allies, is de-escalation. and a diplomatic solution. but russia should not, for a single, solitary second, mistake the expression of that preference as an unwillingness to do what is necessary to stop any violation of the international order. at nato last week, and in all of my conversations of the past weeks, it is clear that the united states and our closest partners are united in this effort. despite the costs, and willing to put in effect tough new sanctions on those ark straighting this action, and on key sectors of the russian economy. in energy, banking, mining, they're all on the table. president obama has already signed an executive order to implement these actions if russia does not end its pressure and aggression on ukraine. now, let me make equally important statement.

it doesn't have to be this way. but it will be this way if russia continues down this provocative path. in my conversation yesterday with foreign minister lavrov, we agreed to meet soon in europe. next week. with ukraine, and our european partners, to discuss de-escalation -- de-escalation, demobilization, inclusivity, support for elections, and constitutional reform. and it is not in our judgment a small matter that russia has agreed to sit in this four-party status with ukraine at the table in an effort to try to forge the road ahead. between now and then we have made it clear that russia needs to take concrete steps to disavow separatist actions in eastern ukraine. pull back its forces outside the

country which they say they have begun to do with the movement of one battalion and demonstrate that they are prepared to come to these discussions to do what is necessary to de-escalate. so russia has a choice. to work with the international community to help build an independent ukraine that could be a bridge between east and west. not the object of a tug-of-war. that could meet the hopes and aspirations of all ukrainians. or they could face greater isolation and pay the costs for their failure to see that the world is not a zero sum game. ukraine and so many other ongoing simultaneous challenges globally reinforce what i said a moment ago to all of you, i think the members of this committee have long appreciated it. that is, that this is not the bipol

bipolar, straightforward, choice of the cold war. we're living in an incredibly challenging time, where some of the things that the east/west order took for granted, most of my life, are suddenly finding a world in which american engagement is more critical and in many ways it's more complicated, because of nation state interest, balance of power, other kinds of issues that are on the table. you all travel. all the members of this committee do that. and you see what i see in every place that i travel as secretary. on issue after issue, people depend on american leadership to make a difference. that has been reinforced to me more than perhaps any other single thing in the year that i've been privileged to be secretary. whether it's south sudan, a nation that many of you helped to give birth to, and now a nation struggling to survive beyond its infancy. or venezuela, where leaders are

making dangerous choices at the expense of the people. or in afghanistan, where this weekend millions defied the taliban and went to the polls to choose a new president. or on the korean peninsula, where we are working with our allies, and our partners, to make sure that we can meet any threat and move towards the denuclearization of the korean peninsula. i think i've had five meetings with president xi this year and five trips to asia already. in furtherance of our efforts to -- and two of those meetings were with the president, with president xi in an effort to further our goals there. u.s. presence and leadership does matter. and that's why our rebalance to the asia pacific has been supported and welcomed by people throughout the agen. we also have great allies. great partners. but the fact remains, that no other nation can give people the confidence to come together and

confront some of the most difficult challenges in the same way that we are privileged to do. i say that without arrogance. i say it as a matter of privilege. we have this ability. and i hear this from leaders all over the world. i particularly hear it about the middle east peace process. i read some who question why the secretary of state is engaged or as intense as he might be, or why the united states should be doing this, the parties don't want to do this. the truth is, the parties say they want to continue these talks. the truth is the parties are actually still talking to each other in an effort to try to see if they can get over this hurdle and make that happen. that i have one certainty in my mind. i have yet to meet any leader anywhere in the world who argues to me that it's going to be easier next week, or easier next month, or easier next year, or easier in the next five years. to achieve a long sought-after goal if the united states is not engaged now.

there's no foreign minister anywhere that i've met with, no leader, you know, when i visited recently at the vatican with his eminence the secretary of state cardinal parline this is first and foremost in the minds of people all over the world, prime minister abe, the prime minister of indonesia ask you do we have a chance of making peace in the middle east? because everywhere it is a recruitment fool, everywhere it is a concern, everywhere it has an impact. action the fact is that everybody volunteers gratitude for the fact that the united states is engaged in that effort. so whether it was nato this past week or the g-7 last week or the vatican itself i've heard from minister after minister just how much the global community is invested in this effort. japan just committed several hundred million dollars to the palestinians for assistance. the saudis, the qataris, the emirateties have each responded to our requests and committed

$150 million each to assist the palestinians going forward. so this is something that has an impact on everybody. and believe me, it has an impact on life in the united states, too. so we will continue to the degree that the parties want to. it's up to them. they have to make decisions. not us. they have to come to the conclusion that it's worth it. the same is true on iran. where every country understands the danger that a nuclear armed iran would pose to our national security, and to the security of our allies. and that is why we have been so focused, along with all of you, on forging an unprecedented coalition to impose the sanctions. from day one, this administration has made it a foreign policy goal to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. to achieve this goal, we have been clear that when we use all the elements of our national power, including direct negotiations with iran, the very kind that we are engaged in as i

speak. we are approaching these talks seriously, and with our eyes wide open. that's why, as we negotiate, we continue to enforce sanctions on iran, not affected by the joint plan of action. not just incidentally over its nuclear activities, but also because of its support for terrorism. and we will press the case on human rights and its record wherever we can. and we will continue to urge iran to release our american citizens. amir hekmadi and we will work to help find robert levinson. all three should be home with their families and that is consistently raised by us with any iranian official when we engage. these are just some of the biggest issues that we're focused on each and every day, simultaneously, my colleagues. they're not the only ones. senators corker and mccain

you've both been to the syrian refugee camps on the border. you've seen the horrors firsthand, as i have. and this committee has focused on the moral and security imperative that is syria. i'm particularly grateful for the fact that you've voted the way you did. the one body in the congress that took that vote, and it was courageous and important vote. we are focused on this every single day and we are currently routing increased assistance to the moderate opposition. i know we'll talk about this in the course of this hearing. we're wrestling with these tough challenges, even as we are moving the state department ahead -- in -- to help our businesses succeed in a world where foreign policy is economic policy. one of the things i want to emphasize when i became the nominee, i said to everybody on the committee that foreign policy is economic policy.

economic policy is foreign policy, in today's world. and so we have set ourselves up in the state department to be increasingly geared towards helping american businesses and towards creating new partnerships in an effort to also promote our foreign policy goals. we're focused on jobs diplomacy, and shared prosperity. that's why embassy wellington just helped a company in new jersey land a $350 million contract to lay fiber optics across the pacific. it's why our consulate in sjeng yank has been so engaged to reverse tariffs against american agricultural products. it's the challenge of the modern state department in a modern world and that is to wrestle with the challenges and opportunities that come at us faster than ever before. it's balanced against security in a dangerous world which is why this budget implements the recommendations of the

independent accountablety review board and makes additional investments that go above and beyond what the review board recommended. so i want to thank you, all of you, for everything you've done for the security of our missions. and i want to thank you for the way this committee stands up for an active internationalist american foreign policy that's in our interests. i spent enough time here in this room, as well as in the senate, to know that you don't call anything that costs billions of dollars a bargain. but when you consider that the american people pay just one penny of every tax dollar for the $46.2 billion in this request, i think it's safe. and if you add oco it's 50.1. i think it's safe to say that in the grand scheme of the federal budget when it comes to the state department and usaid, taxpayers are getting an extraordinary return on their investment. so i thank you for your partnership in these efforts,

and i look forward to our conversation today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for that comprehensive and review of both our challenges, and the opportunities of the daily mission of the men and women of the state department. i want to go to iran. i read an article yesterday that is entitled in "the wall street journal" obama administration shows optimism on iran nuclear talks. and despite significant political hurdles and vastly different stated positions with reference to tehran's nuclear programs, in public comments, there's this sense of progress and optimism and i'm trying to claim where that's from and i'm worried when i read this and other articles where it says,

quote some officials who have worked on developing the obama administration's negotiating position towards tehran have acknowledged that major concessions are needed by both sides for a deal to be reached. the complete dismantling of tehran's uranium enrichment facilities and the iraq reactors, initial demands of the west is no longer achievable. the west is unlikely to get a complete accounting from tie iran of the secret nuclear weapons work the west believes it conducted in the past. so -- and it goes on to say the suggestion is that the pa-5 plus 1 should focus on extending the time it would take for iran to break out and produce nuclear weapons to between 6 and 12 months. now i don't think that we did everything that we've done to only get a six or twelve-months lead time. because a deal that would ultimately unravel the entire sanctions regg each for a six to

twelve month lead time is not far from where we are today. and with no sanctions regime in place and understanding that every sanctions that we have pursued have needed at least a six month's lead time to become enforceable, and then a greater amount of time to actually enforce that the only option left to the united states to this or any other president, and to the west, would be either to accept a nuclear armed iran or to have a military option. so i want to hear from you, mr. secretary, whether that is where we believe success lies or is the success as outlined by a letter by 83 members of the senate to the president where we say that we believe that we need to dismantle iran's nuclear weapons program, and preventing it from having either a -- a

