Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150226

And what kind of, negotiations pressure whatever you want to call it, are we entering into with the u. N. So that does not happen again . Well, which, the short fall itself the u. N. World Food Programme . Right. Unfortunately people have made pledges arent stepping up and demand is increasing and this has reached it is largest humanitarian crisis on the planet today and it is going to get worse. Im sitting here, this is part of frustration. It is going to get worse. We are the largest single donor in the world and we should be proud of that. More than 3 billion weve put on the table since 2011 more than any donor. We had three million into the red crescent to provide syrians and refugees from kobani. We put 133 million into the world Food Programme and other partners because of the emergency needs. Its not sustainable and its one of the reasons why were looking at this question and syria and other things with great urgency right nows as to what other alternatives may be available. 2016 budget request 2. 2 billion for work on our embassies, and i understand thats in response to the recommendations of the arb following the benghazi attack, can you talk about how that will get prioritized if sequestration goes into effect . Where does that happen on the or fall out on the list of priorities . It is highest priority in the state department is protecting our people and weve closed on 25 of the 29 arb recommendations. There are four benghazi arb recommendations that remain open. Were actively working to close them. There are things that take longer to implement. Not that they havent been attended to. Just they dont close because it takes a lot longer to do them. We have a major number of high threat locations that are going to undergo renovation in various places. Huge expenditures to kabul to harden down that place particularly given the drawdown. You can run the list of places easily in your heads as to the where most of this work is going but, i made the decision with president s consent to do the drawdown in yemen because we werent able to do diplomacy most of the people we had there were protecting few people that were trying to do diplomacy. So it didnt make sense. Were doing it from a distance. Were not going away by the way our facilities are being used by the u. N. And protected. Our computers are not accessible. We destroyed all the classified information. It was done in very orderly way over period of four or five days with a very wellmanaged exit that was done through commercial air, not in some panic. And, im really proud of the people who pulled that off but were not going to leave people at risk in these chaotic kind of situations which is the same thing we did in tripoli but in many of these places before you get to that stage weve got to take steps to increase perimeters, harden buildings do things so that theres no risk of negligent with respect to anything might flow. And thats where those priorities are going into that subset. I would rather not talk about specific places in public because it begins to flag things. Sure, i understand that. Thank you very much. Thank you, senator. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here and thank you for your illustrious service here over 30 years. Puts you in unique perspective to talk to us today. I want to come back to your comments in your opening. I agree with you so much. I just believe were at a moment of challenge. I see this as a very dangerous world. I respect so much what youre doing in this position to try to deal with that. You also mentioned we need to lead and i couldnt agree with that more but i see two things you also mentioned as well, that really create challenges. I sense the frustration in your testimony today relating to one of these. First of all this National Security crisis relative to the threats, not just abroad but even here at home relative to the threats abroad between nuclear iran, an isil that is really running rampant around the middle east and threatening our homeland and what is going on in the ukraine and russia but you mentioned also our fiscal irresponsibility and what that the questions that raises around the world relative to our ability to back up our agreement, our ability to fund our military and our ability to really live up to the leadership role that has been thrust upon us. You know you mentioned budget constraints. Listen, i recognize that frustration. As an outsider i see this fairly uniquely as someone fairley new to the process but i would like to get your sense of priorities just one example how you see in this budgeting process relative to all we just mentioned and all that you have talked about, how do you determine priorities in our ability to really do what weve got to do against your objectives . One is specific i spent last week in israel and i stood on the golan heights. I looked across into syria. I saw the three villages where fighting is going on and it is a really confused space. I then went to the west bank. I saw both sides of that equation. In the 2016 administration is requesting almost half a billion dollars in aid to palestinian territories, gaza and west bank. Earlier this year the Palestinian Authority was allowed access to u. S. Criminal court. This is troubling position, to try to bring charges against israel. Independently yesterday this leads to my question. A Federal District court ruled that the Palestinian Authority independently and Palestinian Organization were both liable for their role knowingly supporting six terrorist attacks in israel in 04 and 06 which americans were killed. My question, that half a billion dollars being requested there could that be used in different ways to deal with some of the things that youre talking about, certainly on some of the social media counterbalance with isil and some of the cybersecurity issues you talked about . Its a small number. It is a principle thing. My question is how do you see that very complex priority set as you try to develop the highest and best use for your budget . Great question senator. I want tackle both parts of it. With respect to the 450 million 500 that you talked about to the palestinians, you asked bluntly could it better go to Something Else and the answer is no. Of the 450 million budget support for the Palestinian Authority, 425 million goes to israeli institutions including utilities and creditors of the pa. So effectively it is going to israel not to the palestinians but it helps the palestinians survive. Why is that important . It is critical if the Palestinian Authority were to fail, and i warned about this in london the other day because theyre not getting transfer of tax revenues because theyre going to the icc. But if they were to fail, what takes their place . Hamas . Jihad . I dont know. I just know that as troublesome as they have been in certain respects, many times, that, president abbas remains committed to a nonviolent peaceful approach to a twostate solution and he remains committed to the twostate solution. That has to be put to the test at some point in time and i understand the difficulties israel has had with them and him and so forth having taken part in those negotiations for a long period of time. I, we objected we do not believe palestinians have the right to asseed to the icc because we do not believe they are a state, in standing to be able to go to the icc. We made that argument. As did other countries by the way. A number of other countries made that argument but we lost. And we also forcefully advocated to the palestinian leadership dont do this. It is a mistake. Youre going to breach, youre going to create all kinds of hurdles of possibility for future. This is a mistake but theyre out of patience and we couldnt contain that. As you know they went to the u. N. I spent three weeks over Christmas Holiday working to keep people that we would like to be working with constructivelily from doing something negative and in the end by a vote they didnt get the nine votes at the u. N. And so, we never had to exercise a veto. But theres a great deal of frustration building and this is not the moment to go into it in any depths. You know were very anxious not to get dragged into the election process. Were not going to. Israel has important election coming up. They need to do it without us from the sidelines. I will not go further on this. I just say to you that we wish the palestinians had behaved differently. That is why theyre not getting aid right now and therefore maybe some other people we think others will step up and try to help bridge the gap in order to get them over the hurdle but when the israeli elections are over, there is going to be a need to quickly begin to try to decide where everybodys going thereafter so that there is not a irretrievable clash that takes place with respect to the icc or otherwise and prevents any further activity. On the first part of your question, very important part of the question the goal lawn heights and golan heights, you sorted talked about the budget as a whole and where we need to go. The, need for the nights United States to step, i went through the list of things in the beginning. Ebola, isil afghanistan, the maghreb, somali, bali, boko haram yemen, houthi, the region, still al qaeda in the western part of pakistan i mean you can run through the gamut of these challenges and you got to recognize it is the United States who usually helps to convene or becomes a central part of the convening working with our key allies, britain, france germany, other members of the p 5, but we need to be able to make a difference to some of these countries. There is a different world were living in now. After world war ii, most of the worlds economies were destroyed and we were in great debt but we came out of the recession by virtue of the war machine that was built up and for 50 years or so, there was a pretty polarized, eastwest you know, bipolar decisionmaking process and it was a lot easier. Ever since the berlin wall fell and nations sprung up, reclaiming their individuality and their personal aspirations and defining themselves differently and free and democratic, the economies of the world have changed and now you have the brics. You have china india brazil, mexico others, south korea people all playing a different role, a different impact and many of them are donor countries. So others are playing more mercantileistic and voracious in products than we are. We have been hamstrung by this budgeting process here in washington that is not allowing us to actually meet our own priorities and serve our own interests. I could make it much longer. I wont do it now, argument how it specifically affects us in instance after instance. I will give you just one example. Recently you know, the Prime Minister of a great country was here. Not going into the details of who. The most we were able to do is provide a loan guaranty when what they really needed were billions of dollars to help them move forward and make a difference. If they get them from other places, other places will actually wind up having greater impact and influence than we do. Thank you mr. Secretary. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator murphy. