things, they are all fair questions. and they help us. we factor that in and it helps us in terms of thinking about every aspect of the negotiation. that is different from actually condemning the deal and sort of turning off and saying there is no way this will work or it is a bad deal or you're about to make a deal when you don't really have all of the components of the deal in front of you and we don't even. because it is not yet resolved. so that is the distinction i'm trying to draw. but we welcome this kind of a question. and paragraph 39 of the 1929 resolution hasn't been lived up to and not met and not relevant

to what we are doing right now to be honest with you. because it talked about suspension of enrichment. it didn't say they can't enrich. it talked about suspension and then the negotiations would decide what is or isn't allowed as long as it meets the terms of the nonproliferation treaty and so forth. that is the situation right now. and wendy sherman in her discussion didn't raise any violations i know because there haven't been any violations. we have sanctioned individual companies during the course of this time with the interim agreement, we have actually imposed more sanctions and we've sanctioned individuals and companies and there are those being held accountable. and iran operates light water

reactors at bashir and they pose left of a risk for the potential of civilian power production than other types of reactors that are prohibited by the u.n. security council so what they are doing now is not, in fact, a violation. and we've been clear in making -- in defining that the purpose of the negotiations we're in now with iran is to ensure that their nuclear program is exclusively for civilian purposes. that is the key here. they could have a civilian peaceful program so when you get into the number of centrifuges and this and that, if you have a civilian power plant and producing power legitimately and not a threat to proliferation, you could have 190,000 or more centrifuges and if they are

power plants producing power. so the key here is is this a peaceful program and are the measures in place capable of making sure you know it is peaceful. that is the standard we're trying to apply. >> we go now to judge ted pope of texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you mr. secretary for being here. starting with isis. i think it is important that we define different participants in this war with isis. i think it is important that we define who the enemy is. whether it's isis or i.s. or isil or whatever it is being called. i define them as being islamic

terrorists, i don't know what you define them are. and the second is we need to define who the vikes arebe -- victims are. the victims are people who criticize them, in the press and jews and christians and those who don't believe in muslim and the third is we need to define why they do this. what is the cause of this reign of terror throughout the world. my theory is they do this in the name of their radical islamic religious beliefs. and then the plan. but we don't have time to discuss what the plan is to defeat them. so how would you define the enemy? would you define them as islamic, radical terrorists? >> well, i think many of them are.

not all of them. but many of them are. and certainly the top leadership al baghdadi and folks around him, are formulating their concept of the caliphate on the basis of their interpretation of islam. >> okay. so some of them are. >> to a degree they are establishing a caliphate and hanging some of their notions of organization and discipline and battle based on that. there is a component of it that is a distorted sense of islam. >> who are the victims? >> well, but let me also point out. >> i'm sore griy -- i'm sorry, i want to get an answer for all three questions. >> i will give you an answer. and there are also criminals and thugs and adventurers and thrill-seekers involved in this as a criminal anarchy in all of

it notwithstanding the basis they want to claim with respect to islam. and it is important in coming at this that you not empower them through the language we use to be able to make the argument to their peemt that in fact -- to their people that in fact, we are at war with islam and they are building that up as a recruitment tool and we crate our own problem. i think that is what people are trying to be sensitive to. and when you get into the deep analysis, yes, there are clearly very distorted sense of radical extremist islam being put forward. the victims are anybody who stands in their way or people who are different or who have different beliefs, they can be christians yazidis officers and police officers who are sunni and trying to stand up for

their village or their town. in mosul, they kill the mayor and young people they think are appo state. >> so answer the third question. >> so why do they do this? they do this for power and for the extension of the -- the leaders for their misguided notion of their caliphate and the desire to be the power that is defining not only their version of islam but to have the power within that region to run the show. >> reclaiming my time i have another question on a different issue. twitter, under federal law, it is -- it is against the law to aid or assist or provide assistance to a foreign terrorist organization as you know. foreign terrorist organization, isil isis uses twitter to

recruit, to raise money and to spread the hate propaganda throughout the world and myself and others have asked twitter to pull down the sites because they are a foreign terrorist organization that is being allowed to do this. we -- twitter pulls down child pornography sites without a problem and my question to you, secretary kerry, four years ago the white house said they were going to come up with a plan to deal with this issue and i have seen no plan yet 2011, but be that as it may what is your position, the state department's position on twitter allowing foreign terrorist organizations to use an american company to recruit, to raise money and spread their -- propaganda. we would never have allowed the north carolina times to take out an ad for the nazis during world

war i. can i get an answer? >> i would like one. >> we don't like it and there is a discussion taking place with the entities of the social media. and we have made some progress. but you haven't seen the videos posted and there are things being reduced. so some progress is being made. and the final comment, when you ask who the victims are, the primary and most significant number of victims are muslims and people need to focus on that. >> we are going to go to mr. brian higgins of new york. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you mr. secretary. just on the iran issue centrifuges and iran enrichment and capability and they have had 164 centrifuges, for weapon s

weapons-grade material and today there is over 19,000 and it is suggested that 9400 are operatal centrifuges to enrich uranium. how important is the number of centrifuges to the negotiations ongoing right now? >> it is important. >> do we accept that iran should have thousands of operational centrifuges to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes? >> well that question is so general that is doesn't allow for the question of what is their production level, what are they doing et cetera, et cetera. i'm not going to get into the numbers at this point in time except to say to you, we have established a critical measurement of needing a one-year break-out time for a

reasonable period of time and an ability to be able to limit the impact of whatever is produced by whatever centrifuges are running. in other words you have to look at the stockpile and what happens to the spent fuel, what happens to other things. so there is a larger equation of how you measure what is happening. but the answer is it is part of that equation and we are very much focused on it. >> secretary, let me ask you this we're sitting at the table with the iranians, negotiating a very important issue relative to the nuclear program and intentions and not only to the region but to the world. and concurrently we are involved in iraq, syria and the iranian influence there, despite the americans believing that we have a friendly government in iraq,

it seems as though the loyalties of that iraqi government are more closely aligned with iran and the forces commander. and lately against the islamic state, the concern is they have a bad history with us. we authorize the president's request for military force in iraq and we are going to be right in the midst of fighters who are experienced but also have a contemporary history of shooting our guys, essentially. so while we are both fighting isis, there must be concerns on the part of the -- the american military about how do you influence the shia militia there

also fighting the same target? >> we're greatly concerned about some of the behavior of the militia and that has been raised very directly with the prime minister. we've raised it with the iranians. it is -- it's a component of the violence on the ground and has created some challenges with respect to the sunni participation and some of the changes and reforms we are looking for. but by enlarge at large, iranian engagement with respect to -- with respect to iraq, while it is present in the form of so many, and even some people fighting in the northeastern corners, the fact is there was a

greater direct day-to-day control and problem presented with former prime minister maliki which is one of the reasons why the army wouldn't stand and fight in mosul and the prime minister is working very hard to -- with the oil deal made with their bill, with the movement of weapons with the peshmerga and the work with the tribes to change that dynamic. and so, yes, iran has influence and they are present and is doing things but i think overall there is a concerted effort to focus on the problem of isil. and they are all focused on that. >> we're going to mr. matt salmon of arizona the chairman of the sub-committee. >> mr. secretary i would like to ask you about the hostage policy. as you know, kayla mueller an

aspiring woman was captured and held by isis terrorists for over 18 months before she was tragically killed in their captivity. while kayla is the first american woman captured and held and brutally killed by the terrorist thugs, other americans have suffered this fate which i hope we can all agree is unacceptable. now recently kayla's family gave an interview of what they went through over the last 18 months with the terrorists seeking a dollar ransom and the administration announced they traded five known and dangerous territories for sergeant bergdahl, isis changed their demands from money to the release of those jailed here in the u.s. and as soon as they learned they negotiated, they demanded more

for kayla mueller. imagine how the family felt they would negotiate for a soldier who deserted his unit and not for their daughter. and you can ex pound on this, but were you consulted when they decided on a swap for sergeant bergdahl and can you say yes or no no. >> yes, i was advised. >> and knowing you what you now know, would you advise them to make the same decision? >> bergdahl was a member of the military being held as a member of a conflict and as we draw down there is a exchange of prisoners, he was not a hostage. hostages are people who are civilians or individuals taken for the specific purpose of ransom and we do not negotiate

for ransom. that is our policy. and you can see the tracking -- >> and i'm not disputing that. >> but look at the evidence of other countries who have paid -- i'm not going name them here, and they have had significant increases of their citizens being taken hostage and there is just revolving fund of money coming in from $5 million to $10 million to significant sums and it funds terrorism. so it is a hard distinction. kayla mueller -- just a extraordinary young woman. >> and i'm sure you can understand why it is difficult for her parents to understand that distinction? >> it is very hard. and we've talked to her parents and our people -- we have reached out. i won't tell you that every contact with one agency or another met with a response that perhaps it should have or was handled as effectively as it might be which is why president obama has instructed a review of

that process and we've engaged in it ourselves in the state department. and we're doing a lot to deal with that. but the bottom line is isil is responsible for her death. we don't even know precisely how she died. but isil is responsible. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i totally agree that isil is responsible. but the distinction that has been made is something that i think is confusing to a lot of people and it doesn't seem like it was very confusing to the isil folks because they ended up upping the ante with her negotiations after this happened. >> our interpretation is they were never serious. they mounted money they put on americans indicated it was -- it was not a serious deal for them.

