in the last year alone, the yen has fallen about 25% against the dollar. china is not part of t.p.p., but if we did this, it would send a warning shot that if they eventually want into t.p.p., they have to reform their currency as well and might even just get them to move on their own if they saw we made a strong stand. >> of foreign currency manipulation has cost americans -- 1.5 $1.5 million million jobs, ending the manipulation would reduce the trade deficit by 300 will and dollars -- $300 trillion and newte 2.3 to 5.8 million jobs. it matters a lot. i have long been an advocate in this fight against the type of activity that china, japan, and others do with a and at daylight there currency.

committee haves joined us. if we brought our bill to a vote on the floor it would pass again. we could take legislative action today and when. -- and win. but this issue can be better dealt with the country to country negotiations than through legislative changes. it has been 18 years since the treasury has designated any country and currency manipulator. i ask what vehicle we have at our disposal to combat this activity which everyone says is wrong if not agreements like tpp. i hope the president raises but the japanese prime minister. i want to make clear, i cannot and will not support an agreement that does not include

objective criteria to define and enforce against currency manipulation. he wouldn't agree to pay -- play a game of baseball when your team only got to strike said s at bat. bet is how we would hamstringing ourselves. it hurts experts to other countries and advances their exports across the board. here or in an industry there. but every sector of the economy. any country taking this action that is so detrimental to our nation's economy should not be granted preferential access to our market. my question is, has currency manipulation been discussed in the current negotiations? what do you think the outlook is forgetting something real in the t.p.p. bill?

>> thank you for your long-standing leadership on this issue. be a great currency is a critically important issue. from the start of the administration, from the president down, we been pressing china bilaterally and through the g 20 and elsewhere to move to a market oriented exchange rate and allow currency misalignment to be adjusted. thetreasury department has lead on this issue. you have had an opportunity to see secretary lula peer and engage with them as well. andecretary lew up here engage with him as well. example, fromfor the president down we have engage with the chinese. in june 2010 they begin to allow their currency to move again. terms.moved 18% in real not fast enough. not far know. but we made a certain degree of

progress there. for the g7, we made sure countries are focused on. >> has it been discussed? >> not as of yet. >> i hope it will be. it matters a great deal to us. i regret that it hasn't been discussed yet given its level of important. thank you senator schumer. >> thank you for this hearing. it is wonderful to see you again. i want to follow-up on senator schumer's comments. i want to ask about currency manipulation as well. we talked expensively -- extensively about that. i thought this had been something that had been discussed. to emphasize again, as you know, we have 60 senators in a bipartisan way that have written a letter asking that we have an inclusion of strong and enforceable currency disciplines

and all future trade agreements. 60 members. they feel strong about that. when we talk about trying to pass t.p.p., i'm not sure how that passes giving the strong feelings that people have. house wrote a the letter also. senator schumer talked in general terms about this. country.ro in on one this is surly not about one country. we know about china. we know what has happened in the past. singapore, korea, different places. let me talk about japan. we are doing specific negotiations with japan. know, japan has not directly intervened in the foreign exchange markets in more than two years, but the yen has depreciated significantly

against the u.s. dollar. while the depreciation has shown an ethic of the number of u.s. imports, you shared information on the numbers, it does provide a massive advantage for japanese automakers. at today's exchange rate, there is an estimated benefit of $5,700 on every vehicle. it is a windfall in operating profits. it may end up in advertising. it may end up in research and development. in cutting prices. it may end up in cutting prices on vehicles and other markets. where u.s. automakers are directly competing with the japanese and other markets around the world. is, $5,700 is no small thing. from insult to injury,

even though japan is not currently intervening, and i would ask you if they are not currently intervening in exchange markets, why would they not support enforceable currency provisions and t.p.p.? aren't you concerned about the competitive trade advantage that these kinds of numbers show? yes, we are concerned about currency. and, about making sure there is a level playing field. it has been important to the world that japan get back on a path to economic growth. it is the third largest economy in the world. it growing means there is a market for our products. it is been important that the g7 has expressed to japan the importance of them pursuing domestic growth and being focus on the domestic part of their economy. it is a big the treasury

department engages directly with japan on. we monitor it carefully. we are concerned. this is one reason why from the top-down we have made a focus on domestic demand led growth, rebalancing the economy in bilateral discussions and through institutions like the g7 0.d you 20 -- g2- >> this is incredibly important. let me also say that two thirds of the u.s. trade deficit is automotive goods. focus onciate the nontrade barriers. this it ministration saw a resurgence offul the automobile agency. in a situation where you can't even get in the japanese markets.

but, i guess, in closing, i would just ask that you continue very focused negotiations, it does not take the place of currency. but it is important we open up those markets as well. >> thank you, senator. as you know, we negotiate upfront about phasing out tariffs. longerackloaded, being than the course agreement. ongoinga negotiation about the nontariff barriers to japan's auto market which has been historically closed. withe making progress dispute settlements, along those lines. we are making progress. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator can well. -- caantwell.

