and god knows the united states health care system health care system is the most wasteful and bureaucratic of any in the world if we can make the system more efficient, save money, but that money into a seniors support prescription drugs what is the problem with that? i don't think so. he talked about the irs and people having difficulty making connections, which is clearly not right. and there are very and most people say if i could get for $6 in return for every dollar that i invest, let's do it. i looked over to working with the senator and other republicans who do just that. we can argue about the tax code and we will, but we should

change it if we don't like it. so if you could invest this, i think that that is a pretty good investment. and the senator was right, not perfect by this but i voted for it, one of reasons is that it extended for another two years and the program that i work very hard on. and that is a federally qualified health center program which is playing a huge role in providing health care and dental care and low-cost prescription drugs and mental health counseling and there is a significant increase of the affordable care act that was

going to expire and as a result of yesterday's legislation in addition we have extended this and we were able to extend for another two years, funding for the community health center program and it's something that i think it's part of this. but the senator is right that is a step forward and that should not be confused with the budget. it's an unmitigated disaster and tax breaks for billionaires, programs that americans desperately need, reason is for low income working families. >> coming up on c-span2, u.s. ambassador to the u.n., samantha power talks about her 2016 budget and addressing global threat. then budget committee readers

talk about the republican budget just before they began the negotiations with the house. after that, the senate remembers the victims of 2013's boston marathon bombing and then the senate foreign relations committee passes legislation to provide oversight on the iran nuclear deal. >> samantha power testifying on the budget last for the united nations and international organizations, she's also question by members of the house appropriations subcommittee on the iran nuclear deal from capitol hill, this is one hour and 45 minutes.

[inaudible] [inaudible] and with each passing day we are learning about the promoters of the deal [inaudible] and i hope that we can address this today [inaudible] >> to join international bodies over the last. the steps that the international criminal court have included for

the palestinians in jeopardy and also very can learn about recent statements from administration officials that suggest that the united states is reevaluating and reports that the u.s. may support a u.n. security council resolution laying out conditions in establishing deadlines and the only path is to negotiate settlement with israel. concerns also remain about human rights council and i fear that the council's upcoming report on masters hostilities will unfairly criticized israel's right to defend itself. members of congress question why we should support the council at all and i welcome the comments on this issue. regarding budget issues, the request includes a significant increase and other international organizations.

approximately 25% higher than last year. like many increases at the presidents request, this one is difficult for me to justify. the united states is by far the largest contributor to the u.n. and more needs to be done to ensure that the u.n. has it budget under control. for example, the u.n. peacekeeping costs have skyrocketed. administrations should work with the union to phase out peacekeeping missions when possible and lower the rates that the united states pays. and if you know the appropriations bill contains strong transparencies and accountability requirements and after all of this there is no excuse for this. i look forward to your thoughts on all of these issues. in closing, i want to thank you and the american delegation around the world for the work that you do to advance u.s.

interests and now the ranking member, i turn to her for opening remarks. >> hello i welcome you today. throughout my time in congress i have consistently supported robust u.s. engagement at the united nations. the u.n. is instrumental in advancing our nationals purity interests -- security interests in the united states. [audio difficulties] >> trying to bring them to undertake the same admission. organizations like the world food program u.n. women, u.n.

population fund, help reduce poverty, protect children, feed the hungry promote women's political and economic impairment and improve health standards and the millions around the world. the benefits are not always obvious to the casual observer, the u.n. delivers real result for every american tax dollar that we contribute. the united states cannot be the world's policeman and as i said before no one nation can or should address today's global challenges alone. and that is why we must continue to work together with the world community using every tool at our disposal, unilateral action should be the last option and not the first. those who eat viewed the u.n. negatively or advocate for reducing resources undermine the effectiveness and limit our ability to influence

international positions. and we cannot expect them to perform or if we regard these obligations as optional. like any organization the u.n. is not perfect. i am particularly concerned about the actions with regard to the israeli-palestinian conflict and comments by the obama administration suggesting a reevaluation of defending israel at the u.n. it was ambassador rice that says when viewing a resolution, it is the israelis and the palestinian conflict and even the best cannot resolve it for them and

it would violate the letter and spirit of this signed in 1993 and direct negotiations, however prolonged are seemingly attractive, as they may be. such a stance that the u.n. would also reward this and at your history. madam ambassador, i hope that you will unequivocally assure the members of the subcommittee that the administration will do everything that there is power to stand firmly with our allies, including israel in opposing counterproductive and reckless u.n. proposals. in addition to ensuring the strictest inspection of any facility, one of the most critical components will be the timing of any proposed sanction

and our ability to reimpose sanctions should iran violate the agreement. given their history of deception, i would like to hear from you with a corps of u.n. sanctions that will remain in place until iran has taken major nuclear related steps that demonstrate this. i would also like to detail the mechanisms with which the u.n. could snap back the u.n. sanctions at any point during the deal and beyond. and lastly i hope that you also update the subcommittee on the u.n. conflict resolution effort. such as ending the devastating warfare in south sudan capturing violent extremism across the continent which is all the more critical given the barbaric massacre of university students in kenya earlier this

month and unprecedented levels of humans offering and humanitarian needs around the world, i think you for your leadership and commitment and passion and for all that you do to represent american values abroad, and i will word to your testimony. >> please proceed with your opening remarks and i would encourage you to summarizer marks with your full written statement that we place in the record we expect those around 3:20 p.m. >> thank you for the time to testify today and thank you or what you all bring ensuring that these are used to maximum effect in advancing the interests and values in the world. as this committee knows and is both of your opening statements have testified, we are living in

a time of daunting and perpetual global crises. since i last testified before this committee, a deadly epidemic threatened tens or hundreds of lives broadcasting this on youtube and russia trained and armed some to fight alongside eastern ukraine among too many crises to count. these are the kind of things that they have created. if they have exposed vulnerabilities in the international system and we have seen a global health system led by the w.h.o., there despite multiple warnings, it was slow to respond to the the vola virus epidemic growing. we have seen russia and china through the cynical vico of a referral resolution at the u.n.

