delays. to summarize, the relationship between energy and the environment must be considered as the united states seeks the uniform energy policy. careful attention to administrative procedure and its role in promoting good governance must also accompany any new energy statutes. if we move forward with u.s. energy policy with these principles in mind we can make substantial improvements for the future. thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you of a mystery and three. that opening statement. i want to make an announcement that we are expecting those around 1:30 or so. we each get five minutes. i think that we can make it through and give you an opportunity to respond if we go efficiently and quickly. i recognize myself for five

minutes and then we'll go from there. ms. cassady and ms. hammond both made comments about climate change and that is something we are concerned about. i would like to remind just within the u.s. federal government a 68 different initiatives on climate change. a total of $37 billion spent by the u.s. government alone each year on climate change. so the differences we have the right and obama truthfully is he views it as the most important issue facing mankind and some of us have different views than a job, access to clean water, health care economic growth are also important also. i appreciate your comment.

mr. pallone is coming in. that's another person. dr. dolzer in france they have a large percentage of their electricity produced from nuclear. germany made the decision to stop all production of energy by nuclear. is that still the policy in germany? >> that is the policy. we decided three days after the fukushima events in 2010 to phase out. we had an earlier change in 2000. then we had another change in 2009 and fukushima is still the key in germany. at the moment, my prediction is half of the nuclear plants have already been phased out after

2011 and the eight of them are still in operation. they are phased out for 2021. >> in germany they move very quickly to renewable energy, wind, solar, whatever. what has the result then? has it affected your reliability in the retail prices of electricity? >> it as a fact that the price of the consumer considerably. the price went up 30% for electricity for the private households. perhaps one conclusion 99 not here taken any particular position if you change policies in a pragmatic manner without too much momentary intervention, i think the change in germany has reacted very quickly. it had some rather unintended consequences. at the moment, we are the main importer of u.s. coal.

of course this is a little bit awkward to have more coal. >> i was told last year two thirds of u.s. coal export went to europe. >> so we are supporting west virginia. a consequence of our decision to phase out the nuclear defector to promote coal, for the moment my prediction is that the policy will not change. none of the major political parties including the one to which i belong intends to change. however if i listen to what my wife tells me opposition among the people is growing to this policy. the question is not affordable what we are doing a moment in the long run. germany has many issues as most others dates.

we need more schools better universities more streets and the question is can we focus our budget in the way we did on one issue alone -- >> in your testimony when you are talking about europe being more vulnerable, is that what you were referring to? >> that is correct. >> policy about renewables. >> together with the policy is phasing out nuclear power means that we need more energy in the future as regards gas. we have a very special situation. we can get more gas from russia iran nigeria or at the moment from norway. norway is about to peak. in other words, i would like to come back for a moment to u.s.

policy. the u.s. has criticized us of coors for being dependent too much. almost 40%. at the same time now era of abundance, the europeans would hope the united states allows for more gas to be exported to europe in the situation where we need stronger support with our alternatives. even small additional imports from the united states would help on a symbolic manner. in other words the position in europe is on the one hand the u.s. criticizes we are too dependent on russia or iraq or whoever. the u.s. does not allow and facilitate exports to europe. this is a position that may be reconsidered. >> at this time i recognize

mr. rauch for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to just take a moment to recommend to the committee ms. cassady. she served many years as an expert staff are under our former chairman henry waxman and she was on the side of the table and now she is on that side of the table. so good to see you again in your continuing outstanding work. thank you so very much. i want to ask you a question and also ms. hammond in response to the comments of the chairman. in your opinion and mostly your response, our energy and environmental issues inherently related to and why is that so very very important that any

time comprehensive energy policy also integrate environmental concerns and not policy into either of you have any -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> you have got a great voice. >> yes, it is true that inevitably impact of environmental concerns.

patio mac the question is what to do about it. the energy provisions that do not consider environmental procedures. we will see further market dysfunction. we will see the law of diversity and the environment. my recommendation that the minimum -- [inaudible] are enumerated as a criteria for consideration of the planet golf. thank you. >> i would just add to that the energy infrastructure decisions we make today will last decades. we decide to build a pipeline to baird energy production

facility. we are lacking in decades of new omissions or not. that is why it's very important to consider whenever we consider energy policy, we should confirm or climate policy as well as being through with the energy project effect our transaction negatively or positively crazy zero carbon future. >> the gentleman yields back. as we now have call votes, i will reduce the amount of time to three minutes for everyone so they can give everyone a chance. you're recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize if we got a superstar in the hearing room about 2:00. i have one question for you mr. grumet. it is not testimony. changes changes, changes. i moved to texas in 1972.

i thought the stronghold opec had on america first-hand. i just got my license. i was sent down to get gasoline. the last digit of the license plate. even day even number. long lines. gas prices doubled. now with all the production in america i see a vision of opec going away replaced by north american exporting countries. what is the one thing that congress can do to make that a reality? [inaudible] >> all right. i am back.

you make a very important point. we still look at the headlines and there'd be a chill through the land. now they can meet or not me. it doesn't matter to us. we see opportunity in abundance in our opportunities with mexico are profound. we have a lot with president needs to basically discourage first world technology. the opportunities and a lot of time working with mexico on something pedestrian but incredibly is data quality. the ability depends on good data in a shared analysis, and a transparency across her analytical platforms. that is a very boring but incredibly difficult and important thing and important in today. our energy administration is the gold standard in which it spent a lot of time. we want mexico to join us. if we had the shared data foundation of the laws as our colleagues have suggested, but then require a decision we can

have an integrated energy system. >> we inhabit what congress has the best thing to do right now. >> i like that. field that come us there. >> this time the gentleman from new jersey for three minutes. mr. pallone. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow up on three statements are there today. this makes amendment around the national environmental policy act with the environmental impact of proposed cross-border energy products in the section dramatically narrows the scope of environmental review to the cross-border segment of the energy products. the tiny portion that crosses national boundaries. ms. cassady just a small sliver of a cross-border project make it is thence to you in what are the drawbacks of the cross-border segment of the

pipeline or transmission line? >> thank you for the question. it doesn't make much sense because if you look at the more controversial pipeline other projects over the last few years, the controversy has never been around the impact of the border. we are not even the best constructed, highest technology pipeline accident can have been. those pipelines been hundreds of miles or the pastor sensitive ecosystems over aquifers, private and public land and environmental review the purpose to make sure policymakers have all of the facts about the impacts of the potential impacts of the project over the entire course of the project not just a small part of the border to understand how to mitigate potential impacts. in order to understand potential consequences we need to look at it as an entirety and not just the border. >> how about the legislation presumption, how would look you

not a cross-border segment impacted agency's ability to determine if a project is in the public interest. >> the presumption of approval stacks the deck against the stakeholder about whether or not a project is in the public interest. it forces the concern stakeholder to make the case not in the public interest rather for us in the applicant to make the case that is. that is a higher burden of proof. the way the bill is written since it's focused on a narrow part of the proposal and doesn't look at the potential impacts it's much harder for a concern stakeholder to make the case the project is not in the public interest. >> thank you or the energy infrastructure is more than just a border crossing. fundamentally the bug requires us to look before we leap and that is just basic common sense.

we should not be narrowly creating the post in the last of many to understand the impact before their construction so we can protect public health safety and the environment ignoring the impact will not make them disappear. thank you again. thank you mr. chairman. >> this time mr. pays for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner martin, lester counted doesn't have any wild of marsalis shell being drilled in it. probably the nearest is 100 miles away. how is it benefiting from marsalis shell the gloomy mansion even if there are none being drilled in the county? >> first and foremost what we have seen is pennsylvania put an impact fee with monies distributed back not only to allow counties but the counties to end up having pipelines. those are used to conserve open

space preservation easements and also replace structurally deficient bridges. we also see the economic impact as well. i.t. companies to data mapping pipeline smiles. one of the larger engineering firms more than doubled in size. they bought an additional 75 vehicles. i use my testimony to national guard or shady maples say no further -- i highly recommend it. $175,000 a year in energy costs which then in the same area said we will tap in and realize the savings. good night to see more of it. unfortunately half of pennsylvania's do not have access to the natural gas. given the premise of the open access nature of pipelines you'll start to see more entities like the pennsylvania

national guard and others who are able to tap in and realize the savings. where we see most of anywhere we hear from constituents in the area of manufacturing, those who are heavily reliant on energy to do that we have companies that spend over $3 million a year in energy costs, but they are nowhere near the pipeline. we will see further opportunities coming forth. i just want to add to do great great things i see as you are now able to get an education in pennsylvania that you had to go to texas tech years to be able to get. i think $2.5 million for the community college. a two-year program about $22000. when they come out of the program they are starting at $68,000. those are the things you are seeking. these are good middle-class jobs

that not only use your head but also your hand and we see that grow a something we can continue to see grow in lancaster county and throughout pennsylvania. >> thank you, commissioner. my time has expired. >> the gentleman from texas, mr. green for 15 minutes. >> my accent gives me away. every school in texas has energy courses from community colleges also had to texas tech in lubbock and uta and nnn university of houston and everywhere else. ms. cassady welcome back to the committee. i know you are familiar with the regulations promulgated by environmental quality not only for work on the committee but with this manner. a code of federal regulations states proposals or price the proposals related to each other to be a single course of action are evaluated.

the discussion draft requires the state department gave both a cross-border pipelines and you heard secretary mo needs say the agencies are required to do it. ms. cassady, with a federal agent be in charge be the salve to review that satisfies the regulations and looking at the whole project? >> my understanding of the bill is the nepa review only applied to the cross-border segment of the pipeline project or the transmission line. so the federal approval only applies to that portion as well, their first of two would only apply to that station. in terms of federal review, this applies to the cross-border segment. >> should not cross-border view with so much of ours up to process also done by other federal agencies. for example, if you have a

pipeline coming from taxpayers and you go for it to mexico, the cross-border pipeline, say about covers it on the property that's not federal but maybe crossing federal lands. the process would come into play have not. a cross-border is international and as taxpayers we own our part of the border. they would do it. you don't think the bill calls to look at the whole project? it may not be one agency doing it, but federal agencies doing a process on their -- on what they are required to do in the pipeline whether it be evil forward into mexico. that is what worries me because i know my colleague from new jersey side of the nepa process is not covered. i think it is because for electricity transmission it would be another federal agency

if they had the authority in manner or in some cases state agencies. the nepa process would be included. mr. chairman, i know i am almost out of time. >> mr. green, that is our view as well. we were above the staff to sit down more detail. it is our understanding that does not change the process. we have a company in texas who is a canada pipeline. they wanted to change the name because they bought it and their goal was to not only bring crude oil from canada but also attaching to the united states and the state department needs to review what is on u.s. property. the state department shouldn't be deciding the pipeline is good or not because granted we got

crude oil in houston texas because refiners do that. it is much safer and easier to put a pipeline in there than it is to bring the trains full of crude oil from canada. >> the gentleman's time is expired. mr. griffiths for three minutes. >> thank you very much. i appreciated. anyone who can answer, mr. grumet, ms. cassady or miss hammond, are you all familiar with the regulations relating to production of electricity in mexico by coal? if you don't know you don't know. the reason i asked the question as part of the proposed and one i am again as electric transmission facilities. not just pipeline. one of my concerns is that the

coal miners out of work in appalachia. and we are putting coal miners out of work in appalachia. but if we allow electric transmission lines to cross over from mexico is seen not as good coal with nondescript process and not as clean plan, what game have we made environmentally? this is the case while ms. cassie and i won't agree on much we will agree i'm not that it ought to be accused turn. do you have any thoughts on that assault? >> you make a very important point. dr. dolzer referred to it as well. that is why we have a shared solution that brings technology of the united days to bear on the issues in mexico. shared agreement will not get into a lengthy conversation about regional climate action if the second but there's a real

opportunity to lift the mexican system as parity with the u.s. >> i don't mind that you mexican system but am reminded that it takes 10 minutes for the year to get in the middle of the desert to the eastern shore of virginia so if we eliminate coal waiting 30 or 40 years just really means to put our people out of work and we are not doing not much for the overall northern hemisphere. >> would fundamentally have to find a way to burn coal in a way that meets security interests and environmental interests. we can invest the resources to get it done. we are not doing it. >> we can do more and we should do more. i yield. >> there are no more questions. i thank you all once again for your patience and we look forward to maintaining contact with du and continuing to work with you as they try to bring

the legislation to the committee. a moscow and in a statement from the canadian electricity association be submitted for the record. without objection so ordered. and we are going to keep the record open for 10 days for any additional material that may need to be submitted. once again, that will conclude today's hearing. thank you all for your interest. mr. dolzer, thank you for coming all the way from germany. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the supreme court has secured a conviction of a pennsylvania

man sentenced to 44 months in prison for making threats against his wife the fbi and others on his face with age. the nation's highest court ruled seven to two that it was not enough of prosecutors to show the comments would make a reasonable person feel threatened but also show whether someone's mental state indicated an intent to threaten. here is the one-hour oral argument from last december. >> an argument on case 13983 elonis v. united states. mr. elway. >> is your chief justice may it please the court. the first amendment on the content of speech for well-defined and narrowly limited classes of communications supported and what this college has called true threats. the government has found -- >> i'm not sure the court did either the law or the english language much of a good service.

it could mean so many things. it could mean you intend to carry it out. you intend to intimidate the person or that no one could possibly believe it. we can't fault you for citing the supreme court. >> it also doesn't help that it was announced in a per curiam decision that didn't have the benefit of merit briefing or argument. but a few that got the tradition, threat speech was not punishable by common law and until the late 20th century american threat statutes required or were interpreted to require intent plus the listener in fear. >> if you threaten somebody with violent and don't actually apply violent -- >> i think assault is different because it can also be an

attempted battery. it is my understanding areas question that assault when it involves placing someone in fear did require a specific intent. >> what is going through someone else's mind. in this case, the standard was what a reasonable person think that the words would put someone inferior and reasonable people can make that judgment. but how would the government prove whether this threat in the mind of the threatened is genuine. >> i think two ways generally speaking. as we indicated in our brief in order to prove the threats increasingly made online including excel foreigner can peter, you have to search to

show it was actually used to make a statement. you will also find a wealth of information as the court indicated and brightly. people conduct their entire lives electronically. >> you will find that the guy is really angry at his ex-wife. and you know, would like to see her suffer and his way to put it on mine and you are going to say that was therapeutic as you said in your brief. yes of course it shows he was going to descend a dangerous. it's a good thing he had out there that the internet so we didn't have to do it. >> i think the point is there's a lot of infringement you could find. you could find the webpage where she confided in someone else that she was in fear. >> i thought your whole point was the fact she is in fear

doesn't tell you what the defender want. >> if you could see he visited her website at a time she was saying i am afraid of this guy you could prove that he knew at the time. >> all he has to do as i understood your brief it is a good thing i could do that. >> if he is on she is in here that is all we ask for. if you know she is in fear he doesn't have a right to continue on. that is what we view as stating an intent to cause fear. >> could you tell me -- could you tell me and i am coming a little bit off of justice ginsburg's question. you could infer what a person's state of mind is from the surfers to does of how well sat in words, correct?

>> that is correct. so if that is the case isn't the jury acting like a reasonable person in looking up the words and serpent dances and banging did he intend this or didn't he? i don't know what the difference between the standard view and the instruction you want. >> as the government put it in this case, under the instruction it didn't matter what the defendant thinks. what matter is whether a reasonable person would foresee that a listener would be placed in fear. >> how is that different from what you intend? if you know if a reasonable person is going to read it this way, aren't they going to ensue the intent?

>> to a reasonable person standard regardless of whether he is aware that it holds him to but a reasonable person would've known. >> this is sort of want the same lines and getting back to its chief justice asked you. i was surprised by your answer. and trying to figure out what the level of intent you want is big the very highest level might be a affirmatively want to place this person in fear. that is why i am doing what you're doing. a step down from that is i don't want to do that. i am fulfilling my artistic fantasies. whatever you want to call it. but i know i am going to place this person in fear. which intend to you want? >> the second. if you are placing someone in fear, that is enough to satisfy. >> how about taken a step down more and not give to the government. if you don't know to a certainty

but you know a substantial probability you will place the person in fear, which is what i take it to mean when we talk about restlessness. >> i think we would save restlessness is not enough. but negligence for not enough even for antitrust liability. the same would apply here. traditionally courts have applied and sad that willful blindness satisfies knowledge but the willful blindness has spelled out was beyond recklessness and took an extra step to distinguish it. >> would be wrong with the recklessness standard? why is that too low? the recklessness standard has a buffer zone around it. you know it gets you up one level from what the government wants. so who is the person that we should be worried is going to be convicted under recklessness? >> many of the speakers online

and many people prosecuted our teenagers who essentially chewed out their mouths or make ill-timed sarcastic comments which wind up getting them thrown in jail. for example pending our case involving a couple texas teenagers in a videogame cap room. one called the other went crazy for something he said about a videogame and the other ones that have crazy how should a kindergarten. neither of them -- they understood the sarcasm. a woman in canada reported them to the authorities. he was held for four and a half months before he was wanted out. happily, texas is one of the many states with many states that the subjective intent requirement so there's a good chance will be acquitted. if you talk about what a reasonable person would view that as -- >> it's not a reasonable person as i understand the submission.

a reasonable person with the context of the statement. you don't take what is on the internet in the abstract and to the person wants to do something horrible. you are familiar with the context and the fact this is a couple teenagers and a chat room playing a game. >> that is true. the thing if everyone has a different view of what context matters. i don't know if you can say that the answer priority that is what is going to matter. they will say i was put in fear of one of thing that matters in these prosecutions of how to respond. the fact of the matter is beingated. they informed the school and there's a good quality to the reasonable person test because if you have reacted to it and presumably want personable indicate the prosecuted they can use that as a sign we took this seriously. >> on the briefs i thought

there are two separate questions. one has to do with the state of mind and the other doesn't. the one that doesn't has to do with what the person does what he does and he has to do this or he's not guilty if he has to communicate a true threat. what is a true threat? using the definition. the instruction i was given a similar to the one well embodied in the law. you have to communicate a true threat and a true threat is the reasonable person would understand to convey expression to inflict bodily injury or take the life of an individual. there is a second question i find more difficult than it has nothing to do with what you do. it has to do with the state of mind and that is what i want to know your view about. i find nothing in the race this

is a person could be it through negligence. rather what they say anything to me at the statement of criminal law is you have to know that you are doing those things that are the elements of the crime. you have to know you are transmitting and commerce a true threat as i've just defined it. if you don't know that you are out. you are home free. that is brown commission. that is every sort of statement of criminal law that i have that which may be only a few. i don't know many who contradict that. >> the way you explain it if you seem to be suggesting that he does a reasonable person would be placed in fear. >> i will ask the government the

same question in their brief what i see is the way i said it. they say perhaps something else. >> my understanding of the position. >> forgiven your position at the moment what do you think of the position i just talked? >> he had to no reasonable person -- >> you go into a bank you have to know certain elements for it to be bank robbery. you have to know you have a threat. one of the elements of the crime is to communicate and commerce. so you have to know. >> the thing is -- i wouldn't ask it if i didn't want your view. >> i am trying hard to give it to you. [laughter] if the governments view is he has to know that a reasonable person would interpret that as a

threat that would be a big improvement. i would not view that as a bad day at all. i would prefer this year. >> don't cover the situation where somebody trends that in interstate commerce, a warning that al qaeda is going to assassinate a certain person. that is technically covered by this statute isn't it? for any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person for any threat to injure a person contains a threat. >> i'm not sure that would be viewed as a thread because it is not getting one's intention. to cause physical harm. >> you are back to what the intention of the sender is. that statement eliminates the

attention of the senator doesn't it? >> because again we are just talking the question is whether it is your statement versus your warning as somebody else's intent to cause harm. >> that is a big difference and i thought your position took account of that difference that you have to play somebody in fear. once you eliminate that you can accept justice breyer. >> i am not the only one who says that the negligence standard. that is because you are basing not on what he knew but on what a reasonable person would have known. >> is your position it properly is drafted jury can convict if it is instructive that the

defendant communicated the threat with the intent to cause fear or intimidation to the victim? >> yes. that is correct. >> would you accept anything less than that? >> the closest thing -- >> but that is the way i read the instruction. >> i disagree. if a reasonable person. not if he did a would have the reaction. he intentionally makes a statement. he says these words n. full text a reasonable person hearing those words with you at as a threat. >> it seems to me you can't expect anything less than the instruction we first agreed upon mr. preferred position.

>> again it is my understanding that government is not accepting the idea if you don't reasonable person would be placed in your would be guilty. if he knew the words sad and also reasonable person would be those of a threat, he is guilty. i want to point out something on page 15 of the brief. it says requirement allows him to be convicted so long as it is sufficient to conclude a conviction that the defendant could not have known. they are admitting he could be conveyed to buy fact he didn't know, and what he reasonably could have known. >> your answer to justice kagan a few minutes ago was that it is not necessary for the defendant to have the purpose of causing fear but it is sufficient for the defendant to acknowledge that it will cause fear. which of the two is the period

the intent which i take to mean purpose is what is necessary. >> the reason we hate -- the subject of intense includes purpose and knowledge that it is a virtual certainty that something will happen and you do it anyway. >> knowledge that it will cause fear on the part of an average recipient or their particular recipient. >> we are asking for the recipient. a reasonable person would be a step up from what the government is offering. >> you've been telling me how that would be proven. he knew that she or he reasonable and would be put in fear. how does the government do that? >> or prevent a circumstance of what he said how he saw people

reacting to it. his own personal statement -- >> on the facts of this case on remand could the government received on this evidence with your instruction enough to go to the jury? >> i believe there would be enough to go to the jury. one thing in particular -- >> before you depart from your view if i understand correctly, when you have this has been who wants to place his feet as a cholera. he calls the performer wife now

why would god meet all of the requirements you insist upon and knowing that this would cause fear in her. once you depart from the purpose, you open the door which it doesn't seem to me should be covered. >> i may have been dead that he is causing a series of events that resulted in his wife being told he wants to kill her. the friend who calls the former wife and says you're a farmer has been has threatened to kill you. it's not the purpose to put her in fear.

any reasonable person -- >> it is not a statement. >> exactly, exactly. he does not have the purpose of putting her in fear. so you are back to purpose which you keep denying. i don't see how you get to where you want to be without putting purpose in there. it is a big step up for my reasonable person standard to have it based on his understanding that when i say this. if i could return your comments i want to point out there's a plethora of statues of fraud, drug crimes. in other cases through the circumstances surrounding that. >> would make a you a concrete

example. for which your client was convict day. this is exhibit six on 335 joint appendix. dataset. i've had about enough. i'm checking out of making a name for myself. the elementary school in a 10-mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting imagine in hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class. the only question is which one. some individual who likes this. this has altered a little bit. he puts just kidding, just kidding, laughing out loud. he put to death he aspired rap artist aspired rap artists. but as a jury to do under your theory. you have to get into the mind of this subsidized, somewhat disturbed individual to figure out whether he really knew that this would cause a panic on the

part of the school officials send parents who found out about this. >> exactly. >> congress wanted to say this is okay. it is all going to turn on the inquiry for a really strange -- >> i will say at the time there are two days with the benedict case you have to prove the threat statute. they do a reasonable person. >> i guess there would be a jury question of whether he knew that a reasonable person would take the communication as a threat. the fact he put at the top it

would perhaps when argued by the prosecution we had many difficult factual questions as to knowledge is this more difficult. >> these are things that prosecutors face every day. they give somebody a court saying i didn't mean it. i thought the deal was going to work. >> you really have me confused at this point. your previous statement relied upon that case saying it requires an intent to cause fear. i did not understand that to be our position. at that your position as you do not need the intent to cause fear. it is enough if the reasonable product of this statement is to cause fear.

>> i'm sorry i have not made my toes. >> it is just the knowledge that fear will ensue. >> the two things that count as specific intent under the old standard purpose in doing something with the knowledge that will happen. we believe that is a standard. >> mr. elwood, we never apply to this kind of hype and intent. the prosecution that all the government has to show that you said something that would cause a reasonable punch to punch you in the face. why shouldn't this be the same as that? >> the very tradition. fighting words traditionally didn't deal with an inquiry.

so here's the reason behind it. it has been essentially whittled down rates you hurling epithets nose to nose and will result in reflexive violence. there is no time for anything but a law enforcement response. the only option is to put the cuffs on the guy before he lands a punch. when we talk about incitement. there is much more time for law enforcement inquiry. options other than immediately passing the person. because it involves a broader category of speech, it's important to inquiry and the speaker's intent was because basically under the government standard, any speech that uses forceful language or violent rhetoric could potentially be raised.

the night of the riot tweets law-enforcement officers over the jeffersonian model the tree of liberty must be replaced with the blood of tyrants. what a reasonable recursive. i would want to bet a felony conviction. >> this is viable first amendment language that has to be protected. >> the kind of thing that were quoted earlier. >> when you do it as a category virtually any language that uses forceful rhetoric could be penalized. >> it has to reasonably put somebody in fear. that is all the government is insisting on. >> exactly come in very those standard. >> to my mind it doesn't eliminate a whole lot of valuable speech. >> i would like to reserve the

remainder of my time for rebuttal. if someone clicked on to face the page with the phrase turn or burn maybe that is a statement of christian doctrine and she says she's going to be going to. with that i would like to reserve our time. >> thank you, counsel. mr. david thierry >> thank you mr. chief justice. that is the core. true threats which may not be the best term to describe them but is getting out an important point cause fear and disruption to society and individuals targeted and for that reason congress enacted a statute that depends upon a mens rea component. the mens rea component is the individual has to know and understand what the individual is saying. congress reasonably presents that people who are speakers at the english language and who

know the meaning of the words they speak are accountable for consequences of work. >> the minimum penalty is what? to find. >> that's correct. >> no -- minimum mandatory sentence. >> congress is quite clear that when it enacted if it did not prescribe any additional specific intent or purpose to frighten or threaten the petitioner until standing at the podium today. petitioner's position until today was that's not a threat if somebody can say didn't really mean it. sorry. i sorry. that wasn't my purpose or intent. i knew the words i were speaking had the language. i can take it a reasonable person would have interpreted and cut out recklessness. even if the speaker was

consciously aware it was likely to cause fear. >> can you go back. that's exactly the point. i am with you down to forget the purpose. there has to be a true threat. now the question is knowledge. that is the general requirement for mens rea. that is the normal role of knowledge. he has to know those portions. one of the elements is a true threat. so i thought what do you say you have to know there. when i read your brave, you first that he has to now, he has to understand the meaning of the words he speaks in contact and must intentionally speak them into showing the defendant acted knowingly in transmitting a truth or it requires knew he transmitted a communication and he comprehended is contact and contacts. when i first read., i thought that means he has to know that

it is a true threat. why did i think that? i saw people being sworn in. suppose someone comes in and hears them say i do i do i promise does he know the meaning of the words? so a marriage is better. someone who has never seen marriage is hears the bride say i do. has the person understood the meaning and context of those words if he doesn't know that means they are married and go through a lot of legal proceedings. similarly, can a person know the meaning and context of true threat unless he understands just like the words i do what a true threat is. >> the individual can know the meaning of the words without necessarily drying the same conclusion the recipient of the communication a reasonable person would.