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I know it has been a long day of testimony. Some of us are getting our second shot at you today, most on the appropriations. More than any senator should go through. We had the chance to have a good dialogue this morning about, my belief that we need to be having a more holistic conversation about the ways in which your lack of capacity to fight corruption build up rule of law in and around the russian sphere of influence is preventing us from doing real work to combat their march across their periphery and i hope that our committee will focus on that but this may be the only chance we get to talk to you before we have a fulsome debate about the authorization of military force thats pending before congress. So i just wanted to ask you a question or two to try to help us understand some of the terminology in the proposed draft. I think were having trouble getting our hands wrapped around secretary gates i believe shortly after he left the department of defense said if any future secretary of defense advised a president to deploy major numbers of combat troops to the middle east should have their head examined. There is a number of reasons for that. The lessons from the iraq war when hundreds of thousands of american troops were there. We let our allies in the region off the hook. We killed a lot of bad guys but frankly allowed for our enemies to recruit more we kill into the fight because of presence of american troops. That is why many of us really believe in prohibition or restriction within this aumf on another major deployment of Ground Troops in the middle east. I know you agree. I know the president agrees. Our new secretary of defense agrees it is wise authorization draft youegave us has that restriction in it. Were struggling to understand these two words enduring and offensive. Were trying to get a better understand when the next president , because i dont think this president will make the mistake deploying new Ground Troops in the middle east crosses that line. Could you give as you little bit more color what your understanding of those two words mean . Whats the number of Ground Troops that trips the the end during limitation . What are the kind of actions that would trip defensive and offensive juxtaposition . I know youre not the secretary of defense but intimately involved in these discussions and ramifications. Would we ever commit troops to the region . Help us understand a little bit more what those words mean and if they are true limitations. As you know many of us believe those words are so malleable to actually be no limitations at all. I trust you believe something different. Im not going to suggest to you that there isnt any terminology latitude for interpretation because there always is. Unless there is an absolute horrendously prescriptive broad prohibition which i think everybody would counsel against i would think. Were seeking to destroy this entity and it is is not a good message or a good policy to place such constraints on yourself that you cant do that. At the same time the president wants to make certain that those who feel burned by prior votes or by prior experiences are not fearful that he is somehow opening up pandoras box to that possibility again. So our feeling is and we give kudos to you on this committee. I think senator menendez, as chair is the one who produced this concept from your deliberations, and we, i would have hoped, you would have, said god, they listened to us. We came up here. I testified in december and we did listen to you and the president tried to come back to you with something he felt didnt constrain his ability to exercise his Constitutional Authority as president but at the same time respected congresss role and right to, to shape this and thats what youve done and youre doing. Enduring in our mind means no long term offensive combat after largescale which is what the president defined. In other words were not asking you for authorization to if i have give us the ability to build up to a new iraq or new afghanistan. Thats not what were doing. What were asking for offense versus defense i mean when massive, a large number of italian or whatever of forces are directed to go have a firefight with isil, in a proactive way, thats offense and thats prohibited and thats not what were seeking to do but it doesnt mean there might not be instances where you have advisors who are helping people to understand how to properly do fire control or properly call in air support or Something Else. There is special force operation that might be necessary for one thing or another to try to rescue somebody or close something. I mean there are thinks that are not part of the larger offensive operation where you may well have reasons to have some people there. I would not consider that even though there may be hostile area and, some occasions conceivably inadvertently take fire or something. Theyre not in proactive offensive actions. And certainly not enduring. What we dont want to do get into a ground war. Gates, i think you said it was gates who said that and you know the president is trying to make sure he doesnt have to have his head examined. This is a pretty straightforward prohibition without kurt tailing exigencies and leaving that sufficient level of, that the other side says oh, we got a safe haven here. Or they will not be able to whack us if we go do this and that or the other thing. So i think there has to be a little bit of leeway there. Rest assured there is in our judgment, no way possible for this language to be misinterpreted and allow a kind of Mission Creep that takes us into a longterm war. Speaking for myself i dont have any doubt that you will live within the confines that you and the president believed you have limited yourself publicly and your interpretation of these words. I think that were going to be debating the amount of fuzz that is created here. If there is so much so the next president may not believe in the same strategic limitation this is president believes in has interpretation much more expansive than yours is that why we want to entertain discussion. Let me say, senator the president , there have been authorizations previously which have had restraints in them. Some more limiting than this. Obviously there is constitutional argument which is powerful and important to the effect that there shouldnt be any, the president ought to set limits. You can deal with the funding. You cut off funding. Youre managing what is going on and you have the power of the purse, but, it seems to me what is important here also for the world to see that the United States congress is uniting in a significant vote to make it clear were committed to degrade and destroy isil. Thats critical. And so whatever you do, i think everybody will have to compromise a little it about. I went through all your various positions and there are little nuances of differences between almost everybody. And so it does require people kind of finding the Common Ground and coming together here. We hope we can get the strongest vote possible that indicates the United States of america is committed to this policy. Senator gardner. Thank you mr. Chairman, and thank you mr. Secretary, for being here today, your service to our country as secretary of state as well to this body. I want to follow up quickly on my colleagues question. You mentioned there had been other aumfs, authorizations with restraints. Which ones were you referring to and what were those restraints . There was on the chemical weapons recently passed authorization, there were restraints put into that. What were those restraints . Let me check. There was a restraint of time limit, of months. And a limitation on certain use of force on the what was other example . I think you said there may have been there was Multinational Force in lebanon, 1983. There were time limitations on the use of force, et cetera. So i think what the president has tried to do here is tailor something based on the aumf hearing we had in december on the sensitivities of committee. Obviously you guys have to tackle that now. The administration is prepared to sit and work with you and work it through. I want to follow up on questions that senator flake had asked. When you were talking about formal role of congress and approve of any agreement you said there was this other looming entity out there. You were concerned about possible approval of this other looming entity. To me the other looming entity is article i, the United States congress. Two questions. Do you believe there should be formal approval role by the United States congress for agreement, and two will you come back to the United States congress and for us to lift sanctions against the regime . No, i dont think there ought to be a formal approval process. I think there is a formal process of consulting and input. Ultimately you have to vote to lift the sanctions . Will you make that request to us . Not immediately in our current notion of what we would be doing. There would have to be some period i would think of compliance and other kinds of things and this is yet to be determined. And the reports, i believe i came in from a Commerce Committee hearing as you were telling senator menendez, that you cant believe everything you read. The reports in the ap and other places this would be a 10year agreement are simply not true . I already said that is not our view of it but we havent reached an agreement yet so is that one of the considerations youre making a 10year time frame and five years out . I dont want to get into what we are or arent. Im telling you that is not where were at today. Have you had conversations with Speaker Boehner majority leader mcconnell on terms of agreement . I have not had conversations. Do you think that is appropriate . What were doing senator were having very regular conversations. Wendy sherman and team have been up here in classified session with many of you. That has been going on for almost two years now. Weve been consulting on a regular basis in classified form. Ive personally telephoned the chairs and Ranking Members at the conclusion of negotiations, giving them some indication what were doing where we are. So there is a regular consultation taking place under the normal order of the u. S. Senate and when the briefings take place down in the classified room if the practice is continued when i was here, the leaders are usually there and, part of those briefings. Do you believe that consultation is what will fulfill the role that Congress Plays in this agreement . I do. I think that the hearings downstairs in the basement that is basically our role . In terms of the ongoing negotiating portion, yes. You certainly have a right to have whatever hearings and whatever further examinations you want to have if a deal is struck or, i mean that is your prerogative at any point in time and ours is to respond to you and to but no other role and feedback on this than straight congressional hearings . No. I believe this falls squarely within the executive power of the president of the United States and in execution of American Foreign policy. And he is executing thoroughly all his responsibilityies of consultation. But in the end this is the president s prerogative. You can always decide to oppose it one way or the other as you might. Our hope is that we will consult, work together, not set up predetermined barriers that make it difficult to get to an agreement. I mean, every nuance of what we do here folks, im telling you, gets interpreted and usually in ways that make our negotiating life harder. Will you commit to us you will not be asking us to lift sanctions . Beg your pardon . Isstry in commitment you is there any commitment you could make that you would not be asking congress to lift sanctions . I dont want to bind that at this moment. I know of nothing at this moment in time but im not going to bind myself. I dont know how this proceeds, i dont know where we wind up and im not going to take away depending what we got for it, some option. That is not running out of time. I want to switch to the asia rebalance. One of the signature policies or initiatives was the administration the pivot of rebalance in asia announced in 2011 in australia. The president says it reflect as fundamental truth the United States has been and always will be a pacific nation. Serving as new chairman of east asiapacific subcommittee. Look forward to working with you, senator cardin of maryland making sure our policies reflect the growing strategic portion of this region covering nearly 2 3 of the earths population. Im concerned the administration es efforts to apply whole of government approach to pacific asia region is faltering. Noting that the administration, this is the quote from the report, the administration can improve the effectiveness and sustainability of the rebalance policy by increasing civilian engagement strengthening diplomatic partnerships and e powering u. S. Businesses. I understand the fiscal year 2016 request for diplomatic engagement when the east asian and Pacific Bureau is up 6 but still 11 below 2014 fiscal year levels. How do you explain the disparity in the Administration Rhetoric and seeming discrepancy in the budget request . Im not sure i followed you completely. What is up. Basically the eastern asian and Pacific Bureau is up 6 but that is still 11 below what the fiscal year 2014 levels were. Despite effort of asian pivot or talk of asian pivot are we reaching that and is that remain ad top priority of the administration. Senator, im not sure what figure youre balancing to come up with against because the fiscal the 2016 budget has 1. 