>> do we have time? >> we'll do the last question, but we need to keep moving. we only have five minutes for each member. we want to get as many as possible. so go ahead. >> clearly, iran does not have the right to step out. we will hopefully, have the ability to know immediately. and then we have the other options that are available to us. on the secret facility we're well aware of the allegations regarding that facility. it will, obviously have to be any questions would have to be annalsed to have any kind of an agreement and i think people should rest assured that will take place. and, on the iaea we are negotiating for the appropriate standards and process that the

iaea needs to be able to annals appropriate questions. that's a critical part of compliance with any npt country. there is a process, as you know that's required to achieve that. >> new jersey chairman of the subcommittee? >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. i want to thank you for your service and your leadership. i certainly like the yugs of your phrase race to the top. we co-chaired that hearing just three weeks ago. we were all concerned about her welfare and well being going back and, of course she was arrested when she went back for speaking the truth. on friday, her case and that of all the disdents hopefully will be front and center. it has to with. also, a couple of years ago, i chair 49 hearings on human rights abuses in china. i can't even get a visa to go there anymore.

we had five daughters who testified all of whom their fathers are political, democracy prisoners. and one of them -- all of them in unison as the hearing went on, asked to meet with president obama. they said he has two daughters. he'll understand. i tried for months to arrange that meeting with these unbelievable wonderful five daughters speaking out for their dads in prison in china. we couldn't get it. gouga jaiang's daughter is one case. let me ask you on nigeria, mr. secretary. human rights combat the potential imposed by horan, the status of pastor and jason from

the washington post do you expect that they'll be free soon? and then, on the issue of child abduction, several deadlines have arrived on imminent pursuit with international child abduction. and i want to thank you publicly again for your strong personal support for the new law, including the process to enter appropriate procedures, including the mlus, with nonhague countries and child abduction cases like india. japan has been breath takinglily unresponsive especially to abductions occurred to prior to the ratification of the hague convention. and numerous parents from the ngo back home had been utterly utterly frustrated even to meet with their children much less get them back. and then there's the issue of india.

bindu phillips is the new jersey mother of twin boys abdukted to india six years ago. did president obama raise child abduction cases when they met in january? did you raise it on your trip earlier in that month? and, if so what was mr. modi's response? >> we raise all of our missing sit zebs. we have a number of them in various parts of the world. and we raise them on a consistent basis not only through our embassies, but any time i visit either here or go somewhere and we meet at high levels, we raise these issues, by name.

we have raised the names of the folks ms. babadini mrs. levenson, most recently when i was in geneva just a couple days ago and we consistently and we're working, we actually have a process now in place where we're working them quietly, trying to see what could be arranged. with respect to the abduction i worked on that very very hard when i was here. i had a. >> reporter: tragic case with the state of massachusetts where kids were stolen and taken back to egypt.

we are trying to expand the hague abduction convention to average throughout the world. we have approximately 75 professionals who are full-time assisting parents with respect to this horrendous plight that they face. i mean, there's nothing worse, obviously. and i applaud and thank you for your con stant focus on anesthesia issues, congressman. you're really the primary focus. we appreciate it enormously. with respect to nigeria i visited there recently in order to try to keep the election process from leading to violence. we knew that was a possibility of some delay. now we're trying to make sure that this delay does not become an excuse for rigging the election, trying to steal it.

and we're working hard to have a transparent election which would then give us leadership one way or the other, prepared to move forward on the military training to coordinate in boca horan. as you can see, the neighbors come together in an effort to try to put together. we've done the proper vetting with nigeria. i assure you that has not been the problem in our training program disruption. unfortunately, equipment was not delivered to them internally that should have been given them. and, frankly, there had been some leadership challenges with respect to that. so, hopefully, this election can clear the air and put us in a position to move forward on an effort to move against boca boca horan and do some of the training that we talked about. >> thank you, mr. secretary.

we move now to new york. >> thank you, mr. cemetery. >> i think they mean working in a unilateral way. i want to compliment you on leading in this administration. i think it's leading in a multilateral way. and what you and this administration have done is by bringing countries together whether it is bringing the countries together on the p-5 plus one, which those savngss is what put iran into the position it is currently in whether it's bringing countries together to fight ebola bringing countries together to deal with the russian situation. that's leadership. and it's difficult leadership when everybody had their own competing interest. and i think the leadership that we're doing today so that we can share this world that has slunk.