security council a step towards holding accountable that has tortured, starved, gas its own people. representing our nation, i have two can run these more abilities everyday. but the central point that i want to make to this committee is that even taking into account this america needs the united nations to address the global challenges. the united states has the most powerful set of tools and we will always lead on the world stage and we are more effective when we ensure that others shoulder their fair share and when we marshal support to meet the objectives. the outline for ways that we are doing that at the u.n. first, we are rallying multilateral coalitions to address transnational threats. in addition to this the obama

administration galvanized the security council to authorize one of the toughest regimes in the history of the organizations. this includes crucial for the negotiating table and reaching a framework that cuts off every pathway to develop a nuclear weapon. and it's not only on iran to catalyze actions and last september when people were dying they had no bad blood to treat the exploding number of a vola virus patients. we cheered this global health issue and so there were other gaps that ultimately help than to have the extra tensely rising curve america did not just rallying step up, we lead by

example for more than 3500 u.s. civilian and military personnel were we help to bring in this down to zero last month. and this includes 21st century conflicts and that includes police and soldiers deployed with the peacekeeping mission. there are more complex response abilities than ever before in the united states has strategic interests in resolving the conflicts which can quickly cause regional instability and attract extremists groups as we have seen. this includes some of the world's most dangerous conflicts and success with the democratic republic of congo and we have seen chronic problems too often including the failure to protect civilians. we are working to address these

shortfalls. we are persuading more advanced military to step up and contribute u.s. peacekeeping and that would be aimed as convenient last september where countries like this announce new commitments and that's a message that we have taken when we made the case that this is a critical way for european militaries to do their fair share in protecting the common security interests. president obama will convene another summit to build upon this momentum and help new commitments. and thirdly are fighting to end bias and discrimination within the u.n., an issue that has been raised. and keeping with the commitment i told the committee that the united states will stand with israel. we will defend it and we will challenge every instance of unfair treatment throughout the united nations.

we have lived up to that commitment with a full-court diplomatic press to help secure the permanent membership into two u.n. groups from which it had long and unjustly been excluded including actions within these international bodies and we will continue to live up to that commitment. when a deeply unbalanced conflict was hastily put before the security council, the united states successfully rallied to join as ensuring that the resolution failed to achieve the nine votes of those required for adoption. and fourth, we are working to ensure that the u.n. lives up to its obligations to promote human rights and the form and dignity. if we have them hold the first-ever meeting on human rights situation in north korea we use that to shine a light on the regime's widespread abuses and give a face to the victims

like demand chain to the back of a car and drive for 30 miles in loops around the village simply for trying to escape and enclosing we take seriously our ability to save taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. we expect will support with affiliated organizations and it is with confidence that we are doing everything within our power to make the u.n. more fiscally responsible and more accountable and more nimble. since the 2008 in 2009 fiscal year we have reduced the cost per peacekeeper by 18% and we are constantly looking for ways to write side missions as we will do this year to draw down among other missions. when we mobilize the u.n. and member states to tackle threats we are doing more than advancing

our interests. we have more than 112000 displaced people inside sudan who fled after security forces went house to house them accountable based on their ethnicity. and as when we convened and the u.n. general assembly convened its first-ever meeting on anti-semitism where more than 50 countries condemned anti-semitism's alarming rise in pledge to take steps to stop it. we are not only helping prevent a generation of children in west africa from being wiped out by a deadly epidemic but also making it safe for them to return to their classrooms as happened yesterday in sierra leone where schools reopened for the first time in over nine months. these are the stakes in this is the reason we will continue to work tirelessly to make the u.n. more efficient and more effective in this is why we are

so grateful for the support as well as the effort to hold the u.n. to the standards that america's security and the great crises of our time demand. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> one area of the purported nuclear deal was the removable u.n. resolution regarding iran's nuclear program and the fact sheet all passed u.n. security council resolutions and nuclear issues will be listed simultaneous with the completion of nuclear related actions addressing all key concerns. a listing of all u.n. security council resolutions strikes me as quite a concession. i have questions such as what is the rationale for this and the

clarification of timing for the removal of sanctions and exactly what obligations must they meet under the agreement and that is a promise to remove u.n. resolutions and the u.n. security council resolution and the transfer of arms and ballistic missiles as well. and we want to assure this as well as this having not been dismissed. >> first, let me stress a point which is how this has been. and we have brought them to the negotiating table. i want to distinguish that the sanctions definitely are

responsible for the kind of economic pressure that they face that has caused them to make a large number of concessions that many would not have expected but those have not succeeded in dismantling their nuclear program and indeed before the joint plan of action and the estimates on the breakout time were two to three months and we are looking at 19,000 centrifuges and so forth that will have to be dialed back as part of this agreement. so the multilateral effects are very real. we are going to ensure that the nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only with regard and this includes iran taking nuclear related actions, [inaudible] actions to greatly reduce the

number of centrifuges down and all those things have to be looked at and before it relief is provided. those steps would be to amount to us having confidence that iran's breakout time has gone from two to three months where we are now and so the estimates will range from six months to one year. so there will not be relief on the nuclear sanctions until the steps have been taken. second, if i may just underscore that this relationship is not a framework predicated on trust

and what you would do if this went forward, is list the prior resolution, but we would need to and we are making sure that many of these remain and that there will need to be the enshrinement in the security council mechanism this includes creating some kind of procurement channel this includes what they are contemplating making that would have to be approved through the german channel. by no means is it willy-nilly that we look and see that the deal is signed in this includes

that it's quite the contrary, we are looking at a phased approach and one that we think leaves us in a stronger position to ensure that iran's peaceful nature of their nuclear weapons program. and if i left out any part of the question, i will come back. >> i am troubled by recent reports it could signal a shift in position in the united nations and i believe that it is in our national purity interest that the united states and is it

still the position to veto one side of the resolution at the u.n.? >> thank you congresswoman. i have worked tirelessly and the predecessors have worked tirelessly to defend the legitimacy and the security of the united nations and we will absolutely continue to do that. when there was a discussion about reevaluation, i want to be clear that there was no contemplation and will never be a contemplation of reevaluating the deep security in partnership and friendship relationship with the state of israel. as you know the security ties are deep as ever. we have just talked about there have been some comments made in the public that have achieved some things working with state of israel, that many would not

have felt possible such as something that i mentioned in my opening statement, which is the first ever general assembly which occurred in january. we had 18 against israel and indeed in december as you know not only did i vote no on this hastily produced one-sided resolution but also secretary john kerry and the president were able to mobilize the coalition to join us. so we will again continue to work extremely closely with israel in new york and as you know well we have a record of standing when it matters for israel and i think that one thing that is important to point out is there are occasions and

there have been occasions where we worked with the state of israel on a security council resolution. and that never came to pass that never came to a vote because we were not able to secure sufficient support for it across the council we will look to see what'll advanced security and peace in the region and stand against this security. >> i appreciate your comments. the language that was repeated, reevaluating the approach what does that mean? >> to distinguish a couple of aspects of this we enter predecessors, and i think all of you have long supported this through a negotiation process.

