times, that president abbas remains committed. that has to be put to the test at some point in time. eni understand the problem they've had having taken part in those negotiations for a long period of time. we objected -- we do not believe palestinians have the right to succeed to the icc because we do not believe they are a state? standing to be able to go to the icc, and we made that argument. as did other countries, by the way, a number of other countries made that argument. but we lost. and we also forcefully advocated to the palestinian leadership, don't do this. it's a mistake. you're going to breach, you're going to create all kinds of hurdles for the possibilities in the future. this is a mistake.

but they're out of patience. and we couldn't contain that. and as you know, they went to the u.n. and i spent three weeks over christmas holiday working to keep people that we would like to be working with constructively from doing something negative. and in the end, by a vote where they didn't get the nine votes at the u.n., so now we never had to exercise a veto. but there's a great deal of frustration build and this is not the moment to go into it in any depths. you know, we're very anxious not to get dragged into the election process. we're not going to. israel has the this important election coming up and they need to do it without us commenting from the sidelines. i'm not going to go further on this. i just say to you we wish the palestinians had behaved differently. and that's why they're not getting aid right now.

and therefore maybe some other people -- we think others are going to step up and try to help bridge the gap in order to get them over the hurdle. but when the israeli elections are over there's going to be a need to quickly begin to try to decide where everybody is going thereafter so that there is not ar ir retrievable clash that takes place with respect to the icc or otherwise that prevents any further activity. on the first part of your question a very important part of the question, the heights, you sort of talked about the budget as a whole and where we need to go. the need for the united states to step -- i went through that list of things in the beginning ebola, isil afghanistan

somalia, mali, boko haram, yemen, hughtys, the region, still al qaeda in the western part of pakistan. you can run through the gamut of these challenges and you got to recognize that it is the united states who usually helps to convene or becomes the central part of convening working with your key alleys, britain, france germany. but we need to be able to make a difference to some of these countries. this's a different world we're living in now. after world war ii most of the world's economies were destroyed. and we were in great debt. but we came out of the recession by virtue of the war machine that was built up. and for 50 years or so there was a pretty polarized east/west,

you know, bipolar decision-making process. and it was a lot easier. ever since the berlin wall fell and nations spraining up reclaiming their individuality and their personal aspirations and defining themselves differently and free and democratic, the economies of the world have changed. and now you have the bricks with you have a china, india brazil mexico, others south korea people all playing a different role different impact. and many of them are donor countries. so others are playing a more voracious game in the marketplace of ideas and products than we are. and we have been hamstrung by this budgeting process in washington that is not allowing us to actually meet our own priorities and serve our other

interests. and i can make a much longer -- and i won't do it now -- argument of how it specifically affects us in instance after instance. i'll give you just one example. recently, you know, the prime minister of a great country was here, i'm not going to go into the details of who. the most we were able to do is provide a loan guarantee when what they really needed were billions of dollars to help them move forward open make a difference. if they get them from other places other places will wind up having greater impact and influence than we do. >> thank you mr. secretary. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator murphy. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman. i know it's been a long day of testimony. some of us are getting our second shot of you today, those of us on the appropriations committee. >> more than any senator should go through. >> we had the chance to have a good dialogue this morning about

my belief that we need to be having a more holistic conversation in the ways of which in your lack of capacity to fight corruption, build up rule of law in and around the russians fear of influence is preventing us from doing the real work to combat their march across the preriffry and i hope that the committee will focus on that. this may be the only chance that we get to talk to you before we have a full debate about the authorization of military force that's pending before congress. so i wanted to just ask you a question or two to try to help us understand some of the terminology in the proposed draft. i think we're having trouble getting our hands wrapped around. you know secretary gates i believe, shortly after he left the department of defense said that if any future secretary of defense advised a president to

deploy major numbers of combat troops back to the middle east that they should have their head examined examined. there's a number of reasons for that. when hundreds of thousands of american troops are there, we let our allies in the region off the hook wae kill a lot of bad guys but we frankly allow for our enemies to recruit more than we kill when we fight. and it's why many of us really believe in the prohibition or restriction within this amuf on another major deployment of ground troops to the mideast. i know you agree and the president agrees and the new secretary of defense agrees it's why the authorization draft that you gave us has that restriction in it. we're struggling to understand these two words in it enduring and offensive, trying to get a better understanding of when the next president -- i don't think this president will make the mistake of deploying new ground

troops to the middle east -- crosses that line. so can you give us a little bit more color on what your understanding of those two words mean? what's the number of ground troops that trips the enduring limitation? what are the kind of actions that would trip the defensive versus offensive jux to position. i know you're not the secretary of defense but you're ultimately involved in the discussions and a the ramifications. help us understand a little bit more about what those records mean and if they are true limitations. as you know many of us belief that those words are so mallable to actually be no limitations at all. and i trust that you believe something different. >> i'm not going to suggest to you that there is in any

terminology, latitude fb interpretation because there always is. unless there's an absolute horrendous horrendously prescriptive broad prohibition where everybody would counsel against. we're speaking to destroy this entity. and it is not a good message, nor a good policy to place such constraints on yourself that you can't do that. at the same time the president wants to make certain that those who feel burned by prior votes or by prior experiences are not fearful that he is somehow opening up pandora's box to that possibility again. so our feeling is -- and we give kudos to you on this committee.

i think senator menendez, as chair, is this one who produced this concept from your deliberations. and we -- i would have hoped you would have said, god, they listened to us. i mean we came up here, i testified in december, we did listen to you. and i think the president tried to come back to you with something that he felt didn't cob strain his ability to exercise his constitutional authority as president, but at the same time respected congress's role and right to shape this. and that's what you've done and what you're doing. now enduring in our mind means no long term offensive combat of a large scale which is what the president has defined. in other words this is not -- we're not asking you for authorization to give us the ability to build up to a new iraq or a new afghanistan. that's not what we're doing.

what we're asking for -- offense versus defense. i mean, when massive -- when a large number of, you know italian or whatever forces are directed to go have a firefight with isil in a proactive way, that's offense. and that's prohibited. and that's not what we're seeking to do. but it doesn't mean that there might not be instances where you have adds viseez advisers who are helping people understand how to properly do fire control or properly call in air support or something else. there's special force operation that might be necessary for one thing or another to try to rescue somebody or close something off. i mean there are things that are not part of the larger offensive operation where you may well have reasons to have some people there.

i would not consider that -- even though they may be a hos ill area and on some occasion conceivably inadvertently take fire or something, they're not in proactive offensive actions and certainly not enduring. what we don't want to do is get into a ground war. gates, i think -- i think you said it was gates who said that. you know the president is trying to make sure he doesn't have to have his head examined. this is a pretty straightforward prohibition wu occur tailing and leaving that sufficient level of fuzz that the other side can't decide, oh, we got a safe haven here, we can do whatever we want, or they're not going to be able to whack us if we go do this or that or the other thing. there has to be a little bit of leeway there. but rest assured, there is in

our judgment no way possible for this language to be misinterpreted and allow a kind of mission creep that takes us into a long term war. >> and speaking for myself i don't have any doubt that you will live within the confines that you and the president believe to have limited yourself publicly and within your interpretation of these words. i think that we are just going to be debating the amount of fuzz that's created here. and if there is so much so that the next president, who may not believe in the same strategic limitations that this president believes in has an interpretation that is much more expansive than yours is, i think that's why we want to entertain further discussion. >> let me just say, senator, that, you know, the president -- i mean there have been authorizations previously which has had restraints in them. some more limiting than this. obviously there's a constitutional argument which is powerful and important to the effect that there shouldn't be

any. and the president set limits and you can deal with with the funding. you cut off the funding, you're managing what's going on. and you have the power of the purse. but it seems to me that what's important here also is for the world to see that the united states congress is uniting in a significant vote to make it clear we're committed to degrade and destroy isil. that's critical. whatever you do -- everybody is going to have to compromise a little bit. i went through all of your various positions and there are little nuances of differences between everybody. it does require people finding the common ground and coming together here. and we hope we can get the strongest vote possible that indicates that the united states of america is committed to this policy. >> senator gardner. >> thank you mr. chair and thank you secretary for being here