and it's sdif cult when i look at my constituents for example, even going back to 2003 they've had a sense of both hope and skeptism when multilateral negotiations regarding iran's nuclear program was initiated. there have been many stops and starts since that time. and my constituency has expressed strong concern over the years about the pros pekts of an agreement with iran. the current multilateral negotiations are no exception. and, today we are at the pres pea of a deadline set by the p5 plus 1 under the joint plan of action. so my question simply is should

my constituents that are so concerned, any time it's concerned and an emotion for them. they're really concerned about the threat to israel. and about iran having a nuclear weapon. so should they be hopeful? or skeptical at this point. last week, i visited singapore, malaysia and japan. being on the ground was very helpful. we look at tpp, for example, just on an economic side. but, as i talk to some of those countries, they were looking at it from a geopolitical aspect. how important it was for us to have a presence in the region. so how important is the region

with reference to geopolitically on top of the economics. and then when you talk about vietnam and the capacity that they're in. let me keep quiet and give you a few minutes. i just wanted to know whether we had any other tools, a subcommittee on europe. >> can you just clarify the second part of your question, which is the end. >> the question is whether or not with my constituents who are skeptical -- >> all right, i got it. look, i think it's fair to be skeptical until you see the agreement. and it's important to be hopeful. and that's the way i put it. i'm not here expressing confidence, i'm expressing hope. i think we're better off with a viable acceptable, good

diplomatic agreement than with the other choices. but it remains to see whether or not we can get that kind of an greemt. so i think there ought to be -- it's healthy to approach something with a certain amount of skepticism until proven otherwise. but i wouldn't be damning it on the skepticism. i would just wait and be hopeful and see what we can produce. guess what, folks. they've lived up to every single piece of it. the 20% enriched uranium has been taken down to zero. the fuel has been shipped out, the stockpile is lower. they have given us access to the

storage sites, they've given us access to the milling of uranium, the mining. we've had -- you know, they've stopped iraq. they didn't do any further work on it. everything they said so that, in effect, they agreed to roll back their program and they rolled it back. so we're beginning now with a baseline. >> that's a race to the bottom. if we're not helping to bring

countries together to create an understanding of how we're going to treat each other in business and what kind of access we'll have non-tariff barriers being e limb nated of fair trade and certain products and so forth there right-hand turn rules that raise the standards, we're in trouble. now, i'll tell you right now, labor standards, environment standards, business standards are all going to be written into this agreement in ways that they haven't been previously. i was involved in the effort to open up the embargo with george hw bush and then ultimately the normalization. and i've seen the transformation that's taken place. people are living a higher standard of living. people have the right to strike. they do strike. there are labor rights. it's not as uniform as in the united states, but a huge transformation is taking place.

and there's no question in my mind that being able to implement this will be a game changer for people's attitudes and possibilities as we go forward in the future. >> thank you, mr. secretary. again, although we asked pointed questions, we wish you the best of luck and are very proud of the hard work that you're doing

even though we may have some disgreemts. i'd like to respectfully disagree with you. i believe what the difference was was not that the world wasn't so complicated. but that the greatest generation knew how to set priorities. and reagan exemplified that in a cold war when he said what's your goal with the soviet union, who was our primary enemy at that time. he said we win, they lose. he knew that that was his number one goal. he had eliminated the cold war with what we had been at war with in the cold war. i think that today we should set the priority. who is our primary enemy. who is the primary threat to the well being and security of our people. and i think we have to come to

the realization that it's radical islam is the primary threat to our safety. and i know our president has a little bit of difficulty saying those words together. but i have no problem saying it. just right off the bat, when you mentioned that they had actually went ahead and have actual lyly moved forward day they tell us about the existence of this nuclear facility that are friends of the mek who are permitting to sit out in the middle of the desert? did we know about that nuclear facility?

>> you're saying it's a nuclear facility, but we know about the facility, yes. >> let me know that most of us have been somewhat upset because, again, the administration seems unable to prioritize what mes sang does

that give to our friends? this is a message to the kurds and everybody else.

you may put yourself on the line for us but we're going to let you die a lingering death. >> well, we're not doing that, congressman. and i respected and share your concern. i've raised this. i've raised it now with the prime minister. we've made the case.

