over two years to do. your adding cost and delay. some developers just give up they raise the white flag. and they give up. all of this would be in addition to the significant regulatory burdens of alaska is already facing. one last example that i will leave you with, down here is 16 unit affordable housing project. the army corps required a $46,000 down payment to the mitigation bank prior to permitting. this is personal project for

committee of 1200 people. it's your travel organization trying to bring in low income housing. think about what they could have done with those dollars imagine a towna town like craig. the scale is up to communities like anchorage and fairbanks, what do those cost means i oppose the role because of the uncertainties that it will create, the delayscreate, the delays that it will deliver, and the cost that it will impose. and because alaska is the only state that has permafrost and we have no idea whether or under what circumstances these areas will be regulated and

because further this goal could dampen efforts to begin new resource extraction projects, which we depend on for majority of our state's budget and finally, i oppose the role because it is yet another regulatory burden for alaskans offer people all over the country command this is on top of all of the other regulations that would have seen in our state of thefrom the interior department anti- energy decisions to epa questor project veto authority before, during, and after. this is where we must come together and stand to stop it.

with that i yield the floor. >> in a few moments we will have the opportunity to vote on the congressional review act of the final rule. yesterdayyesterday we had i thought a rather robust discussion and debate about this. the bill that will not only yesterday i introduce something. and my main reason for saying that a proud record

on behalf of public health of our environment and protecting the people of this country from the dangers of dirty water.

well, generally the flow and are streams, wetlands, water supply with regulated waters. this final act, this final rule is a response to the supreme court decision in order to give clarity to those who are affected by the clean water act and their activities. so if we reject the role we, in effect, are removing 30

and will go back to the stage where people do not know whether a particular water is regulated under the clean water act or not. and ii was listening to my colleagues on the forgive all the examples of where they say regulation will take place. when, in fact, if you are in agriculture there is basically no change in the regulatory structure. there is no knew permitting requirement for agricultural activity. the risk factor, if we do not go forward with regulation is that we are talking about approximately one half of the streams in this country will not be fully protected. that is a huge risk risk to the public health of the people of this country. approximately 20,000,000 20 million acres of wetlands will not be regulated. wetlands are the last frontier. a filter watera filter water before it enters the water systems, streams, drinking

water supply. do wedo we really want to call into question that type of deregulation of claim water which is critically important to public health and drinking water supplies of america? if this rule does not go forward approximately 117 million americans, the sources of drinking water will be compromised. see that we are not fully protecting there drinking water. mr. pres., i assure you, we have an episode and they will be asking what we do in order to protect the basic health. they expect us to make sure that when they turn their on their getting safe drinking water. when they they that they have safe water to do so command we are really not doing everything that we can to do that if, in fact, we bought this rule from going forward.

in reality, all we are doing is saying, no, we will not let science guide what is going forward. congress will tell us whether the epa can regulate our water based upon science. i don't think we wanted to be a political decision. i think we want this to be a scientific decision. as i said earlier, agricultural practices are not changed. any regulation coming out by the epa will be subject to a court challenge. we know that, and the courts have not been helpful. the five for decision left a lot in question and ultimately we will have to rely upon a court decision. let's get they're sooner rather than later and not go back to the drawing boards and delay the necessary regulations for our country. yesterday on the floor i quoted from the business and environmental leaders. let me share a couple of

other quotes about why it is important for us to allow the school to go forward. let me talk again on a business concern. this is a quote from travis campbell, president and ceo of the fairbanks enterprises which is an integrated manufacturing distributor of fly fishing products. he says, my company depends upon people enjoying there time recreating outside, especially inoutside, especially in and near watersheds. clarify which waterways are protected under clean water act is nice to have.have. it is not nice to have. it is a business imperative. allowing this rule to go forward helps america's businesses, helps our economy, and let me give you two quotes on health. one from dr. alan peterson who is a family physician and lancaster county, pennsylvania.

because it will protect the streams that are the headwaters of drinking water supplies for one in three us residents, the rule is a health imperative. and lastly, a person i know used to be health sec. of maryland, dr. georges benjamin, benjamin, executive director of the american public health association states, our nation relies upon claim water for basic survival. it is essential for daily activities including drinking, cooking, bathing, and recreational use. when that water is polluted americans are at risk of exposure to a number of harmful contaminants. we are pleased that the epa has moved forward with the strong evidence-based tool evidence -based role that will make it vital to protecting the public from water pollution and keeping our nation healthy. mr. pres., for the sake of our public health and our environment and our economy and the legacy of this

congress to protect the people of this nation i urge my colleagues to reject the notion that would stop the final rule from going into effect. >> the 2016 open2016 open enrollment season for the affordable care act serve november 1. thursday he testified about the closure of several healthcare insurance co-ops. live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three.

>> about whom will you next right? and i thought, there is only one person about whom i wouldi would write if i were to write a 2nd biography. i did write that book. who knows how i will feel in the moment. i use the word chutzpah. pull off the goofiness, i will.

>> it is important to take politics seriously and vote. there are people that have done that. >> sunday night at 8:00 o'clock eastern and pacific on c-span q&a. >> all campaign long c-span takes you on the road to the white house.

>> republican presidential candidate sen.senator marco rubio took part in a town hall forum. this is 45 minutes. >> good afternoon everybody, thank you for being with us today. i'm kate, i am the president and ceo of,s

>> good afternoon. this is our 1st event, and we are thrilled you could all join us. hope you are all comfortable for the next 45 minutes. series. we were not expecting the small house so i hope you are accountable for the next 45 minutes. the idea behind this is a partnership between state, work, play to bring a different discussion to pinnacle conversation. we want to offer you the chance to get to know senator rubio, to find out what he is like as a person and what his political policy and ideas are. we have a number of questions and we really want to have you engage throughout the course of the morning. we want to thank banc of america, we would not be here today without them. thank you very much bank of america for your sponsorship today. if your social media it is # life of the party and h. so be sure to use that #. without further ado, we would like to invite senator rubio to join us. [applause].

senator, thank you so much for being here. what we thought we would do quickly is have everyone, our moderator go around and introduce themselves. we will get right into it. you met kate wesco, she is ceo. >> i am to klein i am at the new hampshire leader, now i am out on my own as an independent writer and can indication consultant. >> i am jessica, fundamentally a mom, i raise money for programming throughout new hampshire at heat new hampshire humanities. i serve on a variety of boards. >> i mike, i am president and ceo of the greater manchester chamber of commerce.

former and also a proud alumni of the college which we are pleased to welcome you here today thank you for being here. >> as you can tell, we have a full room, a lot of professionals community leaders, we prepare questions very different than what you have been asked at other events and programs. >> this is going to be very different than all of the debates you have been doing lately. by the way, our goal is moderator is to surpass the performance of some of those debate moderators that i've been getting so much attention lately. hopefully we can pull that off. what i would ask, those crazy debates, how do you recover from those? what is your process after them. is it hitting the gym, family time question i cannot imagine after one of those debates what you are feeling like and what is like for the candidate.

>> will keep in perspective you are standing in an air-conditioned room for two hours. i think the only thing about it is like an adrenaline rush and coming down from that takes a couple of hours. the last few debates have been a different time zones so it has given us a few extra hours, i think the last ones were eight or 9:00 p.m. mount time. i don't do anything special. usually the next day we wake up early and that the downside of being in those time zones. you gotta get up and get going the next day so i don't have a routine to recover. the cnn debate was long, that was the three hours. i was fine. >> i don't know how you do it. congrats.