today. i just wanted to follow up quickly on my colleague's question. you mentioned that there had been other authorizations with restrains. which ones for you referring to and what were the restraints? >> there was -- on the chemical weapons recently passed authorization, there were restraints put into that -- >> what were those restraints? >> let me check. there was a restraint of time limit of months and a limitation on the certain use of force on the -- >> what was the other example? i think you said there may have been -- >> there was multi-national force in lebanon when there was a time limit, limitations on force, et cetera. so i think what the president has tried to do here is tailor something based on the hearing

that we had in december that reflected the sensitivities of the committee. and obviously you guys have to tackle that now and the amendment administration is prepared to sit and work with you and work it through. >> i wanted to follow up with questions that senator flake asked. when you consider talking about the formal rule of congress, you said there was this other looming entity out there that you were concerned about a possible approval by this other looming entity. well to me that other looming entity is article 1, the united states congress. so two questions. do you believe there should be a formal approval role by the united states congress for the agreement and two, will you be coming back to the united states congress and asking for us to lift sanctions against the regime? >> no i don't think there ought to be a formal process. ultimately you have to vote to lift the sanctions. >> will you be making that request to us? >> not immediately in our

current notion of what we would be doing. there would have to be some period, i would think of compliance and other things. and this is yet to be determined. >> and the reports i believe i came in from a commerce committee hearing light as you were telling senator menendez that you can't believe everything that you read. so the reports in the ap and other places that said this would be a ten-year agreement to fight a rampdown is simply not true? >> i've already said that is not our view of it but we haven't made an agreement yet. >> is that the consideration you're making -- >> i don't what to get into what we are or aren't. that's not where it's at today. >> have you had conversations perhaps with speaker boehner majority leader mcconnell with the terms of the agreement? >> i have not. >> do you think that's appropriate to speak with -- >> we're having regular consultations. wendy sherman and the team have been up here in classified

session with many of you. that has been going on for two years now. we've been consulting on a regular basis in classified forum. i've personally telephoned the chairs and ranking members at the conclusion of negotiations, given them some indication of what we're doing, where we are. there's a regular consultation taking place. and when the briefings take place down in the classified room, if the practice is continued when i was here, the leaders are usually there and part of those briefings. >> do you believe that consultation is what will fulfill the role that congress plays in this agreement? >> i do. i think that -- >> just the hearings downstairs in the basement, that's basically our role? >> in terms of the ongoing negotiating portion, yes. you certainly have a right to have whatever hearings and

whatever further examinations you want to have if a deal is struck. i mean that's your prerogative at any point in time and ours is to respond to you and to, you know -- >> but no other role in feedback on this other than straight congressional hearings? >> i believe this falls squarely within the executive power of the president of the united states and the execution of american foreign policy. and he is executing thoroughly all his responsibilities of consultation. but in the end this is the president's prerogative. you can always decide to oppose it one way or the other, as you might. our hope is that we will consult, work together not set up predetermined barriers that make it difficult to get to an agreement. i mean, every nuance of what we do here, folks i'm telling you get interpreted and urntly in

ways that make our negotiating life harder. i'm serious. >> will you commit to us that you will not be asking us to lift sanctions? >> beg your pardon? >> is there any commitment that you could make that you would not be asking congress to lift sanctions? >> i don't want to bind that at this moment. i know of nothing at this moment in time but i'm not going to bind myself -- i don't know how this proceeds. i don't know where we wind up and i'm not going to take away -- depending on what we got for it some option. but that's not our current -- >> i'm running out of time. i want to switch to the asia rebalance. one of the signature initiatives to have administration was the pivot of the rebalance in asia announced in australia. the president sez said our new focus reflect as fundamental truth the united states has been and always will be a pafgscific nation. i agree and look forward to working with you. my colleague from maryland to ensure that the policies reflect

the growing strategic importance of this region. covering two thirds of the earth's population. but i'm concerned that the administration's effort to apply this whole of government approach to the asia pacific region are faltering. last year this committee issued a report noting the shortcomings. the administration can approve the effectiveness and the sustainability by increasing civilian engagement and empowering u.s. businesses. i understand that the fiscal year 2016 request for diplomatic engagement in the east asian and pacific bureau is up 6% this year but still 11% below 2014 fiscal years levels. how do you explain the disparity and the discrepancy in the budget request? >> i'm not sure i followed you completely. what is up? >> east say shan and pacific bureau is up 6% wu be that's still 11% what the 2014 funding

levels were. despite the effort of the asian pivot, are we reaching that and does that remain a top priority for the administration? >> senator, i'm not sure what figure you're balancing against to come up with that. because our -- the fiscal -- the 2016 budget has a $1.4 billion increase, not total in support of the rebalance, and that includes a 6% increase over 2014. and we are pursuing the transpacific partnership voraciously. we've had -- we have a major effort going with respect to the region. we just had under secretary wendy sherman was over there a month ago. deputy secretary toni blinken was over there two weeks ago.

i'm going over in about a month to follow up on that visit. we have president shi coming here for a visit in the fall. we have major presence with our negotiations right now with vietnam, malaysia. i've been talking personally with the prime ministers and foreign ministers of these countries. we're deeply, deeply engaged in this rebalance. we've never had that many high-level visits taking place. we've had a revamping of the defense policy with with japan korea. the president was over there for his fifth trip. i think i've made seven since i've been secretary. so we're -- i think that every step -- every step the east asia pacific bureau is taking and every step the higher level of the state department is taking and the administration is following up on this notion of the rebalance and of its importance. >> thank you, mr. secretary.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator i would say on the consultation, i hate to jump in here, but at every one of these meetings where the numbers of sentra fujs are generally laid out and we express concern, the next report, the numbers of sentra fujs increase. and i would say every time we get concerned about the length of time of the agreement being too short, at every report the length of the agreement shortens. i do hope we'll have an opportunity to weigh in on the totality of the deal prior to sanctions being lifted. i don't think that's an undue burden when congress put those in place in the first place. with that, senator markey. >> thank you mr. chairman very much. first of all, mr. secretary, i want to congratulate you on a naming of a special envoy on the lgbt rights. i think it's an historic moment.

i'm wondering what response you may have received over you know, the past few days from other countries in your announcement. >> well, to be honest with you, i've been wrapped up in the negotiations. i just got back late last night. i have not had personally any response. i'm told very, very positive response. i read one article in the paper this morning which was very positive about it. but i haven't seen -- >> i think it's an important step forward. al shabaab has threatened the mall of america. and that's clearly, you know, linking foreign policy to domestic homeland security. the president is constantly about countering violent extremism. i'm wondering if you can give us a little bit of insight into

what actions your department the obama administration generally is taking to counter the threat coming out of somalia in terms of its potential threat to the homeland. >> well senator, we're engaged in the mostsnú counter terrorism efforts that one could imagine. it is consuming every aspect of government. the president regularly convenes a national security meeting to get updates on where we are and what we are doing. and particularly when we're in the moment of a particular threat or challenge. i think what the department of homeland security was really talking about is sort of a generic set of threats and challenges that are out there that we're working to respond to. we have an unprecedented level

of communication and information sharing, intelligence sharing taking place. now -- with other countries. we have the counter terrorism partnership fund which we're requesting money from all of you to implement. and that's $390 million which will be used to enhance border security among our foreign partners. we're working with europeans to move them now to sharing lists on passengers which they hadn't been doing. we're trying to increase the scrutiny of people moving in between countries. and share more information about it. we're trying to stem the financial flow to these groups through nations and increased scrutiny of who's giving money how and how it flows. there's a center for strategic counterterrorism communications which has been set up and that

is playing -- at the state department it's playing a key role in our efforts to counter violent extremism. and it's coordinating and informing a whole of government public communication structure that is able to pass on information and counter rumors and deal with social media in arabic, in smally and english. there's a whole of government effort going on that's taking shape. it's growing almost by the day and week. the counter terrorism, counter-extremism session that we just had in the last two or three days, the first day of it at the white house was almost exclusively civil society law enforcement, ngos, people who

