that to be able to unwrap that further. i don't know if i can turn it over to you, ambassador. >> it is a memorandum of understanding and there's a model memorandum of understanding that's negotiated every three years. that negotiation is coming up in 2017 and strengthening the provisions to be very explicit and incredibly direct on sexual exportation and abuses is one of my goals for the upcoming negotiation. .. that are negotiated between the true-putting country and the u.n.. what i can tell you center is that this is not a problem at its core of lack of words on paper. this is a problem of political will. and it is a problem that has persisted for too long, where words on paper have been ignored. words on paper have been disregarded. so even within the existing

mous the tccs have not abided by that and now we will not tolerate that going forward. which underscores the point i want to make. as long as troops many in an army using sexual violence as tool of war, employed as peace keeper. accountability for legal enforcement of the law in country they're in or anything else. there is nothing to thwart or hold them back. if all of sudden send because initiative the united states take and peace loving companies take, holding people accountable, people start serving punishment and time for violence and rape against women the word gets out really fast.. the governments are great, u.n. is best at making agreements on paper but not best making those words live in life.f my point, if we get status of forces of agreement between countries that supply u.n. troops between the u.n. and

agreement between them and country they're employed in, not you must in 90 days establish a pattern of practice or -- status of forces says you will be liable and you will be punished for rape, for murder, for whatever capital felonies we want to include, most egregiouss of which, do our best make a couple people example of it, until that happens and withwi holding money are two things get the guy's attention. we don't have anybody's attention right now, none whatsoever. it's a frightening, frightening thing. i think the gpoi, which is an agency, which is a division of the state department, right? >> yes, sir, that is the division under my leadership. >> i hope you would meet with bob froman the trade representative. united states. find out ways you can tie country's compliance with fighting violence against women with the agreements we make with them in trade and commerce.

senator coons and i opened markets in south africa for domestic united states chicken they were being blocked from, by enforcing terms of africa growth and opportunity act which is trade agreement between the countries. people don't like rape and violence but like to eat and have commerce and trade. if you predicate those thingss with the united states doing it, with them being committed to ending violence against women and sexual violence as a practice, we to a long way making something happen. that is the kind of leverage that makes a difference. i'm in the belittling the annual report and not belittling the website. it is one thing to tell them your name is on website and one thing to tell them we won't trade with you anymore. we had to start importing chickens from the united states in order to participate in trade under the goa agreement. seems the state department should find ways to leverage

what you're doing in gpoi, witho leverage on a daily basis to provide peacekeepers see where you tie the two together. until you got a big stick in these two countries you ain't got nothing, pardon my english. look for making economic impact in return for better behavior. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. before you go to senator kaine, you mentioned political resistance or the -- what kind of political resistance exists to keep soldiers from raping and abusing young girls and young boys? what kind of resistance do you face at this united nations body? >> the resistance, mr. chairman, is over giving up any control or

jurisdiction with respect to how issues of conduct and disciplinc are handled by tccs themselves, by the troop contributing countries. what they have resisted are efforts to increase transparency on these issues out of fear that it would dishonor their troops. that it would dishonor peacekeeping but what i can tell you that the dishonor and what i say to them, the dishonor is in not being transparent. the dishonor is in not prosecuting credible allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse to restore integrity to peacekeeping. so i think what you're seeing in a positive way today is that there is no longer a monolithic resistance on these issues. i think there are troop contributing countries that recognize we face a crisis and they recognize simply circling

the wagons and saying no to transparency and saying no to accountability is actually undermining peace keeping, is undermining their own integrityt so we've seen some progress recently on that front. >> i would point out on the list, i know most members have seen the list, but a large number of the people that are ne violators are in the peacekeeping mission to make money.to say this one more time. they're in the peacekeeping mission to make money. so i'm sorry, i can't imagine how political resistance could keep us from enforcing against these countries that make money off doing this in this particular situation. senator coons. >> thank you, chairman corker and ranking member cardin for both convening this hearing and for your persist steps, your voice, engagement both of you, in fighting human trafficking

and fighting human slavery and for passion and engagement you bring, making sure we just don't hold hearings on deplorable conditions of victims of sexual abuse and violence around theth world but we actually do something and get something done. in this particular instance we're talking about u.n. peacekeeping. i want to thank all of our witnesses for your testimony on both panels, especially ambassador coleman, who is working hard to introduce real reforms in the u.n. to make it a more effective institution. last week i went to the u.n. headquarters and met with the undersecretary for peace-keeping operations and was struck by daunting challenges that peacekeepers face in the 21st century. by the number of countries where we have u.n. peacekeepers deployed and by the possibilities of peace keeping in terms of protecting fragile countries from falling into being failed states. i have strongly supported u.n. peace-keeping efforts in terms

of appropriation support and view it as cost effective and positive way for us not just to keep peace and build peace but the allegations that have been made, not just in car but, ambassador coleman as you outlined across dozens of u.n. missions across decades now are simply shocking and unacceptable and it is the united states that is footing most of the bill for most of the peacekeepers who are commits these atrocities against men and women and children and if the very people who we are funding, tripping, equiping, supporting to be peacekeepers can't be trusted to keep the peace and instead are committing crimes, then our support for u.n. peacekeeping is at risk of doing more harm than good. so i think we all agree we have to act, not just listen, not just take notes, but act to bring an end to sexual exploitation and abuse on a wide scale by u.n. peacekeepers.

but simply providing peacekeepers and police doesn't fulfill a member state's obligation for the u.n. community of nations. it is the responsibility of member-states to select andf train and oversee appropriate units. and it is a struggle, as the chairman was just recognizing, many of the peacekeeping contributes countries are deploying peacekeepers at least in the country those i have traveled to wi senator isakson in part in order to get their troops paid. we are not attracting the best and most capable and trained of peacekeeping forces around the world. we need to strengthen that. before we make progress i think we have to institute meaningful accountability for nations and their peacekeepers who committees kind of crimes. so i look forward to exploring the ways this committee can help ambassador power and her team at u.n. to push accountability that can work together to end these crimes and change peacekeepers

from perpetrators of violence to protectors against violence. if i would, ambassador, tell me what peacekeeping training methods have been proven most effective so far? in fact i like all members of the panel to answer the question if you could. what has been successful in terms of training to reduce what senator isakson i think correctly recognized is the training, whether intentional or by experience by troop-contributing countries that sexual violence is beingefe used as war and with can we do to strengthen that training and accountability? >> i will allow general rothstein to address the specific training question, but i want to reiterate a point general rothstein said earlier. this is not fundamentally about a training issue. there is no training that is not

going to guarranty this problem won't occur. when you look at troops that committed these abuses some are among the best-trained troops in the world. we know that they have explicit components of sexual exploitation and abuse prevention in their training methods. so ultimately i come back to this as accountability issue. there is no troop-contributing country that is immune from these types of abuses. it is how they deal with them and how they deal with it in a fulsome way that provides prevention going forward. -- >> before we turn to the training question, since we got you, ambassador coleman, on this, how effective is naming and shaming? since a number of countries involved or implicated arere allies of ours that have troops trained and performing at highest level before we talk about those that lack operational efficiency. i think operational training becomes more effect tougher

