president when it comes to threats from terrorists or other countries. i'm not sure if the caller was referring to people in the media who question him or -- but, yeah, i think that, look, these are the kind of questions that arise in the media, we are obligated to report it. you know, for example -- hagel -- >> those questions themselves though. you know, some people say we need to get around -- behind our president, you know, we have don't behind other presidents who have taken on these challenges. >> i think in the immediate aftermath of the isis takeover, then particularly the horrific beheadings of those two american journalists, there was unity around the president. there was a, you know, expression out of the republican house, refused the president almost everything else they were gonna back and they did back, you know, his mission to supply and arm the iraqi army and kurdish rebels and kurdish

peshmerga. so, there was a unity and continues to be, for the most part, i think, on this particular issue, but at the same time, there are questions about and keep hearing them, are we doing enough, you know, is -- is this policy of what appears be to be sort of mission creep, where we dribble in additional troops bit by bit is that the most effective way going about it? >> another issue that has been there for this administration, previous ones, is middle east, the peace process, jerusalem, excuse me, israel and palestinian conflict, we are seeing violence again yesterday in jerusalem at that synagogue. secretary of state john kerry quick to condemn the attacks and call on the palestinian leader to do so as well. did he, but then also said, blamed israeli provocations. where do you think this is headed?

>> tough in east and west jerusalem, there aren't really any barriers and this was apparently, you know, conducted by israeli arabs. suddenly, there's a sense among israelising we have the enemy in our midst, too, in a way we didn't really think we had before. there wasn't a sense that you would get attacked there. will the retaliation be so severe -- >> our state will come to order, let me welcome you to the committee as the former staff director for the committee for chairman biden at the time. you know as much about the nomination process as anyone, although perhaps you're less familiar with being on that side

of the table. between your service here and the white house, you also understand the challenge of managing multiple complex situations concurrently and those experiences, i believe, will serve you well as confirmed for this position, nominee as deputy secretary of state comes at a time the united states is facing a range of critical challenges, from ebola in west africa to russian aggression in ukraine to the challenge of countering icicled in syria and iraq, to iran's continued quest for a nuclear weapons program. at the seem time, we are seeking to form new global partnerships with india in the middle east and air and looking for opportunities to expand american exports and business opportunities so there will be no shortage of critical issues you'll face. ewill require your full attention and full attention of this committee and look forward to hearing your views on all of these issues and work closely on

issues of mutual concern should you be confirmed. first most on our national security agenda is koirpgt the barbarity of isil whose terrorist ambitions threaten our national security as well as the ability of the entire region and i would like to hear from you today about the administration's views on a new icicle-specific aumf. i was hoping the committee would hear from secretary kerry or secretary hagel on the president's announced plan to work with congress on a new aumf, authorization for the use of military force, but that did not happen. i continue to believe it is incumbent that congress take the lead in authorizing the use of force. in my view -- aumf and i believe congress should act and the administration should seek expeditious congressional action. we also face a continued crisis

in ukraine where the cease-fire is collapsing az more tanks, troops and weapons cross the border into eastern ukraine and my view, provide lethal military assistance to ukraine and escalate pressure on putin. sanctions are impacting russia's economy, but putin continues on a reckless path and all indicators point to an imminent offensive to carve to you the a land bridge to crimea. i believe we must be willing to raise the cost to putin, which will only come to the provision of defensive lethal military assistance to the government in kiev. the diplomatic cal chew lations are complicated and all will be part of your portfolio as deputy secretary of state. i know there will be times when we will agree and times that we will disagree. i look forward to working closely with you. i think your experience to date

poises you to do an excellent job in this regard and i look forward to the answers to you are why questions but unless they surprise me, i look forward to supporting you. senator corchran. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for having this hearing, i want to thank mr. blanken for his service to our country and his willingness to serve in this capacity. this position is a very important position. the deputy secretary serves as the secretary of state when the secretary is out of country. a lot of people don't understand this position and it's important he is a very candid adviser to the secretary. we have had the benefit of having someone who is a

professional for 30 years. he has just left, someone who is independent, he shared the good, the bad and the ugly. and i know we had a very private conversation the other day, i hope you will be as forthcoming today as you were in our office. it's my strong sire the person who fills this position is equally as independent and has the ability to share with us, because it's our liaison to be able to make the kinds of judgments we need to make here. so, on that note, i just have to say, we have had some terse conversations in the past. when i felt like speaking for the white house, i was being -- i was being spun, i wasn't being talked to as a person about reality, i was being spun and we have a conversation about that and likely have a conversation today about that.

but obviously, this position is a very different position than someone spill. ing for the white house and painting a flowery picture. it will be your responsibility, if confirmed, to provide u.n. the kind of information and work with us directly to help us create the best foreign policy for our nation. it's my hope that during this hearing, again, you will demonstrate that independence. if you're confirmed again, i expect you to work very, very closely with us and again, i look forward to your testimony today and, again, i want to thank you. i know we talked ex-steps civil about your background and your upbringing, i hope you will share some of that during your opening comments. but i do appreciate the fact that you have an extensive background and i do appreciate your commitment to serving our country in an appropriate way. so, thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you. i know senator schumer wanted to be here to introduce you. but because of votes, we decided to move up the hearing with the agreement of the ranking member in order to try to get the bulk of this hearing in before we have a large number of votes. so, the votes are going to take a fair amount of time. so, i appreciate his willingness to come before the committee and recommend you to the committee and we will look forward to putting his statement in the record. so, let me remind you that your full statement will be entered into the record without objection. i'd ask to you summarize in about five minutes or so so we can get to the heart of questions and answers that members are going to want to hear. and i certainly invite to you introduce any family members who are here with you today, since we know that they are part of the sacrifice of serving our nation and we thank them in advance for the support they lend you in carrying out your duties. and with that, you're welcome to

proceed. >> mr. chairman, ranking member cork ran, thank you very much. and to you, to members of the entire committee, it's an honor to appear before you today as president obama's nominee to become deputy secretary of state. i'm grateful to the the for the privilege of this nomination and i'm grateful to two past chairmen of this committee, to secretary of state john kerry kerry for his confidence in me and to vice president biden, for his friendship, his partnership and his mentorship for more than a decade. it is indeed a novel experience for me to sit on this side of the dias. for six years, i served as staff director of this committee. in the majority, in the minority. i sat where mr. o'brien and mr. munson are sitting right now. in my case, behind then-senators biden, helms, lugar, hagel, dodd, kerry, obama as well as several distinguished senators who will be here today. i watched them work together in the best tradition of bipartisan american foreign policy, to

strengthen our diplomacy, to advance our interests and our values around the world. during those six years, i developed enormous respect for the senate as a whole and for this committee in particular, for its members, for its staff and for its indispensable role in shaping our nation's foreign policy. if confirmed, i will do my best to uphold the standards of professionalism that i learned here, in this room, in these halls, and i pledge to work closely with all of you to try to fulfill the potential of american leadership. there's another reason i'm very attached to this committee. it confirm hide father, donald blinken, to be ambassador to hungary. it confirm hide uncle, alan blinken, to be ambassador to belgium. and just last year, it confirmed my wife, who is sitting behind me, evan ryan, to be assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs.

so, i really hope that nothing i do today gives you cause to break this fine tradition of diplomatic service in our family. >> we hope you can do as well as she did. [ laughter ] >> thank you, mr. chairman. um, and let me just say, and ranking member corker and we have talked about this, chairman mendez, we have talked about this i recognize that if confirmed, i will play a different role. part of my current job at the white house is to explain and defend this administration's policies, including with congress. if confirmed, my new job would bring a different responsibility, to work with this committee and the leadership of the state department to vans oadvance our foreign policy and interests around the world. i have consulted with leaders i consider friends who played similar roles in the past, including bob zelleck, jim steinberg, strobe talbott, john negroponte. if confirmed, my role model would be my immediate predecessors, bill burns, a man who epitomizes the word professional, who served republican and democratic administrations alike with

integrity, with balance and with decency. let me also begin by thanking the committee for its work over the last two years. pushing forward state department nominees, this committee has played an indispensable role in translating our foreign policy vision into practice and a bringing the vision itself. and if confirmed to my new position, i would again want to work very closely with every member. if i'm confirmed, i would be coming full circle to where i started in government 21 years ago, the department of state. virtually every day since then, during my time at state, during 13 years over two administrations at the white house, on the national security council staff, and during my tenure with this committee, i have worked with the men and women of the state department. i have experienced firsthand their extraordinary leadership of our foreign policy at a tame of immense challenge and change. i've watched them do more than most americans will ever know to

keep us safe, to keep us secure, to keep us prosperous. i have witness third passion. i have witnessed their energy, i have witnessed their courage. and i have seen them bring luster and strength to a word that deserves our respect, diplomacy. just in the past year, american diplomacy has mobilized countries around the world to confront isis and ebola, to revitalize nato's commitment to the defense of its own members, that same hard-nosed diplomacy, backed by the credible threat of force, eliminates serious chemical weapon stockpiles, achieved a first step agree well iran that stopped in some respects rolled back its nuclear program. secretary kerry's personal diplomacy helped competing afghan political blocs achieve the first peaceful political transition in that country's history. and the secretary's worked tirelessly to build a secure, lasting peace between the jewish democratic state of israel and the palestinians, just as we stand resolutely with israel whenever and wherever it is

under threat. we saw american diplomacy in action this summer at the first ever u.s. africa leader summit, building new relationships among governments with the private sector to unleash next era of african growth, deepen our security partnerships. we saw at the interdevelopment bank a week ago with vice president biden bringing countries together to sport leaders of central america as they develop plans to strengthen their institutions and economies and combat the corruption, crime and trafficking that affect us here at home and just this past week, we also saw it in asia, where president obama led our diplomacy to strength nt the core institutions in asia, to enlist china in effort to roll back climate change to build greater confidence between our militaries, lower tariffs on information technology, expand visas to our students, to expand burma's democrat crat tizization, representing 40% of world gdp. ization, representing 40% of world gdp.