are engaged in grass roots efforts to see how they can be augmented to this. one thing i don't want to have come out of this, this is a challenge and it's legitimate threat and indeed there are risks in certain places at certain times. but no one should doubt that notwithstanding that we are actually living in the least loss of life violent period in our history. there's an anomaly here. and so i don't think -- i think what people need to do is be vigilant but not scared. people need to be always attentive but never fearful of doing something or going somewhere. and i think travel today is safer than it's ever been. i think people's ability to

move, our s.w.a.t. teams are better, sharing of information, the fbi all of our units. people have really gotten pretty good. doesn't mean a lone wolf can't come along and do something. if somebody wants to die you can hurt people. i think it's important for people to recognize this is not a moment of, you know turning inwards and getting frightened. >> thank you, mr. secretary. the u.s.-china climate agreement was historic, not universally well received. can you tell us, tell the committee why this agreement serves america's interest? >> sure. >> and what you believe it contributes towards reaching a positive result in paris later on this year. >> well, you're absolutely correct. of course it's not universally well-received. on one side you have people that don't receive it well because there are still people that don't think we have to do anything. on the other side you have

people who believe we ought to be doing more. i happen to be one of those and i helped negotiate this deal. i would have loved to have seen it do more. but this is the most we could get. and we took a country -- most people thought it was foolish. how could you possibly try to get china. up until last year, you know this better than anybody, china was on the opposite side of the table and stopping us from doing anything. and we turned that around in a year to have a china that has publicly committed to set a standard for reduction of dependency on fossil fuel by 2030 and begin to have a 20% commitment internally to alternative renewable energy clean energy. that's huge. and in our case we set a goal of somewhere between 26 and 28% reduction in our emissions by 2025 with the hope that we are actually going to do better and hit the 28 and do it sooner.

china likewise committed to try to do it sooner if possible. we believe the technology is going to help us do it sooner. if we get moving down that road, the technology curve always winds up producing faster and spinning out new ways of doing things cheaper and you get to the goal faster. that ayers bet. but we're still behind the curve of where we need to be to deal with climate change and keep the rise of temperature on planet earth to 2 degrees centigrade. we're not going to make ith right now. a lot of people are talking about mitigation and dealing with effects. i run into the effects of climate change in various parts of the world all of the time. there are tribes fighting people over water in places where there used to be water and there isn't anymore. by the way, in california not just in deserts and other parts

of the world, we have had record levels of storm damage, of fires, the hottest year. each year now is the hottest year since the last year for the last 10 12 whatever number of years. you know this better than anybody in the senate senator markey. we're behind the curve but we're trying to create a critical mass of countries out of the major emitting nations that will then have an impact on everybody gathering in paris. and when they see that the major countries are doing it -- the reasons others have to do it is less developed countries now equal 50% of all emissions. they have to start coming on board because no one country can reduce complete by. if everybody rode a bicycle tomorrow and nobody drove to work and public transportation and we didn't have emissions, we would still be in deep trouble because of the rate of

promulgation of coal-fired power plants in various countries around the world. we have a huge distance to travel and the great benefit. you asked about the benefit. the market we're looking at for clean renewable efficient energy is a $6 trillion market with four to five billion users. and that will rise to nine billion users as the population grows up to 2050. the market that created the great wealth of our nation, when the income went up in the 19 90s was a $1 trillion market with one billion users. that's what we've got $6 trillion very was $1 trillion, one billion users versus four to five and more growing. this is the biggest market in all of human history. countless people can be put to work, countless technologies put in place, new grids smart energy, all of these things. and the sooner we move it to, the sooner a lot of economies start to move and the sooner we deal with the crisis.

>> thank you. >> senator boxer. >> thanks so much mr. chairman and ranking member for this. thank you secretary kerry. you are serving in very challenging times and you're doing it so well. you're making us proud whether we agree with or or disagree with. i think a lot of us agree with you sometimes and disagree with you sometimes. and i have to say, you're a great diplomat and those skills are on display today. i'm very pleased to see you. you know in light of the threats that you've laid out i'm not going to ask yaw about four days looming shutdown of homeland security because that's not your bailiwick, that's secretary johnsons. but i think i ought to be another message to everybody that's a ridiculous way to run a country at this difficult time. i also want to say i agree with your overarching comments at the beginning that, you know, there's not enough of a priority placed on the work of the state

department. and the very brave men and women out there representing our great nation and how important it is. and that's why i so strongly supported what the president did on cuba. because i find that when people meet americans, they fall in love with america. and that's the way we're going to influence people. to have contact. i know there's a lot of issues that divide us on this, even within our own party and on the other side which is okay. it's fine. but from my perspective when i went there years ago what i recognize is the cubans were so afraid to be seen with us, they ran away. ordinary folks. it had to be all straightened out with top people there because they were afraid that they would get harassed by even talking to us. so i just want you to know that i back what you did there. on iran, this is a chance of a

lifetime to do something so important. and i know how difficult it is and i know, you've said, and so has wendy sherman in many of our meetings that this is a difficult thing. it may not work. maybe it's 50/50. i don't know if today you would stay say it's 50/50. but i think trying to get a deal here is a once in a lifetime deal -- chance. and we've done it with other countries. and the most important thing to me -- and i spoke with senator rich about this once -- is the verifyability. we cannot trust these people for one second. that government. we can trust the people, but the government we can't. and so it must be verifiable. and for me, that's what i'm looking for the inspections, the unfettered ability to see if this is real and also i would

demand that there be constant reports to the congress as to whether they're living within the agreement. now i am working on something. i just want to know if you could make time for me in your busy life -- that takes us somewhere between where some want to go, where i think congress gets overinvolved and where some others want to go where they want congress to be underinvolved. i think there is a sweet spot that does deal with our getting involved in the sanctions that we put in place. and also on demanding reporting requirements. and i hope -- would you make time for me or your staff make time for me so i can go over some legislation i've been working on with senator paul? >> of course you know that. sure. >> okay. >> by the way, senator, thank you for flying back especially to do the hearing on cuba with senator rubio. we really appreciate it. >> listen, i was very happy to be part of that. let me just close with this

argument. and it gets to the aumf. you and i are very close friends and allies most of the time. the one time we had a real difference was on the war in iraq. and you and i -- you remember that. and it had to do with wording and it had to do with approaches to an issue. and you were working on wording with senator biden and senator luger and it was a difficult meeting and we did not reach agreement on wording on the iraq war. i asked the crs if they could analyze this word endureing and i want to say i asked my ranking member here when he put forward the idea of enduring he had a list of what it meant. the way you have approached this, mr. secretary, i'm telling you, you don't have any definition. and the crs -- and i ask unanimous consent to put this in

the record if i can. >> without objection. >> here's what they say. this is incredibly important for you to hear. quote, it seems doubtful that a limitation on kwet enduring offensive ground combat operations unquote would present sufficient judicially manageable standards by which a court could resolve any conflict that might arise between congress and the executive branch over the interpretation of the phrase or its application to u.s. involvement in hostilities. this is the crs. they don't have a dog in the fight. and this is really very important because i'm not going to support this. it is as open-ended as you can imagine. it's ridiculous. no one can define what it means. you said it's extended -- crs says it can't be. i say it can't be. just common sense wise it can't

be because what's an enduring relationship to one person is not an enduring relationship to another. enduring is a subjective term and it is not tested. so i am saying to you, someone who agrees with you and the president, when you and he have said in the most beautiful unequivocal terms, and i quote the president from june 19th 2014, american combat troops are not going to be fight against in iraq. these american forces will not have a combat mission. we will not get drag into another ground war in iraq. nor do we intend to send u.s. troops to occupy foreign lands. 2015 instead of getting drag into another ground war we are leading a broad coalition. and mr. secretary, you said the same thing. it's a redline for everyone here. there are no boots on the ground. you said that september 2014. and then you said the president

has said repeatedly u.s. ground troops will not engage in combat roles. and you said in 2014 the president has been crystal clear that the policy that u.s. military forces will not be deployed to conduct ground combat operations against isil. that will be the responsibility of local forces. this is your clear statement of policy. today you affirm that this is the current policy. i would ask to put these statements in the record. >> without objection. >> and yet you stand up here and amuf with this giant loophole you could drive a combat truck through. it is not going to get a lot of support among, i think, the democrats on this committee. i don't speak for every one of them but we've had many discussions. i am hopeful that you can take back to the president some of the comments. now on the other side of the aisle, you're facing a whole other problem, i think. i cannot speak for them.

