has stated that he is interested in engaging congress on a new aumf. i am uncomfortable and i understand that the claims under

september 11 and iraq to prosecute the action and as the president stated the new prolonged military campaign. >> so first of all did you agree that we should be pursuing a new aumf? >> we should be presenting the new aumf. it's a java revision for the use of military force should be specific and include a authority to authority to go after individuals and organizations fighting for or on behalf of isis and limited trade

reasonable timeframe to propose the large-scale combat mission that we saw in iraq in 2003 to 2011. do you agree those are appropriate to address the specific threat? >> without negotiating the specifics, it would be appropriate. we've had an opportunity to discuss them and it would be the basis for developing a new aumf. >> of the committee the committee has taken a forward leaning basis about something that is financially and also us and weapons. we are going to provoke the

russians. i don't think they need much provoking and we need to be acting without provocation when they debated the irregular forces and now for the second time with much less camouflage they are engaged in having the russian troops and vehicles surface to surface missiles when i was in ukraine taking the time to the cease-fire. the reality is unless there is a change in the caucasus of the cost of that is pursuing in

eastern ukraine and all the information we have seeking from the bridge must we change the calculus we will see the action moving forward so can you give me your insight, not talking about the administration through the council but with your insights are. >> since the beginning of the crisis we saw a few things, to support ukraine, to impose costs on russia for its actions in ukraine and to reassure our partners in nato and we've been moving in my judgment on all three of those lines of effort.

we provide a significant amount of assistance about $100 million worth of security and this includes everything from the infamous nre and my division boggles -- night vision goggles. we haven't provided the full defense assistance. part of the reason has been as much as we are able to throw anyone can give you me full support unfortunately if they choose to disable out match. what we have seen including the blatant violation of the agreement which among other things required to reestablish the international border to make sure ukraine have sovereignty

over its border to make sure the border is monitored and that there is a buffer zone instead of doing that it's deployed more. we have compelling information that the forces have been sent into ukraine so the question of the assistance has never been off the table. it remains on the table and the vice president will be in ukraine in the next few days. we work hard to improve actions and i believe we have. the challenges many will play out over time. as a result of bringing them together on sanctions repeatedly we've seen an impact and capital flight of great magnitude in

we've seen the scene is an all-time low and russia have to two different foreign reserves. we have seen that continue to engage ukraine and so while i appreciate that it's off the table if we don't exercise the ability to give a defensive weapon maybe russia can overpower it. i won't dispute that but by the same token, the consequences of how many will be sent back to russia as a result of that has to affect the calculation. the problem is that he he can say less comes it was likely proposition and less effective so i hope you will totally bad

because we have the sanctions and yes there are consequences and also yes they have not deterred putin. i specifically looked at what was happening in venezuela and said to myself this is amazing in the western hemisphere we have a country that is violating its citizens rights simply protesting against its government repressed by the military force and even though it has one of the largest oil reserves that can put basic commodities on the shelves and so people protest peacefully to try to make a point to their government. we were rebuffed by the administration pursuing

sanctions and we gave time for everybody that has expectations of negotiations and we are in the same circumstances. we have the leader of the opposition in the trial or he can't even prevent defenses which tells you about the legal system in venezuela and if i visited venezuela i get the screening process when everybody in the venezuelan security. that tells me our policy is a success or have a calibrated and decided that it is an appropriate way to proceed? >> we share your views and we are working with partners in

latin america to see if they could with us and others get them out of jail and move forward and doing that they told us that sanctions at that point might be counterproductive. and we thought that it was worth letting them try to move forward. as we sit here today that is not succeeding. they they've tried. it hasn't produced results. given that, we wouldn't oppose moving forward with additional sanctions because they took steps of its own in the consultation with congress including visa research and on the violators of human rights but we would look forward to working with you to go further. i think there is still an opportunity to try to go bring the opposition that has congress do that before it gets pushed to the supreme court where of course nothing will happen. that's worth a shot.

i would also say that you are exactly right. he needs oil at $85 a barrel and it is lower than that and to make good on his social contract. so it's getting tougher and tougher. on the status and what we are doing to help them. >> i want to thank you for sharing the compelling stories of your family and george e. zaire to serve in this way. because we had this conversation and you read this there has been some concern about the president's desire it seems to have people that are very close to him and to various positions and to be very in the four.

while the role in your current job is one to champion the administration in the opening statements this one is different. one of the criticisms i think it would be hard to debate. he's been a day late and a dollar short on many things and has had internal debate to protect things faster, things get worse, it's difficult to overcome. do you have the abilities and other positioned to be against the cautious and bring clarity to foreign policy to show the leadership you talk about in your opening comment.

>> my role has been to bring what we call the agencies together so every voice is heard as we deliver a policy we bring the judgment to bear and try to lift up the recommendation to the cabinet and president and part of that is the process to make sure and we factor everything in. my job will be to advocate strongly for the position in the other deliberations. to do that and to try to move the process forward. secretary kerry is a passionate and energetic participant in the process. we work very hard to deal with what is extraordinary number of

challenges that are coming at the same time. i have to say i tried to do that in my current job and i recognize the frustrations and something i will try to continue to do if confirmed. >> i know that's the same answer you gave and i appreciate that. on ukraine will you be urging the secretary of state to give legal assistance to ukraine stack looking at it it is one thing. we have been for a long time. do you have to be part of whatever is decided will you yes

or no urge the secretary of state to pursue the policy of arming weevils apart appropriately. >> here's what i can say i have to keep what counsel i would give, what i would give the secretary of state if confirmed that would be part of the job. given the violations of the agreement they signed an accord and the elements that could get them to think twice for further action is strengthening the capacity of the force is including with the defensive legal equipment. >> that isn't as satisfactory

but we are in a public setting. it's the standard as you mentioned it's being solved all the a very tricky way. they seek to be aumf and a draft of what they like would like it to the end of the big and the negotiations. it today explicitly seek back with direct negotiations yes or no? >> of the committee and the trim and for the work that you've done in the past on the serious aumf and most recently.