>> it's a lot of fun. the first one when you got up there and went on stage, my feeling was and i been watching these on to be for years and now i'm actually in one. the first one really kind of struck me that way. the first one really impacted me just the idea that i have been watching the debate baits devitt bates for year. that took a few minutes to get used to. >> so fitting with the theme today, we had your playlist on spot a five. there is it you two in there, but fitting in with the life of the party theme, if you would host a party of 40 of the top young professional leaders around the country, what with would that party look like? where would you have it. >> well hopefully in the white house. one of the things -- i'm a fan of the early 90s hip-hop stuff

, it's hard to listen to that with kids. they are talented people but not family-friendly so there is a genre you are familiar with and i mention it to other people the electronic dance music, and the good thing about is i can it is i can listen to it and there are no words so i can listen to it with my kids. so i would like to have some of that music, maybe some of those guys and gals could command, some of the performances going on around the world. >> what would you eat. >> that is a great question. i like tex-mex so something along that line.

>> when you are planning your party thing, one of the questions we had was, people always ask what one politician would you want to sit down and have a beer with, but in the -- you could be president you could invite anybody to the white house, anybody alive, maybe historical too. who would you call up and say i really wanted to hang out with that person. >> i was a huge dan marino fan growing up that was from the 80s and 90s. i think there is a few there's a few interesting things happening today. iowa's mess up the last name, a young lady lala who is speaking

out with global issues. i think she is maybe 18 or 190, she is very young but she put a lot of work into 18 or or 19 years of life. someone i really spoken to once in my whole life, former chess champion who was is part of the rush and actually could not return to russia today. i had a chance to speak on the phone to him a few days ago. he has a real fundamental understanding of what is happening inside of russia. and what it means for the future for our country, europe and beyond. those are a few names that come to mind. before this is over i will probably think of someone else. >> i was thinking about this race politically, you have hillary clinton burning sanders on the other side.

you have a guy who says, openly i would like to bring socialism to the united states. you grew up in a community where a whole bunch of people would flee socialism. >> they would flee communism, there is a socialist democracy in europe where government provides for every aspect of your life but there is a consequence to that. they flee communism, it's a government controlled society. people are being executed and so what they would flee is beyond that. but i get your point. >> when you hear bernie sanders talk about this do you ever want to say, look bernie here is the real deal. >> you know what i appreciate about bernie, he is not trying to sugarcoat it. that is what he believes. he's not just trying to say this is not a new version of enterprise. it has gotten him reelected in the state.

since there's dozens of countries around the world, we can continue to be america where we can achieve anything with hard work and perseverance. with the debate we have we truly believe, that is why we are free and open for a democratic society where we can have a debate about policies and their implications. i don't personally have a problem with bernie because he's been honest being honest with what he believes in. >> while were on the topic of foreign policy, you mentioned russia a few minutes ago, one question came to mind is a question about vladimir hooten. he comes up a lot about debates and how people will have have to deal with them. i think it's interesting because he has taken on a character within american politics and society and have seen these crazy pictures of him hunting, riding horses, wrestling tigers,

there is actually some really significant and scary aspects to russia and their involvement on the world stage. how would you deal with someone like him what would be your approach? >> on the one hand he is the leader of a country that between them and us, we control over 90% of the world's nuclear weapon. climate putin is virtually undistorted symbol ahead of organized crime. he ordered the blowing up of a apartment building and blamed it on someone else. but he is also a geopolitical actor, unlike people like radical jihadists who are motivated by religious, he's motivated by political.

part of it is to distract the world from ukraine and the situation there, part of it is domestic policy. he wants to appear as a strong international leader. he wants to put a rush on par with the united states, part of it is he wants to retain an air of influence in that region and syria gives him a chance to do that. so there's multiple aspects to his calculation. before he takes action he weighs the cost and benefits. he only perceives if he believes the benefits outweigh the costs. he must really do that in georgia in 2,072,008, he did it in ukraine and now it syria. as an american president our job is to change that to ensure that he realizes that the costs are higher than the benefits than any of the activity he may take. you have to understand this is not someone you will be able to find some sort of cooperative agreement with. you'll have to deal with him in ways that reflect back and forth to the cold war.

until a time where there's new leadership in russian hopefully they will have a new and better future than what they have now. >> i know we'll jump around through a bunch of topics. i want to mention briefly that we want to give in some young professional issues because that is our primary audience today. if the audience has questions please raise your hand, there'll be mics that we can get you on the mike's. let's get into some of the young professional issues. >> i really think it is an american issue truly, which is financing higher education. i'm paying up my bachelors degree looking at financing my masters, and my son is a sophomore college. i am up to my eyeballs in all kinds of investments in my future. i've read about your thoughts and i know you have many approaches to addressing these issues. can you tell us about your student investment plan #. >> first let me tell you i care so much about it. i owed over $100,000 myself in fact i still owed them in 2,011.

had i not been able to do that i'll still be paying that loan to my late 60s. it's not that i don't take as a good think it's a good investment but it became, especially early on was really staggering. when you look at some of the undergrad loans as well and they all added up. that's what i'm passionate about it. when it comes specific to this issue i try to be bipartisan. i don't think it needs be a to be a partisan issue. the first thing i talk about with the bill is called income -based payment which is your loan payment, the automatic method of repaying is based on how much money you make. the more you make the faster you pass the loan. the less you make the less of a burden it will be. to me it's a better approach than not collecting anything at all as the people going to default. because that runs your credit it locks you are out of home ownership, entrepreneurship and other things.

the student investment plans allows you to go to the equivalent of a private investment group, the way you would with the company. you present to them who you are what your background is, what your future goals are, your resume, gpa, transcript, and they decide whether not they decide you are good investment. if that decide you are good investment than they provide for your tuition and you sign an agreement to pay back your investment for a small amount over the next 20 years. if you become successful they would make their money back with a profit. if you decide you will drop out of society move to australia and live in a tank, they made a bad investment and lost their money. the risk is on the private investment side not the student side. then the right to know, before you go this is also a bipartisan idea. what that says is before you take out a student loan, schools will be retired choir to tell

you how much they make from that school with a degree they are seeking. people understand what their job prospect and earning prospectors before they spend thousands of dollars on a degree. people will make better decisions if they have access to information that informs you about what your job prospects are in the new economy with a degree that you are seeking. you can make a more informed decision about whether you should borrow that money. >> the student investment plan was a new idea had heard of. everybody's shared this with have the same question, what is the difference between indentured servitude, this is what comes to mind. >> a student loan is worse. you still all the money, the differences if you don't pay back the investment group, you have a contract and they can have legal issues where it, but if you you'll pay back a loan

they will garnish your wages, it will follow you the rest to life. i think it's way better than the issue of whether you want to student alone. the student investment plan the risk is on the investment plan. if you don't make enough money to pay you back then you made a bad investment. the student loan if you borrowed $100,000, you all that and you will then tell you the day you die or pay it off. if you don't pay them, they will take your tax refund away from you, they can garnish wages, they could report you to the credit agency and to ruin your ability to finance a home or by business. if you'd go with the investment group, is optional and not mandatory and it is way better than owing to student loan. you will all that amount of money whether you would find a job or not.