they want very few limitations. and i know this puts you in a bind. but the most important thing to me, when you send up an aumf is to have it reflect your own strategy. and i don't think this reflects your strategy. i think it reflects an attempt to bring people together to get something, but at the end of the day, i don't know what a future president is going to do. i know what this president is going to do and i support that strategy strongly. i voted for an aumf that was put together by our then chairman, every democrat supported it from center to left to far left supported it. and then you come in with this one. i'm just saying i hope you will take back to the president the fact that the crs says it can't be -- it's not a term that's definable and this many of us feel it open an open-ended

commitment. will you take that back to him and tell him some of us feel that way? >> sure. i think he's well aware of that position among some people here senator. and you're articulate and clear about it, as always. but i would just, just say to you that i think the policy that the president has defined and all of the statements that you just articulated are contained within the language that senator menendez and the committee produced previously. we believe that. now, you know, i think that when you get into this process -- and i'm consistent with what i said here in december -- of trying to list things it gets difficult because of something that gets left out or something that was meant -- you know, it just gets more complicated. but that's why there's a -- >> my time is running out. >> let me just finish. >> nothing gets more complicated than the use of a word that no

one can define. it's a disaster. the president isn't going to be here after a year and a half or to. >> the president will be here another year and three quarters. >> this would go for three years. you're not talking about just this president. >> i agree. but i think that the language is such and the process is such with the sunset that the sunset could be executed in a way that you protect minority rights so there has to be a coming together and a conclusion on it with respect to how that vote takes place so that a future president can't abuse it per se. they're going to have to deal with it. and i think in my judgment that is a strong protection. because if you can't get it renewed because there is not a willing majority to be able to do that, you effectively asserted your rights and your

position. >> well we just disagree. thank you, though. >> thank you. senator udall. >> thank you. >> let me finish one other thought. as we've said to you, this is an open process. this is now the legislative arena. i think the goal is to get as many votes as you can, senator boxer. if you think you can bring 45, 50 republicans on board with language that is absolutely prohib toir, then -- or more declarative, as long as it isn't restrictive of things the president thinks he needs to guard, that's the give and take here. i doubt you can get there. but if you can, more power to you. >> you're not going to get there with this one. >> senator -- >> i think y'all have had a chance to discuss it fully and i appreciate the views of both of you. i think senator udall would like to weigh in. >> thank you, chairman corker and thank you senator menendez. and not to beat a dead horse

here but on this specific subject that senator boxer brought up i just want to tell you how much i appreciate you coming in december and outlining what it is that you felt the administration needed. and as you saw with senator menendez at the share we did some very serious work. and we came up with a lot what was very close to what you talked about. i think we really -- and you know, on my part, i wanted to be more limiting. but i voted for the final product and, you know, senator, chairman corker i don't know the dynamic because we were in the majority at the time. but we all worked seriously. there were republicans that wanted to be more limiting. there's a lot of room to take that product and move forward. >> that's what we're looking for. this is not a closed oubt -- this is not a take it and leave

it obviously. we look forward to you work on it. and ask you to simply work with us also to make sure that we're not put in a place that doesn't allow us to pursue the policy per se. >> speaking -- you've spoken several times about cuba and what's happened in cuba. and i just want to applaud the administration for normalizing relations and senator flake and i were down there together just before -- within about six weeks of when alan gross was released. and then when the big announcements were made. and what i'm wondering is what do you think -- we know that there are serious problems with this authoritarian government and all the things that they do. but what is your recommendation of the best steps forward to normalize and how we move down a

path. you know, all sorts of things are being explored. what is your -- >> well the normalization process is effectively announced and now needs to be implemented. and that should not be -- you know, the theory of the normalization is that it is getting it in place that in fact begins to put us in a different position to be able to advance our interests. i mean, senator menendez and others are absolutely correct about what the problems are there. we all agree. there may be a slight difference about how are you going to get them to change. our theory of the case is that the best change is going to come through families through people, through travel, information and access. and that normalization in fact leverages our ability to do what 50 years of isolation has not achieved.

now obviously the proof will be in the pudding. but we've seen what hasn't happened for this long period of time. so effect t-h tifly we thought we ought to try this difference. we think we ought to try this difference. swreel a meeting in washington which will will take place will will be negotiating the normal pieces of negotiating the entry into normal diplomatic relations, which how do your diplomats react. the rights of movement the visa situations, the travel the access to equipment goods all those kind of things have to be negotiated. and the components of the agreement, which we understood were critical, like the internet and the business and so forth has to be articulated. that's blg done now at which point we hopefully are in a

position to actually sign memorandums of exchange diplomatic notes and engages in process. >> yeah. shifting over to iran. you talked earlier about the execution of american foreign policy. and i can't think of a more dramatic area. the collision between the executive branch and the legislative branch than when a foreign leader -- and constitution talks about who deals with foreign leaders -- than what's happened here on this speech on march 4th with prime minister netanyahu. and i said publicly they believe he should postpone that speech. to me -- could you describe people what is it at issue here? you are the secretary of state. you understand this issue.

do you think this is a wise move on the part of the prime minister to come here when we are in the middle of these very delicate negotiations? was it a wise move on his part to ignore the administration in terms of appearing in front of a joint session of congress? what are you thoughts on that? >> well my thoughts are that you, as senators have all the leeway in the world to make up your own minds about how you feel about this decision. my job is to work with the prime minister of israel and with israel to maintain its security to honor our very, very strong relationship. and i speak with the prime minister more than any other leader. i speak with him regularly. and it is an important part of our security and his security -- i mean, the security of israel. and the enduring relationship that we have and nobody should question that relationship.

you all have to make up your own minds about the propriety of the way this unfolded or what happened. we're going to proceed about our business, which is protecting the country and may notintaining the integrity of these relationships. and that includes israel. i will be -- you know i've been focused on obviously iran negotiations. and ukraine. and afghanistan. and a bunch of other things. and actually i will be leaving i think on saturday for meetings with foreign minister lavrov on syria and other things. then human rights council. i will not be here. i will be negotiating with iran for the rest of that week as a matter of fact. so during that period of time i will actually be sitting there trying to get an agreement. >> secretary kerry just to conclude. i tried to have my staff research this. i don't know of any other time

that that has been -- that the administration has been ignored. do you -- can you in your memory at all. and if you can't answer that now i'll hope you'll try to answer that for me in terms of the history of our foreign relations. >> i think that your staff should do some research for you. and i'm not going to get into(o the history here now, one way or the other. as i said, my focus is on protecting the relationship between these -- between us and israel and dealing with important issues in the region. and i don't want anything coming in between that. >> and i understand that. and i believe it is a tremendously important relationship. but i also believe what the prime minister has done!cj(v taking this action, he's created a very divisive situation. thank you secretary kerry for all of your hard work. yield83k back. >> senator cain. >> thank you mr. chairman.