as you know we said that we would welcome the aumf and i can tell you not only what we welcome it, we would like it and we would like it targeted. what is the best way to get something that gets bipartisan support because we are much stronger if the executive and legislative branch are working in acting together on war and peace and if we can get a aumf there is no question we will be better off. as we gauge age with you and other members in recent weeks say that i know we've engage with certain members. but until you going forward from today we will actively engage with you trying to come up with

a aumf which is focused and preserves the authorities to take action in the national interest and i hope is everyone coming together so we can demonstrate we are united so the short answer is we want to work with you on that in the days and weeks ahead. >> it is laying out what the administration hopes to achieve and it's an important element. i know that when this is all announced this fall, this was a half-baked deal. i believe the general and others are putting some elements together that are beginning to make some sense. it's important to explain in

classified settings that the nation can expect as an outcome if this is authorized. or iran do you believe that congress put the sanctions in place do you think the congress should have the right to vote on a deal that's one of the biggest and in the event in agreement is reached with iran. >> if you suspend sanctions which you can do certainly the permanent lifting the have to vote on the break apart the

international coalition and you know that and iran knows that and that's why they've been urging you to suspend because we know the actual lifting under that extension you've broken apart the entire coalition so did you not think congress should play a role i'm talking about on the front end. >> we wouldn't even suspend sanctions. we would have to see that before the suspension. ativan because the hammer over the heads of the iranians has been so effective to keep that as much as possible and make

sure there is a provision so if any such they can be snapped back to avoid the problem you raised. >> and that is dressing them violating an agreement. but it doesn't address is on the front end if congress believes the arrangement even if they honor it is it is unacceptable and as of again i would ask having come to this committee do you beat me that we should have the opportunity to get an approval over an agreement that has so much to do with the region and the world. >> if we are able to reach one, one of the things we need to work together on is how we can effectively work together to

make sure that it's implemented and they make good on their commitments so there may be schemes under which congress acting in certain times and ways to make that more effective. not knowing what it's going to look like and what the terms will be at the commitments will be is something we should figure out how to effectively work together to make sure any deal is implemented. >> thank you for your public service and for sharing your family's story is inspirational. i want to underscore the point that was made because there is bipartisan support for the comments and there is concern in the first i want to compliment the administration for keeping the coalition together and the sanctions into position where

it's kept iran at the negotiating tables you have been effective in doing that. there is concern that there will be some agreements reached in the near future by the 24th but that may take some action by the united states. that could jeopardize the unity of the sanctions moving forward and i would urge you in the strongest possible terms to work with congress so that we are together on the strategy moving forward with iran. our greatest hope is that you reach a comprehensive agreement that prevents iran from the king to capacity with inspections etc.. we look forward to that. if that is not the case and i think it is critically important that we understand on the

strategy moving forward that we are together in our resolve that iran will not become a nuclear weapons state and i would urge you with what senator corker has said because the statements that he made i want to underscore a point that we were talking about that you imposed and i also applauded the administration for the visa restrictions in regards to the individuals employed in the corruption. senator mccain and i have offered legislation that would make it global but add the ingredient the congress can initiate by the state department on matters that we believe should be a subject to the consideration of the restrictions. you and i had a chance to talk and i very much appreciate your

commitment to basic human rights and your understanding that it depends on the stable regimes protecting human rights and that we need to be more open about that and more of a priority. i will be looking at the leadership how we make the country stand strongly in support of human rights on our partners and that we will look at ways that countries are fighting corruption. ukraine is a good example here outraged and we've provided a great deal of support and we are working with their economy but they need to deal with their problems of corruption. we just had a commission meeting today and that was the centerpiece. i want to ask a question following up on the point i raised on the provision dealing with the rights of countries

into provision that was included in the law that they are still struggling with and it requires transparency from the extra of industries. the court sends back the rulings because the first amendment concerns and it's now prepared to issue its new regulations and the reason i bring it up is they are required to consider first amendment issues and one of the major concerns that was expressed by the administration when dodd frank was moving forward of our need for stable energy supplies and the importance for transparency and investors knowing what the countries that the countries are doing and where the funds are going it's my understanding the communication from the state department and the administration could be critically important underscoring the importance to

the country the stable energy supply. i just urge you to follow-up on follow up on that because time is running on this issue. >> let me say if confirmed i by welcome following up and even if not if there's anything i can do to be helpful. >> i want to underscore one thing you said because i think it is so important, corruption and the work you've been doing and other members. one of the things i think that is the common denominator around the world of every movement we have seen whether it is in ukraine has been people rising up in her option. it's one of the most powerful instigators of change. we've been working in a

delivered way -- deliberate way. there's more that we can do working with congress and one of the issues i would welcome working on with you and members are the efforts the united states is making to combat corruption because we see it everywhere as an instigators of change and there are ways we can use it effectively to help advance the kind of change we would like to see. >> i agree tunisia, ukraine, it wasn't about who was in the president's er the government. we saw the recent tragedy in israel at the synagogue. a barbaric act. three americans were killed. one was a relative of a constituent of mine judge karen friedman so this fits our own country in a way. if it happened in america there would be justified outrage and demand our countries take steps

to protect the citizens of the country. israel always seems to be placed on the international front on the defensive and attending its own people. the only strong ally is the united states. will you continue to speak up for israel's obligation to defend its citizens against these kind of barbaric actions and preparing itself to defend the security of its own country click >> absolutely. the united states has come is and will continue to stand even if it is a loan against threats to israel and any attempt to undermine the legitimacy. we do it day in and day out in international organizations and the secretary carey is often at the post again. we will do it as hard as it takes we will always be there. what we saw this week was

especially barbaric. any terrorist attack is traffic. to do something in a place of worship is even beyond the pale of what we've seen before. you heard the president can bennet immediately the secretary was on the phone with the secretary of state. unfortunately we saw the true commode elite go colors come out glorifying. these murderers represent the extremism that threatens to bring the region into a plot that -- bloodbath. it's to lower the tensions, reject violence and majorities want peace. they want to work towards that and we want to isolate anyone who doesn't.