uranium or plutonium path to a nuclear bomb, where we believe that there is no enrichment facility needs like porto, and iraq, and where we must get evidence of what happened in parchin, i'm trying to get a sense of these parameters, because to the extent that the administration has asked for forbearance, part of it is going to have to be based on having an understanding of what is the parameters, and i would assume, and i asked you this question specifically, does the administration, if it strikes a deal, ultimately believe that it needs to come back to the congress for the approval of such a deal in terms of the elements of the law that exist today that would have to be repealed? >> well, mr. chairman, good questions all. and entirely appropriate for us to try to dig in to that a little bit. let me begin by saying, first of all, i'm not expressing optimism

one side or the other. i remain agnostic, and questioning. even as we are just about halfway through, i talked with our team on the ground in vienna yesterday. they are having serious, expert, in-depth, detail ed conversatios about what it takes to achieve our goal. i mean, proving that this is a peaceful program. i think it's fair to say that i think it's public knowledge today that we're operating with a time period for a so-called breakout of about two months. that's been in the public domain. so six months to twelve months is -- i'm not saying that's what we'd settle for, but even that is significantly more. remember breakout means that

they make a decision to race to sort of move out of the regime that's been put in place, and overtly move to enrich sufficiently, to create enough material for one weapon. that's what breakout means. it doesn't mean they've gotten to a -- a warhead, or two a delivery system, or even a test capacity or anything else. it's just having one bomb's worth, conceivably, of material but without any necessary capacity to put it in anything, to deliver it, to have any mechanism to do so, on otherwise. and we have amazing capacity that is being built in to this system to understand what they're doing. during just the jpoa implementation we are inspecting in fordow.

we haven't been in there before. we inspecting in natanz. we haven't ever been in there. we are once or twice a month inspecting in the iraq facility. they cannot move anything into the iraq facility to complete its commissions. we are inspecting their storage of centrifuges. we are inspecting their mining, and their milling, and so forth. we have a huge track here of what they're doing. and so, the greater likelihood is that at the end of this, we hope to be able to come to you with an agreement that has the most extensive and comprehensive and accountable verification process that can be achieved in order to know what they're doing. so when we talk about the number of months, we don't know what they are yet. but if you know, you have to think about this, if they make a decision to break out, sanctions aren't going to be what make the

difference. if they're overtly breaking out and breaking an agreement and starting to enrich and pursue it, they've made a huge consequential decision. and the greater likelihood is we are going to respond immediately. >> well, in order to make sure -- >> i gather what we're doing now. i have to be honest with you, if the end result is a six or twelve-month window, for which the sanctions regime would have fallen, it's true if they decide to break out, the only question is the reason they're at the table is because of the sanctions regime. the reason that they, depending on how we act, will calculate as to whether or not make that decision is the consequences internally to their economy, and the concerns that the ayatollah has about regime change, either from without, which is his constant concern, or from within, because of the economic catalyst that can be created in iran. and so, if six to twelve months is where we end up with -- >> as i say -- >> i know that you haven't said

that. but since you said that would still be more significant than two months, the bottom line is, it is not, i would hope, where we end up with, because with their research and development capacity still moving forward, as we speak, which only allows them to create more sophisticated centrifuges which closes the window for them even more quickly. with their missile development as well. these are all elements of a worrisome -- it is far different from where we started off and what we were told to where i believe we are heading, and this is why so many members joined us in staking out a ground so that the administration understands, does the administration intend to come back to the congress, if you have a final deal, for ultimately lifting some of the elements that would be needed to be lifted under law? >> well, of course. we'd be obligated to under the law. we would absolutely have to, and

so clearly, what we do will have to pass muster with congress. we well understand that. but let me just say very quickly, all of the things you just raised are very much contemplated. i mean these are all part of the conversation. the research, what kind of research, warheads, particularly. there has to be a huge level of transparency. now you mentioned the iraq reactor. we've been very clear that there is no legitimacy to a full-on, heavy water plutonium reactor. none whatsoever in any scheme that they have articulated for private sector use. so that has to be dealt with in the context of the negotiations. >> i agree. but originally we were told that's going to be dismantled. now we are told we're going to find a different purpose for it. it continues to morph into different areas. let me ask you one final -- >> there's no -- actually let me

just clarify mr. chairman. first of all, nothing -- it's written in the joint action plan -- >> nothing is agreed to. >> right nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. this is a mosaic that's going to have to be put together and i can assure you that we're going to strive to get the longest period we can get in terms of breakout. and it -- there are a number of different options as to how it can be managed. but the important thing is that it's not a heavy water plutonium reactor. that's critical. >> one final question. the russians, we have seen consistent iterations of a bartter deal which clearly if it was consummated would be sanctionable. so my question is number one, if such a deal actually comes in to fruition, is it the administration's intention to sanction those actions. and i look at this in our engagement with russia and we meet with russia to broker a

deal over syria in september. we have a worsening humanitarian disaster and a delay on chemical weapons. we meet with russia over iran and there's an oil for goods deal with russia and iran that sources say could be worth $20 billion. russia annexes crimea, and destabilizes the ukraine. i mean, i -- i'm beginning to wonder, you know, what it is that -- what point in this relationship with russia, particularly vis-a-vis iran, but even beyond, is it going to be clear that there are consequences. i understand that russia is an entity that we're going to have to deal with. but by the same token, right now, they seem to act in ways that are contrary to just about all of our interests. >> mr. chairman, the hard reality is that the relationship

with russia produces both moments of consternation and conflict, as well as cooperation and effect. we did in the course of the last years the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. and of course the last years we've cooperated on afghanistan. we have cooperated on syria. we have cooperated on p-5 plus 1 on the syria chemical weapons. i talked yesterday to foreign minister lavrov and i also talked to the director general of the opcw. currently 54% of the chemical weapons are out of syria. and we have major shipments that are planned at two sites near damascus. they should take place in the next days. about the there's a general sense that we are concerned about the slowdown but we still believe we could be on schedule

or close to schedule and we're pushing for that and the russians have indicated they are prepared to continue to push and to try to achieve that. they have an interest in achieving it. so there are pluses and yes there are minuses, obviously. we don't have the luxury as a country of being, you know, you've got to deal at this point in one time or another. reagan dealt with gorbachev. you know, nixon dealt with mao. it's a reality of the world. we try to move forward even as- >> i appreciate that. i understand the challenge. >> but let me say -- >> on the bartter deal, will we sanction, if such a deal would clearly violate the regime of -- that has been set up and i assume we need to make it very clear to the iranians as well as to the russians that such a deal with be sanctionable. >> mr. chairman we have made it clear to both sides our deep concerns about the reported oil

for goods deal. it would raise serious concerns, as you've said. it would be inconsistent with the terms of the p-5 plus 1 joint plan of action. and, yes, it could trigger u.s. sanctions against the entities or individuals that are involved in that deal. >> senator corker? >> mr. chairman, i appreciate your questioning, and i'm glad you took the time you did. i didn't want the secretary to say that the concerns that we have about foreign policy are very bipartisan. and very sincere and very deep. and when the -- i'm going to move to syria. i will say that it's hard for me to discerned good things that have occurred relative to our negotiations with russia. although, i hope over time we'll be able to see those. but, you know, when the president talked about his red line back in august of 2012, 30,000 syrians were dead.

today 150,000 syrians are dead. we continue to talk about this shiny object, the chemicals. but people daily are being killed with barrel bombs. i'd just like for you in front of everyone, since you're up here asking for a budget request, i'd like for you to explain to us what our syria policy is right now. >> sure, i'd be happy to, senator. and then -- >> and let me say this. we didn't create the syrian problem. i understand that. and we didn't create it. but our lack of attention in dealing with it has caused it to fester to a point where now it's a national security threat to our nation, that's what certainly our leaders are saying in that area that the amount of extremous which we all said, i think you even said on the front end, but i would like for you just to explain to all of us again what our strategy towards syria is today.

in detail, if you would. >> i'd be delighted to explain what it is. but i also want to explain what it's not. because i've heard people suggest many things, that somehow there's, you know, i mean you just said the word and attention to it has led it to be where it is today and so forth. i just don't agree with that, senator. i really don't agree with that. the fact is, we have paid enormous attention to it. by absolute consensus in the united states congress last year, i don't think there was a member here who suggested there was a military -- maybe one or two, who suggested there was a military solution to syria. >> no, but we did suggest arming, training -- >> senator, i'm delighted, we're doing a lot of things, and doine are deeply engaged with the opposition. we are more engaged than we've ever been before, right now. and more successfully right now.

