you can say it is disproportionate or you can say it is an american interest because israel is a staunch u.s. ally and beacon of democracy and a tumultuous and autocratic region. don't have a, i view to express to you one way or the other. the reality of the situation is that the pro-israel lobby is very well entrenched and they will continue to be well entrenched and that is part of the political tapestry that makes up washington. host: josh rogin writes for "newsweek" and "daily bast." -- "daily beast." you can see his writings at dailybeast.com. political and other news sources of reporting this morning that longtime white house ,orrespondent helen thomas whose career dated back to the died onadministration, saturday at the age of 92.

that from the political for tomorrow, we're going to be joined by brian wall street is a republican strategist. issueare the environments heading into the last two weeks before congress is scheduled to take it summer recess.rs -- we are looking at race in america. our guest will be mychal denzel smith. :30.ill start this at 83 we will see you then. ♪

>> coming up next, the confirmation hearing for the nomination met -- nomination for samantha bauer. then a hearing with state department officials. >> he had been taken in a plane crash in 1948. rose has literally seen her children and almost birth order disappear. in 1964, she wrote about what it is like in that summer. she said gone are the presidential helicopters that we will look forward to every week in bringing my son.

i would see his children run out to him. gone are those days. >> she missed that. >> she said gone are the days that we are said to be the most powerful family in the world. >> barbara perry uses information from diaries and letters as she talks about the kennedy matriarch. tonight at 10:00 eastern. >> now the confirmation hearing for the nomination for u.s. ambassador to the un, samantha power. two hours.g is

>> good morning. this hearing of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. good morning, ms. power, welcome to the senate foreign relations committee. your nomination as ambassador to the united nations has come with much fanfare and with some criticism, which at the end of the day means you must be doing something right. but without fanfare or criticism, i don?t believe anyone can question your credentials, nor can anyone question your service. and certainly no one can question your willingness to speak your mind -- often forcefully, always passionately and usually without hesitation and i commend you for your willingness to speak out, particularly on human rights

issues around the world. whether as a war correspondent in bosnia, in the former yugoslavia, in rwanda and sudan, where, as you said in your pulitzer prize-winning book on genocide, witnessed evil at its worst, you have been an unrelenting principled voice when it comes to human rights and crimes against humanity. and i know that voice will be heard around the world, should you be confirmed. personally, i am incredibly appreciative of the principled position you?ve taken on many of these issues, but on the armenian genocide. in 2007, you wrote in time magazine, quote, ?a stable, turkey -- cannot be built on a lie," and i completely agree. your belief that we should use the lessons of what clearly was an atrocity of historic proportions to prevent future crimes against humanity is a view consistent with my own and many others on this committee and which is supported by your president's atrocities prevention board. i agree that we must acknowledge and study the past, understand how and why atrocities happen,

to put into practice and giving meaning to the phrase "never again." as the son of immigrants from cuba, one whose family and friends bore witness to, suffered, and continue to suffer under the castro regime's oppression, i personally appreciate your commitment to exposing the castro dictatorship's total disregard for human and civil rights and for not idealizing the harsh realities of communism in cuba. i know from the conversation we had in my office that you appreciate the suffering of the cuban people -- the torture, abuse, detention and abridgment of the civil and human rights of those who voice their dissent. i also welcomed your commitment to reach out to rosa maria paya, daughter of the long-time dissident and cuban activist oswaldo paya who died under mysterious circumstances last year in cuba. ms. paya is in washington this week accepting a posthumous award from the national endowment for democracy on behalf of another young activist from cuba who died alongside oswaldo paya, making your commitment to reach out to her that much more timely.

yesterday's news of the discovery of illegal arms shipments from cuba to north korea reinforces in my view the necessity of the united states to keep cuba on the list of countries who are the sponsors of terrorism. i share your view that we should not lose sight of these moral issues even as we address the pressing economic and security issues that confront our nation. it is fitting that you will be at the united nations, which was created after a period of atrocity and conflict with the goal of bringing nations together to achieve peace and stability. in the words of the u.n. preamble, it was created, quote, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women of nations large and

small.? if confirmed, your focus at the united nations will no doubt be on the crisis du jour -- the middle east, syria, iran, north korea, afghanistan, pakistan, china, increasingly north africa, and the nature of nations that emerge from the arab spring. but i would encourage you to also keep your focus and task your staff to what is happening off the front page as well as on it, what may be happening on freedom of expression in latin america, fighting hiv/aids, malaria and polio in africa, on the status of talks to resolve the 66-year- long question of cyprus, on women's rights in pakistan, labor rights in bangladesh and human rights in sri lanka. the u.n., for all its faults, has a great ability to serve as arbitrator, a neutral fact- finder and overseer of peace. i urge you to harness its strengths in the interests of our nation and -- not coincidentally -- in the interest of fulfilling the stated purpose of the united nations, which is "to unite our strength to maintain

international peace and security." we'll address these issues, among many others, in our questioning, but let me to take this opportunity again to welcome you to the committee and to say that we look forward to a full and frank dialogue on the issues you will face should you be confirmed. let me also say for the record that if there are additional questions for the record of this nominee, they should be submitted by 5,00 p. m. today. with that, let me turn to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, senator corker, for his opening statement. >> mr. chairman, thank you for having this hearing, and i want to welcome the nominee. we had a very good meeting. i'll be brief. i know you're going to be received very well here in spite of the two introducers that you have beside you, but i do -- i do appreciate the time and the candor in our office. i want to thank you for being willing to serve in this way, and i think you know, our ambassador to the u.n. is one of the most important diplomatic posts that we have. you have daily contact with leaders from all around the world, and therefore are maybe out there amongst people around the world more than anybody else. and it can be a critical component of our diplomatic efforts.

were the largest contributor to the u.n., i think you know that. and i hope that one of the things you're going to pursue -- i know you're very policy- oriented, and i appreciate that, but i hope you're also going to pursue reforms at u.n. to cause it to function in a much better way for not only u.s. taxpayers but for the world. all too often -- i think you know this -- the u.n. acts as a place where bad actors deflect criticism, and i hope that you will -- i think you will, actually -- but i hope you will follow the footsteps of predecessors like daniel patrick who basically, you know, got out there and championed our national interest at the u.n. even when it was unpopular. so again, i thank you for coming before us today. i look forward to your service.

i know there'll be a number of questions today that i know you'll answer well, and again, thank you for your willingness to serve. and mr. chairman, i look forward to hearing from your extra- distinguished guests today that i know are looking at their watch, wanting to go to the next hearing. so -- even though they?re glad to be here, i know. >> thank you, senator corker. we're pleased to have our distinguished colleagues from georgia with us to introduce ms. power to the committee, so i?ll first recognize the senior member from georgia, senator chambliss, followed then by senator isakson. >> well, thank you very much, chairman menendez and senator corker, for allowing johnny and i to come today to introduce samantha power to the foreign relations committee. samantha is already well known by this committee, but suffice it to say, she's an irish-born american who matriculated to atlanta to become educated in high school to prepare herself not just for this job, but to go to yale and go to harvard law school.

>> thank you. senator isakson. >> thank you, chairman menendez, senator corker. it?s an honor to be here to introduce one with georgia roots. at the age of nine, samantha?s parents brought her from ireland to the united states and she ended up at lakeside high school in dekalb county, georgia, where she graduated. i did some research to find out what others said about her when she was in georgia, and a good

friend of mine, jeff hullinger, who's the sports director for wsb in atlanta, had her as one of his interns in 1989. and i want to quote directly from what he said about samantha. he said, she seemed to be a fish out of water in the sports department. oh, my god, was she bright. acerbic, lightning-witted, and the depth of the mariana trench. i appreciate her asking me to introduce her today, and i?ll just share a few thoughts additional to those senator chambliss said. as you know, i've traveled to sudan, i've traveled to rwanda, i've been to some of the places samantha has written about and been an activist about. in fact, in her book about rwanda, ?a problem from hell,? which was a great book, she wrote about her -- couldn?t believe that during the three months of the slaughter of over

a million rwandans, there was not even a high-level meeting at the white house. >> well, we thank both of our colleagues for coming and joining -- [inaudible}. we welcome senator isakson back

to the committee, as the -- senator isakson was a distinguished member of the committee, we miss him on the committee and we hope that at some point he?ll return in the future. and i know you have busy schedules, so when you feel appropriate, please feel free to leave as you -- as you need to. with that great set of introductions, ms. power, you?re welcome to start your testimony. if you have family or friends here, you're -- please feel free to introduce them. we understand this is a commitment not only of yourself but family, and we appreciate that. your full statement will be entered into the record, without objection. and the floor is yours. >> thank you, sir. and thank you, ranking member corker and distinguished members of this committee. it is a great honor to appear before you as president obama's nominee to serve as the u.s. permanent representative to the united nations. representing the united states would be the privilege of a lifetime. i am grateful to the president for placing his trust in me. i would like to thank my friends and my remarkable family -- my parents, who brought me here from ireland, vera delaney and edmund bourke, my husband cass

sunstein, and our children, 4- year-old declan, and 1-year-old rian, who has already proven less interested in this hearing than others here today. [laughter] i would also like to thank senator chambliss and senator isakson for their generous, remarkable introductions. growing up as an irish immigrant

in atlanta, georgia, i can?t say that the u.n. was a popular topic with my classmates at lakeside high school. but it was in georgia, while working at the same local television station, that i witnessed footage of the massacre in tiananmen square and today they're helping to provide polio vaccinations even as terrorist wage an assassination campaign against him does. last friday it was the un that provided a stage malala, the brave youngfor pakistani girl who was shot last year by the taliban on her way home from school. together, she and the u.n. will

inspire millions to stand up for girls' education. yet alongside all of this, within the u.n., an organization built in part to apply the lessons of the holocaust, we also see unacceptable attacks against the state of israel. we see the absurdity of iran chairing the u.n. conference on disarmament. we see the failure of the u.n. security council to respond to the slaughter in syria -- a disgrace that history will judge harshly. what is also clear, 68 years after the united nations was founded in san francisco, is that an effective u.n. depends on effective american leadership. the war in bosnia didn't end because the u.n. acted, it ended because president clinton, backed by a bipartisan coalition in congress, including senator

mccain, took robust action. it is now possible to imagine an aids-free generation in africa not merely because of the essential work of unaids, but because president george w. bush decided to provide life- saving drugs on a massive scale. i believe that america cannot -- indeed, i know that america should not -- police every crisis or shelter every refugee. while our goodwill knows no bounds, our resources are of course finite, strained by pressing needs at home. and we are not the world's policeman. we must make choices based on the best interests of the american people. and other countries must share the costs and burdens of addressing global problems. there are challenges that cross borders that the united states alone cannot meet. there are cases -- as with sanctions against iran and north korea -- where u.s. efforts pack far more punch when we are joined by others. there are occasions -- as in mali today -- when the u.n. has to step up to prevent state failure, which abets terrorism. an effective u.n. is critical to a range of u.s. interests. first, the u.n. must be fair. the united states has no greater friend in the world than the state of israel. we share security interests, we share core values, and we have a

special relationship with israel. and yet the general assembly and human rights council continue to pass one-sided resolutions condemning israel. israel -- not iran, not sudan, not north korea -- is the one country with a fixed place on the human rights council's agenda. israel's legitimacy should be beyond dispute, and its security must be beyond doubt. and just as i have done as president obama's u.n. adviser at the white house, i will stand up for israel and work tirelessly to defend it. second, the u.n. must become more efficient and effective. in these difficult budget times, when the american people are cutting back, the u.n. must do the same. this means eliminating waste, strengthening whistleblower protections, ending any tolerance for corruption and getting other countries to pay their fair share. it means closing down those missions and programs that no longer make sense. the united states has the right and the duty to insist on reform, and if confirmed, i will aggressively pursue this cause. third, the u.n. must stand up for human rights and human dignity, which are american values and universal values. today, the universal declaration

of human rights is widely hailed and yet only selectively heeded. taking up the cause of freedom is not just the right thing to do, it is of course the smart thing to do. countries that violate the rights of women and girls will never approach their full potential. countries that don't protect religious freedom create cleavages that destabilize whole regions. if i am given the honor of sitting behind the sign that says "united states," i will do what america does best, stand up against repressive regimes and promote human rights. i will also do everything in my power to get others to do the same. this means contesting the crackdown on civil society being carried out in countries like cuba, iran, russia and venezuela. it means calling on the world to unite against human trafficking and against the grotesque atrocities being carried out by the assad regime. and it means uniting peoples who long to live free of fear in the cause of fighting terrorism. mr. chairman, ranking member corker and other distinguished members of the committee, the

late ambassador, my friend richard holbrooke, told this committee that congress should be in on the takeoffs, not just the landings. i appear before you today not just to seek your support but to ask to join you in a conversation about how to strengthen what is right and fix what is wrong at the u.n. if i am confirmed, i will continue this dialogue directly and personally. and if the prospect of visiting the u.n. doesn't immediately entice you, my son declan has resolved to become a tour guide like no other. [laughter] if i am given the privilege of sitting behind america's placard, behind the united states of america, you will be able to count on me. i will fight fiercely every day for what is in the best interests of the united states and of the american people. i will be a blunt, outspoken champion of american values and human rights. i will be accessible to you and forthright in my dialogue with you. and above all, i will serve as a proud american, amazed that yet again this country has provided an immigrant with such an opportunity -- here, the ultimate privilege of representing the united states and fighting for american values

at the united nations. thank you, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> well, thank you very much for your statement. we'll start a round of questioning. and i -- and i would just say that following declan at the u.n. i would not get lost, because i would see that red hair no matter what, so and he's being very well-behaved, despite that this is boring. [laughter] so - >> the day is young. [laughter] >> we've got a lot of rooms here, so -- let me start off -- i appreciate your statement on israel and i agree with you wholeheartedly. you know, above and beyond fighting battles to -- those who seek to delegitimize israel, the u.s. has been very helpful in promoting israel's position at the united nations. as you know, israel is seeking to represent the western europe and other groups on the security council in 2018, representing the first time that israel would

serve at the pinnacle of the u.n.'s system. do you know if we're working to promote israel for the security council? and how can we work in that regard -- as well as the other injustice that israel faces in the u.n. system is that in geneva, unlike in new york, israel is not part of any regional grouping. so would you commit to the committee that you will make efforts, should you be confirmed, to have israel among the family of nations have an opportunity just like any other country? >> excuse me. absolutely, sir. i did speak in my opening remarks about fighting delegitimation, but what's a critical complement to that is legitimation. we have had modest success, i think, working with our israeli friends to secure leadership positions across the u.n. system, such as the vice presidency of the general assembly several years back, some leadership roles in un-

habitat and other organizations, membership in weog and participation in weog in new york. but you're right. the security council seat is one that has eluded israel, despite its many contributions across the years, and i commit to you wholeheartedly to go on offense as well as playing defense on the legitimation of israel and we'll make every effort to secure greater integration of israeli public servants in the u.n. system. >> now, this committee has had a great deal of focus and the chair has had a great deal of focus on the question of iran sanctions. you mentioned it in your remarks about we are stronger when we can multilateralize those sanctions, and i agree with you, although often we take the lead and we get others to then join us in a multilateral effort. so sometimes leadership is important in order to bring others to a point which they may not be, but for american

leadership. as iran continues, despite our best efforts, to march towards nuclear weapons capability, clearly the senate doesn't always express itself unanimously -- it has on this issue -- to continue our efforts to prevent iran from becoming the next nuclear state. how do you plan to use your position at the united nations to build consensus for additional measures against iran, and how do you see bringing that continuing multilateral effort to the next stage? the clock is ticking, the centrifuges are spinning and the window is increasingly closing for us. >> thank you, senator, and thank you for all your leadership on that issue. let me start by saying that the last four years have entailed a ramp-up of very significant pressure on iran, including of the multilateral kind. and you're absolutely right that the foundation for our

leadership is the domestic measures that we have put in place, which other countries have also replicated with their own national measures. the security council passed a crippling resolution back in 2011 that i think has had a great effect. there are some of the most stringent sanctions that we've ever seen put in place in the multilateral system. and i was very much a part of that effort by virtue of my position as the president's u.n. adviser, working with the team in new york. i think there are a couple of things that we need to think about going forward. first of all, given that we need to increase the pressure until iran is willing to give up its nuclear weapons program, we should always be prepared to

look at new measures and see whether further action of the security council is required. in addition the panel of experts, which is very useful way of holding countries accountable -- it's a body that holds countries accountable for their compliance with the sanctions regimen that exists already -- has pointed out, i think, in its most recent report that there are a fair number of evasive tactics that are being used, not only by iran but by other members of the u.n. -- the united nations. and so one of the things that we need to move forward on with haste -- and again, the team in new york is already seeking to do this -- is the panel of experts' recommendations as to how those loopholes can be closed, and how those countries that are in deviance of sanctions can be called out and held accountable and indeed how those practices can stop. the other thing i would draw attention to of course is the human rights situation in iran. again, over the last four years we've had some success. the margin now in which the general assembly iran human rights resolution passes is larger than it ever has been, i believe. we've also created the first- ever country-specific human rights rapporteur at the human