>> i appreciate your focus on transparency. keyword of our generation. to have transparency. issue -- i, this issue differently than my colleagues. our region of the country looks at this differently. 1-3 jobs are related to trade. i support the reauthorization of the xm bank. we approach this next reauthorization a hope we don't find consternation of people who don't want manufacturers to export and get u.s. products overseas. i support the reauthorization of programs that help small business called step, helping u.s. manufacturers and small businesses export product. i support the trade promotion

authority. likenk it is something , since ourone authority has left, they have done something like nine agreements. japan eight. korea six. trade promotion hands are tied. is thing i'm interested in this news article about the rising middle class around the globe. to quote the article, it is going to go from 2 billion to almost 5 billion by 2030. ae world market, that is global middle-class spending in 2030. will rise most of this is outside the united states of america. if we do not have any agreement, how do we get our products into these markets?

i wondered if you could comment on that, and then comment on the point that when you have tpa, it becomes the standard. you could do lots of individual long-term agreements. my point is, while everyone else is doing deals, we are sitting here. we know where the growth opportunity is. tpa, it can set the standard for these agreements. you have people anxious about the situation. we want to set a standard. is that correct? >> absolutely pre-i agree. just throughout another figure, right now there is an estimated 500 million middle-class consumers in the asia-pacific region expected to grow to 2.7 billion by 2030. the question as we increase -- the question is, who is one to serve that market? made in america products or

products built by somebody else? what are going to be the rules of the road for the region? t.p.p. is an opportunity for us to set standards for the asia-pacific and throughout the international trading system. to raise labor standards. environmental standards pre-to make sure the internet or mains free and you don't see it vulnerable bodies -- it alternate the internet. helpis our opportunity to be at the table, take leadership, and set the rules of this important region. isyou mentioned, t.p.p. intended to be a platform. there are 12 countries around the table. there are several more waiting in the wings who said they would like to join when the 12 have reached an agreement and to sign onto the standards we are able to negotiate. it gives us a chance to open markets for our products in the vital important region which will will see a huge growth in middle-class.

and take our services. largerbuild a larger and laugher of countries willing to sign on to high standards pre-that is a win-win for us. the alternative is that others are negotiating their own agreements at our expense, getting market access at our expense. those countries don't with the same value we do on labor and environment. internationalng -- intellectual property. that is what we are pressing for . we have willing partners around the table. this is our opportunity. >> market access is a keyword. people don't realize when you lose market share over a long time, and then you try to go in and compete, it is much harder. thank you. thank you. thank you for your aggressive leadership on behalf of t.p.p.

and trade. i think i heard you say in your met 1500 timesou with members of congress on trade? >> 1250 times. >> ok. of the 1250, heavy metal at the majority leader? >> i have met with the majority leader. >> his response to movement on trade or fast-track was? , leader reads position -- i think his position is well known. he worked on a bipartisan basis to move trade agreement. anyid he give you indication there was little room? -- wiggle room? >> we would like to see tpa move

forward. we look forward to working with the chairman. >> the chairman is going to do a great job. so with the rest of us. i'm worried about the majority leader. this glasscan fill and make it half full. i'm not going to measure the vice president's meeting with the house in assuring members over there that people worried about union concerns, don't worry, we are not going have any trade bill. you to expressto our concerns regarding the european union protection as geographical indications, a in trade concept, tootiations, if the ee where have its way, common products baloney andesan

black forest ham would no longer be able to label themselves that way. that is ridiculous. i am not interested in the -- ua dictating. responded to our letter. i appreciate that. what assurance can provide members of this committee, and more especially, the producers of meat and dairy and cheese not a final agreement will prohibit these common food names? >> we share your concerns completely. we have made clear to the european union that we oppose their g.i. system and that is inappropriate for our trade agreements. i will give you an example.

john --several armies parmesan products registered here in the united states. the eu exports billions of meatrs of cheese and under these names. we are not able to export our parmesan cheese. they are able to leave -- lived quite well under our system. asare not able to live quite well under their system. approach to aeir logical presentation you have defined? >> i have not yet convinced them. we will continue to work and make clear that the common name and trademark approach allows room for us to have access to each other's markets. >> you might have them read green eggs and ham. it might do something. i have one more question.

many who represent agriculture are waiting for a final routing on the wto with mandatory culture of origin labeling. when can we expect a final ruling question my >> i will have to get back to you. it is in litigation. canada and mexico have not dropped their case. >> if united states were to lose the case, large sectors of our economy would be subject to retaliation from canada and mexico. are we taking steps to prevent retaliation if it is found that cool does violate obligations? >> we believe the rule that has been developed is wto compliant. we have argued that to the wto. we await the decision of the wto. as we do in other occasions, we believe it is compliant. >> thank you.