but we don't pay money and we never have and we're not going to start. >> i'm not saying we should. but i do believe that the whole bergdahl swap sent a message, this distinction you've talked about to me seems a distinction without a significant difference. and i think that it did send a message that we do negotiate with terrorists and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you for yielding your time. and now to rhode island. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for mr. secretary for your work around the world and during very challenging time so we're all grateful for your service. i'll have a series of questions i'll submit for the record and ask for written response for portugal and thes aors and human peace keeping and the fight in ebola and west africa and the armenian joano side and i --

genocide and i look forward to your responses to. >> that but i want to talk about the atrocities in syria particularly torture and murder and even some claims of the use of chemical weapons. regardless of the person responsible for these crimes, i think most would agree that they warrant immediate attention by the international community. i know russia and china have impeded our efforts and i'm wondering what we are doing to help push a referral to the international criminal court or other things to hold those individuals accountable for at trosities that are happening -- atrocities happening in syria. and as we consider the president's request for the authorization of the use of military force, many of us are very concerned about what our partners in the region are doing, what the europeans are doing or those such as saudi arabia and jordan and the uae

playing a -- the capacity to play a more prominent role and there is the consensus this will require air operations and ground troops commitment not to use u.s. ground troops and what is the capacity and we heard about 60 countries, but what are they doing and what do they have the capacity do they have to do and how much of this will fall on the united states to degrade or defeat isil or isis? >> thank you, congressman. good questions. on syria i don't have any doubt in my mind that bashar al assad has engaged in war crimes. i mean the use of gas against your own citizens is a war crime. the use of barrel bombs indiscriminately against women and children there are other examples. starvation as a tool of war is a

war crime. there are things that are mounting. and mounting that kind of case and putting together that evidence in the middle of a war is always very complicated, number one. and number two, there are other policy choices that are complicated about the lodging of a -- of a complaint, et cetera and moving forward. because it can greatly effect the options that are then available to you in terms of negotiating and coming up with a political solution. so there hasn't been at this point in time -- i think there is evidence being collected and people are examining you saw the photographs of the 10000 or so people alleged to have been tortured. many of those issues by the way, there is not a clarity about the evidence of who ordered it or who did it, et cetera, et cetera. so i don't think cases are ripe, even though there is a lot of evidence. and for the moment, i think the

appropriate entities are busy gathering and evaluating that evidence and i think some has been referred to the hague but i'm not sure exactly what specifically specifically. with respect to our allies in the coalition, we have said from day one there are many different things that each country in the coalition can do. some countries don't have the ability to contribute air power or to engage with troops. but they have an ability to contribute with respect to humanitarian instance or japan is doing humanitarian assistance. they have the ability to provide assistance in turning off the flow of money by putting their financial and banking systems at the disposal of the effort to cut off the foreign financing. almost every country has been ability to contribute to try to reduce the flow of foreign fighters going in.

so airport practices, police practices, exchange of information, intelligence sharing, all of these are part of the protocol that general allen and brett mckirk are sharing with this global coalition. and then there is the effort to change the messaging, to counter isis' message and discredit it in the religious community and that effort is a very, very significant part of this and all of those 60 nations are taking part in that one way or another. through the social media, through conferences, by helping to organize their muslim communities, to have the imams clerics, grand malt eaves speak out and the egyptians have spoken very clearly condemning

isil as an organ of satan and a criminal enterprise that has nothing to do with islam. so there is an enormous amount of global enterprise now being focused on the effort of isil. but in the end, those who are in syria, i think, we all understand, will have to be taken on directly on the ground in addition to the air power and a number of countries in the region have spoken of their willingness under the right circumstances to commit troops to that effort. and that is an ongoing policy debate that will take place now. >> and we're going to california to mr. issa. >> and thank you for being one of the leading characters on foreign policy long before you came to this job.

today we are largely talking about budget request and i'll try to stick to that. but i want to thank you for the work being done on the one-two-three agreements south korea and china. i'm very supportive of our partner in south korea and in trying to meet their expectations. obviously we have great concerns about any agreement with a country like china who has a record of not keeping those agreements. and we'll be looking at it and i appreciate your continued work on it and the assistant secretary's work. and additionally as we talked about a little bit in the back, the embassy security around the world and the rate at which the state department has slowed in the construction of new embassies and consulates which, from my observation here and in another committee seems to have more to do to a return of one of designs rather than the standard

build working so well for many years. can you briefly tell us, can you -- can you say that the new system is going to deliver the same speed and cost that the other did? because quite frankly so far the embassies being built, including the one in beirut that i'm completely concerned about appear to be again one of designs that have more architect you'll uniqueness to them than they should. obviously the moat that surrounds the unique design in london might be very british but it concerns us at a cost of $1.2 billion. so do you have a commitment to at least use standard design whenever possible? >> i think whenever possible we are. but it is not always possible

just because of the setbacks, the locations where they are today today, and part of this congressman, is probably best discussed in a classified session because simply if i start getting specific, then we get in -- it sort of telegraphs. >> mr. secretary i'll stop over any time you'll have me. >> and i think it is worth taking time over to go over to talk with secretary kennedy. and some of it going through the report and the requirements of that. and you all have been terrific in helping us to be able to upgrade. we have a massive upgrade effort going on now and it is costly. about $2.2 billion going into

the security. >> and i appreciate that. and one of my major concerns and we'll follow up in a more appropriate environment. but one of my major concerns is the rate at which new construction is occurring has clearly slowed over the last few years. and in some of the areas of greatest uncertainty as to whether or not they can keep -- the countries can keep their commitment to us like in africa and in the middle east, are areas that i are -- that i hope we can focus on some of the funds of moving those forward. let me switch to one nearly $1 billion activity. we've been working -- our oversight committee is working on the foreign affairs security training center question, this 900$900 or so million dollar program has had a lot of questions and quite frankly we're short some answers and i would ask unanimous consent that the exchange between our counsel

and the office of management budget be placed in the record. mr. secretary, i'll give you this, but i would ask you to realize that we've been waiting for the state department to dpif us the details -- to give us the details done by omb or the state the details of how the cost estimates were arrived at for the $900 million and when they tripped out the accommodations, assuming they were going to hotels that don't exist at fort picket, how they got the other numbers, we were told to go to o.m.b. and our staff went to office of management and budget and were told to go back to you. will you commit to us today to provide the source information and calculations because as it exists right now, i'll be very quick, we believe that the existing georgia facility would be a fraction of the cost and would deliver to the men and women in the state department the training in a matter of weeks or months and the other

training facility will take years and cost that at least $900 million estimate? >> congressman, i'm happy to work with you and work through the numbers on this. i've talked about it with them the other day and the department of state and the gsa looked at some 70 different properties. before settling on and including very, very deep analysis of the federal law enforcement training center in georgia. you know that. >> yes. >> and the conclusion of that effort looking at the site reaffirmed that fort picket was really the more suitable place for it. and that -- that resulted in an initial layout of some money. but let me say to you. i'll give you a cost comparison.