>> would you be willing to tell us about that? >> not in an open session. >> would you commit right now to tell us every detail in a classified session? >> i always felt, as the chairman knows, in my year as chairman of this committee, i thought one of the great anomalies of the united states senate was the foreign relations committee which has to authorize and create foreign policy isn't part of the chain that has access -- >> you won't commit to sharing? >> i will. >> every detail. >> to the degree i'm allowed to under the process of the law, i will do that. if there are any limitations, i'm not sure. we always have these briefings and i'm happy to go through with you. let me explain what i can in open session. i want people to understand what we are doing. i came into this role in february, february 1st of last year. we immediately had a meeting

with the foreign ministers of the so-called london 11 support group. we met in rome, amman and began to coordinate our efforts with the opposition. i think it was april, i met with russia, met with president putin, prime minister lavrov and made the argument we needed to try to work together toward a political solution. at that point in time, president assad was not faring so well. there was a great sense of insecurity. russians agreed we needed to try to negotiate this. subsequently, after agreeing to the concept of the geneva two meeting where you would try to have a negotiation, the opposition began to have its own infighting. nothing we could control. just the nature of the beast. while they began to have their infighting, large numbers of jihadists, again to be attracted to the effort to get rid of

assad because he was killing sunni. many of them are of sunni base. >> all which everyone said was going to happen on the front end. very predictive. >> but what was the plan to not have that happen? i didn't notice congress racing to the barriers saying we are going to do something. i don't think the american people were going to send american troops. >> do you agree with the president's comments on cbs recently that the authorization force that you asked for, had we done that would have no effect in syria? do you agree, they would have no effect after you told us the effect it was going to happen? >> not what the president said. the president said it would not have had the effect of changing the calculation or the course of the war. it would have had an effect on precisely what he was asking for it for, which was to send a message to assad about the use of chemical weapons. >> the authorization you asked for wasn't to degrade his capabilities? >> of using chemical weapons,

correct. if you go back and read it, it was precisely targeted to reduce his capacities with chemical weapons. let me finish the thought here. everybody up here was saying we don't want to go to war. >> no, not everybody. this committee voted to go to war. >> no. they didn't vote to go to war. they voted to have a limited strike for the sole purpose of degrading his capacity to deliver chemical weapons. guess what? >> did you not share with us that degrading would have a definite affect on his ability to carry out against the opposition? you didn't tell us that? >> i think it would have had some effect on that. it would not have had a devastating impact which he would have had to recalculate because it wasn't going to last that long. we know that. it took 30,000 sortees in 30 days to have an impact. we would have one or two days to degrade and send a message. guess what? we came up with a better solution to get all of them out

by working through the diplomatic channel with russia. we had an agreement which is now working out with 54% removed and we are moving to more. what is your take? would you rather drop a few bombs, send a message and then have him still with the weapons and capacity to deliver them or would you rather get all of them out? >> you all tend to, instead of meeting with us and laying out strategy, i noticed the administration is really good at leaking things to newspapers. the chairman alluded to that two weeks ago when one of your systems was making the most reckless comments said before this committee. let me just ask you, apparently there's some debate occurring relative to military action or not, "wall street journal" reports you're for it. we had a letter yesterday from julia sitting right behind you. it was undated, but said we do not believe there is a military solution to the syrian crisis. i'd like for you to share it. do you think there is or isn't?

is there a debate occurring about military action or not? clear it up. i'd love to know whether anne patterson was making something up. >> let me do that. i ask the time to do it because i do want to clear it up. i want to finish quickly the notion, if there is no military solution and everybody at the pentagon would tell you there is no military solution -- >> apparently you think there is. >> no. i think is there a capacity to change assad's calculation and so does the president. >> which is what we discussed last august. >> we will discuss and we will discuss in classified session exactly what those things are are. let me come back to this. i want to answer your question. the reality is that if you're going to have a negotiated solution, you have to have the ability to come up -- last may there was more ripeness. the situation changed on the ground. today assad feels fairly secure in damascus and in some of the

corridor going north to the ports, and that's been his strategy. around him in the south, particularly, in the east and the north, there is not that kind of security. the opposition made some gains recently. so the key here is how do you get the parties to a place where they both understand that there isn't going to be a military solution that doesn't destroy the country absolutely and totally, but which ultimately could be negotiated. there has to be a recognition by both of the ripeness of that moment. it's not now. we all understand that. so the question is, can you do something in order to create that? that's a legitimate question for the congress, legitimate question for the administration, and we talk about that. of course we do. there is no difference in our policy. i support the choices the president has made. we need to have a classified briefing. you need to understand where we are and what we're doing. i look forward to having that

conversation. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate you having this hearing. secretary kerry, i guess we'll tell after when you write your memoirs whether you support the policy of the administration or not, but we certainly get a lot of conflicting reports. i look forward to that classified -- >> it would be helpful in the hearing. i'm happy to be the recipient of some good advice. what is this, what do you believe would make the difference right now in order to get a negotiated solution? or do you believe there is a military solution? >> i actually strongly supported what we passed out of committee on both occasions which was arming the vetted moderate opposition. strongly supported that, with training, doing it under the defense department auspice, not potentially other areas. strongly supported that. kind of thought you supported that actually. i strongly supported the limited strike you asked for.

instead we took another path and had another 60,000 people dead there. no doubt dynamics on the ground have changed. we've got 10,000 al qaeda folks on the ground which we didn't have the time. yes, it's a lot more complicated now. it's destabilizing iraq. destabilizing other places. we are in a very different place. we didn't take actions at a time when we could have made a difference. so many on this committee wanted us to do that. yes, we are in a very complicated place. it's likely interesting we are going toned up in a place where our interest with russia align because very soon we are going to get to a point where because of the extremists on the ground there, it's a threat to their homeland and to ours. actually, you're the secretary of state and i'd love to hear -- you have to be disappointed by what has happened there. you have to be disappointed by the lack of action.

you have to be disappointed about the undecisiveness. there are things supposedly coming to change the dynamics. >> the fact is we are doing more than we have ever been doing. you do need to be briefed. i don't understand why you're not. we had all senator briefings on the top level security. we ought to do that. i'm ready to make that happen. the sooner the better. if you had that, a lot of these questions would be answered. >> senator carton. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i very much appreciate not only you being here but the work you're doing globally for u.s. interests. on syria, let me follow one question where i would hope there would be a strong agreement. i've been very vocal in the human rights violations that occurred in syria. during war people get hurt. there's been a potential targeting by civilians by the assad regime.

10,000 children already died in syria. in previous hearings we talked about the u.s. role making sure that those who are responsible for these gross violations of human rights are going to be held accountable. i still don't see a game plan to bring to justice those who targeted innocent civilians for horrible outcomes, including the use of chemical weapons. can you just share with us what steps the united states is taking to make sure that we will have preserved the record, and people will be held accountable. i tell you, the only way that we can try to reduce this type of action in the future is to make it clear those responsible are, in fact, held accountable by the international community. >> couldn't agree with you more, senator. and all of those incidents are

being chronicled and completely packaged in a sense, ready for that prosecution. there are countless entities that are preparing those cases. there is no question in my mind or anybody's mind, i think, who watches this closely, that war crimes have been committed. purposefully, intentionally, ordered at the highest level. we saw that with the case with the gas, but goes well beyond the gas. indiscriminate bombing of civilians, use of starvation as a tool of war against civilians, blockades. the torture documented, more than 11,000 individuals. it's a human disaster beyond many words. the only other place i can think of on the planet where things

may be worse is north korea. we had the u.n. report on north korea. that's a level unfathomable since the days of hitler. syria's aggression against his own people there is no question in my mind it has to be held accountable and we said we will. >> will you keep us totally engaged on a regular basis as to what progress is being made in this area? >> absolutely. part of the difficulty right now, obviously, is access to the country and to those individuals, but within the course of time, that's probably one of the reasons some of them are fighting the way they're fighting. but over time, we have historically proven we can bring people to accountability and we will. >> you spent a great deal of time in regard to working with the palestinians and israelis on

getting the peace talks started. in the meantime the palestinians have taken unilateral action dealing with recognition that is contrary to the peace negotiations that makes it difficult, yet they will not acknowledge the right of a jewish state. can you just bring us up to date as to the prognosis of where we are in regard to the peace discussions? >> sure. first of all, you know it is our position, the government of the united states and the president supports the notion of israel being defined as a jewish state. he has said that in many speeches and it's in our policy. we believe that that should happen, but when it happens and how it happens has to be part of the negotiation, obviously. it's not going to happen in the beginning, senator. it's really going to be one of those narrative issues that gets resolved towards the end.

