody to think of it in that context. Thats part of the reason why tpa is so important. Were going now to the chairman of the subcommittee on europe and emerging threats. Thank you, mr. Secretary and although we asked pointed questions we wish you the best of luck and are very proud of the hard work youre doing even though we may have disagreements with policy. It seems to me about the Opening Statement when you talked about how complicated the world is right now compared to the great greatest generation. I believe the difference was was not that the world wasnt so complicated. But the great estest generation knew how to set priorities. Reagan said whats your goal with the soviet union, who was our primary enemy at that time. He said, we win, they lose. And he knew that that was his number one goal . By the end of his administration, we eliminated the cold war without a direct confrontation with what we had been at war with in the cold war. I think that today we set the priority. Which is who is our primary enemy. Who is the primary threat to the wellbeing and security of our people. I think that we have to come to the reallization that its radical islam is the primary threat to our safety. I know our president has a little bit of difficulty saying those words together. Radical islamic terrorism, but i have no problem saying it. And that is the primary enemy for the security of our people. And that includes, by the way, the regime in iran. Just right off the bat, when you mentioned they went ahead and have actually moved forward and accomplished the agreements that they had pledged to do about Nuclear Weapons, did the regime tell us about the existence of this new Nuclear Facility that our friends in the mek who were permitted to sit out in the middle of the desert did we know about that Nuclear Facility . What youre saying its a nuclear. Facility. That is yet to be determined, but we know about the facility yes. So had they disclosed that facility to us . It has not been revealed yet as a Nuclear Facility. It is a facility that we are aware of which is on a list of facilities we have. Im not going to go into greater detail, but these things are going to have to be resolved as we go forward. Let me note that most of us who have been somewhat upset because, again the administration seems unable to prioritize the helping of our major friends. To me, a major friend is who is the great. Est enemy of our enemy who can help bring down our enemy the most. For example, we have left and again this leads to a question we have left the most heroic person in this effort the heroic individual who helped us bring to justice Osama Bin Laden and Osama Bin Laden, the man who helped plan the murder the slaughter of 3,000 americans on 9 11, yet the man who helped us bring him to justice has been sit ing sitting in a dungeon in pakistan and what do we get . I mentioned this to you last year. Hes been sitting there the whole year. And yet the administration is still planning to give more than. 500 million in aid to the government that is basically u committed the ultimate hostile act by putting him in jail. Are we going to hold back any of that 500 million until they let the doctor go . What message does that give to our friends if we let him sit in that prison this is a message to the kurds and everybody else. Were not going to help you. You may put yourselves on the line for us but were going to let you die a lingering death rather than make some tough choices. Were not doing that, congressman. Were actually and i respect and appreciate your passion and concern for the doctor, which i share. I have raised this formally with their president and now with Prime Minister sharif. We have raised it at the highest levels. We believe his incarceration is both. Unjust, unwarranted, unfair, counterproductive to our efforts. And we have made that case. We believe the best way to try to solve this problem is to do this through the diplomatic channels through regular communication, direct and high level engagement which has a chance of being successful. Thats where we disagree, mr. Secretary. I dont think you have been successful. The kurds, we have placate the people who are not in iraq at the expense of the kurds. We want to put them secondary and make sure they are put down in a role to baghdad. We cant prioritize and stand behind our friends is a problem. This is a strategic error on the part of the administration. Nobody is condoneing or allowing anybody to be put down. We fought very hard for the arming, which is taking place, of the peshmerga and the kurds. Were elevating the capacity when you were here last year we asked you about could we give weapons directly to the kurds . Are we doing that now . Are we still saying it has to be through baghdad . Some things have gone directly, some have gone through baghdad. Thats appropriate and its working. Baghdad has seen to it that they are getting what they need and have worked effectively in coordination with them. Thats one of the virtues of what the Prime Minister is bringing to the table right now. I want to go back to your original comment, which i think merits a moment, mr. Chairman. When you say you disagree that there wasnt a greater simplicity o to the choices of world war ii, im not diminishing it. Im one of the greatest admirers of the world, im in awe of what they did. Ive been to the beaches of normandy, i dont know, 15, o 20 times. To me its religious ground. Its an amazing place. And everything that went on in that war is stunning in terms of the coordination of global effort to defeat tyranny and dictatorship. But im telling you, in terms of a choice, it was communism fascism and tyranny versus democracy, freedom and liberty. But it wasnt. We sided with the soviet union because we knew they were less priority. The nazis and the because they were going to help us defeat that particular we understand both points. What you have today, whats been