the department estimated -- >> might i suggest this, mr. secretary, might i suggest we do that in writing and we go now -- we understand the point. >> the bottom line i'll just say to you, there are huge cost savings in going to fort picket. >> and thank you, mr. secretary. and mr. chairman i did want a commitment to get the source material so we could evaluate it fairly and the g.a.o. could evaluate it fairly. >> i don't know what you mean by the source material. >> the cost analysis by the o.m.b. and that is all we are asking for. to see what you saw? >> what i commit to you is they'll sit down with you and go through the cost onnal sis. and on london by the way, with the moat there was no outlay of tax dollars because it was paid for out of the sale of the other embassy building. >> and we'll go to mr. keating.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the secretary i know firsthand in his absence from massachusetts, how hard he is working throughout the world and how personally he's sacrificed for our country and i want to thank you for that. i just want to follow up on an area of concern to me personally that we've been working on in this committee and you did it briefly with an exchange with chairman royce regarding the u.s. broadcasting board of governors which i think is one of the more important areas to express. i'm hearing that time and time again from leaders and other european countries that have come to see me and without exception in the eastern european area they are seeing how one-sided it is to them and how they are worried about russia powering up their propaganda and concerned about the deployment of the internet in terms of terrorist

organizations. and similarly for the center for strategic counter-terrorism and working online and how that could complement the efforts as well. so i would just like to ask the secretary what plans they have --+ undertake epn and what do you expect the process of ramping up involvement with the broadcasting board of governors and with the strategic kenter for -- center for counter-terrorism is. and i think it is cost effective for funding and helpful and sending the right message to our allies as well. >> it is absolutely correct. it does. and i think the -- i think we have about 300, if i recall, it is some -- $390 million that is going to go into -- they are two

separate initiatives. one is the counter-terrorism partnership fund and the other is the center for strategic communications. rick stengle is down at center-com -- sen-com is trying to work with not just the russia massive propaganda but also isil and other entityiesentities. there is a battle for the flow and control of information. so we are now putting together programs that will work with all of our embassies, with local partners. i'll give you the example. the uae is setting up a center which we are taking part in which will have various other countries represented that are going to manage responding

real-time on the social media. it is a brand new effort. it will further regional and global collaboration to try to counter violent extremism and we are expanding this effort in line with the discussions we just had at the white house summit on violent extremism. we've just appointed a special envoy and coordinator who will reinvigorate the original vision of how we take this mandate for information management and bring the community -- various communities around the united states and elsewhere together to coordinate them in their ability -- i'm talking about specifically identifiable either islamic or regional entities that have an ability or

impact on those communities and coordinate their messaging and we're still in the process of laying down the entire plan of action. but in large this will be a brand new coordinated communications effort both through traditional media and social media in order to maximize america's output of information and countering to the lies the seduction, the propaganda and everything that takes place in all of those forums today. >> along the same lines there was a lot of attention recently to young girls being recruited and enticed into terrorist activity. there is no news to you or this committee because we've had committee hearings on this. but it is a real issue on one end and also -- it also offers

concentration on young girls and women. it offers us an opportunity on the other end to put resources into -- not only educating young girls but also empowering women to have a role. could you just comment briefly. >> that is a good point. but i think we'll have to go to mr. tom moreno of pennsylvania. and the second must depart for another committee at 1:00. so in order to get as many members for them we'll go to three minutes for them. all watch the clock, please. mr. moreno. >> thank you mr. chairman. good afternoon, mr. secretary. mr. secretary, i'm going to talk about yemen for a moment. since 2006 we've given them about $500 million in military assistance and now since we've had the overthrow that we've seen, there is money slated for -- for yemen. i'm going to make an assumption that won't happen given the circumstances there. but can you address the issue as

to what we know about the weapons, the u.s. weapons that were there where are they, who has them? would you comment on that, please? >> sure. very few weapons were active weapons. weapons that were functional fell in -- or were transferred into the hands hoti. we had a significant marine presence and a significant security presence there to protect our diplomatic mission. and prior to departing from the embassy and leaving to go to the airport, those weapons were destroyed or dismantled, the firing pins taken out and bolts taken out, different things taken out to make them nonfunctional.

>> were the weapons instructed to be handed over to the -- those that overthrew the government or is that just a media fictitious statement? >> no. some of the weapons were left in the hands of the local guards and personnel who worked with us in order for their security and for them to be able to defend themselves and go back to their -- and go back into town from the airport. >> secretary i have one minute left. >> let me say quickly at the airport there were a few weapons that were turned over at that point in time but believe me nothing that they didn't have and hundreds and even thousands of numbers in other forums. but those weapons were critical to our people in the event that they ran into resistance at the airport and had to in fact fight their way or cover their way to go back home. >> the president stated that yemen was a success and quinten

shall -- quintessential example and how did we miss? this is is an example to being over thrown and run out of the country? >> very easy and simple answer and it shouldn't be extrapolated to mean something it doesn't. the president is talking about how the work we had done with the existing government and the transfer to hadi from sallah had provided us with a continuum of the platform to take on al qaeda. so it was a example of the way in which we were using a presence and a platform and we were attacking al qaeda. we were not engaged between hoti and the politics because sali

was creating problems and joining up and challenging and those were things we were not there to be somehow able to stop through the counter-terrorism program. >> i'm afraid we have to go to mr. allen crayson from florida. >> oh, don't be afraid of that, please. i wouldn't want that on your conscious, mr. chairman. >> i thought i spoke for all of us. >> mr. secretary, the authorization for the use of military force offered by the white house in section 2-c the authority granted in subsection a does not authorize the use of the united states armed forces and in -- enduring ground combat operations. and what does enduring mean? >> it means iraq, afghanistan, long-term ground operations. you could define it in terms of months, not years. but it is -- it is a distinction

between someone engaged in a rescue mission and going in on a -- on an advise and assist program to help people understand how to do fire control over one or two or three-day period or> >> two years? >> it -- again, you are talking about a combat troop and combat operations? >> offensive ground combat

operations? >> we're not talking about -- we're not doing offensive ground combat operations. >> i'm asking whether this authorizes that? >> no it doesn't. >> okay. good. let me ask you another question. are there geographical limitations to the aumf? >> no. so this would authorize military action in jordan? >> it would authorize action against isil specifically. and the president has said we'll degrade and destroy isil wherever they are. if it required an action in jordan, that would obviously be in conjunction with the government of jordan which is a strong ally and asking for us to do something in a totally permissive atmosphere but the only authorization we would have to do it was if it was against isil. >> and also in libya and in the sanai and anybody who associates

with isil might be. and in fact you're talking about a world war, aren't you? >> no we are not. and it would be incorrect to think that mere association would permit anybody to do anything under this authorization. because under the 2001 aumf and the 2002 aumf we have clearly defined what associated means and it means engaged in the fight, fighting alongside or fighting with the united states and our allies. >> other questions and answers can be in writing. >> that is what associated means. >> to mr. duncan of south carolina. chairman of the western hemisphere. >> thank you. mr. secretary, please don't under not arm the marines ever again. does the united states plan to take [ inaudible ] off the list again. >> only if they are a sponsor of

terror. >> i'm having trouble defining isil based on comments today. so could you -- because we have an amf follow up what is isil. define isil for me. >> isis is self-defining. they are the combatants and those who have pledged allegiance to them. who have formed a caliphate fly a flag, wear their black uniforms and are engaged in a struggle both within syria and iraq, most directly, but also in what they call distant provinces as they try to establish their caliphate. >> and so use isis and the aumf use isil. what is the difference? >> it is mainly the formulation. it is who calls what. isis is the letters used by them

to define the state versus the laughant -- levant which is the arab word for the isis. >> and which is the territory. and we talk about that a lot. and this aumf and say the congress passes the president's requested aumf what does that mean for al qaeda? does that mean the drone strikes continue and our united states intelligence and military will be applied to al qaeda? >> absolutely. they are under the 2001 aumf and that is continuing and it is our -- we believe entirely legally and practically legitimate argument that isis was almost in iraq for about 11 years and only by changing their name did they assume this new identity. but they are in fact al qaeda too. and we have proceeded against them based on that

authorization. but, the president has felt, and i think congress has felt, it would be appropriate to now have a new authorization to demonstrate the clarity with that we are to go after isis daesh, and continue the battle with al qaeda. >> and in the limited time of time, we have to look at intelligent sharing and the damage by snowden and the brussels shooter in late may and early june and germany knew about it and failed to share the information and that is critical and you touched about. >> that we need to look at the visa waiver program and working with our allies in europe and i believe isis is islamic jihadist and radical and fundamental terrorist. >> and we need to do to our representative from california