>> that's where i'm at i'm unable to buy a home, i'm investing my education and the next generation so i appreciate your concern. >> by the way student loan debt sits on your debt income ratio for a long time. so they say you want mortgage but you will hundred thousand dollars, you already have a mortgage, it's called a student loan. they calculate that into your income to debt ratio. it locks people out of loans to start a business, it locks out of lexi out of homeownership. >> speaking to be locked out that is something a lot of young people deal with. there is a cost of affording a home, there is bureaucratic obstacles to starting a business and starting and going on your own. these things are designed to lock you out, their hurdles to

go when you talk a lot about trying to break through some of that and making it more of an opportunity society. when you talk to young people about that what you say. >> when you say government is a eyed for good people that's a myth. regulations are used by established industries to lock out competitors. industries use it because if you're a big company you control the marketplace. let's say you're the largest player in the industry, you have power. you hire lobbyists, lawyers, and you lobby governments to put in place regulations, why? because you know a small startup can comply with the regulations. they can never enter and compete against you. you see this for example in the sharing economy, in the transportation side or something else, they argue well you shouldn't allow uber or other companies because of the public safety but really they're looking at doing regulations to

make it difficult for others to come in. i just got off in airplay, i know that's regularly, someone make sure the engines were, the landing gear is intact and those pilots are truly pilots, but the flipside is if you go too far in regulations it becomes a burden and a barrier to entry. what i propose is a federal regulatory budget with cap the a amount of regulations can cost our economy. what that would require agencies to do if they wanted to impose new regulations they will have to get rid of regulatory costs to stay on budget. though force a cost-benefit analysis of new regulations or existing ones. >> speaking of these massive organizations that sort of suppressing key people down.

mike and i have this pretty big excitement coming up about the empire and new star wars movie, and up, you would have been about nine years old when empire strikes back comes out. >> yeah like everyone else i just got the dvd collection. my kids are caught up. >> first of all, when you're a kid who did you identify with? what action figures did you have? are you excited about taking your kids to the theater to see this? >> i didn't have the action figures, i had the death star but it kept breaking like in part two. that was my favorite, i think now that you see the whole story played out, i used to hate darth bader but not feel little sorry for them, he's probably the most fascinating character in the

entire movie so i think they have done a good job, they should've started that way, they went backwards on it, so not sure, i still hate darth vader not. >> will find out in the next movie. one of the themes, with luke you had the inexperience in the whole world against him, but you can do that you're too young. in your career not to make that exact comparison, you have heard that complaint right this guys too young to be speaker of the house, too young to be a u.s. senator, too young to run for president. you have a bunch of people in this room, i think mike, myself and others include heard that when we took on positions of responsibility.

is that an argument that you could work these days with the generation of gen xers and millennial's that were raised on star wars, back to the future, harry potter, do you even have to defend it these days? >> first of all, i'm 44 and my kids don't think that is very young. the second point i would make is , this is a different political climate. the country is not just living through an economic downturn, this is not a cyclical thing that is happening. we are living through a massive, rapid, economic transformation. this economy looks nothing like it did 15 years ago. >> it doesn't look like anything five years ago. not that is just different, the structure of the economy is different but the pace of change is faster. it took the telephone, next ordinary invention, 75 years for

100 million people to use it. it took candy crush one year to reach 100 million people. that's how fast things are changing. one of the largest retailers of the world, one of the largest hospitality doesn't own hotel rooms. it's a very different economy and it challenges us. we have retirement programs designed in the 30s. we have immigration in education from the 50s, energy policy from the 70s, tax policy from the 80s and 90s. the world has dramatically changed in the last five years. it's the industrial revolution happening every five years. it is important for us to have leaders that understand this. to understand that you can be a conservative but you have to apply those principles to the issues of the 21st century. it involves global competition, rapid changes of innovation and the need to modernize higher education. it is feasible that someone could graduate at 22 years of age and before your 40 have to be retrained as the industry

that was cutting-edge at 22 is now obsolete. we do not have a higher education system designed to deal with that. of the higher education system was the fact that you graduated in four years any work for the same company for 40 years and you retire. first of all, you might not be an employee you might be a contractor and have five different employers. the industry that is cutting-edge today is going to be obsolete in ten years. the skills are evolving on a regular basis so we have to become lifelong learners. all of these things need to be confronted. back to your question, i think our countries in desperate need of leaders who understand the economy, we have way too many people in washington that have no idea that this is going on. they are still writing 20 century solutions to 21st century problems. >> suicide so besides star wars we want to get to know you about your personal interests.

some things you do as a person, where you get your news from. i want to start with football. i know you are big football guy. i know your dolphin fan. i wasn't going to bring up that little plate to placate tweet. talk about football and you grew up playing, it is something you're passionate about. what has that meant to you and do to take any lessons of that. >> i love the game. the thing about the game and my sons play and they are young, i think it is a great teacher of life lessons. i think it is a sport that teaches people to work with others. eleven people on the field and up one of 11 do not do their job it hurts the other 11.

it's doing something you are uncomfortable, i play quarterback for a few years and sometimes i had to come up and take on a run and sometimes it was painful. in a way it created a traffic jam so someone else can make a tackle. i didn't want to but i had to, and i had to do it for the other ten people i was playing with. it teaches you adversity. the best in the world will give up a play, because that's just lettuce. you have to be able to mentally come back from that and pretend that you're still the greatest player in the world in your mind. the next plays going to be right there. you have to deal with adversity. losing is a great teacher. you don't want to lose too much but losing is a great teacher. that's why the patriots don't know a lot. losing is a teacher because you learn from it, as long as you channel that disappointment it is a concrete action.

this is what i took for my time in football, i think it's very deb called difficult to replicate in other sports. for me, now as an adult i try to use football and those lessons. >> i have to ask, i'm a big football fan too, -- maybe we'll just win so many games we won't have to play brady. football fans, a big discussion right now is about the concussions. i have a young son, he may have an interest in football someday

and a lot of parents are asking if they want to let their kids play because of this concern about the health impact. do you have a feeling on that? >> i would say number one if your kids and don't like contact then don't force them to play. you either like contact or you don't. if they don't want to play don't make them. there are a lot of sports out there. i think kids that in young ages are playing one sport year-round, i don't think that's good for them either. we are strict about that, i have never let my kids play inside the box between the tackles. i don't let them be a running back, they have to play receiver, corner, or safety. the other is good coaching. there's good coaching .. coaching. we ensure that our kids are taught the proper technique for tackling. we spent time doing that because if you can teach kids to get their head out of the way, use shoulder, tackle the leg and up upper body, that avoids the problems.