because of some of the comments that were made in the election, it wasn't clear that i will note some of the actions as the palestinians have been a part of it which you alluded to in your opening comments it wasn't clear what the prospects are. the objective of the administration, which i think is a shared objective, is what can we do to diffuse tensions. and those are the kinds of questions the president obama is asking and as the government comes together we will be in close contact with the israeli friends to think it through again with what would lead us to the destination that we all agree is in the interest of the israeli people and the palestinian people which is the achieving of a two state solution through this negotiating process.

>> i have been hopeful that it would be a two state solution negotiated through a negotiation process. that is why it was so disturbing when the administration made the statement that they would reevaluate the position at the united nations. that position is not the position of the administration. >> what i am saying is that we are looking at how we can support what we have long supported and in order for this to come into existence. >> i wanted to make that absolutely clear. because the history is clear if you go back to this all of these very serious negotiations.

many of them have walked back and walked away, whether it was president clinton or president bush. so i do hope that in our lifetime we can see a negotiated two state solution that is negotiated with and i thank you very much for your comments. >> thank you, congressman. >> thank you very much. >> we are talking about speaking up and i commend you for that. i have a couple of specifics. a group of pro-democracy activists as well as american

citizens were attacked by the head of the cuban intelligence and after the attacks the u.s. citizens were the ones detained and i have a picture here of this kernel and there were multiple videos and it was an actual attack that has been shown already and so this is the head attacking a u.s. citizen this picture is of two individuals the one with the two black eyes is here, the other woman was from the ladies in white here among the attack. and here we have a picture of the americans and here is my

specific question. now that we know that it was members of the cuban regime who attacked these folks what specifically is the united states going to do to hold the cuban regime accountable for this egregious attack on american citizens [inaudible] >> thank you, congressman, and thank you for being so outspoken let me just say that while i know that there are differences of opinions appear that the obama administration has made with regard to cuba and that is probably an understatement we do believe sincerely that the

engagement that we have with this regime is going to give us more leverage over time and that being said the human writes conditions remain disturbing. >> specifically we had americans violently attack. i show that. we know who attacked them. we have video that showed that they were attacked. what specifically is the united states going to do to hold accountable those in the cuban regime that have attacked u.s. citizens. and what are we going to beautiful those folks that attacked americans it is rare when americans are attacked by folks from another embassy where we have videos, what are we going to do to hold him accountable when a. >> i would welcome what you have, which i don't have the

details, i did issue a statement on this when it occurred. >> i'm grateful for that. >> and i think again we have channels in which the issues get raised. we are not going from zero to 60 overnight, we are in constant dialogue with you and society and again, as this process moves forward it is our job to show those individuals that exercise their right that we have their backs and we will defend them with every channel that we now have what the authorities,. >> please, ambassador. briefly in the 30 seconds that i have in july this was captured, you have been very vocal on

that, what are the consequences for this regime and for sending illicit arms to north korea? so far the consequences have been with the meeting of the president even though he didn't meet with the prime minister but he spent an hour with the dictator of cuba and his family. so far the consequences has been recognition and what are we going to do to make sure that this is part of its? >> that occurred before the normalization was announced in december and it highlights with the prior administration policy along the lines that you are describing, what we have done is

condemned cuba for this involvement including something that sounds bureaucratic and technical that is important which is an implementation noticed out of the actual committee and this is something that they and the other parties involved objective this includes the permanent membership and those that stand in the way of more significant action, these are precisely the kinds of incidents that we will not change our response to and we will continue to speak out we will not pull punches on international law. >> thank you very much, it's good to see you. let me just follow up with regard to the discussion we are having with the ranking members and just agree with her that i believe that the two state solution is the only option that is going to achieve peace and

security in the region and also for the united states. i have legislation that i have introduced for several years now calling for congress to go on record supporting the two state solution and the peace process. having said that i want to make sure that we are clear that it is important that they agree that a two state solution is the ultimate outcome and achievable and i know during the last few months we have had some dialogue back and forth with regard to whether or not netanyahu wanted a two state solution. and i hope that this chain of events that has taken place since then, that we are back to agreeing that the palestinians and a israelis deserve this and we are going to continue to

encourage that and i think that the u.n. will be talking about how it took place whether this was still a viable option on both parties. so now, let me just thank you or a minute in regards to working to secure the contribution in honor of the victims of slavery and its really important that they represent us at the unveiling of march 25. in the african-american community is deeply appreciative of the involvement of our country in this transatlantic trade memorial. you know that ogre boko haram

marking the kidnapping, there are over 800,000 girls that have been abductive from their home in nigeria. total. and it's very important that they continue their involvement in the they supported this, adding them to the sanctions list, we have sent you a letter and we ask that they be included in i guess these recent events have shown him wondering what the united nations is doing to support the international kidnapping of these young grows

and what you see as the next step. >> thank you, congresswoman thank you for your leadership which is important because of the very real occurrences including the goals and those that are still a part of this. and bilaterally right from the beginning they offered us intelligence and basically they captured not only this but the rampage to the northern part of nigeria and we have also been very supportive of the multinational task force that has come into this trying to

contest boko haram militarily and we recognize that it's not a military solution alone because the governance issues and economic deprivation in northern nigeria is going to need to be addressed over time. it's similar to my explanation of isil and again there needs to be a military component, because of this, we see ourselves now at a crossroads where this effort can be ramped up significantly. the president-elect has committed himself and he made this a campaign issue and we are hopeful that with nigeria we are determined to tackle the underlying issues in the north and more specifically to find