>> i would just point out that the acknowledgement of a palestinian state is upfront. it seems to me that the u.s. position is a clear, as part of the outcome of the international recognition of the jewish state. and that that's not a negotiable point. i don't understand when you say that won't be acknowledged up front when the established palestinian state is acknowledged up front. >> it is and it isn't. they don't have a state yet. you have to have borders. you have to have defined solutions to other issues before you have a state. you have to resolve issues of demilitarization and other kinds of things. here is what's really important, senator. both sides, whether a

adinadvertently, defined things that happened. we need both sides to find a way to create the level of compromise necessary to do what they both say they want to do. which is continue the talks. they both view it as important to the future. this fight is over process. it's not over the substance of the final status agreement, it's over how do you get to the discussions of the final status agreement? in the end, the parties are going to have to make that decision. we can cajole, leverage, and offer what might be helpful, but they have to make the fundamental decision. in my judgment, both leaders made courageous and important decisions up until now.

for prime minister netanyahu to release prisoners is a painful, difficult, political step to take. enormously hard. the people of israel have been incredibly supportive and patient giving him the space to do that in exchange for the deal being kept for the release of prisoners and not going to the u.n. unfortunately, the prisoners weren't released on the saturday they were supposed to be released. so day went by, day two went by, day three went by. then in the afternoon when they are about to maybe get there, 700 settlement units were announced in jerusalem and poof, that was sort of the moment. so we find ourselves where we are. my hope is the parties will find a way back. we are working with them to try to do so. they have to, again i repeat, they have to make that fundamental decision. i hope they will. i believe if they do, there is a

way to get into substantive discussions now. a lot of ground work has been laid over the last eight months. we don't talk about it publically. i'm not going to go into the details here, but there has been a narrowing of differences. are there gaps? of course there are gaps. but the narrowing of where they are and different options of how one might deal with them is real. i hope the parties will be able to find a way back. we have an enormous amount on our plate. there are limits to the time the president and i, obviously, can commit to this given the rest of the agenda if they're not prepared to commit to actually be there in a serious way. we'll see what happens in the next days. our teams are still having some discussion on the ground. there was a long meeting yesterday between palestinians and israelis. i'm not going to suggest anything is imminent, but one

always has to remain hopeful in this very difficult, complicated process. if it were easy, would have happened a long time ago. plenty of secretaries of states and presidents tried to help make this happen. why is this moment perhaps different? because at the back end, the consequences are more stark and clearer than they've been before and there is less space for mistakes. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i do not envy the position you're in here today. this is supposed to be a budget hearing where the american people find out what they are getting for their money. after the discussion we've had here today, i think anybody who would come in here would have the impression after we looked at the issues of russia, iran, north korea, afghanistan, pakistan, china, the peace process, and all the difficulties with every one of these, i appreciate your view that there are some things

happening which are positive, but i tell you, you can't help but get the impression our foreign policy is just spinning out of control. and we are losing control in virtually every area we are trying to do something. probably we've got some limited time here to talk about all these problems, but probably what i want to talk about briefly are a couple of them. one of the best examples is the one that's on the front pages today and that is the russian issue. this administration said they were going to hit the reset button. i can't help think somebody hit the wrong button because things have not gone well during this administration. the russians today are misbehaving worse than they have in decades and nothing seems to change that. when you look at what they did in georgia and still remain occupying part of georgia when

they even agreed not to. what they've done in the ukraine. what they've done in syria and are continuing to do in syria, plus we all know about the cheating that's going on on the treaties that have been entered into. i'm very disappointed in what's going on. you can't help but be discouraged about it. i'm interested to hear your thoughts about this meeting coming up next week. you know, you talked about what happened in syria and you had a very similar meeting in syria where you sat down with lavrov and supposedly forged a road forward, and that road forward has been a disaster. you heard the people talk about how many tens of thousands of people have been killed since then. the dismantling of the chemical weapons has slowed down. what makes you think you're going to be able to make better progress on the ukraine? we've seen this movie over and

over and over again with the russians. they misbehave, then we sit down at the table, we make some kind of agreement and they misbehave even worse after the agreement. maybe you could give us a little taste of what you're going to tell lavrov when you meet with him next week. >> let me give you what i consider a taste of reality about our foreign policy and the realities of the world. georgia happened under george bush. georgia happened under george bush. he didn't even bring a sanction. president obama has brought sanctions. and it's having an impact. >> having an impact? >> yes, it is having an impact. the fact is it will have a far more serious impact if they cross over or continue what's happening in east ukraine. now, i don't know anybody in the united states of america who said we ought to go to war or crimea. is there any member of this committee who believes that? i don't think so.

what are we doing? we are using 21st century tools which are the tools of diplomacy to bring people together in other countries to put sanctions in place. we now have announced the possibility of using sector sanctions. that's serious business. serious business. it's banking. it's energy. it's mining, it's arms, it's other things. if you start going down that road, it's not just them who feel it, we'll feel it, too. you have to approach these things with some sense of responsibility. it's not just a speech. it's a policy. it has implications in what happens. and the fact is that we believe they take that seriously. now, their economy is not that strong. they don't make a lot in russia. they extract from the ground and sell it. and so if we start changing energy policy and we start moving with respect to lng and start moving with respect to these sanctions, it can have a profound impact, and i think

russia knows it. it's not the preferred way to go. but when you say something like our foreign policy is spinning out of control, those are great talking points. they make for good sound bites on tv now, but i have to tell you, senator, that's just not true. we helped negotiate a truce in south sudan and helped to pull that country back from the brink of civil war. we helped to create a framework for the disarming of m-23 in the great lakes region of africa. we are engaged in helping the french to quell the people in the reach-off mali and elsewhere. we are engaged with the chinese very directly helping to change their policy which they have done to put greater pressure on north korea and to deal. we moved vessels into the region and sent clear messages with our need and willingness to defend the united states of america. we are the force helping to bring parties together to defend our interests in the south china

sea with respect to chinese claims in that region. we've been engaged in our peace efforts in somalia and other parts of the world and our peace keeping. we are engaged in syria. leading nation in terms of humanitarian assistance and we are doing more than any other country with respect to what's happening on the ground now with the opposition. in the middle east peace we are leading the effort. in the gulf we are leading the effort. i just don't agree with you. we are living in a complicated world where there is more sectarianism, more religious extremism, more young people. 65% of countries are under the age of 30. 50% are under the age of 21. what is the american policy for being able to help them to be able to develop jobs in the future and not go be extremists? there's so much we need to do that depends on the budget, on the congress and our engagement in the world and we are more engaged than ever before.

which is why my travel schedule is what it is. >> secretary kerry, the one thing i really agree with you is the results of foreign policy are not speeches. it is the results. it's the perception of the american people. you heard the list we've gone through with the problems we have. i agree you certainly have done some good things in some of the areas you just indicated. but the major issues, the major initiatives that affect the national security of this country are in very desperate situations in some places and they are deteriorating. i understand the speeches, but i'm telling you, the american people believe that in these areas we have talked about, particularly in russia, our situation deteriorates. before the chairman cuts me off, i want to talk briefly about iran. i've got a constituent. that is pastor abadini who is in prison. john, you've got to do something about this. you sit across the table from these people.

there is no reason he should be in prison today. you cut loose hundreds of millions of dollars to those people. you relaxed some of the sanctions. please help these people. tell them you're not going to do anything more. tell iranians you're not going to do anything more for them until they release him and the two other people that they are holding against all international law, against all human rights, and against any definition of morality that you have. my time is up. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary. so much to talk about. let me offer one thank you. i recently returned from a trip with senator king to israel, the west bank, lebanon and egypt. in direct discussions with both prime minister netanyahu and mahmoud abbas, their personal praise of you for your efforts in trying to put the united states in the appropriate position to try to find a difficult peace deal, they said

almost exactly the same thing about you. they were praise-worthy of your efforts, unprompted, and the comments they made are comments i heard from our allies and partners in egypt, saudi, uaea. it's the holy grail trying to find a solution to the problem like this. i want to thank you for your efforts to try to do something that would be so important in the world. i want to ask you about syria. syria is complicated because there isn't a consensus in this body there was a narrow committee vote authorizing military force for a limited purpose. the odds makers said had that been taken on the floor of the house it would have fail ed in the senate might have been close.