these attacks are personal to me. i have a cousin that lives in tel aviv with her husband, her daughter and two sons. the daughter recently completed a military service and this summer are oldest son was a military training for the engineering unit to that was going into deal with the tamils and the bombs. he wasn't deployed during gaza but he's now deployed. we were getting e-mails from her throughout the summer about what it is like to live under the threat of the rockets into terrorists tunneling underground to try to kill or capture civilians and she talked about how the bomb shelter they had at have at home that was usually a storage room, she talked about how writing to work on her bike she would write with one earpiece out so she could hear the sirens. she talks about living on a 92nd

timer because that's how much time you have to get to the bomb shelter if the siren goes off. so this is something i feel is visceral. we also saw the terrible tragedy of civilians and children being killed and i thought to myself getting these e-mails from my cousin, are the palestinian-american mothers and fathers wrote who attend to their families about what they've experienced and we have to somehow remember the humanity that lies at the heart of all these situations. this is about men and women, mothers and fathers, daughters and sons. if we lose sight of that we really lose but one thing is for sure and that is unshakable because a fundamental commitment to the israel security and to stand with israel whenever and

wherever it is under threat and i'm proud of the record of this administration doing that and it's something we will continue as long as we are acting. >> let me now for the edification of the members advise you what my intention is. since there are votes at 3:00 it's to ask senator to take the chair before and they took a vote and come back if i keep this going as long as we can so that the members would get their questions and answers if you are a little further down the run before asking your question you can come back and ask your question. >> thank you mr. chairman. monday is the 24th of november. what can we expect on monday? >> of the negotiating teams or

engaged in working on an agreement so i do not want to prejudge what may or may not have been. right now it is good to be difficult to get to where we got to go let you go and it isn't impossible. it depends whether iran is willing to take the steps it must take to convince us and/or partners that its program would be for peaceful purposes. as we speak the secretary of state has prepared to engage directly and personally if we have enough to go on but it is literally a minute to minute and hour to hour thing. i was getting e-mails and as we speak i can't tell you what to expect but i can't use it in the days ahead as we move towards the 24th, we will continue to be in very close consultations with a very close consultations with you, the members of the senate and the congress on where we are and where this is going and then depending where this goes, to

figure out what the most effective next steps would be. i wish i could tell you but i can't. let me add one thing to. we have been very clear that we will not take a bad deal, period. any deal that we achieve has to effectively cut off the pathway into deal with the iraq facility and its ability to develop a weapon through the plutonium path. it has to deal with the facility before the interim agreement producing 20%. it has to deal with the effort to accumulate a large centrifuges and a large stockpile and be able to produce material very quickly and it has to deal as effectively as possible with a potential for the program by having an unprecedented inspection regime and then we will also have to deal with a possible military dimension of the program with

missiles and the sanctions piece we talked about earlier so as you evaluating anything that we are able to produce you will rightly and appropriately evaluate against all of those lines. that's what we need to be talking about as this moves forward and i pledge to you that in the days ahead into the and the weeks ahead we will be in close contact as we see if we can get there. >> the operative words are a good deal versus bad deal. i've heard people from the state department sitting in the same chair that you're sitting and describe the last couple described the last couple of deals has good deals and i have to tell you that i speak for myself but other members of the committee and that is our understanding of what a good deal is differs greatly from the state department version. members were critical of it and

i certainly hope i don't have to be put in that position again. i couldn't agree with you more. in fact we told the secretary of state with the administration has been saying and that is no deal is substantially better than a bad deal. we will wind up having to live with what could be a very difficult situation so i caution you in that regard and i hope that our definition of what is a good deal is substantially closer to the same point that it has been in the past. and particularly to wendy sherman who sat in that chair i have a constituent that is being held.

there is no reason he should be in prison in iran and their are goes under the same circumstances. absolutely escapes logic to me why we released the billions of dollars that we did without demanding that they be released before the penny changed hands. knowing how badly they wanted the money i just cannot understand why that wasn't the last consideration, the last requirement. i heard wendy sherman talk about it and talked about it and i still don't understand. i would say if you do get close to what it ought to be paragraph 236 or whatever the last paragraph is that it doesn't become operative until those three people walk free.

i do not sense a love of optimism but should we get to that point i want to urge you in the strongest terms to see that those people are turned loose and that we can walk them back here to america. >> can i just say first of all thank you and i want you to know that every single day we are working for the release of any other unjustly imprisoned american around the world. this is something we are not only focused on what fixated on. the only other thing we talked about other than the nuclear agreement on the margins of these conversations are the american prisoners who were there and this is something that we are determined to resolve and bring our people home.

you have my assurance that if i am confirmed for this job that will be at the top of my agenda. >> if i can put a little more strength into that there's a human side of this but never gets talked about. she has children that haven't seen their father for some time. they have family and a close circle of friends and this is a human component that doesn't get talked about. these people want their father with her husband home very badly and i'm glad to hear what you're saying but i will be much happier when actual action takes place. >> thank you senator shaheen. >> thank you mr. chairman being here today and your willingness to continue to serve the

country. i want to follow up on the questions about the iranian negotiations because reports about the negotiations have suggested that as you just did that we are not close to reaching an agreement and that another extension might be something people could agree on. what positive sign for movement between the two c. to agree to another extension because i assume that we would all argue unless we think there is a reason to continue these negotiations we shouldn't do that if they are not going anywhere. >> here's the challenge we want to see if we can get an agreement that answers our requirements and that's what we are we're focused on. as i said a moment ago i think

it will be difficult to get there but not impossible and it depends on whether iran can get to yes and the short answer is we don't know. i don't want in the negotiations in a public setting to get into the details because we have to leave that with the negotiators however i know some of my colleagues were on the hill yesterday in a closed session going through much more detailed some of the elements and i know that in the days ahead we will be doing more of that and i would welcome any opportunity chuck individually or collectively in the right setting on those issues but at least as a public matter i have to leave it to the negotiators to have the flexibility to do the job and get the job done. >> again, to follow but i do hope that looking at an