training. how effective is the naming and shaming and how can we work together to get -- >> i avoid naming and shaming. there is no shame in being named. the shame is not following through with accountability.in i think it is really a watershed for us to be able to identify the countries and then to be able to follow up directly with them and not tolerate, not allow the passivity that has existed, the sweeping under the carpet that has existed. frankly the lack of accountability. and to not allow it anymore. senator isakson earlier talked about having a big stick, and mr. chairman, you talked about money. the money is a big stick. to be able to say that you will not participate in peacekeeping any longer if you do not hold your troops accountable, if you don't report back to the security council, the secretary-general on what you're

doing, if you do not prosecute the al goingses in a full and sufficient way. that is ultimately the u.n.'s big stick because the troop contributing countries will retain jurisdiction over their troops.uld they can either choose to have a full, appropriate response, or not. if they don't, then frankly they should no longer be part of peace keeping. p >> i couldn't agree more.ke as someone who fought for appropriations for peacekeeping i'm ashamed we've been supporting peacekeepers that are doing horrible things and want to make sure working together we find a mechanism for accountability that is appropriate and uses the fact that we are one of the principle contributors to peacekeeping support to insure this cops to an end. general, what sorts of o engagement, accountability, are most effective for troops, whether training or prosecution or otherwise? >> i would like to start by going back to what ambassador coleman side. thank you very much. i apologize. so let me start echoing what

ambassador coleman side. my perspective training is absolutely necessary. make no mistake i do not think it is sufficient. this is a problem much broader than training and i believe we have to train through the training we provide through our security assistance, we think it is pretty good. as far as best practices what we work to do in our training, we start in the classroom. we move the scenarios. we moved including exercises and also focused very much on unit leadership. we draw on best-of-breed. we work closely with the united nations to find the best practices that work well. we make sure they understand our policy no matter that how well you do it will not be sufficient. i echo what ambassador coleman said, we have to focus on accountability. i also echo how the country is following up. just bus you have a rotten individual or maybe even a rotten unit does not mean you necessarily want to disengage from the whole country. as we remain focused on future

outcomes, if that country will still deploy to u.n. peacekeeping, we want to effect it for the better we probably want to be involved in their training and help make it better and not walk away and let it deteriorate. it those are difficult decisions we have. >> i'm past my time. i want to say i'm looking forward to the second panel where we're going to hear frankly about u.n. suppression of whistle-blowers and real likelihood these abuses are far more widespread so far been supported. thank you for your testimony and hard work. >> i would just say on this issue there ought to be some way for to us figure out a way toca surge -- surgeally deal with this in bipartisan manner, gets on this issue not bringing in whole host of other issues. we ought to be able to figure out a way to do it. senator flake will go ahead and ask senator shaheen to ask her questions, okay? >> thank you all very much for

your testimony today and for the work that you are doing on a very difficult issue. and i want to follow up, ambassador coleman, with what you said about how important it is for the u.n. to actually hold countries accountable and, to ask, has that ever been done? do we have any examples of where that is we'll occurred and we have seen a change in behavior and, if that's the case, why haven't we instituted a process whereby that's done on a regular basis? >> thank you, senator shaheen. the u.n. has, i think consistently followed up with the troop-contributing countries brought, when allegations have come to their attention, they have documented them. they have presented evidence that they have collected to the troop contributing countries.fo they have followed up with the troop contributing countries and

too often have been met with silence and frankly have acted with timidity in pushing back on the tccs and demanding action. >> well, and that is the question i'm really asking.io have, is there a case, can you cite a time in the past when the u.n. has demanded action if the troop contributing countries have failed to exact where we have denied them funding or, or for continuing to contribute to peace-keeping efforts?>> >> we, i know of a number of examples and some of them have happened frankly with u.s. urging. i can tell you that the urugayans in haiti had sexuall exploitation and abuse allegations. we knew about them at the time. there wasn't a website.. this wasn't published. but we did learn about it.

we engaged bilaterally. we engaged and uruguay took action. they held a public trial and flew victims from haiti to the trial. we know that the u.n. has engaged with a number of member-states who have been responsive. when i was in manusco last year in the democratic republic of congo i learned about the south africans, one of their force intervention brigade had number of allegations. the u.n. brought it to the highest levels of attention in the south african army. they dealt with it. they had court-martials. it does happen. the issue is it doesn't always happen. too often they simply get no response from a tcc. when that happens if we don't know about it, or if another member state doesn't kw about it falls through the cracks. it is totally unacceptable.

>> one of the issues that has been raised there is no person or agency that is responsible just for this. what is it the assessment of the panel if we d a person in charge of just making sure when there are allegations that troop contributing countries are taking action to hold people responsible, would that help solve the problem? >> you know, the independent car panel report in excruciating detail cataloged how information was diffused, fragmented. the bureaucratic response that, so appalled us in response the u.n. has appointed miss jan hall lute has a special envoy to deal with issue of exploitation and abuse.we we welcome that appointment. we think that will certainly

provide a focal point in the u.n. so there can never again be an excuse the diffusion of responsibility allowed critical information and, to fall through the cracks and inaction to occur. so we action absolutely welcome that. >> has she taken any action yet. >> she was just recently appointed. i know right now she is traveling.oi she has been in the centraln african republic. she is in the democratic republic of congo and i think you will see action coming out of her office in short order. >> senator cardin and senator corker both mentioned the leahy legislation that would have the united states deny assistance. is this something that has been done in particular instancesn where there have been documented cases of sexual exploitation and abuse? have we actually seen the united states deny aid to those country

who is have failed to take action? >> certainly when we have credible evidence of those things that fall under leahy laws. at the individual and unit level, when we have that information, that goes into our database that we work both through the mission of post and country when those individuals need to copensionly come up for security assistance to in the united states as well as databases back here at state main. i don't have a specific example but if someone has credible allegations against them and go into the database then we would not work with that unit and individual and that process isis in place and has been in place. >> i guess i'm asking a broader question. that is not just about the unit or individual, but have we actually denied aid to countries that have contributed to troops to peacekeeping missions who have failed to take action with those troops on al goingses that

have been -- allegations that have been shown to be true? >> at the overall country level we have not suspended to my knowledge an overall, you know, country. >> should we? should we consider that kind of action if we see repeated abuser and failure to take action? i would like each of you to respond to that, if you would. >> sure. i think we have absolutely have to be ready to consider that. i think it is important we take that on a case-by-case basis. as i said earlier, from my perspective it is not so much that an incident happens. it is what the country does about it.ab if the country lacks the will to try to follow through on that, because no matter, like i said earlier, incidents are going to happen. we're not going to stop that. so if the country takeso, reasonable action to follow through, then we probably ought to continue working with them. >> right. no i'm actually asking if they failed to take action.

should we look at suspending aid? >> thank you, senator shaheen. that is an important question. we should think about the leverage we have in our relations with bilateral countries. we have to look at it in a holistic way. for example, most of the assistance we provide to countries in africa is in the health area. we're not in the business as you know giving out freebies because we want to feel good.ss we're in the business of providing in the national security good. you have to weigh whether or not it makes sense to cut assistance we're providing to prevent spread of pandemic disease into response to a country's inability to deal with sexual exploitation and abuse. in other areas we're directly supporting rule of law system and development of capacities to enforce law.w. i wouldn't want to cut that. i might sort of want to redirect how that is used. it is something, it is a tool.