rights council, and that is for iran and that individual -- i talked to senator kirk about this earlier this week -- deserves our full support, as the crisis that the iranians are facing inside the country is extremely grave. so what i can commit to you, sir, is to be maximally consultative with you and to hear any ideas you have about things that we could be doing within the u.n. system that we're not doing, ways we can shore up the sanctions regime that already exists, and any other additional measures we should be contemplating to try to increase the pressure on iran. because i agree wholeheartedly with your premise, which is that there is a window, but the window will not stay open forever. >> finally, this committee acted in a bipartisan manner as it relates to syria and the conflict in syria has killed over 100,000 syrians, created 1. 7 million refugees, millions more displaced inside of the country. a continuing, in my mind, tragedy of enormous proportions,

probably one of the largest ones in the world right now, if not the largest one in the world. but we have seen russia and china continue to obstruct action by the security council, so much so that your predecessor, ambassador rice, said that the council's inaction on syria is immoral and a strategic disgrace that history will judge harshly. i assume you agree with that characterization. and how do you work to move the security council to a more vigorous role on syria? >> thank you, senator. and i agree with you one of the most critical issues facing us today, one of the most devastating cases of mass atrocity that i have ever seen. i don't know that i can recall a leader who has in a way written a new playbook for brutality in

terms of the range of grotesque tactics that the assad regime has employed in response to a democratic uprising. what i will say is that the situation of the security council is incredibly frustrating. i described it as a disgrace that history would judge harshly, in my opening statement. and i certainly agree with ambassador rice's claim that this is a moral and strategic disgrace in both respects. what we have sought to do, as you know, is not simply rely on the security council but to proceed with multiple -- a

multifaceted approach aimed at isolating the regime, bringing about the end of the regime, strengthening the opposition, et cetera. we have worked through the general assembly to signal just how isolated syria is, even as the security council remains paralyzed. we have worked in the human rights council to create a commission of inquiry to investigate the abuses because when the assad regime falls -- and it will fall -- the individuals responsible for these atrocities will need to be held accountable and the evidentiary base needs to be built now. and we have gone outside the u.n. of course to the friends of syrian people to coordinate the efforts of the like- minded. i think we have to be clear-eyed about our prospects for bringing the russians in particular on board at the security council and not overly optimistic. by the same token, their interests also are imperiled with the rise of terrorism in the region, with the use of chemical weapons, and we will continue forcefully, repeatedly

to make that argument to russian officials and to engage them, given the urgency and, again, the devastating human consequences of allowing this crisis to persist. >> and one final point before i turn to senator corker. am i correct in that right now is the turn of the united states to chair the security council? >> we are the presidency -- we have the presidency of the security council in the month of july, which happens once every 15 months, yes. >> so right now that presidency is -- the person who is sitting there is in an acting position? >> it is. a wonderful foreign service officer named rosemary dicarlo. >> and i'm sure she is wonderful, but it would great to have the united states ambassador to the united nations sitting in that chair. senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you again for being willing to serve. i enjoyed our meeting and our discussion about what a liberal interventionalist is, and certainly though would like to drill down a little bit on the responsibility to protect. first of all, you know, in following up on the security council discussion that just was had, do you believe that for us

to take unilateral military action that we need a u.n. security council approval to do so? >> sir, i believe the president always should act in the interests of the american people. when u.s. national security is threatened and the security council is unwilling to authorize the use of force, but the president believes it is judicious to do so, of course that is something that he should be free to do. >> and -- that was brief. [laughter] what exactly does the responsibility to protect mean to you? >> well, sir, as i mentioned in my opening statement, some of the foundational events in my life were - >> what does it -- i shouldn't say "to you."

what does that mean to us as -- knowing that you're going to be at the united nations, you no doubt are going to be a force? i think anybody who's met youin ai think anybody who's met you knows that that is going to be the case. but how will that affect oura effort? when is it that we should respond to atrocities? and what are the guidelines as to whether we do that unilaterally? >> thank you, sir.you>> thank you, sir. a i believe that the way the president has articulated this is very important, which is that you the united states has a national interest -- national securitya interest and a moral responsibility to respond toyou are cases of mass atrocity -- when civilians are being murdered by their governments.a that does not mean the united bigthat does not mean the united states should intervene militarily every time there isin a an injustice in the world.and what the president has asked us to do -- and what i stronglyto a you support doing and am eager to do you again, if confirmed by you -- is a to look at the tools in thea toolbox, diplomatic, economic, you arms embargoes, radio jamming, are youelling diplomats from various institutions, creating commissions of inquiry, eta cetera -- and maybe deploying peacekeepers, providinga

peacekeepers, providing and different forms of assistance. youdifferent forms of assistance. there are so many tools in the toolbox. so i think the concept of thea responsibility to protect, which is less important, i think, than you are all in a u.s. practice and u.s. policy, youu.s. practice and u.s. policy, are which is that when civilians are a youwhich is that when civilians are being murdered by theiryou a governments or by non- statea actors, it's incumbent on us to you look to see if there's we might as be -- might do in order to ameliorate the situation. and there's no one-size-fits-all ad a a solution. there's no algorithm nor should there be.youthere be. if i am confirmed to this position, i will act in the interest of the american peoplei you and in accordance with our values.is that's the formula. >> and that action might take place under the u.n. -- under a u.n. resolution or it might take a place unilaterally, is that what a aa a a a a a

you're saying? >> the president -- if you're referring to the use of military and force, the president needs toa force, the president needs to make judgments about when to andmake judgments about when to use military force on the basis of u.s. national interests.youof u.s. national interests. i think what we've found in history is that there are timesa where we have to work outside the security council, becauseyou and the security council doesn't come along -- althoughhelp in come along -- although presidents have believed thata it's in our national interest to you and who act.you there are times when we find it are beneficial, of course, to have security council authorization, you in a because then we tend to be ablea to get some buy-in on the backend, maybe get somea a a a a a assistance with peacekeeping or reconstruction assistance and so a forth. there's no question that andandationally, a security

council authorization isin helpful. but from the standpoint of american interests, it is u.s. are you a and i'd like for you to speak to you a that and just whether you believe there are many, many duplicative programs there that are wasteful and should bea and looked at and streamlined. holding a you a you >> well, thank you, senator. and again, as i said in my security council authorization,u opening remarks, i completely you share the spirit of youra question. these are such tough times for a and a a a so many people her at home that we have to be zealous in our scrutiny of every program and you are you are a home and a a a a you and you a

you a you every initiative that theaevery initiative that the american people are helping to support through theiryou a generosity.you we have had, i think, significant success over theyou last four years on a u.n. reform agenda -- building on some of you the work done by oura you a predecessors.you we have found in theand peacekeeping budget $560 million apeacekeeping budget $560 million to cut, and that is a substantial amount when, as you say, the u.s. share of thatwe are insay, the u.s. share of you budget is significant. the cuts can come when we havea found -- in the case ofand peacekeeping -- duplications where a peacekeeping mission in one place is staffed or serviced logistically by one base.a you a you are a you and a you a you a you a it's very important that we keep that sensitivity that i think i think we've inculcated in new

york going forward.a you a you a one place is staffed or serviced and there are -- as you and i've discussed, i believe in your office -- there are always countries who want to throw new programs onto the table. but what i will commit to you, as i said in my opening statement, is to -- when i sit down, if confirmed, in new york with the team and to go over the landscape and be as aggressive as possible in seeking to deliver, again, on the generosity of the american people. >> and that includes looking at other longstanding peacekeeping missions that may or may not be necessary? >> indeed. and i think we already -- looking out on the horizon --

can see some that can be reduced in size and will be reduced in size, which should bring about some savings. >> richard holbrooke was able to negotiate our share back in 2000, i think it was, at being 25 percent. and it got down to just a little under 26 percent, i think, in 2009. it's back up today to 28. 4 percent. and just interested in your thoughts there and whether you'd be willing to try to -- i know there's lots of holbrooke doctrines, but if this is one you would try to adopt. >> certainly, sir. i commit to you that i will do everything in my power to reduce the u.s. share of the peacekeeping budget. there are complicated formulas that are involved in that we have inherited from our predecessors, but i will do everything in my power to address that. >> and briefly, i know we have to move on, but your view of expanding permanent seats on the security council. i know there's been some

discussion there. >> thank you, sir. the effectiveness of the security council is very important for u.s. interests, as i've described in my opening statement. i think any expansion of the membership of the united nations security council should be one that both increases the representativeness of the council, which is what a lot of aspirants have emphasized, but also ensures the effectiveness of the council. and so it's not enough just to look to representativeness. we need to look at the degree to which the security council is going to maintain international peace and security. we do oppose, of course, giving up the veto. >> well, we have lots of people who come before us, some of which are more interesting than others. i have a feeling that you certainly are going to carve a path at the united nations. i look forward to watching that. and i do appreciate the comments we've -- the conversations we've had privately. i look forward to you carrying out in the same way that we've

discussed things. i thank you for your willingness and certainly look forward to your service, ok? >> thank you so much, senator. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. ms. power, thank you so much for being here today and for your willingness to take on this very important role. i certainly intend to support your confirmation and i hope the entire senate does as well. you had an interesting exchange with chairman menendez about iran sanctions. obviously, one of the things that's changed recently in iran is the election of their new president, mr. rowhani. and i wonder if you think that offers an opening. he's indicated that it's his intention to improve relations with the united states.

do you think there is an opening there with the new president- elect? and how can we pursue that and does the u.n. have a role in trying to move mr. rowhani and iran to resume negotiations with the p-5 plus one? >> thank you, senator, so much for raising that issue. i would say, first, that while whatever the public statements out of iran, we have to remember the conditions that gave rise to that election or the conditions surrounding that election, which were the furthest thing from free, the furthest thing from fair, and i don't think anybody can say that the election in iran represented the will of the iranian people. i think we saw the will of the iranian people reflected in the free, the furthest thing from fair, and i don't think anybody previous election and the democratic will of those people

crushed. so that's point one. second, i would say that our policy -- the administration's policy, since i'm not currently serving the administration -- is, i think, very much reflective of the views of people here in this body as well, which is verify, then trust -- deeds, not words -- and, again, we have a negotiation track.

it is something that we want very much to succeed and we recognize that we need to increase the pressure in order hase have seen that croatia achieved eu membership. we're seeing some breakthroughs with serbia and kosovo. but bosnia really seems to be stalled, and in talking to some

of the folks who have been involved with efforts in bosnia for a very long time they have suggested that the structure that was set up as a result of the dayton accords has made things more difficult there to really achieve long-term resolution in the country for some of their challenges. can you speak to that and to what more we might be able to do to support efforts in bosnia to move them towards eu integration and further into the west? >> thank you, senator, and as you know, yes, bosnia is a

country very close to my heart. i think what i would say is that, first, it's important to put today's challenges in some context. the country is at peace, at relative peace. it is an inspiring tribute, i think, to american leadership when you travel to the country and see the cafes open and see the hills no longer a source of target practice for nationalists and extremists but instead a source of beauty, and it's a remarkable country and it's a remarkably resilient people. so i think the united states can especially, again, the americans who supported u.s. leadership -- can feel some sense of satisfaction at what the united states and our allies have done in preventing what was one of the most horrific crises of the last half century. second, though, in terms of ethnic polarization, i agree completely with your characterization. i think it is extremely problematic when you go to central bosnia and you see entrances for croatian students on one side of the building and for bosniak or muslim students on the other side. i mean, how is that possible in 2013 in europe?

with regard, i think, to the degree to which the dayton structure is to blame versus the absence of political will in the leadership across bosnia, i think i haven't worked on that issue very much over the last four years. it is something i certainly would be eager to look at if i returned to the administration. but i think starting with popular will, popular culture, doing away with the polarization as a matter of social norms is also something that needs to be done and, again, there are real efforts -- an amazing set of contributions by the international community and amazing leadership at the civil society level in bosnia. but of the leadership we just haven't seen that commitment to multiethnicity that we need. >> thank you. finally, there is a relatively new office at the united nations

that deals with women and empowering women around the world. i think one of the things that we have realized more in the last several decades is how important empowering women are in -- to the success of communities and countries and that when women have human rights and the opportunity to participate fully in a society that communities and countries do better. so i wonder if you will commit to doing everything you can to ensure that that office continues to operate in a way that continues to support women around the world and recognize the importance of the future legacy for that office. >> absolutely, senator. i think president bachelet did a remarkable job. as you know, we worked behind the scenes with the secretary general in order to try to bring

about that consolidation of all the efforts on women and girls across the u.n. system. we are very encouraged with its launch but, needless to say, the stakes and the urgent needs in the real world are very high. so the more support we can give the better and i think u.n. women is operating very well in tandem with some of our bilateral programming on these issues as well. thank you. >> thank you. >> senator rubio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, ms. power. congratulations on your nomination. i know your family is proud of you. as you recall from our meeting, and i highlighted this at the time and i'm sure you're aware of it, as part of any one of these hearings when i told you i probably never wanted to be nominated to anything and part of -- but one of the parts of any nomination is a nominee will be asked questions about previous statements that they've made and asked to clarify those. so i wanted to give you an opportunity to do that here this morning. i'm not sure the time will permit to go through all of them but i did want to go through a

few and i'm sure you're familiar with them. you've been asked about them before. so let me start by a 2002 interview where you advocated the use of a, quote, "mammoth protection force," unquote, to impose a solution to the israel- arab conflict, saying external intervention was needed. do you still hold that view and how would you place that in the context of today? >> thank you, senator, and thanks for giving me an occasion to clarify in a very public setting my actual views. i have disassociated myself from those comments many times. i gave a long, rambling and very remarkably incoherent response to a hypothetical question that i should never have answered. what i believe in terms of middle east peace is, i think, what is obvious to all of us here which is peace can only come about through a negotiated solution. there is no shortcut. that's why palestinian efforts that's why palestinian efforts at statehood -- by the way, my daughter doesn't like that quote either, just for the record. >> we've all -- we've all been heckled.

don't -- >> and we've all answered hypothetical questions. >> thank you, sir. palestinian unilateral statehood efforts within the u.n. system shortcuts of that nature just won't work. a negotiated settlement is the only course. >> ok. then in 2003 in an article you recommended a historical -- quote, "a historical reckoning with crimes committed, sponsored or permitted by the united states," unquote. which crimes were you referring to and which decisions taken by the current administration would you recommend for such a reckoning? >> thank you, senator, and, again, thank you for giving me occasion to respond to that. i, as an immigrant to this country, think that this country is the greatest country on earth, as i know do you. i would never apologize for america. america is the light to the world. we have freedoms and

opportunities here that people dream about abroad. i certainly did, and with regard to that quote, one of the things that had moved me i had, as some have mentioned, written very critically -- i guess senator isakson mentioned -- written very critically about the clinton administration's response to the rwanda genocide back in 1994 -- written in great detail about that. and president clinton himself, as you know, had come forward and expressed his regret that he that the united states didn't more in the fact of the genocide. when i traveled to rwanda, however, having been very, very critical, i was stunned to see the degree to which clinton's visit to rwanda, his apology for not having more, how it had resonated with rwandans, how it had impacted their sense of the united states and how -- and the kind of regard the united states had for them. and it moved me, and i probably very much overstated the case in that article. but the point i think that i was

trying to make is that sometimes we, as imperfect human beings, do things that we wish we had done a little bit differently, and sometimes it can be productive to engage in foreign publics -- excuse me, engage with foreign citizenry in a productive dialogue. and i think that's what president clinton in the wake of the rwandan genocide. it had a great effect. it really meant a great deal. and that's really all i was meaning. >> so is -- i would categorize the rwanda situation as a crime, as -- the words used -- "permitted by the united states." which ones did the united states commit or sponsor, that you were referring to? >> again, sir, i think this is the greatest country on earth. i -- we have nothing to apologize for. >> ok. so you don't have any in mind, now, that we've committed or sponsored? >> i will not apologize for america. i will stand very proudly, if confirmed, behind the u.s. placard. >> no, i understand. but do you believe the united states has committed or sponsored crimes?