we all know what happened to bedford falls when george bailey was out of the picture on "it's a wonderful life." to me, it's self-evident where the world would be without american leadership in the picture on all the challenges i just mentioned. i would submit to you the question before us is not whether america is leading, for i believe we are but rather how we're leading to what ends to what effect and that is a proper subject for debate, discussion and dialogue. mr. chairman, i have submitted for the record my thoughts the answers to this question, like to leave you, if i could i wanted to give you brief insight what brought me to government service and what motivate mess every day to carry out that service. i'm very fortunate. i was born into a family that had done very well. i actually acquired four parents along the way. i'm blessed with wonderful step parents who have biffen me wonderful support in everything i have done. i grew up in new york and at a

young age, moved to france. in france shall i had the unique experience from age 9 to 18 of beginning to see the world through the eyes of others, but particularly, to see my own world through the eyes of others and i found myself decide at a young able, playing junior diplomat, trying to explain the united states to my fellow students. this was during the end of the vietnam war, the cold war, afghanistan, and i think that's what got me most motivated and interested in to do this work. but even more than that, it's the family story and i think we all come from family stories that resonate and move us in certain directions. my grandfather, my father's father, fled what is now ukraine, fleeing a pogrom, coming to the united states, like so many others, supporting his mother, his younger brother, working his way through school, sending his own sons off to harvard, including my father, who became ambassador to hungary and was in hungary and got the

hungarian government to help bring in american troops so that they can go into bosnia to protect its done wonders for our own foreign policy. and feignly, her husband, my stepfather, he was made an american by special act of congress. he served in the kennedy administration. he is among, if not youngest

survivor of auschwitz, having spent four years in the concentration camps. at the very end of the war when he was being marched on a death march out of the camps, the allies wereness have aing from one side, the russians from the other, he made a run for t and he found cover, despite the german fire. and a day later, having taken cover, he heard a sound, a rumbling sound. it was a large tank and as he looked out from his shelter, he looked out at the tank and instead of seeing the dreaded swastika, he saw something else, a five-pointed white star and he ran for the tank. the hatch opened up. he got down on his niece anticipated spoke the only three words in english that he knew and that his mother had taught him. "god bless america." and the gi lifted him from the ground into the tank into the united states, into freedom. it's those experiences from my parents, their lives, their service, that motivated me to come to this place and motivated me to want to do the job that i stand before you for consideration. so, mr. chairman, ranking member

cork ran, i'm grateful for this opportunity, i'm grateful for your consideration, i look forward if confirmed to working with everyone on this committee and i welcome your questions. >> well, thank you and that's very riveting personal history, very insightful. let me ask you a couple of questions. as you know, the president stated that's interested in engaging congress on a new aumf. and as you also may know, i am personally uncomfortable and i understand all the claims of both constitutional and other authorities under existing aumfs but personally uncomfortable on relying on the -- either the 2001 september 11th aumf and certainly the 2002 iraq aumf to prosecute action against isil. and i think if you're going to

have, as the president has clearly stated, a new prolonged military campaign, that that needs a congressionally approved a umf. so, first of all, do you agree that we should be pursuing a new isil-specific aumf? >> yes. >> the president has said that the administration would be presenting what he thinks needs to be the set of authorities in that aumf. in my own view, such an authorization for the use of military force should be specific to isil and should not -- and should include authority, i should say, to go after individuals and organizations fighting for or on behalf of isil. should be limited to three years or some other reasonable timeframe, should foreclose the possibility of a large-scale, enduring ground combat mission that we saw in iraq from 2003 to 2011 as some of the elements of

it. do you agree that those are appropriate elements of an aumf, to address the icicle-specific threat? >> mr. chairman, without negotiating the specifics today, i think the elements you have laid out as a general matter would be appropriate. i know we have had some opportunity to discuss them and those would seem to me to form a good basis for a conversation on developing new a umf. >> let me ask you about ukraine. this committee has taken a forward-leaning view on a bipartisan basis about helping the ukrainians not only financially, but also in defensive weapons. and i know there's been a ret sense by the administration to do that because we are going to "provoke the russians." well, i don't think the russians need much provoking because they seem to be acting without provocati provocation. they did it in the first

instance, when they invaded and ultimately annexed crimea through irregular forces and now, for the second time, with much less camouflage, they are engaged in having russian troops, tanks, armored vehicles, surface-to-surface missiles, some of which i witnessed when i was in ukraine taking place in the original time and now we see even after this cease-fire, it happening again. and while i applaud the sanctions that the administration has pursued and this committee has supported, the reality is that unless there is a change in putin's calculus, which includes the cost of what he is pursuing in eastern ukraine, and from every information that we have seeking for that bridge, you know, to

the sea there, that unless we change that calculus, we are just gonna see a continuous action moving forward. so, can you give me your insights, not talking about the administration, national security council, i'm talking about what your insights are if you were to be cop firmed in this position as to what you would say about those views? >> certainly, thank you, mr. chairman. um, a few things. since the beginning of this crisis, we sought to do three things. we sought to support ukraine, and i will come back to that. we've sought to impose costs on russia for its actions in ukraine. and we have sought to reassure our partners, particularly in nato. and we have been moving aggressively, at least in my jim, on all three of those lines of effort. with regard to ukraine, as you know, we have provided to date a significant amount of assistance, including about $100 million worth of security assistance and this includes everything from the infamous mres and blankets but also, as you know, things like night

vision goggles, protective vests, counter mortar radar, which is, in fact, just being delivered, communications gear, transportation gear, et cetera. we have not, you're right, provided lethal defensive assistance. part of the reason has been that in our judgment, as much as we are able to throw at the ukrainians, anyone can give them in terms of lethal support, unfortunately, if the russians choose to, they will outmatch that easily. that said, what we've seen in recent days and in recent weeks, including the blatant violation by russia of the very agreements it signed, the minsk accords, which among other things, requires it to help re-establish the international border, to make sure that ukraine has sovereignty over its own border to make sure that that border is monitored and that there's a buffer zone, instead of doing that it's gone in exactly the opposite direction. it's deployed forces to the

order, we have compelling information that those forces have been sent into ukraine and sent to the separatists and so, the question of defensive lethal assistance has never been off the table it remains on the table. it's something that we're looking at and indeed, the vice president will be in the ukraine the next few days and i'm sure that will be a topic of discussion. at the same time, mr. chairman, we have worked very hard to impose significant costs on russia for its action there is. i believe we have. the challenge is that many of those costs will play out over time, but i think some of them are already visible and they are getting more and more visible. as a result of bringing the europeans together on sanctions, repeatedly, we have seen already a significant impact on the russian economy. we have seen capital flight that is of great magnitude. we have seen foreign direct investment drying up. we have seen the ruble hit an all-time low. we have seen russia having to dip into foreign reserves, $70 to $80 billion. >> i don't mean to interrupt

you, but we have seen that, too and also seen putin continue to invade ukraine. >> right. >> and so, while i appreciate that it's not off the table, if we don't exercise the -- from my perspective, if we don't exercise the ability to give ukraine the defensive weapons, maybe russia can overpower it if chooses to do so i won't dispute that but by the same token, the consequences of how many russian sons and -- sons will be sent back to russia as a result of that has to affect putin's calculation. the problem is that as time progresses, that becomes an increasingly less likely proposition and less effective. so, i hope that you all are going to calculate that in a much more significant way because we can, yes, the sanctions are biting, yes, there are consequence he is and also, yes, they have not deterred putin from acting. let me ask you one other question, a whole universe of

the world to engage in here, so it's difficult, but let me ask you one other question. i specifically, working with senator rubio, looked at what was happening in venezuela and said to ourselves, this is amazing. here in the western hemisphere, you have a country that is violating its citizens' human rights, simply protesting against its government, repressed by military force and a country that even though it has one of the largest oil serves in the world, can't put basic commodities on the shelves for its people. and so, people protest peacefully to try to make a point to their government. we were rebuffed by the administration in pursuing sanctions against against the maduro regime. and we gave time for everybody who had some expectation of negotiations and they were gonna