so there are things you can do to minimize the risk at a young age. there is still inherent danger in any sport where people run full speed at it other, you have soccer, cheerleading, lacrosse, flag football we have people running you people running full speed with no gear on. in a way i think there is a balancing act here and we try to make football safer. there is no activity in life that is inherently risk-free. football is one of them. it is a great game. i have they don't kill it. >> i want to go back to the big thing. when a friend of mine has a baby , or a birthday, i like to get books. i remember when i turned eight years old that i got beverly clearly's book, there are books that sort of have a impact on you. what you recall when you are

younger question marks. >> my parents, i think and 82 or 83 may christmas present was the world book encyclopedia. i don't think they exist anymore. i don't know if you're old enough to remember what those are, but i remember one year we lost the d book. so i love those encyclopedias. i was not a good student and i paid for it in college, i always love to read. when i wanted to learn about something i looked at the encyclopedia. every year it would update you with a book of the year, i look back at that as an example of how much the world has changed. if i wanted to learn about something when i was younger i had to go to an encyclopedia or the school library. if a nine or 10-year-old wants to learn something now they learn it in a millisecond by going online. i also read a lot a books about

cuban history because my grandfather was big on that. there is one book called cuba, it was a big book. it went all the way back to the colonial days to the 1960s. so those are things i were curious about. those books have fed the curiosity. >> what part of you u.s. history would you rewrite if you could. >> i think some of the factors that led to the great depression could have been addressed earlier. there were changes made, subsequence to that and that's an area people want to revisit. i'm not sure civil war was avoidable. if you look at a great compromise, ultimately there is going to be a conflict because slavery is a mention was always an inherent and direct conflict with the constitution. it was never compatible. even the founders understood

that, that institution would have to be looked at. most early in the aftermath of slavery, for the first half of the 20th century racial discrimination was pronounced. my parents have a story, they came to america they went to new york city and were driving to miami from new york city. i don't remember the dates exactly. their car broke down in the south, it was the first chance they ever acted with segregation. cuba had cultural segregation. if you are not spanish ancestry you can join a yacht club. but it didn't have legal segregation. so for them that was a shocking experience. the reason they knew about it was because an african-american lady about a movie that was playing, while the car is being fixed they wanted to watch the movie and she said i don't know because i was not allowed in there.

so i think we took too long to resolve that. the period from the end of slavery to the civil rights area. that lingered way too long. it never should have happen. happened. i think that is it. we could have avoided and dealt with much quicker, maybe never have happened. >> after 2,008, racial relations response to get better after president obama was elected. i think they got worse in a lot of ways. you talk about this a little bit , is it any think the anything the president of the united states can do and how might you, or what could be done >> the things that manifests racist and government, certainly the president is the most support figure in the country. he can call attention to major issues. these are societal issues that have deep issues that go back

many years. the reality is there is a significant percentage of americans and african americans, particularly young males who feel discriminated against. if they feel that way, it is a problem. you have a significant portion of the population that deal they're being treated different than the rest of the country. i know people who feel that way. some instances i have seen it as well. it is an issue the country needs to confront. the bad news as it continues in many of our communities to have lingering effects. the good news is i think the generation of my children are a part of is probably the most, this is an anecdotal example, my son and his team is primarily african-american. i remember commenting that these kids do not know color.

it is different than what i grew up because i think because they're used to growing up and assess society where there's people of different backgrounds and ethnic ethnicities that are together at that age. it will be interesting to see how that manifests itself. even when i was growing up it was a much bigger factor than it is today. i think over time it will help, in the short term i think we do need to address the reality in this country that there are millions of people who feel, because of the color of theirs again, they are followed at the mall, they are treated differently, a significant percentage of the emily's feel this way, it is an issue. i don't think the answer is to blame it on police officers who buy larger incredible people, there are bad actors in every industry, but if any of us tonight have a problem and we feel endangered, we will call 911 and a police officer will respond. respond, and willing to die, to take a bullet so that we are safe. i think it has gone too far in that direction as well. >> we have a question in front

from the audience. >> take you senator for being here today. this conversation lends itself to the rhetoric that those leading the polls on the republican side are going towards. could you speak to how your experience is different from some of the others that are talking about building walls, having religious witness test who could be president of the united states. how does your background differ from others? >> one of the things i've tried to do in the campaign essay vote for me because you can't possibly vote to someone else. everyone is accountable for their own statement and you can make your decision on who you want to vote for.

first, the presidency is the most unique political office on the planet and most early in the country. when you become president you have to bring your principles and values, i am running as a conservative republican, that's who i am. if i'm elected that's what i will bring. you are also the leader of the united states, our people. that means you have to act in the best interest of all people including people who will never vote for you, including those who don't like you, and say horrible things about you. you are in charge of serving the entire country. you have to put that stuff aside i only say that because the language from the presidency is different than the language of a senator, a citizen, the language from the presidency is impactful. they can drive wedges in society. i avoid and reject any language that says, in order for you to be better off you have to give me the power to make someone else worse off. that is the reason you are

struggling are facing problems is because someone else is doing too well, it's their fault must target them. i don't think that's good for the country and i don't happen to believe that to be true. i want to be a president who doesn't beat into that narrative. i also want to get people, here's the way i view this campaign. i don't want my campaign to look bad it like a bad prom picture. that prompted your will you look at and say man, i cannot believe that i wore that tuxedo or my hair looked like that, i don't want my campaign to be something that my kids look at 20 years and say odette, that was on bare scene, how could if you have acted that way. i want to campaign that my children are proud of. that they can look back and say i know he wasn't home but he did this for a good reason, hopefully i will win so they know why did it. beyond that i want to campaign where people can be proud of me.

whether i take the debate stage are here to today i want to give people a campaign they are proud of. to say i am proud of what he is doing. i think our country is desperate need of that. we have real problem but we have extraordinary opportunity. there is no nation i would trade places with. i think we have the greatest opportunity in history but we have to act now. >> i have a question about 20% are americans. we have been talking about going back to school, higher education and that be in the future investment per country. your focus is on the economy, my understanding is that high-paying jobs is an important outcome for you for higher education. i have a dear friend, she lives in a half million dollar home, she has a high-paying job, she is unable to explain what the florida state houses, how you got there, and more importantly what what your difference between that role in your

current post is. what we do about on informed voters? >> one of the great things about free society as people decide what they're interested in. so there are topics that i'm not well informed well-informed on either. i don't know a lot about who's leading the standings. so you would love for people to be more informed because you want people to participate in the process. i think part of it as a candidate is giving people a message to pull them in so they care about what is happening. ultimately i do think they're more ways than ever to become informed. it is easier today than it has ever been to learn and what i stand for, and what the differences are. part of it is people are really busy. if you think about the life of people today the 20th century,

you get up in the morning, it is 6:30 a.m. you have to get your kids ready for school, drop them off by 8:00 o'clock. then you go to work, you have to rush over and get to aftercare before it closes because it closes at 6:00 p.m. then you have to hurry home make sure there is food to eat, do homework, the backpack way so much. all the homework that they give them and then you have to make sure they are in bed and it's 10:00 p.m. and you have to do it again tomorrow. then he you talk about the situation you describe. thirty-five out of 50 states, childcare is more expensive than college and 35 out of 50 states. that's a cause people didn't have years ago. all of that way some people. when you're done you are done with all of that you're not in the mood for politics, you're tired and you have to go back and do it all again. that's if you can even go to sleep at 10:00 p.m.