>> i believe the united states is the greatest country on earth, i really do. >> well, that's -- so your answer to whether we've committed or sponsored crimes is that the united states is the greatest country on earth. >> the united states is the leader in human rights. it's the leader in human dignity. as you know, one of the things that makes us so formidable as a leader on human rights is that when we make mistakes -- and mistakes happen -- for instance, in the case of abu ghraib, nobody is proud of that. virtually every american soldier operating in the world is operating with profound honor and dignity. we hold people accountable. that's what we do -- because we believe in human rights, we believe in international humanitarian law and we observe those laws. we are, again, unlike any other country -- a country that stands by our principles. >> what is the reckoning you referred to?

what would you consider reckoning for those instances that you just highlighted from >> i think when any of us who have the privilege of serving in public office deviate in any way, we have procedures in order to be held accountable -- deviated in any way from our own laws, regulations, standards - >> right, i understand. but that's true of the individuals that committed those acts. what about the country? because your quote was about the united states committed or sponsored a crime. what reckoning does the country have to face in response to acts committed by individuals of that nature? because certainly that wasn't the command they had received. >> again, sir -- i mean, i gave you the rwanda example. i think sometimes we see, in the course of battle -- you know, we unlike most militaries around the world have, we put every target, every choice through the most vigorous scrutiny. and occasionally there is collateral damage, and it's in

the face of -- even after all of that energetic effort. and in those cases, we engage with foreign publics. that can be done at a national level, that can be done at a the face of -- even after all of local level. i think there are various ways one can go about - >> yeah -- my time is about to expire, so two very quick questions. one is, given an opportunity to restate what you wrote in that 2003 article, it sounds like you would state it differently. >> indeed, sir. i would absolutely state it - >> so let me bring you to a more recent one. in a 2008 op-ed, you described the bush administration's concern about iran as a, quote, "imagined crisis." and you said that, quote, "redundant reminders that military force is still on the table," unquote, strengthen the regime. do you still hold the views that i think there are various ways you held in 2008 with regards to iran? is it still an imagined crisis, and do you believe that reminders that military force is

still on the table strengthen the iranian regime? >> thank you, sir. i have never referred to iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon as an imagined crisis -- ever. what i have long argued is that it is important both to have a pressure track and a negotiation track. and as we've discussed here today, it's essential to kick up the pressure, to tighten the vise. that is what the sanctions that i worked on over the last four years have done, that is what we need to do in terms of, again, closing loopholes that have been established by the iranian regime. and so pressure is a -- and, of course, part of pressure is making very clear that military force is on the table. with respect to that article, i was stressing the importance of also having a negotiation track so that if the pressure could be intensified, there was an off- intensified, there was an off- ramp so that iran could in fact give up its nuclear weapon, if they ever chose to do so. >> thank you. senator murphy? >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, ms. power. the cold war is over, and yet

we?ve seen specifically, most recently, with respect to our deliberations internationally over syria, that the juxtaposition between the united states and russia can effectively cripple deliberations of the u.n. our relationship with them is obviously incredibly complex. lots of good news in the last decade -- cooperation on arms control, cooperation on antiterrorism efforts, a willingness to work together on afghanistan that was maybe unexpected at the beginning of that conflict. and yet during that time, we have seen a very rapid downwards slide in terms of the status of civil society in russia. and so without asking you to explain how you are going essentially negotiate every different political issue with russia, i would love you to talk for a minute about what the role of the permanent representative is to continue to raise these issues of civil society and issues of human rights abuses in

russia -- knowing, as we heard at a hearing not long ago, that the state department is preparing, as they told us, to send forward another set of names to be added to the -- to the magnitsky act, which is going to further complicate relationships with russia but also give us a renewed platform to raise some of these issues. so you are going to -- the administration is always in a difficult position because there?s all sorts of important, proactive work to do, which sometimes makes it difficult for them to try to raise issues of human rights. you will be in the same position whereby you will be trying to get them to the table on things that we care about, which may potentially compromise your ability to call them to the table on the way in which they are treating political opposition there. so talk to me about how you strike that balance. >> senator, thank you so much. it is of course one of the most important relationships that has to be managed in new york.

and we have a whole range of interests, as you?ve indicated, that float through moscow. i think the challenge is to maintain -- to stand up for u.s. interests and to stand up for u.s. values. i mean, it?s a simple it?s a sort of simple formula -- sometimes our interests of course necessitate cooperation, you've again alluded to, supplying our troops in afghanistan, the north korean and iran sanctions regimes, where russia has stepped up and supported multilateral sanctions that are critical in our larger effort. these are examples where we have found a way to work with russia. but we can never be silent in the fact of a crackdown on civil society -- something i mentioned in my opening remarks today. we can never be silent -- to get to an exchange i know senator mccain had earlier in the week, or last week -- we can never be

silent when the russian government sentences sergei magnitsky or convicts him or a crime rather than looking into those who are responsible for his death. i mean, we have to use the pulpit. we have to use the platform. we have to recognize that when the placard says the "united states," people around the world, including across russian civil society, are looking to the united states for leadership. and i do think we can do both at once. i think it's extremely challenging, and there's no question that threading that needle and making sure that you don't sort of silence yourself and silence the values of your nation in the service of, you know, your short-term needs --

it's a -- it's a -- it's a big challenge, every diplomat has i think faced it. but i think our greatest ambassadors in new york are remembered for how they stood up for our values. don't want to steal senatorand mccain's thunder on this issue. andhe's been a hero. but we are at a fulcrum point. and the problem is not only the very quick downward slide of russia. it?s that their neighbors are watching them and we are confronting many of the same issues, whether it be in the ukraine, belarus, azerbaijan, and when the united states doesn't stand up at the u.n. to and quickly to turn to the issue of climate change. a really wonderful new initiative at the u.n. surrounding the issue of short- lived climate pollutants and fast-acting climate pollutants, specifically working with other nations to try to engage in best practices for the capture of inmethane coming out ofand inlandfills, to work that the au.n. has been doing for years on building a new type of cookstove to downgrade the amount of black carbon escaping

andinto the atmosphere. andthere is technology and best practices out there today with andrespect to non-carbon dioxide inemissions.and inwe're going to have a big fight over a new international and aglobal warming treaty, but inthere are some relatively simple things that you can do andwhen it comes to justis a and inmanaging landfills better, ora trying to get $15 cookstoves in the hands of more indians and chinese. i think the answer to my question as to whether you?re going to continue to help lead on this issue is probably self- evident, but this potentially allows for some of the quickest gains in the interim between now and when we ultimately get an operative global warming agreement in 2020 and you can play an incredibly important role in trying to move forward the work of the u.n. to engage in voluntary measures with member countries to try to engage in best practices as to decreasing the release of short-

lived common pollutants and we?d love to see your leadership on that. >> thank you, sir. you will have it. thank you. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms powers, welcome. like senator corker, i certainly enjoyed our conversation. it was very interesting. i think you will be a force. i also want to thank you for your willingness to serve. you've got a young family. it will be a sacrifice, so i truly do appreciate it. i also recognize you?re a pretty prolific writer. i did compare notes here. i actually had another 2003 article, which i found very interesting. there are a number of interesting comments you make in that, and i do have to ask you some questions. and i realize your thoughts can certainly change over time, but there are certainly some quotes here that do disturb me. and kind of going back to what we talked about in our office, i was very disappointed in president obama early in his term, going around the country

on, you know, basically what's been called his apology tour. i don't believe that's helpful. you're saying you'll never apologize for america. now that's good, but back in this article, this was full force in new republic, march 3, 2003. you said a country has to look back before it can move forward. instituting a doctrine of mea culpa would enhance our credibility by showing that american decision makers do not endorse the sins of the predecessors. kind of going back to what senator rubio was talking about, you know, which sins are you talking about there? and do you think president obama's apology tour was well advised? did that work very well? >> thank you, senator. i don't know if it's good news, but the quote that senator rubio was referring to is the same quote as this, so my response is similar. but let me start just by saying what i should have said perhaps at the beginning before, which

is i have written probably two million words in my career, a million, two million. i've certainly lost track. only my husband, cass sunstein, has -- well, there are others perhaps who've written more, but cass has left most of humanity in the dust in terms of prolificness. there are things that i have written that i would write very differently today and that is one of them. particularly having served in particularly having served in the executive branch -- >> move forward in terms of the re-set with russia. move forward in terms of president obama's apology tour, the re-set with russia. has that worked? was that a good strategy for us to go across the world and actually provide that mea culpa? do you think that was good or bad? did it work or didn't work?

>> i'm not sure exactly to what you're -- are you talking about the reset? >> well, we can talk about reset, sure. >> so the reset, again, is i think something that has yielded a very complex set of consequences. in some respects, such as syria, the reset has not produced the kind of dividend that we seek in new york, and with devastating consequences, again, for the people of syria. on shipping supplies and reinforcing our troops in afghanistan, the fact that we have a channel of dialogue and cooperation with russia has produced results. honestly, the sanctions imposed against iran back in 2011, the sanctions resolutions we've imposed even recently on north korea, they come about in part because the bilateral relationship is strong, at least strong enough to allow us to agree on issues of shared interest. there's also a lot which i didn't mention in response to senator murphy that goes unseen. and again, none of this takes away from the crackdown on civil

society, takes away from snowden and his presence in moscow, takes away from magnitsky, takes away again from syria. but there are things that happen on the security council, for instance, russian support for robust peacekeeping action in ivory coast, russian support for the south sudan referendum going off on time, which was a major mass atrocity averted. so we work with them where we can get them to see that their interests align with ours and that their interests align with maintaining international peace and security. ok. you had mentioned earlier that assad will fall, and i think we've heard that in the past where it's not a matter of if, not a matter of if but when. seems like he's getting more entrenched, and i'm not quite so sure. do you believe there was a point in time, had we shown leadership, that we could have tipped the scales and he could have already fallen by now? have we missed opportunities? >> thank you, sir. look, i think the situation on the ground right now is very worrying for a whole host of

reasons. first, the military gains that the assad regime has made lately. second, the fact of chemical weapons use in recent months, sir, something you and i talked about, i believe, the growth of the extremist presence within the opposition, et cetera. so i think nobody is satisfied with where we are today. i know the president isn't. and we are -- the administration is constantly examining and re- examining how it can heighten the pressure on assad so as to hasten that day that he departs. i guess to come back to my comment where, given some of the facts on the ground right now, how i could say something of that nature, just, again, i think history shows that regimes that brutalize their own people in that manner, that totally force it, their legitimacy, that do not abide by even basic norms of human decency, they just do not have the support to sustain

themselves. so the day of reckoning will come. i agree certainly wholeheartedly with your concern that the day is not coming soon enough. hes going to fall because we?re ok. were all mortal. obviously hes going to fall because were all mortal. getting back to that article, the final concluding paragraph, embedding u.s. power in an international system and demonstrating humility would be painful, unnatural steps for any empire, never mind the most important empire in the history of mankind. we're in more pain now often (ph 8,25), we'll be in far less pain later. do you believe america is an empire? >> i believe that we are a great a great and strong and powerful country and the most powerful country in the history of the world. also the most inspirational. again, that is probably not a word choice that i would use today, having served -- >> fair enough. besides, giving up a pinch of sovereignty will not deprive the united states of the tremendous military and economic leverage it has at its disposal of last resort. so you're basically recommending that we give up a pinch of

sovereignty. is that still your view? >> one of the things that i would do every day, if confirmed for this position, is defend u.s. sovereignty. i think nothing that i support have supported the last four years would ever have that effect of giving up u.s. sovereignty. it's non- negotiable. >> so your thinking has changed on that then? >> my -- again, serving in the executive branch is very different than sounding off from an academic perch. yes. >> good. i appreciate your answers. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> senator kaine. >> welcome, ms. power, and congratulations. i look forward to working together. you have the ideal intellectual and value credentials for this position. when i heard of the appointment, though, my first reaction was, wow, she's pretty blunt and outspoken. i don't think blunt and outspoken is actually usually a great qualification for a diplomatic post, but actually for this one it is because my experience with the u.n. is it's

vague and amorphous and then you translate vague and amorphous into six languages and i think the u.n. could use a lot more blunt and outspoken. and i think that's part of the reason why you're going to do a very good job in that position. i visited the u.n. recently and spent a day with ambassador rice and i would encourage any member of the senate to do it. to go to a security council meeting -- even on a topic that may not be the one that you're most passionate about -- is instructive. and you immediately sense some of the dynamics, some of the good, some of the bad. one of the things that i really came away from that visit -- even seeing good and bad -- was a real pride that it's -- a pride in this country for having been such a key part in creating the institution. you know, it was an american president who had the visionary idea in the aftermath of world war i to try to create something like it in the league of nations. and neither the american public

nor congress, nor really the world, embraced the idea, but america wouldn't let the dream die. and in the closing days of world war ii, president roosevelt and his advisers planned it. president roosevelt didn't get to see it, he died before the san francisco conference. president truman had two decisions to make in his first two days in office, whether to keep the roosevelt cabinet, and he decided to do it, and the second one, he was asked, we can easily cancel or postpone the san francisco meeting that was going to happen within weeks of president roosevelt's death. and the second decision he made was no, we need to carry it forward. and so for all the frustrations of the united nations -- and there are many and i'm going to ask you about my chief one in a second -- but for all the frustrations, it was the united states that wouldn't let the dream of an international institution of this type die. it was birthed here, we've nursed it along, we've funded it, we've kept it going, we've hoped for its improvement, we've battled for its improvement. and of the many things to be proud about, about this country, the united nations i think is

one. and yet -- and yet there are a lot of frustrations. i was in israel in april of 2009. i was at yad vashem at yom hashoa as a guest of prime minister netanyahu. and at the very moment we were there, the u.n. had convened an anti-racism conference -- durban ii in geneva -- and it invited president ahmadinejad to be one of the keynote speakers. now, the united states -- this administration -- boycotted that conference in geneva, encouraged other nations to boycott it as well. many other nations did, some others attended and then walked out during ahmadinejad's speech. but i think one of the things that we wrestle with here, and i think the american public wrestles with too, is how -- explain the psychology within an institution that was so critical to the formation of the state of israel, to the beginning of the state of the israel, explain --

because you've been involved with the institution -- the psychology that puts israel on the permanent agenda to talk about human rights when north korea isn't, when so many other nations aren't. israel isn't perfect, but neither is the united states and neither is any of the member nations of the united nations. you can be frustrated about the lack of pace toward a two-state solution. but we can think of frustrations about any nation that's a member of the u.n. i think the single thing that's the hardest for american citizens to grapple with is the continual drumbeat out of the united nations that is hostile to the nation of israel and seems to hold israel to a standard that's different than other nations, that ought to also have their time under the microscope in terms of the analysis of their flaws and the recommendations for improving those flaws. so with your experience in the institution and in working in these areas, i'd like for you just to explain to us, what is it about the psychology of the body that makes israel the

perennial punching bag at the united nations? >> thank you so much, senator. the constant de- legitimation of israel across the u.n. system, as i indicated in my opening remarks, is a source of almost indescribable concern to me and to this administration. we -- as the president's u.n. adviser the last four years, working with the team in new york, our team in geneva and elsewhere, we push day in and day out to contest this kind of delegitimation. in terms of the psychology, what i will say is that fewer than half of the countries within the united nations are democratic. when you're not democratic, it helps to have a diversion, it helps to scapegoat other countries. and i think that's part of the psychology is just having a sort of -- a reliable way of changing the subject.

and that's what these countries have done over so many -- so many years. we have contested this, again, day in, day out. i was -- spearheaded the decision not to participate in durban ii, because it reaffirmed durban i, which was so problematic. we stood up against the goldstone report, against attempts to politicize and judge israel over the flotilla incident. in the human rights council -- which, as you know, we've joined in part to be within that institution to stand up for israel -- we have succeeded in cutting down the number of special sessions, cutting down the number of countries specific resolutions. but given, again what i said at the start, the fact that there is a standing agenda item for one country, and that is israel, and not for cuba and not for north korea and not for iran, just reflects a lack of seriousness and just how political and politicized this has become -- and unfair this has become.

>> i don't have another question, but i'll just conclude, mr. chair, by saying, you know, i think the blunt and outspoken part of you will really be pressed into service in this job. and i think the best ambassadors that we've had have been willing to do that. and it's issues like this double standard with respect to israel that really demand very blunt and outspoken american leadership. and i wish you well. >> thank you, sir. >> senator flake. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for the answers so far. i appreciate you coming by my office and the discussion. it was nice to discover we have a mutual interest in time spent in zimbabwe and writing on the subject too. and thanks for sending those

assembly and the security council. how can we, in the general assembly, have a better situation where more countries recognize that we?re friendly than we seem, i guess? thank you, senator. this issue of voting divergence is critical. it's been acutely frustrating. i will say, if you could look at the charts that show the trend lines, we're trending more positively than you would expect. i would say in the general assembly -- >> pretty low base, but yes. >> it's a low base, it is. i very much agree with that. i don't think the convergence rate is trending positively in the general assembly on israel,

however. and again, that's something that we have to fight every day to try to change. but with regard to other countries, it's acutely frustrating. i mean, some of it relates to my response to senator kaine's question, which is, you know, standing up to the united states can be a cheap and easy political win for a leader -- for a small country to show that they're not with us. but again and again, we see them voting against their interests. and in the case of those countries that are democratic -- either fully free or partly free we see them acting in defiance of the values that they are most proud of in their own countries. and that's the conversation, you know, i've certainly sought to have over the last four years with countries who vote en masse, as part of regional groupings, reflexively rather than thoughtfully. and again, we're nibbling away at it, but it is an urgent priority for any incoming official in new york.

and if i'm confirmed, getting countries to vote their interests and their values, getting them to see the importance of maintaining international peace and security, doing that has huge consequences for the united states, but it has huge consequences for these countries as well. taking advantage of the fact that a lot of, including several important african countries, are involved in u.n. peacekeeping to get their countries engaged in the politics in the countries where their troops and their police are deployed. so there are just a lot of disconnects, i think, between at least what we would perceive as beneficial for those countries and, as you suggest, how they have performed on various votes and we just have to keep fighting every day and be aggressive in our pursuit of convergence, not divergence.