4 billion increase not total, in support of the rebalance. And that that includes a 6 increase over 2014 and we are pursuing the Transpacific Partnership voraciously. Weve had, i think we have a major effort going with respect to the region. We just had undersecretary Wendy Sherman was over there about a month ago. Deputy secretary tony blinken was over there two weeks ago following that visit. Im going over in about a month to follow up on that visit. We have president xi coming for a visit here in the fall. We have major presence with our negotiations right now with vietnam, malaysia. Ive been talking personally with the Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers of these countries. So were deeply, deeply engaged in this rebalance. We never had that many high level visits taking place. We had revamping of defense policy with japan, south korea. Were engaged. The president was over there for his fifth trip. I think i have made seven since ive been secretary. So were i think that every step every step the east asiaPacific Bureau is taking, and every step the higher level of the state department is taking the administration is following up on this notion of the rebalance and it is importance. Thank you mr. Secretary. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator. I would say on the consultation, i hate to jump in here, but at everyone of these meetings, where numbers of centrifuges are generally laid out, and we expressed concern the next report, the numbers of centrifuges increase. Now i would say every time we get concerned about the length of time of the agreement being too short, at every report the length of the agreement shortens. So i do hope well have an opportunity to weigh in on the totality of the deal prior to sanctions being lifted. I dont think that is an undue burden when congress put those in place with the first place. With that, senator markey. Thank you, mr. Chairman. First of all, mr. Secretary, i want to congratulate you naming a special envoy for lgbt rights in the state department. I think it is a historic moment. I was just wondering what response you may have received over, you know, the past few days from other countries in europe announcement . Well to be honest with you, senator, ive been wrapped up in the negotiations. I just got back late last night. I personally have not had any response. Im told he, very, very positive response. I read one article in the paper this morning which was very positive about it but i havent seen great. I think it is important step forward. Alshabaab has threatened the mall of america. And thats clearly linking Foreign Policy to domestic Homeland Security. The president s constantly about countering violent extremism and so im just wondering if you could give us a little bit of an insight into what actions your department, the Obama Administration generally is taking to counter this threat coming out of somalia in terms of its potential threat to the homeland . Well, senator were engaged in the most massive, daytoday counterterrorism efforts that one can imagine. It is consuming every aspect of government. The president regularly convenience a National Security meeting to get updates on where we are and what we are doing, particularly when were in the moment of a particular threat or challenge. I think what the department of Homeland Security was really talking about sort of a generic set of threats and challenges that are out there that were working to respond to. We have an unprecedented level of communication, information sharing and intelligence sharing taking place now with other countries. Woe have the Counterterrorism Partnership fund which were requesting money from all of you to implement and that is 390 million which will be used to enhance Border Security among our foreign partners. Were working with europeans to move them now to sharing lists on passengers which they hadnt been doing. Were trying to increase scrutiny of people moving in between countries. And share more information about it. Were trying to stem the financial flow to these groups through nations and increased scrutiny of who is giving money how and how it flows. There is center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications which has been set up. That is playing at the state department playing a key role in our efforts to counter violent extremism. It is coordinating and whole of government Public Communications structure that is able to pass on information and counter rumors and deal with social media, in arabic, in ergu, in somali and more recently english. Because of English Speaking countries which are at risk. There is a whole of government effort going on taking shape. It is growing by the day and week. The counterterrorism counter extremism session we just had in the last two or three days, the first day of it at the white house was almost exclusively civil society, Law Enforcement, ngos, people who are engaged in grass roots efforts to see how they can be augmented to this. One thing i dont want to have come out of this,. This is a challenge and it is a legitimate threat and indeed there are risks in certain places at certain times. But, no one should doubt that notwithstanding, we are actually living in the least loss of life violent period in our history. There is a, there is an anomaly here. And so i dont think, i think what people need to do is be vigilant but not scared. People need to be always attentive but never fearful of doing something or going somewhere. And i think travel today is safer than its ever been. I think peoples ability to move our s. W. A. T. Teams are better, sharing of information fbi, all of our units, people have really gotten pretty good. Doesnt mean a lone wolf doesnt want to come along and do something. If somebody wants to do you can hurt people. I think people need to recognize this is not a moment of turning and getting frightened. Thank you mr. Secretary. The u. S. China climate agreement was historic not universally wellreceived. Could you tell us, tell the committee why this agreement serves americas interests, and what you believe it contributes towards reaching a positive result in paris later on this year . Well, look youre absolutely correct. Of course it is not universally wellreceived. On one side people dont receive it well because they dont think we have to do anything. On other side we have people that think we ought to be doing more. I happen to be one of those. I helped negotiate this deal. I would love to have seen more but this is the most we could get. We took a country, most people thought it was foolish. How could you possibly get china up, until last year, you know this better than anybody china was on the opposite side of the table and stopping us from doing anything. And we turned that around in a year to have a china has publicly committed to set a standard for reduction of dependency on fossil fuel by 2030. To begin to have a 20 commitment internally to alternative Energy Renewable energy, clean energy. Thats huge. In our case we set a goal of somewhere between 26 and 28 reduction in our emissions by 2025 with the hope well do better and hit 28 and do it sooner. China likewise committed to try to do it sooner than possible. We believe the technology is going to help us do it sooner if we get moving down that road that technology curve, always winds up producing faster and spinning out new ways of doing things cheap every and you get to your goal faster. So that is our bet but were still behind of curve where we need to be in terms of meeting our obligation to deal with Climate Change and keep the rise of temperature on plan the earth to two degrees centigrade. Were not going to make it right now. A lot of people are talking about mitigation and dealing with effects. I tell you this. I run into the effects of Climate Change in various parts of the world all the time now. There are tribes fighting each other over water in places there used to be water and it isnt anymore. There are record level droughts. Fivehundred year droughts. By the way in california, as senator boxer knows better than anybody, not just in deserts and other parts of world. We have had record level levels, storm damage, fires. Each year is the hottest year for the last 10, 12, whatever number of years. You know that better than anybody in the senate, senator markey. So were were behind the curve but what were trying to do is create a Critical Mass of countries out of major emitting nations that will then have an impact on everybody gathering in paris. When they see that the major countries are doing it, and reason others have to do it is less developed countries now equal over50 of all emissions. So they have to start coming on board because no one country can reduce completely. If everybody rode a bicycle tomorrow and nobody drove to work and Public Transportation and we didnt have emissions we would still be in deep, deep trouble because of the rate of promulgation of coalfired power plants in various countries around the world. So we have a huge distance to travel and the great benefit you asked about the benefit. The market were looking at for clean, renewable, Efficient Energy is a 6 trillion market with four to five billion users and that will rise to nine billion users as the population grows up to 2050 or so. The market that created the great wealth of our nation, when every quintile saw their income go up in the 1990s, was a one trillion dollars market with one billion users. Thats what we got, six trillion versus one, one billion users versus four to five now with more growing. This is the biggest market in all of human history. Countless of people could be put to work, countless technologies could be put in place, new grids, smart energy, all of these things and the sooner we move to it, the sooner a lot of economies start to move and sooner we deal with the crisis. Thank you, senator boxer. Thanks so much, mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for this. Thank you, secretary kerry. You are serving in very challenging times and youre doing it so well and youre making us proud whether we agree with you or disagree with you and i think a lot of us agree with you sometimes and disagree with you sometimes and i have to say youre a great diplomat. And those skills were on display today. So im very pleased to see you. You know, in light of the threats that you have laid out i will not ask you about four days looming shutdown of Homeland Security. That is not your bailiwick. That is secretary johnsons but i think it ought to be a message everybody