>> are you following that justice breyer, obviously you are. it is not enough for us to say is true threat is when you intend to put another person in the theater where you know your words will cause a reasonable person to feel fear. you are quarreling with that formulation. you want something broader. >> what we want is a standard that holds accountable people for the ordinary natural meaning of the words they say in context. >> and context is right. is that a reasonable person and examples given of the teenagers on the internet or is it a reasonable teenager on the internet? >> if there is such a thing. [laughter]

.. the speaker can make certain aspects of the communication private, or the speaker can open it up more widely. i don't think this court this case requires the court to decide the full dimensions to what the context is because here it was quite clear what the context and --

>> but you're asking for standard that would apply across the board. so if the teenager has a lot of friends on his facebook page then you're going to evaluate it by a different standard. friends all over different age groups and everything else that's a different standard than if he is only a few friends have access to a statement? >> it will depend on who his comedic in a statement. we all know it clear to me getting among friends we can say certain things that will be understood as sarcasm. when we widen the audience and put a statement out in a situation where reasonable people are going to react to it by saying this requires attention this is a threat against an elementary school. >> that doesn't seem to me answers justice scalia's hypothetihypotheti cal of the friend who calls to report the threat or another hypothetical when one student says, i have a bomb in my lunch pail, and the other student hears it and tells the principal.

under your view of the person who hears it entails the principle could be liable. >> no. that's not rv and i think it's important to clarify -- >> but if they suggested construction you would have in order to eliminate liability in my hypothetical or justice scalia's hypothetical is the same thing? >> the state hasn't spent any serious intention of the speaker to inflict bodily harm. >> that was done in the instructions given in this case spill not literally and it was a requested and it is and -- >> the instruction given by the district court in this case does not meet the standard you just gave. >> justice can become i think it does if you leave -- did you read it and cannot contact. it was understood as being a reference to the speakers and into get out the threats. >> it seems to me if that's the case you should no problem at all accepting mr. elwood suggested construction of the specific intent.

we all have specific intent as you on all the time. >> let me give you a couple examples of what mr. elwood's position as i understand it would cut out. it would certainly can people who are reckless, consciously aware that this would be taken as a serious expression of intent to do harm and the speaker says i'm going to disregard that and say it anyway. >> how would using that exact standard and it's similar to the standard justice breyer and because the way he had come its knowledge that a reasonable person would cause fear. you could say it's basically the same thing to say, you know substantial probability that the person you're talking they would feel fear. so either way there's a little bit of a fudge factor, but the critical point is that you have to know something about the probability that you going to cause fear in another person. and if you really don't know that thing then you're not

going -- then you're not liable for what would be wrong with that? >> the first thing that's wrong with it is that it basically immunizes somebody who makes that statement and then can plausibly say later hey i was dead drunk, i realize i just called in a bomb threat at the policepolice had responded an element is glad to be evacuated and i knew what i was saying but i was too drunk, it really didn't -- >> drunkenness is often not a defense in a specific intent case split drunkenness is a defense in the specific intent case. >> with the knowledge. justice kagan and i were just trying to get you to focus very specifically i think on -- forget the first amendment issue. take it to the site. forget it. let's look at ordinary hornbook criminal law after a model penal code. there is a normal come as you say in your brief, required is that the person know the elements of the offense. that's normal.

if he does drugs, he has to know that this is a drug. if it is the threat of force, he has to know that he has a threat of force, i take it or that it's a bank. so why shouldn't he have to know what is an element of the crime namely, that there is a tube threat as so defined? just hornbook criminal law. i we departed from it or not? >> no. actually your description of the bank robbery situation is illustrative because you think of the statute this court is going to consider tomorrow, 2113 which was interpreted in carter to require knowledge that you're engaging in the conduct, no intent element, no specific intent element. >> i agree with you, no specific intent. that is you don't have to have it to be your purpose. that's what i use a model code model penal code terminology which for me is easier.

you don't have to have it at your purpose but you have to know the elements of the offense. you agree with that, i think. >> you just have to know what you were doing. you do not have to know -- >> you have to know what you're doing. what you're doing is yet to communicate a true threat. >> and petitioner is not disputing that he knew the words that he was saying. we are not disputing that the government has to show that the individual is aware of the word they are speaking to the dispute is over whether the government has to show that the position are actually intended to cause fear or today mr. elwood has proposed moving at a level to knowledge. justice kagan is because moving down one level further to recklessness. when congress passed the statute intended to capture all of those people by making no intent element in the statute beyond the knowledge of what the speaker is saying. the presumption is that when you speak english words and you're

an english speaker you are accountable for the consequences -- >> so the drunken person possess i don't know what i was saying, is he or she guilty of? >> yes. the drunken person who creates panic and disruption and would be reasonably interpreted as having uttered a threat under the government of you is guilty. under mr. elwood's position in his brief that individual would not be because involuntary intoxication can make it specific intent. it's hornbook law that that is a defense that under the position is argued out of the podium, perhaps not because involuntary intoxication doesn't necessarily negate knowledge. >> i'm so much how you answer justice scalia's hypothetical and mine. >> let me try one more time. >> the threat is just repeated -- >> that's right. the person who repeats -- let's say a newspaper printed on the front page. the newspaper is not expressing its intent or making a statement

that reflects the speaker's intent to inflict harm. what the threat is a statement that the speaker makes which on its face and in context would be understood as an intent to inflict harm. repeating it doesn't have that characteristic. and i think we discussed justice kennedy, that the jury instructions don't say that literally but i think in context that's exactly how they were understood. >> if you have a statement made in the style of rap music as this one or some of these were he is the reasonable person supposed to be somewhat familiar with that style and the use of what might be viewed as threatening words in connection with the music or not? >> so, mr. chief justice, it depends on whom the speaker is speaking to. if the person is speaking to -- >> to a general audience. >> -- general audience, that i think the individual has to understand that not everybody will have the same private

meanings that the person attaches to rap the music and will bring to the table -- >> sub that the subject to prosecute the lyrics that a lot of rap artist views. >> no not at all, mr. chief justice because in the context of the statements it's pretty clear that the purpose of the communication is entertainment. people seek out rap artist because they are seeking some form of entertainment and that is -- >> claudia stark county going to be a rap artist? your first indication you can't say, i'm an artist right of? >> i think that your perfect freedom to engage in rap artistry. which is a perfect freedom to do is to make statements that are like the ones in this case where, after the individual receives a protection from abuse order from a court which was based on facebook pose that his wife took as threatening, he comes up with a post and says fold up that pfa and put in your

pocket, will it stop a bullet? he knows his wife is reading his post. he knows that this post despite the fact that they're in the guise of rap music, happens to their intercom her committee goes down and he ramps up and escalates as any character of the statements. this is completely different from -- >> you just made a wonderful closing statement, a summation. but why is the instruction or any other formulations suggested here, going to harm them? >> so i think justice sotomayor, the clearest problem would be if the court goes with the position that petition advocated in this case which is that there must be a purpose to frighten. because that would exclude the person who is conscious, yes i know this would probably scare my wife but so what? it cuts out recklessness. it cuts out -- >> i think mr. elwood does about that. he said he has to know that she

will be in fear. >> justice ginsburg him he didn't disavow it by the didn't disavow it the photographer posted your instruction is in the district court, not from the podium as he petitioner arguing the case in the supreme court. i agree that the court should decide what the statute means and is properly interpreted and what the fourth amendment requires but there was no request for a knowledge instruction, there was no argument that the proper standard is knowledge let alone recklessness. >> my understand of the model penal code levels of mentoring is that there is a distinction a razor thin distinction between purpose and knowledge. the idea that backing off from purpose to knowledge is going to make very much practical difference i think is sensible. there's a considerable difference distance between knowledge and recklessness. do you agree with that or do i understand that correctly?

>> i think you basically understand it correctly. i think i would attribute of a bit more distinction. purpose is the conscious intent to achieve the very goal. knowledge under they model penal code is acting intentionally with a knowledge of the practical certainty that the result will follow. and then recklessness takes it down to come you are actually aware of the risk and you are indifferent to it. you act grossly negligently. it doesn't have to be to the level of knowledge. it's just that there's a significant risk that you disregarded. >> i think that is the distinction. i'm thinking that perhaps a lot of these cases would come up in domestic relations disputes and in such a case the question would be, because people get injured heated arguments, do you have to show the defendant used some words that, in context would be taken as a true threat

or do you have to show that the defendant used some words that do have that characteristic anti-new that they had that characteristic? now, if i'm right about -- >> the former. >> i know. you think the former and the real issue is as if the former or the latter? >> correct. >> if it's totally open in history and so forth i think people do see things in domestic disputes that they're awfully sorry about later. and where the person didn't know that he was saying something that a reasonable person would take as a threat to -- >> i think it -- >> i'm hesitating to say that congress wanted it makes sense he's lacking something in there. maybe it's his fault that he's lacking but he is spent so that your instruction in this case said right before the passage that we've all been focused which is on page 301 of the joint appendix among many other places is that after giving the

definition of a true threat the court said it this is distinguished from idle or careless talk exaggeration something said in a joking manner or an outburst of transitory anger. so the context of his very instruction took into account your honors a concern and it cuts about. >> council, lest we define deviancy down, i don't agree with the proposition that well, in true marital disputes people make -- in true marital disputes people make threats to the person or the other i think that's rather unusual speed well i think -- >> even in the heat of anger. >> and often will trigger just what happened here. a spouse goes and gets a protection from abuse order and individual is on notice that that person statements are being interpreted as a threat and a

judge has validated that. and video petition going on and continuing to do that. so i can think of domestic abuse context is one of the best reasons for the court not to add us to enter element that eight out of the 10 regional courts of appeal have not done for decades. not lead to the kind of problem -- >> you are asking us to go down, it's not purpose, it's not knowledge of causing fear. it's not a conscious disregard of causing fear. it's just that you should have known that you're going to cause fear essentially. that's not the kind of stared we typically use in the first amendment. the only time i can think of is in the fighting words context because we typically say that the first amendment requires a kind of buffer zone to ensure that even stuff that's wrongful maybe is permitted because we don't want to chill innocent behavior. so i guess the question is

should we allow some kind of buffer zone here past the sort of reasonable men negligence standard that you are proposing? >> i don't think so justice kagan. if you look at the kinds of cases that have attracted this course offers a jurisprudence like new york times v. sullivan, you are talking about their statements that were made to or about public officials or public figures, perhaps extend to matters of public concern where there really was a social interest in preserving that kind of speech. hear what you talk about our criminal threats, statements that taking away any private meanings of individual attached to them would lead observers to the view, hey this guy intends to carry out an exact -- carry out an act of violence against them. that is something that is first amendment valley. dark alley of which expressions of doing in a way that lead people to think who think this guy is about to hurt somebody. >> what about the language on

pages 54-55 of the petitioner's brief you know da-da mechanized bed for mom at the bottom of the lake, tie a rope around a rock. this is doing the context of a domestic dispute between husband and wife. there goes mom splashing in the water, no more fighting with dad. all that stuff. under your test could that be prosecuted speak with no. because you look at the context it -- >> because eminem said and not someone else's because because eminence at a concert where people are going to be entertained. it was that it decided to hurt you private or on a facebook page after having received a protection from abuse order. it wasn't as if the appropriate style of rap that was anything but he'd been doing previously in the marriage and all of a sudden tried to express violent statements that way. in a context i think any reasonable person would conclude

at a minimum that there is ambiguity about the statements being a serious intention of expression to do harm. this is critical. we're talking about an area in which if the jury finds that it's ambiguous, it has to acquit. it has to conclude that this is how these statements should be interpreted. >> maturity with some very inflammatory language. the question is whether not the jury is going to be swept away with a link as opposed to making the subtle determinations you've been talking about. >> there are two protections. one is that government has to prove its case got a reasonable doubt and that is subject to appellate review. the second protection is that it needs to be a true threat as expressed in the watts case what the watts case what is a good term are a bad term. it means that these statements are to be taken seriously but they're not in jest not exaggeration, not hyperbole not artistic expression. this is not a standard that's led to any problems. >> the third point is that if the first two are correct, this

language is not with a whole lot anyway, right? >> that is correct as well. the proof really is in the pudding petitioner claims unless the prevailing rule in 10 out of the 12 regional circuits is overthrown, there's going to be a tremendous chill. but i think what he's overlooking is the fact that until recently, 11 out of the 12 circuits follow this rule the 10th circuit changed on 10th circuit changed all the while 10th circuit changed on the wealth of cases under submission, and there's no evidence that chilling to the best evidence that petitioner has come up with of a case that was actually prosecuted that he thinks shouldn't was one of which an individual after having tried to urge an fbi agent to recommend a prosecution and failing, called him up and said have a good day the silver bullets were coming. and the jury was able to hear in that case a tape of the statement, but the state and the context in which it was made in conclude that it was indeed a true threat. plus, the rest that should a prosecution actually did require proof of an intent to impede an

official engaged in his business. i don't think petitioner has really come up with a good reason for this court to change course. >> in the statute there is subparagraphs a b, c and d all with specific intent. i think you would agree with that spirit yes. >> is a proper us and to say it's likely that section see also should be a specific -- it's odd to say that a b. and he has specific intent but this one doesn't. >> it cuts the other way because congress in the other sections of the statute focus on an intent to exhort -- export. making down to prohibiting threats, it did not do that. i think it's also notable that in section 871 which is the threats against the president statute, requires that the

threats they made knowingly and willfully. that statute has been universally interpreted, except for the fourth circuit, as not requiring any proof of an intent or knowledge that it would be taken as threatening language that was designed to put the president in fear. it has been interpreted just the way the third circuit interpreted the statute, and if petitioner statutory argument is accepted that the word threat as some sort of an inherent meaning of an intent to put somebody in fear, it raises questions about the almost uniform and long-standing interpretation against, the threats against the president statute i think that only sympathize in a magnified where the problems that are created by threats. the problems are that they disrupt people's activities and to put people in fear. the president is unlikely to be put in fear by an assassination attempt or an assassination threat is made over the internet that the secret service intercepted.

he's made a party stuff but it's highly disruptive to society. with the secret service considered would investigate it does have access to the private intentions of an individual or his unreasonable interpretation of the language he actually speaks. the threat causes the harm regardless of -- >> couldn't you say that about a lot of criminal law, that the harm is in the conduct he respective of what was in the person's head, and yet we insist on looking very often at what was then the persons had? >> yes. and congress rights by statutes against a background requirement of mens rea and we accept that but the mens rea question is what has to be shown it is enough that the person had knowledge of the words that he spoke as an english-language speaker understand their meaning or does it have to be something more, namely that the government must prove in each case that he intended but that outcome or that he had knowledge of it or that he was conscious of it and

disregarded? there's nothing in the statute that requires any of those things because the harms that are inflicted are just as bad just as serious regardless of those. one final point on the intent question that your honor has raised. and that is i think congress would well understood that the majority of these cases probably what people intended to threaten. some subset of them are people who are reckless. for congress it was no matter which those things were. the point was to impose a burden of proof on the government that could potentially immunize -- >> let's go to that question. it may have been congress' intent, but does the first amendment provide an umbrella that cabins of their intent? >> i don't think so justice sotomayor. the fighting was example that justice kagan spoke of which is long-standing in this court jurisprudence focuses on the fact that the words will have on

the person who hears them. inin the obscenity context which i know my process is sui generis there's a requirement that the person who asked the items in question have -- >> we have been loath to create more exceptions to the first amendment. >> i don't think that -- >> i don't know where in the common law you have found a hook to say that we should created this as another exception spill well, i don't think it's an exception to i think it's just part of the application. let me give one more example. in the defamation context it's true that for public figures and officials, the court court has required actual malice but not for private figures on matters that don't implicate private concern. there is no requirement that they be anything more than negligence in the defamation statute, and the harms that defamation protects are much less serious than the harms that are protected by the threat statute when it did with peoples safety. so this court has covered the first amendment requirements

not with a broad brush that has in all cases there must be mens rea, but in some cases you do not need. the true threats of of doctrine as it's grown up under watts and has been implemented and applied by the circuits has there been a context in which the court has fogginess urgently on some kind of intent that is not in the statute. >> why is this a question of mens rea? what is required is that some thing be transmitted in interstate commerce, everything is a threat. the question is what is this thing? is anything that is intended to cause fear, or is it a thing that just naturally causes. icier time is up, but i wish you a time to answer it. why is that a question of mens rea speak with me i tried briefly speak with you have time to answer. >> there's a back representing of mens mens rea which is one mens rea which is when i could've put people to zero culpability. i agree with your offers a violation of what the statute focus attention on. it focuses attention on an

expression of an intent to do harm. that's what you to look at the expression and the context. then the question is did individual know what he was doing? if he did, statutory analysis is complete. >> thank you counsel. >> thank you. >> five minutes, mr. elwood. >> thank you. winger targeted at what congress meant when it enacted the statute i think if i were to look at what the traditions were. as a put out in state versus benedick, 1839 vermont case and a new warden atreides from 1957 which book into print in which the statute was enacted, both of those require showing that the speaker and he is putting the listener into. the first time the government's biggest of such as a required intent the last time you referred to those? >> i've been accused of changing my position. our point is that when you say something with knowledge that something is certain to happen, that that is intent.

that is both purpose and that, knowledge plus. by both for of intent which by the way ja-22 we did ask for a knowledge instruction. but on both sides of that bracket appeared when it was enacted, they said you got of intent to place this person into. the first case the government can point to that unequivocally says we're going to people to the meaning, hold people criminal responsible for what an english speaker would understand this to mean is 1966 and i think the purest case. all the cases after the integral to the recent phenomenon -- pierce desperately looking at what congress would of been thinking at the time standardized and at the time was that a person had to know to putting some in fear. the government's theory is that it's enough to make someone criminally responsible if you know, you're a speaker of english and you know the word

you are saying. i don't think there's any reason, really any different reason even the government to if you're not a native english speaker you'd get more selective with all the experiences we all know that words can have two different meanings. we give example of bob woodward in his book where the white house is saying, you'll regret it. he interpreted that as of the 30th aside just said look you're going to think that others down the road. it's a mild example that the government wants to criminalize it when you have two people, we both know what these words are capable of meeting but for the turn or burn for the blood of tyrants example we know english speakers know what those words agenda are capable of meaning but we don't know is what they're mentioning in this particular case. the government wants to impose a five year felony liability on any time there's a discreet between those two parts between the understand that the speaker and understanding of the listeners. i wanted to point out because

mr. dreeben comes in is the jury argument, talked about how after the pfa was granted he continues to make arguments. i wanted to point out page three tonight of the joint appendix which is three days before -- 329 -- three days before was ordered. tid just came upon those are long and painful wrap. it's the standard stuff of a rapper boasting and he says he would notice he says in response to departing facebook friend who he calls an al-qaeda sympathizer which tends to show that he means this was is he is a first amendment advocate come he says i do this for me it's therapeutic. the idea this is a recent invention there is stuff you can point you to show that there was a misunderstanding between the two of them because when both the speaker and listener focus on different things when they're talking about context.

if you look at page 344 this is a page that shows this is the only record of the standard disclaimer which appeared on his website which has all content posted to this district for entertainment purposes only. and again you can imagine a situation where somebody says i'm posting this for intended purposes only. you can see the number of other things he does in the style of rap spent this sounds like a roadmap for threatening a spouse and getting away with it. you put it in brian and you put some stuff about the internet on it and you say i'm an aspiring rap artist. and so then you are free from prosecution. >> and the jury, the prosecution would be perfectly free to point out all the things they find on the phone but they can save this is inconsistent with the theory. you have to point out this is the only threats case i can think of where somebody is saying, this isn't a threat this isn't a threat. when you look at for example the jeffries case from the sixth

circuit there he says i'm not kidding, judge. ordinarily, i mean it can diminishes the value of a threat to the the person does note that they're being threatened. >> what you say if your position is adopted this is going to have a very great effect in cases of domestic violence? they are just wrong, they don't understand the situation? >> it is in the interest of a standard that requires no mens rea because it makes it much easier to prove these. they are finished? many states including the state you would want it if you're going to win the electoral college california texas, new york, all of these states have a subjective intent requirements and the government has never shown that those states, very populous states, have any trouble for protecting the populace from their. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> we hope to bring a pentagon briefing on the military air campaign by the u.s. and

coalition nations to combat terrorist group crisis in iraq and syria. unfortunately because of technical issues we are unable to bring you live coverage of that event at this time. the labor department says u.s. employers added 280,000 jobs last month even as the unemployment rate picked up from 5.45.5%. researchers say hundreds of thousands more people sought jobs in may but not all found them. average hourly wages also increased up 2.3% from a year earlier. >> here are some of our featured programs this weekend on c-span networks.

>> the senate foreign relations committee examined this week a potential iranian nuclear agreement and its applications for u.s. middle east policy. the committee heard from james jessica by former u.s. ambassador to iraq and turkey and martin indict was ambassador to israel. negotiations continued this week in geneva to reach a final agreement before the june 30 deadline. this hearing is about two hours.

>> the committee will come to order. i want to thank ambassador jeffrey and try for the bigger. i know gephardt suffered about a possible qaeda honor that. this hearing as part of a series of events we are holding this month to prepare members of the committee that i was impossible nuclear agreement with iran. we are not here today to focus on the specific parameters just for education edification the glass that we met in a classified setting with three of our leaders of our labs from around the country and the secretary of energy, it is a very technically focused briefing. as a medevac which a minister tendance and people were most interested in many of the technical details. the rest of the month will have similar hearings so people are

prepared as a june 30 if an agreement is reached to really be able to assess it cannot be starting from a cold start if you will do we appreciate you being here today to help us understand some of the regional implications of the deal. this is intent highlight some of the concerns of the administration is so concerned about reaching an agreement with iran. some of the regional alliances that we have are not being really look at some of our u.s. interest. so against the backdrop of unprecedented turmoil in the middle east administration is negotiating a nuclear agreement with the archrival of many of our closest allies. instead of reassuring our traditional allies the united states remained a friend some would say that the administration hasn't been a string of incoherent and self-defeating policy but i know y'all will discuss those back and forth. the administration has threatened to revoke support for israel at the u.n. while

accommodating a nation that is dedicated to the destruction of israel. they have rebuked the emirates for striking isis and libya while asking them to strike isis and syria. they have withheld military equipment from egypt, bahrain and qatar while asking them to join in the fight against basis. they have criticized saudi arabia for acting in yemen while providing the saudis military assistance for the same operation. so there's a lot of cross currents that are difficult for some of us to string together. in iraq regulars are increasingly turning to iranian backed militias and the fight against isis. and perhaps most tragically inserted, thousands of syrians continue to die at the hands of assad and his iranian backers wanted administration implements a strategy consisting of the ineffective use of military

force to be used only against isis itself. i think you may have seen a communiqué that came from one of the leaders of the syrian opposition whether asked to sign a statement saying they would only, they're being trained and equipped by the united states but they can only use that potential against isis and not against assad. under they sent out a communications center going to stop the train and operatives they. understand sometimes that's negotiating point but certainly somewhat along the as iran deepens its influence in the capital from baghdad to damascus to beirut ma the perspective of many in the region is that the united states is assad air force in syria, and iran's air force and director i was a iraq recently and it really did feel like while i support forward what we did with the 3100 personnel we have, it really felt like what we were doing is helping create a better country for iran and iraq.

even though again i support what is happening there. it feels very much that way with their infiltration into the parliament and their tremendous efforts on the ground. as we begin to look at how to evaluate prospective nuclear agreement, we cannot ignore the lack of good american leadership and the region has left a vacuum that will continue to be filled by violence. without defined committed engagement to counter iranian regional aggression and to support our partners the need for american involvement will continue to grow as conditions deteriorate. in your testimony i hope you will touch on what i will say of some of the puzzling claims from the administration about what an agreement with iran would mean for the region. one of those claims is the apparent the of the administration that iran would become a stabilizing force in the region. president obama said in a recent it is opening up iran's economy

through sanctions relief in many ways makes it harder for them to engage in behaviors that are contrary to international norms. i know that again many of our allies are concerned that in accessing $150 billion potential overtime and having excellent economy will not just the opposite effect and cause them to be even more strident in the region. do you accept the view that the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and nation that is strictly contribute to the desk of thousands of americans would somehow reform their behavior after being enriched and empowered for pursuing an illegal nuclear program? and finally i hope you will touch on what the initiation portrays as a choice between war and a deal but i think that's a false choice. and again i look forward to your testimony today. i wanted an overnight or distinguished ranking member and appreciate his cooperation in every effort and i look forward to comments. >> well, mr. chairman, for so

thank you much for convening this hearing. this is an important month, and i think we have already started with a briefing last night and today's hearing in the right way to keep not on our committee, but the united states congress very much informed and involved with what's happening in the middle east. as i explained to you last night after i left the committee briefing, i went to the french embassy, mr. indyk was there along with about 50 other people who are very much engaged in the middle these policies. the theme for the evening was a discussion about the middle east. and there were many people who expressed grave concerns about what's happening in the middle east for good reason. just about every country in the middle east is at war and there's a lack of stability in that region that affects u.s. interest. there's no question about it. what i found last night was they were very short on recommendations.