get there and bring maduro to a different place and, guess what? we are in the same circumstances. we have the leader of the opposition in a sham trial, where he can't even present defenses, which is -- tells you everything about the legal system in venezuela. and if i go visit venezuela, i get the screening process i have to go through is with cuban security agents who run venezuela's security. can you really tell me that that is the -- that our policy there is a success or have we recalibrated and decided that at this point, sanctions is an appropriate way to succeed? >> mr. chairman, we share your views of the row government and his leadership. we were working with partners in latin america to see if they could, with us, and others, get some of the opposition leaders to you the of jail, move forward on electoral reform, and in

doing that, they told us that sanctions at that point might be counterproductive. and we thought it was worth letting them try, with our support to move forward. as we sit here today that has not succeeded. they tried it hasn't produced results. and so, given that, we would not oppose moving forward with additional sanctions. as you know, the administration took steps of its own this sumner consultation with congress, including visa restrictions on violators of human rights, but we would look forward to working with you to go further. i think there is still an opportunity to try to get a reformed electoral commission that brings the opposition onto the commission that has congress do that before it gets pushed to the supreme court, where, of course, nothing will happen. i think that's worth a shot and i'd lake to be able to work, if confirmed, with you on that. i would also say that your agencies actually right. maduro is going to have increasingly difficult problems

delivering for his people. he needs oil to be at about $85 a barrel. and it's, of course, lower than that in order for him to make good on his social contract. that's not happening, so i think the squeeze is getting tougher and tougher. last thing i will say on this, my cousin went to school with leopold lopez, i hear from her regularly about his status and what we are doing to help him. >> senator corker? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i, too, want to thank you for sharing compelling stories of your family and desire to serve in this watch i think you know this, because we had this conversation, i'm sure you've read this.

a has been cautious, has had intern aal debates that protract. things fester, things get worse, it's very difficult to overcome, as your conversation with chairman menendez about ukraine. is do you believe you have the abilities in this other position to be a bore against this cautious naval gazing and bring clairity to foreign policy in a way that would allow our nation to move ahead and show the leadership that you talked about in your opening comments? >> thank you, senator. you know, in my current job, my role has been to try to bring what we call the interagency together so that every voice is

heard as we deliberate policy. is a we bring all of these judgments to bear and try to lift up a recommendation to the cabinet and the president. part of that is a deliberative process to make sure that everyone's heard and we factor everything in. if i move over to the state department, if confirmed, my job, among other things, will be to advocate strongly for the position of the state department in those interagency deliberations. to do that, and to try and move the process forward, and to get -- get decisions made. secretary kerry is someone who is a, as you know, a very passionate and energetic participant in that process. we work very hard to deal with what is an extraordinary number of challenges that are all coming so it seems, at the same time, but i pledge to you that if confirmed, that is exactly what i will try to do. i have to say, i've tried to do

that in my current job. i recognize the frustrations that emerge. and it's something that i will continue to try to do if confirmed. >> thank you for that and i know that's the same answer you gave in the office and i appreciate that. on ukraine, to get specific, will you be urging, if confirmed, secretary of state to give lethal assistance to ukraine now? >> senator, i believe that that is something that we must look at and look at -- >> looking at is one thing. we have been looking at it now for a long time. the question is yes or no, in this new position, as you leave the white house where you have to be a part of whatever is decided there, will you, again, just to raise the cost, we understand that russia is always going to be able to overwhelm a country like ukraine, but will you, yes or no, urge the secretary of state to pursue a policy of arming with lethal support, appropriate lethal support, that they are ready

for, ukraine? >> i know this may not be a satisfactory answer. here's what i can say. i have to keep what counsel i would give -- what counsel i give now to the president, what counsel i would give to the secretary of state, if confirmed, private. that would be part of the job. but let me say this. >> what is your own view? >> so, i believe that given the serious russian violation of the agreement that they signed, the minsk accord, that one element that could hopefully get them to think twice and deter them from further action is strengthening the capacity of the ukrainian forces, including with defensive lethal equipment. so, that's why i think that's something that we should be looking at. >> that's not as satisfactory as our conversation the other day, but i understand we are in a public setting. um, the math that the chairman

discussed, it's been the tradition, it's the standard that when an aumf is sought a administration seeking an aumf and sends a draft of what they would like it to be and we begin the negotiations. do you believe that it is appropriate if an aumf is going to be written that the administration explicitly seek that and that you in your office are up here with a draft had direct negotiations in seeking that, yes or no? >> senator, first, can i just thank you the committee, you personally, the chairman, for the work you have done in the past on the syria aumf a year ago, on the aumf most recently. as you know, we have said we would welcome an aumf, and i can tell you not only would we welcome it, we would like it and we would lake to have a

targeted, focused aumf that deals with the challenge before us, which is defeating icicle. the question is what is the best way to get something that gets bipartisan support? bus we are much stronger if the executive branch and the legislative branch are working together and acting together, especially on issues of war and peace. and if we can get an uaumf that gets broad support, there's no question we will be better off. we have engaged, as you know, with you, with other members of congress in recent weeks on an aumf. >> you have not engaged. that's totally untrue. >> well, i know we have engaged with certain members, let me tell that you going forward from today, absolutely actively engage with you and other interested members to come up with an aumf answer something that's needed. ing focused on isil, that preserves the authors the president needs to take action

in the national interest and, i hope, has everyone coming together so that we can demonstrate we are united. the short answer, we want to work with you on that we want to work with you on that in the days and weeks ahead. >> a very important component, seeking an aumf, explicitly, is laying out what it is the administration hopes to achieve. it's a very important element. i know when this was all announced this fall, this was a half baked deal. i actually believe that general allen and others are putting some elements together that are beginning to make some sense. i think it is very important, beginning to make some sense, i might add, very important to explicitly ask for it, come up here and explain fully, both in classified settings and public settings, what the nation can expe expect as an outcome, if, in

fact, this is authorized. on iran, do you believe that congress, who put the sanctions in place, working with the administration no doubt, do you think that congress should have the right to vote on a deal that is maybe one of the biggest geopolitical decisions that's going to be made by this nation in the event an agreesome reached with iran? >> senator, congress will vote on any deal it will have to vote on any deal, because any deal at the end of the day would include, at some point, the lifting of sanctions. >> but if you suspend sanctions, which you can do, certainly the permanent lifting we have to vote on. the moment you suspend sanctions, you break apart the international coalition and you know that. iran knows that, that's why they have been urging you to suspend,

we know that. because they know the moment you do that and a actually begin the actual lifting under that expansion, you have broken apart the entire coalition that has put these sanctions in place. so do you not think on the front end that congress should play a role? i'm not talk about the permanent lifting that could be years down the road, i'm talking been at front end? >> our view would be we would not suspend sanctions until iran has taken significant steps to comply with any agreement that's reached. we have to see that first before suspension. >> i understand that. then precisely because the hammer that congress has wielded and held over the headsle of iranians so effective, keep that in place as long as possible and make sure there is a snap back provisions if any sanctions are suspended, not lifted, if iran violates the agreement or cheats in any wake the sanks can be snapped back with some auto mattisity to avoid the problem

that you rightfully raised. stepping into an independent position, iffen could firmed, do you believe we should have the opportunity to given a approval over an agreement that has so much to do with the future of that region and our -- and world? >> >> i think if we get to an agreement and are able to reach one, one of the things we need to talk about and work together on is how we can most effectively work together to make sure it is implemented and the iranians make good on their commitments. there maybe schemes under which congress acting at certain times and certain ways will make that

more effective. we should talk about that. not knowing right now what any deal is going to actually look like, what the terms will be, the commitments will be, the timelines will be, i think it is something we should come back and talk about and figure out how we can most effectively continue to work together to make sure any deal is implemented. thank you. >> senator cork ran. >> mr. blanken, thank you very much for your public service and thank you for sharing your family's story. it's inspirational. i just want to underscore the point that senator corker just made because i think there's bipartisan support for the comments that we must be together. and i think there is concern. first, i want to compliment the administration for keeping the coalition together and keeping the sanctions in the position where it has kept iran at the negotiating tables. you have been effective in doing that. there is concern that there will

be some agreements reached in the near future, by the 24th, that may take some action by the united states that could jeopardize the unity of the sanctions moving forward. and i would just urge you in the strongest possible terms to work with congress so that we are together on the strategy moving forward with iran. our greatest hope is that you reach a comprehensive agreement that prevents iran having a breakout capacity for nuclear weapons, inspections and et cetera. we hook forward to that. if that's a not the case, critically important that we understand and are together on the strategy moving forward, and that we are okay in our resolve that iran will not become a nuclear weapon state and i would

urge to you listen to what senator corker said. i think there's strong support in congress for the statements that he made. i want to underscore a point that senator menendez said, talking about sanctions in our hemisphere you have imposed on visas, applaud the administration for imposing visa restrictions in hungary in regard to six individuals implied in corruption. senator mccain and i have authored legislation that would make the men knit ski sanctions global, which are basically visa bans, but add the ingredient that congress can initiate a required review by the state department on matters that we believe should be a subject to consideration of visa restrictions. you and i had a chance to talk and i very much appreciate your commitment to basic human rights and your understanding that the u.s. national security very much depends upon a stable regime respecting human rights and that