not necessarily the tool of first resort. you have to look what the assistance is directed to and make the best determination. we are trying to do that now on a case-by-case basis through our engagement in the countries named in the report. that is an ongoing conversation we will have in conjunction of course with all of you. >> ambassador coleman? >> i would just sigh that if there, if countries are not responding and not taking appropriate action, they should not be included in u.n. peacekeeping. and therefore, our contribution through our peacekeepingth sessments should not be going to those countries. so i completely agree u.s. engagement to strengthen these countries to make them better, to improve capacity building, training, vetting all of these things are great but if there is willful non-responsiveness and they should not be part of peacekeeping and our money should not be going to them. >> thank you all very much.en >> thank you very much.

senator markey. thank you, mr. chairman, very much. con i ask you, general, how we deal with the countries which these soldiers come? on one hand we're talking about training of the soldiers. but, does the country itself need training? does the their judicial system need training? do we need to have a program that goes a step before these young men who are the soldiers, and get to the adults in these countries ensuring they have the proper training so they are taking intervention steps necessary, early on, are all those people are made accountable in their country? those are the people who we have given training too and not enacting. what is that program that we may or may not have in place in order to insure that the proper training back in the home

country is adequate? >> senator, thank you for that. you raise, i think what is both important and a very hard topic. so as a general rule i think in our security assistance, in my experience, doing tactical training, training units, predeployment training, is hard but we're pretty good at it as a country. helping to build those institutions that backstop all of those tactical operational unit is much more difficult. it is intellectually more difficult i should tell you. i would remark, i came out of ar year out of afghanistan where my job was to build the afghan air force. i was living on a airbase trying to build their institutions. i have lived it a little bit myself.it it is hard work. we do have some programs out there where we're trying to get after that. within the state department, we have a program called the security governance initiative that is taking out of a kind of

pilot level, looking at some of these countries, how we get after the institution-building backstops this, rule of law, some of those things. the defense department, i don't want to speak too much for them because i certainly don't know but i know they are working some of the defense institution building programs. those are some of the things we're trying to work. but it is difficult. it will take a long time because change in our own bureaucracy, think how hard it is to make change happen. much less trying to work through a foreign government, their cultural norms and values. so we'll have to stay at this a little while. >> right, i don't think you can solve the problem until those leaders in the justice system in the home countries have the proper training and gumption to enforce the laws. these are just young men on the, on the prowl in a foreign country. and that's dangerous thing without proper supervision back home.

let's just talk then to whatever from your perspective you would like to see put on the books? what programs would you like to see funded, short of defunding a programs i guess in those countries to teach them with a stick what we could potentially try to have them accept as a standard by the properxc educational standards, the proper accountability standards that are put in place without us having to punish the country? >> thank you very much, senator, for that important question. and i just wanted to include the thought that when we started our effort last month to go out to every country on the u.n. list, this is part of what we were asking them. first we wanted to make sure they understood the gravity of the allegations against them. second we want to impart on them the actually following up on these. third was open a dialogue what that country needs in terms of

assistance to build up its ownui ability to investigate and respond. now those conversations are at early level we only got country-specific information last month. but we'll build on that. those conversations that our ambassadors in the field are having now are going to feedback in to our decisis what kind of assistance we can provide including in the rule of law area. but i would like to echo what my colleague, ambassador coleman said. where we have open door and willingness to engage we should do it. hopefully we'll be funded to provide that kind of assistance. where countries are not willing as you say, where they don't have the gumption, those countries should be barred from peacekeeping all together and i believe the resolution in the security council our new york team fought so hard for last month, 2272, provides that kind of banning from peacekeeping for those countries. >> great.

let's talk about the countries you think are the worst.t. give us the worst three countries, any one of you, so we can get an idea what we're talking about in kind of prioritizing, not alphabet i cannily but in terms of their complete and total lack of regard for these human rights violations. how would you list those countries? want to give us the three worst? >> i will, i will refer to my colleague, ambassador coleman, who said it is really hard to say who is the worst and who is not the worst because we're onlu now in a world where we can identify what countries are doing. before we didn't have that information. and ambassador coleman may disagree with me -- >> well we have countries here, congo, morocco, south africa, cameroon, tanzania, burundi,me nigeria, togo, rwanda, ghana, madagascar, senegal, canada, germany, slovakia and moldova.

you want to pick three and, if you don't want to put in canada you don't have to or slovakia, perhaps of the shorter list that's left. might want to give us an idea where the problem is.er it will focus our attention much more precisely like laser like? what we should start with. we probably should start with the worst and we know what we have to as a project to teach that country how they should care about the issue. so would you like to try that, ambassador. >> i would say in the case, what you're say something very important and we're to identify the problems are and we're starting to do that. case like democratic republic of congo. against that contending rent absolutely horrific. we think the secretary-general did right thing sending them

home. in mayes keeping anywhere else -- peacekeeping anywhere else or should they be. at same time of a new focus on issues we've seen the democratic republic of congo has detained 20 of their peacekeepers and started trials against them. so what we need to see before we can make a judgment where do those trials go?o? several of the countries that you mentioned have started judicial processes or in some cases actually finished judicial processes against those peacekeepers who were accused. so it's, i would say it's too early to answer the question as to who is the worst because wewe haven't seen -- >> you're saying congo is there, as a country that has already received special attention. >> yes. >> are there two other countries you might want to tell is if you're going to prioritize to tell us as country where we should be focusing you think have been particularly bad in this area?

>> senator, maybe i can just comment adding to what ambassador jacobsen has already said. congo, the drc troops were repatriated because of a the pattern of abuse. there were so many abuses that they were repatriated. in addition the republic of congo, not only democratic of congo, the republic of congo troops were also repatriatedau because of a pattern of abuse. there are two different things going on. one is a pattern of abuse which speaks to a lack of command-and-control and the other is a pattern off non-responsiveness. on the pattern of abuse, i think as allegations become apparent and we are tracking those allegations it's easy to see when there has been a pattern oa easier to see when there hasrn been a pattern of abuse. in terms of non-responsive we're

only now understanding which countries only recently because they have been named, allegations that have been pending for a long time, where there has been inadequate follow-up and inadequate accountability. and so in that process we're loose looking at which are those countries and we don't have an answer for you. we will get back to you with that answer. >> i think it is important for s us to know, you know, there is 100 nuclear power plants, these 10 are the least safe. we'll focus on those first,es right? so you get to narrow it down for us, because as senator cardin is saying over here, we have an ability to begin to thinkk creatively about all of the other relationships that we have with that country that can help to get leaders who general rothstein is saying maybe are reluctant right now to have their judicial system fully engaged to make sure they are accountable, that these soldiers

are accountable, that the military offices are accountable. >> we look at it very much in the same way. that is the analysis that we're doing. >> when will you have the list put together as who are the worst? that would be a great hearing to just have, you know, those worst offenders focused upon by the committee? >> when you're asking worst offenders are you talking about highest incidence or non-responsiveness. >> i suppose it will be a combination because the ones that are least responsible turning blind eye to the atrocities being committed so i'm sure it is one in the same for the most part. >> not necessarily.e that is exactly what we're trying to untangle. there are some countries that have had pretty significant allegations against them. as ambassador jacobsen said, you now see the democratic republic of congo putting 20 people on trial. so taking quite an act

aggressive action about that. ia we're in early stages of that. it takes quite a long time for these things to work their way through their judicial systemte but the point i want to emphasize, is having a weak judicial system, having a judicial process that perhaps doesn't meet our standards, our rule of law, is no excuse for not taking action.ng there is not one tcc that has deployed to a u.n. peacekeeping mission that doesn't have the ability to impose discipline on their troops. >> we're agreeing with you and i think what chairman corker and ranking member cardin are saying we want to help you. s there is no excuse. so you know, you just tell us who they are, who, what their excuses are, then we will try to reinforce it because there is

the power of the purse which the congress does have that i think can help to focus their attention on issues we would like to see them work on. so we thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, if i could, just to clarify, i think this has been a very helpful exchange, if i understand ambassador coleman, the united nations candies minute a country that doesn't take action and that can be done. there doesn't appear to be any direct remedy that the united nations can take, other than the peer pressure or public information that is made available. and that is why i think we're looking for ways in which we can help in regards to getting action taken in regards to impunity.