on how we should proceed. let me just point out the united states is deeply involved in the middle east. there's no question about that. we're deeply involved with our military, deeply involved with our diplomacy, and we're deeply involved in building coalitions to advance goals in and of these which i think are universal. and that is respect for human rights at all ethnic communities, territorial integrity. these are important goals that we're trying to achieve in the middle east. they are not easy to achieve but they cannot be attained without the u.s. involvement in the united states is clearly involved. throughout the discussion last night, iran was mentioned probably the most country mentioned the most was iran. we know there are many problems with regard to iranian behavior. we know that iran is one of the major violators of basic rights

of its own citizens. we know that it is a sponsor of terrorism. we know that they have influence in 70 countries in a negative way, yemen, and the saudis of course have expressed their grave concerns about the iranian influence in yemen. what you're doing in syria and iraq and cover by scott ability to go after isil. there's so many areas that we are concerned about iran, but what we have concentrated on at this particular month is whether we can achieve a diplomatic solution to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. and turn to i just we want to understand -- underscore your leadership and how incredibly important that was a know to get the iranian nuclear review act of 2015 signed by the president enacted into law. it is not the law and this committee played a critical role in achieving an accomplishment. it did several things but still want to underscore, it showed

unity. unity here in our government that we are focused on iran not on the flights of congress. and it stood up the right way to review potential agreement reached between the p5+1 in iran and that's exactly what we should have done never to applaud your leadership and the work of every member of the senate foreign relations committee. which brings us to what we do this month. asked the chairman pointed out we have last i think is very helpful discussion to close said in regards to the technical aspects of what an agreement needs to include. and today we have two experts who can help us understand the consequences of the agreement with iran as to u.s. involvement in the middle east which is it's not in isolation. there are many other areas that are involved and what will an agreement mean for the u.s. in the middle east.

i understand we're not going to talk about specific of an agreement today but i think we all agree the diplomatic course would be for those with iran complying with an agreement that would provide ample time for any potential breakout that we could discover if they are violating the terms of the agreement to take appropriate action. any agreement is not based upon trust. it's based upon terms and agreement to make sure we can keep iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. one last point if i might. if we are successful in reaching a diplomatic agreement, we've removed one threat. that is a nuclear iran. that's an important goal for us to achieve. but then what does iran do next? do they take a course of joining the community of nations in peaceful activities and nonproliferation? we certainly hope that would be the case but we don't have any illusions that will automatically occur. or the act with the increased

economic empowerment to have more negative impact in yemen and syria and iraq starting terrorism? we need to be prepared in how the united states contest act to make sure that the iranian activities are channeled towards positive rather than negative activities. and then lastly if are not able to reach an agreement we need to be prepared as to how we act to make sure iran does not become a nuclear weapons state. i look forward hearing from our witnesses. >> thank you very much. we will now turn to our witnesses. our first witness is the honorable james jeffries, career with the washington institute or ambassador jeffrey previously served as the deputy national security advisor to president bush. ambassador to albania turkey and iraq. we thank you for being you. i second what this is the article martin indyk, executive vice president at the brookings

institution. ambassador and take has twice served as ambassador to israel and most recently as the a special envoy for the israeli palestinian negotiation for both of you have done this often. you can summarize your comments and not to seek a written document which entered into the record. we thank you very much for being a look forward to your testimony testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman ranking member cardin members of the committee. it's an honor to be back here. the question of iran as you just said the and the nuclear context or in the regional context is one of the most important issues today in the middle east. but it's not the only one because we are dealing with the region again as she said senator cardin, that is in crisis. a set of crisis we have seen since the end of the ottoman empire almost 100 years ago. these crises impact our final interest in the region, combating terrorism weapons of mass destruction, supported our allies and partners and ensuring

the free flow of hydrocarbons to the world economy. the action of the congress in passing the iran nuclear agreement review act is a step in the direct -- the right direction because allow the american people have a say. as we don't know at this point what an agreement look like compactness we'll have a sketch of the possibilities based upon the april 2 understand things. we can't make a final determination. that will be based on fabrication questions what happens with the nuclear materials and the status of the infrastructure. but in any case it's important again as you said, to put this in context of its actions in the region. and i would propose the following as areas of consideration.

first the agreement cannot be considered without looking at iran's record of destabilization throughout the region. either and a renewed nuclear weapons capability of an agreement that grants iran a special status to shock would pose new threats the region already under stress. second, it's the nature of the regime itself. two of my colleagues at the washington institute published a piece in the new york times april 26. we wrote, iran is a revolutionary power with hegemonic aspirations. in other words, it is a country seeking to assert its dominance in the region and will not play by the rules that any decision on iran's nuclear deal most bitter this sobering thought in mind and must not read iran's was decided and as a change of heart about its ultimate goals. i'm not passing a decision on the agreement itself. we signed agreement with the soviet union on nuclear issues

when we do they were out to come as khrushchev said, areas. but we do this with her eyes open. we need to do this with iran as well. third, in particular given iran's will in the region, no nuclear agreement is better than one that might push back by someone's iran's ability to breakout a weapons capability if such an agreement and that the current coalition. forth from the ministrations assertion that has there's no alternative to approving an agreement is incorrect. any agreement is better than none. were iran to walk away from the agreement that was laid out in general terms in april the united states probably could ensure that international sanctions currently in place stay on. if we decided in the end to not go along with a group such as the one laid out on april 2 i think would be hard to keep the international sanctions that the eu and other countries have put on but we of the means to do this. in the end it into your point,

mr. chairman, any agreement is based upon our willingness to use military force to stop iran from trying to achieve a breakout capability of trying to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. we can't get around the fact that the administration officially has that as his position that will act if iran does that. but these words are undercut constantly by arguments that military force will have no effect it will have little effect or lead to order terri spent a fair amount of time and were i don't say this lightly but it's unlikely that we'll see anything like vietnam or iraq. we have tremendous military capabilities we need to you. i hope we don't. finally, there is the issue as you said of reassuring our friends and allies. camp david was a step in the right direction but it focused only on conventional threat to these arab states. that's not what they were devout. they were the infiltration of

the arab areas as you said iraq, lebanon, syria yemen by iran in many different ways. so in short term and look at this agreement what's important is not only what's in the agreement but our willingness to use force to back up our commitment that they do not ever get a nuclear weapon and our willingness to push back against iranian efforts throughout the region. those are the three issues i think are crucial. thank you, sir. >> mr. ambassador? >> thank you very much mr. chairman. gentlemen, i could appreciate the opportunity to testify today, on this critical issue and i want to applaud all of you if i may for the way in which come as mr. gordon said, you came together and drafted and passed legislation which would

give us an effort important role in overseeing the details of this agreement. and i also applaud the deliberate way in which you were going about making sure that you understand the technical dimensions of this, which i couldn't come close to understanding. thank you on behalf of all of us for taking this so seriously. i think that if you were presented with an agreement, you will likely have to make a choice either to endorse an agreement that will remove sanctions on iran but should ensure that remains nuclear weapons free or at least 10-15 years. or on the other hand, to reject the agreement which was laid iran three months from a nuclear weapon under the voting sanctions. it is a difficult choice. in making that choice you need to take account among other

things that the regional implications of the deal. what can and should be done to ameliorate the negative fallout from such an agreement in the region. that's what i endeavor to address in the short time available to me today. in my view if the arrangements currently being negotiated through inspection and monitoring together with the mechanisms to read imposing sanctions, should the iranians be caught cheating if those are robust enough to deter and detect iranian cheating, the deal will be worth holding. in other words, the likely regional implications of the deal in my view, are not sufficiently negative to justify proposing. indeed, given the state of turmoil engulfed in the middle is come ensuring a nuclear weapons free iran for at least a decade and tight monitoring the nuclear program for much longer than that will help remove a

prime resource of attention and they foster greater cohesion amongst our partners in the region into the with the other sources of conflict and instability there. put simply everything that we are all concerned about in the middle east will become much greater, a much greater concern were iran to acquire nuclear weapons. one question i think is on the minds of a lot of people is whether this deal will lead our regional allies to decide that they too, should pursue a nuclear weapons program, or civilian nuclear program that would give the ability to cross over to nuclear weapons. the former saudi ambassador to the united states said whatever iran has, we will have the same. that has fueled speculation that the saudis and others, egypt,

jordan perhaps turkey will go down the nuclear road as well as a result of this agreement. that would be a bitter irony indeed, mr. chairman, since the whole purpose of this agreement is to prevent a nuclear arms race in the region you're so it would be ironic indeed if it were to start one. i actually do not believe that there is a high risk of that happening. and to put it simply, why would saudi arabia which has not embarked on a nuclear program for the decades in which iran was pursuing one now decide to go for a nuclear program in the context of a deal in which serious -- will be place on every news program? but if they want the same thing and have to agree to the same kinds of inspections and arrangements that will be imposed on iran as a result of

this agreement. i find it hard to point at the saudis would be prepared to do that. egypt talks about the nuclear program, same with jordan, but they do not have the scientific capability the costs come a the time and the restrictions don't have to accept including the additional protocols that iran will accept as part of this agreement. seems to me make it unlikely we need to face the that kind of problem. what about israel cracks i think israel's leadership is deeply concerned about is to say the least and has good reason to be concerned about the intention of the iranian leadership. and they have the duty to take that seriously. but since this agreement will turn the clock back on iran's nuclear program placing it at least one year away for the breakout capability for the next 10-15 years, israel has no

reason to preempt for the time being. and i think israel's concerns let on about the way in which this agreement could pave the way to a nuclear weapon can and should be addressed, including by the congress in terms of entering into agreements with israel to expand its assistance, to give it the capability to defend and deter against a possible nuclear iran which is a result of this deal i believe will be put off long into the future. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you both. i know have a lot of participation. i know ambassador in because a hard stop at elevenths i will defer my questions. i may interject one or two along the way and defer to ranking members of other members of the opportunity to ask questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me again thank both of our witnesses. as i said in a company statement if we reach an agreement with iran, if we're successful in having an agreement that prevents them moving forward

with a nuclear weapon program there's still many issues in our relationship with iran. i just want to sort of crystal ball where we are after an agreement. iran could very well continue its current policy of supporting terrorism and its interference in summit of the countries that are making it very challenging for our partners in the region. how do we influence the iranian calculations x. we've seen in the past the past that sanctions in regards to their nuclear proliferation was effected to bring them to the table to negotiate come and we'll reach an agreement. what type of strategic alliances and what type of actions should the u.s. be contemplating in order to affect the calculation iran is using in its engagement in yemen, its engagement in lebanon, its engagement in iraq and syria? do you have any advice as to

where we should be trying to develop those types of alliances and strategic partnerships? .. >> thank you senator tran

three. the problem of rolling back various activities in the region in the places you focused on, lebanon and mysterious, iraq lebanon and particular is they have been able to exploit to advantages which we have a hard time dealing with. first of all the collapse or erosion of the effect admits that the state state institutions in these countries provides fertile and low-cost ground for them to exploit by building parallel institutions in effect to exercise considerable influence in these countries. and when they do so they do so by taking advantage of the shia population in each of these

countries that is open to their influence whether he threw cash or arms or training. the iranian revolutionary guard corps was designed for that purpose and are very effective at it. so that combination presents a great vulnerability and therefore presents great difficulty in terms of how we can counter it. essentially strengthening the institutions of government and those countries. but that is a difficult challenge which we don't usually do very well. i think he is the work partnership and partners and that is essential in this effort. first of all we have to provide reassurance we are not about to

abandon allies whether it be israel egypt jordan saudi arabia and that is very adjunct to the process of doing this deal with iran. but then we have to work with them the sunni arabs stayed in terms of welding capabilities go in and bolster the institutions that can counter the vulnerabilities iran exploits. now particularly the administration spokesmen are saying this is a long-term project and thereby somehow perhaps trying direct responsibility for making something happen on their watch is a lot to approach it. we have to start in the context

precisely because the fear of abandonment which i think is vastly exaggerated by our allies and traditional partners in the region needs to be addressed if we are to ensure we started process of containing and rolling back iran's destabilizing the committees in the region. >> mr. jeffrey. >> senator, ambassador indyk has outlined what the problems are in a lot of steps we could take. a few specific short-term is long-term we could do anything in the world. what are we going to do right now? we have to restore military credibility. we have to have congressional support for use of military force if iran breaks through. we have to know what the administration in the next administration's red lines are.

besides the impact of the nuclear negotiation that would have an impact by making people think we will live up to our commitment and we restore a deterrent power. in terms of specifics, we need to do more against the side. not trying to overthrow him or go to war it is no-fly zone like i'm in the resistance fighters not just a fake basis but to basically insure the other side, russia hezbollah and iran understand we will not let them win. we push for a settlement that will ensure the place remains independent among others from iran. same thing in yemen. various steps we can do to reassure people it's not just physical security from iranian land invasion that the infiltration of the region by iranian ambassador almost

ideological religious movement. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here today for your testimony and service to our country. the money and the sanctions. today it's estimated we have as much as $140 billion in held kashmir sanctions unjust their oil exports alone. president obama in april mentioned a signing bonus. we've seen estimates as high as 50 billion on that. iran right now is producing their potential capacity in terms of oil exports. that is larger than venezuela and that is an estimate. iran spends 1,015,000,000,000 a year on current estimates. that sounds awfully low but those are the estimates we've

seen. it puts into it they are about to have a cash windfall. with their nefarious history. what are your learned opinion about what we can expect? it looks like we have to different points of view. i'd be interested about what we can expect given the windfall of cash at the end of these negotiations if in fact we get a deal. >> senator, thank you. it begins with the idea to rethink signing this agreement is going to eat their flipper ran into being a status quo power in the region or serve as encouragement that will happen over the longer term. i see no evidence given iran's past and its ideological and religious role in the region and

a very strong effort that has made not just under the current regime to have a hegemonic position in the region. we can expect that to continue and we sat around the world that other countries that have achieved regional power. iran is probably not only that different. it is hard for me to believe they will not use some part of that to further enhance their efforts from gaza to lebanon to iraq to syria to get men and they will find new places as well. it will be more of a threat because of that. i also think they'll take the money and devoted to the domestic side as well because the government came to office on that basis. >> thank you senator. we need to bear in mind that this is a kind of inevitable

cost of doing an agreement that puts meaningful curves on the nuclear program. we need to make sure they are meaningful, that we can ensure we put the sanctions back on if they violate the agreement. but if we go ahead with the agreement we don't have an option. that is the basic deal here. you're absolutely right to be concerned about the windfall and how it will be used. i think as jim has said some of it will be used for the economy. at the high expectation amongst the iranian people that this will produce the economic benefits in the regime will want to do that. but there's a lot of money to spend for other purposes. i find it hard to believe the iranian revolutionary guard

corps and the minister of intelligence who are the main vehicles for spreading across the region will not get paid off. to go along with an agreement which they've made clear they are not happy about. it doesn't cost a lot of money to do what they've been doing. the boosted the activity could be problematic. one example is the regime is hurting economically now. it is also hurting militarily. were the iranians to infuse the regime, they would hold non. it are by to the shia militia in iraq, which we took the balance even further in favor of the shia militias versus the nation

that are barely able to stand up and that is not a good thing. all sorts of ways it could come problematic. there are things we can do and need to do to prepare for that encounter it. that is what is so important about needing to recognize as a complement to the deal, there has to be a u.s. strategy for the region designed to dl with iran's destabilizing activity. >> have you seen such a strategy yet? >> it is nathan. the camp david meeting with the country is this start to die. it has specific references which i think would be worthwhile to get further explanations from the administration.

there are public references working on counterinsurgency, developing capabilities in that regard cybersecurity and other things. those are the things they need help with. with two recently responded to names by selling them more aircraft and that is good for industries and i understand that. in these circumstances aircraft aren't the most effective things. we need troops on the ground. >> i really want to get to this question. the s. 300 they've announced they've done this deal and will sell the service to air missile programs. russia has used these in the ukraine we are told and this is a defensive weapon but it allows the region.

are you concerned about the development? >> very much for several reasons. while there is no u.n. resolution requirement against that, the language that's exercise restraint in providing weapons to iran. there is no lifting of resolutions until the u.n. does though and it hasn't yet. that is problem number one. problem number two is they have the capability under certain circles dances threatening to some of their friends and allies. it sends a signal to the region that iran has a big very aggressive buddy back in it i'm let ambassador indyk and i have been talking about say who was backing up and how are you backing us? >> i thought it might interject a question.

is it international interest as they are beginning to do and if not, should congress take into account as we look at the details of any deal should we look at whether the administration has encounter very money coming into the hands in the region. that should be a fact or as we look at whether it should be approved. both of you briefly and then we'll move to senator menendez. >> you are right to focus on the details of the deal. it will be complicated enough in itself. certainly i don't see any reason why you shouldn't question what the strategy is. definitely you should look into that and see what they are

doing. it is not in my view sufficient. the additional problems as a result of this deal is no reason for not doing the deal but a reason for insisting there be in effect a strategy to deal with that the iranians have been the region to answer your questions about what the interest are in the region. the basic entry is come down to the free flow of oil at reasonable prices which is less important is still critical for the economy which we depend upon. the protection of allies with israel. in that context, domination by iranian would be dangerous for all of the interest and therefore some and we have traditionally opposed and should

continue to oppose. >> quickly senator i agree. furthermore, our whole policy since world war ii in 1989 has been based upon not allowing anybody to dominate any region. we went in to comment in the balkans against iran and 87 88 saddam in 1991. the whole international order goes down the drain is one regional hegemon dominates the countries and starts robbing them of their sovereignty and rights to live in peace and follow their own will. iran has a model for this. one of the more moderate iranian officials. hussein wahhabi a friend of rouhani has laid it out and it is a security arrangement with israel weekend coming united

states out of the region, arms sales to allies stopped and iran played a predominant role. they know what they want and are working in it. >> one quick point. it is important to understand sunni arab states will not accept iranian domination. consequences of the greater success will be a countervailing effort to prevent that from happening and therefore adp and sectarian sunni shia conflict. >> if not coach to lead and backed by us will go about resisting domination in ways we will not like leading to the being he just learned about. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for long service to our country. the more i listen to your

responses, the more i am concerned the strategy that should exist under the hope we will get an agreement that could be supported and embraced a secret agreement is a strategy that is overcome when it should be up front. the turbo boost as you said ambassador indyk is something we will be behind the curve on. when the administration says to those who are skeptical about the nature of the final deal based upon an action flick or ran increasing its fuel by 20% which may be ultimately totally

eliminated by june 30th which is an extraordinary action they will have to do unless they ship it out which they are not willing to do. when you tell your adversary you are negotiating indirectly, if not in agreement than blood. the agreement or a war i reject. when you send that message it's not an agreement and why. if necessary we will use our military capabilities, but undermine the essence of the capability thing he won't have much of a result at the end of the day. it is one of weakness not of strength. he let the other side know you need or want to deal as badly as they want to and not as a dangerous negotiating posture.

already sending the message it is a dangerous proposition . we've had two years of thinking about negotiations and we would have been evolving in the way we been able to deal me after not. let me ask you shouldn't our focus in the region be to strengthen the state system in the middle east? >> easier said than done. i don't think the alternative is war, but we need to look seriously at what the alternative is. if the iranians do not agree to

a regime that provides verification monitoring and sanctions we should walk away in my opinion. we will be justified in doing so and have a credible case to make to our partners in this negotiation, p5 plus one another's that the iranians were not prepared to agree to a deal that was acceptable. that is the critical point here. if they are willing to accept her stipulations when it comes to inspection and verification and snap back walking away from that deal will have consequences. it will mean we will not be able to hold the sanctions and first

with the erosion of support we will have a harder time dealing with the iranian nuclear program that will continue and pick up steam. >> what is verification, what is now back, with possible military dimensions on how research and development can go. when we started this negotiation, for example, were told iraq would either be dismantled by them are destroyed by us. the reality is neither one of those either case. and there is a whole history. my concern is what is the definition of the elements you describe. getting back to my question your answer is yes we should strength and the system.

is it fair to say iran's influence after this date date has been to destabilize state actors in the middle east. we've seen that in yemen. we've seen it in lebanon. we see a corrupt the region. it's not a fair statement? >> is certainly is. two major threats in the middle east and everything including our security and that of the region is eighth upon that. one is extremist sunni movements such as al qaeda and i says. another is iran, which uses both religion and traditional statecraft to subvert countries. we know the tools. it is denying them is denying a monopoly of force by government that winning over loyalty is a part of the population come a hezbollah and lebanon to

houthis more to tehran in their own countries and there's a religious element to this as well. >> if our interest is to support state systems in tehran's whole purpose is the undermining state assistance, is it also fair to say even with the sanctions and the drop in oil prices significant on their economy they still use a fair amount of is to do exactly that, to undermine state yours. is that fair to say? >> yes, certainly fair to say. >> if that is fair to say when you have greater amounts of money, it would seem to me some of it will go for domestic is but a fair amount of money if you are suffering and easy money not to money not to help people but to promote terrorism so when you have more money you can help your people to some degree and

still promote terrorism. that is a real concern. finally let me say, you know, do you think the golf partner is looking at the budapest memorandum think that our guarantees mean a lot? we told ukraine if they give up nuclear weapons inside food guaranteed territorial integrity. that hasn't worked out too well for ukrainians. you are going to tell the gulf region don't pursue a nuclear pathway because iran is at the precipice of it and we are going to guarantee your security. that is a little tough for the golf partners to believe in another valve. if you have the obligation to give israel's qualitative military edge to whatever you get the golf partners in the real concern is a nuclear one i don't quite see how that works.

>> first of all are both partners are concerned about iran's fact committees in their neighborhood than they are about iran's nuclear ambitions. that is the only way to explain why they haven't sought nuclear capabilities themselves. they certainly haven't lacked the funds to do so. you can see coming out of the camp david summit that they do care about assurances from the president. they have committed themselves to endorsing, supporting our welcoming a deal that would have the kinds of things we've been talking about in terms of inspections and verification and so on. i think what they are looking for reassurance about is the united states is going to be with them in terms of the

problems they face with iran in their regions. it's not about nukes as far as they are concerned. that is a much harder thing for us to do for them. we can protect them against an external iranian threat. dealing with subversion iran is involved in the chaos and collapse of institutions is much harder to do especially if we are not prepared to put our armed forces on the ground to do it. we've got to find other forces to do it. that is why we talk about partnership. it's going to require them to work with us on this as well. >> senator isakson. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to follow up on senator menendez point because to me it's absolutely critical. we have done nothing since we left iraq with pulling our

troops out to demonstrate in the last 18 months exactly what our commitment is in my judgment. you mentioned ukraine conversations about whether we've backed the right people the middle east and whether we would confront iran and its nefarious activity. i remember from my business career the best deals i ever made where i first walked away from the table before i came back. i found out how bad the really guy -- other guy really wanted to make a deal. the worst deals i've made is when it was more important to me than common sense. we would not walk away. you've heard some of the conversations or we won't allow this or that. aren't those the type of things we should walk away from immediately and make the statement definitively. >> we've heard these statements.

i've heard the deputy as conversations that did come to our attention was closed session in tehran say in fact some of these things are negotiable. that is the problem we have because we have a unique agreement in its final form yet. certain it is her very, very important point. you do not have full izod, which supposedly is critical to this agreement if you cannot visit military installations if you cannot interview scientists and other technical officials. this is something the administration should have gone initiative or walk away or wait until they do get it. >> must be believable in our negotiation or would it take in. is the point i want to make. secondly, with senator perdue race it is not the russians --

isn't as 300 capable of tackling the nuclear warhead? >> i don't believe so, senator. is a service to air system. they can be re-figured to carry nuclear warheads. iran has a disturbing arsenal of long-range missiles. that is where you put the defense systems and defense systems into your appearance on three, 4000 miles away. it is further then they will fly. the basic thread is to shoot down our aircraft and cruise missiles. >> let me ask both of your question because i have tremendous respect for her ability and your service to the country and your knowledge which i certainly don't have. what do you fear the most about making a deal with the iranians are not making a deal with the iranians? what should our biggest concern here be?

>> in terms of making the deal there are two major concerns. one is that they will cheat. if she did before the obligations on the non-proliferation treaty in the case of korea that they got away with cheating and built a nuclear weapon. that's got to be the concern to make sure they don't have the ability. if we don't get back, we should be prepared to walk and you are right in any negotiation as he pointed out. particularly the negotiation with iran being ready and willing to walk away if we can't get our minimum requirement is critically important to negotiations. the statements they have been making, which do not accord with the things they've agreed to in the rule is an indication that they are posturing for the public that they have a problem with public opinion. they've raised the expert

patient that there's going to be a deal on their terms. i think we have a better ability to walk away than they do at this point. so we are in a stronger position if we focus on the issues within the parameters of the deal and make sure we get what we need in that regard. ..

relationship some of the other players including china and particular as the iranian importer. but secondly i several times cited the importance of us being willing to use military force. our experience has been sadly that when we didn't have international support, iraq and vietnam being two examples, we had a much harder time and therefore come international support is a value that you do get in this agreement. it has to be balanced against

other ones, possibly sending a signal of weakness, possibly people questioning the deterrence in tehran. but none of the less there is a certain value to an agreement if it is verifiable and it does give you the one-year time before they could break out of. >> just a follow-up letter to understand a good deal in the definition of the good deal for the american people and the people of the middle east would be preferable to not making a deal because it would raise the statute with the international community, is that what i heard you say? >> no sir there is no good deal. at this point it would be no end richmond. it would be they are out of the business of having a nuclear weapon threshold capability. so it is a question of a bad deal that may be better than a set of other circumstances perhaps living in the other circumstances one of the things the deal does give us is the ability to the international community if iran breaks out and the ability to internationalize

typically has been very successful to use military force such as korea in 1950 or kuwait in 1991. >> thank you both very much. >> senator. >> thank you mr. chairman into the witness is a couple of comments and questions. my assessment of the status of the u.s. iran dynamic as adversaries before november 2013 was to combine away of the sanctions were putting pressure on the economy hurting and affecting the economy. but i don't necessarily think that combined with the sanction was on the nuclear program and it may have accelerated the program to the extent that they feel isolated. you can look at them as a resistance economy that we are putting an unreasonable amount of effort into advancing the nuclear program. so, the status before the

american diplomats engage in this discussion i think is one where the sanctions were working against the economy but the nuclear program was accelerated in a dangerous way. during the tendency during november 2013, i've been there once in february of 14 and back in january 2015 and they were worried about an ultimate deal acknowledged that they think the period has been positive but the combination of the elements of the program together with additional inspections has been a positive. they like that better than the status quo. now we move to the situation of what we are going to think with respect to the final deal. this is a sincere question that's going to sound like i'm not sincere but i'm going to ask it this way. i don't view this about whether iran will be a friend or

adversary it with this weather they will be an adversary for the new leader within the world would have leader within the world would have a nuclear weapon. do either of you doubt that the region the united united states in the world are safer if iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons and if they do blacks >> i think this is the primary benefit of the deal that is enforceable that is it will give the region and the united states and our allies in particular israel a ten to 15 year nuclear free iran in which we will no longer be faced with the sense that iran is about to cross the nuclear threshold. in other words, without a nuclear weapon is still may be bellicose in terms of potentially throwing its way around the region and the world.