so, i understand that people are facing extraordinary strains of daily life. in so many ways life has become so busy compared to what it once was. technology means work doesn't leave us when we leave the office. it follows a seven days per week >> we are needing to wrap up. a real quick lightning round, bucket list items, a few things what you want to do, it might take eight years to get there for your successful. >> one of the things i want to do is visit a free cuba. and actually walk the streets were my parents grew up, visit the cemetery where my grandparents are buried. and my family is. to visit the farm that my father grew up on. i haven't been to tremendous

amount of time in asia, but it is a region of the world i would like to learn more about. i think so much of the 21st century is going to happen in the asia-pacific region because of the economic growth there. i've been to a super bowl. one of my bucket list was to go to a super bowl where the dolphins are playing in it. >> might take a while. >> i got lucky, tom brady was sitting on the bench. there's probably another tom brady out there. these are ideas think that i would love to be able to do. >> final question, today's famous life of the party, to have a chance to connect with the 2030s in the swarm. what toast would you give to our party on the journey ahead, things to think about question

arc. >> i think we have the opportunity to be the reason was prosperous america that has ever lived. the 21st century has been tailor-made for us as a nation and people. we have to do things to make that happen. if we do it needs to be done the 21st century will be the greatest era in the history of this country. there'll be millions of people around the world that will be able to afford to buy, trade and sell things. if we fail to do what needs to be done we are going to be the first americans to leave our children worse off than ourselves. we must choose what kind of country will be in the 21st century. if we do it needs to be done it will be greater than it has ever been. >> well, with that we are out of time. on behalf of the panel, thank you for being here. thank you to bank of america for their support in making this possible.

i want to thank you senator for joining us and doing this with us. thank you very much [applause].

>> next, a look at u.s. policy in syria and russian military involvement in the region. assistant secretaries of state and patterson of victoria testified before the house foreign affairs committee about the issue. this is two hours and 40 minutes. [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> this hearing will come to order. this hearing is on u.s. policy after russia's escalation in syria. it is now nearly five years into the syrian conflicts, that conflict has claimed more than a quarter of a million lives. there 14 million people, right now that have been driven from their homes in syria. now, through it all the administration's response has been tepid. it has been a series of steps that were micromanaged by the white house that were very ineffectual. when i say ineffectual, we had a situation here where we had hearings during the time, one year. in which, as isis began to move out of iraq and into syria and take major cities, during that

period of time as we were calling for airstrikes, as our ambassador in baghdad was calling for airstrikes, there were 14 major cities that fell to isis. they fell at a time when pickup trucks on an open doesn't row, these were clear targets that could have been taken out. the choice was made. sometimes, indecision, the decision not to make a decision is a choice. the choice was made in the united states not to stop isis than when it could have stopped. the choice was also made not to harm the kurds, three trips out here, by the foreign minister of curtis stan asking for the anti- take weapons, the artillery, the long-range mortar that they needed. 30% of their troops and brigades are women, females fighting on the front lines against isis on

a 600-mile front. the decision was made not to armed them. so isis now stands where it stands, gaining ground, as a result of our failure to act. today, the president still has not put forward the broad overarching strategy needed to defeat this brutal movement. this movement of terrorists. frankly, to secure vital u.s. national security interest here. interests here. but instead it is now russia that is taking the decisive role in shaping syria's future and not in a helpful way. putin saw assad losing ground so russian jets had teamed up with iranian ground forces to solidify the syrian dictator. the focus of the russians and

iranians joint offensive is not isis. it is not their strongholds. it is the opposition forces backed by the united states and saudi arabia. russian bombs, according to the ngo groups that report on this, they say over half of the russian attacks have now been on civilian targets. russian bonds have flattened markets, schools, villages, and the russians at one point were bombing more targets, more targets in one solitary day then we hit in a month. our air campaign there is even more anemic, for those of you who have followed what has happened as a consequence of russia moving in to these operations. the administration claims that it lacks targets.

yet, the special forces it is sending to syria won't even be spotting targets. russian attacks on the opposition and the slowdown and coalition airstrikes has actually allowed isis to gain territory. isis is expanding. let no one be under the delusion that russia is focused on isis. while the president characterizes russia's moves as a sign of weakness, it is assad who is growing stronger. moscow's efforts showed no sign of slowing. russian cargo aircraft have been seen running iranian weapons into syria, a violation of the un arms embargo. a violation i assume is not going to be called to attention or challenge. it is a clear violation of that agreement.

this is especially troubling as we begin another attempt to restart talks between the regime and the opposition on a new constitution and elections. here's why. russia claims its goal is a united, secular, democratic syria, but its efforts to prop up the assad regime prove otherwise. how do we expect the opposition to sign on to any sort of cease-fire as long as russia and iran are demanding that assad, who has murdered over 200,000 civilians, for those of us in this hearing room we have heard in the past caesar come forth with his photographs that he took, 50,000 photographs of people tortured by the regime. that kind of conduct by this regime means it has lost all legitimacy with the searing people. so, the russian plan is to have him stay in power and to ask on

the outset that he stays in power. the statement from vienna did not even demand the assad regime stop using barrel bombs, some filled with chlorine gas against civilians. that would have been a minimum step that the russians could have supported, but there planes , they provided that air force originally to the side. a diplomatic solution is only possible with a strong, coherent moderate opposition that conservatives the bridge from assad to a post- conflict government. yet the administration has done little to help. it's feeble equipped program is defunct, the bureaucracy has held up desperately needed a weapon weapon shipments to the kurds. no one believes friday's announcement for 50 special

forces will be decisive. ultimately, it is president obama's responsibility to step up and outline a plan to engage our partners and allies i bring stability to the middle east. he is the commander-in-chief, but here's where i would start. as i have already said, we have urged for the longest time, decisive airstrikes against isis , we have urged for the longest time, the arming of the kurdish and use 80 men and women out there on the front lines with weapons they need to turn back isis. if we wanted opposition to negotiate from a position of strength, why not help create sanctuary areas in syria? this would help the searing people escape the assad regime and the islamic state. this would allow for effective humanitarian relief and slow the exodus of refugees. we must also push back on russia and iran's destabilizing in the

conflict. that means passing tough sanctions on iran's terrace proxy, hezbollah. it is hezbollah that is taking over homes in this region that used to be inhabited by sunnis. so, we need to pass that legislation as the house has done and take action to uphold the un arms embargo in iran in the face of russian violation. everyone but the white house seems to know the status quo cannot stand. general david petronius recently testified to congress that syria is a geopolitical turnover. like a nuclear disaster, the fallout from the meltdown from syria threatens to be with us for decades, he said. the longer it is permitted to continue, the more severe the damage will be. those were his words. i will now turn to the democratic side for any opening

statement. >> thank you very much. and i think of the witnesses for being here today. i know you'll be able to well handle the questions that are going to basket of you. i want to express a different point of view. thank you for this hearing, i think you have raised some good questions. you have expressed the great frustration that a lot of us feel about syria, it is terrific what is going on. some people would say that isis came about not because of something president obama did but someone would argue that it was the previous administration decision to go into iraq, erroneously, that started this

nest we see there today. with failed occupation of iraq, a new government that was not inclusive, you have a void and then you see isis come from that boy. i do want to say this, i don't want to play the blame game. i think what is important now is to focus on the here and now, and what we need to do. this mess in syria is not the fault of our president. there is a lot of blame to go around but i will put it on terrace more than the president of the united states. i will be very interested to see what our two witnesses have to say. >> will the lady yield. >> yes, thank you. >> we have opening statement time left then and i just want