and the mr. secretary. i have a lot of questions but i'm going to hold on that for the hearings we'll have. i talked to you about strategy and i talked to you about security. on the strategy side. i haven't having been on this committee it seems like we're always in crises management mode. but because there have always and mr.will always be crises doesn't mean need wee need to define our job that way. i think we need to look big picture. i'm going to commend you in both senses. thank you and also encourage you on one. i got back from codal from mexico andb0> colombia. migration is now our number one trade partner. as many migrants migrate to the

mexico as mexicans to america. the trade relationship has gone a long way in 20 years. honduras, very challenging situation. the administration has put on the table a significant plan central america investment based on the plan the northern triangle nations put together. and this kind of investment, if we do it the right way, has the capacity to be a significant improvement in life for folks in that region and also slow the unaccompanied minor migration to this country. then i want to the colombia and i was there on the day you announced bernie aaronson as the united states special on so i have to the peace talks to company our ally colombia in the negotiations with the 50 years civil war in colombia. it was a failed state in 1990s buzz because of the u.s. investments and they will say because of the u.s. investments and their own hard work they have now become next to canada

our primary security partner in the hemisphere. they provide security on the border between egypt and israel. they provide security sunsetto assistance to central american nations nations. you spend all your time traving east and west. i'm exaggerating a little bit. but mern american policy is about europe, then about the soviet union and the middle east. now pivoting to the asia. it's as if the world has a east/west axis only. when it's got a north south axis. and it what i've been told is you pay attention to us when there is a crisis but you augmentought to pay more attention. there is a lot going on. >> . i commend you with the work you've done but i would also encourage you to really focus on that north/south axis.

we're 35 country a billion people. we share a name. america. we have a unique culture formed by indigenous and the european and african. and we share that from yukon to patagonia. and that's made us who we are but also made us open to other culture cultures. trade is booming between nations. the prosperity of the continents has dramatically improved. it is not just canada u.s. and the 33 dwarves anymore. it is significant major economies doing wonderful things. challenge sure. but if this civil war ends there will be two continue nenents in peace. you can't say that about europe and with ukraine and you can't say that about africa and asia. we are close to being able to say it for the americas.

i commend you for the work you have already done. but let's just not focus our attention on the americas when there is a crises and then turn back to the other countries. this could be some of the best inoculation we would have against global security challenges if we are persistent and stick with it. and i would encourage you to do that. last i want to thank you on something else. first time he had a hearing and i was sitting at the newest guy on thefmí: committee. i was with respect to our administration on embassy security. >> yes. >> state department had a multiyear search and decided they needed to do embassy security to chemokeep our people safe. and come up with that conclusion and picked in december of 2012, a few months after the choice of the site we had the horrible attack at benghazi. the aftermath suggested that

this site was needed. and yet here we are. we are now nearly 3 years after the selection of the site. two and a half years after the horrible tragedy at benghazi. and it hasn't really moved forward. but i was happy to see in the president's budget a proposal to finals invest $99 million to build this embassy security facility. if -- you mentioned that there are recommendations that have been done and there are recommendations that haven't been done. one that hasn't been done was to provide state of the art security training for those who serve in embassies around the world. and the summer of 2012 it was decide. i'm a little chagrin but still excited that in fy 16 we fight finally decide to act on that. and i don't know if you have comments about the strategy or

security point. thank you. >> i have comments about both senator. on the latter we are very, very excited about this. the department of state and the general services dplings ss administration looked at over 70 properties. there was a major property obviously down in georgia that was considered. it's the enforcement training center. the federal law enforcement training center and there was a lot of talk about going there. but we made the right decision to go to fort picket. over a 10 year period we will literally save -- the cost would have been 91 million in georgia. it's 9 million -- in the cost of transportation back and forth -- to do it in virginia. so this is a good decision. it is going to get implemented now. we're ready to go and we're very excited about all the due diligence has been done and it's going to happen. on the policy i couldn't agree with you more.

and in fact several -- i think it was about a month ago. when did we do canada up in boston? >> january. early jan. i invited the foreign minister of mexico and foreign minister of canada to join me in boston for a day and a half, two days. and we had dinner at my house and then we had a full day of meetings. took them to a hockey game and had a lot of fun. and we talked about north america. we talked about the ability of canada, u.s., mexico, which are huge part of the global economy by the way when you combine them, to be to have much greater impact and have a greater impact by the way on central america and latin america. so we've committed that. and in fact i've had a meeting in the state department within the last month at which we sat with our western hemisphere assistant secretary roberta

jacobson and others and talked about how we're going to implement a greater north/south over the years and this administration. and the appointment of the special envoy to colombia came out of my second visit to colombia and my discussions with president santos who asked us to get engaged and to become involved. and president obama agreed to do that. and together we decided that, you know bernie is the fellow to help get the job done. because he was intimately involved in the nicaragua/el salvador peacew%x process. and in fact i worked with him on the committee when i was chairman of the sub committee. so we think we got something cooking. and that together with the central america initiative and efforts to deal with petro carib

with the fuel problems in venezuela and so forth we're now putting together an entire energy connection strategy, which involves mexico, and others which could begin to really change the economies of the region. so i think -- i appreciate your focus. we should work on it next time we head down there maybe you want to come with me. and i will be heading down there shortly. we're very excited about the possibility of really defining this north america access. and you are right on target. >> thank you. senator menendez. >> thank you mr. chairman. and briefly i want to thank senator cain for someone who's been 23 years trying to create this focus on central america and latin america. great to that passionate voice about it. three questions mr. secretary.

speaking of latin america. the situation in venezuela continues to deteriorate. the venezuelan government arrested curacaoen president on trumped up charges. there are others who languished in prison over a year. we had legislation past signed by the president that calls for including mandatory plems implementations of certain sanctions. can you give us an update of where the administration is at and how they intend to move forward? >> we are perplexed by and disturbed by which is going on in venezuela senator. i reached out when i traveled last year, year before, to panama panama. and i think it was in guatemala i saw them. we met. supposed to be a 15 minute meeting. turned out to be 45. we agreed we were going to

follow on and begin a new period. and next thing i knew couple weeks later we were being attacked for this and that and accuse of this and that. this seems to be the pattern. whenever president maduro or someone in venezuela at the high level gets in trouble they blame america and it is repeated effort to trump you have notions of coups which don't exist and to play frankly to an old script. this is regrettable. our policy is we're very supportive. we continue to meet with and encourage meaningful dialogue between all the factor of the society, business, government, etc. we call on the government to release political prisoners. including dozens of students. and opposition leaders lopez,

and gaballos, garano. and we're working with others to try to live up with their defense of democracy. so we're working with the national security council right now and the department of treasury and other agencies to implement the provisions of the law on sanctions and we're moving ahead as fast as we can. >> i hope -- >> and i have raised the issue of venezuela in all of my conversations with leaders in the surrounding -- >> when we were proposing this, we were asked to withhold because there was an attempt by colombia and others to try to engage. and unfortunately that didn't produce results. and it seems that president maduro only continues to arrest those that either create opposition to his government and/or he uses as scapegoats. at some point i hope we can use the provisions of law sooner

rather than later and i recommend your attention. >> we are pushing in that. >> great. secondly turkey has gone into the exclusive economic zone of cypress. put ships there. followed with warships. pretty outrageous. and this is a country whose part of the -- cypress part of the european union. if this is the way we're going have countries in that region effect others exclusive zones which are internationally recognized and at the same time pressure a country in good faith negotiation to try to solve their long-standing problem in terms of the division of the country, it is a horrible set of circumstances. i hope we can be stronger with the turkish government about that this just simply -- i've read some statements and they have been positive in terms of, you know, criticizing what they have done. but they are still there. and at some point there has to

be -- there is another one of those elements of the violating international norms and at no consequences. and the message is you can do that if you happen to be the stronger party. >> and we've raised this issue. i have raised this issue. i have met with president of cypress. we -- prime minister. and we've had very conversations. it has been raised with -- excuse me. has been raised with turkey. i don't know when but in the not too distant future. i think i am slightated to head in that direction. >> i hope we can be vigorous about the part that if you want to get a negotiation forward you can't have your warships off the coast of the country. that is just not a way in which to get parties -- and i have followed this issue as well for a long time. this government is more

advanced, more forward leaning in trying to get to a negotiated settlement. but you can't do it at the point of a gun in essence. and it creates a real problem to try to move forward. so i hope when you are in the region -- >> we've been doing it even outside the region. i had meetings in munich on it. meetings to thatprior to that. i had meetings in new york on it. we met frequently with all the players. meetings with an ambassador engaged in the talks. and it did get in a bad place partly because of this. but other ingredients also. and my hope is -- i've had conversations with the turkish foreign minister about it. previously now prime minister davitolo and i were working closely on it. my hope is we can get back to equilibrium to allow us to move

