possible because they believe that the united states could be very helpful as a friend and a partner because we have existing assistance programs to colombia that are helping to lay the groundwork for the implementation of a possible peace agreement and we have been so committed through the years. you all, certainly those of you in the top here, were deeply involved in helping to do this in the 1990s. we put a billion bucks on the line. we became deeply engaged and together with the leadership of colombians, a country that was near failed certainly failing turned itself around to become one of our most important trade partners and allies in. the region. >> they were pretty much outcast because they were dealing so much with us. and that's concern. >> well -- >> and the last question i

have -- >> look at the success they are today. measure their success today with countries that haven't chosen to do that. i think colombia is a leader as a result and i think other countries are saying we're missing out. there's an effort we can do to do a better job of reaching out to latin america. that's part of what's in the budget in the billion dollars we're trying to put on the line. >> i'm concerned we're going to end up looking bad as usual. the last question i have is where is our progress as far as being sent back to the united states to face trial? that's the woman that killed a state trooper in new jersey and i read where the cuban government said that's out of the question, we're not sending her back. >> we are continuing to seek the return of fugitives from u.s. justice. we have raised the case.

we have raised the case with the cuban government during the migration talks that just took place a few weeks ago. we raised those cases when we met in january. there's a meeting here friday that will raise the cases again on friday. and we have had some limited success in recent years. there are four noncuban fugitives who have been returned to the united states since 2011. we're going to continue these discussions in the context of this new relationship and hopefully is might open the door. >> mr. steve chabot of ohio. >> thank you for being here. last week state department spokeswoman espoused the interesting proposition that we should create a jobs program for people who might be inclined to support groups like isis.

jobs for jihadists. she didn't call it that, but i will. just where will these jobs come from? not at the mall, it's apparently too dangerous o work there now. are these shuttle ready jobs or are they yet to be created like keystone pipeline jobs? and mr. secretary, did she consult with anyone else in the state department before announcing this new initiative? if not, who did she consult with? i realize that according to her, many of us are not nuanced enough to grasp the proposal, but i'm sure some of my colleagues would appreciate some insight on where in the heck this idea came from. >> congressman, let me make it absolutely clear. that's not what she was saying. if you take the full breadth of what she was talking about.

in fact, what she was talking about is the notion that if all we do is have a military approach to the problem of violent religious extremism or whether there's violent extremists, we're going to fail. you will have the next secretary of state or the one thereafter, a continuum of presidents coming to you with new ak acronyms that are a new threat. 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, which is the military. 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 just replenished like the three kids from britain who just traveled to join up -- >> another very disturbing thing that happened, absolutely. >> let me go further. there are several thousand people from russia. multiple hundreds of people from france, from germany, from australia. the australians are in the targets now. 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. and a very distinguished professor who testified there dr. peter newman, from kings college in london specifically who has done years of research on this talking about the nearly 4,000 people who have gone since 2012 from berlin and paris, they are all young people. you can find them on facebook,

twitter, social platforms. they are talking, kicking back and forth and nothing is answering them. >> i have limited time here. i think i gave you extensive time to o answer the question. i understand that it wasn't -- >> don't make fun of what she was talking about. >> we have an awful lot of young people that are unemployed in this country and i think we ought to work on that. as opposed to -- >> that's not what she was talking about. >> it sure sounded like it. it was awfully nuanced. but let me move on. mr. secretary, taiwan's president decided to release the former president on medical parole. as you may know, my democratic colleague visited the former president chen in prison. he had a whole range of medical conditions, multiple strokes, severe depression, parkinson's disease and on and on. we beseeched the president to issue a medical parole.