we need to be more open about that and more -- making that more of a priority. my point for raising that is that i will be looking for your leadership as to how we can move forward while making clear that this country stands strongly in support of human rights on our partners and that we will look at ways that countries are fighting corruption u scrape a good case and example, all outraged by what russia has done, provide a great deal of support, working with their committee, but they need to deal with their problems of corruption, just had a hearing of the helsinki commission today and that was the centerpiece. i want to ask you a question, following up on the point that i raised in regards to a provision dealing with the mineral rights of countries and the provision that was included in the today frank law, known as the cardin lugar provisions that the s.e.c. is still struggling with,

requires transparency from the extractive industries. the s.e.c. sent back -- the courts sent back their first rulings because of first amendment concerns and it's now prepared to issue its new regulations. and the reason i bring it up is that the s.e.c. is required to consider first amendment issues, which they should, and one of the major concerns that was expressed by the administration when dodd frank was moving forward of our need for stable energy supplies and the importance for transparency and for the importance of investors knowing what countries are doing, where the funds are going, and it's my understanding that the communication from the state department and as minute station could be critically important to the s.e.c. in underscoring the importance to our country of stable energy supply. i would just urge you to please follow up on that because time is running on this issue. if you want to respond, that's

fine. >> thank you very much, senator. let me just say very quickly, if confirmed, i welcome following up, even if not confirmed, if there's anything i can do to be helpful. the white house, you still have a day job. for the time being. thank you. and with -- i just wanted to underscore one thing you said, because i think it's so important. corruption ant work that you've been doing and other members of this committee have been doing to combat corruption. one of the things i think that's common denominator around the world of virtually every popular movement we've seen, whether it's in ukraine or whether it's the arab spring, has been people rising up in disgust at corruption. it is one of the most powerful instigators of change. we have been working in a very deliberate way over the last six years to focus on this issue. i think there's more that we can do and particularly more that we can do working with congress. and one of the issues i would

welcome working on if confirmed with you and other members of the committee are the efforts the united states is making to combat corruption, because we see it everywhere as an instigator of change and there are ways that we can use it effectively to help advance the kind of change that we'd like to see. >> i thank you for that and i agree with you completely. tunisia, ukraine, it was about corruption. it wasn't about who was the president or who was in government. we just saw the recent tragedy in israel at the synagogue. barbaric act. three americans were killed. one was a relative of a state of mine, jim karen freedman. so this hits us, against our own country in a way. if this happened in america, there would be justified outrage and demand that our country take steps to protect the security of our country. israel's always seems to be placed on the international front on the defensive in defending the own people.

its only strong ally is the united states. will you continue to speak up for israel's obligations to defend its steps against these types of barbaric actions and preparing itself to defend the security of its own country? >> absolutely. senator, the united states has, is and will continue to stand accept try, even if it's alone, against threats to israel and against any attempt to undermine israel's legitimacy. we do it day in, day out around the world, in international organizations. secretary kerry is often at that post again, alone sometimes. we will do it as long and as hard as it takes. we will always be there. um, what we saw this week was especially barbaric. any terrorist attack is horrific. to do something in a place of

worship is even beyond the pale of what we have seen before. you heard the president condemn it immediately. the secretary of state was on the phone with prime minister president abbas condemned it. unfortunately, we saw hamas' true colors come out in a statement glorifying. these murderers represent the extremism that threatens to bring the region into a blood bath. so i think the first job and it's incredibly difficult, especially when passions are high was for leaders to work to lower tensions, to reject violence. because majorities want peace. they want to work toward that. and we will work with anyone that wants that. we will work to isolate anyone who doesn't. i have to tell you, as well, these kinds of attacks are personal to me. i have a cousin who lives in tel aviv with her husband, her daughter, two sons.

the daughter recently completed her military service. during gaza this summer, her eldest son was in military training and, indeed, he was training for the engineering unit that was the one that was going into deal with the tunnels and the bombs. he wasn't deployed during gaza. but he's now deployed. and another son is coming -- we were getting e-mails from her throughout the summer about what it was like to live under the threat of these rockets and terrorist tunnelling underground to try to kill or capture civilians. and she talked about how the bomb shelter they had at home, usually a storage room, now a bomb shelter. she talked about how riding to work on her bike, she would ride with one ear piece out so she could hear an air raid siren. she talked about living on a 90-second timer. that's how much time you have to get to a bomb shelter if the siren goes off. so this is something that i feel is real, it's visceral. we also saw the terrible tragedy

of civilians and children being killed in gaza. and i thought to myself, as well, getting these e-mails from my cousin. . what are mothers and fathers writing home to their families here about what they've experienced? and we have to somehow remember the humanity that lies at the heart of the situations. this is at the end of the day about men and women, mothers and fathers, daughters and sons. if we lose sight of that, we really lose. but, one thing is for sure. and it's unshakable. we have a fundamental commitment to israel's security and to stand with israel whenever and wherever it is under threat. i'm very proud of the record of this administration in doing just that and it's something that will continue as long as

we're acting. >> thank you. thank you now. let me for the edification of the members advise you of what my intention is. my intention since there are votes at 3:00 is to ask senator kane take the chair shortly before i vote and go back. keep this going as long as we can so members can get their questions in. and so, if you're a little further down the rung before asking your question, you might want to go vote so you can come back and ask your question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. monday is the 24th of november. what can we expect on monday? >> senator, as you know, the negotiating teams are engaged at this very moment. >> understand. >> working toward an agreement. >> and so, i don't want to what may happen or may not happen. right now, i think it's going to

be difficult to get to where we want to go. it's not impossible. depends entirely on whether iran is willing to take the steps it must take to convince us, to our convince our partners that its program would be for entirely peaceful purposes. as we speak, we're not there. the secretary of state is prepared to engage directly and personally if we have enough to go on to move this over the goal line. but it is literally a minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour thing. i was getting e-mails before coming here. as we speak, i can't tell you what to expect. i can tell you that in the days ahead, as we move toward the 24th, we will continue to be in very close consultation with you, with the members of the senate, members of the congress on where we are, where this is going. and then, depending on where this goes, to work with you to figure out what the most effective next steps would be. i wish i could tell you, you know, today, are we going to get a deal? not going to get a deal? i can't.

let me add one thing, though. we have been very clear that we will not take a bad deal, period. any deal that we achieve has to effectively cut off iran's pathways. it has to deal with the iraq facility and its ability to develop a weapon through a plutonium path. the buried facility where it was before the interim agreement producing 20%. it has to deal with an effort to accumulate a large number of centrifuges, large stockpile and be able to produce material for a bomb very quickly. and it has to deal as effectively as possible with the potential for a covert program by having an unprecedented inspection in access regime. and we'll also have to deal with the dimensions of the program, with missiles and the sanctions piece we talked about earlier. so as you evaluate anything that we're able to produce, you will

rightly and appropriately evaluate it against all of those lines. that's what we need to be talking about as this moves forward and i pledge to you that in the days ahead and the weeks, we will be in very close contact as we see if we can get there. >> i appreciate that. i -- the operative words here are good deal versus bad deal. i've heard people from the state department sit in the exact same chair you're sitting in and describe the last couple of deals as good deals. and i have to tell you that, i speak for myself but i think probably for some other members of this committee. and that is -- our understanding of what a good deal is differed greatly from what the state department's version of what a good deal was. i was very critical of it and i certainly hope i don't have to be put in that position again. we told the secretary of state

just that -- what the administration has been saying. no deal is substantially better than a bad deal. once that bad deal happens, you will never get that genie back in the bottle again and we're going to have to wind up living with what could be a very, very difficult situation. so i caution you in that regard. i hope our definition and the state department's definition of what is a good deal substantial closer to the same point than it has been in the past. let me make a parochial pitch here i have over and over again. and particularly to wendy sherman who sat in that chair. i have a constituent -- there is absolutely no reason he should be in prison in iraq. in addition to that, there's two other americans that are there that are under the same circumstances that shouldn't be

there. it absolutely escaped logic to me why we released the billions of dollars that we did without demanding that those three be released before a penny changed hands. i just don't get it. knowing how badly those people wanted the money. i cannot understand why that wasn't the last consideration, the last, the last requirement that was put on the table before the money changed hands. i heard wendy sherman talk about it. there was a lot of talk. i still don't understand it. one more time say, if you do get close to that, that ought to be paragraph number 236, or whatever the last paragraph is. this thing doesn't become operative until those three people walk free. and, again, just listening to you, i -- i don't -- i don't sense a lot of optimism that we're going to get to that point, but should we get to that point, i want to urge you in the

strongest terms to see those three people are turned loose and can -- we can welcome them back here to america and my constituent -- thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator, first of all, thank you. and i want you to know that every single day, we are working for the release of any other unjustly imprisoned american around the world. this is something that we are not only focused on, we're fixated on. the only other thing we talked about in these conversations are the american prisoners who are there. and this is something we are determined to resolve. we are determined to bring our people home. you have my assurance if i'm affirmed for this job, that will be at the very top of my agenda. >> thank you very much. and if i can put more strength

into that, there's a human side of this, she has children, the children have not seen their father for some time. they have family there. they have a close circle of friends there. and this has a human component that doesn't get talked about. their father, their husband home very badly. and i'm glad to hear what you're saying. but i'll be much happier when actual action takes place. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for both being here today and your willingness to continue to serve the country. i want to follow up on the senator's questions about the iranian negotiations. because reports about those negotiations have suggested t t

that, as you just did, that we are not close to reaching an agreement, and that another extension might be something that people could agree on. what -- what positive signs or movement do we need to see in order to agree to another extension. i would assume we would all argue unless we think there's some reason to continue these negotiations, we should not do that if they're not going anywhere. >> senator, thank you. we're driving to the 24th. we want to see if there's an answer to the requirements. right now if i'm judging where we are, i think it'll be difficult to get there but not impossible. and it depends on whether iran can get to yes. and the short answer is we don't know. i don't want right now at this

delicate moment in the negotiations in a public setting to get into the details because we really have to leave that, and you'll understand why, with the negotiators. however, i know that some of my colleagues were up on the hill yesterday in a closed session going through in much more detail some of the elements of what we're looking for. i know that in the days ahead, we will be doing more of that. and i would welcome any opportunity to certainly to talk individually or collectively in the right setting on those issues. but at least as a public matter, i have to leave it to the negotiators to try to have the flexibility to do the job and get the job done. >> well, thank you. again, to follow up on the senator, i do hope that in looking at an extension of negotiations that we have some clear signs, there's potential for movement if we are going to extend on our end.