>> said isaacson is next. >> lumia start with a calm moment -- let me start with a complement. i was in ethiopia with you and the african union. i had 48 hours of time to watch you work with the countries. and think ourd country is fortunate to have someone like you as a representative. my comment is that without tpa getting done, have little hope we can get t.p.p. don. said, thisr roberts is something we have to work on. to try and raise the visibility. let's have that debate. we will have significant differences on tpa, but we ought to have the differences in a debate that results in a result rather than talking about across the board comments. are this.nts you mention in your marks, tisa.

there are service related jobs in our state, insurance, financial services, package delivery that depend on good trade in services agreements with the world. how are -- what projects are we making on an agreement? what goals would affect t.p.p. in terms of trade services? >> thank you. thank you very much for your involvement and leadership on the issues. we look forward to working with you on. review we are under way. on services. progress in good the talks bravely be of countries around the table representing 70% of the market. we have defined text that is being worked out now. virtually all the parties are on the table. we are working through those offers. we are making good progress.

there is a good work program ahead over the course of the next several months. services are vital part of our economy. over $700ported billion in services last year. a are a key part of the trade negotiations, both t.p.p. and teetfib. i say one more thing. you mentioned express delivery. we each -- we reached an negotiation. the first multilateral negotiation in the 18 year history. it is an important agreement for reducing the cost of shipping goods around the world. it helps small and medium-sized businesses into the global economy. it is good for those companies involved in shipping and logistics. many have an active role to play. >> you are working on that agreement in terms of package delivery indicates how important a comprehensive agreement would be for all other types of

financial services and products. successful been as as i would like to have seen over the last years furthering trade agreements. this is going to be important. lastly, i want to bring something to your attention. are you familiar with the greater brazil plan? >> i'm not. >> brazil is putting punitive tariffs on u.s. products and limitations on procurement of u.s. goods and services by governments in brazil and subdivisions of the brazilian government to the extent they are shutting the market out. hundreds of u.s. companies have invested millions of dollars though the facilities in brazil. they employ thousands of brazilians. they build products for the world but include them in brazil. they are being totally shut out from competition in the brazilian marketplace. it is beginning to hurt. it is a bad precedent for the western hemisphere. if we don't stand up for those countries who made those

otherments, then countries will see it as opportunity to do the same thing. i would like to bring it to your attention, which i have, and to encourage you to get involved in the diplomacy world to see if we can ratchet up brazil's attention that we understand what they are doing, and there our consequences. >> i'm happy to follow up on that. we are looking for ways to engage with brazil and brazilians to broaden our economic relationship. we have had a dialogue with them about the localization policies, which we think create adverse barriers to trade. we are happy to engage on the issue. arehe localization policies a part of the greater brazil plan. i'm glad you are on that. thank you. like senator cardin. >> it is a pleasure to have you here. you're not going to be surprised on my question on how we are advancing in good governance in the t.p.p. negotiations.

they are diverse group of countries. several have real challenges in good governance. and basic human rights. and in dealing with similar issues of corruption. give ang to ask you to estimation as how many are dealing. when you're dealing with trade yet country's attention. they are more likely to do things to improve the governance issues and anticorruption matters when they know that it will have an impact on the willingness of the country to open up its markets. we have very strong anticorruption laws here. participateult to where bribery is a standard practice. anticipating that you might give me a glowing progress port, you could respond as to whether you are willing for us to put into any bill that we might be considering negotiating

objectives that are strong on negotiating the rule of law into corruption and similar matters in a system with universal declaration of human rights by the u.n.. for your leadership on these issues. we have worked to address these issues in a number of ways. generally on good governance. opening up processes that could be susceptible to corruption. in addition we have specific anticorruption elements that we are still negotiating with our partners. on issues of rights in particular, our focus has been on labor rights and focusing on the core principles of forced work, conditions of

making sure countries committed those and have plans in place to achieve those. process toimportant bring countries to the table on issues they have not engaged on. we are engaging with them on labor issues, a challenging set of issues for that country. as you know. we have made clear they need to make progress in other human rights issues. dissidents.d we are encouraging them to take further action to improve their human rights. go on theuman right's labor issues. the labor issues are important to me. fighting corruption, fighting for the enforcement of rule of law, making fundamental changes in a country that we are going to be competing with needs to be , and since he did not directly

respond, i assume you don't object to a strong objectives in the negotiating to deal with these issues. >> we will look for it in the context of the legislative process working on a bipartisan bill. >> let me talk about labor for one moment. the environment. it was a time when we couldn't talk about the environment in a trade bill. we would use sidebar agreements. that didn't work very well. we needed to get to the core agreement if we were going to have something that wasn't forcible. use theia we decided to labor rights action plan. i offered an amendment that would be part of the agreement to take action if they did not follow up on it that was not incorporated into the colombia agreement. now we have the congressional monitoring group of labor rights questioning whether the columbia is implementing the labor action plan as it was anticipated at the time. my point is this. if we are going to make progress

on the environment, on labor, on basic human rights, good governance, etc., it there needs agreement of the core to be taken seriously. once it is executed, unless it is part of the enforcement that can is in, it is difficult to get the action we expect. >> we completely agree. theink you are describing his -- your description of the history is an important one. now they are central to what we are negotiating. that is an important development. we are able to take these labor and environment standards that for five countries have committed to and now have 40% of gdp sign on. >> let me thank you for your help on the heavy truck issue in columbia. -- there regulations could i appreciate the cooperation.

