constitutional term, the uk is not a unitary state. there is no second independence on the horizon of course. but i think it's a reasonable point to make. if the united kingdom is to remain in tact in the years to come, it must demonstrate and demonstrate very clearly that it can adapt to multi-national and multi-party politics in a far more substantial manner than it has often done in the past. now here in the united states, of course, you're very used to the idea of different governments making different choices about very significant issues, but that's not something that uk governments are used to for much of the last century. devolution not withstanding, the uk has been a centralized state. but it's now increasingly clear, for the uk as a whole, one size doesn't fit all, and a one size fits all approach is not going

to fit the bill for the future. and political identities are relevant to the third point i want to talk about. the coming referendum on the uk's membership in the european union. something that is huge significance within the uk but as i found in the united states a matter of considerable interest for people here as well. what people find in the uk find odd about this refereneddom is that the prime minister says he wants to stay in the european union. both of the biggest uk parties say they want to stay in the european union. there's overwhelming support, or so it seems in the westminster parliament, yet here we are in the united kingdom standing very close to the exit door to the eu.

interestingly those who the prime minister is seeking to appease with a european referendum skeptics in his other apparent or the united kingdom independence party are unlikely to be appeased by a renegotiated membership of the european union. that body of opinion is for the uk to exit the european union and nothing less. it seems, effort seems odd in the uk and it often does that this referendum is now looming. the uk government's approach seems especially odd to many people in scotland. in the general election last month, across the whole of the uk, parties which want to leave the european union polled around 12% of the popular vote. in scotland, that was less than 2%. just think we've seen an opinion poll with scottish voters. 72% would opt to vote to remain in the european union with only28% saying they would vote

to leave. and that's perhaps not surprising given the economic membership. in scotland, there are some 300,000 jobs that rely on exports to the european union. so membership in the european union is of tremendous importance. so i would argue that the referendum simply isn't a priority. it does raise the possibility depending on how the result goes across the uk. scotland could be taken out of the european union against our will. and that's why the european question is in some ways very directly linked to the question of how the uk is governed. at one of the themes of the scottish referendum last year articulated often very powerfully by those campaigning against scottish independence is that scotland is a valueded and

equal partner in a uk family of nations. and so surely as many people in scotland would see it shouldn't be possible for scotland's voice to be overruled in an eu referendum. and that's why the scottish government is arguing for a double majority in that referendum where the uk could only leave the eu if each of the nations vote to leave e that sort of territorial requirement is often used in federal countries like canada and australia. and i think it's time to apply it to the united kingdom, to give meaning to the phrase that the uk is a family of nations. i said last week in a speech to the european policy center in brussels if scotland does find itself taken out of the european union against a vote to remain in. it could produce a demand for another independence referendum,

which may well be unstoppable. but i would argue, and do argue, that the uk government has it within their power to remove that possibility by agreeing to the double majority provision that we're putting forward. the referendum legislation could demonstrate what we are so often told, that the uk government does see the uk as a family of nations. i would posit thad would be one very clear way in which the uk could do what i suggests earlier and that it needs to do, demonstrate that it can adapt to a multinational multiparty system of politics. just to conclude my opening remarks. i think it's clear from observing politics in the united kingdom, these are momentous days for the uk. it brings challenges and considerable opportunities. the coming months and the coming years gives us a chance to

secure greater autonomy for scotland, allowing us to build a powerhouse economy and ensure a more equal society, also provide an opportunity to secure better governance across the whole of the uk. and we will see a vote, which i hope, will reaffirm the place of scotland and the united kingdom. within the european union. all of these are possible. none are guaranteed. they require constructive negotiation from political leaders right across the uk. from my part, i'm determined that the scottish government will take the lead in making those arguments and contributing to those negotiations, because if we achieve these three objectives, it will be good for scotland. it will be good, in my view, for every nation of the uk and it will secure our place in europe and the wider world. and by doing that, of course, it helps to strengthen our friendships and our alliances

both here in the heart of the united states and right across the world. so thank you very much indeed for listening. and i am now thoroughly looking forward to the discussion that will follow. [ applause ] >> so first minister, welcome and thank you for talking with us. you said in your remarks, you raised the question about whether the conservative party victory in england, as you put it, as only one of the four nations, only one of the four nations can be considered to have a mandates. my first question to you is, if it's not a mandate, what is it? are you saying david cameron is not legitimately the leader of the uk? >> i'm not saying that. the constitution of the united kingdom as it stands at present is that david cameron is the prime minister. he won the election and got enough votes and enough seats

across the uk to form a government. and that's what he has done. the point i'm making is a point of political reality. although, because of the relative size of england compared to the other nations of the united kingdom, david cameron is able to form a government. my argument is that he needs to accept that in the other three nations of the united kingdom, his party did not win. and therefore, in how he governs the country, that's something that he should take account of, and he should respond to the democratic wishes as they were expressed in scotland and wales and in northern ireland. and in many respects, in how he respond to that political reality will determine at least in part how the united kingdom develops over the coming years. you know, for people in scotland right now, we're watching quite carefully to see how david cameron's government responds, if it responds, then the message people will take is that

westminster is adaptive, it can serve scotland better, if it doesn't, that message will be a very different one. >> are we to understand that there's a new relationship between scotland and the rest of the united kingdom? >> scotland and the united kingdom, the british isles are part in that regardless of whether scotland becomes in the future at some point in the future an independent country. you know it's always integral but we have a reality. the united kingdom is not and never has been a unitary state. it is a nation of four different nations. we've seen through devolution an asymmetry in how the united kingdom is governed. we've seen different priorities emerge in each of the nations and that brings into sharp focus the relationship between a scottish government and the united kingdom government.

i think it's a big test over the years to come over the united kingdom, the construct that is the united kingdom. is it adaptable and responsive, can it accommodate the different views and different directions in which each of its nations wants to go in? or will it prove to be unresponsive, in which case, perhaps, and i simply say perhaps, the united kingdom will not continue as the construct that it is. >> watching from the other side of the atlantic, i think many americans look at what's going on over there and say well, if scotland were to breakaway, were to become independent, that greatly weakens the united kingdom, what do you say to that? >> i've never held that view. and one of the things i've been talking about a lot this weekend, the united states is about if scotland had become an independent country, or if we ever do in the future, you know, stress the point i made in my opening remarks, there is no

second independence referendum on the immediate horizon. so we're talking hypothetically at the moment. the united states, for example, in that scenario would go from having one close ally, the united kingdom would go to having two close allies, the united kingdom and scotland. i don't think that weakens the united kingdom. in an international context. scotland would always see as its closest ally, defending the security of the united kingdom, contributing to the security of the rest of the world as england and the remainder of the united kingdom. in many ways, i think it's there to strengthen the position and the united kingdom, i think can be strengthened by demonstrating how it responds to the will of people in its constituent parts. >> well, in the meantime, while there's not an action right now to move toward independence, there clearly are, you clearly

are looking at ways to have scotland exert more authority over its own affairs. your deputy leader, stewart hosy said last night the snp is going to pushing for power and the taxing and funding. >> short of scotland being independent, we want to have maximum powers. i'm very impressed that you've managed to read the scotsman before i have. >> i have a feeling that's not so. >> so, yes, that is the position of the snp. now, as a devolved part of the united kingdom, there are some restrictions, though, in the devolution of tax posed. european rules for example would

mean that v.a.t. rates. value-added tax rates, couldn't be set different in scotland. there are some restrictions. but we want maximum fiscal powers within the united kingdom context. why do we want that? not for its own sake, but because the more powers we have, the more fiscal responsibility we have, the more ability we have to shape things like our system of social security, the more able we will be to grow our economy, to make sure we're doing the things and pursuing the policies that help us to attract investment and jobs and grow our economy fairly and more susstainably. so its powers and we'll make those arguments in the westminster parliament as the debate for autonomy of scotland continues over the weeks and months to come. >> so you're not saying it's happening imminently, the push to have this fiscal autonomy. >> well, there is legislation going through the house of commons right now.