out where not just the 200 are, but what could be many more than that and not just girls but of course boys pulled out of classrooms, boko haram meaning that education is for benin, willing to help resources and with our continued messaging than it needs to be military and a set of steps to be taken and we can move into a new phase and it no boy, girl or citizen none of them are safe. >> thank you madam chair,

thank you, ambassador, and i want to say personally that i appreciate your work. >> it is much appreciated. and you talk about the normalization process, one of the things that someone has talked about that you come to know whether you go to this or just a three-year constituent one of the big issues that i think is important for any normalization process, i wanted to get your take on whether you think this is part of it. that includes those when they left would be returning in short order. and were not able to because of the castro regime seizing the property i'm just curious is

property claims will this be part of the normalization and they would be reclaiming that property. >> we are now at the early stage of the normalization process. , whether we can establish diplomatic relations in order to establish this and we have started dialogues in talking about issues like this and we are just discussing communications and telecommunications and we

absolutely believe that these channel is need to to people living in this country and that includes human rights that we spoke about and property claims and and issues of u.s. fugitives that we can't ever forget about the need to work through. and nobody is willing side the needs of american citizens. >> i think that what has lost in the whole dialogue is that we have statuettes in our state and district that come to us and asked and i guess and it is so

much more real than doing business with countries like china and try to compare it is just wrong. and it deals with a political question when you come to a second term of a president and the policies in place under the obama administration how is your job affected whether it's in regard to iran and russia and what have you and the other people and they might do things differently and that is the

reality that you live in and what do you think is the future planning. >> like my predecessor would have been we have to do what is in the interest of the american people and the u.n. in particular, if we were to reform this and deal with this, deal with the peacekeepers who duck and cover instead of protecting civilians, we have to make investments that may not even see the overturned until two or three years later. but i think that there is a certain continuity and the commitment that americans have to defending the legitimacy and security within the u.n. and i think that we have something resembling a bipartisan coalition and so that is

something that we are working with and this includes mantras monstrous entities such as boko haram. so it's happening much more slowly than i would like because of this or in case of the security council we need to just keep plugging along on the reform agenda and the peacekeeping agenda and defending the legitimacy and the security and i hope that whatever happens that we have left a stronger u.n. and that the interest are better advanced within the organization and we hand off the baton to someone

who can carry that cause forward. >> thank you, ambassador imad. >> i'm going to change to threats, the worldwide global threats, i think one of the most severe threats that we deal with what the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and issues such as terrorism it is cyber. what is happening in the world, whether it it is like china from the united states and other countries including our allies and also destructive attacks which is the first time that we have had this in the united states and i'm wondering from a united nations point of view dealing with these countries where is the status of the cyberissue and have we taken a position on how to deal with

this problem as far as this is concerned and if we are able to prove the united nations and i don't know what mechanism that would be, if we can show that certain countries like north korea or someone with the united nations being in a position to introduce sanctions were used as a deterrent. >> thank you for the question, we are agreeing wholeheartedly with the premise that cyberthreats are one of the most serious national security threats that the united states faces in it something that we are seeing take effect around the world, even the vatican website was hacked over the last couple of days and it's going to keep happening. and so i think that what you saw, of course, in response to

the horrific north korean attacks is that we moved out with a very strong executive order and a unilateral action within our own capabilities and of course there is the coercive part of that as well. i raise this issue in the security council in the session that i mentioned that we convene on human rights situations in north korea. and we are looking at what the next step is to ensure that

other countries see this as being a threat of comparable gravity to the more traditional tax attacks that the u.n. is used to dealing with. it's not the case that we could move swiftly in the security council given the president's permanent members who might resist this to get people to see this like other kinds of attacks. but we are moving out with information sharing technical advise as to how countries and companies around the world can strengthen defenses against these kind of attacks and now that we have just put into place sieber executive order which goes beyond the attacks carried out by north korea, i think that that is something that we will seek to multilateral lies within the u.n. framework and then also

please agreements. >> giving an example of china, china has been stealing billions of dollars throughout the world, the good news is the united states we were able to show the connection between the chinese government and a lot of these attacks. mainly customers of "the new york times", major companies it is important enough that we continue to have a relationship with china because of who they are, how powerful they are and the fact that we would still need to deal with them and i think the best way to deal with china is due congress and that will hopefully pull us together. your role in the united nations

how would you handle this as an example? >> we have the evidence what we really need to do is get china to grow up to help us with it global type of system to handle these cyberattacks, trade secrets, that type of thing. so how do you see that in the framework of your job to be able to deal with this with the global letter because it's the only way that we can have our laws and be able to do that, including some type of deterrent to have these other countries deal with it. >> let me start by saying that i think that what we have put in place through this cyberexecutive order can be really impactful because when there are significant things

carried out by companies or government institutions were those that have affiliations this is a tool that we can use the weekend talk about the resources that they might use to strengthen the arsenal in these aggressive actions. the challenge that i alluded to implicitly before the terms of the u.n. security council actions. [inaudible] >> including to get them to stop cyberattacking other countries. >> is because we may not be able

to move this does not mean that we cannot use the bully pulpit to use that or about the threat as a whole. >> secretary kerry and others have said that enhance sanctions would not be realistic and i was told that sanctions will snap back. in the case of a major disagreement, but it seems like that is widely unrealistic. how can we expect them to snap back at a time that we know that the russians right now are

selling these antiaircraft missile systems which would basically prevent the united states were other nations from enforcing a nuclear agreement if they were to violate it. do you think it's realistic that sanctions would snap back in the event of a serious violation given the russians. i cannot imagine they would support this. >> it is an excellent question giving me a chance to respond to one of the questions were issues that she raised in her opening statement, so let me take a clean shot at us. first let me distinguish the two kinds of sanctions that we are talking about. that have brought iran to the negotiating table. the first are the very significant bilateral sanctions that we have brought to bear including congresses licensing

and the executive use of secondary sanctions against those countries doing business with iran and those are extremely important and they were reinforced and amplified by one of the toughest multilateral sanctions regimes in history which would achieve over the course of several in new york. and i think it's implicit in your question. so of course we will retain the u.s. sanctions architecture as we see this extent to which the deal is implemented and we see whether we are able to secure that access. in other words we retain a huge amount of power and snapback capability ourselves well beyond the u.n. security council.