>> thank you for raising human rights and rule of law. it is critical to trade enforcement. i look forward to working with you. >> thank you. let me at q -- tommy echo my colleagues have said. am concerned about reports from our agricultural producers and companies about china's unwillingness to improve biotech products. fors a critical market american agriculture. $60 million last year. according to the feed and grain association it is 85% from a year ago. corn shipment is being rejected . situation in china, i'm wondering, they would like to see this issue elevated as much as possible.

would you support utilizing existing venues such as the u.s. china joint commission on commerce and trade to raise these issues in a forceful way with the chinese government? and perhaps even talk about other steps to ensure that biotech concerns are consistent? >> yes. absolutely. in december we had a meeting of the joint commission on commerce and trade. the top issues on the agenda. talking about biotech approval process to become regularized and more fluid. it is something that we are intending to raise at the highest levels. in china we raised with the vice pamir. -- by sperm year venues, arehese

those venues that you think would be appropriate to do that? >> absolutely. the first one you mention is what we do in december. we'll have more opportunity to do that later this year. the secretary has been in touch following that visit to about follow-up on that and other agricultural related issues. -hope you can keep it a priority. can keep it a top priority. it is something i believe is clearly in america's national security interest. i was going to ask questions that you probably answered yes and no. is the ustr providing comments to state as part of the inner a interagency approval of the pipeline? ask a doubly we are involved in this.

>> there is not anything you are furnishing in terms of comments to members of the committee that is looking at this? >> i will come back to you to confirm pretty not believe we are involved in this. >> if you are, i would be interested in knowing. concerns are being raised on whether or not this would be a challenge under nafta. that if the canadians decided that the ultimate rejection of the pipeline is the outcome they might be able to utilize nafta to raise trade considerations. into what interesting the implications of that might be. i have talked to you about this in the past. i am want to raise the issue of the eu decision last year to impose 10% duty on u.s. ethanol exports.- you indicated ustr is considering a challenge to the eu tariffs at the world trade organization. i wondered if you could comment on where that is in the

decision-making progress and what ethanol producers might expect a decision question my >> we are continuing to look into that issue and develop our decision. we will consult as we go through the process. >> ok. i wanted to mention one other thing. that is, you have heard this many times, the importance of market access for agricultural and the japanese market. sure thatof us making the tpp result in significant new market access opportunities for u.s. agriculture is going to be critical. i'm wondering if you could elaborate on the president's discussions on the topic of the japanese prime minister last week? how would you characterize those negotiations with japan following the trip to asia question mark >> thank you. critical the market is of our overall initiative.

i've made clear that the products we sell into japan, we need to address their historic barriers. it is a market that has had high barriers in the past. the president prime minister engaged on this and other t.p.p. issues. we made some significant progress in our discussions. we reached a milestone in terms of getting to sort out the parameters of how we would deal with my could access and some areas. we have further work to do. we think there was enough progress there to get further momentum to negotiations overall. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> thank you ambassador for your service. i want to commend you for your our reach and your responsiveness. i can't always get to say that about an administration

official. in your case i can. i appreciated. you are aware of my concern with the india pharmaceutical patent violations. and my concern about cat and -- canada's patent regime. you have issued strong statements about the need for improvement in both countries, which i support and applaud. nevertheless, as we are looking elements,and other i'm convinced that our economy is based on innovation. i'm looking for the it ministration to demonstrate that strategylong horizon on advancing international ip policies, one that i and others can get behind and support. can you give me a sense of what is the administration strategy in regards to emerging economies?

you know, well, as issued the three alarm report. we focus on a number of problem areas. as i mentioned, we have been concerned about the deterioration of the innovation environment in india. we are looking forward for them to get through their election and engage with new government on that. to have a dialogue about how they can interact -- address their public policy while still respecting the electoral property rights of innovative companies, including the united states. certainly on canada. we have made clear our concern about their utility approach to patents. we will continue to engage in discussions with them about that and other ip related issues. robustp. we have a intellectual rights agenda and hence is innovation while the same time takes a touchstone on

the may 10, 2007 bipartisan agreement which noted that there should be differentiation depending on levels of development. we are working with individual countries to ensure that they are strengthening their international -- electoral property regimes -- intellectual robert e regimes. and promote access to medicines. onare very much focused improving the level of property rights protection. >> while you are at the lead of that youuse of trade obviously possess in your portfolio, are there other elements of our government promoting our interest in the intellectual property rights question mark state department, commerce question mark >> we look closely -- rights?

with the department of justice. we work with several agencies on interagency basis in the process of negotiation. like bangladesh submitted their latest gsp action plan progress report to the ustr. i understand that it was reportedly discussed during the trade and investment cooperation a few days ago. given recent reports of union suppression, how realistic is the bangladesh government self-assessment of their progress on the action plans ensure members from 18 mender -- antiunion termination? what is your assessment question expend as you know, we gsp based on worker conditions in bangladesh. we developed an action plan with them for the steps necessary for

them to take. have taken that they some steps. there is work to be done. we're going to continue to engage with them on the work that needs to be done and encourage them to take good actions. >> finally, our trade policy agenda report of 2014 talked to latin. good exports in the caribbean increasing, the fastest rate of growth to any region in the world. almost 40% increase over the previous three years. pretty dramatic. are there other opportunities that we we need to pursue based upon that growth? >> senator, there are opportunities we could pursue in keeping -- we could pursue. we have countries from latin america, mexico, peru.