forward but we explicit lyly discussed those things. >> on cuba. what also hasn't worked for 50 years is the leverage of the international community that was all engaged in cuba and all the castro regime has had more political prisoners more beats, more repression and no openings whatsoever to. the europeans, latin americans and the canadians and others who have traded with cuba and visited with cuba and done all of those things that we think are going to be the turning point did nothing to change the course of events there. i hope and i understand that at the president's direction you are conducting a review of cuba on the state lists of terrorist sponsors. so as assistant secretary jacobson was before the committee at that hearing, she confirmed that the castro regime continues to provide sanctuary

to joe anne chesomart who is on the fbi's list of top terrorists. and we also know even while negotiations are being hosted by cuba with the fark. that the fark continues to conductor the risk negotiations even inside the midst of the colombia and the colombian government pushes back on them. and we know cuba sent the most significant violation of u.n. security council resolutions on north korea, sent migs, missiles and tons of other military equipment to north korea in violation of those sanctions. when you are looking at removing cuba from the list of terrorists i'm going to look at that provision of the law that specifically comes from the export administration act that defines the term quote

repeatedly provided support for acts of the international terrorism to include the recurring use of any part of the territory of the country as a sanctuary for terrorists or terrorist organizations. and i'll be looking forward to how you meet that threshold to remove cuba from the list. >> that's all part of the analysis that has to be made. >> mr. secretary. thank you for being here. i want to raise just a couple of small issues relative to some of the bigger issues that you have been talking about and i'll do so briefly. i know we all have places to go. i know hundreds of american families have adopted young ones in the drc. they have suspended the process of those children leaving. i know it is incredibly difficult thing for us to deal with with the government that is in place there. but i would hope that -- i want to raise this at this meetinghçlt

it. we have not had a outcome yet but we're mindful. >> obviously with respect to everything today it's minor. it's everything to the families involved and we hope you will continue to raise that issue. >> we raise -- let me tell you. with the iranians whoever it

is, these names are all in the front of my head because we constantly raise people who have been held in one place or another. we don't always take about the names publicly because that works to disadvantage sometimes. but there are folks in pakistan places where we are highly focused on these situations. and it is a daily concern of the state department. >> we appreciate your commitment to the authorization process and i think that many ways it can help you significantly to leverage efforts and get congress far more bought into some of the issues you are talking about today. and yet there is almost no knowledge of those activities because of the lack of involvement that's taken place. so i look forward to working with you on that. >> okay. >> i appreciate very much your comments regarding the modern slavery initiative. and senator mennen nendez and i introduced legislation today that hopefully will move through the committee later this week

and b onto the senate floor. and i know you are committed to the same. and i just want to close with this. i think there is a concern. and i know we're going to have a lot of testimony. i know there is concern. we're going to have a lot of testimony over the next several weeks regarding syria. there is a sense of a lack of commitment. you are not going to dispel that today. but i do hope as witnesses come forth they will be open and transparent about the things under way. because today i think there is a sense that in essence we have a containment strategy that we're in essence riding the clock out until this president leaves office. we have the same concerns right now in ukraine. where we lured them west. they gave up 1240 nuclear weapons.

obviously russia would not be moving into their territory today had they not done that. and yet together with them and with the u.k. we made comments about their territorial sovereignty. and yet those are being invaded. and it does appear that the administration is not committed to doing those things that are necessary to cause ukraine to be able to at least defend itself. we were slow on intelligence. we are providing blankets. we are providing mres. but we're not providing some of the defensive lethal support that is necessary. >> well. >> let me just finish. >> we're providing counterbatteries and other things that are defensive. i understand the debate. >> i just want to say where it takes on iran is there is a strong sense of a lack of commitment. of a not willing to hold the line.

so i hope that we as a committee are going to be able to move forward on lengths that allows us to see that, to cause you to force -- to cause us to force a process where you will submit what it is you are doing with iran. i know you have been working on it very heavily. i know you must be proud of that effort. and in the event you come to a resolution with iran i do think it is important that it is submitted. that we have the opportunity to approve it prior to sanctions being lifted and the regime actually dissipating. and i think the role of congress to make sure that they are continuing to adhere to it is important. so those are comments i'd leave you with. we thank you for your service. i don't know of anybody who's worked harder to try to deal with the many crises that we have around the world. we thank you for your service here as a former chairman. and we wish you well. >> thank you. good to be with you. thank you.

we've been asking your thoughts on what you think of the obama administration foreign policy. some reaction so far. it's great finally getting those in the region involved without sending our own army to die for no reason. jackie feels differently. what foreign policy? does barack obama even have one? more live programming coming up this evening with oh mo governor

john casekasich.

attendees of a cybersecurity conference on monday. the event featured a syrian cyber security specialist and a look at consumer issues. the new america foundation hosted this 1 hour 10 minute panel. [ applause ] >> good morning everyone. it is a little bit cold today but with e have to go through. so what is it like to get hacked for your believes? i believe that to get hacked in the u.s. is really different than to get hacked in europe or middle east. especially now days. going through my personal story and why i'm here in the u.s. today. back to 2011 i used to live in

beautiful dmas kasamascus. and at that time the civil movement started the beginning of 2011. and a lot of people joined the movement when it was peaceful. and most of these people they were really aware about how our government is really strong regarding the regarding the civilians and the technology they had, and they still have actually regarding civilians and all of control for the internet and infrastructure. at that the syrian government used to block all social network. and only the people with good background knowledge about cybersecurity had access to the social network because it was blocked. in the very smart movement march 2011 the syrian government removed all block on the social network. and these people that needed to see what's going on joined the social network and it became a huge movement. it was good for the government because they were collecting information. but it wasn't -- it was not only

for collecting information. it was not only for social engineering let's say perspective. but it's more deep into cyber attacks. back to may -- actually june 2011 in old damascus, i got the chance to meet one of the bridge journalists that came to film -- or to film documentary about the civil movements. mcallister, worked for channel 4 and asked me if he can join me in the training i used to do for activists and lawyers a that the time teach them how to protect themselves online. he filmed. and i was okay i will allow this but at the same time you have to at least encrypt your data. let me teach you how to encrypt your data. you are hear on a tourist

skprooez they can't justvisa. and i taught him. and he's still a maker. he did his movie. he film a lot of people. a lot of very important sources also. october 18th it was 1:00 a.m. at night. i received a message from a old friend and he was assisting sean. that sean mccallister got arrested in a coffee shop and i have to go hide myself. because they arrested a lot of people they work with and got his storages and his back up. in my message i said is the data encrypted. they got access to the video? and he said yes to everything. and i was kind of underestimating to the power of the government at that time. in a very famous coffee shop he was sitting and having coffee with another guy and they both got arrested.

milan is still in jail today. and manal was a arrested and they removed her from the country because she is not syrian. if you are talking about cyber security for foreign activists, but actually it is important to know that technology today is really helping. technology is playing two roles and they are very two important roles. it's connecting people very good. but the other side there are a lot of technologies they are helping governments to access to your information. i believe now in the new modern movement governments get access more to the information than comparing to before. a lot of company blue code which is a u.s. based company was the main provider more d.p.i. technology, deep packet inspection, which allowed the government to get access, to know the data that user were

transferring in syria. for example, a very simple face recognition technology that facebook use, actually it is available in hand of syrian governments or how powerful that will be. today isis and actually i don't know if you heard isis started to develop a malware comparing between the government which they started developing the malware within six months of their hacking techniques, isis started with this recently. and now here they are. very active. they have access more than the syrian government by the way because they are not under sanctions. here we are today i move to the u.s. as the group of engineers. we're trying to help people. we're trying to connect people on the ground with technology makers here in the u.s. and different places.