>> we're trying to placate the people who are not our best friends in iraq. we want to put them secondary. make sure they're put down in a subserveient role to baghdad. it's a problem. i think it's a strategic error on the part of -- >> nobody is condoning or allowing people to be "putdown. in fact we fought very hard for the arming, which is taking place of the pashmerga and of the kurds. it's the direct contrary of what you just said. we're actually elevating. >> when you were here last year it's one thing. we asked you could we give

weapons directly to the kurds. >> some things have gone through baghdad, and that's appropriate. it's worked very effectively. mr. chairman, when you say you disagree that there wasn't a greater simplicity of the choices, i'm not diminishing it. i'm one of the greatest admirers in the world. i've been back to the beaches of normandy 20 times. it's religious ground. it's an amazing place. and everything that went on in that war is stunning in terms of the coordination of global effort to defeat tyranny dictatorship.

i don't simplify that. but i'm telling you, it was in terms of a choice. it was communism, fascism and tyranny. but it wasn't. we knew they were less priority. >> because they're going to help us defeat that particular -- >> correct. >> we understand both the gentleman's points. >> what's been released as a result of the fall of the berlin wall and all of the things that have happened with the arab spring, you have complications of tribes all over the place, with different agenda. you have sunni versus arab versus persian in middle east and modernity and religion. a host of things and different agenda by different countries that are part of different efforts. for instance, the coalition, the

deal with isil. they're split on whether or not they're going to focus on asaad. that's a complication. you begin to do one thing and you lose some. you do the other, you lose others. how do you hold them together? that was not the problem. with respect to the challenge of whether or not you had to beat the folks in the pacific and win in europe at the same time in world war ii. so there is a huge difference there is a huge difference in what their economic power is and what choices they have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, one of the things that i read was that the largest democracy encouraged us to get rid of the embargo with cuba. that it would help the relationship. i'm just wondering why some of

these countries are not speaking up. how come they don't say anything about the human rights abuses. if they encouraged us, it seems like we were left alone. and i just think they're fearful of cuba stirring up the yumpbts students in some of these countries. >> i don't know if that's the reason they don't do it. but i disagree with you. and not only in this hemisphere, i think that there are a lot of countries in europe and elsewhere that have been willing to do business without any kind of voice of accountability for those kinds of abuses. i think one of the things that will happen with our diplomatic presence, frankly is an ability to help mobilize that. and we ought to. we're not going to turn our backs on one notion with what is

important with respect to human rights democracy, change and so forth. and we've made that clear. >> well we could go on, but i've got a couple other questions. >> i'm sure you do. >> well, that's what i'm here for. >> columbia you know i have a great deal of columbia population in my distriblgt. they say feel that if things don't turn out well, santa has somebody to blame, which has always been the ugly american in south america, which is us. i was just wondering you know what do we really get out of this other than if it doesn't go well and the columbia people turn down this pact.

we're going to wind up being the bad guys. >> let me tell you why i don't think we will. but it's a good point. around it's an appropriate question to ask. we are not at the table. we are not a negotiating partner in this. >> but the impression out there is that we send this -- >> we are doing this in order to try to help facility tate if it is possible. they believe that that the united states can be very helpful as a friend and a partner because we have existing programs to clung bee ya that are helping lay the ground work for a possible peace agreement. and we've been so committed through the years, i mean, you all certainly those of you in the top day sus here were deeply involved in helping do this. 1990s.

planned columbia. we put a billion bucks and more on the line. we became deeply engauged. and, together with the leadership of columbia, a country that was near failed, certainly failing turned itself around to become one of our most important trade partners. >> but they were pretty much out cast clean upolumbia because they were so much with us. and the last question i have -- >> sure. but look at the success they are today. i'm sure their success today against countries that haven't chosen to do that. i think columbia is a leader. as a result. and i think other countries are saying a better job of reaching out into latin america. we're trying to do that.

>> joanne tressamar is a woman who killed a state trooper in new jersey. and i read where the cuban government says that's out of the question. we're not sending her back. >> we are continuing to seek the return of cuba from fugitives of u.s. justice. we've raised these cases. we've raised the case of joanne jesabar with the cuban government during the migration talks that just took place a few weeks ago. we've raised those cases when we met in january. there's a meeting on friday. and we've had some limited success in recent years.