we are following interest the develop of the pacific alliance as they open their market to each other. there are other countries who in theike to join t.p.p. future. we are looking for ways to engage with brazil to broaden our economic relationship there. of to build upon the network free-trade agreements we already have with latin america and the caribbean and to deepen our relationship with them accordingly. >> thank you. coming. you for it was nice for you to come here and have is that. thank you. i have a number of questions that have been asked. as we negotiate trade

barrierss, to reduce and increase the trade and other nations, japan and australia, as a bilateral free-trade agreement earlier this you, -- many of our year, negotiations are seeking deals with china and with europe. many of these free-trade agreements may not be as ambitious as the t.p.p. is excited to be. what is the effect of so much negotiation even with our own partners that don't involve our country? what is the effect? think these are necessarily mutually exclusive efforts. this country's pursuit of bilateral arrangements, if the

bid -- it allows them to liberalize trade, it can be a positive step forward. it does underscore, and this goes to the question earlier, the importance is of us being at the table. us being engaged. if we are not engaged at the in helping with our partners to establish the rules of the road going forward, we are going to be left out of the game. we are going to be left on the sidelines. while the rules of the system don't reflect our interests or our values. if he wanted trading system that labor standards, higher environment will standards, protection to allows for ats, free internet, and we won't market access for the fastest growing in the world, we need to be at the table. we need to be engaged and showing leadership.

as you point out, other countries aren't waiting for us. they are moving ahead without us. that is why t.p.p. is important. it is our way of engaging global economy away that is consistent with our interests and our values. >> thank you. i mentionedk, this. i've never discussed poultry with you. but i do talk about other subjects. people say what you talk some much about poultry with the trade rep? we live in a state where there are more chickens per capita than any other state in the nation. some 300 per capita. agriculture is a big industry in delaware. we raise corn. we processed chicken sprayed we sell them all over the country and all over the world. everyd to sell one out of

100 we raised in the u.s. outside of the u.s.. today it is 20. we do that in spite of the fact that countries continued to impose restrictions on our poultry products. all stray, new zealand, and -- n are using means morenforcement income for our farmers in the farmers in the u.s. i'm told if we could start selling poultry in the eu, that is a $600 million market. as your team negotiates the thesatlantic trade, and

transpacific partnership, i hope that opening up agricultural exports, specifically poultry exports is a top priority on this committee. minute to discuss what you and your team are doing to increase market access for agricultural products? can we find in a cream it opens up the poultry market? how are you preventing nations from erecting new trade barriers to our chickens? thank you. i did meet a squawk so much. [laughter] >> of want to get senator brown in. agriculture is a high priority in our market access discussions. it is an area of high growth. both in terms of reducing tariffs and other barriers, but barriers that

have kept poultry and other products out of certain markets. >> thank you. appreciative. thank you for your working together. i want to start with a yes or no question. i have a number of things i want to talk about. you responded to senator seven about currency. the majority of the house members have signed their names to a letter and insisted that currency be part of t.p.p. my question, i want you to tower this, are you prepared not include meaning for --

>> all i can say is we are continuing to work with the treasury department on this issue and to see how best to address the concerns. do you plan to include strong currency provisions? i know you say you are working on currency. to put in thisg provision as strong as the letters you have received about currency? >> we are continuing to consult with you and other members and stakeholders about how to address the issue. >> ok. that is the best am going to get. i want to talk about investor state dispute settlement. multinational companies conduct risk assessment before they invest.

multinational corporations can purchase private insurance policies to mitigate risk associated with overseas investment, protect themselves, aig for example offers a multinational insurance program with coverage options to address multinational exposures. u.s. overseas private investment corporation's offers political risk insurance to encourage u.s. investment abroad. both services are available in 150 countries. u.s. companies going into these countries are planning for every kind of eventual problem. there were insurance, through risk assessment, three studies. studies.h they are doing this investment with their eyes wide open. in addition, we know that investor state dispute settlements has given big tobacco the ability to threaten

small developing nations, even the threat of a lawsuit in a small developing not wealthy country has encouraged some of these countries not to pass public health laws. we know the presence of isd as has empowered big tobacco to go into the developing world and have their way. we have, with all the other protections that companies have built in the private sector, we have market-based options for these companies to protect themselves. we have u.s. opec to protect these companies. sds while weed i are giving that power to big tobacco to undercut public health laws? likes underlying -- to domestic and

foreign investors a certain degree of protection under our court system. nondiscrimination. not every country does. our investors have been subject to discriminatory practices or x appropriation. 3300 agreements around the world, a vast majority have some investor state the view -- dispute settlement. a country all over the world have been signing agreements that have some degree of investor state dispute settlement. the standards vary significantly. what we're trying to do through t.p.p. is raise the standards of the investor stakes regime. theisions that would allow frivolous cases to be dismissed or attorney's fees to be awarded. provisions that would allow participate in