explaining for them that this technology is good to use but this is not gad to use. at the same time we're trying to protect people on the ground by teaching them. and at the end i just want to mention that it is not only syria. it is half of the world that is being ruled by governments like the syrian governments and many other governments. and today i can see that the threat is not only. they are not only threatening syrian people but threatening people outside. and the we've seen recently how isis was active online at the same time the syrian government was active online. and technology is so fast i see a lot of growing up in a technology that at the same time i see there is a misconnection between all of these departments. that is what's exactly leaded us to the problems that we use to face in syria. so i hope a conference like this events like this will

bring people from different places to they can talk to each other and understand what is good and what is bad. thank you so much. [ applause ] >> many thanks. and i would like to invite the first panel to now join us on the stage. >> good morning everyone. i'm cepa pena gangadharan. i'm a senior fellow with the new america's technology institute.

for the past ten years i've spent a great deal of time working with groups and researchers on the topic of the digital divide. and today's discussion entitled is cyber security the next digital divide, will have us thinking about the concept of sooub cybersecurity in a more every day context. what does the common person experience and think about in relation to digital safety and security? it is not often, as anna marie slaughter was mentioning that we use this term in relation to the potential for misuse or access to information. my information, as it transits from one person to another. in addition, to thinking about

the common person a we'll spend some time thinking about society's most marginalized members, people who don't have access to many -- not just technology, but to many basic needs needs. and we're going to do by engaging three panelists who have thought long and hard about what it means to be secure, how to engineer or design for security and what is it stake. joining us are tara whalen staff analyst. and seda gurses, a post doctoral fellow at new york university.

and the daniel kahn gillmor. you have all computer scientists by training and have been involved in policy debates with security and policy. so i want to dive right in. as i mentioned, i've spent a lot of time working on issues of the digital divide, looking at the long-term unemployed recipients of public assistance. typically older adults. perhaps individuals who have limited english speaking skills low levels of literacy. for example the national -- and low access to the internet. for example the national telecommunications and information administration reported last year that 30% of households in america still do

not have access to the internet. access to high speed broadband. are they -- are these individuals who are on the quote/unquote wrong side of the digital divide -- are they more security because they are not connected to digital services or digital infrastructure? >> well so access to the internet and broadband is only one piece of the puzzle in terms of connection to the digital infrastructure. many of the people who are in these households most likely have mobile phones and certainly surveillance can take place on the mobile phone network as well as on the internet. so in terms of people being more safe because they don't have internet access, i think there is certainly no guarantee there. and for the population that you mentioned, people who are in positions of continued employment, people who have other demands on their time,

often things likes a mobile phone that has to be on all the time and provide electrophile oflevel of tracking and other surveillance concerns they simply are have to submit to them to go about their every day life. so the lack of access to the internet itself i think is not providing any security guarantee for these poem. >> seda or tara? >> i could add also that people who want to get themselves involved in groups who do security f they want to educate themselves, or build a group who could give them information about security, again being connected helps you build these kind of groups. not only are you maybe not able to put as much information online at home but you will still have access. the information will still be put on you in these other sources. and maybe makes it harder to become engaged in the broader community.

>> maybe the divide between the surveillance and the privacy divide. [ some communities are more likely to be subject to surveillance regardless of whether it is based on devices or surveillance of thoouz their communities through cc tv cameras or the police. and i think we know from studies that women are also more likely to be subject to surveillance or harassment online. so i think there is a divide as to what surveillance means to different communities. and there is a second divide which is a privacy divide in a sense of who has access to and understanding of what it means to protect their privacy and claim their rights with respect to privacy. and i don't think these groups necessarily overlap. >> so we'll come back to that idea of your community connections and security. but i actually want to ask if you can describe to me what does it mean to be secure? if i'm walking into a public library and speaking to a group of people who haven't accessed

technology very frequently or on their own terms what does it mean? >> so i think there are some basic things that you would like to have for communication security. making sure your communication is only readable by the person you are sending it. being able to act anonymously should you need to. and being able to be part of communities that aren't necessarily under direct surveillance by an adversary. so all of these sort of things are ways to think about securing your communication ss and the communities that you live in. not just the individuals but also the communities. technologically that ends up being tools that provide encryption tools that provide inanymorenim

anonymity services and also behavioral patterns and patterns of thinking like where the different forms of surveillance show up. in terms of the other pieces of surveillance that you may not be thinking of. >> is that your same take on what technical security means? >> aclu hatz done great work to show the phones we use are absolutely insecure and there's been great failure in the market of any parties responsible for getting the phones to us to make sure they are secure and not just making us vulnerable. and the fact you said for a lot of communities the only access to the internet is through phones actually makes them more vulnerable to these kind of security weaknesses that are embedded in our current system of information. but i think we need to maybe take a wider look at what it means to be informationally secure. i think one thing is to make

sure that the data that emanates from the individual is somehow secured either through their phone or the communications. as you talked about possibly using enkripgs and making sure no eves droppers and possibilities of the anonymity. but i think data breeches is also a matter of your technical security and the companies, you know, that have breached databases should be reporting back and letting the individuals know what this means now. and i think there are serious concerns with some of the new information sharing legislation leading to let's say removing some of this liability. and what the impact of that will be on these communities. i think informational securities also being informed about how your data is collected and having the choice to use services without having your information collected. and i think it is also a lot about how information is used to

profile individuals or used to let's say design their environment. what we see right now is a lot of data mining and data being used as an access to truth and as a way of making decisions in policy making. data becomes kind of the lens through which we look at the world. but we know that especially for communities that don't have a good representation in these data sets that the impact on data mining on them could be very different than on those communities that we have a better understand of what the data points are, what they mean what they stand for. so there is a disparate impact of data profiling on communities that we're not even able to the properly articulate. and i think this administration through data mining is also part of the security. >> if i could add a little about the impact of the communities.

people who are unemployed. the information security applies to a broader level of security for physical security. because the information revealed about you through your communication, it may be things you put on a social network you didn't know how to configure. this can go beyond just this information sphere into your wroder lives, which has a stronger impact on someone in a marginalized community. >> so it sounds like what you are talking about is that technical security is really not a sufficient way to think about security among vulnerable communities. >> it is a precondition. having devices that are absolutely insecure, which phones i can say are. and we can talk about that maybe in detail later is basically a bad precondition for having anything above that. so it's a pre condition. >> let's talk about that now.

what needs to happen to the technologies? the devices themselves? what constitutes a secure mobile phone? >>. [ laughter ] >> i don't know that we have one yet. >> so in your ideal world what does it look like? >> well the issue is not just the device itself but the network that it connects to. and so to say we can make just a secure hand set, if that hand set is connecting to a broader infrastructure that itself enables all kind of tracking opportunities and meta data collection and potentially content collection, then the device -- it doesn't matter what the device is. some of these questions ultimately need to be addressed as an infrastructural level. it is not enough to say well we can build this one tool. we need to say if we want people to be able to have secure communications the fundamental

networks and protocols, the ways they talk online to each other, those mechanisms need to be secured and need to provide people with the ability to have the confidential communications and the ability to operate privately on the networks. because the ability to have that kind of all-seeing analysis into these tools is actually makes everyone in the involved in the network massively insecure. it is not possible. and this is well understood within the engineering community. that it's not possible to actually engineer broad scale surveillance mechanisms to allow just the good guys to surveil. you simply can't build the protocols. you can't build the networks in such a way that allow access to one group of people we think are the good guys and simultaneously keep out the actors we might think are nefarious to. make them work they need security built in at the levels we define the network and the protocol stack. >> so that's interesting because

when i've thought about the question of making cybersecurity more accessible to members of low income communities or vulnerable populations, the thing that immediately comes to mind is the question of usability. right? so i have spent time in the field where i'm observing people in the classroom. usually older adults again, someone, you know, that's has limited language -- english language skills, who spends -- someone who spends at least three classes literally trying to figure out how to drag the mouse from one side of the computer screen to the other. so that is the first bit. the second bit usually the last five weeks of the class is spent understanding what in the world