it's just started to extend the powers of the scottish parliament in what i would argue a reasonably limited way. so as part of that legislative process, we will seek to make amendments to extend the autonomy of the scottish parliament. and i think what you've been reading in the scotsman today is the amendment that we're moving for. >> i'm sure you're aware of the analysis that show this could cost as much as $10 billion a year, cost scotland that much. is that a deterrent? >> that analysis looks at the fiscal position of scotland right now and finds that not surprisingly, scotland is in deficit, just as the uk is in deficit. our revenues are not large enough to cover all of our spendings. the position the united states is in the a position many

countries across the world are in. that's what that analysis is about. now countries that are in deficit want to pursue policies that grow their revenues through economic growth so they can pay down the deficit and achieve fiscal balance. my argument for fiscal autonomy is that it equips the scottish government with greater levers and greater powers and responsibility to do just that. so it introduces an ability for us to tackle the fact that we, like many other countries right now, are in a fiscal deficit position. >> i guess my question is, how much of a priority, is this the first thing you're going to be pushing for in the coming weeks and months? >> in terms of the constitutional debate, yes we will be arguing that case for the maximum powers for the scottish parliament. but my priority on a daily basis as the leader of any government will be the economy in scotland, how we grow jobs in scotland. how we attract investment, how we make sure that our public services, like our national

health service and education system are performing well and delivering quality services. so these are my daily preoccupations. but in terms of how the constitutional future of scotland develops, we will be seeking to argue for as much autonomy for the scottish government as possible. >> is it a good thing if scotland has its own foreign policy? >> well, if scotland had been an independent country, we would have had responsibility for foreign policy as part of that. we're not in that position. foreign policy remains the preserve of the united kingdom government. but i do think it is good for an outward looking internationalist country with an outward-looking internationalist country as the one i lead is, to have a voice and influence the direction of uk foreign policy, and we will seek to do that. we seek to do that in a very constructive way. there are, you know, some differences in outlook in

foreign policy between the uk government and scottish government. but there are many areas which we share a view. and we would be and are supportive of the uk government. so we would seek to have our voice heard and to influence the direction of foreign policy as much as we can. but, of course, it is at the moment our responsibility of the uk government. >> so for an american audience, what's most important for us to understand to the extent it's important at all. what's important for us to understand about where are the similarities and where are the differences when it comes to relationships with the u.s. you've talked about the eu, your strong view that the uk should stay part of the eu, but how would you flesh that out? >> what i would say about my party and my government and how we conduct ourselves on these matters be with the united kingdom we are internationalists and outward-looking.

>> we would be and if scotland had voted to be independent this would have been absolutely the case. we would consider ourselves to be a key ally of the united states. we want to work constructively within the world community to make sure that we are playing our part in resolving some of the conflicts and some of the issue of challenge that we live with in the modern world. we would want to be a continuing member of the nato alliance, to play our part in collective security. so the message that we very strongly articulated during the referendum and will continue to, is the international community would have nothing to fear from an independent scotland. we're not going to be independent right at the moment, but if that happens in the future, then the international community would find in scotland a constructive and positive ally in terms of the many issues that we're dealing with and facing today. >> what do you make, first minister, of all the attention you've been getting since, since the last month?

really since last november, but most of all in the last few months? >> i think it's good for scotland. there has been more international attention on scotland as a country in the past two or three years than i can ever remember before. now last year we had a wonderful coincidence of different events. we hosted in the city of glasgow, the commonwealth games. a few weeks later we hosted the ryder cup, big international sporting events that put the focus on scotland. most countries probably would have thought that would be enough to going on with for one year, but we decided we might get bored, so we had a referendum on independence in between those two events, but all of that combined to put a spotlight on scotland that i think in many ways continues to this day. and my view is a very simple one. we should capitalize on that. we should make the most of that.

we should use that to encourage business and companies to invest in scotland. and the message i've been taking around new york and washington this week is that simple. scotland's a great place to live in, to work in. to do business in, to invest in. so if you're seeing scotland on television, reading about it in your newspapers, and you fancy finding out more, then please come to visit. come to invest. come to study. because we're a fantastic country for all of that. >> so finally, before we take questions from the audience, how do you -- are you getting done on this trip what you want to get done in this official trip to washington? >> yes, i'm extremely happy with how this trip has gone. you know, let me just say, firstly, we've had a fantastic reception from everybody we have met in the united states, both in new york and washington, and we're very grateful for that, but the focus on trip has been

largely trade and economy focused. that's been very successful. i in new york met with two companies that were announcing new investment in scotland. so from that point of view it was very successful. but the other purpose has been to see very directly to the united states audience that scotland sees itself as your friend and your ally and something who wants to work with you across a whole range of ways. in that respect i hope the visit has been successful. >> so the u.s. has nothing to fear from scotland. >> nothing whatsoever. on the contrary. >> all right, first minister, let's take questions now from the audience. i would ask you to -- i believe we have microphones. there's one. maybe there's another one. wait for the microphone. we would ask you to speak directly into it. we would ask you to stand up, give us your name, your affiliation. and let's see who wants to go first. think over here, this gentleman.

>> thank first minister. gavin wilson. we met yesterday. and the topic was economics. today it's politics. i can ask a personal question. if i were to choose a passport i would choose a scottish one. but i was born in london. i want to ask you about political legitimacy regarding the current government of the uk. london has a larger population than scotland. and the conservatives have lost the election in london as well. so one question is, are the conservatives legitimate rulers of london in the same way you mentioned scotland. and secondly, my wife's family is from scotland and they have a distinct identity. and if scotland were independent would it be legitimate for orcny be allowed

to be independent. given what you said about territorial differences in terms of the political affiliation. >> okay thank you for that question. orkney being only three parts of scotland that didn't vote snp at the general election. but came close. maybe in the future we'll be able to change that. in a straight constitutional sense, the government of the uk, you know is legitimate in every part of the uk. i don't question that. i'm making a political point about the need for, in a multi-national state of different nations, voting in different ways, a sensible government would be responsive to that. and david cameron and his government will demonstrate that they understand that whether they like or not people in scotland didn't vote for his government and through their policies and their approach and

their demeanor towards scotland demonstrate that. they understand that. so that's the point i'm making. and london, of course, has its own mayor, its own devolved government in that sense, but the wider point in this, and this is to your point about orkney. i think most people in the united kingdom would make this distinction as far as regions. scotland is a nation as is england, wales and northern ireland. that brings up particular importance as to the voting patterns and different constitutional patterns. in terms of orkney, i spent time there in the runup to the independence referendum. i've been there since then as well. there is no great appetite in orkney or shetland if scotland were to be independent for them to be independent from scotland. i'm not saying you will not find

anybody there of that opinion. contrary to how it's occasionally presented in the united kingdom, you'll not find a great clamor. to break away from scotland. what do you find in both of those islands and other islands is a desire for greater autonomy. we are looking at what powers and responsibilities we devolve from eden borough. but to wrap that up, my point here is not to see david cameron is not a legitimate prime minister as far as scotland is concerned. no, whether i want him to be or not is neither here nor there. in a constitutional sense, he is. but the political reality means that if he simply acts as if's got the same mandate in every

part of the uk, i don't think he will be acting in a way that is strengthening the uk. i think he will be acting in a way that will weaken the uk in that respect. >> over here? >> i'm charlie stevenson. i teach at sies. since you've opened the door to what a scottish policy would be, what are your views on what the uk policy should be in ukraine and syria? >> that's a good example of where the scottish government supports the uk position on ukraine and russia, we're supportive of the international community's position. we're supportive of the sanctions against russia and have been a voice of support for the uk for the government's position and a voice of support wider than that, for the international community's position. similarly, on isil, syria and iraq, we support the international community.

isil is one of the most severe threats that not just the middle east but wider as well because of the implications of that. so do not, do not think that the snp and the scottish government takes a markedly different position on the uk government on the vast majority of international issues. we don't. we are a responsible participant, responsible voice when it comes to these matters, and on both of these issues, you will not find any great difference between our positioning and the position of the united kingdom government. >> can you foresee a time when you might take a different view? >> my party wasn't in government at this point in our recent history. >> my party took a very different view over the war in iraq and the 2003 invasion of iraq. we opposed that conflict. so there are some issues where we have taken a different view.

there may well be issues in the future where we take a different view, but, you know, the war in iraq, we were not alone in the international community in terms of countries that thought the invasion of iraq and what followed on from that was the wrong direction to take, but we would always be and always will be a responsible voice in terms of these international issues. >> right here in the front row. >> thank you, marissa with northrup grummond. should there be in the future an independent scotland, i think one of the greatest of concerns in the u.s. is how the defense structure would be disentangled. and i wonder if you would speak about your sfrigzvision for how defense would be handled if scotland were to be independent?