>> and we talk about the region that is in chaos and so the nuclear iran added to the mix will have a strong incentive to target the weapons come as we had a nuclear arms race talking with everything else that's going on. so, yes, we need a breathing space. the breathing space is worth something to us. ten to 15 years we can use the 15 years. let me explore now but no deal in the deal. i think i agreed with what the chair said. no deal does have some consequences. how important is it to the effect of the sanctions that currently exist more than we might want to put on that there's an international coalition supporting the sanctions? i would like to hear more of you talk about that.

of the countries in the financial systems which the countries could actually resist, but we had both temporary waiver authority if they were reducing it, and frankly they wanted to help us put iran under wraps so they did cooperate, but it was getting tougher and tougher if you talk to the people that were trying to execute it on the government side. and the second set of sanctions that are effective for the sanctions that not only ended all of the imports of the wheel but frankly through hitting the insurance funds transfers and thinking and other elements of the international trade system led to losing more than half of its exports and they put iran in

the economic situation of the sea. so it is important to maintain that if we can't get a deal. >> if there is no deal, then it is very critical whether the community perceives that the absence of the deal is because iran is being unreasonable or they were willing to be at least somewhat reasonable in the united states or other parties refused to make a deal. if it looks like you're being reasonable they can hold the coalition together to keep the sanctions that if it looks like the partners are being unreasonable it is more difficult to hold the question together with you both agree with that? >> that is right. it depends on how the deal breaks down. if there is a deal that meets the requirements in terms of inspections let's say the congress decides this isn't a

deal they can support so we are responsible for it is hard to maintain in those circumstances but if they refuse then we have a great deal of credibility and walking away, and i think actually we should because i believe that they will accept what we need. >> let me ask about the other part if there is a deal. if there is a deal that meets the framework and iran accepts that we have to dig into the details i'm particularly interested in inspections there will be inspections and we want to make sure they are vigorous and the media everywhere. to take up the program is combined with elements, the capacity to do it back the willingness to do it but also the intel that gives you the

information about how to do it. now we have intel that's been demonstrated in the path. but isn't this plus the additional information that you get from an aggressive and a significant inspections regime better than without and so wouldn't that give inspections that enhance their the ability of the military threat? >> that is absolutely the case. being on the ground and being able to go anywhere over time is critically important. we are going to still need the intelligence assets that we've been using. in working with our allies and i've worked with the clinton

administration on this when we had inspectors on the ground even though they would be locked in various places your member the cat and mouse game never the less we have a much better insight into program and in fact we were comfortable with the file because we were persuaded because of the inspections as opposed to the chemical and biological we actually knew what they had and we knew that we were able to monitor and control it. so that was a very interesting example of the way in which both give and ability to no end in this case the inspector is going to be at the enrichment process and the stockpiling and the plutonium reactor so we are going to have a full visibility on the program and that goes on

for 25 years so that will give us a degree of assurance. >> i will interject. that was a good line of questioning. there is an agreement that we have not had access to that lays out what iran is able to do. it's called the nuclear development program and it outlines that for some reason the administration will not share it with us and i've asked both the energy level, secretary of state level and the chief of staff for the president and i think that there are legitimate concerns about what happens after and it makes me concerned their unwillingness to share that with us means it will undermine the american people's confidence so hopefully they

will be forthcoming with that soon. >> thanks to the ambassadors for being here today. in the ambassadors testimony, there was a quote that i will read once the sanctions are removed they will be the beneficiary of the assets and they are likely to increase by some 20 to 24 billion annually. it's reasonable to assume a good part of the windfall will be used to rehabilitate and fulfill the expectations for the better life but it's an equally safe bet that the ministry of intelligence and armed forces will be beneficiaries. do you know the amount that they actually contribute? >> it runs by the estimates i've seen to the tens of billions so if you put in the operation

which is the biggest one we think it's around $200 million or so and that's tens of millions according to the report. >> dot 200 billion, but probably ten to 20 billion. >> the economy is going to turn around. will they stop once they are turned around enough line i am? >> it is almost inconceivable from any analogy or historical example. it's an aggressive foreign policies that comes upon further resources. typically it will double down and try. that doesn't mean all of the money because they do have pressing domestic needs and it is -- they have a lot of popular pressure to spend more on the

consumer economy so some of that will flow to the domestic side but clearly some of it will flow by all the evidence we've seen with other countries towards the nefarious activities for the region. >> and these activities are not going to make them more safe as a result of the growing economy is that correct? >> they won't make anybody safe in the end senator. >> i would think the ambassador. in the testimony you stated it should be based on the verifiable restraints in iran but also the context with which the agreement would operate by the incredible readiness to use the forces to stop the breakout and a far more active program to contain the ideological diplomatic moves to expand its influence in the region. the president said there is no military solution and has said we can to back away now. can you explain that a little bit further?

>> the president said several different things. first of all he said that he will use all necessary measures if they were to break out a nuclear weapon. but it isn't going to buy you very much. we have seen the military force against iraq three times and by 1991 and then by us in 1998 lead to the termination of weapons to structure programs and we've seen all over in the it all over in the case of israel striking syria and after 2003 that's when they halted the program and it's when they decided it was time to give up the programs.

it does have a political influence on the other side. in the political restraint the agreement seems to have a television on the issue of nuclear restraint without addressing some of the other areas of the iranian political restraint commanded that his ideological privileges economic moves for those efforts in the nefarious ways against our allies and indeed against the united states. have we lost track of the fact that we have other areas that need to be restrained? >> i don't think so but it's important to understand that it's not possible to address those concerns in this

negotiation without weakening the ability of what we need to block the full pathway to the nuclear weapon. if we were to address the issues of the activity in the region, they would have used it as a trade-off to the negotiations and they would agree to do less reachable disturbing activities and they would expect us to be more lenient. plus the allies say it's not your business to be discussing those issues when we are not at the table. we need to address it outside of the deal and in parallel in the deal and that is a burden of

other thing about force i think that the use of force, the threat of the use of force to determine a breakout by iran. that happened in the case of israel's bombing of the nuclear reactor. we were surprised when we actually went into the country to discover they had a massive program that he knew we know nothing about and that is the danger that if we have to use force we begin to put this something less than we would have reveal itself in ten to 15 years of the nuclear free iran versus two to three years

they've got the know-how, they can rebuild they will no longer be under any obligations, and they will then have a justification for getting the weapons. >> would you like to respond? >> the ambassador is right about the bombing but i've just added a reason we went in to find that was on the back of american tanks. >> you have had some very insightful comment. one of the issues here that has been raised is iranian dominance and hegemonic desire and that sort of thing. do you believe our u.s. foreign policy has contributed to the strengthening of iran in the

region lacks in some of the decisions that we have made? >> i will be contentious. >> constantly looking at what we needed to do to prevent that but we were always constrained by the concern that we had that if we took them out we would open up the gateway to the influence in iraq. there was a major concern in that time and that is a result of what had happened. i was in favor of that war but also similarly today doing a whole lot of things that would have prevented that from happening. but that's what happened.

once the gates of babylon were opened to iran. they were already in lebanon for the community there and has the lock but it was a big price for them and it is in the courtesy of the army and the taxpayer. >> investor jeffrey. >> going into iraq was a benefit to iran but it didn't have to be as bad as it turned out to be. there were steps that we could have taken over the last -- >> what should we have done? >> we could have made it clear that in other ways we could have stayed there longer and that iraq's security was in our interest and we were there for the long haul trying to get out. that is the first thing. >> but staying there for the long haul would have meant

changing the government in such a way that they were going to be inclusive. do you think that we could have made it into that? it looks to me like there is a real desire in terms of dominance and not being inclusive and i don't know really how the united states -- can you tell me how the united states can make the government do that? >> what we can do is have influence. these are rational people. some of them are pro-iranian, some of them are not. some of them are opportunistic. in the period from roughly 2008 when the militia was put down by the maliki government to roughly 2012 2013 the country was able to live in relative peace and relative rapprochement between

the two. one of them was slowly in part because we didn't have the influence that we should have other forces including iran leading the charge push the words dominated system and secondly this is the point we have most contributed to this prevent the region, syria happened. nothing in the last 15 years has had the same effect on the region as what happened in syria. the rise of isis, one of the biggest humanitarian -- >> couldn't you also make the argument that it came as a result of what happened earlier in terms of what was done in iraq. >> i think that there is a significant connection bear there to what's going on. but let me ask the ambassador. he mentioned the syria and there should be a no-fly zone.

you think that should be done unilaterally by the united states or should it be done collectively through the un or other of the national organizations? >> i don't think the un collective action is an option here because they will veto. >> is there any reason to push it any way to show what their position is? >> we are operating a kind of de facto in parts already because the syrian air force. there are ways that we can affect the calculus of the regime. i don't know why we can't take up the helicopters addressing

and the regime would get the message. so there are certainly things that we could do that would stop short of a formal declaration that would give relief and would send a very important signal to the era of big -- arab and muslim world but we are not doing anything but against the regime. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> i have been supportive of these negotiations partly because i sensed that it would be tough to hold the coalition that we put together for much longer and i agree with your assessment that it was the

international nature, both in -- multilateral nation and financial sanctions >> i think going through these negotiations probably could keep the coalition together and it wouldn't be good enough for the u.s. but there is a material breach that has demonstrated that will not live to the agreements that were set out if that is the case. so, i have been supportive of the negotiations and i agree with the formulation that the senator put forth that iran -- the sanctions were effective at debilitating their economy but it didn't do much to slow the drive towards nuclear weapon and

i don't know how the same level of sanctions over another period of time why he would expect that to have any different results. so but now given where we are and i agree with the formulation and agreement that really truly does limit their ability to move forward in a nuclear weapon if only for ten or 15 years is better than not having an agreement and that we can focus on the other issues, but that's what i want to ask you a bit about. ambassador come in your marks you stated that in we need to have a commitment for the region for the u.s. to push back the actions against iraq and syria and elsewhere. what would that look like in iraq? what would a stronger commitment look like right now in iraq?

.. r. have sure to the shia militias. not all of them, but some of whom are under hezbollah assad and to a considerable degree the

bard are poor because there's not an effect is military. we haven't put our troops as they done in every other conflict i've been involved in on the ground that these units technically to it ties them to call in air support but frankly in many respects to strengthen their spine and reassure them as long as our troops are there they will get air support. they look at medevac. delegate resupplied may well be overrun because we won't let it happen. i can't describe what a difference that makes. i thought in iraq in 2010. having americans that their would increase capabilities of iraqi forces tremendously. it would also show america cares. we are willing to the skin in the game. if we take casualties either shows they are important to us.

>> you have any thoughts on that? >> yes i think it starts at the political level. the prime minister is definitely better than maliki, but the inclusiveness is somewhat in constraint with pressure from iraq and we need to be equally assertive to go through with commitments to inclusion when it comes on the political level to the sunnis. they feel excluded in a firefight continues it will expect the morale of the military, sunni soldiers to fight and said that his point number one. inclusion is critically important and we should be actively engaged. point number two is we should al gore at a late capabilities of the sunni militias and the kurdish peshmerga.

the iraqi government under pressure from iran is restraining but we can do there. we have made some kind of breakthrough on that front that i heard this morning that the sunni militias. i think that is critically important. we need to be arming the kurdish forces as well in a more robust way. in terms of embedding special forces but else though political and arming the militias. >> let me return for a minute. if we can see what our goal to try to keep the one-year break out if we assume they are that close now what is the motivation now to come to the negotiating table. when they have more leverage if

they were to complete the march towards a weapon and negotiate after that. do they fear a straight or are they not as close as we think they are? >> my view is they were close to the point. when prime minister netanyahu went to the u.n. enter the redline on the 20% enriched uranium, they were close to 200 kilograms. when you get above you'll have enough enough for a significant amount of 252 mike 27 kilos of 90% enriched for at least one nuclear device. so they were up on tram ride up to the point. they are having a huge impact on the economy. also israel and the united states are making noises about a military strike. that path a frightening effect

on many friends including europeans who've never seen a war they don't want to run away from. it may be a bit unfair, but they were nervous about 30 is really striking. they were willing to do dramatic sanctions and doing other things against iran. united combinations to put them under pressure and maybe will back off a little bit but the important thing is they're giving up nothing. this is on the express decision of the supreme leader. they are not closing anything down. they are not blowing up the react or like the north koreans did. they are not admitting guilt. they are basically putting in stone age for a while or converting things but they are not changing their entire program. >> can i add to that one point that is worth noting about the

agreement. they are giving up something significant when it comes to the iraq water which is the most dangerous and expeditious way they could get plutonium for nuclear weapons and they have agreed to reconfigure the core to ship out to see all and not have any kind of reprocessing facility. that is a very robust measure and it is designed specifically that way because that is precisely the way the koreans broke out. so while it is true they have a loan up anything, they have accepted the kind of kurds we need to be sure we have bought their pathway. we have to be concerned about

what happens at the end of the road. in terms of what our negotiators have generated here within the confines and the iranians having to be able to say we didn't blow up anything essentially is not a bad deal. in that regard it is a good deal. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you very much. ambassador jeffrey, in your testimony, you call for an enhanced authorization for use of military force against iran to prepare for the possibility that they will violate an agreement that is not yet been reached. this is the committee that would have to pass an advanced authorization for the use of military force against iran. we already have two authorizations that are open-ended not limited by

geography and a third one pending rate before this committee with regard to what the limitation should be for the military force against any sense -- isis. could you talk a little bit about what you think should be in the resolution and that military force should be explicitly putting into the resolution and the conditions under which the committee passes an advanced authorization for use of military force given the fact we don't know what the conditions will be back at possibly trigger the use of the advanced use of military forces on the resolution you recommend. >> thank you senator. to be specific, this is something part of a package if in fact the senate -- if we get

to an agreement, the first step under the every nuclear preview at, you look at the acting didn't take action to stop the lifting of sanctions if the agreement would go forward. this could be a measure to ensure if we do have the agreement it is clear to all including iranians but also to our friends in the region that this isn't a watershed event in our relations with iran. it is simply a deal to get them to stop moving towards nuclear weapons capability. so therefore if they were to try to break out and they could still do this within a year under the agreement as we understand it that current u.s. policy laid out by the president repeatedly if we will use military force to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. given recent events including the syrian debacle, it would be

helpful if we knew the u.s. people through the u.s. congress supported that action. >> just so i understand you want this committee to authorize the use of military force against iran explicitly in the event that they violate the agreement or in the event that there is no agreement? >> in the event with or without an agreement that iran is on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon in this ministration has never said what the redline would be. that is another issue. certainly it is u.s. policy that we would use all means at our disposal but it made military force to stop iran from actually achieving a military capability. as that is our policy. as there is question to our

willingness given the searing experience to carry out the redline policy come it would be half of the u.s. congress were to do that. >> it was not necessary to carry out the redline policy because assad exceeded to what it was in fact is the goal of the administration to put their chemical weapons. we did not have to go beyond the redline because assad accepted the conditions. i am trying to clear win on what you are asking for. is that we should be having this debate now or should we have this debate after the administration concludes it deal with the iranians? >> after a concludes that deals with iranians. >> let me just understand. if the deal is unacceptable to the united states into iran should we still patented against

authorization for the use of military force against iran? >> yes, i think so. many people think even with a deal you will have been a red double-decker cheat or will try to get around it. >> what you think about that idea ambassador indyk that even after we reach an agreement that this body would pass in advance for military use against iran? >> it strikes me as kind of a belt and suspenders approach. we don't need it. i'm worried about it because apparently in a sense puts the iranian finger on our trigger. i am not sure that it's a wise path to go down. the president's statement that he is willing to use all means necessary to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon is clear. we have deployed significant

forces in the gulf and taken measures with our allies to ensure the iranians understand a real capability. so what we are trying to get at the question of will to actually use that i think there are other ways that can be done without an effect producing automatic cities to how we would respond. >> i tend to agree with you. i think obviously the goal of an agreement with iran is to move towards a novelization of relations with iran. how is that possible? we don't know that at this point. but if there is going to be some attempt that is made between the era and iranian governments, surely it is based upon an agreement that doesn't then lead

to the action that is already preapproved by this committee in terms of use of military against iran if there is some questionable activities, questions raised with regard to compliance. so i disagree with you, ambassador jeffrey. i just think that would be a dangerous statement for us to be making at a point in which we've reached an agreement that is acceptable to the p5 plus one and that is going to a think actually the two a sigh of relief across the planet and this would be an unnecessary escalation in terms of the dynamic that would have been created between our country and iran. >> senator, one word on this. i understand your point.

nonetheless, it is the policy of the government announced repeatedly in almost every opportunity when he does talk about the iranian situation. secondly, deal with syria and the willingness i believe happened only after the committee passed a resolution authorizing use of force by the u.s. government against syria. >> i would say again that while it is kind of the policy of our country that iran would not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, the premise that the treaty would be they are not going to get a lot dead because they will be safeguards in place that will give us the tripwire we need to then how less active they will not be in compliance and we are authorizing military force i think would complicate dramatically our ability to gain

the full benefits of the treaty we are hoping can be negotiated. >> ambassador indyk come with bush by 10 minutes. usually secretary comes in and tells us he has a hard stop hours later. i didn't want to give you an opportunity to say this is fair and balanced or if you need to leave and go to your board meeting you're certainly welcome to do that, too. >> thank you senator. i apologize to all of you that i have that i have two chair of meaning and i couldn't change that and i really apologize to have to leave. >> with them, thank you for your service being here today. the record will remain open for some period of time. if you answer questions we would greatly appreciate it. with great appreciation, you are dismissed. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. jeffrey, i guess i would like your thoughts on this. my problem with all of this is either threshold question i have trouble getting beyond. we've made reference here today and that is the fact when we started these negotiations i said this is great. we will fit with the iranians, get 10 to the point where we say we want to be a normal country. we are going to give going to give up meddling in other people's affairs and give up being sponsors of terrorism. we will actually quit doing acts of terrorism. and then i find out they say that's off the table. we are not going to talk about that at all. if the negotiations are regarding what they do over the next 10 years in developing a nuclear weapon. in so doing if i vote for that common i am voting for a

condition by which we and everyone who votes for it is going to boost the iranian economy by taking off the sanctions. secondly, we will release a whole lot more cash and we know for a fact, we know for an absolute fact that a portion of the money is going to go to sponsor terrorist activities and are going to kill -- really cannot money is going to kill fellow human beings. i don't know who they are. i don't know where they are. but i know for a fact that my vote in releasing tension and the cash is going to result in the death of innocent human beings somewhere in the world. on the other side they say no we need to vote for this because we look at them to stop building a nuclear weapon, et cetera, et cetera. we don't know what is going to happen. israel or we may even get the spine to stop them from doing not militarily.

i know what will happen if i vote for this. how do you morally justified that vote? >> that is a tough question, senator. if i would make the case for an agreement it would be first of all separate from all of its other nefarious act committees. as they discussed here today -- >> it is tied closely and directly. >> if the agreement is not only linked with very clear american willingness of our friends and allies to use force against iran even the nuclear account and we just had the discussion a moment ago on or to block their actions in the region to kill more people. and if that agreement gives us more international support do just that, that would be a case

for doing it. in the end we might be more effect it in stopping these guys have it is clear to everybody we are really in the business of stopping these guys. what you have heard today for me as it is not clear we are in the business of stopping them. that is the thing i focus on. >> i appreciate that and i hope you can appreciate the dilemma this puts a spin. i have when i started drilling down into what we are actually doing here is the two parties are sitting at the table wanting to get to a different point. i am yet to be convinced that the iranians are negotiating to agree to get to a point where they will never have a nuclear weapon. indeed as i have analyzed this it seems to me they are negotiating for a path in a timeframe on which they could

count on being able to have a nuclear weapon. this is a 10 year deal. we are dealing with a culture that's 5000 years old. 10 years to these people is nothing in the overall scheme of things. even if you stretch it to 15 which some people refer to. one of the things that concerns us and concerns the chairman is we are getting the answers we want about what happens at the end of the ten-year period. even in classified settings, they are not telling us things we need to know people who are going to have to sign off. if i were the iranians, i was say let's cut the best deal we can. we look at the sanctions off our economy goes, people are happy and we are able to use the money to do the research we need to do to get where we want to get at the end of the ten-year period. at the end of the ten-year period they say okay world we

made an agreement. an agreement appeared to capture part of the agreement. now you keep yours and leave us alone because we will build a nuclear weapon. so far no one has been able to assure me this agreement is such that he ran in say okay we will never build a nuclear weapon. everyone is saying that probably isn't what we are going to see. they have a fact delay negotiated a path and a timetable towards which they could have a nuclear weapon. just putting this off for this period of time seems to me to be not a good bargain at all. your thoughts. >> first of all, this agreement doesn't stop anything. it is an agreement all about it. this time. if anything the administration that happens actually happens to me you could approximately one year of notification assuming you have inspect yours on the

the scene during which you can react if they start violating the agreement. at the end of the year they will be at a point where they can get a nuclear device. at the end of 10 years, the time period shrinks because two things happen. the restriction on type out then functioning centrifuges go away. they can create.. secondly, the limitation on the centrifuges the farmer efficient ones i restriction goes away too. >> along with even more efficient ones over the next 10 years. >> there is a restriction assuming once again the rules of the hypothetical cases as they adhere to the rules and roles they cannot do research on centrifuges during that period of time. that is a 15 year rule. at the end of tenure is they'll

have 18000 plus some of these new ones. i've seen indications over a couple of months am us this past as they are now they could probably return to a nuclear weapons capability significant amount for one nuclear device. you shrink at the end of the time. it doesn't mean they are going to do it. once again whether we have one year or one week. if they are moving to a nuclear weapon, what are we going to do about it and more importantly what are they going to do about it which is like it to the importance of not just the president saying he or she will use military force but the importance are in the end the only thing that will stop them from getting a nuclear weapon. >> the comment made that all this is doing is putting things in storage.

the american people need to understand that. we need to understand what we are taking here. >> i let the record show they change the core of the plutonium heavy water plant and that is the one concrete thing as it's laid out. >> for the period of time. >> for 15 years. >> senator murray. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you, ambassador jeffrey for sticking with us. we are never going to get an agreement. it doesn't matter what his 10 years, is 15 years what is 20 years because we are talking about a certain period of time. it is important to know one of the 15 year restrictions is gone the stored enriched content.

that is a 15 year restriction. so you would agree even though they will spend more centrifuges the thought of how much capacity they have is a significant limitation on breakout capacity. >> absolutely. then most of the feedstock would be pure uranium and that does take longer. again, the one-year period would drop to somewhere between one half and one third of that i believe in the period between 10 to 15 years. at the end of the 15 years, almost all restrictions can enrich up to 20 or and a percentage or not. on any amount of stocks that they can have is unlimited. as chairman corker said, the president himself on npr sometime ago said it is 10 years has changed his mind and then, but it is a sickly if you make

an argument for the agreement you should hang your hat on 10 years. >> of course it is important to note the inspections last well beyond the 10 to 15 year time frame which is why many of us make the argument is not a 10 year deal. i want to come back to the question of the comprehensive strategy to try to push back on iran's growing influence. i do think it is a rewrite of history to suggest a set of sanctions on iran to change their disposition on a nuclear weapons program was about all of their other behavior in the region. when i was voting for the sanctions that should iran choose a different path when it comes to a nuclear weapons future that we would engage in a conversation about withdrawing some of the sanctions. in part we have a separate set of sanctions in place for other behavior in the region and we reserve the right to increase sanctions should they not change the behavior.

i understand the moral question and that we do have to accept part of the money may be used to support a group like hezbollah or the houthis. but we are not accepting the premise of the sanctions in the first place we extrapolate and expand to other behavior in the region. let's talk about the comprehensive approach that both you and ambassador indyk reference. part of my confusion is that often seems to be gained and end with a question of increased military capacity that we are going to give to our sunni partners in the region to control the bloodshed once it starts happening, rather than talking about all of the ways in which we can tamp down on the reason groups like hezbollah and isis and houthis have influence

in the first place which is deteriorating conditions of government the rule of law. that doesn't seem to thought or into a lot of conversations about what we should be doing in terms of growing a comprehensive strategy. even your testimony is limited to a handful of military tools that you are recommending. as we sort of growth is comprehensive strategy next to a nuclear agreement, isn't it more important to be putting in place a set of nonmilitary tools so that the conditions are so ripe for both sunni and shiite insurgencies in these regions instead of simply having conversations about what our military toolkit is. >> you are absolutely right senator. the reason i focused on the military is that it is off in the long haul in a tent in any administration i would argue parenthetically in this one that ice in every administration, republican and democratic have implications of

using military force. military force is a necessary but not sufficient part of the package to deal with iranian threat to the region, which are not mainly about direct military aggression on the goal states or other allies which f-15 and f-16 might help in infiltration and subtle actions. beating ukraine for the south china sea in iraq or yemen have a military component and people are nervous about getting involved military if we are not backing them and that requires a means of military force. many other things are necessary. one of the concerns i have is we don't get engaged our allies will go off on their own and conduct policies and operations that will be two military, too one sided simply lead to escalation. we tend to bring a certain amount of moderation.