mr. lowen thal. >> i was going to say thank you. >> and i want to thank you personally for your recent appointment to randy barry as the special envoy for lbgt for protecting rights for those individuals and senator markie and myself introduced legislation and you stepped forward before this legislation moved forward and i just look forward to seeing you and also special enjoy barry this week also. but i have to -- i want to ask some specific questions and maybe you can answer later on about the -- can i'm very positive about the giving of the $1 billion for central america and you talk about how in central america -- and maybe you can answer these -- i'll state them in writing and submit them in writing. the real lack of educational

opportunities, the violence, the lack of sufficient investment and the corruption have been part of the root causes that have allowed for the migration to thestates. my question is how will this new policy that we're doing really reduce poverty corruption and enhance security? how is it different from what we have done before? are we going to look at some very specific purposes? we hear all along throughout the world that we're going to reduce corruption. i would really like to know how you see what we're doing as really aiding in this, and also in guatemala honduras and el salvador, are they going to raise the revenue to help to do this? are they going to introduce and actually collect additional revenues or taxes to really help themselves also? or what does this mean in terms of our ongoing relationship? >> really, it is a terrific

question congressman lowenthal. you're right. everybody -- i used to be chair of the western hemisphere subcommittee for a period of years in the senate and i remember working on plan colombia and big debate will we put a billion dollars into this will it be meaningful and so forth. if we just did it the way we used to do some of the stuff your skepticism would be entirely applicable and appropriate. but we're not. we have learned a lot about the delivery of aid and assistance, about oversight, follow-up, meantering, engagement and i think aid has been transferring -- part of this came, by the way, and give credit where credit is due, the mcc, which came about during the bush administration, the millennium challenge goal taught people to say maybe there is some metrics to put in place more effectively --

>> if we could lay that out maybe in a written answer -- >> sure. i'll end quickly by telling you there are three targets. one is enhanced security. we think we can track that through police and other work. two is direct economic assistance to promote trade in i was we know work. and provide more employment, et cetera. number three is improved governance, by being deeply engaged in creating transparency and accountability measures necessary so you're getting the changes you need. >> i look forward to your response. >> mo brooks of alabama. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for sharing your insight with us today. i'm going to focus on the authorization of military force. as i understand it i think you've confirmed this there are no geographic limitations in the force authorization sought by the president, is this a fair statement? >> that's a fair statement. >> there are other limitations,

though, for example, enduring ground troops, time limitations and also who the target can be. and as i understand the target, the target of this military force is quote, the islamic state of iraq and the levant, end quote or under section 5, associated persons or forces who are defined as, quote, individuals and organizations fighting for on behalf of or alongside isil or any closer related successor. in that vain there is an article that says, quote militants in several countries including libya egypt, algeria, yemen and saudi arabia have pledged allegiance to islamic state leader al baghdadi and as we heard from other sources, we have syria iraq tunisia jordan, sinai, a myriad of other

potential countries. is it fair to say that this authorization sought by the president does allow the use of united states military forces in any of these countries if the islamic state or its associated persons or forces are there? >> no congressman. a group that pledges allegiance is not necessarily fighting for or alongside or against the united states and our associated forces. >> so if they claim that they're doing that that doesn't include them. >> it is not a question of claiming it. if you pledge allegiance pledging allegiance to isil is not necessarily joining the fight. >> we're going to wait until they kill a bunch of people before we attack them. is that what you're saying the administration's position is? >> no, we're going to see whether or not they are in fact really joined in the fight alongside isil. >> aren't we really quibbling as a matter of fact, it is going to

be the administration that has to make a judgment call as we all do in the positions that we hold, and this administration, if it decides that these individuals are part of the islamic state of iraq and the levant or associated persons or forces then they will under this resolution use that military force and any geographic area of the world. is that correct? >> if it is isis, if it is a group of isis that is directly threatening the united states of america, and we have reason to believe that there is an immediate imminent risk as the president retains the authority today with respect to al qaeda or any other group, we'll take action. >> that includes individuals in america? >> excuse he? >> that includes individuals in america? that's any geographic area of the world. >> well, congressman, if we have evidence that somebody in the united states of america is engaged in terrorist activity against the united states the fbi, the homeland security and others will be on them in a nanosecond.

we'll go through our normal constitutional procedures, i assure you. >> mr. secretary pardon my voice. i want to thank you for your service. i truly admire what you have to deal with. and earlier you rightly stated we live in a very complex world. the threats we face are multifaceted unlike the bipolar threat we face during the cold war. i'll just call it complexity on steroids. i think you're dealing with a puzzle that doesn't have the pieces that match. and i'm interested in how we manage and balance competing interests in the world. i want to give just examples. so, for example, when we respond to russian aggression threat especially to our allies in europe, how does that impact our effort to prevent a nuclear iran or reach a political solution

with assad, when we go to eliminate isil, are we there beby strengthening assad, are we strengthening iran, like we did when we overthrew saddam hussein? and i know -- i think we see egypt as an ally against isil and so the question is why do we continue to withhold financial support. so i guess my question is what is the guiding strategy for american foreign policy in this very interconnected complex world. >> well, congresswoman, it is a very good question. i think i have to give you an answer i think you'll probably find a little simplistic. i hope not, that it is a matter of common sense. you have to apply a standard of sort of practicality of cause and effect. what is the impact of one choice on other chases you have. that's what the president has to do every day and thinking about

what you might do on any given day about assad and the impact on iraq, iran, and shia militia on, you know a host of other things. but there is a connection. i want to underscore you have appropriately put your finger on the fact that what we choose to do in one place has an impact on things that happened in another place. and, you know, if we hadn't responded with the sanctions on ukraine if we weren't engaged in putting together a coalition about isis, might baghdad have fallen? might there be a civil war? would there be a civil war in afghanistan today if we hadn't engaged and tried to pull a government together instead of having a failed election? everything is connected to the other. and to the degree that the united states commits itself to lead in these particular challenges, i am absolutely more convinced than ever before after

two years in this job about the impact it has when we make that right choice the impact it has on somebody's consideration about another choice they might make. what we choose to do effectively with egypt or with syria or with isis will have an impact on iranian perception, russian perception, other perceptions in the world. it is all interconnected. >> mr. secretary might i suggest that each of the remaining members ask one question one question only very briefly and then the secretary could sum up and we'll let him depart to his meeting. mr. meadows, your one question? >> is that all right, mr. secretary? >> you're the chairman. >> okay. >> i'm at your disposal. >> mr. secretary, since it is down to one question, i've been very keen on not criticizing the ongoing negotiations you have with iran. so i'll ask this one specific question. for over two and a half years,

pastor abadini has been held by iran. how can we -- how can the american people expect that they're going to negotiate in good faith when we can't get an american citizen, a pastor that really was -- >> okay. >> thrown in jail. >> we get the gist of that one. to miss cabert. >> my question is with regards to the aumf and wondering as it states in aumf action against isil or associated persons would there be an interpretation of this that would permit the u.s. and either individually or working with partners to remove people like assad or other dictators and other nations as it deems that their position of being in power stands in the way of defeating isil? >> okay. now to mr. reed ribble. >> thank you, mr. chairman mr. secretary, thank you for being

here. my question is in relationship to the democratic republic of the congo. i know you've been involved related to exit permit suspensions. could you tell us what we could do here in the congress to facilitate the state department's work to help these families get their children home? >> and mr. brendan boyle of pennsylvania. >> thank you. i waited three hours here to ask this one question, because i was concerned that this issue might be overlooked with the plethora of issues that we have and that you have, secretary kerry, around the world. one of the great achievements of the last 20 years of american foreign policy was forging a peace agreement in northern ireland. we're now 15, 16 years on from the good friday agreement and tensions still remain. the house the senate on a bipartisan basis appropriated $2.5 million for the international fund for ireland. but the state department is

hesitating in releasing it. secretary kerry, would you please commit to me and to congress that these funds will be released by the state department and that the united states will continue to play a strong and active role in the northern ireland peace situation. >> mr. lee zell of new york followed by mr. tom emert of minnesota and that's it. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, there was a letter that was sent from the other president to congress with the authorization for the use of force. if i could just read a couple of sentences from that letter. the authorization i propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other more limited circumstances such as rescue operations involving u.s. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against isil leadership. it would also authorize the use of u.s. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing missions to enable