>> what we set out in the referendum last year very significant detail how an independent scotland would configure its defense forces and how those defense forces would then work and cooperate with defense forces across the rest of the united kingdom, the european union and internationally. if you have an interest in that, i would go into detail and send you the work we did around that. an independent scotland, if we had voted to become independent would have established our own defense force, army, navy, an air force. it would have taken a period of years to make that transition. but not withstanding, the distinct defense forces on an independent scotland would be established. they would have inevitably worked very closely and in an integrated way with the defense forces of the united kingdom. it's an island. the defense of scotland is important to the defense of england. defense of england is important

to the defense of scotland. it is inconceivable in any future constitutional arrangement that the defense forces of any part would not work cohesively. the difference of opinion between the scottish government and the united kingdom government on defense, and i respect the fact this is a difference of opinion between the scottish government and the united states government is the future of the uk's nuclear deterrent. my party does not support to nuclear deterrent and support the renewal of the nuclear deterrent. that is an honest disagreement in principle. but in part, it's also a very practical concern that we have about the implications for our conventional defense forces of plan to renew the nuclear tri dent. there have been significant reduction in the footprint over the past ten years which is a

current debate. i know the president of the united states is intensely interested about the percentage of gdp that's spent on defense in the united kingdom. one of the concerns we have is the more that defense expenditure is taken up with trident, the less expenditure we have on the conventional forces that the country really needs to secure itself and to contribute to defense internationally. i mean one example i often use which illustrates and highlights what i think is almost a neglect of our conventional defense forces is our own maritime surveillance. as i said a moment ago, britain is an island. to scotland, maritime protection and surveillance is very important. you know, we've got a large oil industry, fishing industry, so these maritime interests are extremely important to us. the uk doesn't have any maritime patrol aircraft. so towards the end of last year when there was suspicion that russian submarines were patrolling waters, we didn't

have what we needed and had to draw on help elsewhere. my view we strong appropriate forces that are capable of defending the united kingdom but also contributing positively and appropriately to international efforts as well. >> let's see, i'm trying to go back and forth across the room. right there. thank you. >> diana negraponte. the rood row wilson institute. with the decline in employment in the energy and energy services, what are the areas that you see as the potential sources of prosperity in the next five years, and how willing are you to accept new migrants, whether they be from within the 28 or north africa to

participate in those new areas of productivity. >> thank you very much indeed. that's a very good question. scotland's oil and gas resource, like the oil and gas resources of other countries are blessed to have those who natural resources. they are finite resources. that said, oil and gas will continue to be a considerable source of revenue for scotland and for the united kingdom for many, many years to come. that is estimated to be up to 24 billion barrels of extractible oil left in the north sea, so it's an industry that has a good, strong future ahead of it, but you're absolutely correct that it's a finite resource. scotland is in the very lucky position of not simply being an oil-producing country. we also happen to have some of europe's best and biggest potential, our own renewable energy. so we're also a leader when it comes to wind energy. wave and tidal energy and some

of the new technologies around low-carbon energy sources. so that's a growth area for scotland and an area that we are investing in and encouraging greatly. we're also very lucky to have a number of strong sectors in our economy that i would suggest are gross sectors of the future. the keys would be life sciences. creative industries, our food and drink exports, which are enjoyed by many in the united states and many other countries across the world. one of the things that's important to understand about the scottish economy is not withstanding oil and gas tends to be very associated with the scottish economy, we're not dependent on oil and gas. we have a rich economy. and one leading capability in

many of the sectors the gross sectors of the future. one of the companies i spoke about having met in new york just announced an investment in scotland is a united states company active in the space sector, the manufacture of nano satellites. they've just announced a major investment in scotland, because that's one of the other areas that scotland seems to have that skills our universities are producing, a real competitive advantage. one of the things we're doing which doesn't make us unique but important is increasingly, we're lucky in scotland. we've got, per head of population we have more top universities. than any other country in the world apart from switzerland. so we're in a very good position in terms of the quality of our education. but our business sectors and university sectors are working hand in glove to make sure we're able to maximize those competitive advantages we've got. briefly on immigration, scotland welcomes immigration, and we welcome migrant workers to

scotland. there are considerable numbers of polish people and people from other european union member states living in and working in scotland. actually, not withstanding the debate that is very, very active in the uk, just now associated with the european union question, european migrants make a positive of mark on our economy. that is true of scotland as well. we welcome immigration that can help with the task of growing our economy. we've got in scotland an organization called talent scotland that is a public organization that helps companies scour the world that can fill skilled short nlages of some of our key sectors.

so we have an open economy and an open society, and we welcome very much the contribution that workers from outside make to scotland's economy. >> in the very back there? >> good morning. does it wrangsle you that you were not welcomed in the white house while every royal family member has an appointment in the oval office? >> no. not in the slightest. i said earlier on. i've had a fantastic reception in the united states this weekend. the courtesy shown towards me, towards the scottish government has been fantastic, but also the genuine interest in scotland and where we stand within the united kingdom, within the european uniwouldn't within the wilder world has been absolutely first class. so i have no complaints and no wrankles at all with my visit this week. >> let's see right there third

row back. >> nelson cunningham with mclarty associates. they are from ayrshire. my question has to do with monetary issues. what currency would an independent scotland wish to have? >> i hail from ayrshire. it's my home in scotland. it's where i come from, so i can report back that the independence movement in ayrshire is alive and well and prospering. the proposition on currency that we put forward during the independence referendum was an independent scotland would continue to use sterling. we would continue to use the, the british pound. partly, because it is our currency. it's our currency now, and there's no reason why it wouldn't continue to be our currency in the future. some people see it as a hotly debated issue in the independence referendum. i won't go into all the ins and outs of it. but many people will say, well,

how could scotland and england as independent countries share a currency. look what's happening in the euro zone? i think the key point to put across there and i'm overly simplifying here, but the problems in the euro zone come from partly because the poorest parts of greece and the richest parts of germany have been shoe horned into one currency. that would not be the case in scotland. the economies of scotland and england are very closely aligned. we would have been what many would have termed an optimal currency zone. levels of employment are very, very similar. so my belief then and now is that not only should scotland continue to use the british pound if we became independent but it would be workable and viable and successful for us to do so. >> so there won't be a new scottish mint.

>> well, we have our own scottish bank. notes. the scottish bank's already produced scottish bank notes. so if you go to the united kingdom and you happen to go to scotland, you'll get a pound note worth exactly the same amount in england, but it will have its own scottish stamp on it. >> yes, right here, second row. >> thank you, first minister, fiona hill from the brookings institution. you've spoken eloquently on so many issues here. and i think there's one area where people are really looking to scotland. within the united kingdom here, and internationally, which is on this issue that you expressed about being an open economy, an open society. and a country that's trying to play a very responsible role in governance, and especially in conflicts. as you all know, there's a lot of scrutiny on scotland right now about this very question that you raised, about scotland being a nation and not just a region. we have elections coming up in spain at the end of this year where the question about catalonia and its independence

will be raised. and in fact, the conflict about ukraine and russia is what is a nation and what is a region. i think the question you heard earlier was guessing that. how in a modern area where you have so much immigration. as you said. scotland has a lot of immigrants, people who wouldn't hail back to ayrshire or anywhere. and scots are a migrant nation themselves. in the united states and all over england. it's not just the scots born recently, but many generations of scots have moved about for hundreds of years, how in this modern age where it's difficult to define a nation can scotland play a role as a model with these conflicts. and one of the big issues in the united kingdom itself, the future of the peace process, and what would happen if scotland did become independent. so i'm wondering how you can address this issue.

it's not just a question of being a nation. what does a nation mean in a modern context, and how can scotland really be a model? >> i think that's a very good question. and the contribution scotland can make in the area you're talking about here is not to intervene or start to express opinions if whether catalonia should be independent or not, it should lead by example in how we conduct these debates and how we seek to resolve them as we dit last year. to get to the heart of your question, what is a nation in the modern world. scotland's in the happy position of its territory not being disputed. the borders are well understood and well-settled and agreed without any real disputes or the territorial limits of the nation of scotland are understood, but, of course, what is a nation is a more complex question, and this is where scottish nationalism, if i can use that term, which is often a pejorative term is where

scottish nationalism offers a positive role model for the rest of the world. because my definition of what it means to be scottish. the nation, the territorial limits of the nation are well-defined, but what it means to be scottish in may -- my view is whether or not you choose to live there. you choose to live in scotland if you choose to make it your home it doesn't matter to me whether you come from ecland, pakistan, united states, india poland or any other part of the world. if scotland is your home, if you live there, if you work there, if you make a contribution, you are scottish and have as much right as i do to influence the future direction of the country. so in the independence referendum, polish migrants who were living in scotland had a vote. they were allowed to vote in the referendum, just as people who live in scotland but were born in england or any other part of the european union had the right to vote. so that's the civic approach to nationalism that is absolutely

at the heart of the snp's approach to this question. and what does that do for the rest the world? it demonstrates, and i think a referendum experience demonstrated this very powerfully, that you can resolve these complex questions of nation hood, of governance, of identity, in an entirely peaceful and democratic fashion, and that's the example we hold up to the rest of the world. the issue of scottish independence has been debated with an ebb and flow in intensity for 300 years, since scotland became part of the union. that question has never gone away. it's always been there. as i say, it's come and gone in terms of its level of intensity. but in modern times, in modern times, not a single drop of blood has been shed in that debate on either side. a fantastic example to set for the rest of the world.