i wanted to clarify that because i think there are two points that you had raised before. >> i still think that is pretty unbelievable we had a report in 2005 and you just now, not you, the entity we're trying to reform, the u.n., just now is publishing information. i think it speaks to, i'm sorry, terrible leadership, lack of concern, unwillingness to deal with tough issues. i don't think it speaks very favorably of the leadership at the u.n. senator kaine. >> just, really one line of favr questions. in the security council resolution from last month, and i applaud the u.s. and other nations for taking it seriously in the council, were there provisions dealing with redrafts mous with the tccs? should there be a standard

feature of memorandums of understanding that talk about training, recognizing training isn't sufficient but then what the accountability provisions would be and the complaint? if that is not part of the security couldn't sill resolution, that a profitable area we should focus time? >> thank you, senator. that is not part of the security council resolution. those are not taken up in the security council. those are taken up in the general assembly. i mentioned that the model mou which all the mous are based is renegotiated in every several years. it is coming up for review in 2017. it is area absolutely ripe for review, making stronger and more explicit actions regarding sexual exploitation and abuse. >> as we work on bipartisan and focused strategy, you know, strong demand that mou, when it is negotiated can, includes very

significant provisions around this is something that i think we would all probably agree with. that is the only question i have. i appreciate it. >> thank you. want to follow up with this panel? we're all very up sent. i think you are too. i know that typically administration doesn't particularly appreciate input from folks who sit on this sidee of the dais. in this case, maybe they would welcome that. i do look forward to working with with members on both sides of the aisle to put additional pressure on.le i have to tell you, if i had to go to work every day and deal with the morass that exists at united nations. i think i would have to find other lines of work. so we thank you for attempting to deal with this morass that is

so ineffective in so many things but particularly this. we thank you for your efforts. we appreciate your efforts trying to make sure train something done in a better level and appreciate the work you're doing at the state department. we do want to assist you in penalizing countries that tolerate this and don't do the appropriate, don't take thee appropriate actions. so wll be working with you very closely over next several weeks. with that, you know, we hope you have an opportunity here with the witness say on the next panel. we'll hold the record open until the close of business friday. if you could fairly promptly respond to questions that comen your way in writing. but we thank you for yourri service to our country and for being here today.r thank you. [inaudible] no. don't even like going into the building so.

[inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations]

>> all right. so we're ready for the second panel. we've all been looking forward to your testimony. most of us had a chance to read it last night or this morning. but we thank you all for being here i would like to recognize y the three witnesses. dr. miranda brown, who has very powerful testimony and mr. yo, did i pronounce that correctly? thank you. and if you could just begin,, dr. brown and mr. yo.. if you would move on. we thank you both for being here and the strength of your testimony here today. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is miranda brown and i'm a former australian diplomat. i joined the u.n. office of high commission of human rights as the chief the eastern southern african section in december 2012 and occupied this position until december 2014.

i have first-hand experience of monitoring and reporting human rights violations including sexual abuse in a peacekeeping environment. i'm going to give you an insider's perspective. from my experience in the field, and as the chief of the eastern southern africa section at ohchr i know sexual abuse in peacekeeping missions is vastly underreported with bottlenecks of reporting at various stages. there are multiple barriers toin reporting sexual abuse. victims, many of whom are minors, know there is high t likelihood the perp tritetores will go unpunished and fear discrime news, stigmaization, retaliation if they report abuses. u.n. human rights officers in pace keeping missions are usually first-responders and hence the internal reporters of the sexual abuse. they have their own fears. both about their physical safety as well as their own job. security. overall my view is that there are significant structural

barriers to reporting sexual abuse by peacekeepers and u.n. personnel. the current setup which relies primarily on u.n. human rights offices assuming the role of reporters of these violations is inadequate, poses risks to the victims and staff and is inherently biased against reporting. such barriers are exacerbated by wholly inadequate u.n. internal justice provisions or protections to whistle-blowers. an example of these structural barriers is the case of mr. anders who disclosed sexual abuse by peacekeepers in the central african republic to the french authorities on the basis of the abuse was ongoing and the u.n. leadership in bangi had not taken any steps to stop it over a period of many months or if they had, these steps had been ineffective. the abuse continued until july 2014 when mr. compass disclosed it to the french authorities.

in april 2015, mr. compass was suspended and placed under investigation for his disclosure.. shortly after, i blew the whistle to u.s. fishes at the permanent mission to the united nations in geneva about the child sexual abuse in the central african republic and apparently abuse of authority by u.n. leadership in respect to the treatment of mr. compass. despite the fact that hisen suspension was deemed unlawful, external panel by the secretary-general exonerated him, mr. compass remained under investigation until january 2016. these actions are having and will continue to have a chilling effect on the reporting of i have a abuses in peacekeeping missions and have badly damaged the reputation and stature of the united nations. why the u.n. secretary-general has announced measures for tackling sexual abuse in peacekeeping these do not address structural barriers to reporting or provide protections of u.n. staff who report wrongdoing by institution.

these measures do not address the u.n. accountability for abusive authority. ambassador coleman has referred to the dishonor in not being transparent. this should apply to the u.n. leadership. many of the measures that you have heard today should apply to the u.n. leadership because 70% of the abuses appeared to have been committed by non-military, i.e., u.n. or non-military personnel. i recommend the committee consider the following. from the u.n. leadership demand that all of it in terms of sexual abuse of by peacekeepers are offered immediate protected. that is not currently the case. recognize and address the barriers in reporting sexual abuse by peacekeepers and u.n. personnel. issue u.n. systemwide proceduree and provide meaningful training to all u.n. staff working in peacekeeping missions on reporting sexual abuse by peacekeepers and other u.n. personnel.

institute mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse to the appropriate authorities. recognize and address the inadequate whistle-blower protections afforded to u.n. staff. institute zero tolerance for all u.n. officials whose conduct fails to the meet the highest standards of ethics and integrity and apologize to mr. compass. from the u.s. state department, demand the above reforms from the u.n., demand zero tolerance for and call for the removal of all senior u.n. officials whose conduct fails to meet highest standards. recognize that u.n. staff are not adequately protected from retaliation of reporting sexual and other abuses by peacekeepers or u.n. personnel.ep seek amendments to the u.n. framework so that the administration of justice and whistle-blower protections as detailed in my recent statement. implement the provisions of the u.s. consolidated appropriations act, 2016, section 704.8 on

whistle-blower protections and insure the next secretary-general is committed to eradicating sexual abuse in peacekeeping and committed to protecting whistle-blowers from retaliation. my motive for testifying today and blowing whistle on abusive authority and protecting u.n. as institution and uphold the principles on which this is founded. this come at a considerable personal sacrifice. i lost my job at ohcr but ii remain hopeful are the commission on human rights will reinstate me at my position. i hope my testimony today will not impact on the hight commission's decisions. thank you. >> great, thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member cardin and other members of the committee for inviting me before the committee today. i serve as president of the better world campaign which works to promote a stronger relationship between the u.s. b and the united nations.