released as a result of the fall of the berlin wall and all of the things that have happened with the arab spring, you have complications of tribes all over the place with different agenda. You have sunni versus shia, arab versus persian you have culture and middle east and religion a host of things and different agenda by Different Countries that are part of different efforts. For instance, the deal with isil is split on whether or not there ought to be a focus on assad. Thats a complication. You begin to do one thing you lose some. You do the other, you lose others. How do you hold them together . That was not the problem with respect to the challenge of whether or not you had to beat the folks in the pacific and win in europe at the same time in world war ii. So there is a a huge difference in how state ss are behaving today and in what their economic power is and what choices they have. We go now to the Ranking Member of the subcommittee on western hemisphere. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, one of the things that i read was that the largest democracy in the western hemisphere encouraged us to get rid of our embargo with cuba, that it would help the relationship. Im just wondering why some of these countries are not speaking up against the abuses that go on in cuba and in venezuela. Somebody pointed o out before that a 14yearold boy was shot yesterday. Places like brazil, how come they dont say anything about the human right abuses . If they encouraged us it seems like we were left alone. And i just think they are fearful of cuba stirring up the University Students in some of these countries. I dont know if thats the reason they dont do it, but. I dont disagree with you. Not only in this hemisphere i think there are a lot of countries in europe and elsewhere that have been willing to do business without any kind of voice of accountability for those kinds of abuses. I think one of the things that will happen with our diplomatic presence frankly, is an ability to help mobilize that. And we ought to. Were not going to turn our backs. One notion of what is important with respect to human rights, democracy, change, so forth and we have made that clear. We could go on, but i have a couple other questions. Im sure you could. Thats what im here for. Colombia, i have a great deal of their population in my district. Some are concerned about our decision of sending to participate in this treaty. They feel that if things dont turn out well, they have somebody to blame, which has always been the ugly american, which is us. I know that he asked but i was just wondering what do we really get out of this other than if it doesnt go well and the people turn down this pact, were going to end up being the bad guys. Let me tell you why i dont think we will but its a good point and its an appropriate question to ask because under the wrong circumstances, its possible that could happen. We are not at the table. We are not a negotiating partner in this. But the impression out there seems we send this over we are doing this in order to help facilitate if it is possible because they believe that the United States could be very helpful as a friend and a partner because we have existing assistance programs to colombia that are helping to lay the groundwork for the implementation of a possible Peace Agreement and we have been so committed through the years. You all, certainly those of you in the top here were deeply involved in helping to do this in the 1990s. We put a billion bucks on the line. We became deeply engaged and together with the leadership of colombians a country that was near failed, certainly failed turned itself around to become one of our most important trade partners and allies in. The region. They were pretty much outcast because they were dealing so much with us. Look at the success they are today. Measure their success today with countries that havent chosen to do that. I think colombia is a leader as a result and i think other countries are saying were missing out. Theres an effort we can do to do a better job of reaching out to latin america. Thats part of whats in the budget in the billion dollars were trying to put on the line. Im concerned were going to end up looking bad as usual. The last question i have is where is our progress as far as being sent back to the United States to face trial . Thats the woman that killed a state trooper in new jersey and i read where the cuban government said thats out of the question, were not sending her back. We are continuing to seek the return of fugitives from u. S. Justice. We have raised the case. We have raised the case with the cuban government during the migration talks that just took place a few weeks ago. We raised those cases when we met in january. Theres a meeting here friday that will raise the cases again on friday. And we have had some limited success in recent years. There are four noncuban fugitives who have been returned to the United States since 2011. Were going to continue these discussions in the context of this new relationship and hopefully is might open the door. The gentleman from ohio. Thank you for being here. Last Week State Department spokeswoman espoused the interesting proposition that we should create a jobs program for people who might be inclined to support group. S like isis. Jobs for jihadists. She didnt call it that, but i will. Just where will these jobs come from . Not at the mall, its apparently too dangerous o work there now. Are these shuttle ready jobs or are they yet to be created like Keystone Pipeline jobs . And mr. Secretary, did she consult with anyone else in the state department before announcing this new. Initiative . If not, who did she consult with . I realize that according to her, many of us are not nuanced enough to grasp the proposal, but im sure some of my colleagues would appreciate some insight on where in the heck this idea came from. Congressman, let me make it