>> thank you, mr. kwharman. thank you for being here, mr. secretary. last week the state department spokeswoman, marie harf, announced an interesting proposition for people who might be inclined to support groups like isis. she didn't call it that, but i will. just where will these jobs come from. mr. secretary did anyone else consult before announcing this new initiative? if not, whoa did she consult with? i realize that according to ms.

harth, many of us are not nuanced enough to grasp the wisdom of an enlightened proposal. but i would appreciate some insight and just where in the heck this idea came from. well congressman, that is not what she was talking about. if all we do is have a military approach to whether it's islamic or other, or whether there's violent extremists, we're going to fail. we'll have a continuum of presidents coming to you with new acronyms for new groups that

are a threat. and everything that came out of our white house summit on violent extremism underscored the fact that there's one component that you have to do for sure. you have to take isis fighters off the battlefield the way we are. and that's for certain. but if you don't want them to replenish like those three kids from britain who just traveled, you know, ostensibley to join up. >> another very disturbing thing. >> let me go further. it's not just kids from britain. there's several thousand from russia. multiple hundreds of people from france, from germany, from australia. this is a spreading cancer. and it is not going to be eliminated by just shooting at people once they finally get to the battlefield.

everything that came out of the conference we just had the other day pointed to the need to deal with prevention. dr. peter newman from king's college in london, specifically who's done years of research on this talking about the nearly 4,000 people who have gone since 2012 from berlin, london stockholm and paris, they're all young people. >> nothing is answering it. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i've got limited time here. i think i gave you exterrancive time to answer the question. >> we've got an awful lot of young people. >> that's not what -- >> it sure sounded like it. i know it was awfully nuanced.

>> taiwan's president ma decided to release former president on medical parole. as you may know my democratic colleague visited president chen in prison. he ultimately did. it was only for 30 days. and he'll probably, unless there's some change, be taking back his condition, which is startling.

it's not necessarily our policy, and you can't tell them what to do. but i would urge the administration to look at that matter to the extend that we can exercise some reason that that parole be made permanent so he can stay with his family. >> will do. >> thank you very much. >> we go to mr. connolly of fairfax, virginia. any time any where you name it south africa has agreed to that.

we're dpming every possible model. you also have to measure whatever those particular models are. you can understand that waiting is an anxiety. he's not keeping his powder dry.

he's not keeping his powder dry mr. secretary. he's not keeping his powder dry. and it's hard for us to pretend that he is. >> that's something that you around everybody else has to make their judgment about. i'm not going to get dragged into that particular choice or how it came about. yovng that's help ever. >> it's the krit schism i'm addressing. j let me say this. the prime minister, as you recall, was profoundly forward leaning.

and out spoken about the importance of invading iraq under george w. bush. and we all know what happened with that decision. he was extremely out spoken about how bad the interim agreement was, even though it has clearly stopped iran's program. he has decided it would be good to continue it. so you know, he -- i talked to him frequently. we are deeply committed. we this administration, i think we've done more to help israel. in the course of this add michb strags to stand up for it, protect for it fight back against unfair initiatives.

so we won't take a backseat to anybody in our commitment to the state of israel. he may have a judgement that's just not krerkt here. >> thank you, mr. secretary. my other question has to do with the minesing greemt. the departments exist because minesing one meted away with aggression. given what's just happened in eastern ukraine, and does it sufficiently address the illegal annexation which should never be recognized of the crimea? doesn't all of this flow from perhaps the fact that the west was a little slow in responding

to what happened in crimea? >> no, that's not what it flows from at all. and the answer is the minsq agreement, if it were implemented, would be a good way to deescalate. it elicited a beginning response with respect to sanctions. it flows about the new russia that he talks about. in encroaching around what he

deems to be spheres of influence. we don't deal with spheres of influence in that way. we deal with independence and sovereignty of nations and respected for agreements. the bucharest agreement says we would all protect, russia included would protect the territory tech raty of ukraine. president putin has made a set clear on all of that. he has empowered, encouraged and facilitated, directly, land grabs in order to try to destabilize ukraine itself. and it stems from his policy his decisions, which violate all the international norms with

respected to territory and behavior. so we have, i think, made it very clear -- look. i don't think anybody on this committee is suggesting the united states ought to be sending the 101st airborne or the 82nd or even something greater than that. that's what i hear. russia is about to go into recession this year, according to economic predictions. the long term is a problem.