so that's what we offer. it's not for us to see in any other part of the world whether a particular people or particular nation should opt to do as we do and argue to be independent, but in terms of the process of determining these things we should absolutely fly the flag for how we've chosen to do it. >> what about the other part of her question about the effect on the northern ireland peace process? >> this was an issue that occasionally was talked about during the referendum campaign. i do not believe in, you know, i don't think that there are many people in northern ireland or indeed across the rest of the uk who would have seriously argued that a vote for scottish independence would have compromised the peace process. no. i don't want to undermine or diminish the challenge northern ireland still faced and periodly will face. but the peace process thankfully is very well-established in the

northern ireland. whatever our views on the constitutional views on the united kingdom, they're committed to making sure that peace process remains effective. i'll be attending a meeting of the council in dublin next week. it brings together administrations of scotland, wales and northern ireland, isle of man and jersey, gurnsy. that gives life to the british isles and how we seek to cooperate and force a dialogue within the british isles. if scotland had become an independent country, we would still be part of the british isles and have operated in that forum.

that is a very strong representation of how those kind of arrangements can work, and itself was one of the outcomes of the peace process in northern ireland. so that, i'm glad to see that we all agree on is the importance of that peace process and the continuation is beyond and above any of these other debates. >> another question? let's see, here. and then i'll go back. >> hi, my name is steven clairemont. i work for an organization called "every child matters." recently the united states congress been considering welfare reform. congress has been looking into the uk as a model. particularly universal credit and a lot of reforms implemented by the cameron government. what is your perspective on that, and what should u.s. policymakers be worried about the unintended consequences of looking to that as a model? >> don't do it would be my advice. i think you've got to draw a distinction between the theory of welfare reform and the

practice. of welfare reform. universal credit is bringing together all the different social security benefits into one single payment and making sure that that operates in a way that as people move into work they don't fall off a cliff in term of the benefits that are called away, outweighing the benefits they get from starting to earn. so in theory, it's a good idea, but it's not working that way in practice, because the process of reform has been accompanied by a very significant cut on expenditure. so what you find as the new systems come into place is the expenditure cuts have made some of the people who have been intending to benefit from welfare reform have actually been some of the biggest losers, and the government has been tougher on people who don't want to work. people who want to shuck responsibility and lie in their beds all day while the rest of us are out there working.

don't get me wrong. i don't think these people should get an easy ride on the welfare system either. that's not the reality of what's happened. the people who have suffered in the last couple years the most from welfare reform in the united kingdom have been people with disabilities, disabled benefits have been significantly cut. single parents, and particularly women, and those in employment for low wages, they have between them taken the biggest hit. so you may have something to learn from the theory of uk welfare reform. i would argue that you should shy away from some of the practical application of that. >> question in the back? >> hi, astrid kendall from google. on your comments about the independence movement being a model of the peaceful nature. i'm curious on your thoughts. did social media orts internet or technology play a role that was different now in this

past, in this particular movement? >> social media played a massive role in the independence referendum in scotland. it was, at the margins perhaps referendum of scotland. it was -- at the margin perhaps less cajole and in the positive it opened up and helped to open up the debate to many many more people that would have otherwise taken part and they get engaged because it's a big issue and a big question and a big responsibility for everybody to decide how they were going to vote. so you had that desire to be engaged and all social media did was to give people the means to be much more engaged that2ñ could access information in the way they were wanting to know about in a way they otherwise wouldn't have been able to do and people shared views and shared information in a way that wouldn't have been possible without facebook and twitter and

social media generally. so it was a positive in my view. social media and this is not unique to the referendum and social media doesn't have a down side because it gives to the minority in scotland and in the uk and i'm sure in the united states, as well and a minority of a more extreme opinion that is not very tolerant of other people's views and just wants to huddle abuse of people that don't agree with them. that minority of people have always been there and social media gives them a platform to communicate than they otherwise wouldn't have previously have had and it appears if that minority was bigger than it was and it at times threatened to contain the atmosphere and i don't think it did overall but sometimes that was the dangerous risk. that's the down side of social media and i think it's hugely outweighed by the positive and it did have a role in the referendum and it continues to have an almost transformational rule in terms of the democratic

engagement that you're seeing in scotland around their own elections, as well. >> so we have time for one more question and just reminding everybody that this has been on the record and ydzes, sir, right here. >> now you tell me. [ laughter ] >> my name is jerry livingston. i'm not sure if i should pose this question, our family was banished in 1662 after the restoration of charles ii, but nevertheless, my question relates to the scottish diaspora is there more that can be done to mobilize the scottish diaspora for the interest of scotland? the irish are very good in mobilizing the diaspora, can do the scottish do the same thing? >> i'm sorry you were banned from scotland. i hereby formally lift the ban. you are welcomed back any time

you like and yeah, i mean the diaspora, the scottish diaspora in the united states alone is enormous and hugely powerful and influential. i was joking last night at the reception of the embassy that some of you may have been at, and there are more people in this country than scotland and there are a population of 5 million that are underestimates and they see there are 10 million people in the united states that claim a scottish connection. so the diaspora is hugely important and we're working incredibly hard to mobilize and use the talents, skills and influence and the networks of the diaspora to fly the flag for scotland and capitalize on it. we have an office here if you want to connect with it before the end at works in that office and we're working very hard to do that. we have a networks called global scots. if anyone here wants to be a

global scot, feel free to come forward and to do that in terms of the business community and albeit, we're working hard and doing very well through our staff here. we can do much more, so if anybody is here who has scottish connections and scottish background or who wishes they were scottish please feel free to offer your services, we'd be delighted to take your opponent. >> so scots of america, rise up. >> please join me in thanking the first minister. [ applause ] >> and i would just ask you to keep your seats until she leaves the room. thank you. on wednesday defense secretary ashton carter and joint chiefs of staff chair

general martin dempsey will be on capitol hill to testify on u.s. military strategy in the middle east before the house arms services committee. on wednesday here on c-span3. >> and scott wang joins us. he's senior staff writer for the hill. he has information about what's going on with the trade legislation on capitol hill and the future of it in congress this year and scott, the house had planned to hold a revote today on trade adjustment assistance and that failed last week in your article, the house punts on trade. what are they planning to do instead? >> well, they're trying to buy themselves a little bit more time to get that workers' aid bill across the finish line. that would send the entire trade package to president obama's desk for his signature.

now, we were expecting this week, in fact today, that they were going to vote again on this workers aid program but instead they've decided to try to extend until the end of july july 30th and a little bit more time for the president to get his votes in order for republicans to try to grow their vote in order to get this thing across the finish line. >> and how did the possibility of a revote get to the house floor in the first place and how have members reacted? >> well, so far everyone is pretty much holding their fire. the way it's going to get to the floor is today there will be a vote on the rule on a separate, unrelated intelligence bill. intelligence bill that would allow republicans to extend, as i mentioned until july 30th to

give them an opportunity to take this up once again. and the idea is by giving themselves a little bit more time they can perhaps twist a few more arms and the president can hopefully re-engage with some members of his party. now it's going to be a very tall task to try to flip roughly 85 votes in order to get this thing to the finish line, but the idea is that maybe republicans can get 40 and president obama can get an additional 40 and maybe you get close to that number. >> and on capitol hill we've seen a number of meetings and a number of press conferences going on. speaker boehner talking with his house republicans. he talked to you and some other reporters after the meeting. you sent out a tweet, boehner says he had several conversations yesterday with president obama to move trade tpa ahead.

what else did the speaker say about getting trade done this year and about votes against it from hues house republicans? >> well as we saw last week, a number of house republican roughly three dozen voted against the rule that basically structured this trade package, and nearly scuttled the entire package and what we heard from the speaker today and what he told his gop conference in a closed-door meeting this morning was he was not happy and he was not thrilled that republicans were voting against the team in trying to vote down the rule and it's generally a procedural vote. it generally passes, you know, by wide margins, but the rule nearly killed the entire bill last week and the speaker made his disappointment very known. >> you also wrote three ways about how the gop could possibly

save this bill and briefly, why are they and why is it important that they pass this year the trade? >> it's important that it passes soon specifically fast track authority which would give the president broader authority to get a major trade deal with -- involving 12 pacific rim nations done. i mean the reason why we're under the gun at this point is because the president doesn't have much time left in his term, in his second term and very soon he'll be a lame duck president and some are in fact already calling him a lame duck president and this is number one, about the president's priority getting a big legislative win before he wraps up his time in office and this is also a big priority for republicans like speaker boehner and paul ryan and so they feel like they're under the gun that they need to act quickly before 2016 and the presidential race

really kicks into gear. >> and we'll keep following your tweets and it's scott wong, wondc and you're reporting the hill. thanks a lot scott. >> great. thank you very much. >> coming up tonight on c-span3. u.s. ambassador to the united nations samantha powers testifies before the house foreign affairs committee and then a discussion on the role of the united nations on transnational challenges and later, agriculture secretary vilsack testifies about federal child nutrition programs. >> next, u.s. ambassador to the united nations samantha powers testifies before the house foreign affairs committee. the committee is looking into how she and her staff plan to advance u.s. interests within the international organization. the u.n.'s role in nuclear negotiations with iran and potential security council