is a user name and a password. and so i've seen is like this complete cognitive dissonance as to what does it mean to have an identity online. you know people are definitely choosing insecure passwords, something that is easy to remember. and if you have low literate skills or limited english skills you are going to pick something that is much easier to remember that a computer could decipher quite easily. you are more than likely sharing your password and user name with other individuals because you are not done this before. and so usability -- i mean, it seems like an obvious thing to really focus on. and i'm -- i guess i'm hearing that is not -- >> i think we shouldn't pit

usability with securitied infrastructure against one another. i think we need both. for me to say that infrastructure needs to be built in a secure way is not at all to say that we should discard usability. i agree with you that that is a critical concern. but we have usable tools like mobile phones that people understand and learn how to use. even people who have a low technological literacy, that are working in a insecure way. so the fact of the usability doesn't actually solve the securityhf >g problem. >> i spent a lot of time in usability and security. so this is near and dear my heart. i would agree with daniel. they shouldn't be opposition. sometimes it is a matter of priorities as to what things we focus on. these are very hard problems. i think some of the issues we're still grappling. we have a large number o of

users with various backgrounds, level of expertise. people with disability, questions around age, literacy. all of these issues come to into how well we're serving user population. we're working on it. discussions maybe in the last five years i'm hearing it talked about more. i'm hoping there are more people prebaird to work on this issue. work on the research side and work on putting money into the initiatives. a is simply secure came out. there was reset the net did something recently. they put together a set of tools for people that were sproezedly easier for people to use. so it was an effort to give people a set of tools they had identified as easyier for people to use. they didn't have to go out into the world and anything your out all these things themselves. i'm hope we crack these

problems. is the ssl certificate. is unissue. i -- one issue. is this a risk. what went wrong? we're not sure. how much information did we give you so question make a informed decision. and these are steps where we still haven't wrakd the hardest point. ideally you wouldn't end up in a step where a person had to make this decision. but we need to be able to support people in those situations when things break down. >> there is a very hard word to pronounce that really helps to analyze this problem and it's called the responsiblization. >> you have to unpack that one. >> yeah i will unpack that. so in very very short description it is about encouraging individuals to manage their risk themselves. and we're increasingly asking

individuals to manage their risk. and this comes as a result of organizations, company governments streaming their processes most likely through digital information systems which incur certain new risks but these risks are not taken over by the organizations by externalized to the individual user. so we're collecting a lot of data and the risks associated we're externalizesing to the user saying if you didn't want to be part you should protect yourself. putting responsibility on the user that if you there are risks coming in your direction as a result of this new information technology, you are responsible for protecting yourself from it. this is very problematic i think. we've done projects in the past that instead of burdening the users, we should asking phone companies or whoever's making the phones to give them secure phones, and make sure the

network is secured in a way your communications cannot be eves dropped on either by a third party like the government or maybe by your partner who might be violent towards you. and in the case of the user name i think there are a lot of sites asking for user name and password when you don't need to. i think you could use the systems anonymously. and in some cases i think there is a risk in the sense that you want to be logging in and securing your communication with that organization who's giving you services. but they are not securing theirs services well themselves. they are asking like what is your mother's maiden name. which is usually public information and then saying they are not keeping their mother's maiden private. which is burdened with bad design. and there is a lot unpack there which is not just about

usability. >> i want to come back to a theme that daniel had mentioned earlier. i think you were referring to -- i mean i'm hearing that there is a there's a shared responsibility that seems to exist. you had earlier pointed to this idea that a community that we shouldn't be thinking about individual security, but a community is part of the process. i'm wondering -- in both the work that you've done as a developer of open source tools and in your work at the aclu. >> there are many different ways that a community's security can be impacted by the tools they use, and the communications they use. so i guess at least two different ways i would like to

answer the question. one way is that for a tool to be developed in a way that benefits the users, those users -- people developing the tool need to be engaged with the user base. the user base needs to give feedback to the tool developers. how you establish those communication channels and encourage people to contribute in those ways to the tools that they rely on is a tough question. i think we need more people trying to get those communications channels open and to value that feedback. another way i think -- this is a separate question how do we secure a community. lbgt communities in places that have homo phobic culture or laws

have ways of communicating!u with each other. and rather than just surveilling one individual, you can focus surveillance on the community itself. so whether any one individual is in this community has protected their information, the fact that they're still participating in a community conversation highlights them as a potential target and that itself is a risk. there's sort of two ways i wanted to make sure the community aspect gets brought into the conversation. >> so that suggests that we need a broader base of people using securer technologies. i want a reality check as to where we're at, because i heard you say something about hypotheticals, and tara, you also mentioned that, you know, we have a lot to do. so what's the state of the market, for example with

regards to secure technologies? how many people are using -- let's set aside the question of vulnerable populations for a second and understand the broad base of consumers that do practice, you know using the en enkripgs tools -- i mean what are we looking at here? >> at one level, the user community is massive because there's already an infrastructure that already has a large amount of incription deployed.

i don't have a good read on who are using the tools that are off the beaten path say. it can be -- there are people who have had an incident that's happened to them and they may decide this is something they need to do. there may be people who have come from a larger community. i think in those groups we're not seeing the diversity that you would see in the broader community i mentioned earlier who are using the tools. if you look at some of the developer communities, this is the way you hear about these tools because you're involved in a different community the diversity in these groups are not very large.

the numbers are pretty low. the number of women who are participating is low. anyone who is in a group in which they are marginalized tends not to have excessive resources to participate in a free labor project. so you're someone who has had multiple jobs, someone taking care of children. you they not have the ability to decide you're going to sit down and dedicate a few more hours a week to develop a tool. trying to bridge that gap is an interesting challenge, if we want to hear from the users and not just the people they feel they know what the users want. so i'm intrigued to see how we might bridge that gap. >> daniel how good or bad? >> in terms of the diversity within the developer community? it's terrible.

>> and also with the user community. >> well, so, the thing about looking a t the user community particularly for privacy preserving tools often they don't want to identify themselves, because they're interesting in preserving their privacy. so there's a bit of a chicken and egg problem in determining that and developers who build tools that do want to preserve privacy usually don't collect a ton of information. so that one is hard to answer. i suspect that the numbers are relatively low though compared to the amount of network usage overall. >> maybe it's good to distinguish three types of encryption use that are out there right now. one is basically what we pop

poplarly know as the lock on your device. those are against man in the middle attacks. the next one, and that's being increasingly used on phones and tablets, is man at the end of attacks. so that's when companies use encryption to put controls over what we can do with the devices that we are using. en and those two, the man t the end encryption use is quite popular. the man in the middle towards the service is getting more popular due to increased privacy concerns. then there's the third type in free software and the lack of diversity, and that's what i will call end-to-end encryption.

it's not perfect, but let's try in this kind of classification. and what happened in the last two months, which is rather -- let's say worrying is that we had a number of government officials speak against the end-to-end encryption, and it's possible popularization through a -- companies applying end-to-end to a wider user base. apple said they would provide a quausi application to their users. google has started developing something that we haven't seen deployed yet. and facebook said they would integrate it. and we saw government officials say this would mean law enforcement would not be able to do their jobs. some said we need to ban encryption which means we would

also ban encryption against the man in the middle attacks, which was not well received. and obama said something similar, even maybe sfroerng. he said companies would be liable if because of the use of end to end encryption happened that an attack happened and somebody was harmed. sending the message to companies, in my opinion that they should not implement these technologies. so i think there's a whole economy of where encryption gets applied and where it's encouraged. i would like to see end-to-end and make sure that it's available for the privacy of the users. but we haven't seen that happen. >> i want to respond to your -- let's talk about that later maybe. because i am really interested

in the quality of the security that end users are receiving. so one thing that has been of concern, particularly in marginalizeó communities is stuff that they use across the board doesn't work. it's of low quality. so i'm wondering, you know, are we at risk of seeing tools developed and deployed that aren't quite protecting us as much as they should be? then i'll come back to some larger questions. but i think that you know from the perspective of the marginalized communities that i've worked with that is a very prominent concern. are you getting what you think you're getting? >> so there are few