to follow up on what's happening with isis. can you talk a little bit about whether the progress -- whether they're making sufficient progress on engaging with the sunni population so we're seeing any real change there? >> senator, you've raised a critical question. and it goes to the heart of what we're trying to achieve and, indeed, what's necessary to achieve if there's going to be success against isil. one of the many failures of the previous iraqi administration that it failed to not only engage but address the legitimate grievances of the sunni community. and that created an environment in which large parts of that community either acquiesced to isil, because it thought it was

the only way to advance its interests. when maliki was here in november of 2013, i think before isil was on the map for many people. the president said in their meeting, the number one challenge you have is al qaeda and iraq, and we want to give you, and we are working to give you the equipment and assistance you need to deal with it as a counterterrorism and military matter, but that's not enough. you have to deal with this problem comprehensively, you have to engage the sunnis, address the legitimate grievances, otherwise we will not succeed. the new government was one of the conditions that the president said before launching the comprehensive effort that we're making to counter isil and ultimately defeat it. precisely because absent a government that would willing to engage the entirety of iraq to work with the sunnis, to work with the kurds, that strategy couldn't effectively succeed. what we've seen, i think, is

significant progress. i was in iraq about four weeks ago for a week. i spent a lot of time with virtually all of the leadership in baghdad on all sides, military leaders, economic leaders, president, prime minister, head of the council of representatives, political party leaders. and what i found was that virtually everyone was giving the benefit of the doubt to the prime minister and the new leadership to try to move the country forward. he's taken a number of very significant steps already. first, the former prime minister maliki had established something the office of the commander in chief to basically short circuit the military and have it report directly to the prime minister's office and make it his personal service, which was a disaster. the prime minister eliminated that office and fired the people in charge. last week, he fired 36 generals, many of whom were beholden to the previous government, had a sectarian agenda, or were incompetent. that was significant. and maybe most significant of all, there's a national program

that they need to move forward on to address legitimate grievances to the sunnis, but also, they are seized with an idea that we've been working with them on and that is to form a national guard. what that would do would be to enlist from local communities and provinces people to protect those communities and provinces. and so in the sunni areas, you would be enlisting sunnis to protect their own. but they would be tethered to the state because it would pay their salaries and provide them with equipment. this would build on and institutionalize something so successful in the 2006/2007 period and that was during the surge. it's going to take a little while to get that stood up. meanwhile, we've been working with the iraqis and the government is pushing this on a bridging mechanism to get there. how can we now deal with the fact that many of these tribes want to work with the government. they see their future is better with iraq than it is with isil, but they need support, equipment, they need money.

so the government is working on a program with our support to bring in about 5,000 tribesmen to pay them, equip them and working with iraqi security forces right now to deal with isil. so i came away from my most recent trip and virtually daily engagement believing that the prime minister is moving things in the right direction, he's reaching out, engaging. and if that succeeds, that offers real promise to our overall efforts. >> thank you. i'm almost out of time. but when we spoke on the phone, we talked about the special immigrant visa program and the need to make sure that moves forward. and i wonder if you can tell me what we're hearing from afghanistan now as we're looking at the drawdown of our troops and the importance of that program and whether we're going to be able to provide the visas that are required for the people who are being threatened.

>> senator, first i want to commend your leadership on this issue. it's been absolutely inspirational in answering about obligation i believe we have. that is this program addressed to specifically to people in iraq and afghanistan who have gone to work with us who put their lives on the line for us, who put their families on the line by their association with us deserve our every effort if they qualify to bring them to the united states and out of harm's way. this is something that i've been focused on in my current capacity. it's something i believe in deeply. in afghanistan, in a sense because of the success that we've had, we're running up against the limit. and we need to be able to do more. we want to work with you very actively and aggressively to be able to do that. because we can't abandon these people who put themselves on the line for the united states. so i look forward, if confirmed, to working with you on those issues and i really thank you

for everything you've done today. >> thank you very much, thank you mr. chairman. >> senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, thank you for your service and willingness to serve. i want to first acknowledge the fact that these issues you're dealing with, these problems, challenges are enormously challenging. nothing easy about them whatsoever. and i guess what i want to try and find out during my questioning is, you know, have you -- has this administration learned from in the past misjudgments, past mistakes. are we willing to recognize reality? talked a little bit earlier about ukraine. you know, i've heard members of the administration repeatedly talk about how vladimir putin is looking for off ramps. i believe vladimir putin is looking for nothing but onramps. can you give me your evaluation of that? do you really think he's looking for a way out of this? a way -- you know out of this situation? or is he really looking to continue to be aggressive. >> thank you very much, senator.

in my judgment, president putin has managed to precipitation virtually everything he sought to prevent through this crisis and the aggressive actions he's taken in ukraine. ukraine is now more western oriented than it's ever been and indeed more of a national identity than it's had. and in effect, even with the terrible aggression in eastern ukraine and crimea, he's lost the bulk of the country. he has precipitated, as well, nato being more energized than it's been, more based on energy security and we've talked a little earlier. >> i really want my question answered, is vladimir putin looking for off ramps? >> to get to your question, it's an important one, i agree, senator. here's the challenge, this is at least in my judgment, what's happened is this, president putin has probably lost his ability as a result of their own mismanagement of the economy and in my judgment, as a result of the pressure exerted to deliver effectively for his people

economically and, of course, oil prices have played a big part in that. that leaves him with one card, and that's the nationalist card. and when you play that card, i think in the short-term, it can be beneficial. you rally people around the flag, your numbers go up, and we've seen that. here's the problem, if you stop playing the card, people then start to focus on the fact that actually things aren't going so well and you've led them down the wrong path. this is the challenge. he does need an off-ramp, otherwise he'll keep playing the card, he'll keep taking steps that are dangerous and destabilizing and that are going to create even greater conflict. so we thought and we continue to believe that the agreement that russia signed was an appropriate off-ramp if that's what you like to call it for russia and a way moving forward to help ukraine gain the sovereignty. >> i thought the president

poroshenko gave an incredible speech. what was the white house's reaction to@poroshenko reminding all of us that you can't defeat soviet aggression -- >> the president met with him, the vice president and others. and, you know, and we've talked about this a little earlier in this, in today's session. we have worked very hard to support ukraine across the board. we have worked to develop international support for its economy. we produced a package initially of $27 billion of the international financial institutions, the europeans and others. we're working now as you know -- >> we covered that ground. what was the reaction? did it have any effect whatsoever on this administration's attitude? >> so you asked, you asked at the outset, senator, do we go back to -- do we re-visit things. and the short answer is, yes, we do.

to the ukrainians as well as technical advice, assistance, et cetera. that said, as i said earlier, we're continuing to look actively every day at other forms of assistance, including defensive -- >> got that. let's shift to isis and in iraq. historic blunders, not leaving the stabilizing force behind in iraq to be the glue to hold the coalition together. what was your reaction? january of 2013 when you heard president obama basically imply that isis was a jv team. did that surprise you the president of the united states would say something like that? >> so, senator, i think the context of those comments was a distinction between terrorist groups that were focused inwardly and did not have an agenda that planned to attack the united states or

international internationally focused on their own countries. that's my recollection of it. >> my recollection is you had a president of the united states trying to minimize the threat of a group like isis. were you aware of the growing menace represented to not only the region but also to the world? >> absolutely. >> let me tell you a little bit about that. and we can certainly talk about the drawdown and withdrawal at the end of 2011. and i'm happy to come back to that. from the moment we withdrew our troops from iraq, we worked literally from january of 2012, work our way back in to help the iraqis develop a more effective means to deal with what was then al qaeda and iraq and became isil. we said to the iraqis at the time, you are making a big mistake if you take your foot off the throat of aqi.