kinetic strikes for the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces. this is the letter from the president four or five paragraphs that accompany the request for the authorization for the use of force. when congressman grayson was asking whether or not the authorization was providing authorization for offensive operations, you had indicated no. obviously for several months, we have been utilizing strikes from the air which, you know, one could argue are offensive in nature. so i'm just looking for a little bit more clarity on what specifically from an time today. mine is a question i wanted to ask you relates to something that really shouldn't be partisan at all. it is about america's economy and the opportunities that it should provide for american workers and entrepreneurs. you've long been an advocate for trade, long before this

position. and i would like to ask you to give me some details so our friends on both sides regardless of political persuasion, understand how important the economic opportunities presented by trade promotion authority and the possibility of getting trade agreements are to our national security. >> let me try to run through those as fast as i can, mr. dharm. i thank you. saed abidini we raised in the most recent discussions. and you ask how we can tell if we'll negotiate in good faith. we're negotiating on that very actively right now and, again the proof is in the pudding whether we can achieve something or not achieve something. i think it is a little early to make that prediction on both

accounts, on the release of individuals that we're trying to get back as well as on the nuclear agreementassociated persons removing assad, et cetera, we have to operation under international law. this -- this authorization specifically targeted against isis itself and it would be very hard to see how there would be any stretch that would fit any legal authority whatsoever to direct that. there are other legal arguments available to deal with president assad, let me make that clear. not the least of which is the fact that if he were to join in an effort that actively engaged with isil we had evidence of that in some way he could be

thereby aiding and abetting. there is an extensive argument you could make. but, no not directly out of the aumf that would not be anywhere in what is envisioned or allowed by it. with respect to the drc and exit permit we have raised that issue. i talked to president kabila about it personally. we have an ongoing effort to try to make some progress on that. and i'm hopeful that we will finally get some kind of success. these are those difficult internal kinds of, you know, negotiations that take place. they're very -- i think this may be even tied to the prospects of the potential election that may or may not take place in the drc. so we're waiting to see what happens. but i will continue to push it. with respect to congressman boyle on the subject of northern

ireland, we are deeply engaged still with the president's consent i appointed former senator gary hart to be engaged in those talks. he's been very active. there is a $7.5 million commitment in the existing peace impact program. we have no reason not to be releasing it and engaged in it. so we will continue to be deeply involved in that. with respect to congressman zell on the allowance of offensive operations, the limit of authority, i thought we were talking about -- so this is a good opportunity for clarification. i was talking about in the context of any potential of american ground forces, and the limits of thece enduring language. but obviously we are engaged in offensive operations. the air power could not be more

so, and we are engaged directly needless to say in arming, you know and assisting training and assisting and now the overt title ten and training and assist program. those are offensive operations that the united states is going to be supporting one way or the other. but we're not talking about american ground troops and there is no authorization in here putting american combat ground troops into an enduring offensive combat situation. i think that's what i was really trying to address. and congressman emert on the economics and tpa, i'll close by say ing saying, one of the great changes that we face in the world today is the enormous increase of much more powerful competitive economic entities. now, none of them yet match the size of the united states.

but they're getting bigger. they're more active. there is more global market competitiveness than there has ever been before. and if you were anybody endpathgaged in international business knows how quick you have to move, how voracious you have to -- how disciplined you have to be in grabbing market share, and knowing the markets and working with other partners it is a different marketplace than it was in the 1960s, '70s when we were the dominant single economy. and so this kind of trade regime that we're talking about putting together under the tpp or the ttip is far more critical to american jobs to american growth, to america's influence, to america's ability to continue to play the important leadership role we have played in the

world. and so if we don't get this kind of an agreement written to the higher standards of international business behavior, it will go down. the standards will go down, the protections will go down the ability of people to have legal remedy will be reduced. the ability of people to protect intellectual property or have rights by which workers are protected. all of these things would be diminished if we are not able to achieve these kinds of trade agreements. and tpa is critical to the ability to have those agreements, because other countries will their leaders will not make the difficult political decisions necessary to take one interest or another in their country and change the structure in favor of a larger set of rules because it costs

them politically. if they know that what they're doing when they make that decision is going to be subject to a renegotiation with congress, rather than the passing of what has been negotiated, they won't make the agreement in the first place. so we actually hurt ourselves in achieving our larger interests of trade and growing our markets if we wind up trying to micromanage it through congressional day to day without the tpa. tpa is what actually empowers the negotiators to be able to close a deal and allow those leaders and other countries to make the tough decisions they need to make. so in the end, 95% of the world's customers are in other countries. and we cannot grow our nation, increase wealth, do better if we are just thinking we can somehow only sell to ourselves. we have to sell in the rest of the world.

and it is better for us to be helping to lead the effort to reach agreement as to what the rules will be by which we sell, and raise those standards rather than leave it to somebody else and see them lowered. that's why tpa is so critical. >> we appreciate the secretary's time today including today's lightning round and we have a ton of issues to get through together. we thank you. and we stand adjourned.

as secretary kerry leaves the hearing room, if you missed any of his testimony you can see it on our website, c-span.org. you also heard secretary kerry refer to israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu's visit and address to congress next week. the bbc has this story. said in the article to be the white house's strongest criticism of the visit. benjamin netanyahu was invited by house speaker boehner in what is seen as a rebuke to mr. obama's iran policy.

he responded with this, i respect the white house and the president to the united states, but on such a fateful matter that can determine whether or not we survive, i must do everything to prevent such a great danger for israel. last night susan rice told host charlie rose the visit is destructive to the fabric of the relationship between the u.s. and israel. also, a short time ago the associated press reported in a speech to his party members today prime minister netanyahu said the world powers have given up on stopping iran from developing nuclear weapons in ongoing negotiations. by the way, we'll have live coverage of the speech to congress by the israeli prime minister when that begins next tuesday, march 3rd, on the c-span networks. well, later today, the senate foreign relations in the will hear from john allen, the special presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter isis. he'll talk about a u.s. strategy to defeat terror organization. that will be live at 1:30 eastern here on c-span3. the hill reports the latest

in the negotiations to fund homeland security passed the friday midnight deadline. rank and file republicans argue they want to stand firm in attacking president obama's immigration actions. a few house republicans said they were prepared to vote for a bill without the immigration measures, many more loudly criticized mitch mcconnell's approach as they left the closed door meeting today. speaker boehner told his conference he hadn't spoken to mcconnell in two weeks. here is more of what he had to say today. >> i'm waiting for the senate to act. the house has done its job to fund the department of homeland security. and to stop the president's overreach on immigration. and we're awaiting for the senate to do their job. senate democrats have stood in the way now for three weeks over a bill that should have been debated and passed. so until the senate does something, we're in a wait and see mode. >> obviously you know the way

your caucus feels. are you concerned -- >> i'm waiting for the senate to pass a bill. [ inaudible ] >> our staff talked back and forth, but listen senator mcconnell has a big job to do. so do i. >> are you guys on the same -- >> our staffs have been talking back and forth. but the senate has to act. i've made it clear over the last couple of weeks, we're waiting for the senate to act. >> what do you think about it? >> i'm waiting for the senate to pass a bill. i don't know what the senate is capable of passing. until i see what they're going to pass, no decision has been made on the house side. >> is congress going to avoid a shutdown? >> i'm waiting for the senate to act. the house has passed a bill to fund the department. it is time for the senate to do their job. %ysrbujup)e somee1 of our featuredwqç7m%xa/8h9 iöc=]“& c-span2's book tv saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern on

after @

>> if you miss this he can watch it online at c-span. work. henry cuellar is our guest here and welcome back. guest: thank you so much. host: the senate republican leadership has decided they will hold two separate votes. later in the week they will have a separate vote on the executive action on immigration. it do you democrat should

support a clean home and land security bill? host:guest: without a doubt. we have been doing lending for hundreds of years. one of our basic responsibilities as a congress is to pass a budget. if we have a disagreement with a policy issue, that is a separate thing. i can give you 10 different policy issues that i disagree with. i am not going to say let's stop the funding of the federal government. host: should senate democrats the waiting for the speaker of the house to say whether or not he will do this strategy as well? should they go ahead and fund the home and security department? guest: i know what senator reid is doing. he is waiting to see what john boehner is going to do. i believe they have a meeting this morning to discuss it.