procedures by filing greater transparency around that. provisions to ensure the governments can regulate the interest of public interest and safety and the environment and not be subject to those challenges. , this is true of labor, environment, we are trying to take what is the status quo and raise standards. improved the standards. try to create new standards that can help strengthen the overall system international. >> thank you. opec does provide insurance for x appropriation. .hat fight is often raised >> i intend to work with the senator on these matters. we're getting to the end. i want to get out the enforcement issue and then recap

where we are in transparency and trade promotion. a lot of americans, when they hear debate about a future trade agreement, the first thing they say is you people in washington aren't enforcing the ones that we have. why are we talking about new ones before we enforce the ones that we have? too often, it seems that when we have a trade agreement, we honor it. our trading partners don't. there are a variety of excuses. i have resources -- they may not have resources to do it. at the end of the day we don't have the enforcement effort that is so important. our experience with china and korea, and russia, and others make clear that we lose out if to forcegreements go in into. they are able to go offices a will

to take to trade enforcement? >> we're happy to talk about further steps we can take. we brought cases against china twice before. we brought the first-ever case on a labor issue. we are continuing to pursue that. an interagency trade enforcement center with great support from the commerce department and other departments. that has allowed us to put together more complex cases and we have ever been able to put together before. people from all over the with country expertise, domain knowledge, able to put together these collocated cases and bring them to have a systemic impact. we are focused and agree with you completely that part of the deal of negotiating new agreement is to make sure we are

monitoring and implementing our existing agreements. we are focused on doing that. >> there is no question in my mind that you are stepping up the effort to enforce trade laws. i was pleased with the work your people did on the critical minerals issue, which is almost a model for how to tackle major trade enforcement issue. i want you to know that even though i think you are stepping it up, i think there is more to do. the reason why, for those of us who have been supportive of trade, and i have voted for every market opening agreement since i have been in public service, we have to better respond to people who say why are you talking about new trade agreements until you have tougher enforcement of the ones that are on the books. let's recap on a couple of issues where we are. on transparency, you and i went back and forth on some of the semantics of trade law pray the american people are going to

insist on being able to review the t.p.p. agreement before the president signs it. so am i. i think the law is very much in sync with that. tppa issue, we agree on this. i am recapping now. we need a tpa upgrade in order to reflect the needs of a modern trade agreement. the people that i have the honor to represent at home, 1-6 jobs depends on international trade. they often pay better than non-trade jobs. i higher level of productivity. issues,lked through the the issues of the future, some --i justi now call want it understood we are going to be working closely in partnership with you.

i think you know there are strong views on this committee. i have -- i happen to think we can forge a bipartisan agreement to do trade policy united states senate. if you would like to have the last word. we are happy to give it to you. you been a patient person today. daything of an orthodox even by senate scheduling. we appreciate your patience. >> thank you. we very much look forward to working with you as the legislative process proceeds. we want to partner with you on that. on the transparency, our goal is to release the terms of the agreement as soon as we can. once we have the agreement we will want to make sure the terms are public as early as possible. of course, that means we have to reach an agreement. that is where our focus is right now. try to reach the best possible agreement for the people. >> i understand that.

the reason that i have focused up all thecomes time. generationalhe changes that we have seen in trade policy. our member supporting those agreements in the 1990's. of course, nobody was online and expecting elected officials to give ongoing information. when i talk about transparency, and i want to emphasize, nobody's talking about making available proprietary information. if you're talking about coca-cola, you wouldn't make the available.e in coke that is proprietary information. the terms of a trade agreement that affect various policy issues is what i think the american people are going to

insist on. based on our conversations, we are going to be pursuing that together and being able to pursue it on a bipartisan basis. the hearing record care main open until may 5. i thank you and look forward to working with you in the days ahead. the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] http://twitter.com/cspanwj [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] 14]

the defense department reported today that sexual assaults on the military were up 50% last year. an increase attributed to pentagon efforts to encourage victims to report the crimes, actualincrease in the number of assault. here is a little of what major general jeffrey snow told reporters at the pentagon. >> for those of you that a been a victim of this crime, i want you to know that we are working very hard to establish a climate where these assaults do not happen. if you have been a victim, please, please reach out to your victim advocate, a health care professional, or the department of defense safe helpline. we want you to get the support you need. you will be treated with the

privacy you desire, the sensitivity you deserve, and the seriousness this crime demands. to the offenders committing this crime, we don't care who you are if you donk you hold, not understand our core values and are not prepared to live by ose values every day, that we do not want you in our military. >> all of that defense department briefing will be on c-span-2 in a few minutes. on capitol hill, the house oversight committee held a hearing on the attack and the u.s.bassy -- the embassy in benghazi that killed two americans, including ambassador christopher stevens. they said the white house was holding material about the contact that was "criminal." john boehner is calling on john kerry to testify before congress

about why e-mails dealing with were012 benghazi attack not given to congressional investigators. in a statement, the speaker said needs to understand this investigation will not end until the entire truth is revealed and justice and accountability are served." when asked about today's hearing, house minority leader nancy pelosi said "what i will say again is diversion, subterfuge, benghazi, benghazi, benghazi. why are we talking about something else? -- aren't we talking about something else?" she added that was she said was consistent with what was previously released. we will have more on that in a minute. at that hearing, the general in charge of the u.s. military africa demand during the benghazi attack told the committee the military knew it was a" "hostile action."