as previous witnesses have made clear there is a cancer within the united nations and it must be cut out. the scourge of sexual exploitation and abuse by u.n. peacekeepers continues. the victims of this abuse are real and consequences are as well. just two weeks ago a six teen-year-old girl was allegedly rape id about a peace keeper from dr congo in hotel room. what a sickening violation noter only of an innocent girl but the trust place into that peace keeper by the united nations and military that sent him to help the people of the central african republic. hearing the horrendous reports eminating from car it would be natural to withdraw all u.n. peacekeepers before more damage can be done.e. but this basic instinct to protect needs to be balanced against good peacekeepers continue to do there.. the u.n. mission played a critical role in conduct of free

democratic elections which led to swearing in of a new legitimate president committeded to rebuilding the war-torn country and to successful legislative elections which juso conclude ad few weeks ago. since 2014 peacekeepers trained children on avoidance of unexploded ordnance, a gift lefn by the warring factions. human rights watch. david: issued a report that human peacekeepers in car will be critical disarming rebell factions and keeping security. the question how do we support the vital work being done by u.n. peace keepers in car and elsewhere and at same time implement meaningful steps to stop sexual abuse by peacekeepers and insure justice for victims? if the u.n. is to root out bad actors, whether they hail from france or the developing world militaries that are the backbone of u.n. peacekeeping it must show that new policies just announced by the u.n. and

endorsed by the security counci will be implemented with unshakable resolve. the name and shame list issued r by the secretary-general of countries charged with ex--- sexual exploitation and abuse is groundbreaking.in first time in history of u.n.st peacekeeping transparency is now at long last at the core of o u.n.'s response to sca. secretary-general bond suspended payments to troop contributing countries whenever there is creditable allegations against one of his troops. he repatriated entire military con ten against to their home countries where there is evidence of widespread and systemic abuse. again a first. long overdue these actions are the right course. even so, even though they are endorsed by the security council these measures will mean nothing unless they are actively and consistently enforced. a posture that will anger some troop-contributing countries. sending home offending contingents is not only black

eye on the global stage but a loss of important compensation to that contributing nation. and for those countries where there is evidence of widespreads or systemic sexual exploitation and abuse, they should bee blocked from joining new missions. the u.n. must say no on deployment until demonstrable progress is made. the secretary-general has the power to do that and he must wield it, and, the security council must back him up. there are certain, to be consequences. one year from now, for example,r the security council may choose to intervene in a country facing a crisis with lives on the line, international community will rightly look to the u.n. to quickly deploy peacekeepers. only a few countries will offer troops, of those some will have a checkered human rights record. while there will be justifiable demand to deploy a robust force, the u.n. must hold firm andd reject any nation with a record of widespread or systemic abuse.

as it stands, there is a severe shortage of well-trained troops for growing number of increasingly complex and dangerous missions. the u.n. is challenged to recruit the best-trained and equipped troops. if peacekeeping is ultimately to free itself from the stain of sexual abuse the responsibility must not sit with the u.n. alone. other member-states need to a answer the call. last year's peacekeeping summit resulted in pledges of 40,000 more peacekeepers from a diverse group of countries, insuring these pledges actually materialize and that troops deployed to hardship posts such as car and mali will be instrumental in backing up the u.n.'s denial of certain countries over their records of sexual exploitation and abuse. in conclusion, it is shameful to take the high-profile sexual abuses in car and elsewhere toth pull open the curtain the

culture of impunity that exists in u.n. peacekeeping. u.n. and members of the security council are seized with developing and implementing solutions to this crisis. we have to make it right because we have no other choice. i would be happy to answer any questions you might have the. >> thank you both very much for your testimony. dr. brown, can you state why you are at present not employed? >> i believe that the reason my contract was not renewed was out of retaliation because i'm the whistle-blower. thank you. >> let me, you said something i think we may have missed an opportunity with the last panel to pursue as much as we should but, you said that 70% of the abuse is actually takes place by civilians that work directly for the united nations, is that correct? >> that's my understanding and i think it would be useful to check with the u.n. on that statistic.

and if so, i would suggest that all of the measures that are being applied to the troop contributing countries should also apply to the 70% to the u.n. staff as well. >> mr. yoe, do you agree with the order of magnitude taking place at the civilian level with direct employees?h >> there are definitely cases where civilian employees are engaged in cases of sexual expat explodetation of abuse. the 70% figure strikes my as high and work with you to figure out how the number was determined.it i agree with dr. brown'sy tool recommendation, with any tools used to investigate charges of sexual exploitation and abuse and military personnel and police contributing countries should apply to employees. >> we spend a lot of timeut talking about the sovereignty if you will and countries dealing with their own. the fact we should have spent more time, we're doing it now, just on the civil union side

itself. i'm looking through a list, and i may not be catching every single one but i think i could be, it appears to me in every single case relative to civilians, that i have access to at present, here's one with suspension, in almost every case it is a pending issue. can you share with me why that would be the case and not yet ajudicated? >> i can't comment on the figure but obviously my perspective there is a lack of accountability inside the u.n. just as there has been for the troop contributing countries and that does need to be addressed. >> let me ask you this. why, you're out in the field. you were out in the field. i know mr. yeo may have a different perspective, but what is it at the u.n. would cause them with their own employees that work directly for the united nations to to right this

and to not be more forceful in insuring this is not happening? >> i think that one thing to consider here is that this is a level of attention now being played about sexual abuse not only by police and troop contributing countries is unprecedented because of horrendous situation coming out of car. we as major 22% regular contributor the regular budget of u.n. and 28% to u.n. peacekeeping need to insist any employee of the u.n. be absolutely subject to the same forms of discipline and dismissal and justice as we aree insisting upon police and troop contributing countries. >> if i could, before dr. brown responds, why wouldn't that just be the case? c i mean, i mean just naturally why is it that the united states needs to apply pressure on the u.n. for the u.n. to want to prosecute people who work for

them who are involved in sex all exploitation? i mean don't get it. >> couple of factors at work here none of which justifies it. the factor some appointments within the u.n. system are derivative specific countries wanting to place particular employees that create this is member state politics within the u.n. system, 193 member-states, sometimes makes it difficult for member-states to want their employees to be punished.. that is not an excuse but iat think that dynamics is sometimes at work and in very unhelpful andful and wrong way. >> that works on troop side, right?t? member-states don't want actions taken against their own military personnel. >> for sure, in the case of our troop contributing countries it is a little more specific because they specifically will not contribute troops to u.n. peacekeeping missions if they do not have it total control ofve discipline of their troops.