absolutely clear. Thats not what she was saying. If you take the full breadth of what she was talking about. In fact, what she was talking about is the notion that if all we do is have a military approach to the problem of violent religious extremism or whether theres violent extremists, were going to fail. You will have the next secretary of state or the one thereafter, a continuum of president s coming to you with new ak acronyms that are a new threat. Everything that came out of our white house summit on violent extremisteism underscored the fact that theres one component that you have to do for sure, which is the military. You have to take isis fighters off the battlefield the way we are, and thats for certain. But if you dont want them just replenished like the three kids from britain who just traveled to join us another very disturbing thing that happened, absolutely. Let me go further. There are several thousand people from russia. Multiple hundreds of people from france, from germany, from australia. The australians are in the targets now. This is a spreading cancer. And it is not going to be eliminated by just shooting at people once they final lyly get to the battlefield. Everything that came out of the conference pointed to the need to deal with prevention and a very distinguished professor who testified there from Kings College in london specifically who has done years of research on this talking about the nearly 4,000 people who have gone since 2012 from berlin and paris, they are all young people. You can find them on facebook, twitter, social platforms. They are talking kicking back and forth and nothing is answering them. I have limited time here. I think i gave you extensive time to o answer the question. I understand that it wasnt dont make fun of what she was talking about. We have an awful lot of young people that are unemployed in this country and i think we ought to work on that. Thats not what she was talking about. It sure sounded like it. It was awfully nuanced. Mr. Secretary, taiwans president decided to release the former president on medical parole. As you may know my democratic colleague visited the former president chen in prison. He had a whole range of medical conditions, multiple strokes, severe depression, parkinsons disease and on and on. We beseeched the president to issue a medical parole. He ultimately did, i give him credit, but it was only for 30 days. And hell probably unless theres some change be taken back. His condition was just startling. I would urge you to look at the case. I know its an internal problem. Id like to say a country, taiwan the prc doesnt like that, but they are a defacto country and i know that we, for the most part consider that to be the case although its not necessarily our policy. I would urge the administration to look at that matter to the extent that we can exercise some reason on the government that that parole be made permanent so he can stay with his family. Will do. Thank you. We go to mr. Connolly of fairfax, virginia. Thank you, mr. Chairman and welcome, mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, we had a hearing a few weeks ago and the inspection model of south africa came up and it was made that south africa might be the ideal model for unannounced, unpredicted, complete access any time anywhere, you name it we get to inspect and south africa has agreed to that. Have we thought about using the south africa model for iae inspections with negotiations with iran . Were examining every possible model. Were looking at japan, south africa all existing enriching country models and we also have to pleasure whatever those models are against a particular country, but thats what were doing. I think some of us would be very interested in hearing more about that as you proceed. You have counselled us to keep there is no agreement yet. I think you surely having been in congress as long as you were in congress, you can understand, however, that theres anxiety about waiting a means that im handed. We dont amend the agreement. And meanwhile, we have the head of another government coming to speak to congress under circumstances that, in my view, are shameful, but nonetheless, hes coming. And hes not keeping his powder dry. And he is somebody as the Ranking Member indicated, with an extent shl concern about this. And he says thats going to be a bad agreement. Its so bad thats why im coming to speak to congress. I have to go over the heads of the secretary of state and the president of the United States and plead with congress and the American Public to derail this agreement because its going to threaten israel and frankly other nations in the region. So hes not keeping his powder dry. Its hard for us to pretend he is. Thats something that you and people in israel and everybody else have to make your judgment about. Im not going to get dragged into that particular choice or how is came about. Its his criticism im asking you to address. Let me say this. The Prime Minister, as you recall was profoundly forward leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading iraq under george w. Bush. We all know what happened with that decision. He was extremely outspoken about how bad the interim agreement was during which time he called it the deal of the century for iran, even though it has clearly stopped irans program, and more importantly, hes decided it would be good to continue it. So you know i talked to him frequently. We work very closely together. We are deeply committed. I think we have done more to help israel. I have a pact of 25 pages or more of things we have done on behalf of israel. And this administration to stand up for it, stand with it protect, fight back against unfair initiatives. So we wont take a backseat to anybody in our commitment to the state of israel, but he may have a judgment that just may not be correct here. And lets wait and hear what he says. Im not going to prejudge his statement