actions involving israel. this hearing is 2 hours and 10 minutes. >> this hearing will come to order and this morning we look at the role of the united nations and we look at the role of the u.s. there with ambassador saa maptha power. she has spent two years as the u.s. permanent representative to the u.n. and the ambassador has approached her job with great energy, great determination and perhaps best shown during last year's ebola crisis in west africa and in that case the administration and congress worked together to contain bowla and to save lives. ambassador, thank you for those efforts and thank you for joining us today and the ambassador's testimony comes at an important time. if a finally run nuclear agreement is reached and the

deadline is in two weeks, then the security council will be expected to remove international sanctions while preserving the ability to react to iranian cheating and given all we know about the nuclear program, cheating should be expected, the committee wants to know how in a case of cheating how a snapback would work. we know russia and china wouldn't make this easy and i've never known any u.n. process described as taking place in a snap. last week's revelation by a panel of u.n. experts that there has been not a single report of iran violating the u.n. arms embargo not only lacks any credibility, but calls into serious question the chances of the u.n. snapping back any sanctions. the committee is disturbed to watch the u.n.'s anti-israel bias especially in the human

rights council. more disturbing is that the obama administration seems to be on the brink of discarding decades of bipartisan support of israel against the u.n. onslaught. president obama has raised the dramatic step of allowing the security council to impose conditions related to a two-state solution rather than supporting negotiations between the parties themselves. ambassador as we wrote to you the other month an imposed plan will not get us closer to peace. nearby syrians are being slaughtered before the world's eyes. two years ago the united nations called the crisis in syria the worst humanitarian disaster since the rwandan genocide. yet, despite several u.n. resolutions, the assad regime continues its indiscriminate barrel bombing and chemical weapons attacks. those responsible for these war

crimes must be held accountable. ambassador, you have said this to your credit, but when -- when will that accountability come. the committee hears testimony tomorrow from some of the brave syrians who have appeared in front of the security council to share their stories of responding to assad's abhorrent attacks including chemical attacks. elsewhere, religious minorities are under attack unable to claim citizenship in burma or elsewhere, many have called the rohingyas the most persecuted minority in the world. burma's persecution has led thousands to desperately flee to overloaded boats many are rightly bothered by the united nation's poor track record of protecting rohingyas.

muslim girls can think they are finding safe haven but end up being trafficked, being sexually exploited and being led into a lifetime of misery. united nations peacekeeping by the way, despite many short comings has managed to protect innocent civilians and minorities in recent years the missions in the democratic republic of congo and mali and south sudan have saved lives. the committee wants to continue working with the ambassador to see that these missions are appropriately supported and we hope that something can be done for the rohingya people and that's easier if failing missions some decades old are closed and the horrendous sexual abuses are tackled head-on. u.n. reform shouldn't be limited to peacekeeping. this summer when the u.s. scale of assessments is reviewed i trust the u.s. delegation will be working to spread the burden and give major donors greater

say in management decisions. ambassador power you will be wrestling with many critical issues in the coming months. to say you have a difficult and even hostile environment at the u.n. is an understatement, but you do not appear to be one to shy away from the challenge. i look forward to continue to work with you on these pressing matters. we thank you again for being with us today, and i will now turn to mr. elliott engle, the ranking member of new york for his opening statement. thank you, mr. chairman for holding this hearing and ambassador power, welcome. thank you for your testimony today and more importantly, for your distinguished service. as far as i'm concerned you are certainly the right person at the right time to be our u.n. ambassador and we're lucky to have you. across seven decades, the united nations has done a great deal of good. millions say from starvation

diseases like smallpox, peacekeeping missions that have brought stability to war-torn regions, we must acknowledge that the u.n. is far from perfect. we need to improve the organization's management, enhance transparency and strengthen internal oversight and we must continue to speak out forcefully when member states used the u.n. as a platform to unfairly single out israel. in my mind the best way to address these problems and to advance american foreign approximately see priorities is to maintain our engagement with the organization. u.s. leadership at the u.n. has headed off deeply biassed and one-sided resolutions targeting israel. we cast a lone no vote against the inquiry into the situation in sgaza. we've helped scale back the anti-israel efforts in the human rights council overall and it's been a joke as far as i'm concerned. we pushed back against the

resolution recognizing palestinian statehood and we've rejected efforts by the palestinians to use the u.n. to gain concessions from israel outside of the context of negotiations. i want to thank you, madam ambassador because you've been such a champion for israel. the israeli ambassador of the unsaid last week that if it weren't for the help of the united states and you personally, israel and i quote him, would be in real trouble. when the united nations continues to attack israel it undermines the credibility of the united nations. i'm confident that you will continue to make clear madam ambassador, that the united states will continue to oppose any biased or one-sided resolutions at the u.n. and that we will not shy away from using our veto at the security council if necessary despite some of the rhetoric we heard from president obama. even with strong american

involvement, it's been paralyzed when it comes to a range of challenges because other members of the security council continue to block meaningful action. i would like to mention just a few, and i am eager to hear your view on these topics. i'll start with the civil war in syria. half the population of that country has been displaced and the entire generation is growing up in refugee camps. to be sure the u.n. has done a lot for refugee families in jordan, lebanon and turkey for syrian people inside syria as thrown through the u.n. but russian intransigence has prevented the u.n. in playing a more active role in helping the syrian people chart a better future for their country, and that's only the tip of the iceberg with russia. under vladimir putin's leadership or lack of leadership, russia has walked away from dechl democrat see and human rights. they threatened stability and democracy across europe. this war has left thousands dead tens of thousands wounded and more than a million displaced. we need to expose the kremlin's

lies wherever and whenever we can so i commend you for shining a light on the hard facts of the u.n. with regard to iran we are all eager to see what a comprehensive nuclear deal will look like. i'm particularly concerned about -- i'm particularly concerned about who will determine if iran is in violation of the agreement. what happens if we think iran has stepped over the line, but russia and china disagree? i'm also concerned about how and when u.n. sanctions against iran will be lifted. the u.n. is going to have a big role to play and i'm eager to hear about how this process will move forward. finally in our own neighborhood, i am very pleased that the mandate for the u.s. international commission in guatemala was recently renewed creating similar conditions in honduras and el salvador would make a big difference in fighting impunity and i think we can work together. thank you again for appearing today. i look forward to your testimony.

>> thank you. so this morning we are pleased to be joined by ambassador samantha power. she is the united states permanent representative to the united nations and a member of the president's cabinet. prior to her appointment to the u.n. ambassador power served as special assistant to the president and senior director for multilateral affairs and human rights on the national security staff at the white house. ambassador power is the pulitzer prize-winning authedor of "a problem of hell." america and the age of genocide. we thank you for being here today and without objection, the witness's full prepared statement will be made part of the record and members will have five calendar days to submit any statements or questions or extraneous material for the record. ambassador power i would ask you if you could please summarize your remarks and then we'll go to questions. thank you.

>> thank you mr. chairman. thank you, congressman engle. thank you for the opportunity to testify today and thank you also for your leadership in advancing america's national security interests and our values in the world. >> last week i traveled to ukraine where i had the chance to see up close what happens when the rules undergirding our international peace and security are ignored. at a shelter for displaced families in kiev i met a mother who told me how her husband and 2-year-old child had been killed in february when a shell struck their home in a village in eastern ukraine. the shelling, as you all know was part of a sustained assault by combined russian separatist sources and the victims, just two of the more than 6,300 people who had been killed in the moscow-manufactured conflict. shortly after the attack, the mother fled town with her five surviving children in a van whose roof and doors had been

blasted out. her plea, one i heard echoed by many of the displaced families i met from eastern ukraine and occupied crimea was for the fighting to stop and for their basic rights to be respected. as the members of this committee know we are living in a time of daunting global crises. in the last year alone, russia continued to train arm and fight alongside separatists in eastern ukraine. a deadly epidemic spread across west africa and monstrous terrorist groups seized territory across the middle east and north africa committing unspeakable atrocities. these are the kinds of threats that the united nations exists to prevent and address yet it is precisely at the moment that we need the u.n. most that we see the flaws in the international system, some of which have been alluded to already. this is true for the conflict in ukraine in which a permanent

member of the u.n. security council is violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity that it was entrusted with upholding. it is true of the global health system that despite multiple warnings of a spreading ebola outbreak including those from our own cdc was slow to respond to the epidemic and it is true of u.n. peacekeepers who too often stand down or stand by when civilians they are responsible for protecting come under attack, thus leaving populations vulnerable and sometimes open to radicalization. representing our nation before the united nations, i have to confront these and other short comings every day, yet though i am clear-eyed about the u.n.'s vulnerability, the central point i want to make to this committee is that america needs the united nations to address today's global challenges. the united states has the most powerful set of tools in history to advance its interests and we will always lead on the world stage, but we are more effective