i cannot speak for senator reed. i am glad that this are now two separate issues. if we have a policy issue, put it to a separate vote. what is going to happen on the house? the debate in the house is not between democrats and republicans. it is the debate within the republican congress. more tea party folks. the debate is internal incident external. host: looking at the house it here is the "washington post" t his morning -- sessions, republican of texas. he said he did not support approving mcconnell's plan. instead, sessions said, congress should pass a temporary extension of funding for up to six weeks and convene a house senate conference to try to hammer out the differences between the two chambers. would you support that? >> i prefer not to have a cr

continuing resolution. it is like having a bad day to -- if you pull it out, just pull it off. we just postpone it and think pull i about it. what sort of conference committee will we be looking at. what is the difference, either what i you have the provisions or you don't have the provisions. and, again that -- it is going to buy more time, let's go ahead. if we have to vote for cr let' because we're not going to shut it i'll do it temporary, but i don't think that's a wise thing t is a to wdo the prudent thing to do in this time. >> do you think that's what the likely scenario is, though some-- sort of short-term continuing resolution? >> if the house decides to -- ifhat you the republicans decide to do this, and they're in charge, and that's probably what we have to look at. i don't think it is wise. it is but w instead of having a shutdown, we'll look at a cr, ead of but, again h what are you going to be looking at. either you have the provisions or you don't have the provisions. >> so that means the homeland provis

security department would beio funded for six weeks and then not knowing what is to come after six weeks. afte what is the impact of that on a state state like texas, in a district tex like yours, with the border right there?there? >> first of all, i remind my republican majority that they always talk about the border, the border the border security.th i live on theey border, i drink the water, i live in that area.i dr i'm very familiar with it. talking to the men and women talkin that secure ourg border. i just this weekend, they don't like this. they want to have some certainty. and giving s them a short term doesn't allow them to plan doesn't allow them to decide what is going to happen. imagine if you're living on a check by check, like a lot of those men and women, they're putting their lives on the line, and they will tell them, look, you have to have a check after six weeks, i don't know what's going to happen. keep working and keep protecting and our country.

cyberthreats, terrorism, smuggling people or drugs coming in, those are the goals or those are the missions that we have toe or make sure that homeland has the missi properon funding to do this. again, it is not very smart. >> how do you view president obama's executive action on immigration, both his 2014 move ration and what he did in 2012 and remind our viewers of what he did. >>digues right. first of all, i prefer to have a i pre bipartisan immigration reform passed by congress. that's my preference.ce. now, the president decided to e pres take theid actions, the executive order where he pretty much gave a defer -- deferment for a couple of years on those le individuals instead of being deported. deferment from deportation.ed. the prosecutorial -- the prosecutorial discretion, you prosecute now, you deport do somebody, that has been y decided by courts along time ago, even y cour the supreme court has said there is a flexibility, in allowing

presidents to do that. presidents, democrats and republicans, have been using this whether they deport somebody or not for many many years. so that is the executive orders that he gave out, the latter part of last year is what the republicans are focusing on. it is interesting when the republican presidents, like ng ronald reagan, or bush one did some of those deferments nobody said anything. and now we're seeing that apparently obama doing the same thing -- president obama doing the same thing as the republican presidents is now being attacked for doing something unconstitutional, which brings us, if you allow me to the court down there in brownsville, in my part of the area. without respect to the judge and respect to all the folks that said it is a victory for the constitution, if you look at theconsti court's decision, he didtu not even get into the constitutionality. all he did was look at a into th technicality. does theon al1946 administrative

procedure act, which is the notice and comment, do you have to give notice and comment like agencies do, now they're trying to say that the president is an agency also that they give the g to notice and comment period and is an the --ag of course the judge said no, and i think it is a bad precedent. imagine if there is a republican precedent of the future, then democrats go to the court and say you didn't give notice and comment and it is cou going to stop l not the thpresident's executive order or months or years. >> and the white house has said they will move forward with trying to get an emergency stay on what the texas judge's ruled. what happens then? >> well, it is going to take time. first they're going to ask the judge to lift his own stay. he already made a decision. they'll go up to the fifth circuit and eventually it is they w going to be decided by the supreme court. >> you think it goes that far. ill >> i think it will go all the way up to the supreme court. one side or the other will keep appealing until there is a final

decision, which leads me to the issue of why we're all here. of the majority the republican majority, they have a majority in the house and the senate. but they have to realize that even the majority, you don't gethat even 100% of what you want to. the system, the founding father set up our system to compromise,stem to get together, to work work this out and if we can't work it out between the house and the senate, and there is a presidente that can veto, there is an, a, the courts will provide a check and balance. it is a system that is set up on a consensus type of basis and there is some people that want it their way, 100%, and the ay system just doesn't work that way. >> all right let's go to karen in chester, pennsylvania democratic caller, thanks for s go hanging on the line. go ahead, karen. >> caller: sure, hi. thanks for taking my call. you i wanted to talk about the constitutional portion of the decisions. i would like to get his feeling

on whether or not there should be a constitutional amendment thatth forbids congress from doubling up any legislation, pass everything individually. >> you mean -- by tying these two issues together you believe that that is constitutionally not correct? >> caller: not yet, but we should -- people who are tired of congress playing like brats on a playground, get together and demand a constitutional amendment thatutio they do everything one at a time we won't have these problems. >> okay, karen. ho got your point. >> and i understand the frustration that this caller has. and i have frustration with the system also myself.ation th i would say this that if we ust he can't even get this funding passed at this moment, imagine our constitutional agreement amendment like you're saying consti would be atu lot more difficult. i would say -- i understand your mor frustration. but, unagain the system is set up

to compromise and to work out consensus, but unfortunately there is some folks that think that the work consensus are compromised is a dirty word. if you look at even the constitution, even the makeup of the senate or the house, that was a compromise between the big states and the little states and folks just have to realize that this system has to be where there is a give and take. >> chris in alabama is concerned. about this on twitter. if dems vote on a clean homeland security funding bill, and then a separate bill passes blocking obama's executive action on immigration, they will be combined in conference.confer between the house and the senate. >> it depends how this passes the house and the senate. i'm sure that the senate democrats are going to make sure that there is two different issues. two different bills, they can't be combined. but it depends what procedure they use on that. but, again, if there is two separate bills, one bill goes

state to the president and the other doesn't pass, it fails. and, again i want to thank the senate -- the senate leader on this one the majority leader i think he did the right thing. i know it was very difficult. he's been attacked from the far right, but again his job is to govern. and sometimes you do things that are difficult and you have to take the left and the right and try to do what is in the best interests of the country. >> stone mountain, georgia, bill, independent caller, hi, bill. >> how are you doing? thank you for taking my call. question is, isn't it a false herring on the whole dhs funding because there are -- there is lawsuits by a number of states -- constitutional action that he's taken and also there is an injunction from the judge that says it should be held in advance. >> bill, so the congressman was just talking about this -- >> i want to thank general allen

for being here. he has a hard stop at 3:30 in that he has meetings with centcom later that he's traveling to. i want to thank him for being here and i'll properly introduce him in a moment. the president has sent forward a request for the authorization for the use of military force. because of the nature and the way that this is happening, that the conflict has been ongoing for about six months now i think one of the things that most people here are concerned about is that there is a level of confidence in what we're doing and that it is going to achieve the stated goals that the president has laid out. and i don't know of anybody more equipped to come before us today than general allen, who served our country with great distinction. i think many people feel decently well about what is happening in iraq. i think there are a lot of questions relative to syria. my sense is today you'll have a number of questions regarding

that. and we hope that what you'll do general allen is give us an honest assessment as to the end state we would like to see happen in iraq and syria when we complete the activities that we're involved in. and understand the political and military strategy that we have under way. and to give us a little sense of time frame relative to the various activities that are necessary. i was just in iraq last week, in both baghdad andish isherbil with our kurdish friends and ankara with our turkish friends. the shia militias are everywhere in iraq as people know. general sulayman who was head of the force for iran has now become a celebrity in iraq. and i have to say it feels very strange to be there knowing much of the activity we have under way while it is necessary is

really to iran's benefit. and i know there is a lot of concerns that after this activity is completed if we're successful with isis which i know we will be and in essence the next issue is going to be dealing with security of our forces there with the shia militias. i was happy to see that turkey has gone ahead and signed an agreement, to train and equip agreement, that's something you made happen and thank you for that. at the same time i know there is a lot of concerns now about how we deal with assad's vero bombs as we train and equip these individuals, how do we protect them from the barrel bonds which cause them to diminish in greater numbers than they can be trained. i'm sure you'll talk about that. there is a lost discussion as you you know on the ground there about the exclusion zone. i know you have questions about that. and no fly discussions. it may be taking place to draw turkey more into what is happening in syria itself which