the diplomat my profession, not a soldier. people go out and try to leverage our military sanctions energy and other policies to get people to sit down and resolve disputes being in the area be it in yemen. we are capable of doing that. those are all part of the package. the earnest money on the table particularly now always has to be a willingness if necessary to use military force. that has to be part of the package and people don't think it is. >> i were you may misread where the reluctant allies in congress today. there doesn't seem to be as much here. the reluctant things to fund a non-kinetic tools that are part of the comprehensive strategy. what about other sets of sanctions? we have the ability to maintain or increase sanctions against iran for the continued

development of the ballistic missile program, for their support of terrorist groups in the region. what do you make of the potential for a separate set of sanctions and their potential expansion to be part of this comprehensive strategy we talk about. >> to send a signal, it is always helpful when the u.s. congress speaks with one voice -- something that will get a lot of attention such as impose sanctions. on iran the effect of sanctions or international ones, the ones that brought it to the table. those sanctions are at this point narrowly focused on the nuclear account. it would be hard to get u.n. or e.u. sanctions on iran for effect dignities in syria of course one of the alice's restaurant. that is a problem right there. >> part of the reason it has been hard to grow international support for other cities is the

priority has been stopping iran's nuclear ambition. to the extent you take the issue off of the table burst or period of time back to how ambassador indyk described it it gives it, it gives you the room to build a comprehensive set of international sanctions with or without pressure to influence their other behaviors. thank you. i'm over time. thank you, ambassador jeffrey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you ambassador jeffrey for being here and for staying for people like me who had another hearing and so i am late coming to this. there has been a lot of speculation if iran gets a nuclear weapon what that does to nuclear proliferation in the region. the saudis follow another countries will feel like they need to do that. so is there some recent tank if there is success in the final

negotiations that could have the opposite effect for the region, that it would help address some of the concerns we've heard from other countries? >> we have heard nonofficial golden state personalities openly and more official ones behind the scenes say this is an option if we are not happy with the risk role. i think it is a possibility. ambassador indyk in his written testimony took a different view that i urge you to take a look at as well. what i think as our friends in the region will look at everything we are doing. it is definitely not the policy of this administration to have anybody in the region developing a breakout nuclear capacity, let

alone nuclear weapons. we will not be in favor of that. the more we do things they need for their security that are hard for us to do and that gets to the long pull of the military, the more influence will have to persuade them not to go down that road. the more they feel lonely, ignored by us threatened by iran and a certain pride here if iran can have it, why can't i. they are going to be more interested. ambassador indyk in his testimony talked about a possible nuclear guarantee over the region. that is another idea that these kinds of things that involve american commitment will give us more leverage to persuade these people not to go down the route. but it remains open to them. if they don't like what they are hearing and seeing out of

washington and interactions in the field, there's a possibility some of them might go in this direction. >> so talk a little more if you would. i know it is ambassador's indyk's idea about the nuclear deterrent for some of the countries in the region. do you see that as making a real difference in how well countries like iran react if we do that? post-negotiation. >> i think rather like my suggestion for an advanced authorization for the use of military force, which ambassador indyk with a little bit equivocal about, i would be equivocal about that but both of us are trying to do the same thing. we look desperately for ways for the united states to show symbolically we are in the game for these people, decisions by

congress or nuclear commitments. there are other ways. one or the other should be tried among other things to deter these people from trying to get their own nuclear capabilities. i am talking to -- preaching to the pie here. people in the region are not happy with this agreement. >> to go back to senator murphy's line of questioning you have suggested a range of other security supports for countries in the region. but as we are looking at other potential ways to shore up the direction in which we would like them to go what other options do you think are most important for us to be lucky not? let's put the security situation on one side. but what about on the economics,

the other supports we can provide? what is most important there? >> senator, i would say ambassador indyk indicated this and some members of your committee have. reserving the nationstate preserving the stability of those states in the region against both local forces and the islamic forces be a shia or be as soon as the threat we are all facing. that is a military component that you represent what are the other components. for starters, we shouldn't pick fights with these people. we should be careful talking about their internal situations because right now in a crisis situation we won't be able to do too much about it this week you can do this quietly. there's ways you can do it in an open and crude fashion. we shouldn't do the latter. that is one thing. targeted economic assistance for

refugees, for groups that are potential generators of instability. the area leaps to mind and more willingness to tie our military in which i have to keep coming back to to a negotiated solution. there are ways to resolve syria, but they require both sides being ready to stop fighting. right now one of them. >> i hear what you are saying but it appears to me this is what we tried to do in a number of countries in the region. yemen certainly is in that category. each of us in the category. syria early on within that category and yet it has not led to success. so what is the missing ingredient? not enough military might? there's a lot of concern that i hear from people in this country

about engaging in troops in the same way we have done in iraq and afghanistan over the last 13 years. so what are the missing ingredients that need to be included to get to success? >> in a somewhat happier. of my life prefers totally involved in your research certain, we had two conflicts. at one point bosnia seem to be more intractable in the area and almost as many people died there in a country one 10th the size right in the middle of europe. when we went in, a lot of the attention was on our campaign and later in kosovo four years later. it was actually a whole series of international diplomatic efforts to organize the diplomatic community, passing the claims of other sides though everybody would get somebody out of this, offering for governance economic support

coming here in refugees was an entire package that was put together and led by the united states and a flashy military element, but many other elements as well. it worked in bosnia. when the regime didn't get it and tried the same thing four years later we did it again in kosovo and this time the serbian people decided they had enough of him. these were limited conflicts. i military use was restrained in fact by diplomacy by international legitimacy through the u.n. and the first case, nato in the second and economic and development programs continuing to this day. so that is what i would point to. >> again, it appears to me that is what we have been trying to do in many of these countries and yet we haven't seen the same level of success. >> i said happier days because the balkans why they seem intractable are a lot more difficult than the middle east.

and have us out there who spend a lot of time know that there are no easy answers to the underlying problems. we point to the underlying problems as to why you have these accelerants of violent instability, social breakdown but we another people of the region have figured out how to do it then. there is not going to be any other final and complete solution about dealing with those. we are in a crisis situation and we have to put out the flames. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. ambassador coming thank you for your testimony of service to the country. without objection the record will remain open until the end of friday. hopefully ambassador indyk will respond to questions asked. we thank you again and the meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> this country needs leadership. i think if you look anywhere in the country and asked people what they think is missing up here at the federal level, it is leadership they can trust, people who have the experience they can show the record to walk across the aisle and get things done. it is stored as a blessing in my professional life and i have been able to spend about half of my time in public service and half of my time doing other things i'm a working for myself basically as a sole proprietor and just be very strong that we need to create a new environment

in washington where we have leaders who can talk across the aisle and actually solve our problems. >> the labor department said u.s. employers added 280,000 jobs last month even as the unemployment rate ticked up from 5.4% to 5.5%. researchers say hundreds of thousands more people saw jobs in may but not all found them. that is of particular interest to new college graduates. over the next hour we will show you a number sure commencement speeches by notable people became secretary of state condoleezza rice. she delivered this year's commencement address at the college of william and mary. former defense secretary robert gates who served as the chancellor of william and mary and presented rice with an honorary degree.

[applause] >> condoleezza rice, yours has truly been a life of vast accomplishments and striking surveys. william and mary is proud to honor you by virtue of the authority vested in me by the board of visitors in the ancient oil charter of the college of william and mary in virginia, i hereby confer upon you the degree of dr. of public service. [cheers and applause] congratulations. [applause]

asserting the massive authority that occurs to me as chance lawyer -- as chancellor i am prompting president recently to introduce our commencement speaker. ladies and gentlemen, my dear friend and a very great american, condoleezza rice. [cheers and applause] >> thank you area very much for that tremendous welcome and for this tremendous honor. it is to be named in the same breath as benjamin franklin as indeed i was the 66th secretary of state of the united states the first of course of william and mary was thomas jefferson. [applause] i want to thank my great friend

and her chancellor, bob gates. i want to thank you for your life of exemplary service to our country. i want to thank the president of the college. president regally come you've done such a marvelous job of leading the sign is to tuition. to the director and the board thank you for your leadership of william and mary to the faculty who guided these graduates to their academic cases to academic success into the staff who have nurtured them and cared for them. to family and friends thank you for your supportive mother these graduates into the class of 2015 congratulations. [cheers and applause] it is great to be here. as an academic i am pleased to

be here because this is such a respected place of learning and at that such an important role in the history of our country. as a southerner, it nice to be closer to my readers and as a sports fan, i want you to know that tastier football coach i now have enough t-shirts and hats and golf to be a member of the tribe for the rest of my life. [applause] it has been many years since my own undergraduate commencement at the university of denver. i remember almost everything about it. i remember how proud my parents were and i remember the closeness i felt to my classmates and friends. i remember the thrill of achieving my academic goals. i do not however remember a single word the commencement speaker said that day and you won't either and i promise not to take it personally. on this day you can be forgiven for feeling a little restless and a little proud.

you will have lasting memories of this place. the holiday salad rations at the u. like ceremony in your professors trying to outdo each other in the debates. and even i will remember the joy and your faces as they join you last night or the candlelight ceremony. those experiences have been a part of your journey together, a journey that ends today and your educational achievement that this highly -- education is transformative. it literally changes lives. that is why people over centuries have worked so hard to become educated. education is more than any other force can help to erase arbitrary division of race and class and culture and unlock every person's god-given potential. this belief is very personal to me. it has long been an article of faith in my family. i first learned of this idea through stories about my

paternal grandfather, a real family hero named john wesley rice senior. john wesley was a sharecropper son in utah that would eat edta w. alabama. when he was a young man of 1980 cited wanted to get book learning in a college and so he asked how a colored man could go to college. they told him there was this little presbyterian school 30 miles away so he saved up his cotton for tuition. he went not an after the first year they said so how are we going to pay for the second year. he said i am out of college. he said you're basically out of luck. he said so how are those other boys going to college? they have what is called a scholarship and if you want to be a presbyterian minister, you can have a scholarship too. granddaddy rice said that's exactly what i had in mind.

my family has been college educated and presbyterian ever since. [laughter] [applause] john wesley rice senior was onto something. he knew the education would allow him to become someone that he otherwise might never even imagine and he knew that it would resonate for generations to calm and indeed my father would go want to become not just college-educated, but advanced degree and he would be an administrator at the university of denver and presbyterian minister. his sister my aunt theresa would go to the university of wisconsin in 1952. she would get a phd in victorian literature and write books on dickens. you think what i do is weird for a black person? she wrote books on dickens.

last night because of all my grandfather and other ancestors have done towards poverty is really second-class citizenship. they understood it is a privilege, not a right and that it therefore converse or obligations and so today i would like to talk a little bit with you about the important responsibilities of educating people. the first responsibility is one that you have to yourself, the responsibility to find something you are passionate about and follow it. i don't mean any old thing that interests you. not something you might or might not do, but the one unique calling that you can't do without. as an educated person you have the opportunity to spend your life doing what you love then you should never forget many people don't enjoy such a rare privilege. as you work to find your passion, you should know sometimes your passion defines you. that is exactly what happened to me because you see my first

passion was to be a concert pianist. i could read music before i could read. at the end of my sophomore year i started encountering prodigies, 12-year-olds who learned what it took me a year to learn and i was 17 and i thought i am about to wind up playing a piano in a piano bar or maybe teaching 13-year-olds or maybe i will be one of those people playing the piano while you are shopping in the department store but i am not going to play carnegie hall. so i went to my parents and i had the following conversation. mom and dad, i've decided to change my major. to what are you changing your major to? i don't know but it's not music. you don't know what you're going to do. it is not your life. it is our money find a major. i went back to college and my first thought was english literature.

with all due respect to the english literature faculty out there, i hated it. so now i decide on state and local government. that's not a practical in my project was to interview the city water manager of denver the single most boring man i have met to this day and i thought that is not it either. but then in the spring quarter of my junior year wandered into a course taught by a czech refugee a man named joseph korbel whose daughter was named madeleine albright. without one class i was hooked. i discovered that my passion for things that are national, things fresh and in diplomacy. needless to say it's not exactly would a young black girl from birmingham was expected to do in the early 1970s but it was like finding love. i couldn't explain it but i knew it was right. you know something else several years later as i was taking off from a helicopter from the south lawn of the white house serving

president george h.w. bush i sat there with mikhail gorbachev, his wife, the secret service and mean and i thought i am really glad changed my major. [laughter] it just shows you your passion may be hard fought. so keep an open mind and keep searching and when you find your passion, it is yours. not what someone else thinks it should be. don't let anyone define your profession for you because of your gender or the color of your skin. [cheers and applause] the second responsibility of an educated person is committed to reason. here at william and mary you haven't been taught what to think but how do you think. how to ask questions, how to reject assumptions, how to seek

knowledge. in short how do exercise reason. this experience will sustain you for the rest of your life, but no one should assume a life of reason. to the contrary it takes a great deal of courage and honesty. the only way you will grow intellectually is by examining your opinions come attacking prejudices can't barely with the force of your region. this can be unsettling and it can be tempting instead to offer the comfort of a life without question. it is possible today to live in an aqua chamber that serves only to reinforce your own high opinion of yourself and what you think. that is the temptation that educated people must reject. there is nothing wrong with holding an opinion upholding it passionately. but at those times when you've decided you're absolutely right go and find someone who

disagrees. don't allow yourself to ease the course of the constant amen to everything you say. a commitment to reason leads to your third responsibility as an educated person, which is the rejection of false pride. ..

too often, cynicism can be the sole traveler of learning and i surely understand why. history is full of cruelty and suffering and darkness and it can sometimes be hard to believe that a brighter future is indeed daunting. but for all of our failings and current problems, more people now enjoy in lives of a lives of hope and opportunity than any other time in history. this progress has been because of the effort not of cynics but visionaries and optimists and ideals who don't list of the world as it was never lost sight of the world as it should be. the ideas of freedom and equality have been born for generations by optimism. there was a day in my own lifetime lifetime and the hopeless liberty and justice for

all seemed quite impossible. but you are headed into a world where optimists are too often told to keep their ideals themselves. don't do it. be leaving the progress and and act ii advances. now what do i mean by this progress? i believe all human beings share a certain fundamental aspiration. they want protection for their life and liberty. they want to worship as they wish and they want opportunity to educate their children, both boys and girls and they want to be ruled by the consent of the governed, not by the coercion of the state. and they wanted to be treated

with respect no matter who they are or how they look. this challenges us to accept and embrace difference. all too often brings has been used to divide and d. human eyes. i grew up in birmingham alabama the home of the ku klux klan and the place that was once quite properly described as the most segregated city in america. i know how it feels to have aspirations when your neighbors think you are incapable or am interested in anything higher come and perhaps there are some embers of the audience have faced that sometimes. or to the follow-on challenge of overcoming prejudice about one another. but please remember this. we do not have a constitutional right not to be offended. we are americans.

[applause] i believe that we are fundamentally decent people. and in every decent society whether it is here or abroad, we should seek not to offend but we will help our cause if we also resulted the slow in taking. it is a great acts of kindness to give someone else the benefit of the doubt. try to react to others as you would hope they would react to you, no matter the color of their skin and no matter the color of yours. and as we look from here out into the world where men and women speak the basic liberty that we enjoy let us remember that they are indeed different

but the desire for freedom is like ours. in my professional life i've listened with disbelief when the men and women of asia are not drawn to the liberties that dignity bestowed great maybe, some say they are just not ready. they are too tribal or poor or religious. do not patronize them in this way. it is your responsibility as an educated people to help the justice and opportunity. and the gap of freedom that exists beyond the shore. it is a recognized model for the learning. the ideal of service and those before to devote thousands of hours of time to help those in your own need. yes, your service has and will

help them but it's true that it helps you more. when you encounter those that are less fortunate, you cannot possibly give way. why do i not have the entitlement? why don't they give me. in fact you'll asked why have i not been given much and you will join the optimists who have been working towards a better future. what better place to draw in that spirit them here in colonial williamsburg where a college educated patriots like thomas jefferson and marshall who then went forth to build a new nation based on equality and justice and rule of law the political institutions did not always live up to the grand aspirations expressed in their great document. they and their endeavors were in perfect as are all human beings.

they stumble. sometimes they fail. but they kept going and they left a legacy that allow future generations, descendents of the free to pick up the torch and walked towards the goal of making we the people are more inclusive concept. you now need that very college william and mary to join the ranks of the world's most privileged community, the community of the educated. it is a club that you may never quite and which can never be expelled. but remember that it does conserve responsibilities. >> succumb as you leave, i ask you to bear a few things in mind be passionate about what you choose to do in life cultivate humility, remain optimistic and always try to serve others.

for the parents and family and friends came to this place to celebrate a new beginning and to affirm on this date that as you leave this place you will always remember where you came. may god speed you on your way today and for the rest of your life. thank you. [applause] telling the graduates that the world needs a new generation of leaders and what they won't need

to fix. her comments are about 20 minutes. [applause] president, distinguished faculty and trustees, most important members of the class of 2015 -- [cheering] i want to begin by thanking you. comment very much for this honorary degree. how grateful we all are and i am so honored to be with all of them because they are a remarkable group of people to ask the class in 2015 we all know the degree is a very precious thing. it's very satisfying to work hard and earn one and it's an

utter delight to receive them simply for showing up but that isn't the only reason i'm excited to be here. although i didn't attend i feel a personal connection to this outstanding university. back in the 1960s this is where i met one of my heroes former secretary of state dean acheson and i never ever imagined that i would one day be appointed to the job. it's not that i lack ambition. it's just that i've never seen a secretary of state in a skirt. as a professor and a mother of three college graduates i have to confess that i just love commencement ceremonies. they are a unique milestone in our lives because they celebrate past accomplishments and future possibilities. to the parents of the class of 2015, i can only say that moment

has finally come. having once been in your position i expect that you are thinking with some amazement how short the integral is between diapers and diplomas. to the students, i say congratulations. in order to reach this day you have to pass one of the most difficult tests of all come of surviving a truly wicked boston winter. now that you have all thought this out = realize that graduation is one of the five great milestones like the others being birth death, marriage and the day that you finally pay off your student loans. [laughter] today is a time of celebration and for looking back and admitting that all of the hard work of reading and writing and studying and cramming for tests was indeed worth it. in future years you will recall the ceremony and understand that today, may 17, 2015 was the day

he first began to forget everything you learned in college and graduate school. but as the names of dead european kings and the body parts of dissected animals began to fade the true value of your days on the hill in boston will become more and more apparent. you alongside students from more than 100 countries have gained a global perspective and that's true whether your degree is in economics or veterinary medicine. whether you study the art of diplomacy or the science of engineering. this outward orientation is vital because the class of 2015 will truly live global lives. you will compete in the global workplace, shot in a global marketplace and travel further and more often than any prior generation. to succeed you will require the kind of knowledge that extends

way beyond fact to knowledge itself. and i know from my own experience with such wisdom can be hard to obtain. i arrived at college about halfway between the invention of the apple watch and the discovery of fire. [laughter] i had one basic goal which was to be accepted as an immigrant i didn't want to stand out i wanted to get him. fortunately, in the 1950s, conformity was encouraged though we were also in a period of transition. women were finding our voices at wellesley but we were also expected to be young ladies except perhaps during the occasional outing to boston. through college i learned much about renaissance composers and shakespearean plays and periodic tables but i also learned an awful lot about myself. i wanted to use the education that i had received other than

the meaningful table conversation but i wanted to test bob simply accept the limits and boundaries of the life i was preparing to lead. then i wanted to give something back to this country that had given so much to me. i suspect the same is true for you and your experience here. you arrived here having already lived a 21st century life. some came from the nearby town in new england and others from the suburbs of los angeles and the city neighborhoods of chicago. some were raised in the skyscrapers of hong kong and others in iraq refugee camps in c-reactive and others lived through the trauma of the boston marathon bombing and its aftermath. regardless of where you came from, you've learned much about what is outside and much about what is inside as well. you learned how to put your

opinion and assumptions to the test and this is important because from this day forward, you will have to rely not on the grades or guidance from professors to tell you how you are doing and where you stand. you will have to rely instead on the inner compass whether it is true will determine whether you become a drifter that is gone about or a doer, and active citizen determined to chart your own course and question your assumptions and when necessary fail against strong wind. i looked around this morning at the class of 2015 and i have to tell you that all i see are doers which is good because in the years to come there will be much for you to do both here at home and overseas. i know where the commencement

speakers have a habit of kicking through the worlds problems and then challenging graduates to fix them. and guess that's what i plan to do. but when i tell you that the world needs you, i really do mean it. we are living in a time that is more unsettled and more complicated and more in the need of a generation of leader than any i can recall. at home america's challenge will be to maintain a sense of community and common purpose and today's graduates reflect what you are a diverse people. we are all proud of the distinctions that gave us our separate identity. this kind of solidarity is a means of honoring ancestors and a way to inspire the young. it makes us feel as alone and helps us find for ourselves a unique place in the crowd but there's also a danger because

when pride in us defense into fear or hatred, the american tapestry on unravels into the fabric is torn. the result may be a young african-american guns down in florida or shooting in a jewish community center in kansas city or a couple brutally attacked at a new york restaurant. yes we are proud of our group identity that it's what comes after those and after that white america nor any of the hundreds of other varieties that counts most. no matter their race creed gender or sexual orientation, we are all equal shareholders in the american dream and that means -- [applause]

that means we do not fear our differences, we embrace them. living up to that principle and valuing the contributions of of each other is what the council on campus diversity was all about it it's the great test that our nation must pass in the 21st century. around the world we will face other tests the outcome of which is equally uncertain. the international landscape is as contradictory and combo stubble as i have ever seen. technology and globalization helps bring about unprecedented prosperity and progress for millions of people but they've also cast new shadows upon the world. we see this in the resurgence of nationalism in europe and asia alongside the sectarianism and extremism in the middle east. we see it in the gap between the rich and the poor and the growing dangers to the environmental health of our

planet. we see how technology has given new district of tools to groups that use religion as a license to murder as if the commandments were thou shalt kill and we see how many of the assumptions of my generation and your parents generation about the 21st century have been proven wrong. to put it another way the world is a mess. that is a diplomatic. i'm sorry but it's true. yet for all of the anxiety and turmoil that surrounds us i have to say that i remain an optimist but worries a lot. around the world america remains the greatest beacon of human liberty. we are resilient. it's the new era.

they could barely succeed by going it alone. we must listen to the concern of others. we must listen confidently to the rising powers such as china who wants to have a greater say in the governance as we we push them to abide by the same rules that we ourselves up old. we must listen to scientists but say global warming is real and it's a grave threat to our future. scientists believe the conservation is a national security imperative, not a four letter word and we must listen to those that argue that globalization should not mean the marginalization.

i've traveled almost everywhere and i found that there are essentially three categories of countries in the world today. in the first, people work all day and still don't have enough to eat. in the second, families are able to scrape together just enough food to meet their basic needs. in the third category of countries diet books are bestsellers. of course the same distinctions also apply to the neighborhoods of boston and baltimore and to the mountains of appalachia and the american west. compounded with the target troops some people simply shrug their shoulders and say such inequality is too bad but there's not anything anybody can do about it. i say such unfairness is intolerable and we each have a responsibility to change it. [applause] as a light on the hill, a

community has always taken these response abilities seriously and today's graduates are no exception. they've spoken out about the assault and that black wives matter and you've pressed for action on climate change. with the assistance of institution election results to be active citizens and i'm proud this commitment to public service. there's an there is an awful lot to congratulate you on today. i want to challenge you to do far more after you leave this wonderful place. for a while, there was a time when you could say that you didn't know enough.

you can help produce enough food and shelter delivery of medicine and share in a knowledge to allow people everywhere to live better and more productive lives. i don't intend to put the weight of the world of commercial birds because it is going to be your parents drop. [laughter] but i hope i'm actually i insist that each of you after bidding farewell and having her last drink use the knowledge gained here to be more than a consumer of liberty. employee in your talent to heal and teach here at home and abroad. i insist that you be doers and i insist that you put your opinions to the test when

required and that you dare as the model suggests to the voices crying for peace because your choices will make all the difference to you and to all of us. rather on the decisions that you make and i truly mean that. too often this handle by the leaders of yesterday and today. it is the job that you must approach with modesty for some of august off to the knowledge today will be considered mistaken assumptions tomorrow. but humility and critical thinking when combined with turkey beat code coverage and determination are indispensable qualities of leadership. it is said that all work that is worth doing is done in faith.

today at the ceremony of the cherished memory and shared resolve. every challenge surrounded by the energy, every problem solved by our wisdom, every soul of weakened by the passion and every barrier to justice brought down by the determination well in noble our lives. thank you so much for making me a part of your remarkable class. [applause] ..

[applause] [applause] >> good afternoon. the hawk will never die. [applause] congratulations to the class of

2015. i could not be more honored to be here with you. let's recognize our graduates first. [applause] thank you father gillespie to the leader of the political science department. thank you for that recitation of some of my history. i did lean over to father gillespie and say that the intro might be actually a little longer than my speech this afternoon, but -- [applause] i thought you might enjoy that. to our great board of trustees and certainly our chairman money

penny, to the many folks here that it have had the opportunity to know and work with overall at the time that i have lived here in the community. i moved here in 1977. i have been actively involved in the community for a long period of time and for all of my public service into different jobs i have had the opportunity to represent st. joseph's university. i have gotten to know so many here and if you would allow me i would like to recognize just a few of those folks. certainly our dean d'angelo dr. robert moore, waddell ridley john preston, patty martin, father burr. a guy who graduated from prep and st. joseph's university your trustee and so many many others and i want to thank all of you for it below the support of friendship and engagement we have had over so many many

years. all the people who work here, certainly the leadership the faculty, the staff, maintenance and the folks who work in the cafeterias those who take care of this incredible urban and suburban campus, to all of you let me please recognize the folks who make st. joseph's university the great place that it is. [applause] some very good friends, jim and frannie mcguire the commitment and dedication of jim and frannie and the entire mcguire family a quarter of which are here today, because it's a pretty big family. they give so much to so many. please recognize the mcguire family.