extension of negotiations that we have some signs there's a potential for movement if we are going to expand on our end. to follow up on what's happening can you talk about the new administration in iraq and whether they are making sufficient process engaging in the sunni population so that we are seeing a change? >> your question goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve if there's going to be success. one of the many failures in the previous administration is that it failed not only to engage but to address the community and that created an environment in which large parts either

acquiesced or indeed when it went into lead with it because it was the only way to advance its interest. when the former president mr. was here in november of 2013 before they were on the map the president said to him the number one challenge that you have is al qaeda and iraq and isis and we are working to give you the equipment and assistance you need to deal with it as a counterterrorism and military matter but that isn't enough you have to deal with it because if we engage the sunnis and address the grievances otherwise we will not succeed and as we know, he didn't. the new government was one of the conditions the president said before launching the complaints of effort that we are making to counter and ultimately defeat because absent a government that was willing to engage the entirety of iraq that

strategy could effectively succeed. what we have seen i think it's significant progress. i was in iraq for the weekend i spend time with all of the leadership in baghdad almost hides, military, economic, the president, the prime ministers, the head of the council, political party and what i found as is everyone was giving the benefit of the doubt to the prime minister to try to move the country forward. he's taken a number of steps already. first the former prime ministers maliki established the office of the commander-in-chief commander-in-chief to basically short-circuited the military and have it report directly to the office and make it his personal service which was a disaster. apprenticed or even needed administer even needed that office and fired the people in charge. last week he fired 36 generals many of whom were beholden to

the previous government, had a sectarian agenda. and mostly there is a national program they need to move forward to address the grievances of the sunnis but also the idea that we have been working on and that is to form a national guard. that would be to enlist from the local communities and provinces people took protect those provinces, so in those areas you would be enlisting the sunnis to protect their own but they would be tethered to the state because it would provide them it meant. this was institutionalized something so successful in the sons of iraq during the surge. there's tremendous promise and it's going to take a while to get that stuff up. we've been working with the government on a mechanism to get there and that is how can we

deal with the fact many of the tribes want to work with the government and they see the future is better with iraq but they need support and equipment and money so the government is working on a program with our support to bring about 5,000 tribesmen to pay them and get them working with the security forces right now to deal with isis. i came away from my most recent trip and the engagement of the leading administer is moving things in the right direction and reaching out and engaging and if that succeeds that offers promise to the overall efforts. >> i'm almost out of time but when we spoke on the phone we talked about the special immigrant visa program and the need to make sure that moves forward and i wonder if you can tony what we are hearing from afghanistan now as we are looking at the drawdown of our

troops and the importance of that program and whether we are going to be able to provide visas required for the people that are being threatened. >> first i want to commend your leadership on this issue. it's been absolutely instrumental in turning an answering an obligation that i believe we have and that is this program addressed specifically to people in iraq and afghanistan who put their lives on the line for us and families on the line by their association with us these are our every effort if they qualify to bring them to the united states and all of is way. this is something something i'd i've even deeply. in afghanistan because of the success we've had we are running up against the limit and we need to be able to do more. we want to work with you actively and aggressively to do

that because we can't abandon these people who put themselves on the line for the united states so i look forward if confirmed to working with you on those issues and i thank you for everything you've done today. >> thank you for your service and willingness to serve. i want to acknowledge the fact these issues were dealing with and these problems and challenges were enormously challenging. what i want to try to find out during my questioning is have you learned from past misjudgments or mistakes and are we willing to recognize reality. we talked about ukraine. i've heard members of the administration talk repeatedly about how vladimir putin is looking for off ramps. i believe vladimir putin is looking for nothing but off ramps. give me your evaluation of that.

do you think that he is looking for a way out of this or is he looking to continue to be aggressive? >> in my judgment, president putin managed to precipitate everything he sought to prevent through this crisis and the actions he's taken. ukraine is now more western oriented than it's ever been and it has more national identity but it's ever had even in the terrible aggression in eastern ukraine and crimea he has precipitated as well nato being more energized than it's been in europe focused on energy security. >> is a vladimir putin looking for off ramps? >> to get to your question because it's important, i agree, this is the challenge. what's happened is president

putin has probably lost his ability as a result of their own mismanagement and in my judgment as a result of the pressure to do that for effectively for his people economically and of course legal prices played a big part in it. that leaves him with one card and that's the nationalist card and i think in the short term it can be the beneficial. here's the problem if you stop playing the card people start to focus on the fact things are not going so well and you lead them down the wrong path so that is why this is a challenge. he does need an all free offramp otherwise he will keep taking steps that are being generous and destabilizing and that are going to create greater conflict so we continued to believe that the agreement russia signed was

an appropriate offramp if that's what you'd like to call it in a way of moving forward. >> i thought he gave an extraordinary speech before the joint session of congress. what was the white house reaction reminding all of us you can defeat soviet aggression with blankets? >> we saw the president after the speech to congress and we talked about this a little earlier. we have worked very hard to support ukraine across-the-board and to develop international support for its produce and a package of $27 billion dollars of financial institution and we are working now you know -- to make what was >> what was your reaction and did it have an effect on this administration's attitude clicks >> you asked out the outset do

we revisit things and the answer is yes we do almost literally every single day. we provide a significant amount of security systems more than $100 million it's beyond the blankets of the things that matter in the field as well as technical advice and assistance etc.. we are continuing to look every day and other forms including defensive systems. >> let's shift to isis in iraq. i believe there is historic blunders to be the glue that holds that together. what was your reaction when you heard the president obama basically imply that isis was a jv team did that surprise you the president of the united states would say something like that?