or humanitarian parole. he ultimately did, i give him credit, but it was only for 30 days. and he'll probably unless there's some change be taken back. his condition was just startling. i would urge you to look at the case. i know it's an internal problem. i'd like to say a country, taiwan, the prc doesn't like that, but they are a defacto country and i know that we, for the most part, consider that to be the case although 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 extent that we can exercise some reason on the government that that parole be made permanent so he can stay with his family. >> will do. >> thank you. >> we go to mr. connolly of fairfax, virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman and welcome, mr. secretary. mr. secretary, we had a hearing a few weeks ago and the inspection model of south africa

came up and it was made that south africa might be the ideal model for unannounced, unpredicted, complete access any time, anywhere, you name it, we get to inspect and south africa has agreed to that. have we thought about using the south africa model for iae inspections with negotiations with iran? >> we're examining every possible model. we're looking at japan, south africa, all existing enriching country models and we also have to measure whatever those models are against a particular country we're dealing with. but that's what we're doing. >> i think some of us would be very interested in hearing more about that as you proceed. you have counselled us to keep our part dry although there

is no agreement yet. i think you surely having been in congress as long as you were in congress, you can understand, however, that there's anxiety about waiting, a means that i'm handed. we don't amend the agreement. and meanwhile, we have the head of another government coming to speak to congress under circumstances that, in my view, are shameful, but nonetheless, he's coming. and he's not keeping his powder dry. and he is somebody, as the ranking member indicated, with existential concern about this. and he says that's going to be a bad agreement. it's so bad that's why i'm coming to speak to congress. i have to go over the heads of the secretary of state and the president of the united states and plead with congress and the american public to derail this agreement because it's going to threaten israel and frankly other nations in the region. so he's not keeping his powder dry. it's hard for us to pretend he is. >> that's something that you and

people in israel and everybody else have to make your judgment about. i'm not going to get dragged into that particular choice or how is came about. >> it's his criticism i'm asking you to address. >> let me say this. the prime minister, as you recall, was profoundly forward leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading iraq under george w. bush. we all know what happened with that decision. he was extremely outspoken about how bad the interim agreement was during which time he called it the deal of the century for iran, even though it has clearly stopped iran's program, and more importantly, he's decided it would be good to continue it. so you know, i talked to him

frequently. we work very closely together. we are deeply committed. we, this administration. i think we have done more to help israel. i have a packet of 25 pages or more of things we have done on behalf of israel. and this administration to stand up for it, stand with it, protect, fight back against unfair initiatives. so we won't take a backseat to anybody in our commitment to the state of israel, but he may have a judgment that just may not be correct here. and let's wait and hear what he says. i'm not going to prejudge his statement anymore than she should pre judge this agreement. when we heard, if appropriate, i'll respond. >> thank you, mr. secretary. my other question has to do with the minsk agreement. since minsk one there have been

over 300 violations to the european union. in part it exists because one melted away with russian aggression. is minsk the right framework for us given russian 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 this flow from perhaps 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 minsk if it were implemented, would be a good way to deescalate. that's what everybody hopes for. this does not flow from what president putin chose to do with respect to crimea, which elicited a beginning response

with respect to sanctions. it flows from a view mr. putin holds about the new russia that he talks about and about his efforts to push back against what he feels is a threat from europe and from u.s. in the west in encoaching in what he deems to be his commitments. we don't deal with spheres of influence in that way. we deal with independence and sovereignty of nations and respect for agreements. the bucharest agreement says we would all protect -- russia included -- would protect the territorial integrity of ukraine. and long ago through the united nations and other agreements, the respect for international boundaries and lines and not taking territory by force has

been the standard for which nations have been trying to fight. president putin have made a set of choices that violate all of that. so in lieu hans donetsk and luhansk and. so 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 respect to territory and behavior. so i don't think anybody in had this committee is suggesting the united states ought to be sending the 82nd airborne or something greater than that. that's not what i hear. i think people feel that this is a time for smart policy. and it is clear from the policy

we put in place, the russian ruble is down 50%. there's capital flight from russia. russia is about to go into recession this year according to economic predictions. so while putin may be achieving the short-term stuff, the long-term is a problem. the long-term for russia. and i think we're pursuing a policy that is smart and effective at the same time, and our preference is to deescalate this, get back to the norms and restore relationship with russia that could be more public, more productive in many different respects. >> the chairman of the homeland security committee. >> mr. secretary, let me just say thank you for your service in these very challenging times that we find ourselves in. and i also appreciate your comments about the greatest generation.