humanitarian aid to syrians. the united states is the largest provider of humanitarian aid to syrians outside syria, jordan, lebanon and turkey. we want to do it and it is a bipartisan priority. now what we need to do is focus upon the delivery of humanitarian aid. after many efforts to stone wall humanitarian solutions, russia succeeded one on the 22nd of september. 2139, which demanded that all parties and particularly syrian authorities promptly allow rapid, safe and unhindered honeymoumanitarian access to pr humanitarian access to syrians, including access across conflict lines and borders. last week the senate after action by this committee unanimously approved a syrian humanitarian aid resolution that was sponsored by myself and

senator rubio. in part, that resolution indicated that the senate, and it passed unanimously, supports the immediate and full implementation of u.n. security council resolution 2139 which calls for unimpeded access to all syrians. the 30-day report after the u.n. security council resolution says 30 days in there is not unimpeded access. what is the united states going to do to help carry out the unimpeded access provision of u.n. security council resolution we fought for months to see pass? >> we are very disappointed in that. you're absolutely correct. we are wushing in the region to see if we can get a consensus about ways we might approach that. that's part of the consideration what we should talk about in classified session. >> i view that as important just to underscore the point. where you have division here

over something what is the right military step, that is going to make it complicated. where you have unanimity we want to be the largest provider of humanitarian access and provide unimpeded access in the country, that is a place where much can be done. when you were here a year ago, i asked a question that is a budgetary matter but also a policy matter. for a number of years the state department had assessed that the training of embassy security personnel needed to be done in a more thorough way. with better facilities and force work. the state department identified a training facility on a barack army base in virginia ft. picket. it was going to be training facility for embassy personnel needs. after the attack in benghazi,

the report recommended recommendation 17 security training had to be improved. the state department in response to that recommendation said we are going to do it and we identified the site. we looked for it for years. it's going to be ft. picket. we'll get moving on it. last winter, february or march, largely in sort of a back and forth between the state department and omb, that plan to proceed in ft. picket was slowed down. i asked you about it a year ago. there's not been any appreciable movement on the proposal to upgrade security training in this instance on state department personnel. if an enhanced training facility was a good idea before benghazi, my assessment is in the aftermath of benghazi within our recommendation, it's a better idea. why haven't we moved forward on this? >> the reason it didn't go forward as rapidly as you would have hoped or i would have hoped was from somewhere, i'm not sure

of the details, there was a suggestion of alternative site that had to be evaluated. it was properly evaluated. due diligence was done. the department is 100% determined that ft. picket is the best site, the site we want to work with you to go forward on. no question of that. we want to try to do that as fast as we can. there is coordination with the defense department, intelligence community, et cetera. ft. picket is the site. >> thank you, mr. secretary. in our travels when i see these foreign security officers like in lebanon living on a compound and they get six hours a week and that's all they get off compound and they have to be accompanied by security, i don't think we should be pennywise and pound foolish on security training for fsos. it's an important initiative. the report recommendings with underline and exclamation point we ought to be moving more quickly. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i agree with the senator. there is a provision that relates to this.

you've been the most successful member today. you got a very direct, specific, positive answer. thank you for being here and mentioning the crisis in venezuela. they had elections about a year ago in venezuela. there were credible reports of irregularities. leading up to the election, the government controls all the modes of communication, denying the opposition air time. dominating the air time for the government. the government has invested heavily in armed militia groups. they go out intimidating, shooting and killing protesters and the current protests going on, they jailed members of the opposition. they control the courts. about 90% of the judges serve on a provisional basis. at any point they could be

removed by the president if he chose to do so. they recently removed a member of their national assembly because she, according to them, had the gall of appearing at the organization of american states and traveling abroad to condemn what is happening within that country. in addition, as you're well aware in july 2009 the general accounting office found that the so-called venezuelan national guard is deeply involved in the trafficking illicit narcotics. our government has concern about senior government officials being involved in trans national criminal activities. including the former defense minister. a congressman, and last but not least the president of their own congress. all these are people we have concerns about in terms of their engagement in trans national and

criminal activity. here is my question. why can't we just say what is obvious to anyone who sees these facts that the government of venezuela is not and does not comport itself as a democracy. because of all these activities and others and violence against their own people have lost the legitimacy of a government? are we prepared to say that as a matter of stated policy of the united states? >> senator, first of all, let me thank you and congratulate you for your leadership on this because it is important. i appreciate enormously the clear message and senate resolution 365 that deplores the repression and violence against the people of venezuela. we've spoken out against it and criticized their ridiculously contrived attacks on us as somehow being engaged in doing things we haven't been engaged in and so forth.

right now, we are very supportive of third party mediation efforts that are aimed at trying to end the violence and see if we can't get an honest dialogue to address the legitimate grievances of people in venezuela. even as we are sitting here today, i think the delegation is meeting in caracas. for the first time the government and the opposition is going to be meeting today as we meet here. this is a very delicate time. the possibility of a negotiation, and i don't think we should -- i don't want to, you know, do something today that provides fodder for them to use me or us as an excuse to say this is why they have to do things. >> i understand that concern. my bigger concern is that our interests in stability, which what is the hope of this negotiation would be, somehow

takes precedent over our stated foreign policy of standing always on the side of liberty, freedom, democracy, respect for human rights, all of which are being systemically abused. i think it's important for the people in venezuela to know the united states condemns these acts of violence going on and all the other things i mentioned. i don't understand why we can't say by the way, just because you had an election does not make you a democracy. there are other aspects of democracy. this government in venezuela does not behave like a democracy. >> they are putting that to the test, no question about it, senator. i don't disagree with you. we have spoken out. i've issued statements personally. i called up the foreign minister some time ago to weigh in. we had our people, as you know, on the ground speaking out. i don't think there is any question for the people of venezuela where we stand. the question is, is there a way to protect those people and earn for them the ability to be able

to get out of jail, express their rights in the political process and fight for the future of their country. let's this meeting take place, let's see what happens and there is time for you, me and others to work on this and see if we have to go a different road forward. >> i have one more question about another part of the hemisphere. last summer the cuban regime was caught smuggling over 240 tons of weapons over north korea in violation of international law. united nations confirmed this. it's the largest interdiction of weapons to or from north korea since u.n. sanctions have been imposed. what has been the united states reaction to that? what have we done in reaction to this violation of u.n. sanctions? s. >> we are working directly with the dprk sanctions committee at the u.n. in order to ensure a vigorous response to shine a light on this activity.

and to get accountability to what has happened. in our dialogue with them, we thus far focused on the individuals who have been involved in this, the entities involved in this. in march along with like-minded states, we push to make the panel of experts report public on the incident that was released. it's the first time the panel of experts report has been made public since june of last year. we have made clear that this violates the sanctions and cuba's interpretation of the u.n. security council resolution is incorrect. we intend to review the results of the u.n. process and try to see if we can get a united multilateral response. >> would you agree this evidence that is now out there before the public is strong evidence of the fact cuba remains a state

sponsor of terrorism? >> in this sense, they exported weapons and that certainly would contribute to that judgment, but in other respects, it's a question, it still doesn't fit the legal definition, senator. you and i in a common sense point of view would say this is -- >> what about holding an american hostage like mr. alan gross? >> it's an act of personal terrorists not international terrorism under the sense of the definition that fits for the designation. i will tell you that i think just today alan gross announced he is going to engage in a hunger strike. we are deeply involved in this. i met with his family a few weeks ago, a month or so ago. we have a number of efforts under way which i would be happy to talk to you about privately. but we are very, very focused on trying to get alan gross out of there. his treatment is inhumane. he is wrongfully imprisoned.

>> selling weapons to north korea in violation of security council resolutions, the only country in the western hemisphere, the largest such violation of the security council resolution by any country is, in my view, pretty significant terrorist act. senator shaheen. >> thank you very much for being here and for all of your efforts to address so many conflicts and hot spots around the world. i understand nobody has yet mentioned today the recent election in afghanistan. while we don't have a full report in, the early reports are that that election was significant, that the turnout was over 60%. and it's a real tribute to the people of afghanistan that they

came out in defiance of threats from the taliban. it's also a tribute to all of the military efforts on the part of the united states and the international community and the diplomatic efforts and the economic assistance programs that the united states has provided to afghanistan. let me congratulate you and everyone at the state department who has worked so hard to support the people in afghanistan. one of the programs that the state department is currently engaged in that i worked on is the afghan special immigrant visa program. as we are preparing for the transition in afghanistan, i believe that there is still a continued need for us to ensure all those afghans who have helped our men and women on the ground there, who are threatened, they and their families are threatened, have the opportunity to try and come

to this country to rebuild their lives. i wonder if you can update me on the status of the program. there were some issues that were not working very well with the program last year that i know the state department has been addressing. can you give us an update how those are going? >> i would be delighted to. thank you for your comments at the beginning of your question. let me say quickly about the afghan election. i want to join you. a couple of people did mention in happening that it happened. this is very significant, but i don't want to overblow it because it's the first one and you've got to get through the run-off and there are still challenges. nevertheless, millions of afghan men and women went to the polls and they voted for their next president. it's something that was unfathomable not so long ago. people wondered if this could be

achieved. the last couple of months in afghanistan, there was a full and open flourishing debate in afghanistan as people listened to the candidates. i think what's really important to understand is, this was owned and operated, managed, run by of a dawans. it was their election commission, their rules, they put this together. they made this happen. i give great credit to president karzai who employed the commission who helped make this happen, all the people invested in this. so it's -- their army helped provide the security. we helped with the planning and laid out some thoughts about it. they helped execute it. it's very important. it's a critical step forward. there will be challenges ahead. i don't want anybody to suggest this smooths the way completely at all. there are big challenges.