>> the context was a distinction between terrorist groups that were focused inward and it didn't have an agenda planned to attack or internationally that didn't have a jihad is the agenda and focused primarily on their own countries and that was the distinction being made. >> my recollection is the president was trying to minimize the threat of a group like isis. were you aware of the growing threat they represented not only to the region that the but the world? >> absolutely. we can certainly talk about the drawdown and withdraw at the end of 2011 i'm happy to come back to that. from the moment that we withdraw from iraq he worked literally from january of 2012 to work our way back into help the iraqis develop a more effective means to deal with than what was al

qaeda and became isis. we said at the time you are making a big mistake if you take your throat to the comfort of throat of aqi. the leadership had been decimated and they were feeling overconfident but the fact of the matter is at that point in their history they wanted america out of iraq. >> do you believe that it was at stake not to leave behind a stabilized force? >> we traded to leave tried to leave the stabilized force because we felt that having the ability to help them to develop a more effective counterterrorism means was necessary going forward. we started to work aggressively to help them build up their capacity to deal with counterterrorism and on developing targeting cells and bringing more intelligence and arming them. 2012 was an exercise in

frustration they didn't see the problem. i worked with the director at the time to do that. the summit came around and we said we will bring you the intelligence surveillance reconnaissance to protect the summit and we thought that was the means to get our eyes on what was going on including the al qaeda threat. it became public they wouldn't do it but if they tell you what happened after that. 2014 will abound and all of a sudden the iraqis so isis emerging into spilling over into basil the problem we have been warning about for more than a year. we led an effort to make sure that we were getting the equipment they needed to come at the technical assistance. we started to work with congress on getting them more and i led 14 meetings in the committee on that very issue.

>> one question. when you lay out the goal do you think it is wise to signal to your enemy what you may or may not do to accomplish that goal? in other words no combat troops on the ground whether you intend to do it or not is that or not is it wise to signal that to your enemy? >> what we focused would be focused on in designing the campaign to deal with isis is a comprehensive effort that works on a military line of effort and also dealing with the foreign financing and the fighters and the ideology. on the military piece of the belief that it is not necessary or sustainable to have a repeat of what happened decades ago just have a large deployment of forces in iraq or anywhere else. what's more sustainable is to strongly support a partner on

the ground with airpower, intelligence, training and equip the independent cable site for the future of their own country. i believe that in iraq we have the foundation to do that and we are working on the same thing in syria. that's the most sustainable way. >> we have votes on the floor so i'm going to try to be brief. it's nothing to get any shorter in your capacity. i want to ask a question about your job defending the policy here this morning. "the new york times" wrote a brilliant about a couple of years back about the massive buildup of military capabilities capabilities of the agencies and the great frustration that exists when they are trying to

get to deduct the policies he was writing about a period from the 2010 to 2012 in pakistan when they don't know what is coming at them from the secret drone strikes in that instance but other activities in other parts of the world we find the same frustration to evaluate whether we should authorize the training of syria and we asked the question what have we learned. it strikes me that we have seen a massive outsourcing over the last ten years of diplomacy from the state department to the military and a substantial outsourcing of military activity from the department of defense to the cia. moving from the umbrella of view of view of all of those activities to now a narrow

window in the department and i think that you'll find many people in that agency that has been serious questions whether they can do this job if they have this level occurring without state department or committee oversight with overseeing american foreign policy. so having viewed this at the national security staff. >> it's a very important question and one that we grapple with everyday. part of my responsibility indeed is the heart of the responsibility to bring the entire interagency together on any problem to make sure not only is every perspective and voice heard to make sure that each agency and department knows what the other is doing so we

have a meeting of the so-called deputies committee we bring in thanks to the video technology or ambassador and the relevant combatant commander or general in the field precisely because we want to make sure everyone has told visibility and make sure the appropriate agencies and actors are carrying out the appropriate responsibilities. that's something that is central to the proper functioning of the government and foreign policy.

i will continue to bring the perspective because what you pointed to is important and it's the only way we can function. the other agencies need to know what the diplomacy is doing and that coordination if it doesn't happen it doesn't work. >> hierarchy where they are giving the diplomacy war fighters are doing what they do best and that the agencies are gathering intelligence but this is a pretty unprecedented scale. all of the conversation has been about whether they miss the product or -- picture.

someone referred to a phrase i hadn't heard of yesterday that is militarized. they are using information propaganda payoff in the a way that we have no understanding of and ability to match. we don't necessarily want to go but instead of spending all this time talking about what arms we should be paying attention to what russia is doing today to try to prep prep the next set of the crisis of the crisis and hopefully this committee will be able to grapple with the need to have a more robust conversation about how we need to those tactics and it would be great to see some proposals coming out so

that if it has as the bullets to match upon the influence. >> is confirmed i would welcome working with you and other members of the committee. you are right. russia has a panoply of asymmetric tools to wield influence in the countries on its periphery and we see that every that every day in the baltics and in ukraine and georgia and moldova and the balkans and places further for long. for us to be effective we have to be focused on that and it's something we welcome working with you. we immediately start up the effort to work on countering the

messaging which is strong and effective but the larger point this is an area that we could work together if i i welcome doing that is confirmed. >> on march -- by the way over the weekend i was at a seminar and a panel with the former secretary gates and national security adviser mr. hadley and both of them disagree with your assertions particularly about the diminution of the power and influence throughout the world including the fact that they said the administration could

have succeeded keeping them in iraq after 2011 if it had been more creative and determined you and i had a discussion in my office and you made some assertions which are false which is very disappointing. what's beyond debate is that iraq is less violent and more prosperous. i disagree with that at the time. would you admit you were wrong in that assessment? >> yes or no would you admit you were wrong? >> i stand behind the words and they accurately reflected. >> even though we knew that the situation would have evils and

predicted it and you were sober braiding the fact that we had no more troops left in iraq. you've celebrated it. they didn't want to see what was happening because they left iraq in reasonably good shape. you didn't leave iraq in good shape and of the events after words negated your assessment and you won't even admit that you are wrong. you are wrong because you said you were leaving behind a prosperous less violent democratic and none of that in any time in recent history was just -- i would like to ask you some questions questions do you belief that we should be providing the resistance with