>> do you think that would be a snapback with the partners? >> we have the ability to put in place secondary sanctions and because so much occurs in u.s. dollars, i do. but i think that your question on the second layer, which is the u.n. security council is important and i want to assure you that we are not going to allow for snapback in new york that does not require russian or chinese support. and so we are not looking at a situation where in order to snapback we would have to do a separate resolution along the lines of what we did in 2010 because we recognize that today's situations and we want to retain this authority and capability.

>> given the recent comments about the framework and snapback sanctions work. and we are told that our partners when support us, we would be isolated on our own. >> it's very clear and it is in compliance with this and the iea people have expressed that they have the ability to verify and have been granted the access to verify and in the one instance it raised an issue of concern and iran address that issue and you're looking at this

that has been respected and thus the idea of imposing sanctions and that includes any future agreement and that is clear that neither of them gets the access that they need, reports that iran is carrying out this and it's a very different scenario. >> i don't have a whole lot of confidence at this point in the event.

>> thank you for being here. >> i want to make a statement before i ask a question, in negotiating with cuba. yes, we have claims on the cuban government and that includes those that have lost property whether abandoning the property that's a question that has to be settled. and then we are also seeing some that scratch their heads, most people have not thought about it and that is one of the most

popular types of music, for anybody who is into music knows that it's a creation of many cuban rhythms and for years we have been dancing to this it belongs to cubans in cuba and not a penny was ever paid in royalties and i have spoken to some people and we could be talking about hundreds of millions of dollars if not more. and so when you see a movie and you see that in the background, chances are it was something written in cuba by someone who stayed in cuba and never got a penny. so we have those discussions and then you have the issue that there are people living in cuba for allegedly being a part of

this. and so my whole point is that it's not a one-sided issue this will continue to be very delicate because we have claims on them and they have claims on us as well. and so i guess if we wanted to do this, because my time will run out i strongly support it. there's normalizing of diplomatic relationships and it is a plus for getting more support to help us with this issue. >> thank you congressman thank you for raising this issue

[inaudible] >> in regard to the u.n., what i can say is that up until the presidents decisions from december cuba has been a polarizing issue with an understatement. there's an annual revolution in cuba that usually passes basically with the support of a majority of countries within the u.n. and also a couple of no votes. and so we have been very isolated in which i raised given

my exchange. i think of the steps that we have taken have made it easier for me to be heard than i was before every time that i would raise this, maybe this is just something that i have directed at you. there have been 600 short-term detentions of them in the month of march alone and i would raise that in the past, all i would hear about is the embargo and now i feel that i have a clean shot at making the case and frankly they are using it as a diversion that we are very isolated and we are no longer isolated and i ain't that we are in a stronger position to raise the human rights and democracy concerns about cuba. whether it's regard to individual prisoners, we tried

for a long time to get an investigation into the situation and i tried that as well this may change but it had had a lot of support from also some you would not expect. so we are very inferior that any process of normalization in the event that state-sponsored terrorism goes ahead and is rescinded that does not mean that they get a pass on this. i think that we will be more successful in forging coalitions not as from the united states but also from some of our european friends and others if we can get our own issues put to one side and focus on what matters. >> i thank you for your work. >> thank you, madam chair.

>> at the risk of repeating myself with some of my peers, i want to tell you about my background as i make my observation. as i have a real privilege of serving when i served in the air force with the russians come i learned even as a young captain that i'm certain that this is true, and that is that if someone wants to cheat, they can do that, there's a russian that that is true but the reason that those strategic negotiations work is that there is a lot of trust between them and we have a generation of having negotiated over which they were carried out and we can work with them because we both wanted the same thing. and so i appreciate the efforts

to move forward with a very important issue and i think that you and i view the willingness and a very different way. one other observation i will ask my question, there has been much talk about the sanctions and i think that we would agree that it took extraordinary effort on our part. and i would say that they are fragile and imagine if you would two years from now thousands of companies with millions and billions of dollars of investments. oil financing, shipping aviation, i don't think you're going to see snapback sanctions i think it's going to be slippery and slimy and we have

already admitted that we had lost china and russia and france as well. and so i don't know how you stop a dam from breaking because one other seabees primary partners violating this i don't know how we would persuade them. and we appreciate your response at this point, many of us are frustrated and i'm sure that you are as well with the inability and it's not a criticism of them but their iranian partners, their inability to have specific answers along with the questions regarding the military and the roles that those have with nuclear weapons program. so why do you think that they are going to be a part of this

as they carry out this agreement amax. >> it's a very legitimate concern and the lack of trust for iran, we share it and it any ultimate agreement is predicated on a lack of trust and i will come to you in a second [inaudible] and i think that what is really important is the verification of the transparency regime and the agreement to implement and ratify the protocol the modified code which requires

them after it's up and running when the idea has struck and the extent that we haven't seen. it is only over a finite period of time, i concede that point but they have reported compliance and as i mentioned earlier it raised this with the iranians and you may say that is just because they are on their best behavior because they want to get the big deal. >> yet look at what they do and. >> i know your point. but it's worth making a point as well. this is good as it's going to get with them. >> i'm speaking very narrowly about the nuclear issues. i don't think there's any improvement and again that we all work on in cooperation with

one another. but the fact that every part of the nuclear supply chain is going to be monitored by them, the fact that we will have the ones we all know about, coming back to this because that is the issue where the covert concerns it raised they would have to have an entire covert storage facilities, no one's ever heard of, that takes a lot of work and a lot of subterfuge and we retain the ability we have demonstrated, we and our israeli friends and others also to have our own independent ways of judging what is going on. so we will also see quickly whether or not they are getting this access that it seeks and we will have a means of resolving

the standoff going in favor of this and we will come to a point in which they are in violation, just to say that that is one of the issues and those questions would need to be answers before anyone has any further information. >> the iaea is very frustrated because they are very concerned and i'm deeply concerned that this will be part of this as well. >> as you know what all the sanctions in place, the same argument about that the difference is we will have more inspectors on the ground and more of the ability to catch them. >> i would be happy to buy you a beer and continue.

