mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary. appreciate your testimony. the wic program, we've had a little discussion about it today. there is a legislative mandate to rebate infant formula. and for the allowance to do that for other foods. i've had discussions with folks in my district, and there's concerns that have been raised that the rebates limit parental choice for both the wic participants and the nonparticipants. and i wonder if you might be able to offer up some solutions to the committee today to promote what was intended by those rebates with cost containment as well as trying to find a way to do it without limiting parental choice. and also i'd like some input from you as to who you view should be able to choose the products they see as best for the kids. >> well we, obviously, are mindful of the need for the balance between a healthy

package and a reasonable cost to the taxpayers. food inflation i think's increased by 12% since the time i've been secretary. the wic costs have increased by 1%. so the package concept is trying to maintain reasonable costs. the issue of flexibility, i know that we have provided some degree of flexibility on formula. part of the challenge is that some of the folks and the choices that people want to make are much more expensive. that gets into a whole cost issue. you know, i thought you were going maybe asking about the notion that some of the formula makers are concerned about. too many people taking advantage of the wic program. because of the way in which states admin stir the medicaid program. and i think the key there is to make sure that the data that they have, the industry has and the data that we have match. because today that's not the case. there's significant delta between what they claim folks who are ineligible for wic and

we claim. so there's a set of issues there that i think we need to be addressing. >> gentleman yields back. mr. jeffers. >> thank you mr. chair and thank you secretary vilsack for your testimony here today as well as your leadership on these very important issues. in the limited time that i have i was hoping that we could drill down some on the childhood obesity problem that we've got in america. now more than one third of children in the united states are considered overweight or obese, is that correct? >> yes. >> and is it fair to say that this level of obesity is a national epidemic? >> it's of obviously great concern. >> so these children are placed at greater risk of heart disease, is that correct? >> a number of diseases.

diabetes hypertension. >> greater risk of liver disease? >> may very well be. >> stroke? >> greater risk of illness. i'm not a doctor. and i did raise my hand to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. so i want to make sure -- >> in fairness, he did. >> is it fair to say that childhood obesity increases the likelihood of bullying in school? >> in my personal experience, i would say that's true. >> does it increase the likelihood of social isolation? >> yes. >> is it fair it increases ltsd a severe emotional distress? >> i wouldn't be surprised if that weren't true. >> now the health care cost of obese its per year in the united states is as high as $147 billion, is that correct? ? >> . >> i'm not sure what the number is, but i know there's a high rate related to obesity. >> in your view could you speak

to some of the things the department of agriculture has taken to address this epidemic of childhood obesity and the sear vee financial health, emotional cost connected to it. >> improving the wic program to focus on fruits and vegetables that kids might not otherwise consume, working with the snap families to allow hem access to fruits and vegetablesk markets. focussing on improved school lunches and breakfasts in terms of the standards and the calories to make sure kids are getting nutrition but not something that is unhealthy for them. >> and last question. in your view has the implementation of the healthy kids act of 2010 effectively addressed the problem of childhood obesity? >> i think it's a component

congressman. i think the issue of exercise and physical activity is equally important component to all of this. they are balanced. you have to have both of them. it's not just calories in. it's also calories out. >> thank you. >> gentleman's time has expired. mr. messer? >> appreciate you being here. appreciate your stamina. i have had the opportunity to meet with your wife christi in her role as the senior adviser at usaid. and i know we share one thing in common in life and that is that we overachieved in marriage because she is a dynamic professional and somebody that appreciate her insights. i represent a mostly rural area of indiana. ag-based economy. when you go to the schools, a lot of the schools are on tree and reduced lunch. i want you to pan upon the challenges with the summer food

service program. as you know this program's existed for 40 years. this monday, the indiana department announced its 2015 summer food service sites. and unfortunately in indiana only about 14% of folks who are on free and reduced lunch are going to have access to those kinds of programs in the summer. we have our disagreements on these programs. i think we all agree that no kid in america should go hungry. and, you know, obviously, the first answer is always more money. but beyond that, what can we do to try to make sure that more kids in america won't be going hungry this summer? >> i think encouraging the seamless summer program where schools that are, kids are comfortable going to and would be allowed to continue servicing food and better utilization of our school propertying. i think working with mayors and governors to sort of put the spotlight on this and encourage