to set a framework for this discussion. i will say this with the administration, and frankly with the critics of the administration, i for one did not see the value of pursuing the betting of the syrian army. i consider myself looking at what happened. the one thing i want to emphasize in this hearing is that you cannot have things both ways. you cannot say we should be putting in u.s. troops on the ground there, and you can't do that for the security of those troops unless you are willing to hold that trupin had a huge investment. the people that say the president did not come in and he should have come in with troops, you just can't come in, drop them in, pull them out. we didn't have intelligence on the ground in syria to make it safe for the troops at the time. number two, we have to be prepared for those who say that that those troops have to have the support of tens of thousands

of other troops. so, let's not have this hearing both ways. if you're going to take that tacked with the president, you have to be able to say, while i support ground troops in the long term, tens of thousands on the ground because you cannot put them in there without supporting them safely. i hope when we have the discussion today we bear that in mind and people have that opinion than i respect that. i don't think that is the best thing for country at this time. i yield back. >> thank you mr. keating. i would like to make it clear that that is not the opinion of the members of this committee. what the members of this committee called for, for a full year of indecisive action was the use of our airpower. it was a memory that we had 116,000 airstrikes during the first gulf war against 42 divisions of saddam hussein, these were armored divisions,

many of them and it was very successful. during the invasion of kuwait. what we called for here is not the introduction of u.s. brigades, what we called here was for the president of the united states to use the authority he has in order to take out the beginning that started in pickup trucks. if you can take out armored divisions you can certainly take out pickup trucks from the open desert. the frustration that i am expressing is over the fact that for one year, nothing was done, city after city fell to this terrorist organization. but i should transition to the witnesses today. it is partly that probably that frustration and partly with meeting time after time on a bipartisan basis with the kurdish and ucd opposition and

be denied arms to defend themselves. at this time i would like to go to ambassador and patterson, assistant secretary of state for middle eastern affairs. she is a member of the senior foreign service and she previously served in multiple posts and assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement of bears. to ambassador, she is with the department of state. ambassador newland served as the department of states spokesperson. she was the permanent representative to the nato from 2,005-2,008 focusing on nato, russia issues. without objection the witnesses will prepared statements will be made part of the record and the members here will have five calendar days to submit any statements or questions for the

record. ambassador patterson, you could begin. >> thank you mr. chairman. members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to explain our strategy for resolving the devastating conflict in syria. and defeating isil there. coming after the president's decision to intensify the campaign against isil and secretaries meetings in vienna put a password for political transition. this hearing is particularly well time. secretary carey said it best in vienna, our task is to charter course out of hell. since part of this hearing is your outline, over 225,000 syrians have died, we face the largest refugee crisis since world war ii. the conflict has become a magnet from extremists seeking to change the middle east. destroy economy and cultures and terrify entire populations. it is threatening serious

neighbors, iraq, jordan, lebanon and turkey with major consequential print u.s. national interest and beyond. we are pursuing holes, one to defeat isis militarily and both syria and iraq. two, to develop a political transition that gives syria future without. three, to ease the suffering of the syrian people and four, to stabilize our allies as they cope with massive refugee outposts. our strategies to leverage military action and intense policy to achieve political transition in which syrians ultimately have a government that respects the rights of its people. this political transition is critical to getting isil out of syria and ending their ability to threaten iraq from syria. a secretary terry was in vienna, there is actually nothing to do to fight isil then to strengthen the government's capacity in

syria, sidelined the person we believe who trained so many foreign fighters in terror and unite the country against terrorism. we cannot do fight isil in iraq without dividing isil in syria. moving forward we need to intensify the military camp and against isil, through airstrikes in cooperation with local partners. they have already pushed isil out of the 68 miles of nearly six and a mile border between syria and turkey. we and our coalition partners have launched over 216 strikes in syria and thanks to turkey's support we are deploying a tense and f-15s into the air base to expand our strike capacity. the president, as he mentioned has ordered the deployment of up to 50 u.s. special operation forces. to work with our arab and kurdish partners and we will support them with additional airpower. next, the united states is providing $150 million per year

to the moderate opposition to meet humanitarian needs and provide government support in areas liberated from isil. as a result of the largest single donor from 20011 we have divided over four and half a billion dollars in assistance to syria. neither two and half billion for eight inside serial almost 1 billion for programs in lebanon, over 650 million to jordan. we are enhancing military assistance to reach our allies including jordan and lebanon, where extremist threats from isil. thanks to general allen's leadership, we are leading a global 65 member coalition working to degrade and defeat isil. mr. chairman let me address head-on russia's dangerous military intervention in syria. moscow to parted forces because of the assad regime and even iran's support was insufficient to protect it.

moscow had tried to claim the strikes are focus on terrace but so far 85 or 90% of searing strikes have hit the modern serious opposition. they have killed civilians in the process. despite our urging moscow has yet to stop the assad regime's horrific practice of bombing the searing people. we know russia's primary intent is to preserve the regime. in vienna, secretary carey brought together all of those who can help in the conflict. iran was invited for the practical reason that it is an active participant that needs to support a political transition. it will come as no surprise to you that this group disagreed on several subject, most notably the fate of hassan. they did agree to the opposition representatives on basis of the geneva communiqué of 2012 which set out goals of the transfer

power to transitional governing body and to explore modalities for cease-fire and parallel with the clinical process. they also agree that we must over serious unity and integrity ensures state institutions remain intact, protect the rights of all syrians, a sure humanitarian acts to defeat isil and other terrorist groups designated by the un security council and establish a political process leading to a new constitution and election administered under un supervision and standards. we will convene at the ministerial level in the next few weeks to discuss next steps. mr. chairman, no one has any illusions about the difficulty of these efforts. one thing is clear, because i cannot unite and govern syria and we cannot continue to hold the lives of the searing people hostage to the desire of one man to retain power.

the searing people and regional allies need a political transition that allows people to return home. thank you mr. chairman, i will be would be happy to take questions. >> we go now to ambassador. >> thank you chairman and members of this community to join you and my colleague. while syria is in secretary pattersons responsibility the conflict there imperils turkey, the eu and the rest of europe as refugees stream out of syria and had both north and south. russia's new direct combat role in syria has exacerbated an already dangerous refugee outflow straining even the most generous europeans ability to cope. turkey currently holds 2.2 million refugees and bites account has invested $8 billion

towards their care and well-being. this year their turkish kosher guard rescued an estimated 68,000 individuals attempting a dangerous sea voyage. just since russian combat operations began in syria, greece has recorded its highest level of migration flows per week with an estimated 48,000 refugees crossing into the country in one week. the western balkans is also stretch then from increased migration primarily through macedonia, serbia and croatia. these countries report an average of five-8,000 migrants passing through their borders, daily. germany is under strain, it's recorded over 577,000 arrivals in the last nine months. inside syria, inside the last month while russians have been active the united nations reports 120,000 syrians have been internally displaced as a

result of the regimes attacked aided by the airstrikes. 52,800 people were displaced from northern, and southern .-ellipsis alone. these numbers validate what we know and what you pointed out, while moscow asserts its actions are directed at isil, the vast majority of russian airstrikes are targeted in areas where the assad regime has lost territory by forces led by the moderate opposition. now russia is fielding its own alltel degree and other ground assets around these areas greatly increases russia's own soldiers one ability to counterattacks. moscow has failed as you said, and as secretary patterson has said to exact any humanitarian concessions from the assad regime as the price for russian support. the regime continues to barrel bomb