>> thank you, madam chair. it's good to see you. good mix things up and ask you something not related to cuba or israel. because i have a sense that that was what he will cover before i got here. and that's just a hunch. that's i would like to ask you a couple of questions that are near and dear to my heart and miss granger, and that is ways that women are treated and the potential for explications and what we are doing about it. and so i know that the challenge

is that there are not a lot of women in this and i recently learned about a special training program that is for female military officers. including developed and conducted and it was in new delhi, and apparently there were officers from 24 contributing countries that participated and it essentially is going to be a part of it obviously it is important to have in a specific circumstance on the frontline of the peacekeeping efforts and

obviously with cultural sensitivities and gender sensitivities this is really important. i wanted to ask you about that program, if you knew enough about that model to suggest that maybe we can expand it going forward and generally what else can we do to train more women and put more women in peacekeeping roles at the u.n. and that is the ongoing efforts to deter explications and the peacekeeping operations and obviously there are u.n. peacekeepers operating where there are a lot of challenges and we have sexual abuse in the u.n. peacekeeping missions similar to what has gone on in the military and i would like to know what steps are being taken to address that issue because obviously anything we can do to

use our leverage financially is important. >> thank you so much, congresswoman, for the change of pace and for the excellent question. the issue is very close to my heart. we are very excited about this and we are constantly talking about it publicly as a way of encouraging more countries and we actually pass this which may set the framework for this. and in that we are increasing the recruitment for female soldiers and police within their own militaries including this to

send a demand signal that this is what they want. the numbers are strikingly small. but i have seen this, the effects that it has when women police officers are the one to engage young women who are getting firewood it's just a wholly different dynamic than they are trying to tell that not even in a part of it. but it's really compounding with these people are experiencing. there are just over 5000 women peacekeepers through these

programs and we also through our national action plan have made a commitment to try to increase and it is a big priority for the secretary-general but they are at the mercy of what each of the member states have put forward and i think that the embassies can put this also to engage and encourage that kind of recruitment. as a general rule they tend to amplify what the dynamics are within the composite number and so what we need to change is the normative political situations and we need do it at the ground level. in terms of sexual exploitation and abuse, the u.n. has improved as for those that were going out into the field individuals who have been alleged to carry out

these acts are generally sent home while investigations take place. but there does need to be far more follow-up and what happens is they go home and the un's relationship with it in a particular country tends to become atrophied. so we need to keep the pressure on them and the enthusiasm to melt away once they are back in this country. once again it's nowhere in where we are needing to be but it's much more of a top-down commitment and an awareness that this is a priority and we need to see resolved in the field. >> we obviously have members traveling around the world and we have meetings this to a

degree that we were able to raise issues from our perspective so that they are not only hearing them from you. if you could find a way to let members know as we approach recess i know many of us would be happy to do that. >> thank you so much. >> will do. >> let's go back to the palestinian authority just briefly. but it's obvious that they are turning their attention away from direct negotiations instead of going to this how does that affect their actions and the u.s. financial assistance. and that includes the fiscal

year 2000 working budget request. also asking you if you expect to file these charges, what are you doing to try to discourage this and if it's true that they are already doing a culinary investigation into israel's activities it is talking about his involvement. >> thank you, i will try to talk about this question. we do not believe that they were eligible to become a part of this, we have made clear privately and publicly and many times over that we have opposed the decision that would be counterproductive and further and poison the atmosphere that we were talking about earlier

to improve and the hopeful that the parties can improve so that the palestinian people can be advanced, which is not something that they are going to secure for them, a two state solution will secure enough for them and so we are reviewing this assistance as you know the government of israel has made a decision to release this because much of the assistance whether it is the assistance that goes through israel or at a goes through this body, it is one that we used to deepen the security partnership and the last thing we want is for the palestinian territories to be radicalized and it's not have a place to go and for people not to be paid and we know who exploits those kind of environment, so it is a

day-to-day discussion about how we go forward on this question. finally on their own relationship to this issue the prosecutor has announced that he is undertaking a pulmonary examination and it is higher to the investigation stage and there are a lot of questions that she will need to sort through and we believe that one of those questions should center on the eligibility question given that a two state solution has not been secured between the two parties and you know we again engage in both the palestinians and taking any further action and of course we have talked about this to try to make very clear what the consequences of moving forward are going to be. for what again we should all before which is peace and

security between the two parties. >> thank you for asking about this and i'm wondering where the chair is going. i will be interested if you have any additional information to keep us updated. and the after dozens of meetings that i have been a part of there seems to be no progress in the military side and he assured me that there could not be and would not be a deal by the military site.

and i was pleased to hear from the secretary that this is an absolute given an i thank you for bringing that issue up and i would like to ask another question if we have the whole world to deal with, what is russia really up to their recent statement about this missile equipment it's an interesting one and i have asked for a long time what does russia really want and on one hand they are part of the alliance to try to get a deal and on the other hand they continued to stroke problems not only in the ukraine

that syria and yemen. and so i know they could have looked for various incentives. ..

in the world and in our future relationships. >> thank you, congresswoman. it it is a question that given russia's role as a permanent member of the security council i grapple with everyday. first it is important particularly today to.out that russia's aggression in ukraine has not ceased. there was a significant drop in violence. now that situation is escalated command it has escalated in large part because separatists backed by russia did not withdraw the heavy weapons that they were supposed to the frontlines. russia maintained a presence, a regular army presence within eastern ukraine the convoys not

inspected. i think inspected. i think we are expecting the 24th such convoy. so again, this is a significant concern command it causes us again and again at a time that we would like to see the minsk agreement implemented a move out of this confrontation and diplomatic isolation of russia we have to be thinking about the consequences of further aggression in ukraine. you have that as the most egregious example of russia's defiance of international norms. alongside that you mentioned support for aside even as we work together to dismantle the declared chemical weapons program. this is a this is a regime that drops thousands of barrel bombs on civilian neighborhoods, uses chlorine against children and adults

for that matter and yet the russian support for that government continues. it is a huge problem that has paralyzed the security council where i i said everyday responsible for maintaining international piece and security and cannot meet that because of russian obstructionism you have all of that to the human rights crisis'. anyone who speaks out vulnerable independent media being cracked down upon. the recent assassination of a leading opposition figure difficult place for anyone who wants to express their views or assemble peacefully inside the -- inside the country. we always make our views known, speak out and make those concerns known publicly and privately. all of that on the one hand.