>> on that last point, zimbabwe, a country that we're both very interested in, elections are scheduled july 31st, likely too soon to have any real prospect of free and fair elections or elections that mean anything. can you foresee a role of the u.n., a broader role than it is currently playing, in that situation? >> thank you, senator. i mean, that's certainly something we should look to. it has been very difficult for the united states, very difficult for united nations programs that zimbabwe most needs -- for instance, a human rights office, development assistance that is spread equally across the country irrespective of the politics of the recipients, et cetera -- the kinds of standards we would want to see as part of our assistance with the mugabe regime. it's just almost impossible to operate in that environment. and so i think, you know, the hope would be that in the wake

of the election and certainly with the passage of authority to new leadership that there's an opening to have a conversation about what an impactful u.n. presence would look like and how it could contribute to what has to happen in zimbabwe, which is a meaningful transition to democracy. and i would note -- and i know you're more familiar with this than i am -- but the civil society in zimbabwe is unbelievable. i mean, just they keep slogging along and battling it out, going to court, getting released from court, going on hunger strike, going again and again back at the regime, refusing to accept that zimbabwe can't achieve its promise. and, again, i think the united states has a critical role. they look to us for leadership. they have some friends in the u.n. system but they're now outliers. you know, friends like cuba and iran, et cetera, you know, are not credible.

so given that there's a moment of opportunity potentially upon us, i think we have to look at what programming could be helpful. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome and thank you for your continued service and advocacy on behalf of human rights and i'm glad you're able to correct the record on some of your past statements, speaking for myself and my colleagues who have never said anything that i later regretted or wanted to correct in the record. and i note your young son there, he has a future in the diplomatic corps if he's been able to sit quietly through this ordeal. i congratulate you on his -- there he is. could i -- in your testimony you called the failure of the u.n. security council failure to respond in syria a disgrace that history will judge harshly.

do you think that the security council will ever authorize an international military intervention in syria, certainly in the foreseeable future? thank you, senator, and thank you for all that you've done for me and my family. thank you for all you've done for syria. right now, the fact that the security council has not managed even to pass a condemnatory resolution, never mind economic sanctions -- to this point, not even anything on chemical weapons use, you know, i think i think we could start there in terms of where we would seek to move the russians. the russian position, as you know -- >> i got you. we got short -- i got about three or four questions. >> oh, please go ahead. >> so go ahead. the answer, i think, is not likely in the near future. is that --

>> that's probably better put. >> is that correct? i was struck by an article by anne-marie slaughter, a piece she published in the financial times that said that the article 52 of the u.n. charter could serve as a basis for international action in syria in the event that regional organizations like nato and the arab league notify the security council of their actions as required by article 54 but not necessarily seek approval. do you believe that article 52 of the u.n. charter could serve as a basis for international military intervention in syria by regional organizations? >> well, senator, as you know, the president's policy is to focus on all forms of assistance to the opposition, to build up the opposition in terms of the legal rationales. that's not something i feel equipped to weigh in on. >> i hope you'll look at that because that's specifically under your area, article 52 of the u.n. charter, because i

think with a hundred thousand people massacred we're going to have to look at every option that we possibly can. senator lindsay graham has, with the help of our senior -- our chairman and ranking member, as we've passed a couple of authorizations concerning iran, he's now authored with a large number of us a resolution that would -- by the senate or congress that would authorize the use of force on iran if iranian nuclear progress reached a point that the president has described as unacceptable. what do you think about that? >> well, sir, as somebody aspiring to go back into the executive branch it may not surprise you that i would want to ensure that the president had

the flexibility that he needed to make a judgment that he thought best on behalf of the american people. >> well, it gives him -- it authorizes him to use force. it doesn't -- in fact, it gives him flexibility. >> having not studied the authorization i probably shouldn't comment. >> well, maybe you could look at it -- >> happily. >> and for the record give us your opinion on that. i think it's very important because i don't think there's anyone who would argue that the iranians have proceeded undeterred from their pursuit of the ability to acquire and use nuclear weapons -- i think you would agree with that -- >> i -- >> which means that matters are probably going to come to a head, at least in the view of some experts, within six months to a year, you would agree. >> that's certainly what our assessments have shown. >> everybody has for you the cheapest commodity in this town and that is advice and so i will not exempt myself from that

privilege. the -- i've noted and admired many men and women who have served as our ambassador to the united nations and i agree that it's a very important position. the one i admire most is a woman named jeane kirkpatrick. i hope you will look at her record of service in the united nations. she took on -- she spoke truth to power. she took on the vested interests. she argued for budgetary restraint. she spoke up for the united states of america in a way that i think still many of us admire and revere her memory. so when you look at the record of your predecessors, as i have looked at mine, at my predecessors in the united states senate, i hope you will be instructed to some degree by her performance, which i think made all americans who had a very poor opinion of the united nations very proud of the role she played speaking for them in

the united nations. >> absolutely, sir. i actually got to know her a little bit as an intern in this town in the early 1990s when she was a forceful advocate on bosnia long after her service in new york and absolutely will study her legacy. >> well, i hope you will continue the work you've done in speaking up for human rights. we are about to see a middle east that is already imploding. you may be faced with issues before the united nations and the security council the likes of which we have not seen and so i hope that you -- i know that you will preserve your fundamental beliefs in the supremacy of the role of the united states in the world and our advocacy for the freedoms

that are so important to all of us. and so i look forward to having you go to work as soon as possible. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, sir. >> senator risch. >> thank you, madam chairman. ms. power, first of all, your work in idaho has not gone unnoticed and we thank you for that. it is greatly appreciated. thank you for coming to see me. and i -- you and i talked about a number of things. one of the things i'm concerned about is one of the matters that senator corker raised, and that is reform at the united nations. people in america are not happy with the growth and particularly with what seems to be this expanding reach. what seems to be this expanding the united nations plays an important role when it comes to peacekeeping, when it comes to nations being able to sit down and resolve their differences. but this continued growth and this continued reach in the areas that really are the sovereign concern of an individual nation bothers me and i think it bothers a lot of americans. what are your thoughts on that?

>> may i ask you to be more specific? if not peacekeeping, what do you have in mind in terms of ? >> well, i'm talking about just the continued growth of the size of it and its reach into areas i have one particular item in mind but i'm not going to raise it as it will probably divide the panel as we talk here. but it just -- this continual reach into matters that are sovereign concerns of individual nations is concern -- concerning. >> ok, well, let me if i could address maybe two dimensions of that, one the growth and then second, maybe treaties, u.n. treaties, which tend to raise sovereignty concerns, particularly in this body, yes. so in terms of the size, you mentioned peacekeeping and i appreciate your recognition, and we discussed this in our meeting as well, that peacekeeping can perform important service.

mali is a great example today of a mission that three years ago, if you'd said in 2013 are we going to have a peacekeeping mission in mali, we'd say, mali? why peacekeeping there at that time. and yet in the wake of the french intervention we cannot afford to squander the gains that have been made and to allow al-qaida to regain a foothold in that country. and again, the peacekeepers aren't going to be challenging al-qaida but they are going to be strengthening the malian armed forces, who hopefully then will have occasion or will be in a stronger position to hold off any further resurgence. so that's just one example of something that sort of comes into our plate because the world demands it. the iraq and afghanistan missions are much bigger now than they were five years ago -- the u.n. missions, that is, political missions. and of course it's in our interest to see those missions do important work, particularly in the wake of our withdrawal from iraq and as we draw down from afghanistan. the last thing we want to see after all of the sacrifices that

americans have made is those gains in terms of political reforms and political transition and the road to democracy, those gains squandered. so you know, that's the good side of the growth. >> let me ask a little more -- >> pardon me. ok. >> been an advocate for any areas for the u.n. to expand into that they're not already into. i don't mean geographic areas. i mean issue concerns. >> again -- >> is their reach broad enough i guess is what i meant. >> i think there -- ok, two issues. one is, are there places the u.n. should go where they haven't gone? nothing is coming to mind -- >> i'm not talking about places. i'm talking -- >> no, no, sorry, i meant thematic areas. then there's -- the u.n. touches so many social and economic development, peace and security issues, but there's plenty, and i would cite corruption as one, where there's a u.n. convention on corruption. but the modalities of actually

tackling corruption in countries around the world are not as strong as i think they could be. and so there's an example where there's reach but not necessarily substance, or sufficient substance. and so those are the kinds of gaps -- if -- rather than -- so there's two forms of cuts that one would seek. one is, is there just extraneous stuff being done that was started 50 years ago for one reason and persist today for no good reason, that of course we would need to -- if it started 10 years ago or five years ago. and that's where we draw down peacekeeping missions, when the original function, the original motivation for those peacekeeping missions has gone away or has been addressed. and then there is beyond shrinkage, are there things the u.n. is doing that it should be doing but that it's not doing well, where we increase effectiveness and not just efficiencies. and so i think both have to be an area of emphasis, but my message to you, you know, which i hope i've expressed forcefully, is that the american people are making cuts. this congress is, and this

president are negotiating how to get our fiscal house in order. it is not tenable for the united nations to exist immune from that conversation. i don't think it has, in the sense that i think the administration has really pushed it to tighten its belt, and i think that's where we found you know, nearly half a billion -- more than half a billion dollars in savings in peacekeeping just in the last year -- >> let me touch on just a couple of -- because my time is running out here. first of all, as senator mccain said, advice is rampant in this town and i want to give you mine. i hope as you go to the united nations you will take the view that america is unique and exceptional and we're a unique and exceptional people. we need to hold our heads high, we need to be proud, we need to not apologize for things that we do. we are leaders in this world. we need to be leaders in this world and i certainly hope that when you go to the united nations you will convey that to

them, that we are a proud people and we do good things. if you look around the world, the world wouldn't be what it is today without the leadership of america, when it comes to quality of life or to anything else. finally, let me say one of my concerns, as we talked about, is israel. and there's a lot of us -- in fact, senator rubio yesterday or today dropped the bill on united nations transparency and accountability reform act. i don't know if you're familiar with that or not. there's a number of us that are co-sponsors of it, and it has some really good reform provisions in it. and particularly it has to do -- one of the provisions, one of the several provisions has to do with withholding united states contributions to any u.n. entity that grants full membership to the palestinian authority. as you know, there's been a push to do that in some of the operations of the united nations to include the palestinian authority in the absence of a negotiated peace settlement with israel.

we want to see that, i'm sure you want to see that, everyone wants to see that. one of the ways i think we need to do that is to insist that the u.n. -- that the u.s. withhold contributions to any u.n. entity that would grant full membership to the palestinian authority. do you have any thoughts on that? >> thank you, sir. first, on your first point on advice, i've spent my whole career standing up for american values and -- >> thank you. >> i will not apologize for america. american leadership is a light to the world. couldn't agree more. second, we need to deter the palestinians in any way we can that will -- and we need to get their attention. they have held off, but as you know they have made clear their previous intention to join very few u.n. agencies in the wake of the general assembly vote last fall. the one caution i would issue -- and again, our concern is -- we are completely aligned on preventing the palestinians from seeking unilateral actions at the united nations. the one caution is that when we are out of u.n. agencies, which

would be the consequence ultimately of de-funding u.n. agencies, we can't stand up for israel, we can't stand up for american values, we're not there leading on a range of other u.s. interests. and so i just think we have to find the right balance. >> that's the decision the agency has got to make, if it goes ahead with that type of proposal. and i think we ought to put them in that position where if they're going to make that judgment, they're going to live with the consequences of it. so thank you for your thoughts on that, thank you for your candor on that. time's up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator barrasso. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to follow up a little bit of what senator risch just talked about. first, congratulations to you and to your family, and i appreciate you coming by to visit on issues. i want to talk about the u.s. arms trade treaty. when secretary kerry came before this committee in january of this year, i asked him during his confirmation process if he would support any treaty that allows the united nations to establish and maintain a gun registry on law-abiding u.s. gun owners. he stated in writing that we will not support a treaty that impacts domestic arms transfers

or creates a u.n. gun registry. i have that u.n. arms treaty here and article 12 is called record- keeping. it encourages countries to maintain records on the importation of conventional arms, including small arms. it specifically requests that the states maintain records on the quantity, the value, the model, the type and the end user. these records, it says, must be maintained for a minimum of 10 years. article 13, quote -- titled reporting, that requires signatory states to issue annual reports to the u.n. on all imports and exports. so the question i have is, do you believe that this framework could lead to a u.n. gun registry? >> thank you, senator. let me start just by saying again that we in this administration, and certainly i, if i have the privilege of going

to new york, would never do anything that would infringe on u.s. sovereignty or that would interfere in any way with american law. second amendment rights are paramount. american law is paramount, the constitution is paramount. again, in terms of what the u.n.'s designs are in taking that treaty forward, i'm not myself familiar with those. i think what's important is that secretary kerry has given you the assurance that nothing the administration puts forward with regard to that treaty would ever contemplate a gun registry in this country, or our participation in a gun registry. so i think that's the key point is irrespective of the provisions that you have pointed to, the united states in dealing with this body in any future engagement on the arms trade treaty would never, again, allow anything in that treaty to interfere with american law or american practice. >> ok. so then, the simple question would be, do you support the united nations of establishing and maintaining a gun registry on law-abiding u.s. gun owners? >> no.

>> the answer's no. thank you. following up on also what some other members have asked about in terms of the u.n. budget, reporting to congress -- in 2009, 2010 the office of management and budget provided congress with a list of total u.s. contributions to the united nations from the state department as well as 18 other u.s. departments and agencies. and i believe this information is valuable for all citizens. i think it's important for everyone to understand how the u.s. is spending taxpayer money at the united nations. i don't want to quiz you on the specifics of the budget, but i would ask you, do you support transparency of u.s. funding? >> i do, sir. >> and support the congress and american people receiving a report from omb on an annual basis on u.s. contributions provided to the u.n.? >> full transparency. i think to sustain support for, again, the generous contributions that the american people make, you have to provide transparency. >> the other question -- now, you raised the issue of sovereignty. this is -- your position is very important -- could you just talk

a little bit on how you plan on preserving and protecting american sovereignty within the united nations? >> well, one starts, of course, sir, by asserting again and again the importance of american sovereignty. it also involves protecting the interests and projecting the values of the united states within the united nations when countries seek to judge us and take steps, any steps that would interfere, again, with domestic law or domestic practice, to stand up against that, and to fight for our laws to be ascendant as they are within this country. >> can you talk a little about your commitment to challenging the actions of the united nations that run contrary to our standards, our values and our interests?