other than he should prejudge this agreement. When we heard, if appropriate ill respond. Thank you mr. Secretary. My other question has to do with the minsk agreement. There have been violations and in part it exists because one melted away with russian aggression. Is minsk the right framework for us given russian aggression given whats just happened in Eastern Ukraine . And does it sufficiently address the illegal annexation which should never be recognized of the crimea . Doesnt this flow from perhaps the west was a little slow in responding to what happened in crimea . No, thats not what it flows from at all. And the answer is the minsk if it were implemented, would be a good way to deescalate. Thats what everybody hopes for. This does not flow from what president putin chose to do with respect to crimea, which alised a beginning response with respect to sanctions. It flows from a view mr. Putin holds about the new russia that he talks about and about his efforts to try to push back what he feels is a threat from europe and from us in the west in encroaching in what he deems to be his commitments. We dont deal with spheres of influence in that way. We deal with independence and sovereignty of nations and respect for agreements. We would all protect the territorial integrity of ukraine. And long ago through the United Nations and other agreements the respect for International Boundaries and lines and not taking territory by force has been the standard for which nations have been trying to fight. President putin have made a set of choices that violate all of that. So he has empowered, encouraged and facilitated directly land grabs in order to try to destabilize ukraine itself. And it stems from his policy, his decisions which violate all the International Norms with respect to territory and behavior. So i dont think anybody in had this committee is suggesting the United States ought to be sending the 82nd airborne or something greater than that. Thats not what i hear. I think people feel that this is a time for smart policy. And it is clear from the policy we put in Police Station place, the russian rooubl is down 50 . Theres capital flight from russia. Russia is about to go into recession this, according to economic predictions. So while putin may be achieving the shortterm stuff, the longterm is a problem. The longterm for russia. And i think were pursuing a policy that is smart and effective at the same time and our preference is to deescalate this get back to the norms and restore relationship with russia that could be more public, more productive in many different respects. The chairman of the Homeland Security committee. Mr. Secretary, let me just say thank you for your service in these very challenging times that we find ourselves in. And i also appreciate your comments about the greatest greatest generation. My father was a bomber. It is a great generation. They were all in. They were all in to win. And they won. And they defeated fascism. I see a new threat and it is islamic extremism, and it seems to me the best policy we can have is to eliminate the threat where it exists rather than it coming into the United States. Before this committee we will be deliberating an authorization for the use of military force. We had a meeting with white house officials, the chairman and myself and others, and were presented with the president s policy on this. I must say the reception was not a warm one. I have concerns. Concerns of a timetable telling isis how long were in the fight, concerns about tieg the hands of our generals concerns about usually an authorization is asked for by the congress to expand the president s authority and the militarys powers rather than restrict them. I cannot support this authorization as presented by the administration. The authorization i would like to see, id like to get your opinion on would be an authorization to degrade and destroy isis wherever they exist. Can you tell me whether you would support an authorization like that . That . That is in the authorization. There is no geographic limit purposely to destroy them where they exist. And the president s thinking, which i agree with, with respect to the continuation, look there is a huge divide in congress. We all know that. There was an unhappy experience with a prolonged war in iraq that became a war of choice and which didnt in most peoples judgment have to be fought. And people are tired. They dont want to go back and do another 14year military excursion. And there is a divide on how you balance this. And what the president did, and i testified at the aumf in december and we listened to both sides of the aisle. And some people wanted something openended and you are working 14 or 15 years from now where you are working on the same authorization and the president , i think, thoughtfully and appropriately said you know what, congress ought to be able to unite and the American People should speak with one voice to say we are going to go out. And if i could just it sounds like a political document. Were going to destroy and degrade isis. And i agree it says what it does. But with all of the limitations on our military and i agree options should not be taken off the table. That is a dangerous predicament, in contrast to the 2001 authority he has under. And i experience your response to the Syrian Refugees. And can i say quickly i dont have nobody knows who the next president will be. They should have the right to say i want more or lets continue it the way it is. Nothing will stop you from doing that. The policy is clearly committed to degrade and destroy isil. And we agree on the policy, but i dont think you can achieve that goal by putting restrictions in the military. But i you were in the vietnam conflict. We had a micromanaged war that didnt allow our troops to win the war and dont want to make the same mistake with isis and i think that our precipous to that. And the plan to the state department