on the other hand you have the fact that they did stand with us through the p5 plus one negotiations. they were and remain on the declared chemical weapons program. getting rid of more than a thousand metric tons of other other chemicals that aside probably would have used. trying to stop the flow. very useful technical very useful technical discussions, an area where cooperation needs to continue. russia's definition of a terrorist and ours tends to be different but you know again that is something we need to work on together. we're entering into a time

where we we will cooperate. that the logic of there cooperation as well. and we will take measures as we need to when they defy international norms and commit aggression in the neighborhood. >> before we go on in the past five weeks i've been ukraine twice. high-ranking delegations. send a letter to the president. >> thank you very much. i do need to thank -- idna march.

i contacted her. the dcm. extremely responsive. it is important to note that thank you. we have the weapons to iran. a million things we could mention. obviously there continuing their aggression. the invasion. the previous administration 1st thought that was a person that looked into his eyes. eventually a very cold.

we sat. another us. another saying this is a got you think. i think from your words you clearly understand that. the cheating and disregarding past abuses and this was done right after george. if an attitude as to how we deal with the russians? the different nature of regimes that i believe is a dictatorial human rights abusing regime. >> i think russia has taken action that has resulted in not only the attempted

lopping off of part of the neighbor, but the attempted neutering and evisceration of the democratic progress the russian it also made internally including throwing out usaid. the critical support. the the lawyers groups and independent journalists and anticorruption crusader's. the relationship of course is now one that takes on these issues. back in 2009 if you had been told that by virtue of us and european sanctions the ruble would have depreciated to the extent that it has russia was going in a different direction. i want to stress, sanctions just with iran are not an

end in themselves. we are not interested in sanctions that are hurting the russian economy. we are interested in building ending his aggression in ukraine. our dialogue with the russians on syria is rooted in an argument that has not proven persuasive but which is that actually we both have an interest in seeing the end of the asad regime because the asad regime has made possible isis across syria and indeed it was a safe haven for those soldiers that went into iraq and took over and inflicted suffering. so we still believe that our shared interest in combating terrorism ensuring that chemical weapons are not used and don't become a routine weapon should allow us notwithstanding the very

significant deterioration in the way that we engage with them by virtue of sanctions and their aggression we still believe that there have to be areas of tactical operation that we maintain. and the discussion earlier is just one example. it is in our interest for russia to be a country within the system that observes the international sanctions that russia was a part of putting in place. if we want to put in place something that is of great interest sanctions on the protagonists in south sudan were pulling ethnic to where and killing them because they are the wrong ethnicity we have to go through russia in the section committee, united nations security council. we don't have the option of just turning her back and writing off this country but we are clear eyed about the differences and

disturbing trends. >> ms. lee. >> thank you very much. sudan i cochaired the carcass on sudan. sudan. we have worked for many years on a bipartisan basis addressing the humanitarian crisis in south sudan which is now deteriorating. 2.5 million people are facing food insecurity is the outbreak of violence in december 2013. with the recent collapse in the piece talks i believe it is critical that the us government increase pressure and to work to bring un sanctions in the force. so could you tell us what the dynamics are at the united nations? you mentioned russia.

we have asked for the establishment of an arms embargo. you know, we can't seem to get that done. the current un peacekeeping troop levels want to know are they being maintained? what do we need to know from this committee that we need to do to make sure those peacekeeping forces are funded and then finally with regard to un peacekeeping missions i believe the troop reduction will take place very soon and will pull down to what they were prior to the devastating earthquake in 2010. what is the timeline of the reduction? how does it affect the security? >> thank you. and let me if i could take this occasion since we have not have much time to talk about the budget request, take advantage of the

opening you have given me to make a fervent appeal that the president's budget requests be fulfilled in part because of the whole host of issues we have discussed them because what i think you see with the haiti drawdown is that we are -- and with the drawdown and liberia that is re- commencing now that the crisis has abated and liberia but you can count on us were looking at every mission and seeing where we can recalibrate right size. in the case of haiti's haiti is entering into a process where elections are occurring but they have also massively increase the capability of the haitian national police. i was down there in january and was told by the un police commissioner at it

takes ten international police to do the work of one fully trained haitian police which is not normally necessarily the ratio one would expect but a testament to how far they've come. but i cannot stress how well are we are to the expanding size of the demands that we are making on this committee and the congress and the appeal to american taxpayers that i feel i continually have to make. it is for these causes that are critical. if we can drawdown in haiti because we don't want to end anyway squander the gains that have been made consolidated liberia we have to increase in south sudan. it is a modest diffusion considering the scale of the threat. fortify the mission because terrorists are taking on peacekeepers. today we had another incident. a horrific situation. but when you go through the

list that we are asking you to help us fund there is just not one mission that you would take up. even cyprus is funded largely not by us but by the parties themselves and indeed of course given the number of crisis in the world the last thing you want to do is destabilized something when it's a process we want to make sure reaches a result. but my.is just join us if you could in this process of looking at these missions. we we cut the perk peacekeeper cost. can go down more. we're shrinking the size because we know there is a certain fluidity. we we no there is not an infinite pie here, but we are carrying over significant deficit from last year. hopefully less of one than we thought and thus while

our appeal it's looks bigger this year the actual requirements are a little bit lower than they were in 2015 for 2016. on south sudan we have put in place through this recent security council resolution you may call it a pressure architecture. a sanctions regime and now we need to go forward in collaboration with their friends trying to broker this piece process with designations on those who are spoiling and are responsible for the breakdown in talks. being strategic about that and think about how to wrap up. the resolution references an arms embargo. and we are drawn to the idea that stemming the flow of arms may be another factor that could change the calculus. the biggest issue is that the very leaders that have

been supported have not put the interest of the people above their own parochial desire for power or self-preservation which is a roadblock we have to lift. >> thank you ambassador. thank you for your time today and service to the country. this concludes country. this concludes today's hearing. members may submit any additional questions for the record. >> coming up tomorrow on our companion network