that is ridiculous way to run a country at this difficult time. I also want to say i agree with your overarching comments at beginning that you know there is not enough of a priority placed on the work of the state department and the very brave men and women out there representing our great nation and how important it is, and thats why i so strongly supported what the president did on cuba. Because i find that when people meet americans they fall in love with america and thats way we will influence people to have contact. I know there is a lot of issues that divide us on this and even within our own party and on the other side which is okay, its fine but from my perspective when i went there years ago when i recognize is the cubans were so afraid to be seen with us, they ran away, ordinary folks had to be all straightened out with the top people there because they were afraid they would get harassed by even talking to us. So i just want you to know that i back what you did there. On iran, this is a chance of a lifetime to do something so important, and i know how difficult it is. I know you have said, and so has Wendy Sherman in many of our meetings, that this is a difficult thing and it may not work. Maybe it is 50, 50. I dont know today if you still say it is 50 50 but i think trying to get a deal here is a once a once in a lifetime chance. The most important thing to me and i spoke to senator risch about this, is verifiability. We can not trust these people for one second. We can trust the people but the government we cant. So it must be verifiable, and for me, that is what im looking for, inspections, unfettered ability to see if this is real and also i would demand that there be constant reports to the congress as to whether theyre living within the agreement. Now i am working on something. I want to know if you could make time for me in your busy life, that takes us somewhere between some want to go where i think Congress Gets overinvolved. Where some others want to go, where they Want Congress to be underinvolved. I think there is a sweet spot here that does deal with our getting involved with the sanctions we put in place and demanding reporting requirements. I hope, would you make time for me or your staff would make time for me that i can go over some legislation ive been working on with senator paul. Yes. Senator, thank you for flying back to do the hearing on cuba with senator rubio. We appreciate it. Listen, i was very happy to be part of that. Let me just close with this argument. And it gets to the aumf. You and i, are very Close Friends and allies most of the time. The onetime we had a real difference was on the war in iraq. You and i, you remember that. And it had to do with wording and it had to do with approaches to an issue and you were working on wording with senator biden and senator lugar and it was a difficult meeting and we did not Reach Agreement on wording on the iraq war. I asked the crs if they could analyze this wording during and i want to say i asked my Ranking Member here, when he put forward the idea of enduring, he had a list of what it meant. The way you have approached this mr. Secretary, im telling you, you dont have any definition. And the crs and i asked unanimous consent to put this in the record if i can, mr. Chairman . Without objection. Okay. Here is what they say. This is incredibly important for you to hear. Quote, it seems doubtful that a limitation, on quote enduring offensive Ground Combat operations unquote would present sufficient, judiciary manageable standards by which a court could resolve any conflict that might arise between congress and the executive branch over the interpretation of the phrase, or its application to u. S. Involvement in hostilities. This is the crs. They dont have a dog in the fight and this is really, very important because im not going to support this. It is as openended as you can imagine. Its ridiculous. No one can define what it means. You said, oh, it is extended crs says it cant be. I say it cant be. Just common sensewise it cant be because what is enduring relationship to one person is not an enduring relationship to another. Enduring is a subjective term and is not tested. So i am saying to you as someone who agrees with you and the president , when you and he have said in the most beautiful unequivocal terms, and i quote, the president from june 19 2014, american combat troops are not going to be fighting again in iraq. These American Forces will not have a combat mission. We will not get dragged into another ground war in iraq. Nor do we intend to send u. S. Troops to occupy foreign lands. 2015 instead of getting dragged into another ground war we are leading a broad coalition. And mr. Secretary, you said the same thing. It is a red line for everybody here. There are no boots on the ground. You said that september 2014. Then you said the president has said repeatedly u. S. Ground troops will not engage in combat roles. You said in december 2014, the president has been Crystal Clear his policy is, that u. S. Military forces will not be deployed to conduct Ground Combat operations against isil. That will be the responsibility of local forces. So this is your clear statement of policy. Today you affirmed that is the current policy i asked to put these statements in the record. Without objection. Yet you send up here an aumf with this giant loophole you could drive combat truck through and, it is not going to get a lot of support among, i think, the democrats on this committee. I dont speak for everyone of them but weve had many discussions. I am hopeful that you can take back to the president some of the comments. Now on the other side of the aisle youre facing a whole other problem i think. I can not speak for them. They want very few limitations. I know this puts you in a bind but the most important thing to me when you send up an aumf is to do, have it reflect your own strategy and i dont think this reflects your strategy. I think it reflects an attempt to bring people together to get something but at the end of the day i dont know where the future president is going to do. I know what this president is going to do and i support that strategy strongly. I voted for an aumf that was put together by our then chairman. Every democrat supported it from, if i could say, you know center, center left, far left supported it. Then you come in with this one, im just saying i hope you will take back to the president the fact that the crs says it cant be it is not a term that is definable and that many of us feel it is an openended commitment. Will you take that back to him and tell him we feel that way . Sure. I think he is well aware of that position among some people here, senator. And youre articulate and clear about it as always. But i would just, i say to you that i think the policy that the president has defined and all of the statements that you just articulated, are contained within the language that senator menendez and the committee produced previously. We believe that. Now, you know i think that when you get into this process and im consistent with what i said here in december of trying to list things, it gets difficult because of something gets left out or something that was meant it gets more complicated but that is why there is a sunset on that. Let me just finish. My time is running out. Nothing gets more complicated than the use of a word that no one can define. Its a disaster. The president will not be here after a year. Well the president will be here for another year and 3 4. Were not just talking about this president. Right. But i think that that the language is such and the process is such with the sunset, that the sunset could be executed in a way that you protect minority rights so there has to be a coming together and a conclusion on it with respect to how that vote takes place so that a future president really cant abuse it per se. They will have to deal with it. And i think, my judgment, that is a strong protection because if you cant get it renewed, because there is not a willing majority to be able to do that, you effectively asserted your rights and your position. Well, we just disagree. Thank you, though. Thank you. Senator udall. Thank you. Let me finish one other thought. As we said to you this is an open process. This is now in the legislative arena. I think the goal is to get as many votes as you can, senator boxer. I think if you think you can bring, you know, 45, 50 republicans on board with language that is absolutely prohibiter to or more declarative, as long as it isnt restrictive the things the president thinks he needs to guard, that is the gave and take here. I doubt you can get there but if you can more power to you i [inaudible] if we could, i think yall had a chance to discuss it fully and i appreciate the views of both of you. I think senator udall would like to weigh in. Thank you, chairman corker, and thank you senator menendez. And not to beat a dead horse here but, i just, on this specific subject that senator boxer brought up i just want to tell you how much i appreciate you coming in december and outlining what it is that you felt the administration needed. And as you saw with senator menendez at the chair we did some very serious work and we came up with a lot what was very close to what you talked about. I think we really and own my part i want it to be more limiting but i voted for the final product. You know as senator, chairman corker, i dont know whether what the dynamic because we were in the majority at the time but i think we all worked seriously and there were republicans wanted it to be more limiting so i think there is a lot of room to take that product and move forward. Thats what were looking for, senator. This is not a closed out you know not take it or leave it obviously. So we look forward to your work on it. And, ask you simply to work with us also to make sure that were not putting in a place thats doesnt allow to us pursue the policy per se. Yeah. Speaking, you spoke several times about cuba and whats happened in cuba. I just want to applaud the administration for normalizing relations. And senator flake and i were down there together, just before, within about six weeks of when alan gross was released. Then when big announcements were made. What im wondering is, what do you think is, we know that there are Serious Problems with this authoritarian government and all the things that they do, but what what is your recommendation of the best steps forward to normalize and how we move down a path you know . All sorts of things are being explored but what is your well, the normalization process is effectively announced and now needs to be implemented. And that should not be, you know, the theory of the normalization is that it is getting it in place that in fact begins to put us in a different position to be able to advance our interests. I mean, senator menendez and others are absolutely correct about what the problems are there. We all agree. There is maybe a slight difference how you will get them to change. Our theory of the cases, that the best change will come through families, through people, through travel through information, through access. And, and that normalization in fact leverages our ability to do what 50 years of isolation has not achieved. Now, obviously the proof will be in the pudding. But, weve seen what hasnt happened for this long period of time. So effectively we think we ought to try this difference. Now, we will have a meeting this friday here in washington that will take place which will basically be negotiating the normal pieces of negotiating the entry into normal diplomatic relations. Sign memorandums of exchanged diplomatic notes and engage in the process. Yeah. Shifting over to iran, you talked earlier about the execution of American Foreign