>> well, i think there are maybe at least two dimensions to that one, on the mismanagement side, that certainly runs contrary to our aspirations for how we govern ourselves, and then, again on the values side, whether it's corruption or those countries that trample human dignity or that stand with human rights abusers, we have to use the bully pulpit and be forceful in contesting that wherever we can and also creatively thinking about what other tools we can do beyond speaking out -- what tools we could put in place in order to halt those practices. >> can you talk a little bit about what measures you might use in assessing whether or not to veto a specific u.n. resolution -- just how you would think about those things. >> obviously, any discussion or decision about using the veto would be something that one would have in the context of the interagency and so forth, but we will not allow anything to go through the security council that we deem a threat to u.s. national security interests.

and that's, i think, a broad standard but a critical one. >> i wanted to follow up a little bit with senator risch on the palestinian authority -- [inaudible} -- a number of written questions that i'll submit. i'm just wondering how you're going to make it clear to the palestinians that their actions at the united nations will have serious implications and consequences. >> well, i know from having worked this issue for the last two years that we make it clear in every bilateral encounter we have with the palestinians that it will have serious consequences. moreover, it will have serious consequences not just to the u.s.- palestinian bilateral relationship but to the peace process which the palestinians have invested in and which all of us have an interest in seeing bear fruit. i think there's legislation up here as well that would impose direct symbolic and financial consequences in terms of the palestinian office in some of the funding, and the palestinians have been made well aware of those consequences as well. >> thank you.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator paul. >> congratulations on your nomination, and thanks for coming today. was the recent military takeover in egypt a coup? was the recent military takeover >> thank you, senator. as you know, i -- and as we discussed, i share the president's concern and your concern over the seizure of power from president morsi, the suspension of the constitution, the arrests, et cetera. on the legal matter and on the review that the administration is carrying out, i just don't feel equipped to comment, not now serving in the administration and not having access to full facts, and not being part of the review. >> ok. so for the record, you're unsure if it's a coup. >> i don't feel equipped to comment. >> very politic of your answer. you stated that whenever a government is killing its citizens, it's morally incumbent, i presume, for us to intervene. in pakistan, they kill their citizens for certain types of speech.

does that mean we should intervene in pakistan? >> thank you, senator. and the quotation that you read surprises me because that is not language that i would normally use. but let me refine my own view, if i could. "intervene" is a word that can mean a range of things. when you speak out in a country to contest gross violations of human rights or mass atrocities, that's a form of intervention in the sense that you're in a way meddling in the internal affairs of a state on behalf of human rights. economic sanctions are a form of response. i think in the face of gross violations of human rights -- mass atrocity, genocide -- and this is, again, something we discussed yesterday -- we have a vast array of tools in the toolbox, assistance -- >> i guess my specific question then would be, are you willing today to speak out against the

practice of killing people for making religious statements that are objectionable to certain religions? >> absolutely, sir. i have spent my whole life speaking out about such -- >> ok. because i mean, that's part of it -- is i think we have become so timid with certain of these you know, at the very least, we can call them intolerances -- but basically killing people for religious speech i think is something we shouldn't be ashamed of speaking out about. i'm not proposing we invade pakistan to tell them how to live their -- to lead their lives and their country, but i am saying that not only should we speak out about it, we should make our aid contingent upon it. do you think any aid to these countries should be contingent upon behavior? >> well, sir, again, as we discussed, i think every tool in the toolbox needs to be reviewed, and depending on the circumstances -- it's hard a little bit to speak in the abstract -- but we need to use the leverage we have at our disposal consistent with our other interests, because we do retain other interests, of course, with these countries as well.

and -- but certainly, examine anything we can do to deter such horrible practices. >> when we intervene in countries, who gets to make that decision -- the president or the congress? >> thank you. well, let me just say that -- and i hope the last few weeks, that the past is prologue in a way -- if i am confirmed, i would benefit enormously if i could maintain the relationships that i've feel like i've begun to forge here these last weeks, and continue these conversations. so consultation is indispensable, i cannot do this job, even if confirmed, without you. >> congress or the president decides whether we -- [inaudible} -- >> as you know, there's a -- >> intervene -- >> long-standing debate between the executive and the legislature that has crossed republican and democratic administrations about authorizations for the use of force. and all i can say is that i promise to consult with you extensively at all times.

>> sounds like a non-response response. but you know, the thing is is that these are important questions. the vast majority of the public is not in favor of arming islamic rebels who in all likelihood will be killing christians in syria. the vast majority of the american public is not in favor of giving arms to people who are basically aligned with al-qaida in syria. the vast majority of the public doesn't believe that we're going to have a way of knowing who our friends and who our foes are. we can't even tell who our friends are in the afghan army, which is a much more stable situation than syria. so i find it incredible to think that we will. but the thing is, is those are those can be honest disagreements among people who say, oh, absolutely we can say who the good people are, and we're only going to give weapons to good people. i find it a ridiculous argument,

but i think it's an argument that some could make. but the thing is, is i don't think there's a valid argument for fighting secret wars without the permission of congress. and basically, that's where we are right now. i think it's also untenable to the american public for the administration to say, well, you know, we're going to go over there and we're going to arm them, we're not really going to try so much to win but we really would like to get to stalemate so we could get the russians to negotiate. and i think that's really not, you know, very tenable either or not too exciting for american gis to, you know, who might lose lives and limbs, you know, should we be stuck in another war in the middle east, to be too excited about this that, well, our goal is stalemate. and you know, i think that people -- and i think you have noble purposes in wanting to eradicate human rights abuses around the world, but realize that, you know, war is a messy business and you know, people do lose their lives -- you know, people you know. you know, a young sergeant in the neighboring town to mine lost both legs and an arm in iraq. and so these aren't geopolitical games and they aren't things that we can say, oh, we're going to make the world, you know, this great groovy place where nobody has any human rights abuses, but we're going to do it through war. and so my caution is to be

careful about what we wish for and to be careful about the belief that even though we are a good people and we want good things -- and i think you're a good person, you want good things -- that in all likelihood, as you do this, there are unintended consequences. and as we slip into this new war in syria, if our trainers that are over there -- i don't know how many there are, but the newspaper says several hundred trainers are over there that are americans -- if they get killed, are we going to -- you know, what's the typical response? it'll be mine, i'll be mad at the people who killed them, but then it will be the response that we send more soldiers and then we send platoons and regiments and generals. and then all of a sudden, we're in another decade-long war, you know, which people say they want to fight to stalemate. so i would just say that even though noble intentions, i think, are yours, be very wary of what intervention means when we intervene. and it's one thing to send bread, but it's another thing to send guns. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator. i did have some final questions and then we;ll hopefully let you go.

you've been resilient here for two hours. and your son is doing exceptionally well. it's amazing what food can do, huh? let me ask you, first of all, when you get confirmed -- and i believe you will be -- i;d like to look at our charge and mandate at the u.n. on the question of cyprus -- the division of cyprus and where we're at in that regard. and i believe the cypriots have a new president and some new initiatives, even in the midst of economic challenges. and i would like to see us be able to be more vigorous in our engagement through what is an ongoing u.n. effort to end the division of a country for quite some time. so i hope you will be able to do that. >> absolutely, sir. i take it that the special representative, downer, is hoping to restart talks in october. and it feels like a ripe

opportunity. >> now, these are two generic questions, but they're important, i think, is genocide, genocide only when it is convenient to call it so, or is genocide, genocide when it violates the convention and punishment of the crime genocide? >> i've written, as you know, a great deal about this. i think the genocide convention is a worthy instrument. i would note that political groups are excluded from the convention as a potentially targeted group by virtue of the role of the soviet union in the drafting of the convention. so it's not a perfect instrument, but i think it's an agreed upon tenet of international law today. >> well, let's move the convention aside, then, for a moment. is genocide, genocide when all of the facts that we observe would lead to a conclusion that a genocide has taken place, or is that only when it is convenient to acknowledge it as genocide?

>> the former. the facts should drive the analysis. >> and if the facts drive the analysis, then we should call that set of actions -- whether historical in nature or present, god forbid -- in reality a genocide? >> i believe so, yes. >> is violation of human rights a violation of human rights, depending upon where it takes place or is it universal? >> universal, sir. >> i think you understand why i asked you those questions. and i hope that your past history in this regard -- even in the context of understanding the new role that you'll play -- will not diminish your fire for making the case internally why genocide should be called genocide when the historical facts attain to themselves to that standard.

all right, with that, senator corker, any final remarks? >> i do. i want to thank you for having the hearing. and i want to thank ms. power for coming before us. there are very few people nominated to positions like this that have so many people in advance giving strong opinions about your service. and as i mentioned on the front end, sometimes our nominees are more interesting than others. you, no doubt, are one of the more interesting nominees. and i very much appreciate the i very much appreciate the conversation we had in the office. you have handled yourself exceptionally well today. conversations, i know nothing pre-meeting you a few weeks ago first hand, i think you're going to be a significant and positive force at the united nations, something

that certainly our nation and the world needs at this time from the world's greatest nation. theppen to be, based on interaction and the wave of answered questions today, exceptionally excited about the fact that you're going to be in this position and i hope that you will continue in your service along the lines that the answers were today and the meeting we had in our office, and i think you will. need very strong representation and leadership at the united nations, especially today. my sense is that you're going to be an exceptional advocate for our country and for causes around the world that we care about. i am thankful that you're going to be in this position very soon. getting to know your family. thank you very much.

letter written to myself and senator corker from 30 different individuals representing a variety of political ideology at past history in the foreign service field and support of ms. power's nomination. i ask that be included in the record. without objection, so ordered. that 5:00 today is close for any questions submitted for the record. i urge you to answer the questions as quickly as possible. it is the chair's intention to an executive on calendar meeting for next tuesday. that will depend on answers to questions being submitted in a timely fashion. hopefully we can get you seated while we are still the president of the security council and get you to work. with the thanks of the committee, this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] 2013]

>> former white house press correspondent helen thomas has died. she covered every president since dwight eisenhower. she worked for such news organizations as hurt newspapers and united press international, where she was named the first female white house bureau manager. overstatements she made concerning israel and palestine. .he was 92 years old -

i decided that he was a delicious subject for a biography when it dawned on me that he had been at abraham lincoln's bedside after his assassination and the bedside of william mckinley in 1901. when i opened the archive, i realized what a subject it was. hay, his life really has two book ends at either end of his biographical shelf. use abraham lincoln's private secretary, lived in the white he was abraham lincoln's private secretary, lived in the white house for four years. on the other end this life, he served not only under mckinley

but teddy roosevelt. when you look deeper, you realize that all of the chapters waretween from the civil through to the beginning of the 20th century, hay is a presence in every one of those chapters. -- aregerprints all or all over the pages. on the lifeaferro of john hay. sunday 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> jackie was raised as her mother was raised. she was the same kind of wife and hostess. the home, the children, the entertaining with style and panache. that was her heritage, and she did it in the white house. years, thejohnson whole world erupted like volcanoes and we had the women

who went to work and got divorces and demanded equal rights. we had flower children and we had free love and free sex. it was great for the young. i missed all that. [laughter] the whole world changed and it became a whole new concept of women. i think mrs. clinton today represents the new woman. >> as we continue our weversation on first ladies, talk about the role of the first lady and how how it has changed along with the nation. monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> members of the senate foreign relations committee heard testimony from two officials on ways to improve security at embassies, following last september's consulate attack in benghazi, libya which killed the u.s. ambassador to libya and

three other americans. this is an hour and 25 minutes.

>> we will come to order. ensuring real focus is the security of our missions abroad and the safety of our foreign service personnel. that is always been and will remain a priority of this committee. having said that, i hope to have the support of my republican colleagues for the embassy security act i have introduced named for chris stevens, sean smith, tyrone woods and glenn doherty, who gave their lives in service to the nation in benghazi on september 11. the lessons we learned from the tragedies in nairobi, and rl salaam and benghazi are emblematic of the sicker -- security concerns we face. we have studied what went wrong.

we have looked back. now it is time to look forward and do what needs to be done to prevent another tragedy in the future. , there were 29 recommendations made to state and congress. while we must do our part in overseeing state's implementation, we must also do our part to provide the resources and necessary authorizations to ensure full implementation. we must make whatever investments are necessary to protect our embassies and missions. are not anments extravagance, they are not simply another budget item. we must strike the proper balance between sealing off vulnerabilities in high threat areas and continuing to conduct vigorous and effective diplomacy that serves the national interest. we can never have absolute security in an increasingly dangerous world unless we

hermetically seal our diplomats in steel tanks. security loan is not our objective. -- alone is not our objective. we need to address the construction of new embassies that meet security needs, and do what we can to ensure existing high risk posts where we need our people to represent our interests and where new construction is not an option. the arms stated it clearly -- arb stated it clearly, the solution requires a sustained commitment from congress to support state department needs which in total constitute a small percentage both of the full national budget and that's been for national security. one overall conclusion in this report is that congress must do challengeo meet this and provide necessary resources to the state department to address security risks and meet

mission imperatives. the serious and sustained commitment, taking the lessons we have learned into action. total security is next to impossible. disengagement is clearly not an option. the solution must be multifaceted. it must include enhanced physical security around our embassies and ensure that our diplomats are equipped with language skills and security training necessary to keep them safe when they come out from behind the embassy walls to do their jobs. it also requires us to ensure that the persons protecting our missions are not selected simply because they are the cheapest available force. where conditions require enhanced security, this bill states flexibility to contract guard forces based on the best value rather than lowest bidder. people meansdi

accountable. when an employee exhibits , thatsfactory leadership has serious security consequences. the secretary must have the ability to act. this bill gives greater flexibility of disciplinary actions in the future. forlso provides funding arabic light which training, construction, construction of a foreign affairs security languagecenter -- training, construction, construction of a foreign affairs security training center. instead of piecing together our training facilities, we streamline them in a single facility that can provide comprehensive training to more people. the bill requires detailed reports from the department on its progress in implementing all of the recommendations made by the accountability review board

and specifically requires the every boardingof of security at high risk, high threat facilities. fail toil to act, if we address these issues, there will be another incident. the responsibility is ours and the failure to act will be ours as well. this is a time for solutions. the safety of those who serve the nation abroad is in our hands. let me turn to my distinguished ranking colleague, who has worked with us to have this hearing, senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your efforts to focus on the issue of embassy security. the way you conduct our efforts bipartisan way is much appreciated and i want to thank the state department for bringing forth the accounts of witnesses who carry the weight on this issue that matters to all of us. thank you both for being here. have a procedural issue

occurring at 11:00 that is semi- important. i may be stepping in and out on the phone here before i can vote. i want to thank you both. express a couple of concerns. i don't imagine there is anyone here who doesn't respect what our foreign service officers around the world do. we know especially after what happened in libya, it just highlights the threat they are under. we know threats are taking place all over the world. the state department has requested funding for numbers of new facilities that take many years to build, and at the same thatwe have people today are under a lot of duress now and candidly have some security issues. i do hope as we move along we will figure out a way to balance

between some of the longer-term projects that candidly are not under serious threat with the short-term needs we have. building ae focus on training facility, which i know is very expensive. we are aware that there are maybe ways of doing that require that does not hundreds of thousands of dollars to build it. i certainly don't want to rehash the past. i think the chairman knows we have tried to move away from some of the things that have happened in the past. i would like for somebody to explain to me at some point, we did have this a.r.b. we have four employees who were involved in some reporting on the a.r.b. they are still unpaid leave and nothing has occurred. i would like to understand at some point how we bring closure .o that issue thank you both for being here and thank you for your service.

i hope in a bipartisan way we will move ahead in a way that does the immediate things that are necessary to make sure that our foreign service officers are safe. thank you. >> i'm pleased to introduce bill miller, deputy assistant secretary of state. we also have with us gregory assistanting secretary for diplomatic security and director of the diplomatic security service. these two official is set at the nexus of policy -- officials said at the nexus of policy development -- sit at the nexus of policy development. with our thanks for both of you being here, we will begin with your opening statements. your full statements will be included in the record. synthesize at around five minutes or so. >> thank you, mr. chairman,

ranking member corker. i want to thank you for your invitation to appear here today, to discuss the future of embassy and diplomatic security. we appreciate and share your commitment to enhanced security, as evidenced in the recently introduced chris stephens, sean myth, tyrone woods, glenn doherty security and personal .rotection act of 2013 the attacks on the u.s. diplomatic facilities last september and subsequent attacks this year against the somatic facilities and personnel remind us every day that the world is a dangerous place for diplomacy. unfortunately, this is nothing new. being on the front lines of u.s. national security has always been inherently risky. we strive to mitigate this risk to the maximum extent possible. the fact remains that we will not, even with the most willing and capable government partners

-- as we have in many places around the world -- we will not stop terrorists or extremists from attacking us in every instance. we must carefully balance this risk against the value of pursuing our national interests in these various countries. we have learned some very hard and painful lessons out of benghazi. we are already acting on those lessons. the state department carries on the business of the american government and its people in 280 four locations, many in challenging security environments where key u.s. national security interests are at stake. the department works everyday to protect our people and missions by constantly assessing threats and our security posture overseas. the bureau of diplomatic security advances american byerest in foreign-policy protecting people, property, and information.

we do this by maintaining a security program that includes analyzing the threats, managing the security situation, and mitigating the risks. constantly researching, threats. and -- this information, along with trend analysis and case studies of political violence, terrorist acts and crime form the basis of the threat assessments we use that are provided to department senior managers to support the operational and policy decision- making process. from this analysis, we determined what additional security measures, whether short or long-term, should be taken to mitigate the potential threats against our diplomatic assets. from analysts and washington, d.c. monitoring threats against our post to our regional security officers abroad programsthe security

at these posts, we strive to provide the most secure platform for conducting american diplomacy. building on the recommendations of the independent benghazi accountability review board, the assessment teams that were sent considerableown experience and expertise, the department is diligently working to improve the way we protect at ourlomats not only highest thread posts, but all of our facilities around the world. yours in large part to generous support in 2013 and the continuing resolution, progress is well underway. pursuant to the recommendations of the independent benghazi a.r.b., we are training more u.s. foreign affairs community personnel to deal with high threats and high risk environments through our foreign affairs counter threat course. tacticalpanding d.s. training courses and incorporating elements of that training into other d.s. courses

so that rather -- we have a trained array of agents in various environments overseas. we are hiring 151 new security professionals this next fiscal , many of whom will serve at or provide support to our high threat, high risk posts. we are working very closely with the department of defense to expand the marine security guard program as well as to enhance availability of forces to threats.o we recently worked with dod and the u.s. marine corps to elevate personal security, security we provide for our people overseas, as a primary vision of the marine force security guards. this enhances the department possibility to supplement the host government's measures in

fulfilling its obligations under international law to protect u.s. diplomats and consular property and personnel. the increased security finds you have provided will also support our colleagues at the bureau of overseas buildings operations in providing facilities for additional marine security guard attachments as well as the construction of new facilities and security upgrade projects at some of our most critical posts. the bureau of diplomatic security realizes our work in securing our posts and protecting our people will never be done. we take great tried in our compliments. -- pride in our accomplishments. we look forward to working with congress on embassy security. i recognize the my opening remarks are brief because i wanted to allow plenty of time for questions. i will be glad to take those questions after you have heard from my colleague, bill miller.