my father was a bomber. it is a great generation. they were all in. they were all in to win. and they won. and they defeated fascism. i see a new threat and it is islamic extremism, and it seems to me the best homeland security policy we can have is to eliminate the threat where it exists rather than it coming into the united states. before this committee, we will be deliberating an authorization for the use of military force. we had a meeting with white house officials, the chairman and myself and others, and were presented with the president's policy on this. i must say the reception was not a warm one. i have concerns. concerns of a timetable telling isis how long we're in the

fight, concerns about tying the hands of our generals, concerns about usually an authorization is asked for by the congress to expand the president's authority and the military's powers rather than restrict them. i cannot support this authorization as presented by the administration. the authorization i would like to see, i'd like to get your opinion on, would be an authorization to degrade and destroy isis wherever they exist. can you tell me whether you would support an authorization like that? >> well, that's in the authorization. there's no geographic limit purposefully in order to be able to destroy them wherever they exist. and the president's thinking, which i agree with, with respect to the continuation, look, there is a huge divide in congress. we all know that. there was an unhappy experience with a prolonged war in iraq that became a war of choice and

which didn't -- in most people's judgment -- have to be fought. and people are tired. they don't want to go back and do another 14-year military excursion. and there is a divide on how you balance this. and what the president did, and i testified at the aumf in december and we listened to both sides of the aisle. and some people wanted something open-ended and you are working 14 or 15 years from now where you are working on the same authorization and the president, i think, thoughtfully and appropriately said, you know what, congress ought to be able to unite and the american people should speak with one voice to say we are going to go out. >> and if i could just -- it sounds like a political document. >> we're going to destroy and degrade isis. >> and i agree it says what it does. but with all of the limitations on our military and i think --

options should not be taken off the table. that is a dangerous predicament, in contrast to the 2001 aumf he has current authority under. and i appreciate your response on the syrian refugees. >> and can i say quickly -- >> i don't have -- >> nobody knows who the next president will be. next president ought to have the right to be able to say i want more or i need more. or let's continue it the way it is. nothing will stop you from doing that. the policy is clearly committed to degrade and destroy isil. >> and we agree on the policy, but i don't think you can achieve that goal by putting restrictions in the military. >> but i -- >> you were in the vietnam conflict. we had a micro-managed war that didn't allow our troops to win the war and don't want to make the same mistake with isis and i think our precipitous withdrawal

quiet frankly created that to some extent. and the plan to the state department is to bring thousands more in to the country -- as we are trying to block foreign fighters from coming into the united states, from western europe and americans who traveled, the idea of bringing in thousands of syrian refugees poses a potential risk to americans. that was born out by homeland security officials and the fbi made it very clear that they don't have the intelligence and the proper data bases to properly vet these syrian refugees who would be coming into the united states under your program, this federally sanctioned program to bring in refugees. i think this raises serious risks and concerns.

and i think rightly so when the fbi is telling me that and agreeing with that as well. can you tell me what your plan is? >> well the plan is to engage in what we call super-vetting, an extraordinarily level of vetting and if the fbi is not satisfied, i'm quite confident that people aren't going to be allowed in. i don't see this as a conflict. we have amazing ways of being able to dig down and dig deep and we are doing it now with the syrian opposition being vetted in order to join up to the training and equip program. i think -- well i won't put the numbers out here. but there is a disparity between the numbers of those who have signed up and been approved and entered the program and the same will happen here. >> and i'll close with, i was in jordan and i saw the refugees, many are mothers and children. >> we've been doing this for years now. >> and we made some mistakes

with the iraqis and they were prosecuted for being terrorists. but the minister of interior in jordan told me personally -- >> but -- >> they told me i don't know who they are. because they haven't told me. >> when they weigh in, accordingly, i don't they they will come in. >> mr. ted deutsche. >> mr. secretary, thank you for being here. and i want to extend thanks for your service at a difficult and crucial time in our history. thank you for that and i want to talk about iran and where we stand. i want to talk about mr. smith's comments from earlier. i'm grateful for the way you speak up about the americans who are being held and i would implore you to continue to turn up the pressure.