policy and i cant think of a more dramatic area, the collision between the executive branch and the legislative branch that when a foreign leader and the constitution talks about who deals with foreign leaders than whats happened here with this speech on march 4th by Prime Minister, Prime Minister netanyahu. And ive said publicly that i believe that he should postpone that speech. To me, could you describe people what is at issue here . Youre the secretary of state, you understand this issue. Do you think this is a wise move on the part of the Prime Minister, to come here when were in the middle of these very delicate negotiations . Was it a wise move on his part to ignore the administration in terms of appearing in front of a joint session of congress . What are your thoughts on that . Well, my thoughts are that you as senators have all the leeway in the world to make up your own minds about how you feel about this decision. My job is to work with the Prime Minister of israel and with israel to maintain its security to honor our very very strong relationship and i speak with the Prime Minister more than any other leader. I speak with him regularly and it is an important part of our security and his security, i mean, the security of israel, and the enduring relationship that we have, and nobody should question that relationship. You all have to make up your own minds about the propriety of the way this unfolded or what happened. Were going to proceed about our business which is protecting the country and maintaining the integrity of these relationships, and that includes israel. I will be, you know, ive been focused on, obviously, iran negotiations and ukraine and afghanistan, a bunch of other things and, actually, i will be leaving i think on saturday for meetings with foreign minister lavrov on syria and other things, then human rights so i will not be here. I will be negotiating with iran for the rest of that week, as a matter of fact. So during that period of time i will actually be sitting there trying to get an agreement. Secretary kerry just to conclude, i mean, i tried to have my Staff Research this so i dont know of any other time that that has been, that the administration has been ignored. Do you can you in your memory well, again, senator if you cant answer that now, i hope youll try to answer that for me in terms of the history of our Foreign Relations where i think that your staff should do some research for you, and im not going to get into the history here and now one way or the other. As i said to you, my focus is on protecting the relationship between these, between us and israel and dealing with the at no important issues in the region, and i dont want anything coming between that. And i understand that, and i believe its a tremendously important relationship. But i also believe what the Prime Minister has cone by take has done by taking this action, hes created a very key vicive situation divisive situation. Thank you, secretary kerry for all your hard work. Thank you senator. Senator kaine. I have a lot of questions on the aumf, but im going to hold on that. I want to talk to you about strategy and about security. On the strategying side having been on this committee for about two years and even as a citizen reading the news, it seems like were always in Crisis Management mode because theres always crises. But just because there have always and will always be crises, that doesnt mean we need to define our job as crisis managers. And i think we ought to look big picture strategy and take advantage of some successes. Im going to commend you in both senses, thank you but also encourage you. I just got cac from a cobell back from a codell to mexico, honduras and columbia. Plaxico is now our colombia. Mexico is now our number one trade partners. Mexicans migrate to the United States which is a very dramatic thing, and were working with mexico on those, increasing the mexican mid call class has been sizable, and the trade relationship between the United States and mexico has gone a long way in 20 years. Honduras, very challenging situation. The administration has put on the table a significant planned Central America investment thats based on a plan the northern triangle nations put together, and this kind of investment if we do it the right way has the capacity to be a significant improvement in life for folks in that region and also slow the unaccompanied minor migration to this country. And then i went to colombia and i went there on the day you announced bernie [inaudible] as the United States special envoy to the peace talks in the negotiations with the farc and the 50year civil war in colombia. Colombia was a failed state in the late 199s, but because of u. S. Investments and their own hard work, they have now become next to canada our primary Security Partner in the hemisphere. They provide security on the border between egypt and israel, they provide Security Assistance to Central American nations and their economy has grown in a significant way. People who have done your job as secretary of state you spend all your time traveling east and west, all your time im exaggerating a little bit. American Foreign Policy was about europe and it was about the soviet union. Then its about the middle east now were pivoting to asia. Its as if the world has an east west axis only when we know its got a north south axis and what the latin countries have told me is you Pay Attention to us when theres a crisis but you ought to pay more attention to us because theres a lot of good things going op. I think from a big picture strategic standpoint i would commend you with the work you have done with respect to cuba, with respect to colombia, but i would also encourage you to really focus on that north south axis. Were 35 countries were a billion people. We share a name were all americans, north americans, south americans, Central Americans. We have a unique culture, and we share that from the yukon to patgonia and that has made us who we are but its also made us open to other cultures as the immigration from the americas to asia has shown. Trade is booming in this region between our nations. The prosperity of the continents has dramatically improved. Its not just canada, the u. S. And the 33 dwarfs anymore. Its significant, Major Economies that are doing some wonderful things. There are challenges sure, but if this civil war in colombia ends, we will be two continents at peace. There will not be a war in north or south america. You cant say that about europe with whats going on in ukraine. You cant say that about africa. You cant say that a about asia. But we are close to being able to say it about the americas. So i just want to commend you for the work that you have already done but lets just not focus on the americas when theres a crisis and then turn our attention back to the east west axis. This billion people 35country two continents that could potentially be continents of peace could be some of the best inoculation we would have against Global Security challenges if we are persistent, if we stick with it, and i would encourage you to do that. Last thing i want to thank you on Something Else. First time we had a hearing together after your confirmation and i was sitting as the newest guy on the committee, i asked you about the arb recommendation with respect to Embassy Security. Yes. State department had had a multiyear search and had decided that they needed to do an Embassy Security facility to keep our people safe. And they had come up with that conclusion and picked a site in virginia in the summer of 2012, a few months after the choice of the site we had the horrible attack at benghazi, and in the aftermath the report suggested that this site was needed. And yet here we are, we are now nearly three years after the selection of the site, two and a half years after the tragedy at benghazi and it hasnt really moved forward. But i was happy to see in the president s fy16 budget a proposal to finally invest 99 million to build this Embassy Security facility. You mentioned that there were arb recommendations that had been done and hadnt been done. One of the ones that hasnt been done was to provide state of the art Security Training for those who serve in dangerous embassies around the world. And given that the state department wisely recommended in the summer of 2012 that we needed to make this investment im a little chagrined by still excited to see that in fy16 we might finally start to act on that awareness within the state department. And i dont know if you have comments either about the strategy or the security point. Thank you. I have comments about both, senator. Let me just tell you that on the latter were very, very excited about this. The department of state and the General Services administration looked at over 70 properties. There was a Major Property obviously, down in georgia that was considered. Its the enforcement training center. The Law Enforcement, federal Law Enforcement training center. And there was a lot of talk about going there. But we made the right decision to go to fort pickett. Over a tenyear period, we will literally save the cost would have been 91 million to do it in georgia, its 9 million to do it in the cost of transportation back and forth to do it in virginia. So this is a good decision, its going to get implemented now, were ready to go. And were very excited about all the Due Diligence thats been done and thats going to happen. On the policy, i couldnt agree with you more. And, in fact several i think it was about a month ago. When did we do canada up in boston . [inaudible] january. Early january. I invited the foreign minister of mexico and the foreign minister of canada to come and join me in boston for a day and a half two days and we had dinner at my house, and then we had a full day of meetings, took hem to a hockey game and had a lot of fun. And we talked about north america. We talked about the ability of canada u. S. , mexico, which are a huge part of the global economy, by the way, when you combine them to be able to have much greater impact and have a greater impact, by the way on Central America and latin america. So weve committed to that and in fact, iveed had a meeting in the state department within the last month at which we sat with our western hemisphere assistant secretary Roberta Jacobson whos doing a great job and others and talked about how we are going to implement greater north south complement over the course of the next two years of this administration. And the appointment of the special envoy to colombia came out of my second visit to colombia and my discussions with president santos who asked us to get engaged and to become involved. And president obama agreed to do that and together we decided that, you know, bernie is the fellow to help get the job done because he was intimately involved in the nicaragua el salvador Peace Process and has great experience served previously as assistant secretary for western hemisphere. In fact, i worked with him on the committee when i was chairman of that subcommittee. So we think weve got something cooking. And that together with the Central America initiative and efforts to deal with metro ca reek metro ca reek with the fuel prices in venezuela and so forth, were now putting together an entire Energy Connection strategy which involves mexico and others which could begin to really change the economies of the region. So i think i appreciate your focus. We should work on it next time we head down there. Maybe you want to come with me, and i will be heading down there shortly. Were very excited about the possibility of really defining this north america access, and youre right on target. Thank you mr. Chair. Thank you. Senator menendez. Yeah, thank you, mr. Chairman. Very briefly and i want to thank senator kaine