when we ensure that others shoulder their fair share and when we marshal multilateral support. let me quickly outline five days that we're doing that at the u.n. first, we are rallying multilateral coalitions to address transnational threats. consider iran. in addition to working with congress to put in place unprecedented u.s. sanctions on the iranian government. in 2010 the obama administration galvanized the u.n. security council to authorize one of the toughest multilateral sanctions regimes in history. the combination of unilateral and multilateral pressure was crucial to bringing iran to the negotiating table and ultimately to laying the foundation whereby we were able to reach a framework agreement that would if we can get a final deal effectively cut off every pathway for the iranian regime to develop a nuclear weapon. consider our response to the

ebola epidemic. last september as people were dying outside hospitals in west africa hospitals that had no beds left to treat the exploding number of ebola patients, the united states chaired the first-ever emergency meeting of the u.n. security council dedicated to a global health issue. we pressed countries to deploy doctors and nurses, to build clinics and testing labs and to fill other gaps that ultimately helped bend the outbreaks exponentially rising curve. america did not just rally others to step up. we led by example. thanks also very much to the support of this congress deploying more than 3500 u.s. government civilian and military personnel to liberia which has been ebola-free since early may. second, we are reforming u.n. peace keeping to help address the threats to international peace and security that exists in the 21st century. there were more than 100,000

uniformed police and soldiers deployed in the u.n.'s 16 peace-keeping missions around the world. that is a higher number than in any time in history. with more complex responsibilities also than ever before. the united states has an abiding, strategic interest in resolving the conflicts where peacekeepers serve which can quickly cause regional instability and extremists group as we have seen in mali. while we have seen peacekeepers serve with professionalism in many of the world's most dangerous operating environments environments, we've seen chronic problems, including the failure to protect civilians. we are working aggresively to address these shortfalls. to give just one example, we are persuading more advanced militaries to step up and contribute soldiers and police to u.n. peacekeeping. that was the aim of a summit that vice president biden convened at the u.n. last september where colombia, sweden indonesia and more than

a dozen other countries announced new troop commit ams and it is the message i took directly to european leaders in march when i made the case in brussels that peacekeeping is a critical way for european militaries to do their fair share in protecting our common security interests particularly as they draw down in afghanistan. this coming september, president obama will convene another summit of world leaders to build on this momentum and help catalyze a new wave of commitments and generate a new set of capabilities for u.n. peacekeeping. third, we are fighting to end bias and discrimination at the u.n. day in and day out we push back against efforts to delegitimize israel at the u.n. ask we fight for its right to be treated like any other nation. for mounting a full-court diplomatic press to help secure israel's permanent membership into u.n. groups from which it had long and unjustly been excluded to consistently and

firmly opposing one-sided actions in international bodies. in december when a deeply unbalanced draft resolution on the israel-palestinian conflict was hastily put before the security council, the united states successfully rallied a coalition to join us in voting against it ensuring that the resolution failed to achieve the nine votes of security council members required for adoption. we will continue to confront anti-israel bias wherever we encounter it. fourth, we are working to see -- excuse me, we are working to use u.n. tools to promote u.n. rights and affirm human dignity, as we did by working with partners to hold the first-ever security council meeting focused on the human rights situation in north korea in december. we use that session to shine a light on the regime's horrors, a light we kept shining on a panel discussion i hosted in april with escaped victims of the regime. one woman told being forced to watch the executions of fellow

prisoners who committed the quote, unquote crime of daring to ask why they had been imprisoned while another woman told how members of three generations of her family her grandmother, her father and younger brother had starved to death. this is important for u.n. member states to hear. fifth, we are doing everything within our power to make the u.n. more fiscally responsible, more accountable and more nimble. both because we have a responsibility to ensure american taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and because maximizing the efficiency of the contributions means saving more lives and better protecting the world's most vulnerable people. since the 2008 to 2009 fiscal year we have reduced the cost per peacekeeper by 18% and we are constantly looking for ways to right size missions in response to conditions on the ground as we will do this year through substantial drawdowns in coat devoir and haiti and other

missions. i spoke about my recent visit to ukraine. across the range of ukrainians from the mother who lost her husband and 2-year-old child in the assault by combined russian separatist forces to the brave students who risked their lives to take part in the maidon protesters against the government to the young members of parliament working to fight corruption and increase transparency, what united them was the yearning for certain basic rights and the belief that the united states could lead other countries and the united nations in helping make their aspirations a reality. i heard the same sentiment when visiting the u.n.-run camps of people displaced by violence in the central african republic and south sudan and in the ebola-affected community of guinea liberia and sierra leone at the peak of the outbreak. some may view the expectation that america can help people overcome their greatest challenges and secure their basic rides as a burden. in fact, that expectation is one

of our nation's greatest strengths and one we have a vested interest in striving to live up to. daunting as it may feel in the face of so many crises, but we kvnt do it alone nor should we want to, that is why it is more important than ever that we use the u.n. to rally the multilateral support needed to confront today's myriad challenges. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you ambassador. myself and elliott epgel have had frequent conversations on this issue of iran's nuclear weapons capability and i indicated several years ago that this was going to be the primary focus of this committee was trying to prevent what i worry will be the undetectable nuclear breakout capability of iran. i want to ask you about this iran agreement and u.n. snapback

sanctions. if we have cheating on the part of iran as they've cheated on every other agreement so far this -- i would presume is going to be a real problem if we go forward and we don't get the verification in this agreement. that has to be in the agreement so now we take up this dispute resolution panel as it's called. this issue which would likely include the six powers and iran. the international atomic energy agency will also continue reporting on iran's program under this -- under this suggestion here, but here's my question. you've got russia and china playing a role. so it's not clear to me how u.n. sanctions realistly would snap back once the cheating is solved and i would add the caveat that we would also probably see a situation where russian,

chinese, french, german companies are back in iran, commerce is flowing and it's going to be very difficult to stop, certainly not at a snap. so walk me through that, if you would. >> excuse me. thank you, mr. chairman. first, let me very much agree with the comment you made earlier that nothing that happens at the u.n. tends to happen in a snap. i've lived that firsthand, but let me also underscore that president obama and the entire negotiating team and certainly i as a member of the administration also embrace your premise that we cannot trust on the basis of past iranian actions on the basis of current iranian actions outside the nuclear sphere. so i think there are two very important aspects, both of which you touched upon, but just to elaborate on that show that any

agreement that we reach would be predicated, in fact on a lack of trust. so the first is in fact one of the most intrusive inspection regimes imaginable and the ability to monitor what is happening along the nuclear supply chain to an unprecedented extent. forever commitments related to the additional protocol and the modified code. i mean, these are things that are going to last well below the life of this agreement and it's about recognizing that, of course, there are dangers of covert capabilities being brought online and that's what this inspection regime is oriented around, but the second manifestation, i think, of the lack of trust is the snapback mechanism and one snapback

mechanism, of course is within our own hands and there are many sanctions that the president of the united states would be able to snap back with the stroke of a pen, but in my world, president obama has been very clear from the very beginning that we cannot allow a procedure for snapback to be left in the hands of russia or china for the very reason that you indicate. while it's true that we were able to get the multilateral sanctions regime through the security council, again, the toughest, i think in the 70-year history of the united nations, it is not therefore follow that in the event of breach that we would be able to get that same resolution through a second time, and so while i can't get into the specifics of the mechanism right now because we're at a very delicate stage of the negotiation and all of this is being worked through to the finest detail, i can say, number one congress will be briefed as soon as the -- as

soon as the deal gets done if it gets done, and number two we will not support a snapback mechanism or an agreement that includes a snapback mechanism that leaves us vulnerable in the manner that you are fearful of. in other words we will retain the sanctions and architecture back in place without russian or chinese support. >> i think that has to be the focus because it took so many years for the international sanctions to be put in place so that those companies terminated their business with iran and now we have a situation that is a result of the way this is beingy in negotiated to position themselves to get back into the country. the other aspect to this as you say, we are going to have an effective sanctions regime. that would imply then that what the iranians are telling the

world which is that there is not going to be any investigation on their military bases that the international inspectors are not going to be able to have access to those types of sites and as you know that's where they've done a lot of their training or their testing is on those military sites. that would put us in the precarious position in an agreement that would be like the '94 framework agree. of north korea and it would be to actually go into those types of sites and the cheating would be in a case like that, not even detectable. >> so again this is why 367 members of this body and the majority of our colleagues on one side of the aisle and a vast majority on the other side of the aisle. >> in other words an overwhelming letter in this institution saying we do have to have the international

inspectors have this ability to the go on to those military bases and those other sites, anywhere at any time that has to go on this negotiation. let me raise another issue, too, and that is an issue that i know you've spent a lot of time on at the united nations but despite the deal with russia to remove assad's chemical weapon, it is clear he still has some of them. it is clear he's still using them especially having them dropped on aleppo and, madam ambassador, given to protect the assad regime, what can the u.n. do in particular the security council, to effectively confront the crisis in syria? and i'll just -- ask you for your thoughts and i mentioned last month ranking member angela and i had a policy bill