our preference is to deescalate this. it could be more productive in many, many different respects. >> thank you. mplts mr. secretary let me just say sincerely i want to thank you for your service and these very challenging times we find ourselves in. i appreciate your comments about the greatest generation in the european theater. truly, it was a great and is a great generation. they were all in and they were all in to win and they won. they defeated fascism.

it seems to me the best homeland security will be deliberating in authorization for military force. we had a meeting with white house officials, chairman and myself and others. we're presented with the president's policy on this. e have concerns of a timetable. i cannot support this authorization as prernted by the administration. the authorization i would like to see, i'd like to get your opinion, i would be an aut riization to degrade and destroy isis where ever they exist.

and the president's thinking, which i agree with, with respect to the continue is look there's a huge divide in congress. we all know that. there was an unhappy experience with a pro-longed war in iraq that became a war of choice. and which didn't there's a divide as to sort of how do you balance this. so what the president did, i came up and testified on the aumf in december. we listened to both sides of the aisle. where some people were resisting the idea of something that's open ended. where you're going to be working

14, 15 years from now on the same authorization. and the president, i think thoughtfully and appropriately said, you know what, congress ought to be able to unite the american people ought to be able to speak with one voice. >> a lot of limitations on our military. and i think all the options should not be taken off the table. this would restrict to the president's 2001 aumf. i would like to ask you -- and i appreciate your letter of response. >> the next president ought to have the right to be able to say i need more. i want more. or let's continue it the way it is. nothing is going to stop you

from doing that. the policy clearly is committed to degrade and destroy isis. >> we agree on the policy. you were in the vietnam conflict. we had a micro-managed war. i didn't want to make the same mistake with isis. we're trying to block more fight eres from coming into the united states from united states from western europe. the idea poses a potential risk

to americans. that was bourn out not only by homeland security officials, but the fchlt b.i. made it very clear that they don't have the intelligence to properly vet. can you tell me what your plan is? >> the plan is to engage in what we call super-vetting. and extraordinary level of vetting. so i don't see this as a conflict. i mean, we have amazing ways of being able to dig down and dig deep. we're doing it now with serving

the opposition that's being veted in order to join up to the training and equip program. i think we're about you know i'm not going to put the numbers out here. fwlu's a disparity between the numbers who have signed up and the numbers who have been proved and entered the program and i think the same thing will happen here. >> i agree. most are mothers and children. >> we've been doing this for years now. >> we've made some mistakes with iraq. iraqis were pros cuted for being terrorists. these people are. i don't know who they are. >> i think we'll reach security minister of jordan and others and when they weigh in accordingly, i don't think you'll see those people coming

in. >> thank you. >> thanks for being here. i want to extend sincere thanks for your service at a really crucial and difficult time in our history. thank you for that. i want to talk about iran and where we stand at the moment. i want fo toll up on mr. split's comments from earlier. i'm grateful for the way you speak up for the americans being held and i implore you to increase the pressure. one of two things it seems will happen over the coming months, either negotiations will succeed and some agreement on the nuclear issue or we'll have to figure out,000 deal with iran's other behavior or negotiation fall apart. either way the pressure will decrease on iran to cooperate in the case of mr. levinson. on march 9th rkts he will mark the 8th his family will mark the 8th anniversary of his

disappearance. i thank you for raising it and i continue to implore you to do so. you asked us not to prejudge. i think it's only fair to comment on media reports about where this may be head ded. so given that a couple of points. with respect to enrimpchment, it referred to a mutually agreed upon level which you suggested might be zero. it's not just actions taken prior administrations. the u.n., seven times in

security resolutions suggested there be no enrichment. when you look at a deal that may ultimately include as many as 6 or 7,000 centrifuges is trying to understand why iran would need that many since there's reactor, one nuclear reactor that's fueled by russian fuel. when you talk about iranian compliance you said they have certified they complied in every way. there were situations that he believe were violations to the

jpoa. one of those issues again as we look toward a potential agreement, how can we assure that iran will comply on what they have done in the past. i'd ask if you can confirm that any deal can only be agreed upon if it provides for any time, anywhere inspections and finally, for me and for a will the of us here most importantly the role of congress you said yesterday on the senate that of course we'll have chance to review it and we'll have a vote because a vote will be necessary to terminate sanctions. that's clear to us. i appreciate you're saying it. if you can answer whether you believe we should start talking now whether there's a role for congress to play in what would happen in the event there's a deal and in the event that iran