[applause] for the folks who surround this five jurisdictional campus our great neighbors and friends and the windshield community and in lower marion we reckon is nice to neighbors who support and embrace this great campus. [applause] and of course we can't have a great university without great students and i love the saint joe's university students so congratulations to all of you. [applause] thank you for having me here today and i will just share a few thoughts with you. again to our great president president gillespie. i know that today is your last commencement ceremony here at st. joseph's university and i want to take a moment to thank you for your many years of

service in higher education and your incredible leadership at st. joseph's university over the last few years. during your tenure you revise st. joseph's university's mission statement set forth in a vision for the kind of education and personal development in which our students can take pride. you have come to build a more modern campus with the addition of the admissions welcome center center. more importantly you champion making education more accessible and affordable to scholarship programs like the scholarship initiative and the francis gillespie scholarship fund main main -- named after your parents to support local first-generation college students. i have called on you and a number of times. you have been an active participant in the meetings that i call with presidents of colleges and universities in philadelphia and in our suburban areas. because their background and training i asked you and asked

you and asked you because he was focused on his work here at st. jo's but i appealed to his call and duty to service and he served on the philadelphia board of ethics helping to ensure that our government operates with integrity and transparency. can we please take a moment to thank and recognize father gillespie for his many accomplishments. [applause] [applause] i am so deeply honored given my history and relationship in the jesuit immunity and certainly here at st. jo's university to receive this doctorate of public service. i still have to laugh when i say or think about that. this is my first honorary degree

and to receive it here at st. joseph's university to receive it from father gillespie a man who has dedicated his life to bettering the lives of others through education, he is the epitome of what we talk about. again let us recognize father gillespie. [applause] i also want to recognize interim provost the members of st. joseph's university board of trustees, the faculty, our parents and our students. i also want to commend and this cannot be easy people asked me from time to time you know you make a lot of speeches and to go a lot these -- places and he made a lot of a lot of people and you still get nervous when you speak. the answer is sometimes yes like right now. and so i want to really commend and ask you to give a huge huge response and reaction to our student speaker amy on her

chairman to speech here today. [applause] to our distinguished graduates again i want to offer you my sincerest congratulations and a half of 1.5 million people and growing in the city of the adelphia today is your day and congratulations to you. you are helping to make our city, our region are state and our country that better place that we wanted to be. you are increasing the attainment rate here in the city of philadelphia. he will be contributing to our economy. hopefully almost all of you if not all of you have jobs another or to receiving your tax revenues very very soon. so today you have achieved something quite incredible and i want to congratulate you. to the parents, to the parents, your student your child your

son, your daughter, your needs your nephew, your grandson your granddaughter they have in fact accomplish something great but they didn't do it by themselves. all those days and those nights and every now and then the fears and the doubts and the complaining and the wondering and the things that they talk with you about, you help them every step along the way. you stood with them. you stood by them. they have a shoulder to lean on or to cry on to ask questions. you were there for them so i'm going to ask the graduates to please turn around for a second and give those who are behind you because they have been behind you every step along the way, give your parents and family members a big round of applause. [applause] [applause]

it's always slightly disruptive when i do that. and lastly to the parents it is my hope for you that as your young person moves on and as they come off of campus, it is my hope for you that this might for you be the last time that you have to help them move somewhere. [applause] that moving thing is tough. and whether you are the first in your family to attend college or a legacy student with three generations of university graduates before you to our graduates i know you have worked hard to make it to this point. congratulations. earlier today a thousand graduate students and night students participated in their graduation and this afternoon 1020 undergraduates this afternoon. what a stunning achievement by all of you. i cannot be more proud.

[applause] let me just say for one moment, recognizing current events and the events of this week. when we talk about doing more for christ by doing more for others we know that we suffered a tremendous tragedy here in our city this past week. to those who lost family members, we mourn for them and they will never be forgotten. and to the miracle of 200 plus people walking off of that train wreck, we know it is at work in the fire department the police department, in our emergency management and our hospital workers, our doctors and nurses and all of our health care workers. they save lives on tuesday night

and let us please recognize their great service. [applause] so now it is your time. over the last four years you have pursued your courses of study with fervent passion becoming the person that you were meant to be all along the way. now it's your time to go off into the world and make your own way and achieve even more. my journey to be that man for others started on a similar day like this day 40 years ago at st. joseph's preparatory high school at 17th and gerard, a proud graduate of the best class

of 1975. there will be disputes all over the place about that. as i mentioned i have represented saint joseph's university during all of my time in city council and now as your mayor. but it was my education and training at the prep that prepared me for leadership that made me the person that i am today and i know everything that i have ever become to the great training that i received from the jesuit community and the training. [applause] and so to all of you today this may be difficult. i'm know many of you will stay in philadelphia but some may venture to other places. i can assure you, you will come back. other cities may catch your attention from time to time but i hope you don't forget about our great city of philadelphia come the city that has been the backdrop of your college life

and welcomed you with open arms and embraced your talents. we hope that you choose to stay here and build a life that you have always wanted in the city of brotherly love and sisterly affection, the city of philadelphia. thanks to the infusion of young people choosing philadelphia and our many great higher education institutions that are producing well-educated and highly-skilled graduates much like all of you our city is growing. as a matter of fact it's because of you and so many others that the city of philadelphia has experienced eight straight years of population growth with the largest percentage increase of millennial population of any major city in the united states of america. [applause] and so we have more people and more jobs and better opportunities than ever before. if you are interested in a

challenge and an exciting cosmopolitan city that is taking its place on the world stage as one of the great global cities then stay right here. as a matter of fact philadelphia has become so well-known across the country and around the world that there is one who decided that he needed to experience philadelphia for himself. he is also jesuit trained and will make a journey to the city of philadelphia. he will bring about 1 million plus of his best friends with him, pope francis is coming to philadelphia in september. [applause] continued to be a part of our community, help to change our city. in many ways philadelphia has already benefited from your gifts. volunteering is an important tenet of st. jo's university

education and is it's one that the alumni continues after graduation. as as a matter of fact about 85% of st. joseph's university graduates are avid volunteers in so many different ways. but whether you decide to call philadelphia home or some other place, i asked that wherever you are you continue to give back and give back and give back. we know that to whom much is given, much is required. the bible says that we all live in cities that we could not know. we drink from wells that we did not dig and we take from vineyards that we did not plant. we all benefit from those who have led the way in the past and have done great things before us us. we know it to them to continue to build on that legacy. without question you should pursue excellence in your career but don't forget that we all have an obligation to build up our neighbors to serve our communities and to impact the world in which we live. mentor a child clean up the

park, make a difference. w.e.b. dubois said education must not simply teach work it must teach life. you are blessed to receive that kind of education right here. take confidence in knowing that st. joseph's university has prepared you for your future. this institution will educate the whole person mind body and spirit giving you the critical thinking and ethical decision-making abilities to overcome any professional or personal obstacles you may encounter. as you note challenges are a part of adult life. hard choices are inevitable. though you may not feel prepared to navigate these rough waters i know for a fact that you can and you will because you have already achieve some ring that unfortunately most people in the world have not done. you have earned a college

degree. [applause] and so graduation speakers come and go and some people remember their graduation speaker in college and some did not. mine was gary trudeau of course of news very so i do remember him. whether you remember this day are not let me assure you that i will never, ever forget the honor that you have given me and the opportunity to speak with you today. keep it within you and then share it within the world. congratulations class of 2015. [applause] [applause]

general john allen delivered this year's commencement -- commencement address and mom to my. this special envoy in charge of countering the threat from isis previously led nato and u.n. -- u.s. forces in afghanistan. he received that honorary degree before addressing the graduates. general allen spoke for about 20 minutes. >> dean timmerman reverend dr. ott, president why it members of the monmouth or board of trustees distinguished guests and family members, thank you all for allowing me to be with you today. most importantly congratulations to the class of 2015 monmouth graduates. [applause] i can feel the energy.

i thought i was feeling the energy last night through the walls in my hotel room. it turns out it was family celebrating. my congratulations to stephanie langford for a marvelous speech. well done to you. thank you. i also understand that many of the graduating class today are international students. i hope that the four years you have had here if you have had a chance to learn advanced about america but i really hope the american class has had a chance to learn a bit about the world from them and i think this is an enormous strength of this curriculum. so i congratulate you as well. i want to express my sincere appreciation to dr. why it's both for the invitation to speak with you today but also for his leadership during his first academic years as the president of monmouth college. now having been a marine for

nearly four decades i can tell you i can recognize a good team in action when it happens. and i think dr. wyatt would tell you that he is only half of a really good team and he is joined by the first lady of monmouth college his precious wife. they have created a wonderful team and a wonderful environment here. i would ask you to help me to celebrate their year as team kobe continues to gain traction. [applause] [applause] now i'm going to go on for a few more minutes. i know everyone has their own tropical storm going on inside their rooms right now so i will try to be brief. i also acknowledge, i acknowledge, i would like to acknowledge one of the leading members of the community here at the college dr. bill ervin a history professor who is retiring after nearly five decades of distinguished honor.

as dr. irvine retires i would like to take the responsibility today to dispel a myth. some of today's graduates and alumni have believed since they were under -- dr. urban is an institution that is shaped monmouth because he actually lived the history he was teaching. but he lived through the middle ages and america's expansion and that drove how captivating his lectures could be. but i have to tell you that he might have taught you about charlemagne and might have taught you about the expedition but he didn't actually know them. now dr. urban of course i'm kidding but i certainly can relate to your dilemma. when i served as the commandant midshipmen in the naval academy i remember midshipman asking what it's like to be in annapolis way back when i was a midshipman and i would always say right after the civil war?

and they would start doing the math in their heads. and i knew that people like dr. urban and i had a lot of history get to teach but i want to thank you dr. urban for all you have done to sew the seeds of history into the precious young minds of these graduates. of course today is an occasion for graduates to reflect not just about their own history at monmouth but also the history they aspire to make. as monmouth graduates and citizens and professionals. despite the challenges ahead and perhaps the sense of uncertainty and understandable unease, he should be confident that your monmouth graduation has prepared you well. mr. president wyatt observed in this and i rolled remarks you have not only study the liberal arts you have had the opportunity to participate in studying the liberating parts and that is a profound statement. you have had the great privilege of being part of a community of

learning and the college where every day you have been in courage to think and to act anew. graduates this is a meaningful day for all of you and you have worked hard to arrive here but i would also ask you to remember that you did not travel this journey on your own. this should be a day of great celebration heartfelt appreciation. indeed this is a special day for your teachers, your coaches your mentors particularly and very importantly your precious parents your families and your loved ones many of whom have made significant sacrifices so that you could receive this monmouth education so please join me as well and thanking them. [applause] years from now i don't expect you will remember many of the words coming from the podium today but it is my hope however that you will remember and he

will honor the people who made this day possible for you. let's get to the point. speaking of remembering this day speakers at commencements often talk about not being able to remember their own commencement addresses. but they see absolutely no reason why you shouldn't remember their own words of wisdom and today is no different. i expect you to remember everything i say. now the day i graduated from the naval academy my speaker that day was the secretary of defense defense, someone you may have heard of none as donald rumsfeld rumsfeld. his well polished speech was pure gold. his delivery was flawless and his words were wisdom personified. but i don't remember a word of it. and that's my fault because i was worried about my corvette overheating because it was idling in the parking lot to facilitate iraq but escape.

and as they would have a 27 years later i am now the commandant which is roughly the dean of students and who is the speaker at the commencement? donald rumsfeld pointed once again to be the secretary of defense and i do remember that address. the midshipmen were enormously inspired. it was brilliant and in particular i remember secretary rumsfeld's on recollection of me in 1976 as having been a midshipman who was dozing on the front row of the graduating class. thankfully for me a graduation event was not a graded event and immediately between naps and worrying about my corvette i crossed the stage and graduated right after the american civil war. the commencement address that really has stayed with me was delivered years later at a far

different kind of ceremony than i was attending. it was a graduation of a service school for a class of marines that were headed to desert storm storm. you overcall that moment a generation in the past. on that day the speakers shared three simple lessons. lessons that have stayed with me in my entire life, throughout my career and shaved my experiences and these are lessons i hope to impart to you today. so please listen up because while you were not headed for the world of combat, he were headed for the world of competition where success is too often measured in immediate gratification by the bottom line and by self aggrandizement. so the first lesson is one you might expect to hear from a marine. take care of yourself physically physically. in america today we almost never dwell on the necessity of being in good shape but the lessons of history bear this out.

if you really want to be competitive you have got to take care of yourself. i can't tell you how many bedsides that i attended in iraq and afghanistan looking down at one of my badly wounded marines or soldiers and the doctor or the nurse telling me that the only reason he is alive is because he was in good physical condition. the doctors point, warriors survived because he maintained a physical edge. so let me take this one step are there for you. if you achieve anything keep that edge if you can continue to be in good shape you will handle certain uncertainty better. you will resist fear longer and you will think more clearly in the crises that are inevitably coming your way. so what does this mean for you? first of all monmouth doesn't graduate slackers. it produces young women and men

of character you are in view to their education to lead and leadership true compassionate leadership is hard. it's demanding and its relentless. you have to possess a physical edge. for you to thrive in a the pressure cooker of today's business environment, you've got to be in shape. to arrive here today many of you have endured the physical strain of all matters of hughes library undoubtedly. for others in your studies and your participation in sports your stamina and your endurance has been tested but you all have just begun to feel what is hard. as your responsibilities grow finding time to maintain your physical condition will become more difficult but more essential. it won't be long before your daily demands of family and career began to test your

endurance and sap your energy in ways you have not experienced. it's important that you began to test yourself and to test your physical limits today. this is an understanding i developed over the course of my long career and one which i often grappled with mightily in my service as the commander of our forces in afghanistan for 18 months. sometimes to it the fog of exhaustion and combat and it's impossible to describe that feeling the requirement to make a decision often where lives would be at stake but i trained myself and i trained my staff to answer the question is does this decision really need to be made now? some did and some could wait. after i got a short period of rest or sleep i found myself in the possession of a higher faculty needed to make that decision and move on. over and over again i was thankful that my level of

physical conditioning afforded me the capacity to resist the waves of exhaustion coming at me continuously. maintaining your physical health is not as mark twain once quipped, a matter of eating what you don't want or drinking what you don't like were doing what you would rather not. indeed, it's quite the opposite. only by maintaining your physical condition will you be able to achieve the full potential and to appreciate and experience all that the world has to offer you over the course of your lives. now my second lesson involves nurturing your intellect and cultivating a lifelong curiosity. it's this. be the master of your profession profession. i know at this moment you don't need some old guy to tell you to continue to crack the books for the rest of your life. some of you are booked out. i can see it in your eyes.

in the case you have been sorely and rigorously tested by the curriculum of this great institution but trust me your success in life will be determined in many respects by your capacity to learn and it learning to master the ability to embrace new ideas and turn them to your favor. being a master of your profession also means embracing the humility that comes with a lifetime of service and study. i have seen this everywhere. everywhere that i have served the greatest and most successful professionals are those who are committed students. puts a singly all great leaders are great readers. these are the reasons today's ceremony is called the commencement. a commencement is not an end of the journey but a beginning. today should not mark the final chapter of your education at the first chapter of your lifelong dedication to the pursuit of knowledge. so do that in the entire march

of human history exists for you at the touch of a keyboard or a quick visit to your library. you have the ability to harvest the teachings and the experiences of generations of women and men who have gone before you and why you can't do anything about having this 22-year-old body, there is nothing that should prevent you from having a thousand-year-old mind. i wanted to think about it. seek the wisdom of the ages read and achieved that thousand-year-old mind. i 3 and final lesson has to do with values and the vital work of enriching your spirituality yours. and it is this. be a servant leader. as you transition to independent adulthood, moving finally out of the basement but striving to put the needs of others ahead of

yours and strive to be a servant leader, putting others first and he will find life's journey will be more fulfilling and enriching enriching. look for the cause is bigger than yourself, causes that provide and convey higher purpose and dedicate yourselves wholly to those causes. be an exemplar of humanity and fellowship in action. in my long years of service i have no time for the complacency and arrogance. arrogance is a hairs breadth from ignorance and the two together are indescribably corrosive and even dangerous to the effectiveness of an organization. ..

has long been part of the mission. individual integrity, not appearance or social privilege: the extraordinary person from the ordinary. the potential to lead them in such a way that they are empowered. servant leaders understand what i call the human

element that all great undertakings succeed or fail 1st and foremost that the human level. and while our technology will grow and all processes will advance there is still no substitute for the human element. servant leaders understand implicitly and understand that only success can be achieved by taking advantage of the individual backgrounds of the many that you lead and leading them in a common effort. servant leaders pride selflessness and personal integrity and respect for inherent dignity of all above all other things and find meaning in higher purpose and using their individual talents and gifts to contribute to our common humanity. there is a wonderful afghan saying that goes: if you want to go fast, go alone. if you want to go far go together.

if you want to go far go together. humbly leading humbly leading and selflessly sacrificing for those you carry with you towards the greater goal. sadly, and to much of the world today there are places where there is little respect for humanity and as a marina 38 years i have seen evil up close al qaeda the taliban command the worst of them, isis in the middle east. the extent of the depravity and the depth to which it has sunk is in stark contrast to the ideals i call on you to embrace. their unspeakable acts and what they espouse are a reminder that our own actions as individuals and as a society indeed, are very humanity must be rooted

in a set of unassailable values are. in a world that is changing faster than before often defined in soft and slippery justification you must decide what you stand for and anchor and discipline yourselves in a strong set of values. some of some of you might be thinking if you have not adopted a value system by now it is too late. don't believe that for a 2nd. monmouth college has given you a basis in values you may not now appreciate but i'm telling you you will cherish it in the years to come. as of tomorrow, graduates this discipline will take on greater importance. you will importance. you will enter a world that often seems unpredictable and at times unstable. you will find yourself buffeted and bruised by these realities but by maintaining your personal balance, by remaining rooted in values by attending to

your physical, intellectual and spiritual selves you will develop the ability to thrive and to lead others'. when i asked doctor wyatt what he wanted me to talk about he said i want you to talk about five minutes. ouch. well i was so inspired by the president and the institution and you that i wanted to give you more. i'm afraid my words no way go with me. after today and as the years pass in conclusion i don't expect you will remember much of me or what i have said. some of your cars are no doubt idling in the parking lot's. even as your memories begin to fade them i i challenge you to remember the three points that i tried to convey today. be aware of your physicality and maintain your physical condition i continually testing your physical limits the masters of your profession committed to a

lifelong learning and cultivation of intellect and last and most important be a servant leader. and strong values. as as you go about responding to these challenges, you will find no further than you have to look inside your own monmouth committee for examples of how you should live and how you should act's and how you should think and act anew. i want to thank you for allowing me to be with you today on this special occasion on a day when your opportunities as students will soon become your obligations as graduates. and and on this day when your journey as adults and citizens truly begins to my congratulate you. for the graduates, i was to the best in all your endeavors, for the college, i wish for the continued wisdom for the leadership, faculty, and staff. for the many for the many assembled here to my wisconsin was -- rich

blessings for you now and always and may god bless america. thank you very much. [applause] >> college graduates are finding an improved jobless report. the the labor department says us employers added 280,000 jobs last month even as the unemployment rate ticked up from 5.4 to five .5 percent, hundreds of thousands more people saw jobs in may. that is why the unemployment numbers of slavery's. the funeral for blow-by-blow takes place tomorrow morning. he died this past saturday. live coverage at 10:30 am eastern time from wilmington, delaware. pres. obama will deliver delaware. president obama will deliver the eulogy and honor about biden at the mass. >> this weekend the c-span cities tour as partnered with time warner cable to

learn about the history and literary life of lincoln, nebraska. >> one of the most important american writers of the 20th century's given almost every literary award possible in her lifetime before she died except for the nobel prize. she was known for some of her masterpieces like my antonia, the professor's antonia, the professor's house, death comes to the archbishop, the lost lady, and many others. in 1943 shimada will's which at a few restrictions in it. she it. she did not want her letters published or quoted in whole or in part. left behind at least 3,000 letters and we know about. fortunate the biggest fortunate the biggest collections are here in nebraska. furthermore, she loved one other important thing. she loved she loved it to the soul and uncontrolled discretion of her executors interest to decide whether or not the enforcer preference command they believe as educational organizations' blogs to our shared heritage and we ought to know more about her.

>> an. >> an important historical figure in nebraska history was solomon the budget. >> solomon butcher was a pioneering photographer out in ulster county and western nebraska. he took photos from it's about 1880 786 until the early 1890s of homesteaders and houses and was able to tell the story of this important developments in american history. okay. i will show you one of my favorite images. it is actually a photograph of the chrisman sisters. it it is for sisters who each took a homestead claim in gloucester county. this shows women homesteaders'. it was the 1st time that women could land on their own. he did not it did not blind to their husbands.

it did not belong to the fathers. single women did on their own land command that was a big deal. each of the sisters took a homestead near the fathers ranch. they each built a small house on the homestead which was part of the homestead act and they would take turns staying in each other's house and working each other's farm. the sisters pulled together and made it in nebraska. >> watch our events saturday evening at 6:00 o'clock on c-span book tv and sunday at two in american history tv. >> us law enforcement officials testify that a house homeland security committee hearing this week on the use of social media

by isis to recruit fighters, spread propaganda, and plot attacks'. fbi counterterrorism assistant director what about the growing use of encrypted communication by terror groups saying technology has complicated efforts to monitor terror suspects's and suspects and extremists. this is just over two hours. >> the committee will come to order. the purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding the increasing threat from violent islamist extremist groups such as isis using the internet and social media to recruit fighters, share propaganda and inspire and to potentially direct attacks. and before i recognize myself for an opening statements i would like to welcome our newest member of the committee, congressman daniel donovan of new york. we have we have yet another new yorker on this committee's, quite a contingency.

we're happy to have you. we now recognize. i yield to the dillman from new york. >> i join you in welcoming mr. donovan. outstanding district attorney come outstanding public servant. great to have you on board. >> just to show how bipartisan we will be i would like to welcome my former colleague former da dan donovan. great to have you here. >> anybody else? >> onto a more serious topic. yesterday in boston reports are emerging that mr. rahim was killed by federal law enforcement officers after

lunging at them with a knife. being investigated by the boston joint terrorism task force after communicating with and spreading isis propaganda online. it known associates of mr. raheem are also being arrested as we speak. these cases are these cases are a reminder of the dangers posed by individuals radicalized through social media. in garland one month ago a man fired off tweets declaring his loyalty. i #taxes attack previewing his his decision to terrorize a prophet mohammed cartoon contest that islam is so social media had singled out as target. in his final tweet to follow also known as our economy

20 -year-old british foreign fighter and one of the groups top recruiters who has been linked to the twitter hack. quick to praise the garland attack and issued a warning that same night stating a nice of been sharpened. soon we will come to your streets with death and slaughter. this attacking simplifies a new era in which terrorism has gone viral. extremists issued a call to arms to attack an event clearly he did that call and take steps to make sure his act of violence would spread and motivate more. social media networks social media networks have become an extension of the islamist terror battlefield overseas journey homegrown extremists and to sleeper operatives and attackers.

the proliferation of jihadist propaganda online has established a new front in our battle against islamist extremists. we are no longer hunting terrorists living in caves and you only communicate through carriers. we are facing an enemy whose messages and calls to violence are posted and promoted in real-time over the internet. for example, last month the threat level that military bases across the country was elevated after supporters posted the names of individuals serving the military online and quickly spread this on social media. aspiring fanatics can receive updates from hard-core extremists on the ground in syria via twitter, watch bloodlust on youtube, g hardy self is on a histogram religious justifications for murder

and find travel guides to the battlefield on ask f and g hardy recruiters mastering the ability to monitor and prey upon western youth susceptible to the twisted message of islamist terror. they seek out curious users you have questions about islam or want to know what life was like in the so-called islamic state. they establish bonds of trust and discuss the commitment of potential recruits. from there extremists direct users to continue the conversation on more secure apps. secure communications high their messages' from our intelligence agencies. such communications can include advice or traveling to terror safe havens contact information for smugglers in the turkey for the membership process for joining isis itself. and of the officials appearing before us today

are disturbed by these trends. mobile apps as well as data destroying ads by allowing extremists to communicate outside of the view of law enforcement equally as worrisome are isis attempts to use the dark or deep web's. these websites hide it -- ip addresses and cannot be reached by search engines giving terrorists another covert means by which they can recruit fighters, share intelligence, raise funds and potentially plot and direct attacks undetected as we saw's. isis taylor is his message for specific audiences around the globe and in doing so project power far beyond its growing safe havens by amplifying its battlefield successes and winning over new converts across the world.

media sophistication helps legitimize itself proclaimed caliphate and it's perverse interpretation of islam. the stand in stark contrast to al qaeda's past outreach which relied on tightly controlled top-down messaging and propaganda more difficult for aspiring jihadists. today isis is instead taking a grassroots approach to terror. from digital magazine style line videos that glorify barbaric murder isis is using its multi platform engagement to create a a g hardy some culture that supports its violent ideology and encourages attacks against the united states. these tactics are at sea change for spreading terror and require from us a paradigm shift in our counterterrorism intelligence and operation.