with russia to the most basic of aviation deconfliction features to protect their own aircrews. what would positive corporation by russia look like? first, russia would turn its guns on isil and stop the carnage in and around serious western cities. as the price of that support moscow would insist that assad ground the helicopters and planes that these using two bera bomb innocents on it daily basis and would urgently work with us our allies to turn the statement of principle that secretary kerry foreign minister lavrov and other institutions released in vienna last friday into a true cease-fire of parallel political transition process and hastened the day that assad's bloody tenure comes in them. the quality of our cooperation

with russia and syria depends on the choices that moscow makes. in the meantime as the sex is very as an assistant secretary patterson has outlined we are exhilarating to work we are doing to support the opposition and to protect -- protects syria's neighbors including those in my area of responsibility turkey in the countries of europe. turkey has increased its own participation in the isil byte opening its bases to u.s. and coalition members in conducting its own airstrikes on isil targets inside syria. as we accelerate our own work with turkey and other like-minded targets to roll back isil in northern syria a collateral benefit could be the creation of a space where syrian civilians are freed from assad's as well as atrocity. a large number of europeans have contributed aviation access for strike operations in iraq and some are also considering strike operations operations in syria. we are obviously also working

with our allies and partners to address the refugee crisis. we have provided turkey with over $325 million in assistance to the u.n. and private ngos and we have provided 26.6 million or operations in europe including to help with food water legal assistance for refugees including 600,000 now to respond to a request from western bopper countries for equipping and training in the area for border management. as the secretary of diplomatic efforts made clear it's going to take leadership and resolve by dozens of countries and by the syrians themselves to end the bloodshed there. in vienna last week 17 assembled nations, the u.n. and the e.u. reaffirmed the path forward to peace and a political transition. it remains to be seen whether russia iran and the assad regime will join us in walking that path. we look forward to your questions. >> thank you ambassador nuland.

i mentioned my frustration with how the administration has approached syria and isis and the fact is that we at the state department here officials in front of this committee two years ago sounding the isis alarm, explaining that action had to be taken. the iraqi's and our own officials push for airstrikes early on, and push for those airstrikes and isis was the most vulnerable. in raqqa and in syria at the white house was paralyzed. once the airstrikes start enough after a year of watching cities fall from volusia to mosul and the central bank being taken over by isis, after that we finally saw airstrikes averaging 19 a day but in a circumstance in which, because of exceedingly

restrictive rules of engagement three-quarters of those planes flew back to their bases without dropping their ordinance. if we compare that and consider the first gulf war, desert storm, those airstrikes averaged 1000 compact sorties per day. not 19, and now enter the russians. the state department said that this would impact our air mission over syria and yet the numbers that the committee put together say otherwise. in october while the russians did 800 airstrikes for the full month mostly aimed by way of the opposition we managed just 100 against isis. assistant secretary patterson, are we seeding the skies to russia here? and in effect allowing the isis

threat to grow because after all isis has gained territory here during this timeframe so say the ngos on the ground. >> mr. chairman obviously i'm not with dod but let me try to answer this question. this question came up at a very high level meeting and i will quote to you what a senior military officer said which is we don't hit targets we can't see. this was in reference to the very bad weather that had overtaken the area last week when the strikes were limited and we can't be compared to the russians and operation or a tactical sense. the battlefield i might suggest mr. chairman is a very complex battlefield or mixed in with civilians. they are very high standards vis-à-vis collateral standards and civilian casualties that

would suggest the russian air force is not subject to and we are properly subject to, which is very different from the first gulf war and the mass of conventional forces. so that i think is a partial answer mr. chairman to your question. >> from the way i perceived here especially giving my first -- frustration in the first year of this conflict and not utilizing any airpower when it could be very effective, we have a situation today where we are hitting the bad guys in this, isis 100 times and the russians are hitting those that are opposed to isis and assad, 800 times. that's my take away in a broad sense of where we are now. but ambassador nuland this isn't just russia reaching out to save an old ally.

we look at those remarks. we are seeing russia and iran worked together in ways most have not expected. i certainly don't think the administration expected it and i don't think we expect good we would find hezbollah fighters and every name quds quds forces and russian headquarters working together in this kind of the circumstance. but this was general soleh money money -- suleimani putting this plan in place. twice as i understand it he made that travel in violation by the way of the embargo. again something that wasn't objected to when i raised the issue that they had at the quds forces who by the way was responsible indirectly for the deaths of some 600 americans i'm told by the pentagon. he was in moscow making arrangements with the russians.

there was no protest that i'm aware of at this being a violation of the travel ban. of late russian aircraft had been seen running iranian weapons into syria. again that's a very clear violation of the embargo which we all support. so what steps are being taken to uphold the u.n. arms embargo on iran in russian violations? >> mr. chairman i am unaware of those reports about the movement of iranian arms into syria on russian aircraft that we will certainly get you a report as soon as possible. >> thank you. i'm out of time and i will mention when mr. angled returns, he is at the white house. we will give him ample time for his opening statement and for his questions but in the meantime i think karen bass of

california is next in the queue. >> thank you mr. chair. in light of the president's statement last week that we were deploying 15 -- 50 special operations forces to syria i wanted to know what you see is their mission. do you expect them to be engage in direct combat and how would we be sure that this limited deployment won't be a slippery slope to involve u.s. troops? i would join my colleague ms. frankel who said had we not invaded iraq years ago that the region wouldn't be destabilized as it is now but in light of that i wanted to know if you could respond and i also wanted to ask a couple of questions regarding the transitional, the future transitional government of syria. >> thank you. let me say that i was in a briefing yesterday and some of the responses on the activity and location of the special forces are classified and so

perhaps we will come back to you in a written answer on that. i would be very happy to do so. their role is also a classified response but let me also say we are also deploying his eye mentioned -- the president is looking at a number of other options to intensify our efforts in this battle space. >> in terms of the future transitional government in syria there were talks held in vienna last week and i wanted to know if you could talk about those and in the future what do you feel is the best way to a negotiated's transition? for either one of you. >> let me give an outline if i might with the secretary's conversations in vienna last week he wanted to go to 20 countries including russia and

our golf -- gulf allies and the turks to discuss the way forward and we agreed obviously to disagree on the future of assad that he did talk about a way forward on the transitional government reform. in a series of meetings in working groups it would take is that the international community with the u.n. and the opposition to try to implement a geneva communiqué of 2012. the next meeting will likely be in vienna within the next two weeks. there will be a series of consultations with the u.n. beforehand and the opposition. the idea is to have a transitional government to work on a timetable for assad's departure and it will be clear that that's a critical element of this policy and then to work on constitutional review and ultimately an election in syria. that's the basic out i'm in secretary kerry strategy. >> up this point if there were to be a transitional government

who do you see composing that? >> a number of opposition figures and people already on the ground. it would be key on this was in the communiqué that serious institutions military intelligence civil service would remain intact so you wouldn't have a total collapse of state authority. the idea is just to remove the shot and his cronies from power. >> thank you pay you back my time. >> would the gentlelady yield? what in the world makes us think russia would agree with that? why would russia agree to transitional government with oppositional figures and the removal of assad and did you get that commitment? >> congressman russia did agree to that general framework in 2012 when assigned onto the original. >> military activities on the ground in 2015 at a meeting in vienna. did the russians agree?