is to bring thousands more in to the country as we are trying to block foreign fighters from coming into the United States, from western europe and americans who traveled the idea of bringing in thousands of Syrian Refugees poses a potential risk to americans. That was born out by Homeland Security officials and the fbi made it very clear that they dont have the intelligence and the proper data bases to properly vet these Syrian Refugees who would be coming into the United States under your program this of this federally sanctioned program to bring in refugees. I think this raises serious risks and concerns. And i think rightly so when the fbi is telling me that and agreeing with that as well. Can you tell me what your plan is . Well the plan is to engage in what we call supervetting, an extraordinarily level of vetting and if the fbi is not satisfied then i dont think people will be allowed in. I dont see this as a conflict. We have amazing ways of being able to dig down and dig deep and we are doing it now with the Syrian Opposition being vetted in order to join up to the training and equip program. I think well i wont put the numbers out here. But there is a disparity between the numbers of those who have signed up and been approved and entered the program and the same will happen here. And ill close with, i was in jordan and i saw the refugees many are mothers and children. Weve been doing this for years now. And we made some mistakes with the iraqis and they were prosecuted for being terrorists. By the secretary of the interior told me personally. But they told me i dont know who they are. Because they havent told me. When they weigh in, according accordingly accordingly, i dont they they will come in. Mr. Ted deutsche. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. And i want to extend thanks for your service at a difficult and crucial time in our history. Thank you for. That and i want to talk about iran and where we stand. I want to talk about mr. Smiths comments from earlier. Im grateful for the way you speak up about the americans who are being held and i would implore you to continue to turn up the pressure. In my case specifically with respect to robert levinson, one of two things will help negotiations will succeed and there will be an agreement or well deal with irans other despicable behavior or negotiations fall apart but either way pressure will decrease on iran. On march 9th mr. Secretary, bob levinson his family will mark the eighth anniversary of his disappearance and youll meet with others between now and then between the end of march and i implore you to continue to raise that and do so. And you asked us not to prejudge but i think it is fair to comment on reports media reports about where this may be headed, particularly since what is often beyond the reports, including information that comes from the administration. So given that just a couple of points. On enrichment, you had said earlier that you came and sat before a committee as others and suggested the jpoa might not work, but with respect to enrichment, it referred to a mutually agreed upon enrichment when you suggest might be zero. But the u. N. Seven times in security resolutions suggested there could be no enrichment. So the frustration that some have and when you look at a deal that may ultimately include as many as 6,000 or 7,000 centrifuges is trying to understand why iran needs that many since currently there is one Nuclear Reactor fueled by russian fuel and they cant use any of the uranium to fuel that reactor. There is concern about how weve gotten to that point. That is number one. Number two when you talk about the uranium compliance you say they have certified theyve complied but deputy blanken testified there were violations to the jpoa and i would like to know what they were and what it says about a longterm agreement if they are already violated those terms. Next on the issue of pmd, the iaea published 12 sets of questions about the iran past work and they have only tackled one of the issues. Again, as we look toward a potential agreement how can we make sure iran will comply with it if they havent come clean on what theyve done in the past. I ask if you can confirm that any deal can only be agreed upon if it provides upon any time anywhere inspections. And for most of us here and for the role of congress, you said yesterday on the senate and well have a chance to review it and well have a vote because it will be necessary to ultimately terminate sanctions. That is clear to us. I appreciate youre saying it. If you could speak to congresss role Going Forward and answer also whether you believe we should Start Talking now whether there is a role for congress to play in talking about what would happen in the event there is a deal and in the event iran violates the terms of that deal would it be helpful for congress to work with the administration to lay out specifically what the ramifications would be in that instance. Well, congressman first of all, i want to impress on everybody that i find very helpful, and i think the administration finds very helpful, the discussions with you. Whether here or in classified session. And were not at all suggesting that by raising a question or making suggestions as youve just had about one potential complication or, you know suspension to negotiate these other things, they are all fair questions. And they help us. We factor that in and it helps us in terms of thinking about every aspect of the negotiation. That is different from actually condemning the deal and sort of turning off and saying there is no way this will work or it is a bad deal or youre about to make a deal when you dont really have all of the components of the deal in front of you and we dont even. Because it is not yet resolved. So that is the distinction im trying to draw. But we welcome this kind of a question. And paragraph 39 of the 1929 resolution hasnt been lived up to and