lethal weapons that defend themselves not whether it's on the table or not do you believe we should be supplying them with weapons to defend themselves? i'm asking whether you believe we should be giving them their weapons or not. that is a straightforward question. >> i'm asking for your opinion. you're supposed to you are supposed to be becoming before the committee and giving your views. >> that can play a role potentially. >> let the record show the witness wouldn't answer the question. >> i would let the record reflect the witness answered the question as he did. >> neither answered in the affirmative or the negative in response to the question. the question i will ask one more time do you believe we should be

supplying the ukrainians with lethal defensive weapons yes or no? >> and again i believe that is something we need to look at. >> after 4,000 dead in the and the country dismembered into 4,000 or russian troops invading eastern ukraine and you think it's something that should be looked at. that's quite interesting. do you believe that asad is getting stronger now that we are attacking only isis in syria? >> as we make it a stronger counterweight, asad will get weaker and his position will change. >> but we are not attacking them and that is a fact are we?

>> currently know. >> we are not attacking a solid al-assad. the best way to deal with them is to transition him out so that the moderate opposition can fill the vacuum. that's what we've been working on. over the weekend president obama was asked if he was discussing ways to remove the president al-assad as part of a political transition and his response was no. are we working to transition him out or not? >> the president said repeatedly and i'm not sure the exact words that you are referring to. >> it's fairly simple. he said no. >> said the president was incorrect when asked if he was actively discussing ways to remove him as part of a political transition and the answer was no.

>> it's been focused on the effort to support the moderate opposition and build it as a counter person to change the dynamic so we can get to the transition that will be removing al-assad. as they make you quite often referred to the obligations and their standing in the united states. that doesn't mean that it's moral for us to train syrians to go into cvs and fight when we are not attacking bush are al-assad the shower outside and he is intensifying his attacks on the free syria are. >> we have been working more than three years. >> answer the question. it's too bad you can't answer straightforward questions.

i want to ask whether you think it is immoral or not for us to send these young seer ian's into an environment where they will be on the bike push our al-assad. >> thanks to the work we've been able to do you have done no work with me. >> you haven't worked with me on anything. after six years of wanting to do that, i think you. >> the we've been -- >> when you see that it is disturbing to me because i've been in serious and i've met with them. when the president said no secretary of defense and state headed to provide arms. a lot of them died and we didn't

do those things you're saying and there is ample proof that the fact situations they are in today which is more tenuous ban it has never been. i take strong exception to hear you say something that i know because i've been on the ground isn't true and i know these people very well. not just my. they feel abandoned and they have every reason to and many of them are deserting because they don't believe they are getting any assistance. >> but i can tell you is what i believe and what i know we have been supporting them and we now have an opportunity thanks to the work done with congress to intensify and accelerate the effort to give them even greater

means to defend themselves and their families and communities to become a counterweight to isis and also to al-assad. we share the same objectives and we would like to figure out a way to get it done effectively. >> we have known a long time and we've articulated it time after time. we are now in the situation whether it is iraq or cbi, dividing them into two different kinds and one more point i guess i'm over time and i'm sorry mr. chairman just today we were meeting with some people that affirmed to us our belief that if you move everybody out of afghanistan, you will see the iraq movie again. do you belief we should leave a sustaining force in afghanistan?

>> to me the lesson from afghanistan to iraq is the need for the political accommodation. but we didn't get at the time that i said the remarks that the reference i believed we were in a position they were working in the confines. ..

>> >> unfortunately time has expired you will be a longer and and afghanistan will collapse and he will be wrong again. >> we have allowed greater time then he allowed himself we have water to colleagues who have come back to ask questions it is important to close the hearing so we can have their expression whatever they like to ask.

i would like to take a moment before i have to go to to risk two quick questions, when the united states invaded iraq who was the big winner? >> you could point to a few potentially. talk about 2003? certainly iran benefited at the time. unfortunately a think al qaeda benefited because it could develop a front that it did not have. there were some unfortunate consequences to that action. on the their hand, thanks to the extraordinary sacrifice of men and women and

diplomats and civilians with everyone thinks about the war because of that sacrifice over a decade we gave iraq a chance to succeed. we gave it the institutions of governance, we helped create structures that could allow it to be unique in the region. in my judgment people were within the and -- the confines of the bet to. >> is that the comment that mccain referenced? >> but the into the plus weapons of mass destruction -- mass destruction a threat

to do so may lives to cherish the contributions and the sacrifices made by american forces to obliterate the iraqi people. but at the end of the day as badges of the world like its name a few this is not in the interest of the united states to pursue that action. we did give iran an opportunity to create challenges throughout the region. and i just want to create a context to your comments that i have filibustered sufficiently to have senator mccain take the chair as i go to vote. [laughter] >> thank you for your service. what an honor your position will be as a member of the

committee isle is have we been so oystering the first door second term to talk about their lives and questions and sacrifices but mostly we talk about the very serious issues they deal with and what did bunch of people that we will continue to work with. we did a pretty good job of the acknowledging members of our military for so many americans as a bride -- abroad and we will have a great opportunity to serve with wonderful people. i know that you know, that. but to thoughts of the process. i do think it is a mistake for the administration not to set up the amf line because you will get one that you like a less likely

if you don't. that being said three hour the number one branch there is no excuse not to do it and we will work together on the terms. so that is a critique visiting the airforce base is and catarrh in early october to see the coalition the administration with a diplomatic effort to pull together a meaningful coalition that believes that isis is the threat this fearlessness of the partners working together in that campaign with the stock exchange and folks from so many nations making hard

decisions that was one month gogo go into a highly impressive. so there is lot of elements at least if early evidence but one thing above like to caution in the state department and all of us more broadly, don't let iraq or syria take our eyes off of afghanistan. we let that happen in 2003 and 2006 / 2,007. and then april 2006 with the virginia guardsmen and it was the belief of the military leadership of the ground at that point.