he will provide his or marks at this point. -- remarks at this point. . chairmanorning, menendez, ranking member corker, and distinguished members. thank you for your invitation to appear here today. i appreciate and share your commitment to enhanced embassy security, as evidenced by your embassy introduced security and personal protection act of 2013. threats and attacks to our diplomatic arsenal have been a concern since inception of embassy security almost 100 years ago. to counter these global threats, the office of the chief special 1916. was formed in it was not until 1985, in the aftermath of the beirut bombings, the diplomate security became a bureau within the state department. the ds mandate was solidified

with the antiterrorism act of 1986. at the same time, i was preparing to leave the marine corps, where i had my position as a marine corps officer. i wanted to continue my service to the u.s. government. the mission of embassy security and personnel protection of 2013 -- careerdevoted my 26 year to fulfilling the mission of d.s., providing a safe and secure environment to the conduct of foreign-policy. i was a part of the secretary of state's protective detail. i have served assignments. as the chief of counterintelligence investigations. i have managed security programs as the regional security officer, also known as r.s.o. in iraq, pakistan, jerusalem,

philippines, and indonesia. i would like to highlight a few of my accomplishments. as an rso, i don't daily with possible terrorists -- delta daily with possible terrorist acts -- dealt daily with possible terrorist acts. when the united states returned to iraq in 2003, i was asked to serve as the first rso and manage the volatile security environment as we reestablished our diplomatic residence. most recently overseas, i was the rso in cairo, egypt during the arab spring. it's an experience that the forms -- informs my security decisions. on our012, the attacks facilities in libya, tunisia, egypt, and sudan, the department reviewed it security posture and created my position.

along with providing a staff of security professionals to support high threat, high risk posts. the department assessed our diplomatic missions worldwide and weight criteria to determine which posts are designated as high threat, high risk. there are 27 posts that fall under this designation. this designation is not a static process, and the list will be reviewed frequently. i threat, high risk designations will shift and missions will be added or deleted from this category. i lead overseas security operations in these high risk posts around the world. records strategic and operational planning and drives innovation. we continue to work closely with the regional bureaus to ensure that everyone has visibility of the security threats.

i am responsible for evaluating, managing, and mitigating the security threats as well as directing resource requirements at high threat missions. i closely follow developments, continually assess our security posture, and take all possible steps to mitigate threats and vulnerabilities. while the department has created a position for high threat, high risk post designations, we must continue to focus on embassy security worldwide. i coordinate closely with my colleagues in diplomatic security throughout the department, and the interagency to ensure that the threats and risk mitigation strategies are shared globally. we can never truly eliminate all the risks facing our dedicated personnel working overseas to advance u.s. interests. we place the highest priority on the security of our personnel and will continue to take the steps necessary, which in some instances include extraordinary measures to

provide for their safety. i would like to thank you again for the opportunity to build -- appear before the committee today. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you both for your testimony. let me start the first round of questions. i've heard from some of my colleagues that suggests that what we need is greater oversight at state, but we don't need any money. is, can you under the existing budget, with no additional revenues, protect throughout the world, and particularly at high risk posts, the lives of those who are assigned to the diplomatic corps representing us worldwide? senator, thank you for going right to the heart of what is really important to us in many

ways, giving us the resources to address this. two parts to this answer. resolutionntinuing level of funding, plus the generosity of congress under the increased security proposal i believe it's us the proper level of resources -- it gives us a proper level of resources we can .tilize effectively now this year, our 2014 budget both ofwhich roles those pots of money into our request as well -- that amount of money gives us the amount of money to move forward and do the things we need to do. the second part of that question is, as all of us has mentioned, we cannot guarantee that we are going protect every single person because we are working in highly dangerous areas in many countries. that level of funding, resources

combined with the types of actions that we are taking gives us a level of confidence that we have adequate and appropriate resources to address the types of threats that we need to address. it doesn't mean that we're going levels of security across the board -- were going to prioritize where we put our resources. technical equipment, where we build the new embassies. we will have places where we have lower levels of resources. is, if i'm trying to get i zeroed out your account in the next year's budget, what would ?ou do over whatdidn't roll you described as a largess of congress, what would you do? >> we would prioritize very heavily. >> but you're not going to be

able to secure people across the globe. if i cut it in half, what would you do? >> that would cause a reassessment of where we could actually put people, sir. i don't think we would be able to stay in the highest threat locations where the u.s. national interests are most important. identifiedthe a.r.b. -- it is number 10 of the recommendations -- identify $2.2 billion as an appropriate current funding level for the capital security cost-sharing fygram, which the presidents amount.mended this it was based on analysis of the a.r.b. of what your challenges are, what your needs are, what you can realistically administer over a period of time.

is that a fair statement? >> yes. >> from a security standpoint, do you have a sense of how many new facilities are needed, particularly in high threat, high risk locations? the high threat list of 27 countries, we have a certain amount of them that have gotten new facilities, but there still are about 15 of those facilities that we don't have the proper level of what we call buildings. there are other places around the world where we don't have those facilities. 2000, after the bombings in nairobi, we made a calculation which we stand to to this day. we needed approximately 175 new facilities around the world to be brought up to the highest level of security standards.

in the past 13 years, we have constructed about 80 to 90 of those facilities. 19881998 until 1992 -- until 1992, we constructed two of those facilities. we would like to put new facilities that meet glass standards, have the proper level of standoff as mandated by congress, and have the level of protection we seek for people overseas. >> what is the factors that require construction of a new facility versus a security upgrade on existing facilities? is that infactor many places around the world, we don't have facilities that have set back. we cannot retrofit many of our buildings to withstand blasts or direct attack without the ability to move to a new andtion, acquire setback build a facility facility that meets the blast standards. >> where new construction is not

an option because of the inability to either secure land, find a suitable location for other reasons -- how does the risktment seek to mitigate at high risk facilities? >> many of those locations, we have withdrawn our families. we have cut down and moved our staffing levels to only personnel we absolutely need. we worked closely with host governments in many cases and ask them to close off streets around our embassies so we can try to maintain some setback. many of them have done that for several years, but also look to us eventually to move our facilities so they can reopen their streets. we work closely in training our personnel and trying to train host country forces in anti- terrorism capabilities. reallyl one where we faced with facilities that do not meet our standards, we work with the host government to try to increase our setback, put up

additional barriers, and make sure we have only the people necessary at the posts we need. , money is a consideration here in terms of your ability to say to this committee, we are doing as best as we can in order to secure our people across the globe. >> i could not say it better. absolutely. when we look at new embassy construction, i understand it is prioritized on the basis of security. is that correct? primary driver is security. we provide a list of the overseas building office of our highest priorities. within that list, obtaining real estate and property deals and building a facility are long- range and very difficult in

certain places. mobile has certain flexibility .o. has certain flexibility. we reiterated that we want them to look at our highest threat areas. find 30 years of trying to land for a new facility in beirut and start construction of a new facility, we believe we're going going to be successful in annex couple of years. it looks like we have a land deal and were going to be able to replace the facility in beirut that we have been trying to replace for many, many years. >> for those of us who are not acronym proficient, o.b.o. is? >> the office of overseas building operations. >> thank you both for coming here. the chairman has asked the line of questions that i expected he would. when he had the first hearing

with the leadership that put , they were. immediately talking about money. it seems like whenever there is a problem, that is the first place we go. we may need to look at that great as a look at your plans, i know you currently have one point $4 billion. you have asked for $800 million billion.1.4 you have asked for $800 million more. we haveplaces where construction underway, the new embassy will not be ready for another six years. there is a lot of money being spent in places that, candidly, the security issues are not necessarily urgent like we have in some of the places i mentioned earlier, pakistan and sudan. me that from the standpoint of the immediate security issues that are personal has and all of us, including you wanting them to be

are notr priorities aligned with what it is we are hoping to do for our outstanding foreign service officers. i wish you would understand to that. >> i appreciate the point you're making. , on an many ways everyday basis, we are trying to address the immediate security concerns through programs like increased training of our personnel and our officers. lessons we learned from benghazi , such as how do we increase our fire safety awareness and how do .e provide countermeasures in those places, where we cannot get new facilities, we are doing security upgrades and working with host governments the best we can. while we are doing the immediate and short-term needs a we need to be addressing, we're asking for the ability to address the

long-term needs so that as we move forward in the future we put ourselves overall in a better position. in 1997, our embassies in dar el rated asd nairobi work low threat posts. we did not know we would be seeing the phenomenon of terrorism working outside of the small middle east number of posts we were mostly concerned with. we know that global terrorism is exactly that, global. we do not know where we will be a decade from now. we did not foresee the challenges we would be facing through the middle east. answer issther -- what we are addressing the short-term, immediate needs, we also need to address the long- term needs so we put ourselves

in a better position. when we look at our facilities back from a vulnerability standpoint, we said that we probably need 170 five new facilities. the facility and offload is not oslo doesetback -- in not have any setbacks. i hope to be able to replace facilities even in countries like that as we go along for the future. >> is the answer yes or no? this $800 million, are you going to use it to deal with some of the immediate issues? >> yes, sir. were going to try to address our immediate issues and long-term issues. it is a combination of both. our immediate issues come first. we sent out combined state department and military teams to look at our highest threat level posts in the aftermath of benghazi.

we have dedicated an immense amount of resources to trying to upgrade even further those places we have on our high threat list and continue to do that. >> what about the training facility? i have received calls from folks, other senators. training now takes place in facilities that are already as i understand -- i have not visited them personally ahead at ad we go time when we need capital to harden facilities, to deal with longer-term needs you are talking about -- why would we be expending so much money to build a new training facilities when those needs are being taken care of in other, existing facilities? >> thank you for that question. this question is very close to my heart. we are currently using a leased that is on weekends a

racetrack facility in west virginia. week. it five days a 2005n train approximately hundred foreign service officers a year in what we call fact 2500 foreign service officers a year in what we call fact training. firearms,hem in basic how to make weapons safe, first aid training. we expose them to explosives so the first time they hear a bomb going off they can understand if they have survived it, what their next responsibility is. deal with themselves and deal with others in first aid. this level of fact training we have found through the years has definitely saved lives overseas and prepared our people to serve in the environments we are sending them. that 2300 people i

can train per year does not come close, does not even meet the number of people we have had our high threat posts alone. we have certain of our high threat posts where we can only give our people a four-hour online course and say, please take this course. the capacity of the current facility we are leasing in west virginia cannot meet our training needs. our long-term goal, given where we are putting people out overseas, is to train every single foreign service officer every five years on the types of hard skills, security training we believe foreign service officers need. are adultses, they family members as well. the current facility does not meet our requirements, does not even meet our highest threat level requirements, and is a leased facility that at some point may not be available to us. put in oneing to place, close to where we have

our partners, marine corps, military, intelligence community and rest of the foreign service training apparatus, we are seeking to build a hard skills training center where we can put 8000 to 10,000 people a year through this type of training. we believe that would give us the ability, in addition to hardening our facilities, training our people before they go overseas. we talked at a 30,000 foot level here about capital expenditures. i know we're going to be in much more detail between our staffs. we talked a little bit about training. i understand how important that is. we plan to get into more details with you. the last piece is, you require people within the state department to execute. i know we have had a situation where the state department has reviewed functions.

we have had four people that have been put on leave and are still being paid. feel that there is a degree of lack of accountability , to put it nicely. i wonder if you might address that also. you build great facilities, you train well, but if people don't execute and there is not that accountability, we still have breakdowns and people are in situations that they should not be in. can you address that issue for us today? >> yes, sir. thank you for the question. my first answer would be, bill miller is sitting next to me. coming back after four years at the united nations and 29 years of the manic security -- the manic security, no one takes this responsibility more seriously -- diplomatic security, no one takes this responsibility more security.

the people we have in diplomatic security are dedicated and ready to give their lives to protecting people overseas. you will not find anybody more ready to take the responsibility or make the decisions that have to be made than myself or bill miller or the rest of our senior staff. i understand there are still questions about the four individuals. i was not here at the time. complexerstand it is because there are sets of rules and procedures within the foreign service about disciplining people. it is my clear understanding that this entire issue is that the secretary of state ross level -- state's level, and he is getting recommendations on how to deal with this, and he will make the decision on what will be the outcome with the four people.

that three ofu those four individuals i know well and have worked with closely. these are people that have given their careers to diplomatic of they and the security department of state, and i have a great deal of admiration for them. it doesn't excuse the fact that we had a terrible tragedy in benghazi. and his staff will make the proper decisions on the disposition of those cases. i do want to tell you that that is the same management team that was in place when our embassies were attacked in cairo, tunisia, khartoum, all through the years we have had multiple attacks in yemen and afghanistan and iraq. those people performed admirably. it is my hope that their entire career is not ruined by one single action. they are as dedicated as we are in many ways. our absolutell do

best and we will bear whatever responsibility needs to be taken. >> thank you for that. i just would say, i don't think anybody here is on a witch hunt. i could not pick these four individuals out of a lineup. cultureportant for the of the state department and candidly for the u.s. government that it be stated that these people made mistakes that should not have been made and are held accountable. and whatever is the right decision, i think we will all be there. this vague place probably needs to end soon. i hope the secretary of state will deal with this quickly. it has been a long time. i thank you and look forward to working with you and the chairman as we move ahead. >> i take this obligation very seriously. at least on my watch, to the

extent that i can, i'm not going to have anybody exposed and at risk as a result of inaction by this committee. i'm going to engage in a follow- up so that we have a sequential .ecord there are two things that senator corker said and you responded to that i want to get clarity on. he asked a very good question. immediate needs versus long-term needs. you responded you are working on immediate needs. means to theds extent that you can mitigate what exists at a post. if you don't have a setback, you're not going to be able to mitigate that fully. you have a new site and a new construction. if you don't have a setback and you are talking about hardening, that is fine but hardening without a setback has limited capabilities.

when you say, in the balance between what some may view as the long-term, which you described is hopefully getting to a point in which all of our locations are is best protected under the threats we could envision today, regardless of where they are located in the world because we don't know where the next high risk post will be. when you say you are mitigating, you are mitigating -- what are you mitigating in the short term? what are you capable of mitigating in the short term if you have an embassy or other living tois not fully the specifications which you and the congress have devised as what is a secure location? >> mr. chairman, we can mitigate

in those locations is, first, the function of what our analysis in terms of the threaten overall situation in the country tells us -- threat and overall situation in the country tells us. in oslo, we have a fully functioning staff an embassy despite the fact that we don't have a setback or secure facility. we have excellent cooperation from the host government. we do not have information that indicates to us that we are running a tremendously high risk by leaving them in this facility for the time being, and we have national security imperatives we are carrying out, foreign service officers working on things every single day. -- cairo is not an inman building. it is pre-inman. it is quite a robust facility. when the situation changed in cairo, when we saw specific

threats and the social upheaval happening on the ground, in the last several weeks we have evacuated what we call ordered departure. we have moved out all nonessential personnel. these are the types of things we can do to mitigate threats where we don't have a facility that necessarily meets the highest level of standards. inre are things we can do terms of asking the host government to block off streets for us, if they will cooperate. >> i want to get to senator between thecern immediate and long-term, to the extent that you can mitigate something in the immediate term, you are seeking to do that? >> absolutely. >> that does not mean that

mitigation of the immediate is the desired goal, because in fact you may not be able to mitigate beyond if you don't have a setback, if you don't have a hardened facility, if you don't have all the other elements that are in play for what we consider a fully secured facility. is that a fair statement? >> yes, sir. >> that gives us a little balance as to immediate versus long-term, with reference to the question of employees -- i agree. i agree and accountability and performance. recommendationb. number 23 which said that the board is of the view that findings of unsatisfactory leadership performance by senior officials in relation to the security incident under review should be a potential basis for discipline and recommendations by future accountability boards and would recommend a revision of department regulations or amendment to the roy blunt -- relevant statute.