in my case specifically with respect to robert levinson, one of two things will help, negotiations will succeed and there will be an agreement or we'll deal with iran's other despicable behavior or negotiations fall apart, but either way pressure will decrease on iran. on march 9th, mr. secretary, bob levinson, his family will mark the eighth anniversary of his disappearance and you'll meet with others between now and then between the end of march and i implore you to continue to raise that and do so. and you asked us not to prejudge but i think it is fair to comment on reports -- media reports about where this may be headed, particularly since what

is often a lot of the report s including information that comes from the administration. so given that, just a couple of points. on enrichment, you had said earlier that you came and sat before a committee as others and suggested the jpoa might not work, but with respect to enrichment, it referred to a mutually agreed upon enrichment when you suggest might be zero. but the u.n. seven times in security resolutions suggested there could be no enrichment. so the frustration that some have and when you look at a deal that may ultimately include as many as 6,000 or 7,000 centrifuges is trying to understand why iran needs that many since currently there is one nuclear reactor fueled by russian fuel and they can't use any of the uranium to fuel that reactor. there is concern about how we've gotten to that point.

that is number one. number two, when you talk about the uranium compliance, you say they have certified they've complied but deputy blanken testified there were violations to the jpoa and i would like to know what they were and what it says about a long-term agreement if they are already violated those terms. next on the issue of pmd, the iaea published 12 sets of questions about the iran past work and they have only tackled one of the issues. again, as we look toward a potential agreement how can we make sure iran will comply with it if they haven't come clean on what they've done in the past. i ask if you can confirm that any deal can only be agreed upon if it provides upon any time, anywhere inspections. and for most of us here, and for the role of congress, you said yesterday on the senate and

we'll have a chance to review it and we'll have a vote because it will be necessary to ultimately terminate sanctions. that is clear to us. i appreciate you're saying it. if you could speak to congress's role going forward and answer also whether you believe we should start talking now whether there is a role for congress to play in talking about what would happen in the event there is a deal and in the event iran violates the terms of that deal, would it be helpful for congress to work with the administration to lay out specifically what the ramifications would be in that instance. >> well, congressman, first of all, i want to impress on everybody that i find very helpful, and i think the administration finds very helpful, the discussions with you. whether here or in classified session. and we're not at all suggesting

that by raising a question or making suggestions as you've just had about one potential complication or, you know, suspension to negotiate these other 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 victims are that these folks are killing. the victims are people who ic in the name of free press criticize them 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 sor -- 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 people that in fact we're at war with islam. and they are building that up as a recruitment tool and we're creating 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 apostate. >> 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, uranium enrichment capability and they have had 164 centrifuges, for creating weapons-grade material. today there is over 19,000, and it is suggested that 9,400 of them are operational 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 breakout 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 and large, writ 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 erbil, 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 young idealist and aspiring arizona woman was captured and held over 18 p months by isis terrorists 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 a terrorist jailed here in the u.s. essentially once isis learned that the u.s. does indeed negotiate with terrorists, they demanded for more kayla mueller. imagine how the family felt they would negotiate for a soldier who deserted his unit and not for their daughter. i would just like a yes or no answer on this and then expound on the next part of the question. but were you consulted when they decided on a swap for sergeant bergdahl and can you say yes or 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

prisoner of a conflict. and as we draw down there is 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. the amounts of money that they put on americans indicated it was an absolute -- it was unfortunately not a serious dao 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. and i look forward to your response on those issues. but i want to begin today to talk about the atrocityies 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 at the united nations. and i'm just wondering what we are doing to help push a referral to the international criminal court or other things to hold those individuals accountable for atrocities currently 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 should our mideast earn and gulf allies 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 to do? and how much of this will necessarily fall on the united states to degrade and defeat isil or isis? >> thank you, congressman. good questions. on the icc in syria, i don't have any doubt in my mind that basher al-assad has engaged in