i think most of it -- most of us believe is very important. so as we -- as i close i want to say we owe it to our nation as we consider this to know that the full range of america's elements of national power diplomatic, economic and military means are aligned aligned in such a way to get to the administration's stated goals. because of the nature of this decision, one, again this being made after a fact, all of us need to have confidence that the administration is truly committed to achieving the stated goals that they laid out and i think your testimony here is going to be very valuable to us. with that, i would like to turn to our distinguished ranking member, senator menendez who has been a great partner on all of these issues. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for calling the hearing and for our work forward on this. and general allen welcome back to the committee and thank you for your distinguished service to our country in so many different ways including your

present position as a special envoy. although this hearing is not focused on the administration's proposed authorization for the use of military force against isil, it is by nature an opportunity to probe the dynamics of our current anti-isil strategy that will inform our discussion of an aumf. and specifically with a strategy that relies on u.s. air power and logistics intelligence and training support but not on u.s. troops on the ground would be successful in achieving our ultimate goal to end the barbaric rampage of isil. there are those who believe that it is up to our local partners on the ground to ultimately take this war across the finish line. i've heard from others who believe isil can be defeated -- cannot be defeated without a significant u.s. ground commitment. so i would like to hear from you, general allen where you come down on what will be required to eradicate isil given that we hear reports from

secretary carter's meetings in kuwait that while the anti-isil strategy does not require fundamental recalibration, our coalition partners can be doing more. my view personally is that the united states must help combat isil and restore stability to the region. and we must follow through on our commitments to our arab partners, but large scale u.s. ground forces at this time and this complex political and military atmosphere, would at end of the day desis ofcisively increase the prospect of losing a long war. i appreciate and want to salute all the men and women who are waging a campaign against isil, particularly from the air, all of the air strikes that have according to your own testimony inflicted significant damage and those are promising and we salute the men and women who do that. but our effectiveness in combatting this threat, i think, cannot be measured only in the

number of sorties flown or bombs dropped. so today's hearing is a welcome opportunity to step back and assess the big picture. the state of the coalition, but will it ultimately take to defeat isil and what we know, i think, will be a multiyear effort that will take billions of dollars, significant military assets and the painstaking patience of diplomacy matched to all of those efforts. we look forward to your insights and we welcome you back to the committee. >> our distinguished witness today is general john allen, the special presidential envoy for global coalition to counter isis. general allen is a retired u.s. marine four star general former commander of isaf and u.s. forces in afghanistan. upon his retirement from the marine corps he was appointed as the senior adviser to the secretary of defense on middle east security. he's currently on a leave of absence from the brookings institution where he's co-director of the 21st century security and intelligence

center. we thank you for your frankness. we thank you for your service to our country. we thank you for being here today. i know you're going to have an unusually long opening comment which we appreciate, and then we'll turn to questions. >> chairman corker, thank you, and ranking member menendez, it is good to be back today. esteemed members of the committee, i want to thank you for providing me the opportunity to update you on the progress of the global coalition to counterisil andcounter counter isil and let me add my deep and sincere thanks for all this committee has done for our dips and the members s diplomats and those who are serving with courage and capability at the far flung locations of american influence. this committee has done marvelous work to support them and i want to thank you very much for that. i just returned to washington yesterday afternoon from kuwait at the request of secretary of defense ashton carter. i joined a group of more than 30

senior u.s. diplomats and military commanders for a wide ranging discussion on our counter isil strategy. while my role as senior special presidential envoy is concerned with the consolidation and integration of the coalition contributions, not the coordination of the military activities i remain nonetheless closely synced with my colleagues in the military and we meet regularly with other departments and agencies involved to review the progress of theactivities. we're discussion the next steps. now that we largely achieved the objectives of the campaign's first phase, to blunt isil's strategic operational and tactical momentum in iraq. through over 2500 coordinated coalition air strikes in support of our partners on the ground, we degraded isil's leadership logistical and operational capabilities and we're denying it essential sanctuary in iraq from which it can plan and execute attacks.

with new zealand's very welcome announcement yesterday that it will provide military trainers to build the capacity of the iraqi security forces, a dozen coalition nations now participating in these efforts are operating from multiple sites across iraq. still, the situation in iraq remains complex. and the road ahead will be challenging and nonlinear. considering where we were only eight months ago one can begin to see how the first phase of the strategy is delivering results. as i appear before this esteemed committee today, it is important to recall that in june of last year, isil burst into the international scene as a seemingly irresistible force. it conquered a city mosul of 1.5 million, then poured south down the tigris river valley toward baghdad, taking cities and towns and villages along the way. outside tikrit, it rounded up and massacred over a thousand

iraqi army recruits. to the west it broke through the border town and poured east toward baghdad. isil's spokesman vowed quote, the battle will soon rage in baghdad. and the holy city of karbala unquote. shortly there after isil launched a multiple prong attack further into northern iraq massacring minority populations, and enslaving hundreds of women and girls surrounding tens of thousands of yazidis and opening a clear route to erbil, the region's capital. then the united states acted. since our first air strikes in august, isil's advance has been blunted. and they have been driven back from the approaches to baghdad and erbil. isil lost half of its iraq based leadership. thousands of hardened fighters and is no longer able to mass and maneuver effectively and to commune

communicate as an effective force. iraqis standing on their feet. the the peshmerga has taken control of the mosul dam, the crossing with syria the sinjar mountain zumar and the kissic road junction which eliminated a supply route for isil from syria to mosul. these forces also broke the siege of the oil refinery and have begun to push north into the tigris valley. to the west sunni tribes are working with iraqi security forces to retake the land in the heart of al anbar a land i know well. last weekend under the cover of bad weather, isil launched an attack on the town of al baghdadi, near the air base in al anbar where our forces are located with the danes and australians to help to train iraqi soldiers and tribal volunteers. isil as it has done over and over again rampaged through the town, killing civilians and driving hundreds of families into the safe haven of the air

base. but the iraqis did not sit idle. they organized and fought back. the prime minister went to the joint operations center in baghdad and ordered an immediate counterattack. the minister of defense flew to al assad to organize available forces and iraqi army commander sent an armored column from baghdad to road march to al baghdadi to join the attack. and sunni tribal volunteers organized to support and in some cases led the attack. today, much of al baghdadi is back in the hands of the local and tribal forces and as i was at al assad last month and my deputy was there just three days ago, i would tell you that all americans would be proud to see what our troops are doing there, helping the rackiesy s yiraqis and the tribes. this is only the start and isil will remain a substantial foe. but any aura of the invincibility of isil has been shattered. isil is not invincible. it is defeatable. and it is being defeated by iraqi forces defending and taking back their towns and

their cities and ultimately their country with the support of the united states and the coalition. and importantly, very importantly, the aura of the so-called caliphate is destroyed. and the future of the so-called caliph is very much in doubt. because we lack the same kind of partners on the ground in syria, the situation there is more challenging and more complex. still, we're working closely with regional partners to establish sites for training and equipping vetted and moderate syrian opposition elements to train approximately 5,000 troops per year for the next three years. these and other military aspects of the campaign will inevitably receive the most attention. but as i've seen in the four previous coalition efforts in which i've been involved, it will ultimately be the aggregate pressure of the campaign activity over multiple mutually supporting lines of effort that will determine the campaign's success. this is why when i visit a coalition capital when i meet

with the prime minister or a king or a president, i describe the coalition's counterisil strategy as being organized around multiple lines of effort. the military line to deny safe haven and provide security assistance, disrupting the flow of foreign fighters disrupting isil's financial resources, providing humanitarian relief and support to its victims and countermessaging or defeating the idea of isil. since mid-september i've travelled to 21 partner capitals, several of them multiple times to meet with national leadership there. and in that short span we have assembled a global coalition of 62 nations and international organizations. of the many recent visits leaders expressed heightened concern for the immediate and generational challenge presented by foreign fighters and rightly so. through capacity building in the balkans, criminal justice efforts in north africa and changes to laws in more than a dozen countries, partners are working together to make it more difficult for citizens to fight

in syria and iraq. even with the expanded measures foreign fighters continue to make their weay to the battlefield. we must continue to harmonize our processes and promote intelligence sharing among our partners. this kind of information sharing has also allowed the coalition to make significant gains in synchronizing practices to block isil's access to banks within the region and globally. this includes stemming the flow of private donations and restricting isil's ability to generate oil revenues. we're now expanding these efforts to counterer isil's efforts to informal networks. the coalition is also supporting the united states efforts to provide food and aid and supply critical and supply critical assistance to protect vulnerable children and women and men from harsh winter conditions in the region. the ravaged communities isil leaves in its wake bare witness to the true identity one where actively we're working with coalition partners to expose

with arab partners taking a leading role. isil was attractive to many recruit because of its proclamation of the so-called caliphate and the sense of inevitability it promoted. the last six months have amply demonstrated that isil is really operating as a criminal gang and a death cult, under increasing pressure as it sends naive and gullible recruits to die by the hundreds. coalition partners are working together as never before to share messages, engage traditional and social media and underscore the vision of religious leaders who reject isil's millennialist vision. as the president announced reedly, we're partnering with the united arab emirates to create a joint messaging center that will contest isil's offensive and extremist messages for the long-term and seeking to create a network of these centers, a global network, where regional connoisseursortium of nations can dispute and dominate the information space filled with isil's messaging.