under the existing statutory authority, there are limitations. what is the proof point you have to have to discipline somebody. i don't know if you've had the opportunity to look at section 203 of the legislation i have noted that i believe satisfies the a.r.b.'s recommendation in that regard, which would then give the secretary the authority to fire individuals who have exhibited unsatisfactory leadership in relation to a security incident. do you believe that section would give the secretary that ability? >> yes, sir. as important to give that additional flexibility and that helps us. >> think you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me concur with your observation. we have a very important responsibility as our committee for oversight. i appreciate the witnesses that are here. it is our responsibility to

review the steps that have been taken under the authority and resources that you have. we also have a responsibility to make sure the tools are available embassy security. that is the responsibility of the entire senate. the appropriations committee has a responsibility on resources. this committee has a responsibility as to whether the policies are right. i want to applaud the chairman for s-980. it gives a way to make sure that you have the adequate tools in order to manage the security of our embassies. the chairman's follow-up questions underscored some of those issues. i thank you very much, mr. chairman, for your leadership on this and for recognizing the dual responsibility we have on oversight and to make sure that the tools and resources are available. i want to follow-up on facilities. i have had a chance to visit many of our embassies. there is a common theme, except

at the new embassies. when you are able to talk with the personnel, there is always concerns about facilities. that we could be better. i know that you did the review several years ago and the list compiled several years ago and the progress we have made, and i expect this is updated by circumstances in the country, et cetera. is it time for us to do another evaluation globally of our facilities, recognizing that circumstances have changed? i believe we need to do a better job. oslo is an important ally, a friend. i have been to that embassy. it is not a high risk area. they should have adequate facilities based on the security needs and efficiency factors that are important. in many embassies around the world, the united states does not have the combination of

space, efficiency and security that is ideal for us to carry out our mission. >> i believe that's an accurate statement. it is in many cases more than just security, but certainly security is our overriding factor at this point. you are accurate when you say that in many cases we do not have the space or types of facilities we need. that is why when we build new facilities, the primary thing we are trying to achieve is security. but the office of overseas buildings looks clearly at what our staffing levels need to be, where we are going to be in the future, what types of operational and functional space we need -- including things such as much larger consular operations in many places. we have many other agencies in our embassies as well, and that is wrapped into what it is we are doing and how we build buildings and where we build

buildings. i could not agree with you more. it is a combination of factors. we believe we still need probably at least another 75 or -- 175 or so major buildings. i hope to get a list of updated facilities that we need to meet our needs. i applaud president obama and secretary clinton for missions.g our we could use a better blueprint than the one that was developed five or six or seven years ago. cardin, i'm sure the office of overseas buildings operations and probably with us would be willing to come up and work with any of your staff. >> i appreciate that. let me move to a second issue on

security. supportthe confidence, we get from the local government and authorities. that that is different in different countries, and that is evaluated as part of the security mission that you have to undertake. can you just briefly outline how that is taken into -- how those factors are taken into the equation on our security needs, the confidence we have in the local government's ability to respond or to work with us on local security? i want to give a break, so mr. miller, if you could respond to that, i would appreciate that. >> if i could go back a moment to the teams that went out in november, i met one of those

teams as we went about assessing our various missions, the 19 missions that we very weakly assessed and felt that were our most vulnerable at that time. one of the things, one of the lakes that we were assessing was our host nation's willingness and capability to defend a mr. and -- a mission. as we look at that, we have to roll that into if it is weak on one leg, we have to strengthen the other. that would be our ability to withstand an attack, as we did for some time in khartoum and tunisia, about eight hours, as those facilities were attacked in early september as well. if we have a weakness on one side, we have got to be able to mitigate that by strengthening on another. it is not always possible, however, not calls into play a greater requirement for our the cadrec -- our diplomatic to work with our counterparts.

it is something that we try to address with training and other bilateral training programs to help alter their own professional capabilities and hopefully build up to the point where we can trust, as we do in most ways it, their ability to secure his. >> i would like to make one observation. i would hope that we would engage the political apparatus and our country at the highest level. if we need more cooperation from host countries so that we get that. i want to ask one more questions about one of the recommendation efforts to address language capacity. could you print -- we -- could is really update us how that being implemented to have a stronger language capacity in our mission with the local language? >> certainly. this applies primarily to the capacity for arabic language skills, the foreign service institute has been working very to allegedly with the -- very diligently with the rest of the

apartment to assess what our language requirements are for our special agents as they engage with their host nation counterparts. we anticipate that the first- class begins this next month or early september to give those skills or the opportunity to acquire those skills for special agents in such a way that they will be able to work in an emergency situation. realizing that it is a long- term process to acquire proficiency that allows them to converse proficiently. that process can be upwards of two years for someone like myself, shorter for those who are a little brighter, but it is a very difficult process. we are hoping to achieve that with a short-term objective with our immediate security language course in arabic. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator cardin. mr. miller, feel free to join in on any answers you want. don't hesitate to jump in. senator flake. >> thank you, and i apologize

for not being here, and i apologize if this has been asked and answered three times by now, with regard to the decision that has been introduced, assuming that legislation were in place and implemented, would it have affected the outcome in and got doublyin benghazi because it was on intimacy or a consulate? would it have made a difference there in your opinion? mr.ta? >> benghazi was that a threat level that we should have three of prioritized. thank the chairman for introducing this legislation. in the long term, it will help us on a of different fronts, but i will not tell you that the tragedy in benghazi would have been avoided had we had this legislation. i think that was a question that we did not understand the situation that we were in, and

perhaps we should've had more resources or we should have made a decision to evacuate that post earlier. much appreciate this legislation. it will help us in many, many ways. it will strengthen our capability to stay in places where the threats are greater, but i am not going to blame benghazi on the lack of this legislation. >> do you have anything to add? benghazi was a particular situation, given the makeup of the government and the situation, the newness of all this. what lessons have we learned from that that can be applied elsewhere in terms of our relationship with a host nation? the host nation do not even know this facility was there, i understand, or they were not informed of it. what protocol have we put in place, if any, after that to make sure that we have better

operation with the host nation in terms of security needs? >> one of the chief issues i think that we have realized and arb was thed in the fact that all of our facilities should meet over security policy board standards for security. know not in a position to why, but in this instance, they were not met, there were no waivers that were granted. that has been rectified. we will not have a temporary facility that has not been signed off on at the highest levels. in the diplomatic imperatives are weighed against the security threat. that is one positive outcome of the arb. quite thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, senator flake. senator cain. >> i appreciate you being here today. my first hearing as a center with the hearing with secretary clinton to talk about the

benghazi incident and the arb recommendations, and it was a very memorable one, i will never forget that first hearing. i reviewed the arb in advance of the hearing to prepare, and mr. chair, i imagine you know this, there are so many recommendations that you have personal effects upon a couple, and there were a couple i was particularly interested in. one was the reclamation about the expansion of the marine security guard program, and the second was the recommendation about training of our street -- state department personnel. an effective materials we were given for this hearing, there " graphic, york times where there was a summary as of may 20 how far along we are in meeting the arb recommendations, and there is sort of a spectrum in each of these recommendations from basically not started to completed, and each of the recommendations are sort of a "new york times" assessment of where we are. memory and security is lower

than the midpoint heard lowest one, the one most near not even started as the reclamation about to improve the training of employees headed to high threat posts where additional security training is required. you talkedtarr, about this line of questioning from senator corker about the facility foraining state department employees. you and i have met about this previously. the chairman's proposed legislation addresses this. just to give us some history for everyone here, the state department began trying to find the training facility to replace the racetrack that was used during the week, about four years ago. they began this long before benghazi. there has been a four-year efforts that considered 80 different sites for the string facility, and it eventually dwindle down, some communities do not want to. what a particular requirements

largely to involve his facility that be close to partners, synergy with the marine security guard and others, it dwindle down and there was a preference for expanding this program at a guard base in virginia. that was basically the preference that we were moving toward before benghazi and before the arb. after the incident at benghazi, the arb report have the recommendation, never -- number 17, that specifically focuses on the need to move out of this facility and find a permanent the ability for him as he training. in february, just a few months ago, the state department indicated and indicated that they were about to indicate -- to issue an eis, and this was delayed because of it inquiry from the omb about whether or not we couldab do thisi half version orl a knockoff version as a mother facility.

i gather there have been some expiration that would not have this synergy with the marine security that would not have the synergy with the other intelligence the agencies with whom our department state and staff works. so it appears that this process that was moving towards before benghazi and before the arb to actually require this training capacity is now after benghazi and after the arb being thrown into quine is a question -- into kind of a questionmark status. it would be tragic of a process that was moving toward better training optimizing for secretary of state, for department of state's staff before benghazi and before the ,rb would be now slow down watered-down, deluded, after we know what we know as a result of those those horrible incidents on september 11, 2013.

secretary starr and mr. miller, what i would like to ask you is from a state department's standpoint, is it still your professional belief that the site that was identified by the department of state is the most consistent with both the desire to increase training and also most consistent with the arb recommendation that was forwarded to congress by the committee? kaine, thank you for your question. the answer is simple -- yes, sir. we still believe that the site that we chose gives us the best ability to train the numbers of personnel that we need to train to incorporate our partners and the various other u.s. government agencies that are critical to our training, internet training, to build the synergies that we have with our own foreign service institute, and our own training regimens appear.

yes, sir, we still believe that is the best answer. >> mr. miller, from your standpoint heard >> i can only echo -- echo was secretary starr said. we have to have the synergy in order to develop the relationships with our trading -- training partners as well as the students who are going through. numerousould give you examples of opportunities that the foreign affairs officers have had to participate in actual life-saving events where they benefited from the training that they had at the racetrack, which has so well service throughout my career. but we can do better. if we do better, we we absolutely have to because we are talking about people's lives. >> thank you. i'll have any other questions. >> to i, mr. chairman. the security of man women serving overseas is really important. to me, d arb made it clear that

-- was needed to ensure their security. risk mitigation, i understand that we must accept a certain amount of risk to operate in areas like benghazi. mitigationted risk involves engagement and security, which require wise leadership, good leadership, proper defense, and at times downsizing and direct access, they say, and even withdrawal. so the question -- what are the factors that the department state considers when determining whether a location is simply too dangerous to support a somatic presence, mr. miller? >> thank you, senator. we look at three basic questions. the host nations capability and willingness, as i said earlier, we look at the restaurant, those that have developed that we are aware of, and then we

also look at the physical presence. as we balance those three, and any possible mitigation, we then move forward with our mitigation -- our diplomatic engagement. we cannot balance those three, then we have to assess those options which you just addressed. >> are there posts currently that you edified as either needing to be downsized or closed? i can point back to bangui, which we evacuated late last fall, where connolly evaluating other posts, as a good idea -- a good example is our u.s. it was the in cairo. they have gone through large to services, not only in cairo but throughout the country, so it is a constant evaluative process that we go through in assessing what our next steps may be. >> can ask about the expenditure -- inspector general's audit they came on

june 30, 2013, released compliant -- security standards that select high threat level post. i am concerned that it has been 10 months since the terrorist attacks in benghazi. the inspector general found that their high level posts are threatening to supply security standards. i don't know if you've seen the audio. and unix went to the committee why these problems are happening, and what the plan and timeline is for permitting these issues? >> do it. i think it is important that we do point out some differences that's we do have with the office of the inspector general. i think it is important to note the high threat, high risk post that i am response will for leading and surviving the management of the programs, i don't believe they visited any of those posts. when they are referring to high threat, that is a very often used and not well defined term. so as they look at the various

recommendations, it should be parsed very carefully when we look at the post for which i am response will. i will say that we are continuing to work with the oh why do you to address their concerns. we want ensure that our people do have the best possible protection, and we value the oig's perspective. but i know they're working to find common ground. >> thank you for that clarification. .> thank you let me thank both of our witness is not just for your testimony, but the incredible service that you are providing our country during extreme a difficult times, and obviously these are very important responsibilities, the safety of our personnel. so we thank you very much. we also appreciate your willingness to work with this committee. there have been a lot of questions asked that i think will involve us working together to make sure that we have safe

facilities and personnel in the right place, etc. a i said earlier, we have responsible it he not only is oversight but to be your partners, and we look forward to working with you to protect the dedicated men and women who serve our nation in foreign posts around the world. with that, the committee will stand adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> facilities. my understanding is that the u.s. special mission in benghazi was a temporary facility, and at the overseas security policy board standards for facility apply to all facilities, including temporary facilities. they arert that -- they should be all posts by january of this year. do we know if that policy is

reissued? >> it was reissued, i believe it was january 23. >> ok. how are the overseas policy board standards and force a temporary facilities? >> sir, when we moved back into we will have to determine what facilities are available and whether or not we can balance the need versus the safety. the process is looking closely at what facilities are available, what it will cost to do those facilities, and whether or not we have the ability to do it. we are currently not in somalia. personnelmporary duty into small you because we do not have a facility that we think could meet our requirements at the moment.

i think that, perhaps, is the best judgment i can give you, we are very vocal and very clear when we think that we don't have an answer that can meet the security requirements. we are very concerned about laces like -- we only allow temporary duty travel and working very closely with the u.n., we don't have a facility that meets our needs there at the moment. should we -- should the department make a determination that we need to go back into those places we use the integrated planning cells to determine what we need to have. we have to make a determination whether we have the internal resources to make those needs all -- meet those needs or have to come to congress. we have developed certain new tools to help us. one of the things we learned out of iraq when we had many people in the trailers in many places him a name we take these trailers and request amex around them, and it would put overhead cover, and that we put

walls around them, we developed something called the trailer blast, which is a high resistant -- we are trying to develop new tools i will give us reasonably safe and secure accommodations and even offices in these temporary type situations. >> let me go to part b of this particular benghazi set of circumstances, and that is an is is is worth facility is shared, or is use presently by u.s. government agency other than the department state, how does the interagency process address security needs of that facility? who takes anthe lead? agency will be response before for upgrading the facility, but it is still going to the ospb security policy

standards, and if they don't media centers, then they go through the same trust that these. >> for good. i want for the record for the purpose is to establish something that i think we on the committee know, you certainly know, but i don't think the general public knows. and that if the marine guard attachment to embassies. until now, correct me if i'm wrong, the marine guard inachments to embassies was essence for the security of sensitive and classified documents, zagros? >> that is essentially correct, sir, the staffing levels of marines was to meet that requirement, 24 hour protection for classified assets and operations. >> most able see the marine guard, and i think even members of congress when they visited a broad out that some that somehow

thereabouts protecting the embassy and personnel, and whatever else including documents within a, but that really was not the core focus. there core focus of the silly recent agreement was to give the time, shouldn't embassy be over one -- overrun, for the purposes of being able to deal with classified documents, that if there've statement ech?" ?- isn't that a fair statement -- >> yes, sir. >> what would that be? >> we have renegotiated the memorandum of agreement with the marine corps and department of --te" clearly emphasized the department state and clearly emphasized our new mandate is equal protection for our personnel in our facilities, and our embassies, while protecting

phosphide information. sir, if i may, even when we had our smaller numbers aside to our detachment come in many cases, six or seven marines, and the primary responsibility was protection of classified information, there was not a marine out there, there was not ian rso netted not understand their job was to protect the people. withe were not staffing enough marines necessarily to take on that role. what we are working with the marine corps, particularly in our high threat locations, to increase the numbers of marines at each one of these posts so that they are better capable of doing the defense or shin as well. >> i appreciate you expounding upon that because i did not suggest to me and marines would stand by and see people killed, but certainly there was no staffing level to be able to accomplish that. understandingine

that it would come together with the state of oregon high threat posts or globally? state department of high threat posts or globally? >> we are concentrating on our highest level posts and increasing marine staffing at those locations. >> ok. and finally, i want to get to host government capacity. the accountability review word found that libyan government seem to be profoundly knocking on the night of the attacks. at host government relies on the host government's opacity as well as there will. do not have the will have the capacity, you can have the capacity without the will, both need to be there. libya, andok beyond

we're looking now globally, how do you assess these variables, how do you quantify them, how do these determinations go into your overall security thessment, and is provision, as we have included in the legislation, which deals with the question not of lowest a best cost for performance as well, to give you the flexibility, particularly in places where that will be critical to .ecurity, a desired flexibility i know there are multiple questions in there. >> i will take a lot -- the last this and then turned to bill. we thank you very much for recognizing that the situations in almost all of our posts are different. in certain cases where we don't

have perhaps the level of support because of willingness or capability from the host government, situations may arise where the idea of lowest cost ethnically edible contracting is not going to give us the guard force that we think that we could get if we had another instrument to contact with. we want to thank you. we do believe that adding this capability a monotonous at at our hydra post, but where really -- where we believe there is a clear indication that this will increase our security give abilities, give us a tool to do that. so yes, i think it is an important step that allows us to address some of the inherent capabilities when we don't necessarily have the level of support from our host government that we would like your -- would like. >> how do you assess the host government's ability, willingness, how do you quantify it, how you make those

determinations to factor in your overall security assessment? >> to some extent, is a subjective call. but we quantify it as much as we possibly can through our various partners, with us at the embassy, who help to assess the training that the host services have received. historically, in many posts, we have a relationship that have come back for a good number of decades, and we can quantify than what our expectation should be and how well they can live up to those expectations. in some instances, because of recent instability, that expectation has been nullified. then it is a matter of us taking the opportunity, that said in my opening statement, to go to extort a very measures, but those measures which are standard, and in those to achieve a level of confidence that we would not