if we insist that all discipline cases be ajudicated jointly, for instance, between the u.n. and the troop contributing countries then in fact many nations that are currently the backbone of peacekeeping may choose withdraw. that may be a price we have to pay. then the security council will have to figure out in a more systemic way how do we get morem countries into u.n. peacekeeping that actually can make sure that their peacekeepers carry out their work in ethical and principled way. to do otherwise is unacceptabled. . . se is -- your perspective, why -- why does this culture exist why would the u.n. be reticent to do with? >> i hate to say it but it reminds be a little bit of child sexual abuse in the catholic church. i think there is only now been a atlization of the problem the senior levels in the u.n.. there have been coverups.

i hope that this is an exposure rell result in changes but there needs to be some structural changes, particularly in terms of reporting. because of the mama you have multiple conflicts of interest at multiple levels. just collecting the information is problematic. human rights offices in the field often face pressures on them not to report or for example, they are having to report indicates of -- in theeir case, they might have to report other supervisors. the structures are not in place to prevent them from receivingmo retaliation. most of them are junior staff on short-term contracts. a contract is suddenly noted renewed. they can be transferred out of the location. there's no incentive for them to report, report on their colleagues.. there's no protections.

following on from that, the internal structures, for example, the office of internal oversight services lacks independence. there are so many problems in relation to accountability within the u.n. b i think these problems can be addressed, i really do. i think they can be addressed but then it's the recognition first and that's what i'm calling for. there must be recognition by the u.n. leadership that their internal problems that have tobl be fixed including in relation to these abuses that are being committed by u.n. staff but also protection for the staff who report the abuses. by u.n. staff or peacekeepers. >> my time is up but are youllie telling me that with this report that came out in 2005 which apparently was some earth shattering at the time, are you telling me that leadership at the united nations has just become aware of this problem?

>> know, they have not just become aware of this problem. but rather like the catholic church which ha is taken them se time to actually act on it. i hope they're going to act on it but they must do so. >> i think the other challenge is for sure the highest levels of the you would have knownou about this even before 2005. so the issue of whether u.n. officials knew about sexual expedition abuse that weresador taking action come as a massacre mentioned earlier her testimony, there's ongoing dialogue for over a decade between the united nations and troop contributing countries about ongoing cases. but i think it is taken this case to break it open to this high level of commitment. the other thing to consider is the u.n. security council for over a decade on both republican and democratic administrations has been pushing for increased peacekeeping missions f increasingly complex, larger missions. as a result with the u.n. comes

back and says there are none of peacekeepers in the system, there's a real tension between do we approve larger and more complex missions when we don't have enough well-trained soldiers with appropriate commit a penalty kick out thosesethis missions? it's not simply case of one individual in the u.n. running whole operation. security council has been well aware of this situation for over a decade and yet continues to approve larger and more complex missions despite the fact or not enough troops in the system. it's complex.. it >> thank you both. senator cardin. >> let me thank both of you. dr. brown, i listened to your last comment in your prepared statement. i can assure you we take the integrity of our hearings pretty seriously, so we will very much appreciate you being here and will protect the integrity of our committee process. so thank you for your

participation.n i looked at the information provided to us by the united nations, lease from the public website. they show one civilian episode in 2016, and then in 2015 i did some quick math and they showed 14 which would be about 20%. i don't necessary to believeli these are accurate numbers.cu don't get me wrong like when you replied to chairman corker, i'm not sure we're going to getha today the right numbers. i just don't know if that's available to us, but we will try.nator, i just had a conversation with my staff and i agree with senator corker, and we will be asking the first panel some additional questions for the record dealing with the united nations accountability for particularly the civilian issues. there are two parts to the united nations responsibility. one is how they, in fact,

supervise the activities of the participating countries.no what to do with the tcc's to watch the conduct. it's not a matter of sending them home. it's a matter of making sure they don't do wrong when they're in theater. that's the supervisionot responsibility which falls with the united nations. and yes, we want to take action against countries that are not responding correctly but there should be accountability withine the united nations. secondly, there needs to beo certainly responsibility of the united nations to give clear direction to its civilian workforce as to what is expected, to give them adequate training, but of adequate supervision. so again so that the conduct is clearly understood and

zero-tolerance is clearly understood. and, of course, if there are violations that there is accountability, not only in removing those individuals at holding them responsible for their actions. that may very well require the united nations to have arrangements with its way that it imposed its personnel to make sure that there ispe ofcountability for their activities. so i will be asking those types of questions of our first panel in an effort to try to see how we can complete the circle because i think you do raise a very valid point. it's fine to say that tcc's are not doing what they're supposed be doing and they should be removed, and i agree with that.s there's also the primary responsibility with the uniteded nations and those responsible at the united nations from these missions are deployed and how civilian personnel are expected to behave in making sure that

affected you carry that out or are held accountable. so i guess my point is this. have either one of you seem actions taken to do with what ii just said? is there a clear direction given by the united nations on the civilian personnel? is there clear supervision, clear training, clear ways of being able to get the information on those who are violating so that they can be removed and held accountable? is there a clear line of responsibility and accountability from the united nations to the civilians that are in these countries in which we have the u.n. missions? >> two quick thoughts, which is first of all i think it's important to note the secretary-general did remove the head of the u.n. mission inand

c.a.r. wendy's charges first came to light at i think that's exactly the type of accountability that was long overdue and necessary and will hopefully send a signal to future military and civilian commanders that we missions that are under their supervision, as you said, they are responsible for making sure the troops ared actually performing their duties in an ethical and principledrepl way. if they fail to do that then they need to be dismissed from the job. in the case of central africa republic that did occur. second default in terms of thehs civilian employees that are deployed to all of these missions receive extensive training about sexual exploitation and abuse, human rights training. but as the previous been indicated training is not a substitute for appropriate supervision of work. indicates a civilian employees we need to ensure that people that are the highest levels within each individual mission are fully responsible for the actions of their employees and at the earliest possible moment

that obligations are raised of sexual exploitation, that they are reported to the right of sorts within the u.n. system and action and investigations are taken.respon and effect the new in the response teams the u.s. established to make sure that within five to 10 days that the actual evidence of crimes related to sexual exploitation and abuse are preserved copies deploy indicates that both civilian and military employees. i couldn't agree more. >> we know that historically within military command there's always been a challenge, and particularly college reporting misconduct. we know the that our stock problems or try to take actionon to deal with that. on the civilian side, dr. brown, is it is the same type of inherent problems on reporting colleagues misconduct? >> i believe so, yes. i think there's the added company were of other problems. for example, prosecutor would require the lifting of immunity of the staff.the

also the way the system is poorly constructed it would require the u.n.'s office of internal oversight, this is to investigate and we're talking about u.n. staff investigate other u.n. staff. there are inherent conflicts of interest that would need to be addressed. >> with the immunity, they are immune from criminal prosecution in the host country? >> in theory. w >> i would also like to make it clear that secretary-general in writing has made it quite clear that no u.n. employee who was subject to sexual exportation and abuse, if they have diplomatic immunity, it will be waived. most civilian employees who are deployed as part of peacekeeping missions actually do not have diplomatic immunity. in either case secretary-general and the u.n. team has made quite clear diplomatic immunity will not -- >> knowing the countries in which the peace missions are

situated, the capacity to do with these types of issues are limited. >> that's correct.an going back to the point of the investigation itself, we have an inherent problem because you have a u.n. investigative the body investigating possibly quite a senior official in a country.il you have an inherent conflict of interest which he told the conflict of interest in my view, with the u.n. office of internal oversight services investigating a tcc, a case that tcc, or the discipline and conduct unit investigated or even a human rights officer investigating it. but when it comes to u.n. staff, the conflict of interest is exacerbated and that will need to be addressed, along with, if i may, along with the problems inherent in the reporting lines themselves because there are multiple barriers to this information moving up the chain. >> the questions i think i would ask when asked the united

nations come we don't have the right people here, what capacity do they build in countries where there are u.n. peacekeeping missions to be able to have the capacity to prosecute those who violate the laws in those on countries on sexual exploitation and abuse? that would be an interesting point is have united nations is helping the country be able to hold accountable those whot to violate these laws. >> or these employees need to be repatriated to their home countries as subject to prosecution at home. there needs to be prosecution either in country which is often a challenge or back,. >> for civilians became passionate it may even be more obligated. >> correct.dr. brown: i think so. >> back to the pressure you were talking about earlier when you've got these expanding peacekeeping needs that are complex. you have pressure for more of that to occur.