the achievements that have been gained are the result of a diplomatic effort and military effort is life expectancy and kids in schools is fragile under this new government is a huge tribute but it is fragile while i am a supporter against isis iraqi and syria i might fall that we have not paid attention that was necessary. but then to turn that attention to the events in the newspaper every day we read risk for the sacrifice. >> then to resonate a decade

ago in this room when karzai set arrive city and said almost exactly what you said then testify with afghanistan that it is not my role to a given by swedish sugar should not do now don't take your eyes off afghanistan? but then secretary perry to focus on this question you would never have done that accommodation we had as a tribute to with his personal engagement. but now we need to help

sustain that and we're very focused on the support to move the country for in the inclusive way and that is the focus of the secretary and the administration. you're right to underscore this because we made that commitment to help the afghan national security forces. countries made commitments militarily on financial assistance side if you look at the assessments done the analysis of the intelligence community the single biggest factor to move forward is sustained support from the international community. so we hear what you say and we agree with it that there is of vital role to play together working with the committee to make sure we

are addressing that. >> there are early signs of success to sign the bilateral security agreement and status of forces that every initiation the signing of a potential energy deal with pakistan but it is the difficulty and the formation of a cabinet. the afghan leadership will go to a conference in london and i will pepper them with questions about that but with a diplomatic rapprochement between the executive. and then in the formation of a government i cannot imagination that conversation will go well if there is not tangible evidence of real progress of

intrusive government. >> numerous questions about iran. and even being a harsh critic of the administration in the interim. i really felt like the interim approach because of the lack of trust when there is a situation fundamental characterized by a lack of trust to test each other out to see if it could pass to move on to larger things of that interim deal you support but you said you cannot say where it will go. then we talk about it.

the body will be tough on that is lost of the negotiators when know the team will abuse that notion before november 24. but over time we could easily do this. we focus energy as we should love the problematic areas. and then to shine the spotlight to do the same. with the first arab spring country in with the

presidential election that is a significant success story of positive movement in the arab world in the important area. we think entering a new phase for a variety of reasons for the opportunity on cooperation and trade. from cyberissues there are a number of instances of countries it in latin american debtor going bad talking about venezuela but also positive examples. so all the leaders like you and the crisis hoping things to shine the spotlight and others in central america or

lessons indonesia as they approached the government whole transition over fiber 10 years. >> baited put a spotlight on positive developments sometimes quietly providing assistance to give a vice. this started with the clinton administration and then the bush administration that we have the extraordinarily successful visits with the agenda that works across every issue of importance to us with india

to carry forward. then to work together in the months ahead. we have seen countries make fundamentally important decisions about macroeconomic policies to improve governance to deal with security challenges and there is a lot to work with see you are right we should not lose sight of the good news especially if we could major not only will that consolidates the serve as the model of lessons learned

inspiration for other places >> and one other brief point to see if there's an additional round one of the things we have been struck by is american and four policy around the east tour west access worried about the soviet union even with the policy with the monroe doctrine we engage in activities. the concern is the crisis the undocumented kids come in big numbers in then the attention moves away but the reality of the trade partner

news on the east west access this is a more north-south in east-west. in the cultural traditions are so oriented around the access. into tell us about the deeper engagement of china. lido's see the level of engagement. so i would put that on your shoulders going in to this position and cultural traditions we are a nation with the 50th anniversary it even before jamestown but we do make that a primary focus of our policy and

would encourage you in your colleagues at the state department to take advantage >> but if i could address that first they know from my conversations with the secretary personally he is very focused on we have faded now make -- dynamic secretary of state but it is also something they are intensely focused on and just this year in 2014 he received the visited mexico and the vice president has been a human dynamo with a constant engagement we try

to of finance the free trade agreement with panama and establish economic dialogue with countries that are emerging with mexico and brazil and caribbean security initiatives and of course, the response to the crisis as well and unaccompanied children. and i have a hundred thousand strong in latin america 72,000 students studying in the united states today in increase of 8 percent over the previous year with 43,000 americans studying in latin america. we went to work on all of these efforts to maximize the relationship is strengthen net would get through or colombia or mexico or chile there is

progress and if we get the trans-pacific partnership done that would deepen the progress. >> thank you for your testimony today. >> the senator when he is accommodative will be next. then depending if any other senator shows up will close the hearing. >> thank you very much. in den on the committee to be very capable dedicated service to the home state of joe biden. also to bill berndt to have served as an accomplished

foreign service officer in wreathing can for his service to our country. but mr. blinken first i joined the committee because of the strategic importance about states i will mention somalia and the central african republic for over 20 years of a collapse of centralized control and authority and threats to regional and global security with there's the ongoing significant crisis. get ahead of the issue of failed states around the world and had we regain a governance of human rights going forward? >> senator stinky for your

leadership to identify one of the critical challenges that we face we have seen again and again one of the things that the root of the problem is the failure of the state the failure of governments and institutions. we have seen incredible hope generated by the air of spring but into the institutions that can guarantee the rights and opportunities is a generational challenge because unfortunately it does not happen overnight. you can go across the board talk about tunisia with a great challenge is in yemen.

there is a challenge from the insurgency of the terrorist group to develop the means it capacity but that is not sufficient. unless we're able to help them develop to a finance their interest through the democratic process it will not work to create economies that can deliver for their daily lives it will not work so what you alluded to to look comprehensively to do it in a coordinated way

especially after a decade after it engaged in into wars that this is said time to be less engaged. but it is not it is the time to be more engaged that could help lift up the countries that are challenged so for example, the large scale of forces to develop the capacity of the partners is a more sustainable way to do it. as you look at the development agenda to be

brought forward the bush administration and created a powerful mechanism that has done a remarkable work so it is a long way to say as we think about the engagement we have to address the question for ways that are sustainable to resource to bring all of government to bear and i should add the private sector is critical. this summer the african leaders summit we brought to washington extraordinary gathering of african leaders and worked with them to help unleash more growth in africa to deal with those challenges and a key component of that is to