directing the pentagon to a no-fly zone over syria's skies and this would be for aleppo and other areas that are routinely routinely bombarded and, you know, of course, the united states can't do this on its own. it would need strong support and participation from our allies and partners in the region and many of them have been asking and offering by the way, their support and asking for this kind of a step. a no-fly zone that would protect the civilian population there. tell me about your engagement on that issue and where that might stand with the the united nations. if i could just a quick comment on your additional comment on iran to simply say that there's been a lot of rhetoric from the supreme leader, from the iranian president, and from many within iran and there's a lot of politics going on and i think it's not helpful for us to get into the psychology of what any

particular iran leader is thinking or saying. >> well, ambassador it's not difficult to interpret what he's trying to message. when he routinely starts the mornings with rallies of death to america. >> i understand. absolutely. >> i interpret that he means what he's saying in these cases. >> all i wanted to underscore before to your importance a question instead of comments is president obama will not accept a deal in which we do not get the access that we need in order to verify compliance. >> thank you. >> we want to hold the president to that. thank you. >> i'm sure you will. so on syria let me first address the chemical weapons issue. because of the credible threat of military force back in 2013 we were able to forge an agreement with the russians one of the rare instances, as you know, they've used their veto

four times on syria-related issues including a referral of some of the worst atrocities we've seen since the second world war and a referral of those crimes to the international criminal court and they've vetoed that and they've vetoed very mild condemnnatory language. we lived their alliance with the syrian regime and the costs and consequences of that every day. i mentioned in my opening remarks ukraine and the permanent consequence of a permanent member trying to lop off part of someone else's country to use a veto in this disgraceful way is extremely disturbing disturbing. however, in this one instance we were able to team up in order to get this dismantling regime put in place. the obcw and the u.n. stepped up in an unprecedented way, building the airplane as they flew it. and as a result, we have the

removal and/or destruction of 100% of the declared chemical weapons program, but you're absolutely right. we also have alarming and grave reports that the syrians seemingly incapable fighting without drawing on chemical weapons have now found a new way even with the dismantlement of the declared chemical weapons regime which is to turn chlorine into a chemical weapon. >> we are pushing at the security council and we just in the last few months secured another resolution again somehow getting russia's support to make it very clear to the world that because chlorine is a household product doesn't make it not a chemical weapon when it is put in a barrel bomb and dropped on civilians and we made that clear in the hopes that that would be a deterrent and threaten further measures. we are now at the point where we need accountability for these

creams and we are pushing. i don't want to get ahead of diplomatic discussions and pushing russia to take ownership of this to use their influence behind the scenes and to move forward and get something through to the -- we need a big political push in terms of negotiations. those negotiations have kind of not really progressed since the last geneva conference. it's really been a period of protracted stalemate, but the regime, of course, has suffered a series of military setbacks russia and iran themselves of course share at least one additional concern with us which is the growth of isil in syria and so we are pushing russia on the security council and outside of it to join with us here and make a serious political push so that we can get a kind of peaceful transition one that

brings about an end to the assad regime which would gas its people and has committed such unspeakable atrocity but one also that would not leave syria vulnerable to isil actually coming in and filling the breach. on the no-fly zone, finally i don't have a lot to add. you know that every day we are looking into the tool box and trying to ascertain which tool is appropriate in which circumstances on the humanitarian, on the sanks and on the support for the training equip program, we've done an awful lot to influence the situation inside syria and a no-fly zone if implemented and executed would entail using military force against the syrian regime and our judgment is that at this point the risks of doing so would exceed the potential benefits because of the number of extremists again that could conceivably benefit from sucha -- >> remember, the main

beneficiary right now, ambassador as the regime drops those chemical bombs on a isis fight ersers that, you know, the middle class that the free syrian army are battling on the outskirts. so it is a case in this instance of the regime working in tandem with isis in order to collapse basically the resistance of isis up in the north, but anyway tomorrow this committee will hear from the brave responders who were recently back from their efforts to say if these were physicians who were out there to save civilians from these chemical attacks on the nature of the chemical attacks but thank you for your good work. i need to go to mr. engle ambassador, thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. >> ambassador, as i said in my opening remarks let me acknowledge the very strong work you've done in defending israel at the u.n. you listed several instances in your written testimony and i

want to acknowledge your personal commitment to pushing back against efforts to delegitimize israel at the u.n. the ridiculous nonsense from the u.n. human rights council which consists of some of the worst defenders of human rights really makes that council, in my opinion, a joke and undermines the credibility of the u.n. itself. the president recently gave an interview with israeli channel 2 news in which he said that the u.s. was reevaluating and i quote him, how we approach defending israel on the international stage around the palestinian issue unquote. i understand that this reevaluation will not affect our security relationship with israel. the president made that clear, but, frankly his remarks are troubling as were other remarks he's made on the same subject. reevaluating the ways that we

defend israel on the international stage could have ominous consequences and it's obviously very concerning for those of us who seek to strengthen the u.s.-israel relationship. if the u.s. priority is achieving a permanent two-state solution giving israel another reason for unease will not help that goal. so i want to ask you, what is the status of this re-evaluation and what is it based on? >> thank you congressman engle. first, as you yourself have noted, the president was very clear in that interview and has consistently been clear that we are not reevaluating our bond with israel our security and military relationship, the tremendous friendships that exist between the american people and the israeli people. i think what we are -- what we are engaging right now is a

moment in which it's not exactly clear how progress toward a two-state solution is likely to be made. and so we are in daily touch, as you know with the israeli government, the israeli national security adviser is here in washington, i believe, still as we speak meeting with our national security adviser with the government now formed, deepening those discussions again about how we find a path forward toward a two-state solution recognizing as i know and we all do that that is the way in which israelis and palestinians can live durably side by side in security and in dignity. with regard to the area of concern that you have flagged, the united states the obama administration have consistently opposed the delegitimization of israel. we've pushed for the

legitimization of israel and i can give a lot of examples of that. we uniformly oppose one-sided actions, designed to punish israel and we will continue to do so. i want to be very clear in most cases, in many cases, at least, we are actually able to build coalitions and prevent things from coming up to a vote as we did in december when i cast a no vote and we were able to deny the palestinians when a resolution was brought forward and it was biassed and it was hastily jammed upon the council and we were able to forge a blocking coalition. i awes want to know that there are occasions in which we worked with our israeli counterparts up in new york on affirmative u.n. resolutions on things that israel thinks can advance its interests and so i think it's hard to speak about hypotheticals and i would caution against doing so during

the gaza crisis last summer where i know you were very engaged, we came very close working with israel on the u.n. security council resolution that we thought could potentially be additive as that crisis was winding down. in the end it didn't come to pass, but again the text and the content of what we're talking about would really matter and suffice it to say, i want to underscore that the united states would oppose any resolution that we believe is biased or would undermine israel's security. >> thank you for that answer, and it goes in line with your written testimony and we have consistently and firmly opposed one-sided actions and international bodies will continue to do so and it's a welcome message, but how do you anticipate this pledge manifesting as the french and others pursued a security council resolution that could set artificial timetables for

negotiations? >> again we have not seen or i have not seen a french resolution. we read in the press the same things you read and ouiwe've certainly heard about various texts, but since i've got to new york there have always been texts circulating related to the set of issues and i think again, i'm not going to speculate on hypotheticals and we're not negotiating any security council resolution. >> let me just say in conclusion, what's disturbing about some of the remarks that the president has made is that there is the hint or maybe not even a hint that perhaps next time around on some of these resolutions rather than vetoing them, the anti-israel biased resolutions we might just abstain and that of course would allow it to pass. when some of us hear that, we cringe because if we can't count on the united states to stand

firmly behind israel against these ridiculous one-sided biased resolutions then i think it makes the u.n. almost worthless in terms of trying to be a group moving the process along rather than beating up on israel with the built-in bias at the u.n. so when we hear those remarks from the president it disturbs many of us that have supported a two-state solution and support israel's right to exist and fight against the legitimization of israel all of the time. >> thank you. >> so thank you. >> representative ileana ros-lehtinen chairman of the subcommittee of the middle east and north africa. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and madam ambassador, thank you for being so kind to my interns before this session. following up on the excellent

remarks that were made by ranking member engle, as we know, president obama issued a not-so-veiled threat to israel that the u.s. might not be able to support a veto of the french resolution of the u.n. security council and palestinian statehood. you use the word oppose and we will oppose, but will the united states, yes or no, veto any resolution at the u.n. that forces, and imposes this two-state solution on israel. what will our position be? will we veto you say we oppose but will we veto? that would send a strong message. >> again given that we worked last summer on the u.n. security council resolution with israel, that we were potentially prepared to support and we weren't able to get everybody on the council to rally around. i think it's perilous to make planket staple, but i want to underscore, we have consistently opposed and we will oppose anything that is biassed and