some 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 amounted to it. 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 10,000 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. 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 assistance or japan is doing humanitarian assistance. they have the ability to provide

assistance in turning off the flow of money by putting their financial systems and banking systems at the disposal of the effort to cut off the foreign financing. almost every country has been the 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 coordinating with respect to 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, others speak out and the egyptians have spoken very clearly condemning isil as an organ of satan, as 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. >> thank you, mr. secretary. and thank you for your service and in many ways being one of the leading characters on foreign policy long before you came to this job. today we are primarily 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 both here and in another committee, seems to have more to do with 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 deeply 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, 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 haufg come over and spend some time with secretary pat kennedy and going through this. some of it is going to through the report and the requirements

of dealing with 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 that $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 analysis. 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 by 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 from 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 counter-terrorism and communications. i think it is cost effective for funding and helpful and sending the right message to our allies as well. >> you are 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 cent com today 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 an 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. this 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 secretary 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 of hoti. we had a marine -- 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 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

our 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 hadi forces and other people. then the politics changed 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 conscience, 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 says in section 2-c, the authority granted in subsection a does not authorize the use of the united states armed forces in enduring ground combat operations.

in that context, mr. secretary, what does enduring mean? >> it means iraq, afghanistan, long-term ground operations. you could obviously 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, a member of the coalition 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 wherever alse 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 aumfs 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

disarm the united states marines ever again. that was wrong. does the united states plan to take [ inaudible ] off the list again. >> only if they are, in fact, a sponsor of terror. >> i'm having trouble defining isil based on some 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 levant which is the arab word for the s of isis. >> and which is a 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 against al aqaeda 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 which we are prepared to go after isis dash, 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.

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. >> thank you mr. chair and ranking member engel and secretary kerry. i was going to say thank you this morning but it's afternoon. 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 envoy barry this week also. but i have to -- i want to ask some specific questions and maybe you can answer later on

about the -- which 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. i appreciate it very much. 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 ways 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.

against the islamic state of iraq. as i understand it i think you've confirmed this, there are no geographic limitations in the force authorization sought by the president, is that 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 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. we'll go through our normal constitutional procedures, i assure you. >> mr. frankel of florida. >> 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 faced 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 thereby 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 choices that 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. your question please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary for being here. 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 offensive end the president is looking to

do to defeat isis, what is the limit of his authority under this authorization? >> mr. emert? >> mr. secretary, thank you, again, for all your 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.

chairman. i thank you. saed abidini we have 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 agreement itself. congressman gabert, on the subject of the aumf associated persons removing assad, et cetera, we have to operate 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, or 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.

and the funding is there for 2011. 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 the 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 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 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 engaged 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. is >> the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road to take you to cities to learn about their history and literary life. this week we partnered with comcast and traveled to galveston, texas. >> people gather to the beach. they watched in amazement as both of these factors battered the beach front structures. at that time we had wooden bathhouses out over the gulf of mexico, and we also had piers and we even had a huge pavilion called olympia by the sea.

as these storms intensified they were turned into match sticks. the 1900 storm struck saturday september 8th 1900. the storm began before noon increased in dramatic intensity and then finally tapered off towards midnight that evening. this hurricane was and still is the deadliest recorded natural event in the history of the united states. >> watch all of our events from galveston saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. florida senator marco rubio spoke recently at the politics and eggs breakfast at saint ann's college in new hampshire. a business group has hosted the

breakfast since 1996 to hear from potential presidential candidates. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> class of 2017. you're a year away. you're a junior. 2016. that's right, 2017. sorry. how are you? okay. >> thank you so much. >> pardon me. >> you're from new jersey. >> exactly. >> absolutely. >> art is a great guy.

good to see you. you you. >> wait. likewise. >> thank you. >> thanks for having me here. >> one more. >> thank you so much. >> how are you? >> senator. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> thank you for having me. >> glad to be here with you. >> absolutely. >> thank you both.

>> we tried to cutback on the outdoor activities. >> good be with you guys. thanks for the invitation. >> i have a few articles. i'll give him to. >> yes, please. i would love to see them. >> county commissioner. >> i enjoyed it. >> it was brisk. >> it was brisk. but we're cutting down on the outdoor activities. >> oh, come on.