at that time, they were down. the senior leadership had been decimated. but the fact of the matter is, at that point in their history, they wanted america out of iraq. >> do you agree that was a mistake to not leave a stabilizing force behind iraq? >> so i believe we tried to leave a stabilizing force precisely because we thought having the ability to help the iraqis develop a more effective counterterrorism means was necessary going forward. from 2012 on, we started to work aggressively to help them build up their capacity to deal with counterterrorism. we worked with them on developing targeting cells, bringing more intelligence in. 2012 was an exercise in frustration. i worked with david petraeus who was the cia director at the time to do that. the arab league summit came around in march of 2012.

and we thought that was a means to get better eyes on what was going on in iraq, including the al qaeda threat. it became public, they wouldn't do it. but let me quickly tell you what happened after that. 2013 rolled around. and all of a sudden the iraqis began to be seized with the problem because they saw isil emerging in syria and spilling over into iraq. they saw they had a problem we'd been warning them about. we led an effort and i led an effort to make sure we were getting to the iraqis the equipment they needed, the technical advisers and assistance say needed, the targeting cells, the isr, started to work with congress on getting more. and throughout 2013, i led 14 meetings of the deputies committee on that very issue. we were seized with this before isil was -- >> just one quick question, when you lay out a goal, do you think it is wise to signal to your

enemy what you may or may not do to accomplish that goal? in other words, no combat troops on the ground? do you think that's wise to signal. do you think it's wise to signal that to your enemy? >> so, what we have focused on in designing this campaign to deal with isil is a comprehensive effort that works on a military line of effort but also dealing with a foreign financing, dealing with the fighters, dealing with ideology. we believe that it is not necessary and, indeed, it is not sustainable to have a repeat of what happened a decade ago, which was to have a large and indefinite american deployment of forces into iraq or anywhere else to deal with this problem. -- advisers and they will then do the fighting to fight for the future of their own countries.

i believe that in iraq, we have the foundation and the makings of being able to do just that. we're working on the same thing in syria. we believe that's the most effective and sustainable way forward to deal -- >> i'm sorry. >> senator murphy. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. votes on the floor. i'm going to try to be brief. couple of questions. thank you for your service. long days, long nights, not going to get any shorter in your new capacity. i want to ask you a question about your new job. done a good job of defending the administration's policy here this morning. the "new york times" wrote a brilliant book a few years back about the massive build-up of military capabilities and the great frustration that exists at elements of the state department when they are trying to conduct diplomacy abroad. he specifically was writing about a period from 2010 to 2012 in pakistan when they don't know what is coming at them from

secret drone strikes in that instance but other activities in other parts of the world. we find the same frustration here when we are trying to evaluate whether or not we should authorize an overt arming and training of syrian moderate rebels. and we asked the question, what have we learned from the activities that have been openly reported thus far? we can't get that information. it strikes me that we have seen a massive outsourcing over the last ten years of diplomacy from the state department to the military. and a substantial outsourcing of military activity from the department of defense to the cia and to covert authority. you're moving from having an umbrella view of all of those activities to now a narrower window within the state department and i think you will find many people in that agency who have some serious questions about whether they can do their

job when you have this level of activity occurring without oversight from the state department or from this committee, which is charged with overseeing american foreign policy. i would love your thoughts about what mentality you're going to bring to the state department having viewed this in a more robust lens at the national security staff. >> thank you. i think it's a very important question, and it's one that we grapple with literally every day. part of my responsibility right now in my current job. indeed, it's at the heart of the responsibility, is to bring the entire inner agency together on any problem. to make sure that not only is every perspective and voice heard, but to make sure, indeed, that each agency and department knows what the other is doing. and so, when we have a meeting of the so-called deputies committee that i chair, not only is every agency there that's

relevant to the question, we bring in thanks to video technology, our ambassador from the field, we bring in as appropriate in the field. we bring in the relevant combatant commander or general in the field. precisely because we want to make sure that everyone knows and has full visibility on what everyone else is doing. and to make sure that the appropriate agencies and actors are the ones carrying out the appropriate responsibilities. that's something that is essential to the proper functioning of our government and foreign policy. and it's something i focus on every single day. if i'm confirmed and move over to the state department, i will get to move one seat down on that table off of the chairman's seat and one seat down. but i will continue to bring that perspective. and it's the only way we can

function effectively. our ambassadors have to know what's going on from other agencies. the other agencies need to know what our diplomacy is doing. that kind of communication, coordination, if it doesn't happen, it doesn't work. >> i would just argue for an historical realignment whereby diplomats are doing diplomacy, war fighters are doing what they do best and that our covert agencies are gathering intelligence, they've always done operations, this is an unprecedented scale. just one question on russia and ukraine. all of the conversation has been about -- most of the conversation on this committee has been about whether we arm or don't arm the ukrainians. seems to me a lot of the conversation misses the broader picture, which is that russia is employing a set of tools that is unprecedented. somebody referred to a new phrase i hadn't heard of yesterday that russia has militarized information. they are using information

propaganda, payoffs, support for ngos in a way that we have no understanding of and no ability to match. now, we don't necessarily want to go tit for tat. but instead of spending all this time talking about what specific arms going to give to the ukrainians, we should be paying attention to what russia's doing today in latvia, serbia to prep the next set of crises. and hopefully this committee will be able to grapple with the need to have a much more robust conversation about how we meet those new russian tactics. and hopefully, i think you understand that, but it'd be great to see real proposals coming out of the state department, some new innovative proposals about how we revamp programs so it has any semblance of a chance to match up against what the russians are providing

in the periphery of their area of influence. >> senator, let me say briefly that is something that if confirmed i would welcome working with you and other members of this committee on. you're exactly right, russia has a panoplea of tools. we see it in the ukraine, the balkans and places farther flung. and, for us to be effective, we have to be focused on that, as well, and indeed, we are. it's something we welcome working on with you. we have just a small point on this, and in the context of ukraine, we immediately stood up an effort that our undersecretary of public diplomacy has been running to work on countering the messaging, which is very, very strong and effective. you know the russian propaganda machine at home. and that's something we're

working on vigorously every day. but the larger point you make, an area where we could very profitably work together and i welcome doing that if confirmed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on march -- oh, by the way, over the weekend, i was at a seminar and a panel with former secretary gates, secretary panetta and also former national security adviser mr. hadley. all of them strongly disagree with every one of your assertions here. particularly about the american power and influence throughout the world. including, the fact they said, again, includes ryan crocker, have all said the administration could've succeeded in keeping u.s. troops in iraq after 2011 if it had been more creative and determined. you and i had that discussion in

my office. and you made some assertions, which are just patently false, which is very disappointing to me. in march 2012, you said and i quote, what's beyond debate is that iraq today is less violent, more democratic and more prosperous than -- and the united states more deeply engaged there than any time in recent history. >> i vehemently disagreed with that at the time. so did the rest of us. will you admit you were wrong in that assessment? >> senator, at the time. >> yes or no, will you admit you were wrong? >> at the time, i stand behind the words i said at the time. i think they accurately reflected -- >> even though we knew, we knew that if all the troops were going to be removed that the ensuing situation would evolved and predicted it. and you were celebrating the fact that we had no more troops left in iraq. you celebrated it. and so did the president last

troop, combat troop is left. and by the way, the baghdad chief of the "new york times" said the administration was ignorant of reality and, quote, did not want to see what was happening because it conflicted with our narrative that they left iraq in reasonably good shape. you did not leave iraq in reasonably good shape. and the events afterwards directly negated your assessment at the time. and it's very disappointing to me that you won't admit you were wrong. you were wrong because you said you were leaving behind a prosperous and less violent, more democratic -- and none of that than any time in recent history that it was just -- now, i'd like to ask you questions. do you believe that we should be providing the ukrainian resistance with weapons, lethal weapons which defend themselves now. not whether it's on the table, or not. you believe we should be supplying them with weapons in

order to defend themselves. >> senator, i can say is, we need to consider that. >> i'm asking whether you believe we should be giving them the weapons, or not. that's a straightforward question. >> senator, you'll understand that the advice that i provide to the president -- >> i'm not asking for your advice, i'm asking for your opinion, you're supposed to be coming before this committee and give us your views. >> my belief is that can play a role, potentially in -- >> let the record show, mr. chairman, that the witness would not answer the question. now, i -- >> i would let the record reflect that the witness answered the question as he did. >> excuse me, would not answer either in affirmative or negative in response -- you wouldn't answer in response to the question. the question i will ask one more time, do you believe we should be supplying the ukrainians with lethal defensive weapons? yes or no? >> and again, senator, i believe that's something we need to look

at very actively. >> after 4,000 dead and the country dismembered, and 4,000 more russian troops invading eastern ukraine and you think it's something that should be looked at. that is really quite interesting. do you believe that bashar al assad is getting stronger now that we are attacking only isis in syria? >> senator, i believe, that as we work up the moderate opposition, make it a stronger counterweight not only to isil, but to the regime, assad will get weaker, his position will change. >> we're not attacking bashar al assad, are we? >> are we attacking? >> we are currently, no, we are not -- >> we're not attacking assad? >> no, we are not. >> okay. at the end of september, you stated, quote, the best way to

deal with assad is to transition him out so that moderate opposition can fill a vacuum. that's what we've been working on. g-20 over the weekend, president obama was asked if he was actively discussing ways to remove president assad as part of a political transition and his response was, no. are we working to transition asaad out, or not? >> we believe, the president said repeatedly. i'm not sure of the exact words you're referring to, but i've heard him say repeatedly. >> it's fairly simple. he said no. >> assad lost his legitimacy. there is no way going forward that syria can -- in power. >> the president was incorrect when asked if he was actively discussing ways to remove assad as part of a political transition. and his answer was no. >> the president has been focused and consistent on the effort to support the moderate opposition, to build it up as a counterforce, to change the dynamic so we can get to a

political transition that winds up removing assad. >> you quite often referred about moral obligations and standing of the united states of america. do you believe it's moral for us to train syrians to go in to syria, in this case saudi arabia, go into syria and fight when we're not attacking bashar al asaad? is that moral? >> senator, we've been working now for more than three years. >> again, answer the question. it's too bad you can't answer straightforward questions. i want to ask you whether you think it is immoral or not for us to send these young syrians into an environment where they will be barrel bombed by assad.