this is important. on the special immigrant visas, we have improved the processing times. we expanded the outreach to current and former employees who may be eligible. we issued more special immigrant visas in afghanistan and in iraq, incidentally, than any time in any previous year since october of last year more than 2,000 afghans, interpreters, their family members, have received special immigrant visas. there are over 700 principal applicants and 1,300 family members. in the first five months of this year we issued more sivs in afghans to their dependents than all of last year. i think there is a lot of work being done even as we are maintaining the standards that you want and other people want

with respect to the program itself. i think the current allocation of visa numbers 3,000 that are allocated should get us through this year. but it won't be enough to handle the cases in the pipeline, and we're going to have to expect new applications are going to come -- have to be approved as we go forward. >> thank you. i look forward to continuing to work with the state department on that program. on a note that is not so positive, last week it came to light the state department's office of inspector general has discovered that over the past six years contracts worth more than $6 billion lacked complete and in some cases no records and that many of the files for contracts supporting our u.s.

mission in iraq couldn't be located. i wonder if you could tell us what actions the state department is taking in response to the concerns that have been raised by the inspector general? >> let me begin by saying we haven't had an inspector general at the state department for 3 1/2 years or more. there was no inspector general. >> i appreciate your swift action to try and finally get one hired. >> it's important. it's an important part of oversight. i hired our current inspector general who came from fhafa, a former prosecutor, outstanding attorney and good person for the job. and i welcome the oversight. that's number one. number two. i began this process looking at

the possible liabilities that came from my time here on the committee when i traveled to began dawafghanistan began. i saw the contracting and recognized the corruption that existed in afghanistan. i told folks we've got to get a handle on what's happening here. what we found is and what this inspector general report confirms is there have been problems in paperwork, management. no money. no $6 million has been lost. the money is accountable. but it's keeping up with the paperwork. part of the problem is, i have learned, and this is important to the budget process, every single entity of government where we are managing contracting is underresourced, understaffed and hard to keep up with the paper. why not go electronic? in some places electronic is not an option, afghanistan or other places. it takes people. we are underresourced with

respect to that. we are on it. the dependency secretary of state for management is pursuing this completely. we will have a report to the inspector general showing exactly where they are and where they are going. this is a good process. people should welcome this kind of oversight and accountability. it helps us get on top of things. >> thank you. >> senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, welcome back. you left this committee, took on a new role tame time i joined this committee. it's been a rather momentous time. most americans would like to concentrate on the enormous domestic challenges, but reality is smacking us all in the face. like senator risch, i don't your challenges. the pressing problems go back to

ukraine and russia. i was part of the bipartisan delegation there the day before they took the vote in crimea. certainly as we were meeting with the prime minister, you could see the stress in his face. it was sobering. the disappointment the united states wasn't offering small arms and ammunitions to support the courageous people of ukraine. in response to my question what can we do what can we do to support ukraine and the prime minister made the statement vladimir putin will not respond to words. he only responds to action. in your testimony here you say you made it clear about our deep concerns we will not hesitate to use 21st century tools. what actions are we going to take to change the calculus of

vladimir putin. what are we going to do to make the price high to putin if he continues the provocations, you say contrived crisis, contrived pretext? the reason we heard from this administration they weren't willing to provide arms, they would provide provocation. he needs deterrence what are we going to do to deter vladimir putin going further in ukraine? >> we are doing it. >> they mocked our last set of sanctions. >> no. the last set were not mocked. the first round met with some because i think people's expectations were higher. you know this dealing with human

nature and problems that you, you know, you want to aim before you shoot. i think it's clear that we have huge capacity to have an impact. they're not incapable analyzing america's capacity here with respect to banking and finance and movement of people and so forth. what we wanted to do initially was make it clear there is going to be action. the europeans have marched together with us, in partnership here in unanimous form. europe does a lot more business with russia than we do. >> vladimir putin, he is creating this provocation. they are moving into cities in ukraine. he is setting up the same circumstances as he did in georgia and crimea. >> could be, but he could also

not be. i don't have the answer to exactly what step he is going to take when. what i do know is we are sending a signal today of the clarity of our intention to use whatever sanction is necessary if they continue. that's clear. and that's taking full aim the question is will that have an impact or won't it? given the fact yesterday at their initiation they called us to suggest it was important to have a meeting to try to deal with this. i'm not going to place any stock in a meeting. i'm not going to place it on words. it's got to be actions. >> that is my point. what actions? former governor of your state governor romney was mocked when he said russia was america's greatest geopolitical foe.

why across the world are americans' hands so tied, which seems like we are. large part of our answer is our leaders terrible timing. in every foreign affairs crisis we faced these past five years, there was a point when america had good choices and good options. there was a juncture when america had the potential to influence event but failed to act at the moment. the moment having passed we were left without acceptable options. went on to say, it is hard to name even a single country that has more respect and admiration for america today than when president obama took office. now russia is in ukraine. can you name a country that has greater respect for america five years later? >> i can name lots of countries that have greater respect for us as we are attempting to move people out of guantanamo, as we end a war in iraq, are beginning to draw down in afghanistan,

stand up for human rights as we are the single greatest supporter of humanitarian effort in syria, as we do countless things, as we save 5 million kids' lives in africa with our program on aids. many things that people admire about what we are doing. are there problems? sure there are problems. in different parts of the world. there is greater sectarianism. greater religious extremism. greater radical islam presence in various places. you're going to dump all that on the united states of america? please, this is a complicated world, my friend. the fact is the united states is doing an amazing amount with some handicaps, i might add. a budget that is getting smaller, not bigger. having to hold back on what we are doing in certain countries. having to cut in certain places what we've been doing to try to help people educate or change or provide health care or do some of the things we do. i think you need to look

carefully at this kind of talk about the action that produces the differential. president putin didn't decide to do what he did in crimea because of something the united states did or didn't do. he decided to do it because he could and it was in his interest. again -- >> and he didn't feel he would pay a price. trust me, i totally blame vladimir putin. if there is bloodshed it's because of vladimir putin, but we have to deter. >> you have to measure price in certain ways. is he paying a price? his soldiers are not able to travel to some of their various places. they are losing money. ruble has gone down 7%. there is an impact in europe. i think he had a massive change in public opinion in ukraine. people who once felt better about russia don't today. he's united many ukrainians,

even those russian-speaking against russia. >> he is still sending in agents under the pretext for further action. he's not been deterred. >> yes, he is. no, he hasn't stopped doing that, that is accurate. but there are, i think, questions about legitimate questions before you pull the trigger that need to be answered about what they may or may not be willing to do in the next days. they are willing to meet with europe, with ukrainians. that is a step forward. they are willing to sit with the interim government of ukraine with europe, with the united states in an effort to sort of plot a road ahead. we have made it clear, the imperative to deescalate, the imperative to demobilize and move troops after my meeting in paris, they did announce a drawback of one particular battalion. not enough yet. not what we are obviously looking for. but a first signal. the question now is, can some of

their other legitimate interests be met in a way that is appropriate, which doesn't invite illegitimate interests to be also mixed into the batch. that's the key. i don't know the answer to that question yet. i don't think we will until we meet, but i do think that begin the serious implication of the sector sanctions, we owe it to ourselves and to everybody to exhaust the possible remedies that the diplomatic process might provide. we haven't done that yet. we are going to find out. obviously yesterday was a step backwards. no question about it. we've spoken out loudly and clearly as a consequence of it and made clear what our determination is. >> thank you. >> america must face reality and hope is not a strategy. thanks. let me congratulate senator murphy on behalf of his state. he is proudly wearing his uconn

pin. there are other members of the committee that will not feel we appreciate the excellent game of both sides, but we want to congratulate senator murphy as he is beaming today. so senator murphy. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we wear our husky allegiance on our sleeve and also on our lapel. secretary kerry, thank you very much for being here today. i think there are a number of guiding principles behind putin's foreign poll system one clearly is to re-establish control over what he calls the near abroad. one is to do whatever he can to poke a stick in the eye of the united states. while i certainly understand some of the arguments and some of the interests by members of the establish to arm the the uk military in a lot of ways that creates a military contest in ukraine between the united

states and russia. we're playing into his backyard and we are not willing to play by the same rules that he is willing to play by, and so, mr. secretary, i guess i want to ask you a question about how we take steps to insert the ukrainians back into this discussion about their future relationship with russia, and i maybe want to ask that through -- in sort of two ways. one, how do we shift the diplomatic conversations from conversations between you and lavrov to conversations that are truly -- make sure that the ukrainians are part of that discussion, and, second, what are the things that we can do leading up to the may 25th elections to make sure that they come off in a free and fair

manner and the russian advisory no ability between now and then to try to influence that choice. clearly, we're getting some really, really discouraging signals about some of the actions that russians are taking on the ground today to try to intimidate candidates. perhaps to try to dissuade people from coming out to the polls. what we've heard over and over again is that this is a revolution of dignity in ukraine, that they want control over their destiny again. how do we put hem at the center of these political deliberations? how do we support the upcoming elections to make sure that they actually get to register a free and fair choice? we've been very sensitive to and

proactive in our efforts to make certain that everything is eminating from the ukrainians, and so we have said very, very clearly that no decision will be made for ukraine without ukraine. medical record to make sure that we're listening very, very carefully to what they need and don't want. they do want us engaged, and they do want us supporting them in the way that we are through these discussions. yesterday in my conversation with foreign minister lavrov, i said it was really important to -- for him to have a conversation directly with the foreign minister, it would be great. he said i intend to call him after we have talked, and he did. they had a good conversation, i understand, and agreed to set

them -- try to come to this meeting and see if we can work constructively going forward. scheduling a meeting or having a meeting cannot solve things all the time. things have to change on the ground. we all understand that. if you don't talk things then spiral out of control and get worse. what we're trying to do is manage the process going forward with clarity that things weren't professed or upheld. statements were made by not violating the integrity of ukraine, and they did. all of these -- all of these

protests and/or proffers have to be taken with a grain of salt, ending the process. we will continue to work very closely with ukrainians. our ambassador on the ground, jeff, you guys have met him, is terrific. he is very engaged. he is listening carefully. we are talking regularly with all of the members of the interim government. with respect to the election, it is interesting. in our last meeting in paris there was -- while not accepting legitimacy necessarily, there was no effort to change the date of the election. there was no sense that that is not going to go forward. now, yesterday raises some question marks about that, and they're concerning, obviously, but we will continue to try to work. i might add, it's not just us.