violates the terms of that deal. would it be helpful to lay out what the ramifications would be? >> well, i want to impress on everybody that i find helpful and the administration finds very helpful the discussions with you and we're not at all suggesting that making suggestions as you just had about one, potential complication, suspension to negotiate these other things, they're all fair questions. they help us. we factor that in. it helps us in terms of thinks about every aspect of the

negotiation. that's different. from naturally condemning the deal and turning off and saying there's no way this is going to work or it's a bad deal or you're about to make a bad deal or you don't really have the components of the deal in front you have and we don't even because it's not yet resolved. that's the distinction i'm trying to draw. i would simply quickly say to you, the u.n. security council resolution, and i went back and reread it in the middle of the negotiations these last few days. paragraph 37 of the 1929 resolution, is not been lived up to. it hasn't been met. it's not relevant to what we're doing nouzw because it talked

about the suspension. then the negotiations will decide what is or isn't allowed as long as it means terms of the treaty and so forth. that's the negotiation we're in right now. we have sanctioned individual companies. we have imposed more sanctions. the final thing i'd say to you is iran already operates like water reactors fueled by the russians. russian design. these reactors pose less of a risk for the potential of civilian power production than

other type of reactors that are prohibited. what they are doing now is not a violation. the purpose of negotiations now are to ensure the nuclear program is exclusively for civilian purposes. that's the key here. they can have a civilian peaceful program. if you have a civilian power plant that's producing power legitimately and not a threat to prolif prolifuation, you could have as many as 100,000 more. there's many more involved in power plants that are producing power. the key here is, is this a peaceful program and are the measures in place capable of

making sure you know it's peaceful. that's the standard for trying to apply. >> we go to judge ted of texas. >> thank you. start with isis. i think it's important that we define different participants in this war with isis. i think it's important we define who the enemy is whether it's isis or i.s. or isil or dash. i define them as radical islamic terrorists. i want to know what you define them as. the second question is, we need to define who the victims are that these folks are killing. the victims have been people who, in the name of free press

criticize them jews, christians and other muslims who don't agree with their idea of islam. the third is we need to define why they do this. what is the cause of this reign of terror throughout the world? my opinion is they do this in name of their radical islamic religious believes and then the plan, what is the plan. we don't have to discuss what the plan is to defeat them. how would you define the enemy? would you define them as islamic radical terrorists? >> the top leadership are

formulating that are concept on the basis of their interpretation of islam. >> some of them are. there is a component that is a distorted sense of islam. >> who are the victims? >> let me also point out. >> i want to get an answer to all three questions. >> also there's a lot of criminals and thugs and adventurers and thrill seekers involved in this. it's a criminal anarchy in all of this. it's important in coming at this

that you not empower them through the language that we're at war with islam and they're building that up as a recruitment tool and we create more of our own problem. i think that's what people are trying to be sensitive to here. yes there are clearly very distorted sense of radical extremist put forward. they can be christian or officers or police officer who is are sunni and trying to stand up for their village or their town. they go out and kill the mayor,

and young kids. >> answer the third question. >> why do they do this? >> they do this for power and for the extension of their leaders for their misguided notion of their 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. >> i had another question on a different issue. twitter. under federal law it's against the law to aid or assist or provide services to a foreign terrorist organizations, as you know. foreign terrorist organization, isil isis uses twitter to recruit, raise money and to spread its hate propaganda throughout the world. myself and others have asked twitter to pull down these sites

because they are a foreign terrorist organization that's been allowed to do this. twitter pulls down porn sites without a problem. my question to you, secretary kerry, four years ago the white house said they were going to come up with plan to deal with this issue. i have seen no plan yet in 2011. what is your position, the state department's position on twitter allowing foreign terrorist organizations to use an american company to recruit raise money and spread their propaganda. we would have never allowed new york times to take out an ad for the natzis to recruit during world war ii. >> we don't like it. there's a lot of discussion taking place with all of the entities of social media to try to figure out how to minimize

it. we have made some progress. you haven't seen the videos that have been posted. there's a lot of things being reduced. some progresses are being made. when you asked who the victims are, the primary most significant number of victims are muslims. people really need focus on that. >> we're going to go to mr. bryan higgins of new york. >> thank you. just on the iran issue, centrifuge, break out capability, ten years ago iran hit about 164 operational centrifuges. they created weapons, create material. today there's over 19,000 an

it's suggested that 499400 are operational. how important are number of centrifuges to the negotiations ongoing right now? >> it's important. >> should we accept that iran should have thoi sands of centrifuges to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. >> it doesn't allow for the question of what's their production level and what they're doing. i'm not going to get into 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.