anything that would undermine israel's security and i think our track record is very solid here. >> thank you. i think that's that track record that worries israel. i applaud you for saying we are going to root out the anti-israel bias that exists and sometimes you don't have to look too far to find that bias. moving on to u.n. reform, can you provide to this committee later in a written form a breakdown of exactly how much money across the entire u.s. government have we contributed annually to the u.n. since 2011? i would appreciate that madam ambassador. and regarding the iranian nuclear deal and iran and the sanctions we have on iran. recent reports indicate that the administration will not only seek to lift sanks on iran's nuclear program, but also lift sanctions on iran for its ballistic missile program and its conventional military

support for terror and its abysmal human rights record. will the administration lump these on iran as nuclear related? when we tried to bring it up they said they are not nuclear related, but it seems to lift sanctions, everything is nuclear related. >> first on your first question, thank you for not asking me to do that math on the spot. it would have been deeply humiliating. >> tough for me to do that too. >> and then second, on iran, absolutely not i think is the answer to your questions. we will -- the sanctions that we, the united states have put in place that are so important on human rights given the human rights record which we support

should remain in place. >> thank you. if i could continue, last week a u.n. panel stated that the u.s. has neglected to report iranian sanctions violations which the administration has denied. has the administration failed to report or refer violations of security council resolutions to the sanctions committee and has there been a formal or informal directive from the white house to not fully implement or report on violations of security council violations? >> absolutely not, and i myself are involved in raising sanctions violations that iran has carried out. we've also even over the life of the last delicate phase of negotiations instituted more sanctions designations under the existing bilateral framework that congress has been such a critical part of. so there's no pulling of the punches during these negotiations or ever. >> thank you. >> lastly, i remain concerned about the security situation in

haiti. just last week this committee sent staff to rate toe report back on the status of its elections and several people in the security and dip the maic sector expressed concerns that pulling u.n. troops out during an election year was a huge mistake and that the haitian national police may not be ready to ensure stability and security. what is the justification for the troop withdrawal at this critical juncture and why were those concerns ignored and will you commit to keep the few troops that will remain in haiti after the elections are finished, we hope, in 2016? >> thank you. i myself was in haiti in january asking many of the same questions that you've just posed. >> i think what's important is the environment in haiti is very different from the environment post-earthquake. we had huge engineering

battalions that were part of the u.n. mission in haiti who were removing rubble now. most of the rubble, almost all of the rubble in the country has been removed. so what we've seen is yes, a drawdown in terms of the authorized number of troops and that's something the united states has helped spearhead in part back to the chairman's comment at the beginning and recognizing that the system is massively stretched around the world, recognizing we have to answer up here also in terms of the budgetary demands that u.n. peacekeeping makes on the american people as well as on other member states, but mainly in this instance recognizing that foreign police units, mobility, more mobility fewer engineering battalions that basically you needed a recalibration of the mission according to new circumstances. so it is true that there has been a significant drawdown, but there is still a substantial infantry presence and there is still the ability to do rapid response and we've introduced more helicopters to allow troops and police to move more quickly across the country, and a lot of

the functions that the u.n. peacekeeping mission had been performing are now migrating to the so-called u.n. country team the development professionals and the election experts and so forth. that's not reallyare ing my migrating. you're right the haitian national police have a long way to go but the strides they've made over the last two or three years of extraordinary and the product of u.s. and other member state bilateral support as well as the u.n. training that's gone on there. >> thank you so much. haitian americans have greatly enriched our community and we pay so close attention to haiti. >> ambassador, thank you for your service not only in government but before you joined the government. thank you forrior work in exposing opposing genocide, particularly the armennian

genocide. i want to echo the ranking member on the protection of israel at the united nations. we were all concerned by some indication that the administration would cut back that support. it's good to support israel. it's even better when it's difficult. and i want to praise the administration for standing with israel at the npt consensus review process where in order to prevent actions, we not only oppose the actions but we opposed, because we had to the entire agreement. so hopefully that answers the question as you have here when

you committed to the ranking member that it is our position to veto one-sided anti-israel resolutions at the u.n. the president has recognized that involving the u.n. in the details of the peace process is not a way to advance peace. obviously, the u.n. might adopt a resolution that had a few noncontroversial provisions. two-state solution, peace and security for all. but would we veto any u.n. resolution that tried to codify the parameters of a peace deal and included controversial elements in that codification? >> thank you congressman sherman. i think that's a reprise of the congresswoman's question with a slight shift. i really am going to resist

making blanket declarations on hypothetical resolutions. our position again, i think, has been very clear for some time. i have said again we would oppose anything that was designed to punish israel, that would undermine israel's security. but i think again it's perilous. there's no resolution in front of us. >> i'll move on to less hypothetical questions. furst rnd current u.s. law, the administration is required to cut off palestinian aid if the palestinians per sue or support charges against israel at the icc and i'm confident you'll follow the law on that one, spirit and letter. i won't even ask that as a question because i know of your dedication to law. the united states constitution vests specifically porover all international commerce especially sanctions -- or

particularly sanctions in the united states congress. the administration has the area of trade recognized that the congress is the primary arbiter and has asked us to pass a statute providing limitations in structure. but i want to make sure that the administration will follow article one of the constitution when it comes to sanctions on iran. we've got this review process. i would hope that you would negotiate a deal in switzerland so good that congress universally supports it. but that may not be the case. imagine a situation in which there is a deal that is cut. the administration supports it. but less than one-third of either house has indicated support for the deal. there are news reports that you will prevent a lifting of u.n. sanctions at least for a month to give congress a chance to go

through the process of review. will you be allowing a lifting of u.n. sanctions during the statutory review process? >> thank you. i thought you were going to another hypothetical, but you went directly to an issue i know that's in the news. it is useful and appropriate, needless to say, for congress' voice to be heard and i think the bills that have come now through both houses provide -- >> and signed by the president. >> pardon me? >> and signed by the president. >> and signed by the president provide a structure for that voice and there's some preductability topreduct able predictability to it. our view is we'll be able to defend any deal that is good enough for us and we'll come up

here and seek to do so. on the precise sequence it is clear that there are now two bodies whose voices will need to be heard and how that will work is again one of those details -- >> you're saying it's possible if the united states congress declares by over a two-thirds majority in both houses that we reject the deal. if we establish u.s. policy on this deal per suant to article 1 of the constitution you might still be at the united nations undermun undermining that policy -- >> we'll have the ambassador answer the question, but we're going to try to get everybody in with their five minutes. >> just simply to say that's a hypothetical and about what the vote in congress would be we feel this would be a deal we could be defend where we can convince congress to defend the deal. the precise choreography of how

it works through, that's still a matters for negotiations. >> thank you so much. now we turn to mr. christopher smith, chairman of the committee on africa, global health and international operations. we'll try to do those in five minutes so everyone will have a chance. >> thank you, madam chair and welcome ambassador and thank you for your testimony and for your work. more than a decade ago, madam ambassador, sex trafficking and sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping was exposed in the democratic republic of congo. i chaired a hearing. i met with peacekeepers trying to get a real plan to try to mitigate and hopefully eradicate that hoffur if horrific abuse. they did a magnificent job at the u.n. trying to get zero tol

lance. some of our witnesses then and some would say still there is a lack of compliance with that blue helmet bulletin. last year the advisory committee said nearly half of the allegations reported in peacekeeping missions involve most egregious form of sexual exploitation abuse of minors. they cited haiti, liberia and sudan and south sudan. may 15th the office of u.n. oversight evaluated efforts to combat abuse by u.n. peacekeepers and found troop contributing countries who retain the primary responsibility to investigate misconduct apparently are not doing a very good job. questions about the quality of the investigative standards, wide variations in sanctions that weakened the commitment to

zero tolerance. and the penalty is often simple repatriation and disbarment from any future u.n. peacekeeping deployment not prosecution and jail. oios made some recommendations, six of them, that i think bear consideration on an expedited basis. perhaps you can speak to that. they also noted there was a real lack of helping victims, particularly little girls, who have been abused. secondly, let me ask you about a syria war crimes tribubal. in 2013 i wrote an op ed for "the washington post" and again a series of hearings. david crane the former prosecutor from the sierra leone special court, and he and so many others made it clear the icc is not up to the task. we need a regional court like yugoslavia sierra leone and

rwanda and prosecute both in iraq and syria those on either side or any side committing these terrible atrocities. ior thoughts on that. and the committee on ngos recently voted down the application for consult tative status known as freedom now. the no votes came from china russia cuba iran nicaragua and azerbaijan and others. i've worked with nicaragua for years. a great organization. on the same day the palestinian refugee center which works with hamas and hezbollah was approved. what are we trying to do to help freedom now get their accreditation? >> i'll try to move quickly through each of these very important issues. freedom now couldn't agree more, they are doing some of the most important