all our european partners, countless other people are invested ms notion that what has happened is a violation of the international order, the structure by which we have dealt since world war ii, in recognizing boundaries of countries and sovereignty and integrity of territory, and that's a serious issue. so that is all going to have to be resolved in the days ahead going forward. >> just a quick word, mr. chairman, about our ambassador there. i don't think he's taken a day off or a half a day off or an hour off since this crisis erupted, and i will just note that he was voted out of this committee and out of the senate expeditiously so that he was on the ground in time to know the country, learn the players so that he was ready to go when this crisis erupted, having no idea at the moment of his confirmation that he would be needed in this way. it is just another advertisement for why the senate needs to move

with all deliberate speed on nominees because you never know when they are going to be badly needed on the ground. >> well, thank you, senator. i appreciate that very much. and you're right. >> senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> secretary kerry, i listened with great interest to some of your comments, and i think you're about to hit the trifecta. geneva 2 was a total collapse that i predicted to you it would be. the only tangible result is that people who went to geneva for the free national council were kidnapped. the israeli-palestinian talks, even though you may drag them out for a while, are finished, and i predict even though we gave the iranians the right to enrich, which is unbelievable, that those talks will collapse too. you can talk about mali, and you can talk about other places in the world, but on the major

issues, this administration is failing very badly. you are talking strongly and carrying a very small stick, in fact, a twig. what's involved is the dismemberment of russia of ukraine that they signed a treaty in return for the nuclear inventory of ukraine which was in the third largest nuclear power. some individual sanctions, some diplomatic sanctions, suspension. not removal from the g-8. now more threats to come. i predicted that putin would go into crimea because he couldn't bare to give up -- because he is what he is. i am now very concerned because of our lack of response, whether

he will foment discontent in the manner in which he is now, which will then demand autonomy for parts of eastern ukraine. when a foreign minister of russia lies to your face, once, twice, three, four times i would be reluctant to take his word for anything. here we are with ukraine being destabilize, a part of it dismembered, and we won't give them defensive weapons. i take strong exception to mr. murphy's statement. we don't want to provoke. we don't want to provoke vladimir putin fwi giving these people the ability to defend themselves after their country is dismembered and there are provocations going on? that, i say to you, sir, is the logic of appeasement. the logic of appeasement. i want to know -- and i think the american people should know

and maybe most importantly the people of ukraine should know why won't we give them some defensive weapons when they're facing another invasion. not the first, but another invasion of their country. it is just beyond logic. frankly, we don't give people assistance to defend themselves, then it just as the syrian decision, it reverberates throughout the entire world. i would like to know why it is not at least under serious consideration to give them some defensive weapons with which to defend themselves. >> well, senator, let me begin with the place that you began with your premature judgment about the failure of everything.

you know, i guess it's pretty ease where i to lob those judgments around, but particularly well before the verdict is in on any of them. geneva 2, my friend, i said would not succeed maybe for a year or two. if the truth is there's no military solution and there is only a political solution, you have to have some forum in which to achieve it. the talks on vietnam, you know this better than anybody, went on for how many years? years. it took them a year to design the table to sit around. so i had no expectations that assad's calculations will change in time for the first meeting or second meeting, but what we learned is that the syrian regime was completely unwilling to negotiate any serious way, which helps in terms of the opposition, and the opposition

showed itself to be quite capable, and that was important. 40 nations took it seriously enough, senator, to come in order to make it clear you needed a political solution. now, that's a beginning. that's all it is. i understand that. but if syria is ever going to be resolved, it's going to be through a political process, and that political process, geneva 2, is now in place, though the moment is not ripe because we still have to change assad's calculation. you know as well as i do, because you and i have talked about that, that that has yet to happen and has to happen. secondly, israel, palestine. it's interesting that you declare it dead, but the israelis and the palestinians don't declare it dead. they want to continue to negotiate. >> we'll see, won't we, secretary? >> beg your pardon. >> we'll see, won't we? >> yes, we will. >> it has stopped. recognize reality. >> we'll see where the reality

is as we go down the road here. there are serious problems. it's a tough issue, but your friend teddy roosevelt also said that the credit belongs to the people who are in the arena who are trying to get things done, and we're trying to get something done. that's a teddy roosevelt maxism, and i abide by it. i think it's important to do this. sure, we may fail. you want to dump it on me. i may fail. i don't care. it's worth doing. it's worth the effort, and the united states has a responsibility to lead, not always to find the pessimism and negativity that so easily is prevalent in the world today. finally, on the subject that you raise about iran, we're talking. the option is you can go to war. a lot of people are ready to drop bombs all the time. we can do that. we have the ability. but this president and this secretary of state believe that the united states of america has

a responsibility first to exhaust every diplomatic possibility to find out whether we can prove what the iranians say, that their program is peaceful. before you ask the american people to go to war, we have an obligation to exhaust the remedies that are available to us medical record to legitimatize whatever subsequent action we might have to take. now, we are engaged in eyes open negotiations. we have no illusions about how tough this is. i'm not predicting success, senator. i'm not. but i know we have an obligation to go through this process before we decide to go to war. so that's why we are. you declare them all dead. i don't. we'll see what the verdict is. with respect to arming and providing assistance to the ukrainians. the fact is that we are currently working with ukraine to determine their requirements across the entire security sector, and based on those

requirements, we're going to review the options with the congress and find out whether or not we're in a position to provide assistance, but let me tell you something, if we decided today to give them a whole bunch of assistance, have you to train them, you have to do things. which is the greater deterrent? we happen to believe right now that if the deterence you are looking for is going to have an impact, the greatest deterence will come from putin's own vulnerabilities in his economy and the royce that if we bring sector sanctions, russia is going to really hurt. i think that's a strong incentive -- a strong deterrent, even as we consider what we do for the long-term for military assistance which will not make a difference fast enough to change this calculation. >> i appreciate the time, but facts of stubborn things, as ronald reagan used to say, geneva one, 50,000 dead. geneva 2, 100,000 dead in syria. now there's 150,000 dead.

any objective observer will tell you that assad is winning on the battlefield. from the time when the president of the united states said it's not a matter of whether, it's a matter of when bashir as assad is going to leave, and no one says that anymornings and your view of what the ukraine yns need is vastly different of what the ukrainians think they need which is a sovereign right to defend themselves which is something we have done historically helping people who are struggling against overwhelming odds. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> john, if i can just say -- i just said to you we are evaluating with them exactly what their needs are. we'll come back here and ask you. >> they've said what they need -- what the needs are a long time ago, and you and i could sit down in 15 minutes and tell them -- knowing what their needs are, and that's defensive weapons. >> the greatest single need right now is to get their economy moving and to be economically strong. they won't survive otherwise.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. mr. secretary, you talked about the russian-led unrest in eastern ukraine, and it has now been an announcement that they're going to try to have a referenda in ganest on may 11th in front of the presidential election on may 25th. clearly, the goal of that referenda is to say that part of the country wishes to secede and go back to russia. can you talk a little bit about that as it is unfolding as a strategy, a referenda strategy in russia and what the administration is thinking about as a strategy to deal with that? >> well, thank you, senator.