>> as secretary patterson has said they have agreed to the general framework that we need a cease-fire in a transitional government. we need elections. the area dispute is at what stage in the process assad departs the scene. >> my time is up but given what's happening on the ground that is a panacea. >> mr. chris smith of new jersey. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chairman for calling this important hearing. welcome to our distinguished witnesses. let me ask a couple of questions. first i chaired a hearing last week on refugees coming out of syria and the high commissioners regional representatives testified and its bottom line was that there were two big trends that have led to mass exodus. ..

>> is only 41 percent funded. and he said he decided to go into flight. i know we your generous supporters there what congress and the administration of done that but did we anticipate this might be a trigger there was a huge cut to the program?

second, as there is billions of dollars of windfall attributed to the nuclear deal, you could provide this as a written form to elaborate but what was your assessment of the cash to assist assad? >> establishing the p2 program we discussed last week for minorities who do pose a threat. i know we had a robust process to insure will have isis' or any other al qaeda read types imbedded but pete to that targets those that are far less likely to be a threat that i hope is of the table to be actively discussed. thank you.

who intrude have an enormous amount of money of civilian dollars for the refugees. >> does that get to the people? >> we anticipate that would be a trigger. >> we certainly anticipated it would be a huge problem. and desperately needed. so to beef up the humanitarian support with the iranian resources this is the frequent discussion

the iranian economy has been in free fall because of sanctions that there are huge pent-up needs with consumer demand the iranian government in particular they will have to meet but i don't want to be naive for the destabilizing activities and finally asking about the featured program. with people coming out of this area that they are properly vented in reviewed with some of the history but it will certainly be under consideration. >> mr. chairman i realize you're not speaking for the

department of defense however i just want to see what you could disclose in open hearings with the approacee and subcommittee will have hgenerals and military experts time afterhad o time saying the unilateral approach to be accompaniedthey v by the troops in the groundingsk that otherwise was a worthless military strategy and approach. and simply bombing with the arab troops are others on the ground the criticism about not continuing on that calming

aspect, it has to be incorporated with a land force complement so are you familiar with those kinds of discussions? >> yes mr. chairman. those topics he suggests are frequently discussed within a frustration and let me first say that i think the bombing campaign has had very considerable impact on the leadership of isil. i can get you the exact figures for a number of prominent leaders have been essentially taken off the battlefield and removed from office. >> can i just jump in, thank you. there's a lot of discussion about rules of engagement and it's a difficult issue but russia is approaching this in a manner where without discrimination they seem contented bombing and killing innocent civilians and not even trying to make efforts to avoid doing that as opposed to the

u.s. policy which takes that into consideration as most countries in the world do. can you comment on the importance of following rules of engagement like the u.s. does, minimize civilian deaths? >> yes mr. keating. as i mentioned we have very strict u.s. air force has very strict rules of engagement on collateral damage and death in accordance with the president's instructions. our job is to minimize civilian casualties in every way possible it's not only, i might mention mr. keating a moral issue but it's an also an issue of practicality that you don't want to alienate, the united states does not want to alienate the people on the ground and if i might go back to your issue the ground forces but they also say one of our goals is to work with partners on the ground. who can serve this role as ground troops in support of a

u.s. air campaign rate we have supported as you know this. in the syrian arab coalition and it's been very effective i think in closing the border both to the influence of foreign fighters and to the export of refined products. ..

>> >> this migration in crisis is threatening stability in europe to the tune we have not seen since probably the 1930's it is mind-boggling when you watch the videos of them streaming into eastern european countries and i have a question for ambassador, does ambassador work for you? does she not? ambassador to hungary for the record. you were also a ambassador to nato so you understand the key role that nato

countries play with the security of the world and cooperating with the united states. correct? hungry is a valuable ally ally, are they not? >> after months of seeing good -- improvements through the allies we just confirmed with an attack on hungary last week. >> i am not sure specifically giving a speech last week where she reaffirmed support for hungary that is increasing the democratic we have had concerns of government policy with regard to attack of corruption and repression of media. >> to chastise the cybernation is to secure its own borders did she not?

>> i have to go back to let them precisely what she said we have has had a concern of the e.u. member states putting policy it does each other again trying to support the u.s. all whole to work together in solidarity with each other to redress the of my great crisis. >> i disagree with some of that base of you said is the diplomatic mission not to approve relations with the allies were will is called those we need to meddle in domestic affairs whatever egos are satisfied by such actions? >> is that our mission? >> even with our allies it is the longstanding 50 your policy to support the

increasingly democratic stable clean europe and so when we have concerns so with the of rollback of the democratic principles we will speak out about it. >> madame ambassador, i do thank you are meddling into the affairs of a sovereign nation. looked at the mass migration across europe, will you interfere or chastise germany if they decide the nation or slovenia over those who have to deal with it? they have to deal with these almost 1 million migrants making their way into easterner western europe it will change the political atmosphere these are

sovereign nations having to deal with it with their ability to their own citizens with the demands placed on them by the migrants is a game changer in europe. to interfere with sovereign nations in europe and their ability to provide services for their own citizens and deal with the migration crisis. >> on the contrary, we are strongly supportive of the over all the policy they put in place now which is to support each other to resettle the migrants appropriately to share the burden to contribute to post countries to provide more funds where refugees are coming from. >> my time is expired. >> when dave.

>> i would recommend you was understatement. >> they key for being here if the key rate hearing frustration. first of all, the administration and mr. kerrey trying to get as many together to come to grips with what is going on in syria is going the right direction that is a good step. i forget which one said this but it is your opinion that the actions in syria are

such that it is self-destructive. that is what i get from your comments. in the meantime before they self-destruct themselves, so many have been harmed. my question is, what kind of strategies or actions are you taking that could change the course? second, whether we doing to protect the syrian civilians ? or is it hopeless to do a safe zone or the no-fly zone that we have not heard about

? >> let me say first we don't think it's a slam dunk by any means. basically they have the wholesome and the world against them and we have not seen anything in terms of jihad because we have already seen imam call for the godless presence in syria so i will say they have written off more it and they can shoot not the least of which is for the islamic population. the civilians inside syria with a humanitarian assistance that are provided within syria but in terms of

a safe zone ironclad that you ask because there is a lot of discussion with this hugely complex and resource intensive issue. looking at this over and over again there was no option on the table that was recommended under the department of defense with the massive amount of air support with the effort against isil but there is no viable option on the table at this time. >> day you have anything to add? >> we have been very clear with the russians with what we're seeing with the results speaking virtually every day. speaking about our insistence the exact some kind of restraint in the

area of the barrel bombing. we will continue to share with you what we see as secretary patterson said that if you rope them into this diplomacy it is a better way or a peaceful solution. >> we have all heard the conditions are dire. especially at the border. my hair would ago of straight. what kind of actions? i hear people out in the open what is your response?

>> these people are caught in pockets. and we work with them constantly on that issue with refugees to get into the country. most of these are hosting these refugees with a significant strain on their public services which is why support from the international community is so all-important. >> subject to syria 14 years ago amid reverse trip to syria to ee