>> we're thinking about it. >> good to see you. >> thank you so much. >> senator, good to see you again. >> that's great. one more. >> she dropped off or gone on with her life.

i got to find her. thanks for having me here. >> i'm alexander. nice meeting you. >> no snow. >> thank you both. nice to meet you. >> good to see you. nice for having me here. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> hi how are you? >> glad to be here.

>> thanks for having me. thanks again for having me guys. all right. >> i hope you enjoy our presentation. you're in the right place for politics. good to see you guys. thanks again for having me this morning. >> thank you very much. >> good to see you. >> good to have you. >> thank you so much.

>> were you on his staff? >> thank you both. >> i've been looking forward to this. thanks for the invitation. >> thank you so much. >> hi. thanks. >> thank you. >> glad to be back. >> sorry about the weather. >> no, the weather is fine.

>> everything is good. >> one more. >> chris. >> thanks for having me. >> come on. >> hello. >> okay. that was great. thank you. >> that's not true. that's an exaggeratation. >> great to see you. >> terrific. >> last one. >> you kidding? nice to be here. >> beautiful. >> anyone else?

come on. get the wife. >> my pleasure. we'll get through there quick. it was >> thank you guys. take me to the lion's den. >> how are you? good to see you. so who do i make it out to? >> c.h.r. and i work for tarkio. >> this is for you. i don't know where you got this book. >> e bay. it's amazing what the internet can do. >> we did a bunch of these ideas. we actually passed 57 of them and put them into law. >> that's great. more of that. >> good to see you. >> thanks for having me. >> absolutely. >> pleasure.

>> i don't like that phone cover. >> sorry. it was a good year for us. >> when is he going to retire? >> i don't know. hopefully never. >> where do we go? >> thanks for covering this. >> thank you. >> thanks for covering this. >> thank you for being here. >> practice signing them. >> is that what the deal is? >> yes. >> i didn't know that. >> yeah. >> that's very good. i didn't know that. i would have totally messed up on that. thanks for coming. i'm glad to be here. i'm glad it's indoors. thank you guys for having us.

>> they don't throw these, do they? >> no. >> good. >> i heard that sometimes if they like you they'll make you sign a few of them. this is going to be part of my family heirloom. my kids go do they throw the eggs? i said i don't think so unless it goes really bad. >> i used to be a pitcher. >> but how was your accuracy? >> very good. >> all right. well, i've got a small strike zone. this afternoon. >> i think leading up to friday we'll see what happens. but we're hoping it will allow us to debate the bill. >> which you've been unable to do. >> democrats are smiling. >> well, we'll see. they'd better be -- on net neutrality what's going on with

it? >> what's going on with this? >> the problem is it's going to really stifle innovation. a lot of companies will stop investing in some of the infrastructure they need to improve it. >> why won't they air the bill out so we can see it? >> we're hoping to have a debate on it in congress here very soon. you're talking about the fcc? they're going to push through on whatever they're going to do obviously. we have the ability legislatively to come back and address it. that's what we hope -- >> can you stop it? >> we can put in place something that supersedes it that in essence overcomes it through legislation. what it does is it's going to really paralyze innovation in technology. a lot of the providers are going to stop innovating at higher speeds and it's going to hurt us in that regard. the internet is one of the few unregulated spaces. it's really grown rapidly and created opportunity for a lot of things to happen. >> the senate bill on homeland security have the immigration -- >> well, there is no senate bim.