the president has outlined a framework for the authorities he believes will be necessary to pursue this long-term campaign with this formal request to the congress for the authorization for the use military force against isil. the aumf requests using our unique capabilities instead of large kale deploimscale deployments of ground forces. taking the fight to isil requires that we be flexible and patient in our efforts. it also requires close coordination with this committee and with the congress so that we're constantly evaluating our tactics and strategy and that we resource them appropriately. chairman and ranking member menendez, i thank you for the opportunity to be before this committee today and to continue that process of coordination and consultation with you and i look forward to taking your questions. >> we thank you for the testimony.

and for your great service to our country. yesterday senator kerry testified that he felt like that today the administration already has, because of the 01 aumf and the 02 aumf the authority to conduct the operations that are being conducted against in iraq and syria. do you agree with that assessment? >> i do, chairman. >> okay. so it is an interesting place that we find ourselves, where six months after conflicts have begun, a new aumf is being offered and i know that in order to pursue one properly through congress, that's the standard process which i appreciate. but it is an interesting place that those authorities already exist. the train and equip program you've been able to negotiate, many been able to negotiate many concerns have been raised about the fact that most of the

free syria initially was targeting assad. now we're organizing these against isis. we're going against an entirely different recruitment group to do that. are we finding that to be on easy recruitment process? >> we -- as we began this chairman, we weren't sure fraungly how that recruitment process would unfold. just two days ago i had the opportunity to have a conversation with the great soldier that the united states has put against this challenge, jenna ga . the numbers were much high than we thought and it's been very encouraging. we've had an encouraging sense that there is an interest in this outcome. >> my sense is there are, based on my experiences last week, there are larger groups of

people willing to go against isis initially in this train and equip program than some initially thought is that correct?? >> that is correct. >> one of the big moral dilemmas is that as we train and equip these folks we know that assad is barrel bombing other members of the members of the army today. but my understanding is there's been significant discussions with turkey over an air exclusion zone in the northwestern aleppo area and a new fly zone along the border. and that's been the issue that's hinder them getting more involved in the content, even though they're working with us more fully than they have. that has been the issue that has kept them from actually getting more involved. it's also my understanding that that decision the decision to do that is at the president's desk. it's at the white house and he's nod made a decision yet as to

whether to engage. can you update us on that or tell us the effect of that decision not being made on turkey getting more involved in the conflict open helping us with the ground operations you were talking about earlier? >> well, i'll start by reciting what i've said before with respect to turdy. we have an old friendship with turkey and they are an ally. and where we began this conversation just some months ago and where we are today i think there's been significant progress from the conversation about turkey's role in the coalition and all that we want to accomplish together, and in particular what we would like to accomplish in syria. that conversation isn't over. but there has been much progress. i just met with a turkish delegation yesterday and i intend to head back in the very near future to continue that conversation. and part of that conversation obviously is those measures or

are those measures that can be taken either collectively or by a larger coalition to provide protection for the modern syrian elements that we support and ultimately will produce over time. i won't get into the specific details of the conversation but that's an important conversation and we're going to continue the conversation in the future. >> it is fair to say that there are sig can't denificant decisions that our government needs to make and if they're made could break a logjam relative to greater involvement by turkey. that would be a fair assessment am i right? >> it is a fair assessment. the details of what that conversation can be can lead us in several directions. there was the initial conversation about a formal no-fly zone which was very specifically and purposefully

laid out on a map. the real issue isn't necessarily a no-fly zone. it's how do we protect our allies. putting all measures together necessary to provide for that protection is the heart of the conversation that we're going to continue to have with the turks. >> one final question and i'll stop and turn it over to senator menendez. in the event that we needed to protect those that we're training and equipping and other members of the free syrian army, in the event we needed to protect them against assad barrel bombing them, do you believe that that is something that needs an additional authority other than what is now being requested? >> i would have to study that chairman. my hope is that we'd be able to provide the kind of protection that they need and they deserve within the authorization that we're currently proposing. >> you would want to make sure

that we knew that that type of authorization was a part of anything we may do? >> i think so yes, sir. that's going to be clearly a part of the outcome. >> okay. senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general allen you're a retired u.s. marine four star general, you were the former commander of nato's international security assistance force and the u.s. forces in afghanistan for about a year and a half and then you became the senior adviser to the secretary of defense on middle east security. you commanded during that a period of time 150,000 u.s. and nato forces in afghanistan during a critical period of the war. i put that out there, one in recognition of the service and, two, in also the framework of my question. what does enduring -- no enduring combat forces mean?

>> well, i think obviously the nature of the contingency or the emergency or the potential conflict will give us the indications of what kinds of measures would need to be taken in the aggregate to deal with that emergency, to give the president the kinds of options that he needs in order to protect the lives of american citizens and americans interests in the homeland. each one of these emergencies will be different. each one will require a different ag gre gags of american hard and soft power ultimately to solve them. i think it would be difficult to put necessarily a level of precision against the word enduring. i think what we'll seek to do -- and i believe this administration and future administrations would be obviously very interested in consulting with the congress about each particular

emergency -- >> i appreciate a consultation. the problem is you reference your answer in the context of emergencies. but no enduring offensive combat troops doesn't necessarily only apply to emergencies. if you send 20,000 troops in there four months is that enduring? >> again, senator i think that trying to put a specific amount of time on the word enduring -- >> so it's neither time nor size? >> i think we take a full appreciation of what we're facing. and i believe that we give the president the options necessary in order to deal with the emergency. and enduring might only be two weeks. but enduring might be two years. we need to make sure we put the right resources against the contingency and give us the amount of time necessary, us being all of the american people, the time necessary to solve the problem.

>> and i think you've obviously stated the challenge that we have. two weeks is one thing two years is another. and this is the problem with the language as it exists. there is no clear defining element of the authorization given to the president in which hundreds but maybe tens of thousands of troops could be sent. they could be sent for long periods of time. that's a challenge. so how we get our arms around that, you know i think i can fairly speak for democrats. we want to fight isil. but we can't provide a blank check to this or any future president, because everything that's envisioned goes beyond this president. i wanted to use your expertise to put my arms around it. following up on the chairman's

questions, isn't it basically true that unless we buy into something that is about getting rid of assad turkey is not really going to engage here with us in the way that we want them to? >> the turks have not indicated that to me in our conversation. i think we share the same goal with respect to syria that is that the solution to syria is not going to be determined by military force. that ultimately we desire a military outcome in syria that is one of the syrian people and that outcome does not include bashar al assad. but i have not had the requirement that we take concerted effort against bashar al assad as a precondition for the turks to have any greater role in the coalition to deal with isil. >> isn't it true that turdy at this point is still allowing foreign fighters to cross its borders into syria? >> if foreign fighters get

across the border, it's not because the turks allow it. i had a conversation with them yesterday. i've watched them grip the problem. it is a greater problem that me of us had imagined at the beginning. they've attempted to strengthen their border crossing protocols. we're seeking greater intelligence sharing with them in that regard. we're restructuring some elements of the coalition, specifically to focus the capabilities of nations on the issue of the movement and the dealing of foreign fighters through transit states of which the turks are going to play an important role in that process within the coalition. to