>> it is an unsupportable effort to violate the territorial integrity of ukraine. money has any illusions about what might come with that. now, that's the call for that, i believe, came from some paid individual. not necessarily an announcement per se that that's what's going to happen, and so i think it's unclear. there are representatives of the ukrainian government that have gone out there to begin to negotiate. the deoccupation of the buildings and the process forward, and i think it's sort of -- it's a moving target right

now as to what exactly may or may not happen. the issue is whether the russians are serious in this discussion that we hope to have next week at resolving these kinds of questions. part of their complaint right now is that there's an inadequate representation within the constitutional reform process in ukraine, and they allege that if there is a proper representation and listening to people in the north and the south, that that's really what they're after. i don't know the answer to that. if this is camouflage for this other move, we're obviously going to watch extremely carefully, and the president is completely poised to move forward with the sector or other sanctions necessary to respond to this. what concerns do you have about the russians trying to interfere

with this electoral process, and what role do you think we can play with the e.u. to make sure this next month, up until may -- >> the key is to have, you know -- the key is to flood the zone with observers, make sure there are -- we've got osce. we've asked u.n. we're trying to get as many people in there who can be the truth tellers. people who can inform as to exactly what is happening and allow less maneuverability for the pretext and the contrived situations to try to provide legitimacy. i think that's one important thing. the second is to work with the ukrainians themselves to make sure that all of the instruments for legitimate open, free, fair, accountability, accessible election are available. >> and i would like -- while you're just at it, one more subject, and that is climate change. it is worsening. the ipcc report actually has shown a telescope time frame for the dangers that the planet is facing.

could you talk a little bit about that as you see this impact globally? >> well, senator, i appreciate your asking the question. the impacts of climate change are growing enormously. not significantly, but just enormously. at a pace where you know, senator, very well because you have followed this for years and been a leader on it, all of the scientific analysis that suggested targets for that we need to meet in order to hold the carbon levels such that we can hold the warming of the earth at 2 degrees centigrade, we're in excess of it. we're moving beyond them. we're moving beyond them at a pace that shows us bringing more coal firepower plants on-line, more methane being released, which is 20 times more potent than carbon, which is the consequence of the warming

that's already taking place, more carbon dioxide going into the oceans, which is changing the ecosystem, more fires, more floods, more different weather patterns. i mean, there's just a profoundly impactful, clear scientifically proven pattern taking place. all of the predictions of the scientists are not just being met, they're being exceeded, both in the rapidity to which it's happening and the level to which it's happening. given the most recent ipcc report by the u.n. climate panel, really we've got to respond and we've got to respond rapidly. the margin for error is disappearing, and when i hear people, you know, say to me, well, you know, some people still contest the evidence or they contest the science. without any science to contest it, by the way, but they contest it, nevertheless. they say, well, where should we take these measures? what if you guys are wrong? as you know, senator, better than anybody, if what you're proposing or countless

governments across the world are starting to do is wrong, the worst that could happen is they made themselves more energy independent, they've got cleaner energy, there is less carbon dioxide, less particulates in the air, people are healthier, there's more renewable energy. all for the better. if the other guys are wrong, the people saying don't listen to it, what's the worst that can happen? the worst that can happen is life as you know it on earth is over. so i think people in public life have a responsibility to employ the precautionary principle that when you are weighing various concepts and they're supported by science and fact and imperical evidence, i hope we take action. >> thank you for that work, and all the other issues that we've been discussing here today. they are tough, tough issues, but they have to be resolved. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you. as i call upon senator paul, let me say that kentucky played a really tough, defensive, exciting game, and we appreciate them showing the nation what kentucky is all about. >> i know your consolation is sincere, and i wish i could accept it with a better attitude, but still unhappy with the outcome. thank you, secretary kerry, for coming today. one of the first things or actions that i remember as you began your office was that you reinstated the four employees, you know, that were involved and implicated by the review board in ben ghazi. it's always to me been more of a concern about the decisions that were made in the six months in advance of ben ghazi than the talking points. in fact, i think the talking points have drowned out some really important decisions we made. we're all human, so these people i'm not saying are bad people, but some really bad decisions were made in the six months leading up. two of the big ones were made is

i think there was a 16-person security team led by colonel wood who said we wanted to stay in country and they were not allowed to stay in country. there was also a request for a plane, and apparently that evening, you know, for a dc-3 that was denied earlier. maybe about six months before the attack. that plane would have been important. there was a struggle that evening, you know, to get permission from the libyans to get a plane. i think the c-30 they were trying to get on was a libyan plane. there really were some bad decisions made, and this doesn't make the people who made the decisions bad people, but they were bad decisions that were made. your request for security that were turned down throughout the six months preceding the attack on ben ghazi, though, a lot of money was spent on things that i think most americans would say are frivelous and maybe not part of the immediate mission of the state department. i'll give you a few examples. $100,000 was spent on sending comedians to india. it was the make chai, not war tour.

$100,000 was spent on getting electrical charging stations so he could green up the embassy. $350,000 were spent on facebook ads. $700,000 was spent on landscaping for the embassy in brussels. $5 million was spent on crystal wine glasses and crystal glassware, bar ware for the state department for embassies. you can argue the legitimacy of these, but it's hard to argue that in the face of the sdast irin ben ghazi, and it's hard to argue this in the face of people say, well, we didn't have enough money. the other criticism i think that ought to be considered with regard to ben ghazi is that -- this is something i think the review board didn't adequately address -- is whether or not in the midst of a country coming out of war that really the state department should be in charge of security. whether they can adequately provide security. i think one of the biggest mistakes in decision -- these all happen from your

predecessor, not you, but the biggest decision mistake i think in ben ghazi was thinking that ben ghazi was more like paris than baghdad. had we treated ben ghazi as a fortress in the middle of a military base, i think we might have had a better chance. nobody can predict exactly, you know, what could happen with different outcomes, but i think when we have a civil war raging, we have to consider whether or not one of the errors in decision was how we chose to protect or not protect the consulate. where is this still important? i think it's still important because i'm concerned another attack could happen like this in other countries that are under state department control. i know you're probably well aware of sort of the situation on the ground in libya, but i don't know that it's perfectly stable. i'm concerned whether or not we could have another attack of this magnitude in tripoli at the embassy. we no longer have any consulate in ben ghazi, correct? >> we didn't have one then, senator. that is not a consulate. >> okay. we had some kind of -- it was --

>> not a consulate. >> okay. anyway, my concern is whether or not we're adequately protected, whether the state department can adequately protect, and whether or not maybe embassies in war-torn countries or countries emerging from civil war would be better off treated more as we did the embassy in baghdad, you know, with a much greater military presence and a much greater military oversight of protection and whether or not you have looked at the expenses and if you haven't, you'll look at some of the expenses that many of us have seen in the press and are aghast that we spent $100,000 sending some comedians to india, $650,000 on facebook ads, $700,000 on landscaping, $5 million on crystal ware. it really in the face of this ben ghazi disaster, we need to re-evaluate how we're spending our money at the state department. >> when did the comedian goes to india? i'm curious. >> it's all previous to your tenure. i'm not blaming this on you. i don't want to be frivelous about sending some comedians.

i mean, really, seriously, there are complaints we don't have enough money for security. >> senator, let me answer your question. good questions. legitimate. i keep hearing repeated again and again that there was no accountability for these people who were involved. two of them were forced to retire. they retired. the other two were essentially demoted and took on lesser responsibilities. that's pretty heavy stuff for career people. this needs to end this notion that there was no accountability. not just the lives that were changed, but the lives lost and the people who were part of that, but these people, you know, obviously paid a price and a significant one. in addition to that, we've gone beyond what is required of the

29 requirements. we've done even more with respect to our embassies. every week i am -- every meeting that we have every day, as a matter of fact, we are starting the morning with an 8:30 meeting if i'm here. if i'm not, i'm informed. we have a review of our threat levels, and we have too many places where there are threats. we've done an incredible job under the hardest of circumstances, hardening sites where they can be, taking unbelievable precautions for our people, and we've done a lot of different things. we've created a new deputy assistant secretary for high threat posts who is responsible for making sure they get the focused attention necessary to keep people safe. we've insured that the staff of diplomatic security go to regional meetings and regular meetings and security issues. we've discussed work requirements. i'm not going to go through all of it.

we've got 151 new security personnel. we've had countless marine detachments to provide protection where we can. all of this has budget implications, obviously. i'm puzzled, and i'll look at them, and i'll investigate it. there's an incredible effort to tighten the belt and upgrade our capacity for our security. >> do you think it was a mistake to have the ambassador in ben ghazi without more significant military protection? >> let me speak to -- there was a request put in for additional security for ambassador stevens, and it was given to him. he had additional numbers of people that went out there with him. the problem is it wasn't adequate, obviously. >> quite a bit of it was sort of unofficial militia. do you think it was a good decision to have unofficial

militia who basically ran when the time came, or -- >> he had additional security personnel, official within the department. i think it was one or two people who were assigned, so his number when he went out there met what he hadded with. obviously, it was not adequate, as we all have sadly learned, to the task of repelling what took place, but the intelligence community has said had he had no information about that kind of attack. there was nothing operative in which to be able to make a decision. >> are we still using militias, or do we have more of our own people doing protection? >> we have more of our own people. we have significantly hardened up the embassy there. we have -- i'm not going to go into the numbers, but we have a very significant increase in american personnel on the ground. we have much more significant