you have to look at what's the stockpile and the spent fuel and what happens to other things. there's larger equation of how you measure what's happening. the answer is it's part of that equation and we are very much focused on it. >> we're sitting at the table obviously negotiating very important issues. con currently, we're involved in iraq, syria and the iranian influence there despite the americans believing we have a friendly government in iraq it seems as though the loyalties of that iraqi government are

closely ie closely aligned with iran. the concern is they have a bad history with us. we authorize with president's request for military force in iraq. we're going to be right in the midst of fighters who are experienced but also have a contemporary history of shooting our guys essentially. there must be concerns on the part of the american military about how do you influence the shiite militias will be there fighting the same target.

>> we have raised it with the iranians. 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. by in large, iranian engagement with respect to iraq while it is present and some people fighting in the north eastern corners. it was a greater direct day-to-day control and problem presented with former prime minister, which is one of the

reasons why the army wouldn't stand and fight. to really change that dynamic. yes, iran has influence. iran is present. iran is doing things but i think overall there's a concerted effort to focus on the problem of isil and they're all focused on that. >> i'd like to ask you about the u.s. hostage policy. as you know kayla mueller who traveled to the middle east was capture and held by isis terrorist for over 18 months before she was tragically killed

in their captivity. while she's the first american woman captured, held and brutally killed by these terrorists thugs other americans have suffered this fate which hope we can all agree is unacceptable. recently kayla's family gave anner view where they discuss what they went through over the last 18 months with the terrorists seeking a dollar ransom and after the administration announced that they had traded five known and dangerous terrorists for sergeant bergdolf, they changed their threat. once they learned they do negotiate, they demanded for more for the life of kayla mueller.

were you consulted with the administration decided to conduct a prisoner swap. you tell me yes or no? >> i was consulted. >> knowing what you know would you advise the administration to make a swap similar to the bergdol. >> he was a member of the military. as we draw down in any conflict there's exchange of prisoners with respect to conflict. 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's our policy. you can see the tracking. >> i'm not disputing that. >> look at the evidence of other

countries who have paid. i'm not going to name them here but they have had significant increases of their citizens being taken hostage and there's just a revolveing fund of money coming in from 5 million to 10 million to significant sums and it funds terrorism. it's a hard distinction. kayla mueller's an extraordinary young woman. >> i'm sure you can understand why it's complicated and difficult for her parents to understand that distinction. >> it's very hard. we have 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 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 have engaged in ourselves and the state department. we're doing a lot to deal with that.

the bottom line is isil is responsible for her death. we don't even know precisely how she died. >> thank you. i totally agree that isil is responsible. the distinction that's been made is something that i think is confusing to a lot of people. it doesn't seem leek it was very confusing to isil folks. they ending up upping the ante. >> i do believe that the swap

was a significant difference. did send a message we negotiate with terrorists. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you for your work in promoting foreign policy around the world during challenging times. i think we're all grateful for your service. i was a serious of questions i'll submit. our relationship with portugal. the international family planning u.n. peace keeping, continuing fighting and the 100th commemoration of general side. i want to speak about the atrocities that we continue to hear reported in syria particularly torture and murder

and some claims of the use of clem cal weapons. i think most would agree they warrant immediate attention by the international community. if you'd speak to as we consider the president's request for the authorization for the use of military force, many are concerns what our partners are doing. what the europeans are doing. do they have the capacity to play a more prominent role? there's been a universal consensus this will require air operations and ground troops and

commitment not to use u.s. ground troops but what is the capacity of our partners in the region. we heard a lot about 60 countries. what are they doing and have the capacity to do? the united states to defeat and degrade isil. >> thank you congressman. good questions. i don't have any doubt in my mind that assad has engaged in some war crimes. the use of gas against your own citizens is war crime. the use of barrel bombs against women and children are other examples. starvation is a tool of war. it's a war crime. there are things that have amounted to now. mounting that kind of case

putting it together is very complicated, number one. number two, there are other policy choices that are complicated about the actual lodging of a come plants, ens and moving forward because it can greatly affect the options that are then available to you in terms of negotiating and coming up with a political solution. there's evidence being collected and you saw the photographs of the people that alleged to have been tortured. i don't think cases are ripe even though there's a lot of evidence. 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.