greater community participation and certainly at the local level as a former mayor myself. i know that the park and recreation department could be an important component to expanding access and frankly more flexibility in our programs in terms of where kids have to go or how the meals can get to them. >> that's the challenge the transportation. >> it's a huge challenge in rural areas, which is why we ought to be focussing on more mobility, in terms of how the meals can get to where the kids are as opposed to how the kids can get to where the meals are. >> thank you no questioning. >> gentleman yields back. we have had an opportunity for everybody to have a discussion with the secretary. we're pretty dog gone close to 12:00. we're going to wrap up here and i'm going to ask for any closing remarks. >> thank you mr. secretary, for your hard work and visiting virginia and working with our first laidly, dorothy mccullive

on child nutrition issues and the importance of good nutrition and for military personnel and the future health care costs and in response to the questions from the gentleman from new york, the behavior associated with obesity can have budget airy impacts. we've done made progress over the last few years in terms of the standards with virtually all 95% as i understand it school systems reporting compliance with the upgraded standards and the community eligibility, which means more people can panties participate. >> i, too, want to thank you, mr. secretary. you've been a great witness. you've got a heck of a big job.

we're going to try to do the very best that we can when we look at reauthorizing this to address concerns. you've heard a number of them today. perhaps we're looking at different statistics. but all of us it's fair to say all of us want these kids to have a healthy lunch. i think that many of us have talked to listened to eaten with and all of those things, gone to schools and see that there still are some real concerns about cost and flexibility. so we'll be looking at that. very much appreciate your testimony today. i want to thank you for being here. and there being no further business, we're adjourned.

. tomorrow the american conservative union foundation holds a discussion about negotiations with iran over its nuclear program and congress's role in improving any international agreement. the former head of the defense intelligence agency, michael flinn will be part of the panel. later, president obama visits san francisco to address the u.s. conference of mayors with a speech focussing on the economic health of cities. live coverage of the president, beginning at 5:15 eastern on

c-span. some are sitting kind of front left of the chamber. so when brooks comes into the chamber he is almost looking directly at sumner. sumner's head is bowed. is he literally signing copies of the crime against kansas speech. brooks gets up. walks down the center aisle with his cane. sumner oblivious to what's going on head bowed. brooks reaches him, lifts his cane over his head and says, mr. sumner i have read your speech over twice. it is a libel to my state and high relative. sumner looks up at this point, brooks is blurred through his glasses because he's so close, and brooks strikes sumner on the top of the head with the cane. sumner's head explodes in blood

almost instantly. >> author steven pulio on the caning of sumner that brief the cun -- drove the country closer to civil war. this week, samantha power testified at a congressional hearing about the role of the u.s. at the united nations. she answered questions about how she plans to use her position to further u.s. interests and the u.n.'s role in iran nuclear negotiations. this is just over two hours. >> 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 samantha 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 ebola 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 final iran 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 history of iran's nuclear program, cheating should be expected, the committee wants to know how in a case of cheating how a snapback

process 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.n. 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, wiped off the map. 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 policy 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 gaza. 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 u.n. said 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 democracy 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.n. international commission in guatemala was recently renewed creating similar conditions in honduras and el salvador would make a big difference in fighting corruption and 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 author 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 attract extremist groups, as we have seen in mali. while we have seen peacekeepers serve with professionalism in many of the world's most dangerous operating environments, we've seen chronic problems, including the failure to protect civilians. we are working aggressively 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 commitments. 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 rights 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 can't 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 engel 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 realistically 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 being 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 frame work agreement with 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 detectible. >> 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 be in 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

weapons, it is clear he still has some of them. it is clear he's still using them. et cetera personally having them dropped on aleppo. and madam ambassador given 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 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, condemnatory 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 perverse 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. 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 crimes, 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. 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 such -- >> remember, the main beneficiary right now, ambassador, as the regime drops those chemical bombs on aleppo, it is the isis fighters 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

offenders 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,

we're deepening those discussion s 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 also want to note 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 we'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 beyond saying 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 blanket 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 sanctions 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 instituted more sanssgss 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 write and report back on the status of its elections and several people in the security and diplomatic 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?