i look at the types of populations, generally speaking, that are being, quote,hese protected, i mean, is there some institutional disrespect for the types of people that these peacekeeping missions are being sent out to protect? is there something there we need to understand this because i think the disrespect that occurs is between individual soldiers and the disrespect as the result of individual actions they are taking, the crimes they're committing as a peacekeeper. but having visited many different u.n. peacekeeping missions around the world, i am honestly shocked by the willingness of these peacekeepers to serve away from their home for sometimes monthse

years on and protecting peoplein they don't even know. and they are doing it at great personal risk when you look at, for instance, the peacekeepers in bali better battling terrorist elements. there've been dozens killed, three french peacekeepers were killed yesterday in mali. at the conflict situation. i think most peacekeepers are committed to civilian protection.ut we had a wonderful american who was deployed to south sudan as part of the peacekeeping mission, and the military showed up at the gates.t they demanded he turned over all the young men in the camp and absolutely refuse. he stood indicates any said you may not coming. and as a result the people were saved. and, of course, you know, he from my perspective is a hero for saving the.people i was in south sudan. there are 200,000 people today living in these camps that largely of their lives to the fact that we have peacekeepers from around the world guarding these camps trying to do their best to protect the people inside who would otherwise be

killed by other elements within the country. so it's a very complex but i don't think there's a culture where they don't want to protect the people they're supposed to protect. i think this is a case of individual soldiers doing wrong, and they need to be punished. >> at me ask you based on what you just said. are we do you think today in this hearing getting an unbalanced view of this issue speak what no, i don't think so at all. what has happened in c.a.r., in trenton engines of sex our exportation abuse in these other countries is absolutely horrific and it gives the entire concept of peacekeeping advancing. this hearing is well time.tly it it needed to occur and most important in needs to occur a y year from now and two years from now. this is not going to be fixed overnight and we need to make sure that is bilateral and multilateral pressure for years to come so that 10 years from now we are not looking back at this and saying we worked on this 10 years ago.

10 years from now u.n. peacekeeping needs to be thee model.l. i know this is something jane holl lute, former deputy secretary of homeland security is looking at. what are the best practices for training and command control to make sure of this quixotically bar for military around thees world including the united states to make sure we can work with the countries that are the backbone of peacekeeping to improve their performance of course it is a long haul and it will require a lot of bilateral, multilateral pressure speed letl me ask the question again. because of the disrespect i was talking about is, you have the hierarchy at the united nations that has these complex missions as you mentioned and needs more in a way peacekeepers. and yet are sending out countries that are known to have

problems, i'm sorry to were as senator isakson mentioned in many places, i mean, rape is a certainly an act of war. is part of worker i was just in the balkans. it's unbelievable to know what enzi and understand and meet women who were dealt with their in that way. it was an act of war, part of war. so back to the disrespect i'm referring to. i'm talking about not the soldier to talk about at the human level. is there a sense that there is just so much in the way of need, and these populations, so what? is there something there that i'm missing? >> i think there was acceptancei of this low-grade temp what was viewed at the time as a low-grade ongoing problem, andat that acceptance extended for j years on end. notches by the highest levels within the u.n. but by the u.n. member states including members

of the security council. i don't think that acceptance is there any longer. if you look at what's new as a result of what's happened, we see for the first time ever military units being repatriated and the first time ever a policy endorsed by the security council saying no more units may be deployed if they have a track record of systematic abuse or they refuse to get back to the u.n. as to what to do in termsfo of discipline or the refused to investigate. this is the first time they've done this. this is no need to ensure that it is a force so units from the congo are not deployed in future missions unless they change the way they do business. it's got to change the u.n. is committed to that. it's been endorsed by the security council, and i think that acceptance of these practices i think is over. >> if i may, i agree entirely with what i force center up and -- mr. yeo said. the u.n. has failed itself has a

problem. and that is what needs to happen. there needs to be a recognition that itself company needs to reform itself. it is to recogniz recognize that doesn't have the template structures internally. and most of the measures thatta are applied to the tcc is must apply to the human. and furthermore that that we take great risks in reporting this sexual abuse must be protected and we've had thisthat terrible case which has just sent a chilling message to the system. that must be rectified, otherwise we are going to find people, staff will not report. >> senator cardin? >> of what you think both of our witnesses. this has been very helpful to us but it really starts with the recognition that sexual exploitation and abuse is not acceptable and it has to be carried by the top leaders. so it starts with the top leadership of the united

nations, and it has to be, not just understood by everyone in the leadership of the united nations. it has to be enforced by everyone in the hierarchy of the united nations. so that they understand that it's different than it's been in the past. doesn't mean people in the past didn't look at serious but institution didn't look at it as a series. that has to change. but it requires a cultural change. and without that you will not get that type of action that we want to see. the action we want to see is that a member country better participate in united nations understand that cannot be tolerated so the leadership impresses upon theirr lead participants that this will not be allowed and that if you are involved, it's going to be very severe.. and that you are bringing disrespect to our country's

participation and jeopardizing our stand and we are not going to allow that to happen. it's not a loud. that's which are going to have to have further to be the type of change that we want to see ae per. so yes, we have seen some encouraging signs. you mentioned some of the encouraging signs including the passage of the security council resolution, but we are far from declaring that has been accomplished and the culture of the united nations. that is something that is still a matter that many of us are concerned whether that message is clearly being broadcast the way it should. that's something we're going to continue to follow in the meantime. i suspect we will take additional action in the congress. >> we want to thank you both. hi it's been a very powerful hearing, and i think that your testimony, i hope that your testimony is going to end up affecting people and that hopefully thousands of people who otherwise would've been

sexually abused, raped, whatever, will not have that experience because of people like you who have been willing to testify in this manner. i want to build on what you just said. i mean, in essence, because united nations is providing peacekeepers that in some cases, not in every case, our sexualns abusing people, our citizenssth here who work hard every day to raise their families and pay taxes, they are basically sending money, sending their hard earned money to an organization that has been unwilling to deal with a crisis within it. and that taints america., it taints the taxpayer money that we are sending, or until for some every seven the leadership of the united nations will understand the american

people, through their elected representatives, are not going to stand for a sending money to an organization that is unwilling to do with his moral depravity that is taking place but not being willing to own up to a problem and deal with it in an appropriate way. so i can we thank you. we appreciate it very much overtime and your travel. the record will remain open through the close of business friday. and if you could respond fairly probably to questions, my sense is you want to do that. we thank you again.ng and with that, saving is adjourned. -- and with that, the meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ >> the u.s. senate will continue work to date on legislation setting federal aviation administration policies and programs. that is a procedural vote scheduled for 10:30 a.m. the legislation would authorize just over $33 billion in faa

funding in till september 2017. we could see final passage i in the weeks and. now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty and eternal god, you are hidden from our sight but we feel your presence.