because as someone who for 23 years has been trying to create this focus on latin america and the caribbean, its great to have another voice whos equally as passionate about it. Mr. Secretary, three quick questions. One, speaking about latin america, the situation in venezuela continues to deteriorate. The venezuelan government arrested caracas mayor on trumpedup charges. There are high profile prisoners who have languished in prison for over a year. We have legislation passed, signed by the president that calls for including mandatory implementations of certain sanctions. Can you give us an update of where the administration is at and how they intend to move forward . Yeah. Were perplexed by and disturbed by whats going on in venezuela, senator. I reached out to the foreign minister when i traveled last year year before to panama and i think it was in guatemala. And we met, supposed to be a 15 minute meeting turned out to be 45. We agreed we were going to try to follow on and begin a new period, and the next thing i knew a couple weeks later we were being attacked for this or that and being accused of this or that. This seems to be the pattern. Whenever someone in venezuela at the high level of their government gets into trouble or somethings pressing politically, they blame america. And it is a repeated effort to trump up notions of coups which dont exist and to play to frankly, a very old script. I mean, this is, you know, regrettable. So our policy is were very supportive of were trying you know, we continue to meet with and we encourage meaningful dialogue between all the sectors of Venezuelan Society political opposition society business, government etc. We call on the government to release Political Prisoners. Including dozens of students. And opposition leaders lopez and the mayor, and were working with others to try to get them to develop their defense of democracy. So were working with the National Security council right now and the department of treasury and other agencies to implement the provisions of the law on sanctions, and were moving ahead as fast as we can well, i hope and i have raised the issue of venezuela in all my conversations with leaders surrounding when we were proposing this you know, we were asked to withhold because there was an attempt by colombia and others to try and engage and unfortunately, that didnt produce a result. And it seems that the president only continues to arrest those that either create opposition to his government and or who he uses as scapegoats. At some point i just hope that we can use provisions of the law sooner rather than later, and i would commend your attention well, were pushing on great. Secondly turkey has gone into the exclusive Economic Zone of cyprus put its ships there followed with warships. Its pretty outrageous. And this is a country who is part cyprus part of the european union. If this is the way were going to have countries in that region affect others economic exclusive zones which are internationally recognized and at the same time pressure a country whos in the midst of good faith negotiations to try to solve their longstanding problem in terms of the vision of the country its a horrible set of circumstances. I hope we can be stronger with the turkish government about that this just simply ive read some statements, and they have been positive in terms of, you know criticizing what theyve done. But theyre still there. And at some point there has to be theres another one of those element ares of violating International Elements of violating International Norms and not having any real consequences and the message sent globally is you can do that if you happen to be the stronger party. And we have raised this issue, i have raised this issue. I have met with the president of cyprus, the Prime Minister. Weve had various conversations. It has been raised with, excuse me, been raised with turkey. I dont know when but in the nottoodistant future, i think i am slated to head in that direction, and this would be one of conversations, is how do we move on cyprus in a more effective well, i hope we can be vision ruse about the part that if you vigorous about the part that if you want to get a negotiation, you cant have your warships off the coast of the country. Thats just not a way in which to get parties and i must say i have followed this issue as well for a long time. This cypriot government is more forward leaning in trying to get to a negotiated settlement, but you cant do it at the point of a gun in essence, and it creates a real problem to try to move forward. So i hope when youre in the region well, weve been doing it even outside the region. I had meetings in munich on it, we had meetings prior to that, i had meetings in new york on it. Weve met frequently with all the players. We have people deeply engaged. We have an ambassador to the talks whos deep hi engaged in it deeply engaged in it. And it did get in a bad place partly because of this but other ingredients also. My hope is ive had conversations with the Turkish Foreign minister about it. Previous nowPrime Minister daf tole low and i were working quite closely on it. My hope is we could get back to an equilibrium that would allow us to move forward. We specifically discussed the Economic Zone, the ship presence and the gas rights and so forth. One final comment on cuba. I noticed your comment about what didnt work for 50 years and how we can apply leverage. What also hasnt worked for 50 years is the leverage of the International Community that was all engaged with cuba and all of the castro regime has had more Political Prisoners more beatings more repression and no openings whatsoever. So the europeans the latin americans, the canadians and others who have traded with cuba visited cuba, done all of those things that we think are going to be the turning point did absolutely nothing to change the course of events this. I hope and i understand that at the president s direction youre conducting a review of cuba on the state list of terrorist sponsors. So as assistant secretary jacobson was before the committee at that hearing, she confirmed that the castro regime continues to provide sanctuary to joe an chesimard who is on the fbis top ten list of wanted terrorists. We also know that bask terrorists basque terrorists are there. We also know that even while negotiations are being hosted by cuba with the farc, the farc continues to conduct terrorist organizations even as they are in the midst of negotiations inside of colombia, and the colombian government pushes back on them. And we know that cuba sent the most significant violation ofup Security Council resolutions of u. N. Security Council Resolutions on north korea, sent migs, missiles and tons of other military equipment to north korea in violation of those sanctions. So when youre looking at removing cuba from the list of terrorists, im going to look at a provision of law that specifically comes from the export Administration Act that defines the term quote repeatedly provided support for acts of International Terrorism to include the recurring use of of any part of the territory of the country as a sanctuary for terrorists or terrorist organizations. And ill be looking forward to how youre going to meet that threshold to remove cuba from the list. Thats all part of the analysis that has to be made. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here and i want to raise just a couple of small issues relative to some of the bigger issues that youve been talking about, and ill do so briefly. I we all have place i know we all have places to go. I know hundreds of American Families have adopted young ones in the drc. They have suspended the process of those children leaving. I know its an incredibly difficult thing for us to deal with with the government thats in place there, but i would hope i want to raise this at this meeting just so that your department will continue to work with us and others to try to break that loose and to also get some kind of lever in place to cause the drc to act appropriately. I know theres a note thats just been slid to you there. But the fact is that, you know these are kids that are actually adopted today by u. S. Families, and yet unable to get them out. And i dont know if you want to respond to that or not. Well, ive raised it personally with the president , and Russ Feingold is with him. We have not had a result yet, but we, were mindful of it. Obviously in comparison to some of the other issues weve discussed today, its minor. Its everything obviously, to the families who are involved, and i hope that youll continue to raise we agree. We raise these let me tell you, with the iranians whether its, you know, Saeed Abedini or leftenson or jason i mean, these names are all in the front of my head because we constantly raise people being held in one place or another. We dont always talk about the names publicly because sometimes that works to a disadvantage. But there are folks in pakistan places where we are highly focused on these situations. And its a daily concern of the state d. We appreciate of the state department. We appreciate your commitment to the authorization process and i think that in many ways it can help you significantly in what youre doing to leverage efforts and get congress more bought into some of the issues youre talking about today. And yet theres almost no knowledge of those activities because of the lack of involvement thats taken place. So i look forward to working with you on that. Okay. I appreciate very much your comments regarding the modern slavery initiative, and senator menendez and i introduced legislation today that hopefully will move through the Committee Later this week and onto the senate floor. And i i know youre committed to the same. I just want to close with this i think theres a i think there is a concern and i know were going to have a lot of testimony, i know that its a concern. Were going to have a lot of testimony over the next several weeks regarding syria. There is a sense of a lack of commitment. Youre not going to dispel that today, but i do hope as witnesses come forth they will be open and transparent about the things that are underway because today i think theres a sense that in essence, we have a containment strategy that were, in essence riding the clock out until this president leaves office. We have the same concerns right thousand in ukraine where we lured them west. They gave up 1,240 nuclear weapons. Obviously, russia would not be moving into their territory today had they not done that. And yet together with them and with the u. K. We made comment about their territorial sovereignty, and yet those are being invaded and it does appear that the administration is not committed to doing those things that are necessary to to cause ukraine to be able to at least defend itself. We were slow on intelligence. We are providing blankets, we are providing mres but were not providing some of the defensive lethal support well. Let me just finish. Providing some batteries radars, other things that are defensive. Senator, i understand the debate i just want to say where it takes us on ukraine on iran is theres a strong sense of a lack of commitment, of a not willing to hold the line. And so i hope that we as a committee are going to be able to move forward on legislation that allows us to see that to cause you to force, to cause us to force a process where youll submit what it is youre doing with iran. I know youve been working on it very heavily. I know you must be proud of that effort. And in the event you come to a resolution with iran. I do think its important that it is submitted that we have the opportunity to approve it prior to sanctions being lifted and the regime actually dissipating, and i think the role of congress to make sure that theyre continuing to adhere to it is important. So those are comments id leave you with. We thank you for your service. I dont know of anybody whos worked harder to try to deal with the many crises that we have around the world. We thank you for your service here as a former chairman, and we wish you well. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good to be with you. Thank you. [inaudible conversations] today the American Conservative Union hosts the conservative Political Action conference. Speakers include wisconsin Governor Scott walker, louisiana governor bobby jindal and former Alaska Governor and Vice President ial nominee sarah palin. Live coverage starts at 5 p. M. Eastern on our companion network, cspan3. Cspan2, providing live coverage of the u. S. Senate floor proceedings and key Public Policy events. And every weekend booktv. Now for 15 years the only Television Network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. Cspan2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a Public Service by your local cable or satellite provider. Watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. And were live on capitol hill this morning. The Senate Judiciary committee is meeting to vote on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be the next attorney general. Approval would send the nomination to the full senate for confirmation. Committees also taking other nominations in a pair of bills dealing with sex trafficking. Could be a moment or two before this hearing get withs under way as washington, d. C. Is a little bit slow because of snow this morning. Live coverage here on cspan2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] good morning everybody. I appreciate my colleagues willingness to start a little earlier today than the normal 10 00 start. We have a lot on todays agenda and id like to make sure that everyone knows how i want to proceed. Ive had the this discussion this discussion with the minority member, senator leahy, and our staffs have discussed it as well. So i think were ready to go according to what i will now say. Im going to make sure that everyone has every opportunity they want to speak on anything on the agenda. That could be on the bills could be on the attorney general nominee, it could be anything else that you want to speak about, and ill hope maybe as people get their turn that they will speak on everything they want to say on all these subjects on the agenda. Hopefully, youll do this one time for both the nominee and the legislation. I dont want to cut anyone off and senator leahy didnt do that when he was chairman of the committee. But if you could keep, do your very best to keep your remarks around five minutes each thatll help us make sure that everyone has an opportunity to speak. In a minute im going to turn to the Ranking Member for his remarks on the bills and the nominees on the agenda. From there we would go back and forth from each side for people to speak. Im going to defer to my colleagues and withhold my remarks until everyone else has had their say. When i finish my remarks, then we would turn to the legislation and take up any amendments that members want to offer and debate those amendments. After we consider the amendment on the first bill, i would set that bill to a side and take up amendments on the second bill. Then after we dispense with all the amendments on both bills well take up the entire agenda in a series of votes. First, we would vote on the bills, then well vote on the lin are. Nomination lynch nomination and finally on the other nominations that are on the agenda. So just to make sure that everyone understands, in order to make sure that we get through the entire agenda and that is my desire, to get through the entire agenda when its your turn to speak please take that opportunity to address any items on the agenda. I now call on my friend, senator leahy. Well, thank you, mr. Chairman. And you have discussed this procedure ahead with me which i appreciate and follow in the same way you and i would discuss it back when i was chairman. One of the things we did this week, the Judiciary Committee held a powerful hearing outlining the importance of passing legislation to help eradicate the scourge of Human Trafficking in this country. I commend you, mr. Chairman and senator feinstein for holding the hearing senator klobuchar for her aid and others. Both sides of the aisle made clear from their members the commitment to passing meaningful legislation not only to help existing victims of human traffic, but to help trafficking, but to help those in the future who all too often fall prey to Human Trafficking; the children who have run away from home and are homeless and so often are forced into trafficking. We heard from a brave trafficking survivor about her experience of being walking prey after she ran away from home. All four senators that testified at the hearing have the support of Senate Collins and my bill, the trafficking prevention act. Our Bipartisan Legislation was overwhelmingly supported by members of this Committee Just six months ago. So theres no good reason why it should no longer e receive that same support, but i understand that republicans on the committee now have concerns about the antidiscrimination position. And senator cornyn would not agree to include the bill in the managers package. I hope theres a way to come to agreement on this important antidiscrimination language because senator collins and i would insist on our bill being considered as an amendment on the floor once what is reported today is brought up for consideration. I support efforts to combat trafficking and to protect all victims, and ill continue to work with the authors of other trafficking bills and with senator collins to make sure our trafficking provision receives a vote by the full senate. But now importantly today were going to be voting finally finally, finally on the nomination on Loretta Lynch to serve as our next attorney general following an unprecedented delay by my friends in the republican party. I say unprecedented because ive been here 40 years, and no attorney general, no attorney general has ever had to wait this long for a vote. Her nomination is listed today for the second time to be reported today. Loretta lynch is a superb prosecutor. Shes prosecuted terrorist cases, shes prosecuted people in the government and out of the government. She is a prosecutors prosecutor. Shes earned the respect and admiration of both republicans and democrats. I think of the people who testified some who have complaints about the Justice Department. I asked everybody who testified whether called by republicans or democrats, i said is there anybody here who would oppose her confirmation, raise your hand. And those of you that were there remember not a single hand went up. Her father the reverend Lorenzo Lynch of knock, stayed throughout both days of his testimony for his daughters nomination, hes here today. Reverend, i know how proud you are of your daughter, i want you to know how proud i am because i also told her after the hearings one of the thrills i had was meeting you because of all your efforts during the era of segregation and i admire you for that. Ms. Lynch has the support of Law Enforcement, the civil rights community, numerous lawyers from individuals and organizations in support of her nomination to serve as attorney general from both republicans and democrats. Not a single witness who testified opposed it. Now, she testified before this committee for nearly eight hourings. She responded to hours. She responded to nearly 900 written questions. None of the men who proceeded her were forced to go through all those questions. None of those men were forced to do that. Its unprecedented. But she answered them. The committee should approve her nomination today so the full senate can confirm her without further delay. I hope the senators will base their vote on ms. Lynchs long and laudable record of Public Service and not cynically use this process as an effort to curry favor for the next campaign. Our nations top Law Enforcement officer deserves no less. She is superb. The committees also planning to turn in the nomination of michelle lee to serve as director of the patent and trademark office. It took forever to get there, but she has strong bipartisan support. I hope her confirmation will be taken up swiftly and i thank you, mr. Chairman. And let me repeat because he reminded me that i do want to get through the entire agenda today. Before i call on senator hatch and then senator feinstein for members that just came in, i was hoping that maybe we could keep our remarks to five minutes. And if you can also address anything thats on the agenda that you want to address. Senator hatch. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I might be slow to get over to, i want to thank you. I want to offer comments on two of the nominees on the agenda today, one to the judicial can branch and one to the executive branch. My decision begins with the principle the constitution give toss the president the power to appoint and to the senate the role of checking that power. I believe that creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of confirmation. I want first to express enthusiastic support for the nomination of jill parish to the u. S. District court for the district of utah. She has a 30year legal record and has established a record of excellence both before and behind the bench in both state and federal court in the private and public sectors and in both trial and appellate courts. During the last 12 years on the Utah Supreme Court justice parish has participated in more than 900 cases that resulted in a written opinion. She is widely respected throughout the utah legal community. The American Bar Association unanimously gave justice parish a, its highest well qualified rating. To get this rating a nominee must be at the top of the Legal Profession have outstanding legal ability and the highest rep take for integrity. Reputation for integrity. I could not agree more and hope that her nomination is confirmed prom promptly. Next, i turn to the nomination of loretta lunch to be attorney general. Her record spans more than 30 years including more than two decades as a prosecutor and two unanimous confirmations by senate. I will support advancing her nomination to the floor today because her record shows that she is well qualified to be attorney general and does not include and does not include anything sufficient to overcome presumption in favor of confirmation. The case against her nomination, as far as i can tell, essentially ignores her professional career and focuses solely on about six hours that she spent before this committee on january 28th. I do not believe that is a proper way to evaluate any nominees fitness for any position. Ive been around this many times having served 38 years on this committee and having chaired it for nearly eight years. Senators have different views about how to participate in a confirmation hearing and how to evaluate a nominees answers. There have, for example, been senators on both sides of the aisle who asked questions designed to elicit answers from the nominee so that they can oppose the nominee for providing nonanswers. I reject three insinuations about this nomination. First, some democrats insinuate that voting against the lynch nomination would be applying a quote, double standard, unquote suggesting that her race or gender would be the real reasons for opposition. I hope my friends on that side can do better supporting this nomination than such an offensive and patently false innuendo. Secondly, it has been suggested by some on the republican side that voting for the lynch nomination shows that a senator does not take his oath of office seriously. It could just as readily be argued that ignoring