writes thisay" contradicts what the obama administration said in the early days after the attack, that the attacks were a spontaneous reaction to an anti-islam video. we see a picture of a guard standing outside the u.s. consulate in benghazi in 2012 days after the attacks. we're going to watch the two-hour hearing now. the chairman is getting ready to gavel in the hearing and give his opening statement. >> the committee will come to order, this hearing on benghazi, instability, and a new

government, successes and failures of u.s. intervention in libya. the oversight committee's mission statement is that we exist to secure two fundamental principles. first, americans have a right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent, and, second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers. it is our job to work in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people and bring reform to the federal bureaucracy. this is our mission. today the oversight committee convenes a fourth hearing related to the security situation in libya before, during, and after the september

11 terrorist attack which claimed the lives of four americans. the committee has previously brought forward important witnesses who offered new and enlightening testimony on security failures that forced the administration to walk back false claims about the nature of the terrorist attack. testimony of previous witnesses identified key questions in the interagency process that only this committee has the jurisdiction and the charge to investigate. while much of the effort in the investigation has focused on the department of state, we have recently conducted several joint interviews of her relevant military personnel with the house armed services committee. while we had requested that these interviews be conducted as

unclassified, the pentagon leadership insisted that they occur at the inexplicable and unreasonable level of top secret. some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have called for an end to this investigation. these calls are clearly premature and only raise public concerns about the political agenda to stop an important investigation before it has completed gathering facts about this debacle. in particular, the committee seeks insight into communications and directions that flowed between the state department, the department of defense, and, yes, the white house. it is essential that we fully understand areas of

responsibility before, during, and after the attacks. it is my hope that today's hearing will help us add to our investigation's expanding body of knowledge, and i am pleased that we will be proceeding on an entirely unclassified basis. we do so because the american people, more than anyone else in this body, have the absolute right to know why four men are dead in an attack that could have been prevented. today we have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us today that will bring expertise to us about the current situation in libya. one of our witnesses, retired united states air force brigadier robert lovell brings first-hand knowledge of u.s. military in libya.

u.s. african command is sometimes called africom. in the military command lingo, this is the organization that had responsibility, not just for libya, but for the entire continent of africa. this unit's mission included both the libyan revolution and the september 11, 2012, terrorist attack on a diplomatic compound in benghazi. general lovell was the deputy commanding general of joint task force odyssey guard. in this assignment he was tasked with helping the state department reopened the u.s. embassy in tripoli after the fall of gaddafi. we appreciate all of our

witnesses taking time to testify and enlighten the public about the situation in libya and the effects of u.s. decisions. in addition to pursuing the relevant information about the military's involvement in libya, we continue to receive documents from the state department. since late march alone, we have received over 3200 new documents, many of which have never been seen before by anyone outside of the administration, and all of which -- and i repeat -- all of which should have been turned over more than a year and a half ago when the committee launched its investigation. some of these documents, which were brought to light only days ago three request through a request by the organization called judicial watch, show a direct white house role outside

-- i will repeat this -- the documents from judicial watch which were pursuant to our request more than a year and a half ago show a direct white house role outside of talking points prepared by the intelligence community. the white house produced the talking points that ambassador rice used, not the intelligence community. in pushing the false narrative that a youtube video was responsible for the deaths of four brave americans, it is disturbing and perhaps criminal that these documents and documents like these were hidden by the obama administration from congress and the public alike, particularly after secretary kerry pledged cooperation and the president told the american people in 2012 that every bit of

information we have on benghazi has been provided. this committee's job is to get to the facts and to the truth. i for one will continue to chip away at this until we get the whole truth. the american people -- the americans who lost their lives in benghazi, those who were wounded, and the american people deserve nothing less. so today's hearing is critical for what our witnesses will give us, and i welcome you and i thank you for being here. but it comes in a week in which the american people have learned that you cannot believe what the white house says, you cannot believe with the spokespeople say, and you cannot believe what the president says, and the facts are coming out that in

fact this administration has knowingly withheld arguments pursuant to congressional subpoenas in violation of any reasonable transparency or historic precedent, at least since richard milhous nixon. i now recognize the ranking member. >> i thank the chairman for yielding, and i thank him for holding this hearing. in 2011 the people of libya rose up against their dictator and his oppressive rule which lasted more than four decades. at the time republicans and immigrants alike strongly supported helping armed rebels in their efforts to overthrow gaddafi. in april 2011, senator john mccain traveled to libya and met with rebels after which he proclaimed they are my heroes. during a national television

appearance on july 3, 2011, senator mccain warned that allowing gaddafi to remain in power would be far more dangerous to the united states than the alternative. he stated this notion that we should fear who comes after or what comes after gaddafi ignores that if gaddafi stays in power it is a direct threat to our national security. airing a television appearance on april 24, 2011, senator lindsey graham agreed that taking the fight directly -- to gaddafi with protect our national security. he stated, and i quote, "you cannot protect our vital, national security interests if gaddafi stays." he also stated, "the focus should now be to cut the head off."