bring the private sector to the table with the government in the private sector working together to help people live a meaningful way to help economies develop a foundation with the failed states that is something i would welcome with the chairman. >> with that tenth anniversary night had the opportunity to visit half a dozen states where native a difference to bring the energy and resources and it is critical. just to make sure to keep in

mind democracy and civil society like half a dozen countries with their seeking to change the constitution to avoid it free and open elections is something we have to balance as well spinach you have been here a long time i a had many questions prior alaska last one having served significantly now going to the state department how can we improve collaboration between this committee and this body and the white house? >> in the sense it is pretty simple that chairman menendez talked about last week. and something i feel strongly about is giving meaning that i heard the

chairman loud and clear and i heard from ranking member corker on this. we can always do a better job and i am determined to do a better job if confirmed to make the words mean what it means which is not informed that work together together, have the dialogue to there are places where we disagree but it is my conviction having spent 13 years in the executive a works better when we work together. and it doesn't work if we're not communicating in a meaningful way. i hear the chairman loud and clear and i am determined. >> i could not agree more with a conflict with isis or every and/or concerns about our safety and security to

rebalance or africa we're much more likely to be successful together. the key for making it possible for me to come and question thank you for your testimony. >> i apologize. good to see you we have the votes going on as well understand you have already spoken about the issue of venezuela. but just to clarify sanctions against officials the position is with legislation. would continue to do some of those things directly they do have authority is that something that is contemplated? >> as you know, these are

restrictions that we did. we have been focused from latin america and to get results in from his electoral commission but it has not borne fruit in working with you but if confirmed we will work with that on a new. >> on the issue of columbia air briefly are you aware of negotiating with the government over a peace agreement with the kidnapping of a colombian general?

and is asking that people currently in the united states asking their sentences be commuted can we rule that out that is not something the administration would support? >> we're not a party to the negotiations so we have no requirement is whenever they negotiate we are a strong ally and strongly support the process and as we go forward if they call on us to play a role there is nothing we are required to do obviously i would consult anything the colombians may ask for in the future if it materializes with the final deal but they're not there the have the very unfortunate kidnapping of the general and we are strongly supporting their efforts we would work with

you. >> my last question is those current sanctions with those pieces of legislation that have been enacted in the past have sent you the meeting those requirements views suspect there will be any unilateral change for the conditions against cuba absent meeting those of what is outlined in that legislation? >> first we share strongly and understanding that you have firsthand that has been imprisoned all my life and in visiting in the 1950's.

in the course we know exactly of the police state. i know we had a brief opportunity to discuss this we all believe change by definition has to come. howell to best help the people prepare for that change? >> but obviously anything done on cuba is consistent with though lot. been done in full consultation with this committee. >> but there has been some chatter that sum over the next couple years at the end of the term the president may seek to make changes to

policies in cuba is that being contemplated? >> you know, the president has used to help move cuba in a democratic direction and what we have seen is not exactly the wrong direction. they talk about wanting to improve relations, as you know, so well the american citizen that in his fifth year of detention, when you say you want to improve relations never mind what you do your own people seems

to be problematic. >> but it concerns me have not heard you say point blank that absent democratic opening we will not see action on this administration to weaken the current embargo or sanctions against cuba? >> in my judgment unless it can demonstrate it takes meaningful steps to go forward adam see how you move forward with their relationship. >> you mean on democratic reforms? thank-you. >> let me just say of this last topic that i have a fair amount of interest, going ahead cuba is the only country that violated u.n. security council resolutions and sanctions to send military equipment to north korea.

but yet we were relatively silent about that. if any other country did that we would be driving a different set of circumstances. cuba does not meet the standards that the summit of the america's leaders set forth when said the strength of the rule of law is respect for the democratic system. and the essential condition at this and future summits to meet that standard. cuba has an american citizen held hostage who did nothing but try to help the jewish community in cuba communicate with each other but it wants to hold him hostage in return for the cuban spies who were spying

against our defense department in one integrated into the defense department. i can go down though long west in addition to the human rights which sometimes we say yes there is detentions were people have been detained along period a time or years because they try to seek to exercise free speech and there are individuals like the ladies in white to protest peacefully their sons and husbands are in jail for no legal reason. sometimes we gloss over all of this. and this administration with its speech talks about

opening the hand and a clenched fist they unilaterally has opened the hand including more visits more money flowing to cuba not just families of u.s. citizens the regime has received this because of the demand and control of the economy at the end of the day it is more aggressive i could go on and on. i understand his concern and talk about the whole question of consultation purses notification this is the epitome.

i appreciate your answers to have one or two i will not delay allows you to respond about turkey and its presence it is a belligerent move headed the necessary that will allow you to respond to that. this record will remain open through close of business tomorrow if you get questions to answer them as expeditiously as possible so when we return there can be a business meeting to consider your nomination and with that the meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

so it is that a guaranteed moneymaker through the campaign coffers so they

want to keep them on their side so we're is that the leaked democrat on the committee in harry waxman is retiring to has been on the committee since 1993 and the democrats since 1997 to invite that entire democratic caucus as they fought over the committee ultimate of vote 100 / 90 big blow to nancy pelosi arguing she was the future of the democratic congress a little ironic that he's only three years younger but it is hard to describe someone who has been in washington more than 20 years that is roughly the same age. but also made the argument

the was important for california to maintain seniority because a lot of money for democrats generally comes out of california because members of the delegation can maintain enough clout in leadership positions that it requires doenitz -- donors to give on their behalf but there was an argument but there is also some bad blood between rank-and-file members the wait-and-see policy handled items behind closed doors. longstanding rule they cannot of paraplegic veteran was not allowed. even women's groups have been accepted her rights and

>> piano so he is part of the debate it is time to step down? >> because this is the example she has been around too long and is blind to the fact that members of her caucus that we in the area where democrats have those loopholes to where they can chip away and perhaps of not force her out but she enologist it is time to step up. and she signals when she tries to do here is in a position to raise a lot of money.

whether she raises over $1 million for democrats that is the figure that is very hard to anyone else to beat because nobody else does fundraising like her. . .