incline our spirits to seek you, our minds to know you, and our hearts to love you. forgive us when we fail to hunger and thirst for righteousness. bless our lawmakers. join them in heart, mind, and soul to do their best for the common good. keep them so dedicated to your purposes that they will do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with you. lord, into your hands we commit our nation and world.

we pray in your marvelous name. amen. the president pro tempore: the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to calendar number 96, h.r. 2028. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to h.r. 20828, an act making appropriations for energy and water development and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 26, h.r. 2028, an act making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes, signed by 16 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, today the senate is closer to passing the most comprehensive aviation security reforms in years. and i hope we'll do so today. this important legislation will bolster security for travelers and look out for consumers'

interests. here's how it will help improve security. by improving vetting and inspections of airport employees to deter terrorist attacks, by expanding security measures and prescreening zones which are often vulnerable. by shoring up security for international flights coming into our airports. and by improving preparation for everything from cybersecurity attacks to active shooter scenarios to outbreaks of communicable diseases. this legislation would also benefit consumers by requiring airlines to offer refunds for lost or delayed bags by providing more information on things like seat availability and by improving travel for passengers with disabilities. it accomplishes this without increasing taxes or fees on passengers and without imposing heavy-handed regulations that diminish choice for travelers.

this important f.a.a. reauthorization and airport security legislation is the result of strong leadership by senator thune, the chair of the commerce committee, and senator ayotte, chair of the aviation subcommittee, as well as their democratic counterparts, senator nelson and senator cantwell. they worked diligently across party lines, listened to their colleagues' ideas and never stopped working toward legislation both sides could support. in the commerce committee, nearly 60 amendments were accepted from both sides and the bill passed by voice vote. on the floor, more than a dozen amendments were accepted from both sides and i'm optimistic we'll soon pass it here on a bipartisan basis. i appreciate the efforts of the bill managers who worked the amendments and moved the bill forward. this important f.a.a. reauthorization and airport security legislation was bipartisan from the start. it shows why returning to regular order is so important. it's another example of what can be achieved in this

republican-led senate, a senate we put back to work for the american people. on another matter, since an agreement reached last night, the senate is now -- thanks to an agreement reached last night the senate is poised to pass broad bipartisan energy legislation too. we have an agreement to take the energy policy modernization act back up, consider even more amendments and then take a final vote on it. i was encouraged to see the democratic leader yesterday agreeing that this is important legislation. it will support more american jobs, more american growth and more american energy independence and will finish our work soon. passage of this little will represent the culmination of more than a year's worth of hard work, countless listening sessions, oversight hearings, numerous amendment votes and debate hours and impressive reserves of determination from both the chair, senator murkowski, and the ranking

member, senator cantwell. senator murkowski and senator cantwell never gave up even when passage of this bill seemed impossible. i've been impressed by their efforts just as i've been impressed by what this broad bipartisan energy bill can achieve for our country. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i agree with the republican leader, the energy bill is a good bill. as i said yesterday, it's just three years behind time. we've tried many, many times to move forward on that. there were filibusters that took place by the republicans and we were unable to get it done. but he's right, senator cantwell and senator murkowski never gave up and they worked through lots of problems. i wish we could have taken care of flint in the process. that held things up for a little while, but not long.

and we're still looking at ways to take care of the people of flint who have been really damaged by bad government. so we're glad that flint is going to be -- will come up in the near future and we have, we think, ways of getting that done, maybe with some of the appropriations bills that we're doing. but energy is good. i'm glad we got it done. tphoup we -- now, we, mr. president, we allowed this to move forward. we have not been blocking the bill. we agree, even though the bill is long overdue, we're not going to treat people the way we were treated. so we're glad that was done. on the f.a.a. bill, i'm glad we're going to get something done. as we know, we missed an opportunity to take care of a lot of people who are desperate for help. people in the state of nevada, geothermal, they need help. fuel cells, biomass and other

energy that was by inadvertence in the drafting of the bill was left out. the republican leader said he'll take care of that and i'm confident he will. the longer we wait, the more difficult it is for people to hang on to their businesses. but i know that his job is hard, and he's told me, he's told leader pelosi that he'll get this done this year, so we're looking forward to that. mr. president, tomorrow is april 15. under the congressional budget office, that's the day by which congress is supposed to have completed a budget resolution. this republican congress will not meet tomorrow's deadline. we've known that for some time. and by all indications, they have no intention to do anything to pass a budget resolution any time soon. as the republican leader told reporters earlier this week in the absence of a budget resolution, republicans will use

top line spending numbers that were agreed upon last year. here's what he said -- and i quote -- "waiting to see if the house is able to do a budget. in the meantime i've already announced and i'll announce again today that we're going to move to appropriations next week probably starting with energy and water, and we'll mark these bills to the top line we agreed to in the agreement last year." and as you know, he a minute ago filed cloture on the energy and water bill. mr. president, if this statement he made sounds familiar, it should because that's what we did when we were in the majority. we used the top line numbers in the murray-ryan budget agreement as a basis for spending bills. republicans will begin that same process today as the appropriation process gets underway with the first full committee markup of the year. but how did republicans react when we did the same thing? mr. president, they remember falling all over themselves, speech after speech here to

criticize us. they had charts and graphs and anything to focus on there being no budget. there was over the top rhetoric. they shed crocodile tears by the bucket. they even threatened to withhold members' pay as punishment. there was legislation produced to that effect. but it was all for show. republicans promised voters that once in power they would pass a budget each and every year. that's what the republican leader promised in 2012 when he said -- and i quote -- "i don't think the law says pass a budget unless it's hard. so i think there's no question that we would take up our responsibility. we will be passing a budget every year." close quote. that was the republican pledge. give us the majority and we'll pass a budget every year. well, it's pretty clear that

they're going to break that promise. this is just the latest example of the republicans refusing to meet their commitments, refusing to do their jobs, even according to their own terms. just like the refusal to consider supreme court nominee merrick garland, we have years and years worth of statements from the republican leader and the chairman of the judiciary committee in which they said unequivocally, it's the senate's duty to consider the president's supreme court nominees. i've read their quotes on this floor endlessly. these statements go back decades. the republican leader demanding the senate give supreme court nominees all due consideration. well, all due consideration is not refusing to meet with the man, not holding hearings and not allowing a vote. but now that he and the republican leader are in a position to do something about that article he wrote in law

school and the other statements that have been made by him and the chairman of the judiciary committee, he won't give merrick garland a hearing or a vote and he won't even meet with him, even though the judiciary committee met with him in secret not in his office; a private dining room downstairs and then went out the back door, described as stumbling over chairs to vacate the premises. so, mr. president, basically what i ask is where are all the republican senators who came to the floor to bash democrats on the lack of a budget resolution? they've gone silent. i'm just asking, when are republicans going to do their job? mr. president, i see no one on the floor wishing to speak, so i would ask the chair to announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 636, which the clerk will report.

the clerk: calendar number 55, h.r. 636, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations, and for other purposes.