>> thanks to the work we've been able to do with you, with congress. >> you have done no work with me. you've done no work with me mr. blinken. >> on the train and equip program. >> you have not worked with me on anything. >> well, that's something we would want to do and relish -- >> after six years, you would want to do that. i thank you. >> senator, if i could just add, we've been working with the moderate opposition for three years. we've been working to build them up, give them support, give them greater means. >> when you say that. when you say that's, it's very disturbing to me because i know these people. i've been in syria and met them. a lot of them i've met with are now dead because we wouldn't help them. when the president of the united states said no to the recommendation of the secretary of defense, secretary of state, and head of the cia to provide arms to them. a lot of them have died. and we didn't do all of those things, you're saying, and there's ample proof by the fact that the situation they're in today. which is probably more tenuous than it's ever been in history.

again, i really take strong exception to hear you say something that i know because i've been on the ground there is not true. and i know these people very well. they feel abandoned. there have been many media reports, not just my reporting, but just a couple days ago in the "wall street journal." they feel abandoned. and they have every reason to feel abandoned. and they don't believe they're getting any assistance. >> senator, all i can tell you is from what i see, what i believe, what i know from what we've done, we have been working with them, we have been supporting them, we now have an opportunity, again, thanks to the great work that's been done with congress to intensify and accelerate that effort to give them even greater means to defend themselves, their families, communities, to become a counterweight to isil, to become a counterweight to assad. we share the same objective, we would welcome continuing to work

with you and deepen that and figure out a way to get that done effectively. >> we know a way to get it done. we've known for a long time to get it done. we've articulated it time after time after time. we are now in a situation we're in today. whether it be iraq or whether it be in syria. dividing syria and iraq into two different kinds of conflicts when we're fighting one enemy, of course, is bizarre. and one other point, and i'm way over time, sorry, mr. chairman. just today, we were meeting with some people who affirmed to us our belief. if you move everybody out of afghanistan, you will see the iraq movie again. do you believe we should leave a sustaining force in afghanistan? >> senator, for me the lesson for afghanistan from iraq is the need for political

accommodation. what we didn't get sufficiently at the time i said the remarks that you referenced, i actually believed we were in a position where iraqis were working together politically within the confines -- >> but you were wrong. >> unfortunately, the prime minister chose to take iraq in another direction. the foundation was there, the means were there, it didn't happ happen. absent that political accommodation, it will be difficult to sustain all of the progress in afghanistan. happily, at least for now, we have in the new president, the chief executive, a commitment to work together inclusively to bring the country together and to give the investment that we made in afghanistan the chance to succeed including the afghan security forces. we need the investment going, the financing going and support them in the efforts.

and, of course, two more years to continue in an aggressive way to build up and build capacity of those forces. >> unfortunately --

>> and you're talking about in the -- 2003? >> yeah. >> i think certainly iran benefitted. at the time. i think that arguably, unfortunately, al qaeda benefitted because it was able to then develop a front in iraq it didn't have. and so there were some unfortunate consequences. to that -- to that action. on the other hand, thanks to the extraordinary sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, our diplomats, our civilians, whatever one thinks about the war and how it started and why it started because of that sacrifice, because of that extraordinary effort over a decade, we gave iraq a chance to succeed. we helped give it the institutions of governance. we helped create structures that

could allow it to actually be something relatively unique in the region. and there was a moment, at least in my judgment where people were working in the confines despite their tremendous differences to move the country together. so -- >> it's in that context you made the comment that senator mccain referenced? >> yes. >> yeah. >> thank you. >> my own observation as someone who voted against the war in iraq. it was that it was the biggest blunder that we committed. we ended up no weapons of mass destruction, no clear and present danger to the united states, no imminent threat in the loss of so many lives and national treasure. now, we certainly cherish the contributions and the sacrifices made by american forces to ultimately liberate the iraqi people. at the end of the day, there's a

lot of bad actors in the world. i can name a few i'd like to see go. you might imagine who was at the top of the list. yet, it's not in the national interest of the united states to pursue that course of action. what we did give is iran an opportunity -- that creates challenges throughout the region. and i just wanted to create context to your comments and i have filibustered sufficiently to have senator mccain take the chair as i go to vote. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for your service and willingness to be here. what a position of honor your position will be as a member of the committee. to talk about the lives and their questions and sacrifices and sometimes they ask me about traffic in northern virginia where they own property.

but mostly, wee talk about the very serious issues they deal with. i'll continue to start off by honoring them. i think we do a pretty a good job of acknowledging members of our military who serve now. there's so many americans abroad who are small "a" ambassadors. and we just need to thank all of them. so i think you're going to have a great opportunity to serve with wonderful people. i know you know that. two thoughts on the aumf process. you know, and we talked a bit about this. i think it is a mistake for the administration not to have sent aumf language. i think you'll more likely get an aumf you like, and you're less likely if you don't. that being said, we are the article one branch. i don't think there's any excuse for us not to do it and to do it with dispatch. and i hope we will and i know we'll work together on the terms of it.

so that's a critique. let me now offer a compliment. senator king and i visited the air force base in qatar in early october. and the administration, and it's both a military effort and a diplomatic effort, the efforts to pull together a meaningful coalition of nations who believe isil is a threat, you know, it sounds good on paper, and when you see it, it's even more impressive. the seamlessness of the coalition partners working together in the air strike campaign, and we were in a room that looked like the new york stock exchange with big screens up and folks from so many nations making hard decisions and an apparently seamless way. that was a month ago. i know there's a lot of elements to this, the assembly of the coalition may be one of the most difficult. and at least in the early -- early evidence is an indication,

we felt pretty positive about both senator king. so i'll offer that as a compliment. one thing i'd like to caution you both in the state department and all of us more broadly and i'd love to hear your response on it is, don't let iraq/syria take our eyes off afghanistan. we let that happen. i think we let that happen in 2003. i think we let it happen in '06, '07. i first was in afghanistan in april of 2006 as governor visiting my virginia guardsmen and women serving there. and i think it was the belief of a lot of the american, both diplomatic and military leadership on the ground at that point that iraq was taking our attention away. the achievements gained in afghanistan as a result of effort, military effort have been significant life expectancy advances, kids in schools. it's fragile under this new government, the formation of the new government is a huge tribute

to your boss and to american diplomatic effort. but it's fragile. and while i am a supporter of an authorization of military action against isil in iraq and syria, i'm mindful of the fact we have turned our attention to one theater and not paid the attention to the other that was necessary. and the afghan situation is hopeful enough, fragile enough if we turn our attention to the events in the newspaper every day. we run the risk of gains in the huge sacrifice. >> senator, what you just said resinates in a powerful way and resinates because you said it in this room. a decade ago in this room, president karzai sat where i'm sitting today. and he said almost exactly what you said. this was before the war in iraq.

he said it's not my role to give the united states what it should do or shouldn't do somewhere else, but don't take your eyes off afghanistan. so what you just said seems to have resinated across the decade back into this very room and i couldn't agree more. secretary kerry, as you know, is intensely focused on this question. had it not been for his extraordinary personal diplomacy, i'm not sure that we would've gotten the accommodation that we saw between -- that is a tribute to and triumph of american diplomacy and his personal engagement. now, you're exactly right. we need to help sustain that, and we are. we're very focused on giving them the support they need to continue to move the country forward in an inclusive way. and that is very much a focus of the secretary and of the administration. second, i think you're right to

underscore this because we have to sustain the investment in afghanistan. we made a commitment to help develop the national security forces, we've got other countries around the world to do the same thing. countries made commitments and pledges in chicago and tokyo militarily on the financial assistance side. those have to be sustained. in fact, if you look at the assessments that have been done, our analysis and the analysis of the intelligence communities, the single most important factor in helping moving forward is sustained support from the international community. so we hear very much what you're saying, agree with it, and i think there's a vital role that we can play together working with the committee to make sure that we are doing justice to that. >> there were early signs of success in the coalition government, signing of the bilateral security agreement, signing of the status of force agreement, the reinitiation of a criminal investigation to corruption of the bank, the signing of a long kind of dust