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 architectural 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, 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 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 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 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 -- i know that they are undertaken and what do you expect the process of ramping up involvement with the broadcasting board of governors and with the strategic center 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 stengel is down at center-com -- cent com is trying to work with not just the russia massive propaganda but also isil and other entities. 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 something. there are all kinds of examples that could be defined. but enduring means we are not beginning the process or committing to a process of a long-term combat troop on-the-ground offensive engagement war. >> and three days is enduring or years is -- >> i'm not going to play with the words. >> how about months. >> it is a non-combat role. >> would two months being enduring? >> it depends on what they are being asked to do or doing. >> 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. jeff duncan of south carolina. chairman of the western hemisphere. >> thank you. mr. secretary, please don't unarm 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 you use isis and they 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

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 al-qaeda 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. lowenthal. >> 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 the united states. my question is, how will this new policy that we're doing really reduce poverty, corruption and enhance security and how is it different from what we've 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, mentoring, 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 february 16, 2015 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 before we attack them, is that what the position is? >> no we're going too see whether or not they are really joined in the fight alongside oois isil. >> aren't we quibbling? it's going to be the administration that has to make a judgment call and this administration, if it decides these individuals are part of

the islamic state of iraq or associated persons or forces, then they will under this resolution use that military force in 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 a president retains the authority today with respect to al qaeda or any other group, we'll take action. >> that includes individuals in america. >> excuse me? >> 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. >> lewis frankel of florida. >> we'll go through our normal constitutional procedures, i assure you.

>> thank you mr. chair. thank you for your service. i truly admire what you have to deal with. and earlier, you rightly stated that we live in a very complex world, the threats we face are multifacetted. unlike the bipolar threat we face during the korldcold war. i think you're dealing with a puzzle with the pieces that match. and i'm interested in how we manage and balance competing interests in the world. and 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 thereby strengthening assad who is killing hundreds of thousands of

his own people. or 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's a really good question. and i have to give you an answer that i think you'll probably find a little simplistic and i hope not totally unsatisfactory. it's really a matter of common sense. i mean, you have to apply a standard of sort of practicality of cause and effect. what is the impact of one choice on other choices that you have? that's the 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, on iran, on shia militia, you know

a host of other things. but there is a connection. i mean, 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 happen 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 syria or with isis will have an impact on iranian perception, it's 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's down to one question, aren't i've not been keen on the negotiations you have going with iran. i'll ask this one specific question. for over 2 1/2 years the pastor has been held by iran. how can we expect, how can the american people expect 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. >> so we get the gist of that one. now we go -- your question, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary for being here. my question is with regards to the aumf, that's before congress and syria. and wondering as it states in the aumf action against isil or associated persons. will there be an interpretation of this -- >> or other dictators in other nations, as it deems their position in power stands in the way of defeating isil. >> now we go to -- >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. secretary, thanks for being here. my question is in relationship to the democratic republic of the congo.

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. brendenboil of pennsylvania? >> thank you. and i waited the three hours to ask this one question. i was concerned this issue might be overlooked with the plethora of issues we have and you have secretary kerry, around the world. one of the great achievements of american foreign policy was forging a peace agreement in northern ireland. and tensions still remain. 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 the united states will continue to play a strong and active role in the northern ireland peace situation? >> mr. lee zeldon of new york followed by 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. this is the letter from the president four or five

photographs. when congressman gracin 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. i'm just looking for a little bit more clarity on what specifically from an offensive end the president is looking to do to defeat isis of what is the limit limit. >> mr. secretary thank you, again, for all your time today. a question i wanted to ask you relates to something that shouldn't be partisan at all. it's 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 details, 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. >> so let me try to run through those as fast as i can, mr. chairman. and i thank you. we have raised in the most recent discussions. and you ask how we can tell they'll negotiate in good faith. we're negotiating on that reactively right now. and, again the proof will be in the pudding whether we can achieve something or not achieve

something. it's 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 agreement itself. congressman, on the subject of the aumf associated persons removing assad et cetera. we have to operate under international law. this -- this authorization is 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 availability to deal with president assad. let me make that clear. not the least of which is the fact that