a nominees entire professional career gives short shrift to the senates role of advise and consent and, therefore, does not take the oath seriously. Neither of those suggestions would be legitimate. Third, a letter from some house members claims that a vote for the lynch nomination, quote, should fairly be considered a vote in favor of the president s lawlessness and against the will of the american people, unquote. That is ridiculous on its face. No senator has opposed the president s series of lawless and overreaching actions more than i have in this committee. In the finance committee. On the senate floor. In the courts. In the media and in any other venue i could find. Mr. Chairman i have concluded that ms. Lynchs full record can including but hardly limited to her hearing testimony shows that she is qualified to serve as attorney general and does not and does not include anything sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of confirmation. If confirmed, ms. Lynch faces a daunting task. I join my Senate Colleagues who decry what has happened to the Justice Department. It has been politicized and compromised. It has been weakened and even corrupted. She will have a significant job ahead to restore the beg isty the integrity and independence of both the Attorney Generals Office and the entire department of justice and i expect her to do that. Theres good reason to believe that ms. Lynch will be more independent than the current attorney general and make strides towards recommitting the department to the rule of law. For example, she has committed to me that as attorney general she will abide by the injunction issued by a Federal District court to halt the president s recent executive actions on immigration. I will do everything i can to help her restore both the rule of law in our nation and the integrity of the Justice Department. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you, senator hatch. Now senator feign a stein. Thank you very much. Feinstein. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You want us always to speak on the cornyn bill . Would you please . I cant make you do it, but i would appreciate if you would. [laughter] right, right. You do whatever you want. Right. Sometimes. Mr. Chairman, i hope youll consider feinstein all the time she wants to say nice things about this bill. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. [laughter] let me begin by saying that i really regret the vote on Loretta Lynchs nomination will likely not be unanimous by committee because if anyone deserves a unanimous vote i believe she does. She has the character the experience and the determination to be a strong and independent attorney general which is what i think most of us believe is required for this position. As a matter of fact, not a single negative thing has emerged throughout the course of this hearing. And as i pointed out before the civilian panel before us was asked the question by senator leahy would any of you not vote for her, and no one raised a hand. I thought that was really very significant. She was a career prosecutor for nearly a decade, in private practice at the firm which the chief justice practiced at, and she has run one of the largest well the largest u. S. Attorneys office in the country. I guess next to well, close to los angeles. Covering brooklyn, queens and long island. Her record is first rate. The Eastern District of new york has led the nation in terrorism convictions since 2001, and she continued that strong tradition in the office. She oversaw prosecutions and important causes. The six individuals con firing with new zealand si bull zazi part who planned to bomb d Najibullah Zazi four individuals who plotted to attack jfk airport, and just yesterday her office announced that three individuals have been charged with attempting and conspiring to provide Material Support to isil. And the two that were planning to fly to syria to join isil as everyone knows, were arrested the day before yesterday. Her answers to problems of National Security, i believe demonstrated that she really has the ability to be a first rate United States attorney. Or excuse me, attorney general. And i want to compliment senator hatch for his comments. He said at the hearing every lawyer has to be independent. The attorney general even more so. Well actually, she said this to him, and i pledge to you that i take that independence very seriously. And so i want to just particularly thank him for his comments. Let me now move to the legislation on the agenda. This weeks hearing on Human Trafficking was very powerful as the Ranking Member said. I want to thank chairman grassley for it and chairman Ranking Member leahy for allowing me to be ranking at that time. And i particularly want to congratulate senators cornyn and klobuchar for really good bills that i am proud to cosponsor. And i want to thank you, senator cornyn for including certain provisions of a bill i introduced called the combat trafficking act. One provision of senator cornyns bill clarifies that federal law allow the prosecution of a buyer effect from a minor x. This is very important because its going to enable the Justice Department to really go after the demand for this horrible crime. The provisions of the bill introduced and that senator cornyn colluded of my bill supported that effort. And i think he should talk about his own bill before i say good things about it. But i want to just say thank you. Its an excellent bill and thank you, senator klobuchar. I hope well take prompt action on it today. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you did i do it within five . [laughter] thank you. Senator sessions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. In their wisdom our founders Gave Congress certain powers of the coof of equal branch of coequal branch of government and one of those was to confirm or not confirm nominees. I have tried to give deference to the president , i supported attorney general holder when he came up for confirmation. At the outset of this process i expressed my concern that we should not confirm a nominee to the office of attorney general who supports legality of the president s executive amnesty, because i think that is a unjustified position. This is the top Law Enforcement job in america, not a political position and anyone who holds this position must have total fidelity to the laws and constitution of the to United States. They must be willing and able to tell the president no if he overreaches. That has historically been one of the tough responsibilities of the attorney general of the United States. They cannot be a mere rubber stamp to any idea the president has. The senate cannot confirm someone to this post who is going to support and advance a scheme that violates our constitution and eviscerates congressional authority. Congress makes the laws, not the president as every school child knows. Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation to provide this kind of amnesty, work permits, financial benefits to people who have entered our country illegally. We rejected in 2006 2007 2010, 2013 and 2014. President obamas executive order nullifies the immigration laws that we have immigration and nationality act and replaces them with the very measures congress refused to enact. The congress, in fact rejected. Even king george iii lacked the power to legislate without parliament. President obamas executive orders goes far beyond any concept of prosecutorial discretion and provides persons unlawfully in the country who have entered here wrongly with work authorization, trillions in Social Security and med tear benefits medicare benefits in years to come, tax credits of up to 10,000 a year and even the possibility of chain migration and citizenship. Again, all of these measures were rejected by congress. So i discussed these issues with ms. Lynch, and she is a very fine person im sure. I asked her plainly whether she supported the legality of the president s unilateral decision to make his own immigration rules. Heres the relevant transcript. Sessions i have i have to have a clear answer to this question. Ms. Lynch, do you believe the executive action announced by president obama on november 20th is legal and constitutional . Yes or no . Lynch i read the opinion, i believe it is, senator. She was referring to the office of Legal Counsel opinion thats a part of the department of justice that reports to the attorney general. One of the most stunning features of the president s action is the mass grant of work permits, Social Security numbers, photo ids for up to five million illegal immigrants. All of which will be able to take jobs directly from struggling americans and lawful immigrants who are here today. Civil rights commissioner member, u. S. Commission on civil rights member Peter Kersinow has discussed this at length and repeatedly written about it, about how allowing unlawful immigrants to take jobs in america undermines the lawful right of u. S. Workers including africanamerican workers and hispanics who are suffering from high unemployment. So i asked ms. Lynch about what she might do to protect the lawful rights of u. S. Workers. Theyre entitled not to have jobs taken from them by someone who entered the country unlawfully. And heres the exchange. Sessions who has a who has more right to a job in this country, a lawful immigrant whos here, somebody with a green card or a citizen or person who entered the country unlawfully . Lynch i believe that the right and the the right and the obligation to work as one shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And, certainly if someone is here regardless of status, regardless of status i would prefer they be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace. Well i know senator schumer asked her about that, and she corrected that and backed off that statement. But i would say to you that this is thes policy. The president s policy is to allow people unlawfully here to take jobs in america, a policy she has explicitly stated she intends to defend and we can expect will defend in everyone court action that challenges it anywhere in america, that she will intellectually use the power of the department of justice to defend this action which is a direct affront to the congress of the United States. So it was not a casual statement when i asked her that. This is the policy that the president is planning to, is executing right now except courts have stopped him to some degree. So this is, i believe, colleagues i wish it werent so but i believe it is fair to say this is a historic moment with regard to the power of congress and the executive branch. Professor Jonathan Turley called many times as a democratic witness, testified before this committee and has described the situation were in today as a constitutional turning point. And id like to read from his testimony. It was delivered before the house in february of 2014, nine months before the president issued this order but after some of his other orders. He said this the current passivity of congress represents a crisis of faith for members willing to see a president assume legislative powers in exchange for insular policy gains. The shortterm insular victories achieved by this president will come at a prohibitive cost if the current imbalance is not corrected. Constitutional authority is easy to lose in the transient shift of politics. It is far more difficult to regain. If a passion for the constitution does not motivate members, perhaps a sense of selfpreservation will be enough to unify members. President obama will not be our last president. However, these acquired powers will be passed on to his successors. When that occurs, members may loathe the today that they remained silent as the power of government shifted so radically to the chief executive