>> it's now a is now a book published by public affairs looking inside the personal life of every one in american history based on original interviews. learn details of all 45 women. the book on the lives of 45

iconic american women providing lively stories of these fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house sometimes a great personal cost and even changed history. first ladies is an illuminating, entertaining and inspiring read and is now available as hardcover or e-book. >> the senate voted 54 to 43 today to begin negotiations with the house on the nearly $3,000,000,000,000.2016 federal budget. both house and senate versions were written by republicans but differ slightly in the approaches. here here is a portion of today's remarks leading up to the vote with senate budget committee ranking member bernie sanders and response from budget committee chair. this is about 30 minutes. >> mr. president, let me

thank the senator and his staff for their hard work. certainly i agree we need a government which is accountable. we need to get rid of waste in government and we need to get rid of duplicate programs. i don't think there is any debate. i look forward to working to make that happen. mr. president, the republican budget is far far more than that. today i rise in strong opposition to the motion to go to conference on these budget resolutions. the budget resolution that the senate passed on march 27 moves this country and exactly the wrong direction. in the house budget resolution in many respects is even worse.

mr. president, the federal budget is more than just a list of members. the federal budget is about our national priorities and values. it is about how we assess the problems facing our country, of which there are many and i am not sure that the senator would disagree with me if i laid them out. and how we go forward in addressing the problems of which there is a fundamental divide. and that is what the senate is now here for. one of the problems facing our country command how do we go further? let me begin by saying that despite the modest gains of the affordable care act there remain in this country

35 million americans you have no health insurance. when they get sick they may not be able to go to the dr. with a may end up going to the emergency room. a very high cost. i have talked to doctors all over the country who tell me that what people don't have health insurance sometimes because the delay going to the dr. by the time they go in it is too late and the dr. says why didn't you come six months ago when you noticed your symptom? i don't have any health insurance. cannot afford it. losing tens of thousands of people every year who die or become much sicker than they should be because they don't have health insurance. the only major country on earth who does not guarantee healthcare to all people. 35 million americans with no health insurance. they're going to end the affordable care act

$440 billion cuts in medicaid which will result in 27 million americans losing their health insurance on top of the 35 billion we already have. the newspapers you will see it on network tv. that is the reality. they don't deny it. 15 million people in the affordable care act would lose there health insurance but this bill ends it. $440 billion cat in medicaid sixteen plus 11 is 27 million americans. what what happens to those people? and many of them die? how many of them suffer? they are working on something. has not happened in 15 years and is not going to. that is in this budget. this budget denies over 2.3 million young adults

right to stay on there parents health insurance. this absurd situation. when they were 18 they are not on our plan. then people on the plan until they are 26. we finally overcame what is so vulgar and hard to imagine that it existed in america. that is that people who have serious illnesses like cancer, heart disease, cancer, heart disease diabetes walk into an insurance office and say i need insurance. we can we can cover you for your diabetes, heart disease, cancer because it is a pre-existing condition. think about it. what do people want insurance for? to cover the needs. breast cancer or colon cancer sure i want to

make sure my insurance company covers that. it is a pre-existing condition. we get away with that. so all of you no that if what they put into this budget goes into effect insurance is can reject you. mr. president, not only has this republican budget ended the affordable care act it would also increase prescription drug prices to 4 million seniors and persons with disabilities were on the medicare part d by reopening the doughnut. doughnut. that means that at a time when senior poverty is increasing so many seniors in vermont, vermont, and i talked to him all the time, i suspect it is the same in wyoming. maybe. maybe not. i'm living on 13 $14,000

year. i have to heat my home in the winter. i have to buy food pay for medicine. so what we did is close the so-called doughnut hole which means the seniors were not have to pay out-of-pocket for prescription drugs. that reopens the hall. seniors will be paying more. mr. president the republican budget that only undertakes a vast attack on healthcare in this country which we will decimate life for millions of people but then on another issue of great consequence it is equally bad. in my state couple months ago i have three meetings at colleges and universities to talk to young people about the cost of college and the lasted and that.

and in vermont and i suspect the other 49 states you have families who are struggling to afford to send their kids to college and then you have others were leaving college terribly deep in debt. just yesterday i sat next to a woman. six kids went to college and graduate school all deeply in debt. clearly what a sensible budget does is two things 1st how do we make college affordable so that young people will be able to get a higher education and 2nd when they graduate how do we lower student debt which has been made so oppressive? the republican budget does exactly the opposite. the republican budget cuts $90 billion over ten years

intel grants, the major programs making it possible for low income and working-class families to get grants to go to college. this would increase the cost of college education for more than 8 million americans. think about it. our job is to lower the cost of college. at a time when preschool working-class families have a really hard time finding good quality affordable or preschool childcare the republican budget makes significant cuts in head start which would mean a hundred and 10,000 fewer children we will be able to enroll. under under the republican budget 1.9 million fewer students would receive the academic help they need to succeed in school by cutting about $12 billion in cuts for the title i education

program. dropout rates all over this country it's atrocious. the republican budget cuts the funding that we put into public schools in low income communities. mr. president at a time when the middle class is disappearing and we have more people living in poverty today that almost any time in history today there are millions of families are struggling to put food on the table. on capitol hill on capitol hill people might not know that, but it is a reality. people are making nine, ten bucks an hour. they are having a difficult time affording food basic nutrition. we have an estimated 40 million people food

insecure, people on any given week, any given month have a hard time feeling of families. the republican budget would make massive cuts in nutrition programs by cutting $10 billion for the women, infants and children program over the next decade you know i honestly have a hard hard time hearing people talk about family values and how much they love families and children and you have a program which is done a good job in terms of prenatal care for pregnant women making sure that they get the health care and nutrition they need to make sure the babies get the care they need. who really thinks that we should cut these programs? what kind of nation are we? people would vote