never gnash -- not necessarily be able to achieve with the host nation services. >> mr. chairman, if i may, i think we can quantify the quant -- the capabilities pretty well by working closely with our defense collies, intelligence college, our own security staff. we can secret well and make a pretty good determination of the capabilities of the host government. much more subjective is this question of what is the particular willingness of the time. we are much more sensitive, the entire department is, to having a better analysis capability, and having our lyrical officers, ambassadors, really weighing in on what is the particular host government desire to help us in a particular time. there are certain places where we could have a rate deal of willingness on a tuesday afternoon, and in some cases i friday afternoon it may not be there. this is part of the dilemma, but is also part of our

solution, which is for our security personnel, bill and i and others to work much more closely with our regional bureaus and with our ambassadors. finalad one more question, and that is on the question of intelligence. to use integration into your analysis, and looking at , which mightts indicate a different threat that we might not have thought of necessarily looking at a different their level, if the new paradigm in which we in, which unfortunately requires us to think outside of the box. iteris have to get lucky once. we have to get right 100% of the time. that is a tough challenge, but it is our challenge. how are you injured grading -- how are you integrating the use of intelligence, are you

receiving the flow of information that is essential, i would think, for you to it and to need to make -- for you to continue to make an analysis on a real, ongoing bases so you can adjust accordingly where you need to? the relationship across the spectrum of intelligence community and us have broadened and deepened. we have officers that from other agencies that are working with at our desks, at our offices now. the level of coronation that goes on -- of coronation that goes on is deeper and wider and held at the national security staff level. the coordination that we have with our regional euros now, every weekday morning and saturdays and sundays as necessary, we start off looking at the threats that have come and most recently. in those same meetings, we have

representatives from the regional bureaus of the department of state so that we are linking up the particular -- the political with the intelligence that is coming up. if i can say one thing, sir, that one major strategic lesson that came out of the ghazi -- out of benghazi, one of the observations of the a or that there was no specific intelligence to indicate that there was a threat. you can lower yourself into a position where you think there is no specific intelligence. i think one of the major changes that have happened this we are much more aware of the larger atmospherics in these countries, the political, the social, what is going on in terms of web activity, social networking, trying to keep abreast of what we see as going on in that country in addition to whether or not we have specific intelligence threats

is a much deeper, much broader effort than we have had before as well. so i think -- it is really both sites. it is the intelligence side that is deeper, broader, and more important to us, but it is also keeping watch more abreast of what is really happening in that location and melding the two into our decision-making and then what we do as recommendations further up in the department. >> and when you say that your ale or access or universe o intelligence is deeper and wider, are you refer is that as post-d-benghazi -- as benghazi? >> yes. >> for you and the men and women who serve under you, and protecting our diplomats abroad, you have the things of the committee. we look forward to a continuing engagement with you as we try to move this legislation forward. the record will remain open

until the close of business tomorrow. with that, the hearing is now truly adjourned. >> the senate foreign relations committee hearing there from this past week looking at security measures for u.s. indices. senators return tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. they will be considering a motion to proceed on a bill that proposes fiscal 2014 spending for preservation in housing and urban crow brands. items on the agenda for the week for the house includes a 2014 spending bill for defense programs and to separate in ed onnal else, one focus coal ash and the other on epa rules. you can watch them live on c- span and the senate i've on c- span2 -- live on c-span2. >> jackie was raise as her mother was raised. she was the same kind of wife and husband. the home, the children, the entertaining, the style, that

was her heritage, and she did it again in the white house. right after her admin -- hertion, administration, the whole world erupted. you had the women who went to work and got divorces. we had a flower children and we had free love and free sex, boy, great to beas a young. i miss all that. [laughter] but the world changed. it became a whole new concept of women. i think mrs. clinton to get a -- today representing a woman. >> as we continue our conversation on first ladies, and others talk about the role of the first lady and how it has changed along with the nation, monday night on 9:00 eastern on c-span. [applause]

>> vice president biden was that the center for american process talking about u.s. policy toward agent -- toward asia. >> good afternoon, folks. thank you for your patience. like to begin by thanking mr. president. thank you for offering the venue here. you are always generous, and we appreciate it a great deal. it is terrible being dated, i did speak the first year that the sender former can progress -- center for american progress was inaugurated, and here i am speaking at the 10th anniversary. the amazing thing is they are still going. since having me speak their first. thank you, we miss you, and rich, thank you as well. to the investors, thank you for much, i am honored that you take the time. today, i want to talk to you about why and how we are

pursuing our announced policy of -- of elevating engagement in the asia-pacific, and where we believe all see that it. when president obama and i came in present -- in august, we inherited -- and office, we inherited two wars that causes blood, treasure, and time. we knew we had to end both those wars responsible. we have done that in iraq, and we are that as i speak in afghanistan. we will obviously continue to be engaged in both places, and we will continue to take the fight to al qaeda and their affiliates there or wherever they are. but wanting those two wars have allowed us to turn to the opportunities that reflect the realities of a fast-changing world. inask ourselves to things the review of how to proceed. where should we focus additional attention and resources that would enable us to create a greater opportunity at home and generate greater

growth, economic growth around the world. and where must we make strategic investments that are required to enhance not only our security but the locals -- global stability? both pointed the asia-pacific. in terms of academic -- of a middle it is home to class of about a billion people. some of the fastest growth rates in the world are within that region. emerging markets whose choices will shape the character of the entire global economy are within that. so we reached out to deep and economic tide to promote open competition for the 21st-century. century. we finished a free-trade accord -- free-trade agreement with south korea as well as deals

with pantomime columbia. --notched -- we launched companies as secure as singapore and peru. economic relations with china, including the strategic economic dialogue, and i opened the fifth round of that dialogue just last week. in terms of security, we undertook a major strategic review at the defense department with our security personnel, and how to assess our global posture and where do we need to evolve to match these moments. in the asia-pacific, we saw remarkable promise. but also genuine uncertainty and political risk. many nations have experienced rapid economic transformation that has fundamentally created a new dynamic, rising ambitions, and rising tensions.

the roles and norms that could provide protect ability to deal with both those changes, the order needed remained incomplete. we are focused on the risks of a disruption of commerce, proliferation, human disasters, conflict between nations, and the persistent threat posed by north korea. so we set about doing several things. first of all, strengthen our alliances. deepening security partnerships. and investing like never before in regional institutions to help manage disputes peacefully. adopted a newa defense strategic guidance endorsed by the joint chiefs of staff after months of study that elevates our focus in the asia- pacific area. economically and strategically it is clear why the united , toes had to rebalance

direct more resources and attention toward the asia- pacific region. because imagine what could happen if growing asia-pacific middle classes help lift the global economy even more than they already are. if nations reject the temptation of zero-sum thinking and rice peacefully together. if progress toward greater rights and freedoms prove that no country has to make a choice between democracy and development, which is a false choice. living put it slightly differently -- just imagine what would happen if those things don't come to pass. we will all be in a world of trouble. , thisare all in administration, absolutely committed to this rebalance. the president is absolutely committed and so am i and so is

our entire national security and economic teams. you don't need to look any further than my own recent engagement to understand the breadth and scope of the rebalance your i'm traveling to india next week, 20 even 10 years ago among some might have suggested that india be left out of discussions about the asia- pacific. one of the reasons why president obama called our relationship and india "a defining ownership of the century oahead" is india is constantly looking east as a force for security and growth in southeast asia and beyond. to us, that is welcome news. we encourage it. we welcome india's engagement in the region. and we welcome its efforts to develop new trade and transportation by land and by sea in the area. i will also visit singapore, a country of 5 million people, who

have become the 17th largest economy in the world, a partner in http, and an important player in southeast asia and beyond. president obama has put particular focus on now represents a $2 trillion economy of 600 million people. there are more -- there is more american investment in southeast asia than in china. southeast asian nations like singapore and indonesia have become important orders from counter proliferation to counter piracy. that is why i am going to singapore. at the core of our strategy any reason are -- in the region are our alliances -- japan, south korea, australia, the philippines, thailand. across the board in these alliances, we are at a high water mark in terms of cooperation between our leaders, both military and political. in the support of our people. our intensified

engagement within the western e is also part of our overall rebalancing policy. insay the very concretely the transit pacific partnership, you can also see it in the hemisphere.n the like the alliance for the pacific, a group that is integrating economies and looking westward trade and investment. as i said in a speech not long ago, for the first time, at least the first time i can -- iter, it is possible is not pollyanna-ish, to envision an america that is middle-class, secure, and democratic from northern canada to the chip -- to the tip of chile and everything to be don

-- everything in between. the kind of america enacted economically, strategically, with common values, can make a great contribution to more prosperous and secure pacific. that is one of the reasons why president obama recently visited mexico and costa rica. that is why recently in columbia, thailand, and brazil in may, and returned to the -- and will return to the region this fall. what does all this add up to geck? our goal is to help tie asia- pacific nations together from india to the americas with stronger alliances, and institutions. for the past 60 years, the security we provided has enabled the region for the people to turn their talents and hard work into an economic miracle. the we want to hasten emergence of an asia-pacific order that deliver security and prosperity for all the nations involved. in short, we want to help lead

and create the 21st century rules of the road that will benefit not only the united states and the region but the world as a whole. but if the region is -- the lifeblood of the region is economic development. , china,s slow and india many places. each country faces distinct and different challenges. from our perspective, the way forward is fairly clear. to spark new growth, there has to be fewer barriers at and behind our borders. protection for intellectual property to avoid innovation, new commitments to make sure everybody please by the same rules because that is what attracts investment and jobs. as well as greater economic integration. that is what we are pursuing right now, today, in malaysia, as our team negotiates the transpacific partnership with countries as diverse as the chile,- vietnam,

mexico, and at which point the group will account for 40% of the world of the gdp. the ttp has proposed to set new onndards for fair position state owned enterprises, investment, labor, the environment, open market for automobiles and other industries. we firmly believe this will create a strong incentive for other nations to raise their standards as well so that they can join. we have already had discussions with some of those very nations, both in the americas as well as in the pacific. but not only is this ambitious, this ttp of hours, we believe it is doable, and we are working hard to get this done this year. at the same time, we are reaching out to emerging economies in southeast asia,

partnering with lower countries to improve food security, productivity, water, health, reforms in burma, and enhanced economic engagement. we are addressing the challenges in our economic relations with china as well. they are not at all inconsistent. we do not view our relationship and future relations with china in terms of conflict or the top of inevitable conflict. we view it in terms of a healthy mix of competition and cooperation, a competition that we welcome. .t is stamped into our dna we like to compete. competition is good for both of us. as long as the game is fair. it is clear that the chinese understand that to reverse their

decline in growth, their internal reforms -- not reforms we are suggesting, they have made their own judgment. judgment, if they follow through, will not only help china go but help the region and the world. needsave concluded china to shift to more consumer driven economy. they have concluded that to create a market-based, well- regulated financial system. they have concluded they need to liberalize their exchange rates. it will be difficult. it is difficult for them internally to do that. i am convinced they believe, and we clearly do, that it is necessary. we are engaging directly to india as it makes some fundamental choices that the ambassador can speak to more directly than i could. about its own economic future. in the last 13 years, we have increased fivefold our bilateral trade reaching nearly $100

billion. if you look at it from a ,istance, an uninformed person there is no reason if our countries make the right choices, trade cannot grow fivefold or more. just this week, india announced it will relax caps on foreign direct investments in certain sectors. we still have a lot of work to do on a wide range of issues, including the civil nuclear cooperation, bilateral investment treaty, policies protecting innovation. there is a lot of work to do. but we believe, going with an open mind, and listening, as well is making our case, we believe it can be done. for greaterrive growth, we have to recognize that the impact of climate change also has an impact on growth as well as security.

this is a priority for the president and for me. america now has the lowest level of carbon emission in two decades. we are determined to move further. in the process, where we can, also help other countries do the same. tot is why we're working promote investment in clean energy. why we're helping pacific island nations mitigate the effects of rising sea levels. they are rising. we just concluded an agreement with china to reduce the use of hfc's thatalter cause climate change. there is no reason we cannot do more with india as well. that is why secretary kerry agreed to an enhanced dialogue with india on time and change this last month. -- on climate change this last month. economic growth critically depends on peace and stability.

-- therehy we have to have to be 21st century rules of the road, not only in the economic sphere but also with regard to security, wre to maritime disputes, it is critical of all nations to have a clear understanding of what constitutes acceptable international behavior. that means no intimidation, no portion, no aggression, and a commitment from all parties to reduce the risk of mistake and the speculation, my dad used to have an expression, the only word that is worse than one that isn't tended -- that is intended is one that is unintended. the prospects for mistakes are real. so it is in everyone's interest

that there be freedom of navigation. respect for international laws of peaceful resolution territorial disputes. that is why i encourage china and aussie on to work even more quickly to reach an agreement on the code of conduct in the south china sea, setting clear rules of the first step to managing these disputes, and the u.s. has a strong interest in seeing that happen as well. with regard to north korea, one thing i think everyone now , we agree that its nuclear missile problem -- program represent a clear and present danger to stability in the area of your in east asia in particular. that is why we're working closely with our allies, japan and south korea, we are also working more closely in the 40 years i have been engaged with in light with russia

of north korea's for rocket if behavior -- provocative as that being a chinese priority. we welcome that firm assertion. now, north korea is calling for dialogue. -- i haveer would say seen this movie before. we have been there before. but we are ready. we are ready. but only if north korea is prepared to engage in genuine negotiations. we will not cower to north korea's pattern of provoking a crisis and insisting baby reported in order -- insisting that they be rewarded in order to cease and desist from the they -- from the action

are taking care and we have been there before only to find that once they have the space and the aid they need, they return to the same provocative, dangerous behavior and continue their nuclear march. peace anda can have prosperity like the rest of the region, but only without nuclear weapons. north korea has a clear choice. --etter path for its paper its people, or continued down the road thereon. make no mistake about it, though, we're open to engaging with any nation that is prepared to live up to its international obligations. that is what we did in burma. i think most would say we are already seeing some benefit from the engagement hear. so we have got a full agenda at

of us in asia, and we are committed to seeing it through. as they traveled around the ,orld and i'm heading to india i hear questions wherever i go. questions in asia about whether we are truly mated to this free balance, i have also heard questions in my recent trip to europe about whether or not we're going going to be leaving europe behind. it should be clear on its face -- we are not leaving europe. i recently spoke to the european nations, nato members, eu members in munich. i said that europe remains the cornerstone of our engagement with the rest of the world. that is a fact. we are not going anywhere. as a matter of fact, we are absolutely convinced that our is anment in the pacific

overwhelming self-interest of europe. we are convinced the combination of new transatlantic economic agreements that we are now negotiating and the transpacific partnership i discussed reinforce one another. they are not at odds with one another. together, they are designed to update and strengthen the global economic rules of the world in the 21st century. europe will benefit greatly as well from stability in the pacific. in asia. by the way, there is no reason why we cannot bring greater focus to the asian pacific and keep our eye on the ball in the middle east. folks, that is what big powers do. we canthe vernacular, walk and chew gum at the same time.

that is what big powers do. that wee is no evidence are taking our eye off the ball in the middle east, leading -- leading europe, or not focusing on the asia- pacific area. we are better positioned than any time before to be able to do it all. i know you will think it sound like a campaign, but america is back. -- it hasadership never been a good bets to bet against america. the resiliency of the american people and the nature of our .ystem, america is back to paraphrase mark twain, the

reports of our demise were very premature. our businesses created seven point 2 million jobs since we have taken office. we've gone from losing more than 400,000 jobs a month over 12 months in 2009 two creating thus200,000 jobs per month far this year. manufacturing is back. the biggest increase in manufacturing in nearly 20 years. and an awful lot of high-tech companies are looking to come home. there is a reason for his. american workers are incredibly productive, three times more productive than chinese workers to give you one example. theiran be assured intellectual property will be protected. we have a transparent court system that will enforce contracts.

more thant is down 50% as a share of the economy since we took office. , over $17wealth trillion in household wealth, was lost in the great recession we inherited. it is all back. we are producing more energy from all sources, we now have over 100 years supply of natural gas that will enable us to meet every single need we have in america, energy need for the next 100 years. we are the largest natural gas producer in the world, another reason why companies are coming back. 1/5cost is one third to what it is around the world, but we are prepared. we are prepared.

to help other countries as well. imports are the lowest they have been in the last 20 years. i believe we remain the most innovative country in the world. i also think that the rest of the world understands why this is happening. it is not just the good fortune of having shale gas or having to oceans, etc.. i think it is because of the enduring strength of our system, for our children. they still taught to challenge orthodoxy. no one in america is diminish or punished.