for example, we can start by doing what fbi dir. coming suggested, shaking the trees more aggressively to quickly identify and engage potential homegrown jihadists. but this is a dynamic new front in the war against islamist terror command it will require a new approach with a heavy focus on the ideological battle space. i am grateful for the three witnesses we have to today that arguing firsthand on the frontlines. i look forward to hearing your testimony and recommendations for confronting this new and dangerous challenge. with that i now recognize the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman thank you for holding today's hearing. i would like to also thank the witnesses for hearing today. on may 3 the american freedom defense initiative which is recognized as a hate group by the southern parts organized a mohammed

exhibit and contest event. to violent extremists armed with assault rifles and body armor attacked police that were providing security to the event resulting in the wounding of a dedicated police officer. according to the fbi hours before the garland attack a bulletin was issued to state and local police stating one of the assailants may have an interest in traveling to the event. unfortunately the local police stated that the bulletin was not received in time. mr. chairman, by no means am i saying that this bulletin would have changed the outcome of the situation but i do think that this illustrates that we need to continue working in the information sharing with state and local police and also listening to the boots on the ground on how to

recognize and prevent acts of homegrown violent extremism. in in the days following the attack and garland supporters of the terrorist group isis praised the attack. after the attack it was discovered that one of the gunmen detail his plans to lead the country and travel to syria's on twitter. the assailants plans were disrupted when the fbi arrested some people that plans to travel with him. it also came to light that he engaged with other followers from around the world through twitter. mr. chairman we know that the threat from foreign and domestic terrorist groups are not going away overnight using the internet and social media to recruit members, plan attacks, and spread ideology is not novel's. as as the director of national counterterrorism center pointed out in hearing the exportation of

social media plays a prominent role in the group's ability to recruit fighters from around the world. as we look at social media and how violent extremist propaganda spread we must look at ways to counter. both sides of the aisle are engaged in an examination of the presence countering violent extremism strategy. the department. the department has a vital role to play in carrying out the strategy as evidenced by the fact that there is a dedicated coordinator working. mr. chairman, at this time i request that this committee have an open oversight hearing where we can take testimony from dhs coordinator about the department's role in implementing the strategy. furthermore, we know that more work remains to ensure that our foreign partners are willing to and able to

identify foreign fighters at the borders. last friday the un council issued an unprecedented statement urging countries to enforce border control that allow suspected terrorists to travel across international borders. the director of the in ctc also stated in our february hearing that there was work to be done in this area. i no that the committee has a task force that is examining this issue's command we should be receiving their recommendation soon. mr. chairman, as i stated in our last hearing, we all have to prevent terrorist attacks against americans and on american soil. accordingly, i encourage this committee to continue a serious discussion on how to counter violent extremist messages while protecting constitutional rights. as we consider this threat

we need to foster greater information sharing among diverse partners and seek new ways to work together to pursue effective and promising. with that i yield back. >> i think the ranking member. first, i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from texas and the chairman of the rules committee be allowed to sit on the dais and participate. the john from texas is recognized. >> i would like to ask unanimous consent to be recognized out of order for two minutes. >> without objection. >> i appreciate your and the ranking members indulgence and will yield my two minutes to the german from taxes. >> mr. sessions is recognized. >> my thanks to my colleague from san antonio for kindly yielding time.

i i want to thank the young chairman of the homeland security committee michael mccall as well as the ranking member my good friend bennie thompson and members of the community. thank you for inviting me to participate in today's hearing to discuss the isis inspired terrorist attack 's.'s. as the proud representative of the 32nd congressional district of texas i am pleased to notify each and every one of you that all of north texas is committed to fighting terrorism specifically the city of garland, texas is a diverse all-american city that continues to attract families and businesses with its thriving economy and growing opportunities. since 1891 the city has grown from a small cotton farming community to a thriving metropolitan area outside of dallas with almost a quarter million people that call garland, texas home.

the mayor of garland, texas is a friend of mine and works closely with his city managers as well as the police chief and local officials including school board and other community leaders to ensure that garland is a great safe city to live in. on sunday, march 3 it's a a courageous garland police officer swiftly acted to protect the people of garland from what could have been a devastating situation. i would like to commend the police officer and all members of local law enforcement is dead in the face of terrorism and protected countless innocent lives. i remain i remain committed to working with each of my colleagues in the house local leaders and local law enforcement to uphold our duty as elected officials to protect the people we serve. it is my severe sincere hope

that we can learn positive lessons so that other cities and communities can be as prepared as garland if an event were to happen and the local community. thank you very much and i yield back my time. >> i think the dillman from taxes. opening statements may be submitted for the record. the 1st joined the national counterterrorism center in march 2015 as deputy director. previously previously served as associate deputy director for counterterrorism national security agency. next mr. francis taylor assumes his post as undersecretary for intelligence and analysis in april 2014. previously he served as assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security and director of the office of foreign missions. finally, we have mr. michael steinbeck appointed fbi director by james coming and

assistant director of the counterterrorism division in july 2014. prior to assuming his current position he served as deputy assistant director of the counterterrorism division in the acting section chief for the fbi international terrorism operations center. i want to thank all you for being here today. today. the chernow recognizes deputy director molly in the testify. >> thank you, chairman ranking member. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss some of the recent events at interest of the committee and the growing use of social media. i am pleased to join my colleagues will homeland security and the federal bureau of investigation. we work closely every day as part of the counterterrorism community and that enter agency partnership is one of the keystones of our homeland defense. this morning i we will speak

briefly about the recent attempted attack and garland texas and the role of violent extremist social media. then i will transition to broader remarks on the use of social media before concluding by sharing some of the efforts to counter that have no threat. as has already been described last month to us citizens attacked an art exhibit and cartoon contest. the attackers arrived on the days the events exited the car and opened fire with semi automatic rifles injuring a guard on scene. thankfully local law enforcement partners in the area were aware of the potential for violence and were able to respond quickly to prevent the attack from injuring or killing others. this event highlights this event highlights the growing threat our nation faces from a knew generation of terrorists often operating from afar to use social media to find like-minded associates within our borders who can be motivated to violence attacking with little or no warning.

as was as was indicated in this case an online supporter on twitter posted a link to an article with information about the cartoon contest a few weeks beforehand. the the supporters posting also included a message suggesting extremists should follow in the footsteps of the attack in paris. days later one of the attackers reached out to supporters an estimate of their communications to private twitter messaging. the same the same individual urged twitter users to follow the account of unknown member who had been trying to insight supporters to conduct attacks in the west. hours before the attack the same attack posted a message on his twitter feed with the accompanying #they did not claim responsibility but operators praised the attackers and encouraged others to follow suit. the group violated the attack and the most recent

edition of its online magazine which a publishes in a publishes in several languages. as we examine the broader efforts and social media like any branded cease to target young people they continually innovate its online marketing to ensure the developing crafted messages using well-known us-based platform such as youtube, facebook, or twitter they were to ensure its media releases reach audiences far and wide through reposting follow-on links and translations in multiple languages. they also employ marketing tradecraft attaching messages to trending topics in order to gain additional readership. consequently social media presence is more widespread than any other terrorist group. since the beginning of this year isis has published more than 1700 pieces of terrorist messaging including videos pictorial reports and online magazines

these products these products are often professional and presentation and timely and delivery underscoring the commitments to master multiple social media tools in order to advance extremist objectives. as the committee knows they have shaped media content to amplify effects of violent operations and activities and do so in an attempt to project an image of power and intimidation and employ a complementary approach to enhanced recruitment, a projection of the self-described caliphate as an idealized family-friendly environment in which ideological, religious personal fulfillment can be realized. this narrative has successfully induced large numbers of young people to make their way into combat zones. during the past few months the social media operators have more aggressively pursued a new line of effort following statements from senior leaders encouraging

known actor attacks against the west. these operators are now practicing online recruitment and provisioning of terrorist instruction intended to precipitate civilian attacks within the us and other nations. sadly, as we have seen, some individuals have embraced the messaging. when it comes to countering the spread of the violent messaging several social media platforms have taken the initiative to close down the counts advocating terrorism and violent acts. they do this upon detection. however, energetic efforts to prohibit the propagation of violent messaging has not been universal and there is much work to be done to encourage greater vigilance and a broader sense of corporate responsibility to address this threat to public safety. we are employing the knowledge that we have developed that has been developed by the us counterterrorism community

to refine and expand prevention efforts. we have seen a steady proliferation of proactive and engaged community awareness initiatives across the united states, kemal working with the goal of giving communities information and tools that they need to identify threats posed by violent extremist online recruitment and to effectively engage it before it manifests and violence. with our dhs colleagues we have created and regularly deliver a committee resilience program that brings together law enforcement and community leaders to run through a hypothetical scenario. in summary we need multilevel partnership efforts to enable local us communities to build the dual capabilities of addressing radicalization and ensuring resilient responses when an individual moves from radical ideology to radical violence. we must continue to develop knowledge's and communicate

that knowledge so that it can be used to minimize the application of terrorist online tactics against our citizens. i will stop there. thank you for the opportunity to address the community. >> the chair now recognizes undersecretary to. >> chairman, ranking member, members of the community thank you for the opportunity to appear with my colleagues. the terrorist threat today is more decentralized and complex not constrained to one group race ethnicity, national origin, religion more geographic location. terrorist organizations have expanded their efforts to recruit individuals for violent action at home and to continue to be effective in recruiting foreign fighters from western countries to travel to syria and iraq. remains a major concern.

the group and its affiliates maintain the intent and in some cases the capability to facilitate and conduct attacks against us citizens and facilities. attack planning continues despite persistent efforts to disrupt the. through this sophisticated messaging capability isis has been able to quickly reach a global audience and encourage acts of violence and inspiring us citizens to travel to syria to recruit and radicalize the violence. this is concerning because mobilized loan offenders present law enforcement with limited opportunities to detect industrial plots. the importance of close collaboration and information between dhs fbi

and other federal, state local, and private sector partners. the fusion center and local law enforcement warning that the event was at risk of being targeted for violent extremism. these warnings led to the preparation taken that help thwart the attack. our top priority to counter this evolving threat is information and intelligence sharing with our partners. the national program protection division field personnel are instrumental in this effort and participate potential terrorist actions and propose measures to help build resilience across the country. as an example of close coordination intelligence sharing between dhs ina state and local partners

with the protest last week in phoenix, arizona this past weekend we proactively contacted our partners on the ground and shared intelligence from the fbi and dhs sources and real-time to help ensure local leadership in law enforcement have the necessary information to protect their communities and their citizens. additionally, we reached out to the faith community in phoenix to provide information regarding the potential violent activity so that they could take preventive actions and their communities. it is important we continue to build these partnerships in ways that enhance committee relationships and builds resilience to violent extremist recruitment. dhs has a senior executive for countering violent extremism whose sole role is to coordinate and improve the departments cde efforts. the new strategy emphasizes

the strength of local communities and the premise that well-informed and well-equipped families, communities, and frontline personnel represent the best defense against violent extremism. dhs will continue to work with their international counterparts and colleagues to identify potential threats to security at home and abroad. the chairman ranking member and distinguished members of the community thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. >> thank you. the chernow recognizes assistant director steinbach >> good morning. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the reach of terrorist influence

terrorist use of technology has aided in the dissemination of rhetoric encouraging attacks on us interest. as the threat evolves we must adapt and confront the challenges including working closely with partners since the threat persists in all communities. we continue to identify individuals who seek to join the ranks of foreign fighters traveling in support of isis and also those homegrown violent extremists may aspire to attack the united states from within. conflicts continue to entice western -based extremists who wish to engage in violence. we estimate we estimate upwards of 200 americans have travel or attempted to travel to syria. we closely analyze and assess the influence groups conspired to commit acts of violence. these threats remain among the highest priorities for the fbi in the intelligence committee as a whole. proven relentless through

there skillfully crafted messaging the group continues to attract like-minded extremists. unlike other groups isis has constructed a narrative that is appealing the individuals from many different walks of life seen by many who receive social media push notifications. in recent months isis has advocated for attacks against military personnel, law enforcement, and intelligence committee members. gone so far as to post the names, addresses, and photos of us military personnel which quickly went viral. we should we should understand community and world events may entice an individual to act. as we have seen recently with highly publicized events they will attract media attention and may inspire copycat attacks. the targeting of the art exhibit exemplifies the call to arms approach along with

the power of viral messaging as stated there is no set profile. one trend continues to rise the inspired youth. it's these generations are comparable a virtual communication platforms. some conversations occur in publicly accessed social media networking sites but others take place on private messaging platforms. it is imperative the fbi understand the latest munication tools newsgroup. we live in a technologically driven society and just as private industry has adapted so to have a terrorists. social media is the latest tool exploited by terrorists

with widespread distribution and encrypted communications it has afforded a freeze on. we need to urgently assess the laws applicable and work with private industry toward technology solutions. to corrupt the narrative this is not a conversation about national security at the expense of privacy more about weakening legitimate security of communication products. we are looking to be fully transparent with legal process showing evidence of a crime to gain access to the front door with full knowledge of companies. seeking seeking to ensure no one is above the law. there is certainly a balance between security and privacy we see proper balance.

the fbi is utilizing all investigative techniques and methods to combat threats these individuals pose. in conjunction we are rigorously connecting and analyzing intelligence information as it pertains to the ongoing threat. in partnership to ensure the safety of the american public. concerning the persistent threat to the united states. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

>> i want to 1st pull up on the screen what i consider to be. federal prosecutor who worked on direct cases organized crime. a lot of similarities, but this was conducted completely on the internet. let me 1st amend the fbi homeland security and the joint terrorism task forces for their textbook model case efforts in both the garland attack and most recently in boston. that is the way it is supposed to work. you have to get it right every time and i just have to get it right once. this kind of shows what we are dealing with, the threat gone viral. in somalia directing attacks against the cartoonist our competition to mr. simpson a response and as the attack is being conducted we have the emphasis our tani has

become the chief recruiters hackers, directors congratulating them basically saying that so silly will come to your street with that the slaughter. >> i guess my 1st question is to director steinbach this is just a microcosm of the conspiracy that we are looking at. how many potential recruiters do you think we have sitting in syria, somalia, northern africa actively recruiting acts of terrorism globally.

>> that's a good question. i think you can refer to the brookings institute study on terrorist use of social media in particular twitter and it gives you an idea of what we we're dealing with. when you look at the volume of social media and its ability to spread horizontally you probably look in the neighborhood of a couple thousand core users propagandists pushing the message out and then in the neighborhood of 50,000 individuals retreating message. that's a tool for us to start. >> has been reported over as many as 200,000 pro isis tweets per day occur on the internet.

>> i cannot give you the exact numbers command that's the trick. somebody's individual right to treat -- tweet and say what they want to say versus somebody who is going down a different road. that's are starting. trying to calm through that and find out who amongst those individuals are up to no good and who amongst those individuals are potentially plotting an attack on western interest. >> that is the great challenge of the fbi and homeland has to try to monitor to the extent you can. >> it's usually problematic. the social medias out there open source, but the volume is immense. i'm talking about the open side of social media not the encrypted direct messaging which is also a problematic issue.

>> how many of those followers are actually in the united states in your estimate? >> i think the director stated it there are hundreds, maybe thousands. it is a challenge to get a a full understanding of just how many of those passive followers are taking action. >> i have read some of these twitter accounts and tweets. they have thousands of followers and thousands of following which means they are actively communicating. and then they go in the messaging. and then they go into a more secure space. if we have coverage we can pick up the communication, but as you suggested in your testimony they have the ability to go on to what is called dark space to another platform that is secure come that we don't have the ability to monitor. is that correct?

>> that is correct. >> that is one of the greatest concerns i have. do we have any idea how many communications are taking place? >> no, and that's the problem. we are dark. the ability to know what there saying in these encrypted communications situations. >> a tremendous that's in the homeland. >> we need to have an honest conversation and get past the rhetoric. are not talking about large-scale surveillance techniques. were talking about going before the court whether the criminal court of the national security court with evidence, a burden of proof probable cause cause suggesting a crime has been committed or that there is a

terrorist and showing up burden of proof having the court sign off on it and going to those providers and requesting access to either the store information or the communications. it's ongoing. well again through going through a back door of being nefarious. the going to the company and asking for their assistance. we are employing congress to help us seek legal remedies to that as well as asking the public to provide technological solutions. we understand privacy. privacy above all other things including safety and freedom from terrorism is not where we want to go. >> and i think this committee should be looking at this important issue. if you can comment on the most recent boston case it has been reported that this was an isis inspired event

in intensive behead police officers. a lot of their commands i to attack military installations and attack police officers. i no it is an active investigation, but to the extent that you can would you please comment? >> investigations early on. there is not a lot i can say on the intelligence side. you are right, we know that i so has still has put out a message to attack the west, specifically law enforcement military. we know that they have been looking at those target sets we are careful and where we are. the targets that are out there, there, the counterterrorism subjects probably are monitoring them closely for any type of action any type of oversteps kemeny mobilization factors, and factors command when we see it as we are not taking the chance. >> i appreciate that command we commend your efforts.

the chernow recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you. you went into great detail the challenge of social media and other things. do you at this time see the challenge also resources of the authority to do your job i would say that of course we always have to prioritize resources. it is more so the challenge for me is the technological challenge to get over that hurdle.

>> technological. >> on a company of communications isp your social media he likes to build and software and encryption and leave no ability for even the company taxes that we don't have the means by which to see the content. when we intercepted we intercept encrypted communications. that is the that is the challenge. working with those companies to build technological solutions to prevent encryption above all else. >> it has nothing for my congressional standpoint for authority that you need from us to make that happen. >> well, i think a number of years ago congress passed the leah which was a lot put in place the required telecommunication providers to provide assistance to law

enforcement. i would suggest that the starting. we need to expand who is bound by that law. telecommunication is a small subset. it's a starting. >> can you provide the committee with beyond the starting.in terms of where the department thinks we should be going in this direction? >> sir, i could. i think more appropriately the fbi otd, operational technology division has the lead on that and i which -- i'm sure they would be happy to lay out where the need to go. >> we ought to try to make that part of what we do. >> okay. according to your testimony videos tweets and messages are probably not enough to

radicalize individuals who are beginning to show these tendencies. they serve as discussion points. showing interest in having online discussion is not criminal in nature. what do we do about all these online portals that kind of start people down this slope so speak? >> sir, as my sir, as my colleague mentioned, it is part of a dialogue. they start out by trying to gain your interest. marketing and advertising. as indicated, a lot of it is followers. typically start out as following someone. and then it progresses beyond that into a dialogue. what we need to do is help educate a lot of the members of the public but this

process. we have been trying to do that with dhs. family members are aware that if their children are spending a lot of time on this they need to be able to counter that execute some degree of measures. these individuals are very savvy in their understanding of the gradual nature of recruitment and operationalization. and so what they tried to do is create a series of images that are attractive and then try and broaden that into a further discussion. does require a much more active interventionist approach. >> can you tell us where dhs fits? trying to do the community engagement and other kinds of things that can help. >> certainly. has my colleagues on both sides of mentioned it starts with the intelligence to understand the tactics

tactics, techniques, and procedures that our adversaries are using to reach into communities. we go out with an ctc with the fbi the department of justice to conduct community resilience exercises to teach communities about the tactics, tactics techniques, and procedures, what to look for, how to spot a who they may report to about that activity so that they can intervene at the earliest possible stage. we had done across the country. it is a clear part of our strategy to ensure the communities understand this threat and how it's being manifested. in manifested. in my mind it is almost like what we do with predatory behavior with child molesters. we have got to inform parents so that they can go

and monitor with the children are doing in seeing >> last question do parents who are monitoring have enough options out there? you know i think if a parent suspects that there child might be engaged in this behavior you know, who do i call? glycol local law enforcement the fbi or have i really put my child in a situation where i am labeling that child for life do we have anything in between law enforcement and apparent that can help mitigate some of these circumstances? >> certainly. ..

i think my daughter is leaving. and we were able to find his daughter. she wasn't at the airport. she was at another airport before she got on a plane to go overseas. that happens almost every day with somebody having that sort of challenge, and it's not a law enforcement response. it's helping parents be good

parents and helping their children not make bad mistakes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. tink is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank all the witnesses for the testimony today and the tremendous service that given our country. i just like to expand on something and slightly disagree with something the ranking member said and maybe it's more for the point of clarification about whether or not isis use of social media can by itself cause some to carry out violent action. i know many cases may be part of a long process that we had two cases in new york were a man in queens attacked two police officers with a hatchet. it doesn't appear there was a long process of radicalization. he was responding to a directive from crisis. we have two women, also in queens, they both primarily their means of radicalization was the isis use of social

media. am i correct? i'm not going to disagree, i just want to add on to it. >> i would suggest you are absolutely correct in they believed they are able to operationalize people solely through social media. they believe that they can enter into the dialogue i referred to earlier and provide the tools and tonight getting into very complex tools. what they're telling that is here are some tactics and procedures you should use. yours and easily available readily available information online that you can exploit. in other words, they believe they can provide them everything they wanted to undertake some kind of loan after attack. >> let me add to that. i think he also hit on an important point about the diversity of the threat. you've got a slow burn but also individuals who flashed the thing which is very quick. we've seen more of this flash to bang with iso- in the online

efforts. it's not just going someplace on the internet and looking it up. social media push is coming right to your pocket via your smartphone. so it's a diversity of threats. you're right in that it all depends on the individual but we have to be prepared for both types of situations. >> i think you are very eloquent as far as the dock areas where you just can't go right now. it would seem to me in those instances it's even more important human sources on the ground back and filling those gaps. i would just say and maybe this is rhetorical but with the constant criticism of law enforcement and constant talk of snooping is fine to me makes it much harder to recruit people on the ground. like in boston if this had been two days ago and the associate press and a new kind uncovered the fact that the boston police were following those alleged terrorist that would've been snooping and spine. now it turns out after the fact it was effective surveillance.

i just think the use of those terms really are doing a tremendous disservice as far as enabling law enforcement to recruit people on the ground. he said he went to work with community and to do but distinct on onslaught from media and certain people in politics constantly talking snooping, spying, harassment to me and does a lot of the could you are trying to do. i don't much want to comment on that. maybe i was just making a rhetorical point, or if one wishes to comment, fine. >> i agree. you have to have multiple tripwire online in a person. we try to insert sources in situations where there's a predicated investigation but it is the challenge. >> i would add to what mr. steinbach has said and indicated this is a total team fight that takes human what i call transactions looking at travel patterns and those sorts of things to come to this and certainly in communities

communities of sometimes feel you are looking at us too much as opposed to another community. and our response is generally the bad guys are trying to recruit your kids that's why we are talking to you. it's not because of a religion but it's what the bad guys are going to do and that's why we are here talking to you about strategy. >> my time is running out. isis one thing that been doing is encouraging the use of hoax threats. are you in a position to say yet whether what happened on memorial day with 10 different hoax threats were called into the airline? and again this week and when they're and if it is a response to isis, are these lone wolves are a person carrying out a hoax? >> i would say we don't have any credible information are threats to the fusion -- threats to aviation writer.

they appear to be hoaxes. i get back to the individual or a group is still an ongoing process. >> but isis as did the use of the hoax itself is an effective means of attack? >> correct. >> i yield back thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. richardson is recognized. >> and i guess i will start with mr. taylor. or maybe even mr. mulligan. you mentioned there were about 1700 messages sent out by isil. how many complicated estimate, about how many people did not reach? >> certainly tens of thousands. 1700 separate publications via video release or an online magazine release but certainly in the thousands to tens of thousands. >> and did people start to follow and engage in the social media even if it's on the front,

we are not seeing any similarities or any consistent traits across the board and the people that start to engage, or are we? >> well it's partly about what the actual publication or the video is about what they are trying to incite. in some instances as you know we're deeply concerned when we see someone who is let's say a twitter feed that is being followed and they're really strongly advocating violence benefit the fbi is paying particular attention to those. it's important also know in some instances a lot of followers are just they are paying attention. the media is paying attention to some of these entities on a lot of video releases. they are tracking and reporting on. i would like to posit in many instances they are also trying to generate buzz themselves. the we've seen multiple instances in which they have come if you will collaborators who will read tweet messages to

try and increase the numbers so that it makes it look like they've got a very large number of followers. the bottom line is that are effective in using social media and their effective at if you will manipulating social media. >> knowing that they're experts at manipulative social media and using social media are there things that we can do good things that we should encourage others to do or not to do to protect themselves? i guess now going to get into the sensitive area i'm not counting whether it's the first amendment right of the contest to depict or make fun of islam but in my mind i encourage my mother not to walk down dark streets at night because it's a dangerous. i would get upset if someone drew cartoons of jesus are called mary a.

that's just my faith. so if you know they are social media expert and they could of using social media to get their message out are we inciting some of this with our, or some people's hatred toward their religion and other things? are we fueling some of this fire? >> sir, i think i would answer the question simply by saying the constitution of the united states of america and our rights and freedoms are something that stands in the way of our enemies effort to create a global caliphate. so i don't think any one event fuels this. i think it's coming at our system of government, our freedoms is what they're trying to undermine.