was all over it potential energy deal with pakistan indicating potential for opening up better ties there. so there were some good early signs, but a sign that is still a troubling one is the difficulty in the formation of a cabinet. and i know that the afghan leadership is going to be going to a donor's conference. and i'm sure they'll be peppered with question about that. the u.s. played such a key role in the diplomatic between the president and executive. that was key. i think there'll be roles to play at steps along the way, including in the formation of the government because i can't imagine that conversation with the donors will go very well if they walk in and there's not tangible evidence of real progress toward the formation of an inclusive government. >> and we've made exactly that case to them. >> great. >> so many other questions have been asked. numerous questions about iran. one point about iran. i think it was the senator who said he'd been a harsh critic of

the administration or just a critic of the administration's. i was a real supporter, but i may be on the big deal. i really felt that the interim deal had to be done. there had to be an interim phased approach that was trust building because of the lack of trust between the parties. the only way you you get to a better place is to test each other out in small things and see if they're passed enough to move along to larger things. the interim deal, huge supporter. you're going to -- you said you don't -- you can't say where it's going to go. it's going to be one of three paths. it's either going to be a deal, then we'll talk about whether it's a good or bad deal. it's going to be no deal, unfortunately, we have to figure out the consequences. or it's going to be some request for additional time to put it together. i think the body will be pretty tough on that to the extent that the toughness of congress is at all lost on the negotiators on

the iranian side. you know, i know that the -- our team over there will disabuse them of that notion as you're in the final phases before november 24. last thing, just a thought, and i'm over time, but hey, i'm the last guy with questions. i'd like you to kind of respond to. we focus our energy as we often should, as we should on the problematic areas, you know. we ought to focus our energy, too, and you should, too, in areas where things are actually moving in a positive direction, try to shine a spotlight on them, encourage others to do the same. in the first arab spring country that i recently visited, the u.s. has played an important role, and there have been important both parliamentary and now upcoming presidential elections. that could be a significant success story of positive movement, in an area that could be an important area. the u.s./india relationship, you

and i talked about this, i think is entering a new phase for a variety of reasons whether there's a huge upside opportunity on trade, on military cooperation, on cooperation on cyber issues. there are a number of instances of economies and countries in latin america. there are some that are going bad. there's also some very positive examples. you know, let's not have all of our diplomacy or all of the energy of, you know, leaders like you be around the crisis zones where things are going bad. one of the ways you help go better, shine the spotlight on where they're going well and try to extract the lessons and use them. lessons in central america or lessons in tunisia that could be used in other nations, like algeria, they probably approach a governmental transition within the next, you know, five or ten years. so i would just encourage that. and if you have any thought about that, i'd love to hear

your response. >> well, i appreciate very much, you just did put the spotlight on a number of positive developments. ones where we've been working very hard sometimes behind the scenes, sometimes quietly supporting quietly supporting, providing assistance, giving advice in just those ways. i think we've seen the u.s./india relationship that you just pointed to come a remarkable distance. it started with the end of the clinton administration. the bush administration did a tremendous job in carrying the relationship forward and now we've just had the extraordinarily successful visit of prime minister modi here to the united states and an agenda that is working across virtually every issue of importance to us with india that we're counting forward. there again is something where i think we could work together very, very profitably in the months ahead. latin america as well.

extraordinary success stories. we've seen countries make fundamentally important decisions about their macro economic policies that have been to their benefit, improving governance, dealing with security challenges with the assistance of the united states including in colombia, mexico now, other places. and there, too, there is a lot to work with, to work for, and to work together on. so the long and short of it is i think you're exactly right that we shouldn't lose sight of the good news, especially because if we can make sure that it actually gets deep rooted, not only will that consolidate a good thing where it's happening, but as you just said, it can serve as a model, lessons learned, inspiration for other places. >> and with the permission of the ranking member, just one other brief point before i hand it back to see if you have additional round. on the latin america point, one of the things i've been struck by is, you know, american foreign policy almost always has

revolved around an east/west axis. we were worried about europe, worried about the soviet union, worried about china. even when we had a policy in the americas, it's often really been, well, we're worried about the europe and the americas so we have the monroe doctrine. the concern in latin america is often that they are a source of attention only upon crisis. there's an undocumented kids come to the border in big numbers, we go and work on that, those numbers abate, the attention kind of moves away, but the reality of kind of the facts on the grouped right now is canada is our number one trade partner, mexico is number two trade partner. you can see foreign policy go east/west axis. economic is north/south than it is east/west. if you look at who comes to this country, the people living our languages, spoken here, cultural

is oriented around north/south axis. we will have talks with the heads of countries and talk about china and trying to do things and they'll say we feel more cultural affinity with the united states. we don't see a level of engagement so i would just, you know, put that on your shoulders going into this position. our economy is running north and south. the flow of people is running north and south. cultural positions and heritages. we are a nation, 1565. the founding of st. augustine florida. we've been a hispanic nation 42 years before jamestown, but we don't make that a primary focus of our foreign policy. i would encourage you and your partners at the state department to be taking advantage of the opportunities that are low hanging fruit. >> i appreciate that, senator, if i could say a brief word to address it. first, i know from my

conversations with the secretary that this is something that he's personally very focused on. we have a very dynamic assistant secretary of state who i know you know, roberta jacobson, who does an amazing job every single day, but it's also something that the president and vice president has been very focused on. the president has made six trips to latin america as president. just this year in 2014 because this is something i was able to witness he received in the oval office the heads of chile, el salvador, guatemala, haiti, honduras, uruguay and he visited mexico. the vice president has been a human dynamo on this, eight trips to the country, constant phone engagement. we have worked, as you know, to advance free trade agreements with colombia, panama. we've established precisely to your point economic dialogues with countries that are emerging in a big way, mexico, brazil. we have the caribbean security initiative which is vitally

important there. of course, there has been the response to the crises, haiti and then the unaccompanied children. and then there's a very other important component of this. there is a very dynamic exchange component. we have 100,000 strong in latin america. we have 72,000 students from the region studying in the united states today. that's an increase of about 8% over the previous year. we have 43,000 americans studying in latin america, which is also an increase. so we think you're exactly right and we want to work on all of these different lines of effort to maximize the relationship, strengthen them, and when you look at countries like chile, like peru, like colombia, like mexico and others, there is an extraordinary foundation for progress. of course, if we're able to get the trans-pacific partnership done, that, too, will further deep root that progress. >> senator menendez is returning. i'm going to hand it back to him. mr. lincoln, thank you for your

testimony today. mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator cain. appreciate it. senator koons, when he gets accommodated, will be next. and then assuming -- depending upon whether any other member shows up or not, we will be closing the hearing. senator koons. >> thank you very much, chairman menendez. thank you for holding this hearing. thank you, mr. blinken, for your long and honorable service to this nation. your six years as staff director on this committee and your very capable and dedicated service in the obama administration and to my home state vice president biden. i want to say bill byrnes has served as a deputy secretary and is an accomplished service officer. we thank him for his 33 years of service to our country. if i might, first, mr. blinken, i chose the africa subcommittee in part because of its strategic

importance. the failed states. i'll mention somolia and the central african republic. in one instance we had for nearly 20 years a complete collapse of centralized control and authority. as a result threat to regional and global security and the other where there is an ongoing and significant humanitarian crisis. tell me how you think we might together get ahead of the issue of failed states around the world and what's the proper mix between sort of economic and security and political initiatives to regain govern nangs and to move forward in human rights and to secure and stabilize failed states in the region and the world. >> your mic. >> sorry. there you go. senator, thank you for your leadership on this, for your work on this. i think you've identified one of the principle challenges we face because we see again and again that where we face problems, one of the things that is at the root of the problem is a failure

of the state, is the failure of governance, is the failure of institutions. we've seen the incredible hope generated by, for example, the arab spring but then translating those hopes and aspirations on the street into the institutions that can actually guarantee the rights and opportunities that people are scrambling for is a huge and, indeed, generational challenge because unfortunately this doesn't happen overnight. so what we've tried to do, and you can go across the bored, we talked about tunisia a little bit earlier. we have now the great challenge in yemen. i think what you pointed to is essential, that in many of these places we have to take and we are taking a comprehensive approach to the problem. often there's a military component because there may be a challenge from an insurgency, from a terrorist group.

we have to help these countries develop the means and capacity to deal with those problems, but that is not sufficient. unless we're able to help them develop the institutions of governance that give their people a sense that they can advance their interests through the democratic process, it's not going to work. unless we can help them create institutions and economies that can actually deliver for people in their daily lives and gives them the means not only to subsist but to move forward, it's not going to work. so, i think what you eluded to is the need to look at these problems comprehensively to bring all of the different components of our government to bear on these problems and to do it in a coordinated way because what we do know is that if -- and i know that especially after a decade where our country's been engaged in two wars with a large deployment of forces, that

some people say, well, maybe this is a time to be a little bit less engaged. and i think the answer is it's not. it's actually a time to be more engaged, but the question is how should we be engaged. and how can we be engaged in a sustainable way that can actually help lift up some of the countries that are under challenge. i think, for example, that the large scale indefinite deployment of american forces is something that obviously would be a challenge to sustain. developing the capacity of our partners to work on these problems is a more sustainable way to do it. similarly, as we look at the development agenda, we have the development goals that now need to be brought forward beyond 2015 and to work on those. the bush administration created an extraordinarily powerful mechanism, the millennium challenge corporation h