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 m