they are in the news cycle. >> so you don't see any spiking people following after events like this, or any rise in social media conversations when you have a contest like that going on? >> of course you do but -- >> i guess that's my question then. >> but it didn't come in america those kinds of conversations happen every day. as a part of our constitutional rights in this country. and so saying that we should stop doing something here would cause them to stop doing it there, go find somewhere else to look for a reason to attack america. >> i agree with that, but i guess my question is, and i think that a guy that's going to rob a lady walking down a dark alley is going to rob somebody but i'm going to encourage my mother not to walk down that alley so it will not be her so it's not easy for a. and i guess it's a constitutional right to say

whatever you want but i promise you if you call my mother a bad name there will be some consequences and repercussions. i just don't think we're having a honest conversation we were talking about people, talking about angry people, people who feel picked on. is the continuous, i mean, you know there are some words that would trigger a response but you have the absolute first amendment right to say it. and then it's up to me whether i want to exercise my discipline or teacher in the mouth. so the question becomes how often are we going to get hit in the mouth before we realize that we may be playing into it unnecessarily by just being callous and cruel i think in some instances. so thank you for questions and thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. mr. perry is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank the gentleman for being a. this is i think this is a

difficult subject try and find the line between privacy and security as i think everybody has alluded to. let me ask you this. there are folks that might where the heart on their sleeve regarding their circumstance radical islam, tax on someone so forth. they might be having a conversation openly on social media where they espouse their opinions which might lead them to be a target for some of these individuals, if you know what i mean. and maybe even some of the folks in this building somebody that's having this hearing today or somebody that is asking questions like this. do you folks have any way or do the platforms have any way of monitoring traffic about those individuals that might have had a conversation with a friend openly on open-source online about their disdain for radical islam or tax, and might of been

disparaging about it quite easy become a target? does the individual become a target? is there anyway social platforms have way of monitoring it? do any of you folks have a way of monitoring it? do you collaborate on it? is that each you'll? is there a chilling effect for free speech if people feel like they might be targeted because of their thoughts posted openly on social media? >> i'm not sure i fully understand the question. so i think that social media platforms usually abide by the terms of service agreement. they have small compliance departments. for the most part the edge to the first part know, a big social beauty companies are doing anything along the lines that you speak. as far as the intelligence immunity or law enforcement monitoring those individuals who are exercising expressions of freedom and become targets, we

don't have a mechanism in place to track them. we would try to from the other side if we see threats coming toward them is not necessarily -- is about the question you're asking? >> essentially. >> so we are not tracking from the other in. if somebody comes to us and says hey, i feel threatened, of course we will look into that. but as far as a data pool of some type of large-scale to look at it, no. >> is there -- go ahead. >> if i could offer also know the bit of context. when you're operating on social media, particularly some of the products table public platforms, you're in open space. you can be monitored by any entity out there, by commercial entities, educational institutions, by the media. anyone can be looking at that. that's when the challenges facing people are often concerned about going back to this point that you you made. frequently within this country we're trying to encourage

credible voices to contest the ideological extremism that is being advocated and those votes are reluctant to do so because of the fact that they're concerned they will become a potential target of violence, and intelligence target, law enforcement target. i think what we've been trying to do collectively as a community is try to change that and private at least from the perception of u.s. government monitoring of their activities. but i deeply think it is open space for any person that enters into that space needs to understand that. >> so when you talk about some of you talked about encrypted direct messages and dark space can you give me some examples? is it essentially just texting? would that be considered off limits to monitoring by the united states government, even in cases where there might be an imminent planning and plotting? is there anyway, and if this is caused by the that's fine but

i'm just wondering from the perspective, cuba, if it's not a facebook, if it's not on twitter, and we have the capability other the federal government, do they have the capability and/or do the providers have the capability and other algorithm that picked this up? >> the answer is no. there are 200 plus social media companies. some of these companies build their business model around end-to-end encryption. there is the ability currently for us to see the. if we intercept communication always see his encrypted communication. >> anybody else speak with some examples. talking just straight texting, i know program called cyber dust someone choose independent is received it disappears. that would be, is a bad example of a dark space or is it just encrypted direct communication? what is that? >> dark space is a general term. yes, there's lots of models out there.

there's models, social musical point-to-point and once you read it disappears, not saved. some companies you can set how long a text is saved. some of them are encrypted from the stored most of them are text typedtype direct form, some are photographed. the are all kinds of different models. some more like bulletin board formats lots and lots of formats out there. >> and all of that is off limit right now to the federal government? >> it's not that it is off limits. there are more and more of these companies building the platforms that don't allow us. we will still seek to go to this companies answer them legal process but if the company has built their model, even they can't decrypt it doesn't do us any good. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> ms. watson coleman is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you john, for your information sharing.

i want to tag onto love to congressman richmond's question. want to get something that i've not tiered -- i've not heard a lot about. i could do those sort of common denominator, no religious zealot individual serving radicalized or even necessary know what the islam religion is all about. it's not socioeconomic, it's not racial or ethnic. trying to figure out what exactly is it. what is enticing about beheadings and violence and just this very angry of salt -- assault that our young people are being exposed to. what is tripping them and their attention to that kind of radicalization? >> ma'am, if i can give you a little bit of context on that.

your right to describe anything for my colleagues described earlier the range of, how can they say it, experiences and if you will, ideological knowledge, religious knowledge varies incredibly widely. what it seems to be is they are appealing in some instances to if there is a sense of victimization, that they are the individuals who are those who will conquer, those who have been victimizers. so it appeals to the underdog nature. able to get an effective job in communicating that since. and as i said in my remarks a couple that with an ability to present it is the idealized vision of what our religion represents and if you really want to lead the trappings of all the challenges and troubles are having in your current life and join us we will offer you more direction and more meeting. so that is how they seem to be succeeding. >> so they seem to be attracting

young people. are we talking about middle school age? are we talking what a age of talking about? when we say youth, just how young are these people? >> i would say we are seeing ages in the teens probably up for teens come into the '20s. we deemed it a new generation of terrorists because as general taylor was saying a lot of them are extremely conversant in a lot of social media. have grown up with it so this is the means by which they used to reach of that generation. >> i can understand that what i don't understand what is enticing them. what appeals to you when you see someone beheaded we see these nasty threats or you see this violence. the victimization is something i'd like to just carry on all of it. one of my favorite programs was about the fbi profiler. and so i'm wondering, is that a real thing?

i know there is please provide i'd rather be concerned about but is there such a thing as psychological profiling? are we look at those kinds of things? are we identifying some traits that have nothing to do with ethnicity or socioeconomic or whatever, but other traits? end of able to like it invite any red flags in the children and the young people in school and in college? because i just wonder whether or not we are expending enough energy and resources in trying to identify early on and intervene. >> so yes the fbi does have a behavioral analysis unit and there is come within the national center for the analysis of violent crime, there is a unit dedicated to terrorists and it spent a lot of time looking at the parts of radicalization and mobilization, what attracts folks. but like mr. mulligan said, it's

a very complicated piece your quite frankly will be seen as far as a profile is the lack of a profile. there's just so many reasons. we don't see this effect until we see -- we don't see some well-to-do. we see some well-to-do. victimization is certainly a common theme. younger and younger individuals are drawn into this messaging. i would say that i saw that an message versus al-qaeda and the they have said publicly hey, the caliphate is here today. you can come down to a country where sharia law rules bring your family. they have message to get across the spectrum to a wide swath of individuals. >> let me ask this last question if i might. should we be engaging the department of education, the higher education, and identifying programs and approaches and sort of learning devices that would be able to

anticipate and deal with our younger people who are affected by whatever it is that is turning 10 on? >> yes, ma'am, we should and we are. you need to work with the department of education on these kind of issues because it's a whole community effort. it's not just the police not just the churches but it's education. it's civic organizations as well well. >> and to mr. chairman pitt at some point i would like for us to explore what more can be done proactively and identifying and sort of intervene at an earlier stage. thank you for your indulgence. >> thank you. mr. hurd is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member from existing. i think a number of these issues we can talk all day long about that and so we're packing a lot in it for a short period of time. my first question is to mr. mulligan and ambassador kennedy. talk about the community engagement exercises and engaging credible voices

throughout this community. how do we make it bigger, accelerated those projects? >> so we've been developing a partnership community awareness briefings and we just been moving it out slowly to ensure we have a degree of success we've had some success in that and i were trying to train the trainer so we can get into a situation where we're propagating or private across the communities to go back to some observations that been made it really is at the community level we need to have this success. it also we need to have i think as the ranking member said, levels between government and local in a lot of instances particularly family members agenda people are reluctant to engage any sort of authorities and we need to try to find that middle ground spent i appreciate that because we need to think about this in terms of weeks not years because that's the speed at which we need to counter this threat. ambassador kirk on any remarks speak with it's a global phenomenon. outreach internationally has

been important as well. i lead a delegation to australia next week to further our indication with our partners about this phenomenon and how we can engage communities really across the world to better consider that understand what the threats are spirit in which make the fbi's job a lot easier, this one will i give the way to stop it is by countering that violent ideology and extremist ideology. that's going to take a hold of government effort. who in the government is responsible for this? a cbe activity. >> is actually a shared responsibility between justice the intelligence committee dhs and the fbi, and our deputies meet regularly to formulate those strategies and implement the strategies within the u.s. >> my suggestion their complicated of command because

when you're three people in charge of something nobody's in charge of the i think of something we are played within the federal government on a number of locations. my next set of questions is to mr. steinbach. out there on counterterrorism is clear. tears are trying to do two things, kill a lot of people and trying to elicit characters and responsive in government to upset a population informant discord. with that as the background that's why i'm a little bit nervous when we start talking about expansion all these kinds of things. i get nervous because of the privacy act -- aspect or not to get too technical does tend to end encryption that is provided by many u.s. companies prevent your ability to do attribution? >> in some cases yes. >> but not in all cases speak with not all cases. >> are you suggesting when you have a court order on some and

connected to terrorism that there are companies that are not cooperating with helping to get as much information as they can do about that individual? >> no. what i'm suggesting is the company settled a product that doesn't allow them to help. >> but interesting it doesn't prevent attribution, because it the key is to try to find as much information so that to exhibit the success that you've had in boston, you able to identify someone and use other tools to track them and stop and prevent this from happening. it's a difficult task, to get it wrong. i know are two guys are working. maintain the operational pace that you have maintained since september 11 this unprecedented. you're the men and women in the fbi should the patent on the back and heralded but we also got to make sure we're protecting our civil liberties and our borders at the same time. when you talk about reviewing applicable laws around the technology challenges that you are facing, and khalil expansion

i just want to be clear not talking about putting a backdoor in software, are you? >> no. like a semi-prepared statement on talking about full transparency, talking about going to the companies that could help us get to the unencrypted information. the attribution peace is important to understand. depending on the technology involved this requires a technology discussion. they are tokens views that do not allow for attribution. it's not quite as simple as just using other techniques for attribution to sometimes attribution is not there and to be happy to discuss in a classified setting in more detail just exactly what we're talking about. >> i would love that. thank you. we've been talking about the use of social media and digital tools. it also gives us an opportunity to do double agent operations against them to penetrate the building. chasing al-qaeda 10 years ago if you were anything close to an american you would get your

throat slit. now we have these new tools in order to penetrate them. i know i've run out of time, and i yield back to the chairman. thank you spent if i could just briefly, we led a delegation investigating foreign fighters to middle east and europe. we found that there is a counter narrative out of there. this is not online but foreign fighters who left the region. some return inspired and more radicalized and some return very disillusioned from the experience. i think that a narrative is more a state department issue, the more we can get americans out there the better off we're going to be. the chair recognizes mr. rice. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. steinbach, i would ask a couple of questions. how does the intelligence community qualified an elevated threat from online inspire terrorist? we all know how when they raise

the threat level but specifically with this online communication, how do you rate, what level the condition and how it rises to something that you really are worried about? >> it's i think a simple question with a complicated answer. there's lots of pieces of austin specificity, whether not have identified willing sympathizers who will do something. a lot of pieces that go into it. many of those factors are present now. >> are there any difficulties -- was the biggest difficulty in terms of being accurate when you're trying to raise the level of a threat? >> as was stated previously, the social media is great because it's out there. social media, its voluminous but it is often. they are trying to weed through the thousands and thousands of individuals on the social media

and find all the signals, all although noise out there identifying the signal. it's a balkan peace. looking associate media requires pashtun volume -- and going from there to find him credible threat. it's a very difficult process. >> yes, any, seems like it would be. we've been talking this whole time about online communications, online radicalization. is there any physical presence with either ice or al-qaeda doing face-to-face recruiting here in this country? >> so i would say we don't we have of course a number, a small number of return foreign fighters. we've individuals who have been overseas and returned to the u.s. where they are and who they are is probably an intelligence task force. our best estimates are we don't have isil sitting in the united

states. we've got individuals who have taken up the call to arms based on isil's messaging. >> that everyone who has gone and come back becomes a recruiter. >> correct. >> curious as to whether people who don't go anywhere on the internet, any physical place actually doing, you know, whether in tandem with online recruitment actual face-to-face recruit. >> you talking about homegrown violent extremist, global. to a number of factors that would cost so to radicalized. it doesn't have to be online. it could be a friend an associate other factors may cause that person to become radicalized. online just happens to be when you look at the spectrum by volume the highest percentage. if you're asking to have core al-qaeda coming to the u.s. and sitting here, or core isil, i think we look at the intelligence gap poli-sci but i

would say for the most part no. >> thank you. i yield back my time. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. duncan is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. al-qaeda the way with inspire magazines i think, which was an online publication has isil adopted that, that media? and is there a way to track, you've got a website platform like inspire. is a way for you guys to track who visits that page? who takes it and forwarded that information? if you can answer that for me. >> to answer your question inspire still comes out periodically. it has been that model has been successfully copied by another,

by several of the other affiliates and other terrorist related entities. they see little process of like an online magazine as being an effective model. it's been adapted by isil. they have a publication called the beak. it is a variation on the. they put out their information, put it out in multiple languages. to answer your question about our ability to track its propagation, we are not able to do that. they put multiple links to it. it appears come as you can imagine, wants something starts to propagate on the internet it's there. they can reside in a number of places. that model does exist. it continues. they are continuing to employ it and again it's extremely difficult, impossible to track really. >> for the freshman members and people who are just are following this issue, i would recommend you get inspire magazine, take a look at what some information being provided. i've never seen estimation are

talking about isil or others, it is way too sure that with the committee even in a classified setting we would like to take it out. i'm interest in it foreign fighter flow the other last year to europe to really delve into these foreign fighters coming off the battlefield from syria whether they transited through turkey. when i was there a right before i got to brussels a foreign fighter actually came back, shot up the museum the jewish museum, kill three over people and tried to flee to north africa through france. so the timeless of my travels, but this was a very beginning you can hear the ice is as much in may and june of last year. not like you about the now have at least over the last 12 months. at the time that foreign fighter that shot up the meeting in brussels, junior apparently about it and failed to let the belgians know for the french know. because they were suspicious of

u.s. intelligence gathering through monitoring phone calls and all that's come out after snowden. so what are some of the challenges of tracking these foreign fighters? you talk about core al-qaeda and core isil. i talk about the french guys who go to maybe get radicalized on the battlefield and decide i can do this back home. how do we track those guys and how successful have they been? >> that's been ironically has been an incredibly unifying factor among the counterterrorism community across the globe a lot of our western partners, i mean, they've got substantial foreign fighter flow issues. as mike indicated -- >> sessions in region and your. you get their -- >> yes, sir and the something or try to confront with how diminishes. we've been sharing a lot of information back and forth with some of the means and processes we are trying to employ to track foreign fighters. what's also very clear to us is it needs to be particularly with

our foreign partners a whole of government approach they were trying to share with them the benefits that we've experienced by ensuring that the free flow of information among the and agencies. in instances we will develop an effective relationship with a foreign partner only to discover that the partner focusing their own nation is not optimized to try to ensure appropriate law enforcement authorities have been alerted to that foreign fighter flow. but the bottom line is things are trending positively in the information sharing -- >> the bilateral trade -- >> old bilateral. but the the challenge is again so we estimate there been about 4000 in total foreign fighters flowing from the west. what we've seen come again to foreign fighters over 100 countries and some of our other partners closer in that region have developed very effective mechanisms for both tracking the foreign fighters and developing rehabilitation programs. to go back to suppose that the general made, we really need to do a lot of information sharing

about the experience of rehabilitation, the expenses of tracking and incorporating them into some of our own processes. >> in essence of time north africans are trying to get across the net into italy and spain. once they do they that pretty much free travel throughout europe. -- med. how do you target those? these are migrants getting on both incoming across. we don't know about. >> into wrestling some of the directions has been given lately over the last several months by isil leadership is the urgent a lot of these fighters remain in place. they have been trying to establish branches of the caliphate in other countries and so they are trying to say hey, don't move no need to move in north africa. state in libya and work with our branch. that is another part of the strategy. >> if i might add we are working very closely with our european partners on that.

from italy and into the northern parts of europe. it is a very big concern for us not only for me counterterrorism perspective because eventually some of these people might end up applying for visas in our country so it is a high priority for our intelligence exchanges with our partners in europe in terms of getting our arms around this particular flow. >> thank you. i'm out of time. i would ask we delve into the effectiveness of jttf with regard to some of this and that might have to be in a classified study by i yield back. >> let me just say for the members, we do have classified briefs with the fbi and homeland and social media monitoring and on encryption challenges. jttfs would be right. i noticed in my travels european partners to screen eu citizens passed any watch list as a flight from istanbul back into europe.

i think that's a big security debt. we urged them to change that and the eu parliament is addressing changes their law. >> it's in work it's none of the ss as we like it to me but the are some glimmers of hope that based upon the recent activity threats and actions in europe that the europeans understand the importance of pnr and other sorts of data tracking of citizens internal to the eu. so we have some hope that there will be a light at the end of the tunnel going forward on that. >> i did as well. >> mr. longer than. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank our panel for the testimony today and i apologize if any of the questions i'm going to touch on asked.

if i could begin with this. as some of you may know i spent a lot of time and very concerned about subsidy issues particularly as they relate to critical infrastructure. can you tell me in your role with respect to sing this stepped up effort using social media and recruitment and using fiber as a tool what you are seeing in terms of recruitment or efforts to use cyber weapons to a track, to attack critical infrastructure? and can you also describe what measures if any that are also given when combating the threat of a homegrown terrorist interested in cyber terrorism rather than more traditional physical attacks? >> i think it's a great question. i think first of all we are seeing more and more blended

threat a cyberintrusion peace with the counterterrorism peace. where we are at now we do see those same characters actors or terrorist actors using cyberintrusion as a tool. they're experimenting with the same how effective they are. we have seen most recent and the last less than a year, then becoming more and more adept at cyberintrusion activities. >> i would add to mr. steinbach's comments by saying that this is a very high priority concern for the department of homeland security, our national programs protections division, work with a girdle and infrastructure committee every day across this country about the cyberthreat in general, and specifically about the threat of terrorist actors so that they are prepared for and understand the potential for the threat and means of

mitigating those sorts of attempts within our critical infrastructure. >> mr. mulligan, anything to add? >> yes, sir. i mean i would agree with this point and also posit again it seems it is an inevitable kind of trend they would move into that realm. they would move into that because it is a means by which they could affect the damage in a very cost efficient way. and they are operating largely. have a high degree of maneuverability in cyberspace. so it seems quite logical to attempt to pursue that and we need to be developing mechanisms for detection of those activities. >> have you seen those stepped up efforts to refocus on that as he told right now to be used to go operational? >> yes. we have seen stepped-up effort. >> mr. mulligan come if i could turn to you. i'm very supportive of efforts to incorporate countermeasures into cbd strategies and he is a

public-private partnership such as the peer-to-peer program you mentioned in your testimony. to ensure these messages are heard. at the same time there's the credibility of the messenger which can be greatly undermined if government is involved. so how can we ensure that there are independent voices that can counter extremist messages without compromising the independence that gives them wait? >> that's exactly some of the efforts were kind and make. it is also i mean come it's a question of establishing process by which people be able to feel free that they're able to have the tools to do that kind of counter messaging. the challenges we have again is thatthere are still trust deficits that need to be overcome. as you said we need to find those intermediaries were willing to take up that effort.

>> thank you. for the panel and before my time runs out, social media platforms play a prominent role in all of your testimony. can you describe the relationship to each of your agencies as with the private operators of these networks? are these relationships institutional or based on personal relationships, and what kinds of requests do you make of these companies? >> so i won't get into specifics. i will say that relationship with every company that's in that environment because we have to. it's based on personal relationships at a starting point but we develop more than that. but i think each company is different at a don't think it's appropriate in this setting to talk to those particulars with that company. >> i would add homeland security and our cybersecurity rule has relationships with all these companies come and as

mr. steinbach mentioned, we probably want to have the conversation and classified. >> hopefully we can perhaps follow up on that mr. chairman, at a later date. >> if i could quickly follow up. a lot of people asking why do we connect the cyber offenses attack to shut down the social media programs. i guess two problems with that. once that's done you opened up another account rather quickly. and never too i guess our intelligence gathering capability goes down quite a bit. you don't have to comment on that but that you never recognizes mr. ratcliffe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think all the witnesses for being here today and for all the important work that you do. discotheque and garland really seems to underscore and demonstrate the unique challenges that isis is posting

today. in garland we saw two dead terrorists and no civilian casualties, and we saw law enforcement do exactly what they should have done which is protect the public yet we are living in unprecedented times where a failed attack by isis in that regard is still spun as a win with a failed attempt still placed into the narrative that they want to sell. as a former terrorism prosecutor who handled a number of matters involving al-qaeda i've noticed something that appears to me to be an important difference. i want to ask you about that. al-qaeda and isis have both been encouraging lone wolf attacks but al-qaeda has been doing it for years with very little success. it seems to me that isis has been very effective in this regard in just a matter of months. we are at a situation it appears

to me that isis is sophisticated use of social media is essential to having a cascading effect if you will what it it has become a terrorism multiplier of sorts. one where mobile attackers like mr. simpson or nadir soofi consensual use the isis brand without having to join isis. and in that regard it concerns me that it would appear that isis is essentially cratered a terror franchise. and i want to very quickly ask you each whether you think i am accurate in that assessment? >> congressman i think that's an excellent characterization. i would agree with you. it is precisely. they have very effectively leveraged that capability. they have exceptional capabilities and they claim they are making maximum use of every opportunity to amplify affect

the unit seemed and using it in terms victories on the battlefield and the way they have treated our hostages. but it didn't to squeeze every bit of, if you will, perceptual power out of social media. >> i would agree with mr. mulligan in that regard. i've been doing this for a long time, about 45 years. i've never seen a terrorist organization with the kind of public relations that i've seen with isil, globally. they have been very effective. >> i think my colleagues at the main point. i would just add come in addition to the it's a focus on a western audience. when you look at the social media tweets in english version of al-qaeda or others they are at a much higher rate. it's a great propaganda message.

i propaganda message that is focused on a western english-speaking audience. >> we are talking about the effect of the message. i would focus more on the cause. director steinbeck, you and the deputy director both talk about this, this sort of unique american that isis has created a false narrative one that involves a sense of community, a sense of adventure the ability to find a spouse but we all know how ridiculous these claims are but for those that are susceptible to radicalization seems to be an increasingly successful narrative from the standpoint. i'm curious since isis out of al-qaeda in iraq why didn't isis sunda become effective at crafting this message when al-qaeda and other terrorist organizations really hadn't been previously? do we have any insight into

that? >> i don't want to over emphasize but i want to point out the demographic the they have attracted a younger generation of fighters were much more conversant. they are in a situation where they have initially occupied territory in which there was fairly advanced infrastructure that could then be leveraged. if you think over time as you know al-qaeda in some instances they were not occupying optimal areas to try to leverage that infrastructure was isis did positioned itself very, very will. i think have a fundamental orientation to action that kind of dominates a lot of their psyche in how they move. >> i think the other difference is social media wasn't as robust when al-qaeda started as it has been since, actually census 2010, the arab spring not social media was used in those events on out it propagated its

use by other groups since that time. >> just to further clarify what frank said. is absolutely. when you look at the internet four, five six years ago it was anonymous but still the bad guy come individual living in the u.s. had to reach to a form identified the forum go into the form. with social media is pushed to you. it is so far advanced in comparison to the anonymous internet. >> my time has expired. i hope that you will indulge me to ask one additional question, because i think what's important is i want to find out we talked about their effective messaging and the fact that if cratered essentially a winning brand that is drawing the disaffected, disenfranchised to them. what are we doing to counter that message? what can we do besides come in other words, to create a losing brand for them? i realize part of it is a connecticut military operation

on the ground -- kinetic -- but from a social media standpoint is there a counterstrategy? >> there's basically a three-pronged strategy. are trying to counter them on the battlefield because of the fact would try to indicate this image of the caliphate was there successfully representing. that's kind of the center of gravity. the second piece as you described is the whole cyber on monday peace. going back quickly the range of options of over the top applications that they are able to employ going back and what were the options available to al-qaeda? notts agree. now we're in another universe of operational activity but nevertheless because they are operating in public space they have vulnerabilities and we should move very aggressively to counter that. finally, the third area is this ideological space we talked about in terms of finding those voices that contest the ideological message. we need to work against all

those points. >> thank you gentlemen. i yield back. i appreciate it mr. chairman. >> ms. torres is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. steinbach i'm looking forward to reading about the institute study on terrorism and social media. i took a sneak peek at it while we were in this session. i understand that as of october of last year there were 42000 identified twitter accounts if the report is correct, and thousands have been disabled. in some ways i kind of think it's good to be able to view what is being said and what is being planned. one way that we can try to prepare and prevent. mr. taylor, there's been a lot of talk about community outreach

programs, a lot of talk about community awareness, community policing. this is nothing new. we've known that there have been a lot of issues in the past that need to be addressed from a neighborhood level. but somehow we've not been able to translate that want to do neighborhood committee awareness to actually doing it. and we've seen a lot of attentions rise between our local law enforcement groups and our community groups. this is nothing recent. this is an ongoing. so what have we changed was what does community policing look like in my neighborhood versus the northern part of california? >> your question is a good question. i think community policing is

community policing. i don't think it's about relationships but the communities we serve. it hasn't changed in 20 years that i've been involved in community policing. is the outrage that's happened with people who are from the community so that you build partnerships. that's what community policing is all about and i daresay it happens in diverse communities that it happens in majority communities that has to happen the same way. you have to put relationship. part of com and the trust and part of secretary johnson spoke eloquently about this when he it goes out to do these community engagements, he is met with skepticism. he receives complaints about profiling and other sorts of concerns the committee has but you have to have that discussion to build the trust, that we are talking about things the community needs to know.

>> thank you. mr. steinbach. i know that well, i want you to know that represent the ontario airport, which is to our demise, controlled and managed by lax. i would like to hear more about the fbi's joint terrorism task force in los angeles and how they are working with my local police department in ontario to ensure that training is happening not only for those officers at lax or lapd but it is also happening for those officers who would be the first responders shooting incident happened. >> for the l.a. fbi's joint task force is very large. not just include lax it includes all the major airports in orange county, ontario. i would suggest that you make an

appointment to go out and to with it. i'm sure the office out there would be happy to provide a tour of yankee give firsthand understanding of just how robust that task force is. i was just after a couple of weeks ago discussing with him and meeting some of the folks in the task force but i would encourage you to go to and see firsthand. >> right. i'd like to continue this discussion with you off the record here to bring to your attention, my staff recently went on a tour and i was saddened to have discovered that walking is happening among other agencies, ontario police department has not been invited to participate in many of them or much of it spent i would be happy to have a conversation with you and also happy to bring those concerned to his attention. >> thank you. >> if i might as well our committee outreach role in dhs we certainly are working very

hard with police agencies throughout california. so if there is a deficit of training and there's something that dhs might be able to help in ontario, we are more than happy to have that discussion to ensure that the training that is available in counterterrorism is available to ontario. >> thank you. >> mr. katko is recognized. ..