right now we're taking up the house bill. and the house bill supersedes both the -- but our point is let's get on the bill, let's have a debate, let's amend it if you want to amend it and then let's vote on it at the end. but it won't even let us get on a debate. because i don't think we should be doing it by executive order. i support tax reform but if a republican president said i'm only collecting 20% of your taxes instead of the full rate i wouldn't support it. >> the executive order, all he does is concentrate on those immigrants with a criminal record -- >> well, but -- >> and defer deportations of -- >> the problem is executive orders are designed to improve the way you enforce the law, not to rewrite the law. you're not going to enforce it on an entire segment of people that numbers in the millions -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> but either way you're creating -- you're creating a precedent now where presidents can decide i'm going to rewrite law by refusing to enforce

elements of it. and the real reason, another reason i'm against it, and i said this in the beginning, is it's going to make changing an immigration reform bill even harder because now people will become even more recalcitrant. we've already lost support. >> we have less votes today than we did two years ago in the senate. and part of it is the last election -- we have less votes today than we did two years ago. and part of it is the executive order and the impact it had in 2012. i think this one's made it even harder. the only way to solve this problem is to deal with the enforcement part first. you've got to prove to people you're going tone force the law and if they do that i think they're going to be very reasonable about everything else. first of all, some of those deportations are really just turnbacks at the border. and second he hasn't enforced the law. in essence as you've seen today, there are sectors of the border that are not secure.

>> canada and the east coast -- >> well 40% of our illegal immigrants arrive legally in the united states and then overstay. and we don't have a reliable system of tracking that either. so that has to be addressed. florida's probably more than 40% 37. >> book sales from your signing yesterday. >> they did okay. the important thing is talking to people about what we stand for. my goal wasn't to be a best-seller, although i wouldn't mind. but it was to have a platform to talk to people about our ideas for the future of our country. and that's been great. i look forward to -- all right. thanks for having me, guys. it's great to be here. thank you. thank you for having me. hey, guys. thanks for having me. i appreciate it very much. i thought they were having like dessert for breakfast.

i get it. you've got to die of something, right? >> all this fat so we can get ourselves through the winter. >> thanks for having me today. i really appreciate the chance to be here. thank you. thanks for having me. >> the arctic. >> it snows in washington sometimes. >> negative 8 tonight. >> all i can tell you is the heater at the comfort inn works. it's like 95 degrees in there. we're not good at -- not like florida in february. but anyway thanks for having me. guys, thank you again for having me. good to see you. so what's the -- >> did you bring this weather? >> i -- yeah. >> is that what it is? >> i thought they were used to express disapproval. >> i hope not. >> they're made of wood.

>> good to see you. thanks so much for having me. good to see you guys. >> thanks for coming out. >> my pleasure. >> participating in our primary. we appreciate it. >> well, we'll see. i don't know yet. >> trying to trick you. >> i'm not even engaged yet. but we'll see. i look forward to it. it's been a lot of fun already. and it's great to be a part of this. >> yeah, this is a great institution. i'm on the board. >> well, thanks for inviting me. i really look forward to. thank you. all right, guys. >> speaker of the house. >> i read all about that. yeah. i was walking home. but all you chair are republicans. that was always the fear of every incumbent speaker in florida. our numbers were too broad. but the fear was a coalition that would -- we did have a speaker step down a few years ago unfortunately for some ethics issues before he even --

he got sworn in and all that. but by and large because of term limits, and our speakers are being decided -- you don't have term limits. >> no no. >> every two years. >> sessions 8 and 9. i got elected in the specials. it was a great job. >> are you also the ceo of the house? do you run the house as well? >> half my time was spent on administrative duties. >> he was chief about ten years ago. >> now, you only have -- but the rest of the year was spent doing things like negotiating contracts or whatever because that's what the speaker had all the administrative duties as well. >> [ inaudible ]. >> it's a great job. >> we'd love to have you come,

speak before the house. >> your house has a little more history than ours. >> how many members? we're 120. >> 400? oh, my gosh. that's a lot of cats to herd. >> no kidding. we have a pretty good split 239 to 161. >> that's almost the size of congress. >> it is. >> and how big is the senate? >> 24. >> yeah, that's a big difference. >> huge. >> it's fun. >> makes it interesting. the house actually got up to 424 but they couldn't fit them in the room. it was based on population. so they -- >> are they in districts? >> yes. >> so single-member districts? >> great to see you. >> likewise. i wish you the best. >> you're in the middle of the session now. >> we're excited to have him.