as the revolution grew stronger, gaddafi embarked on a crackdown. march 17, 2011, he threatened his own people. president obama explained to the world why united states was trying to remove gaddafi. he said "the world watches events unfold in libya with hope and alarm. protests demanded universal rights. in a government that responds to them. they were met with an iron fist. gaddafi chose to pass a brutal suppressant. innocent civilians were beaten,

imprisoned, and in some cases killed." senator mccain supported obama's visit. he said "if he had not acted, history would have remembered benghazi in the same breath as former yugoslavia. a source of international shame." in an op-ed in april 2011, senator mccain wrote this, "the president was right -- he now deserves our support. october, 2011, gaddafi finally met his ugly demise. he was an extremely dangerous tyrant. he supported international terrorism during the 1980's,

including a bombing which claimed the lives of 270 innocent civilians. he also reportedly pursued chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons. after gaddafi was killed, the new libyan government reportedly uncovered two tons of chemical weapons gaddafi had kept hidden from the world, yet armed and ready to use. we all know it dedicated and patriotic special envoy named christopher stevens arrived in many ghazi to work with the -- arrived in vail symposium to work with the libyan people on their transition to democracy. he had forged deep connections with the libyan people during his career. he understood the challenges caused by 40 years of oppression. ambassador stephens believed in the promise of a new future for

the country. today, libya is at a crossroads. open a newspaper and you will read about violence, weapons in a central government that has not yet consolidated its control over the country. on the other hand, the libyan people continue to look with the west with respect and hope. they aspire to work with united states to build a state-controlled democratic -- to build a stable, pro-democratic country. if we want them to succeed, we must find a way to reengage the world and ourselves. this was the bipartisan goal shared by republicans by lindsey graham and john mccain who called on the united states "to build a partnership with a democratic and pro-american libya that contribute to the mansion and security, prosperity, and freedom of the

region at a time of revolutionary change. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we assist people of libya. >> i thank the gentlemen. all members may have seven days in which to submit opening statements for the record and any quotes of senator lindsey graham or john mccain. for what purpose does the gentleman receipt -- request recommendation -- >> one is from the harvard kennedy school belford center for science and international affairs, entitled, "lessons from libya, how not to intervene." another is an associated press article entitled "libya's guns." "libya, transforming a company into -- a country into a failed

state." the other is a state department document partially referenced by congressman -- the subject line is "libya update." the date is september 12 at 12:46 p.m. there is a paragraph pertinent to our discussion today. it is referencing the libya ambassador. when he said his government expects the former qaddafi regime elements carried out attacks, i told him the groups carried out the attacks is affiliated with islamic extremists. this coming from the state department, cheryl mills, secretary clinton posses chief of staff. i live -- i would like to enter this into the record. >> what was the date and time?

>> september 12, 2012, hours after the attack. it is what the state department told the libyan government what was happening. "i told the libyan ambassador that the group attacks are affiliated with islamic extremists. those were the facts as the state department knew them. >> without objection, so ordered. copies will be distributed. we now welcome our guest and witnesses. general robert lovell is the former deputy director for intelligence and knowledge development director at the united states african command. and the former deputy command general of the joint task force. and a research fellow at the hoover institution.

mr. david ross, phd, is a senior fellow at the foundation for defense of democracies. mr. frederick is a senior associate for middle east program at the carnegie endowment for international peace. your title is impressive but they're all doctorates. pursuant to the rules, if all witnesses could please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you and please be seated. all witnesses answered in the affirmative. in order to allow sufficient time for questions, i would ask each witness summarize their opening statements, which will be placed in the record in their entirety, as well as other extraneous material.

please try to stay close to the five minutes. as my predecessor often said, green means go everywhere and yellow means hurry up through the intercession and read means stop. please observe that on the countdown clocks. with that, general, you are recognized. general -- >> thank you -- >> for all the witnesses, pull your mike's close to you because -- they are fairly insensitive. >> thank you. i retired this past year after 33 plus years of service. my service began in 1979 upon enlistment of the united states air force. it has been my honor and privilege to serve as an officer concerning my -- 1985. i served with many brave and

distinguished men and women. i thank them for their service and example. my time in service was filled with great and humbling opportunities. i am thankful for these as well. i have been shaped by professional education, training, and it's.'s. -- and experience. these personal influences have informed my thoughts on the subject. to present a sense of context, here's an outline. the chairman has already covered some, but i -- i would like to add i twice served in africa command, first as a colonel and representative to command and next as a general officer as the deputy director of intelligence and knowledge development commission. i served as an officer for the operation center. during the dawn. and operation unified protector. in addition, i also served as the senior military liaison to the national science foundation. that is relevant since the science foundation was also an interagency partner.

that greatly influenced my views on how interagency partnership works. three topics are submitted in my opening statement. the first is the nature of the command. second is the military operations with regard to libya. it discusses strategy, supporting policy, and policy in a highly dynamic and limiting -- it can be highly dynamic and limiting strategy when it is challenged to achieve a desired result. benghazi in 2012, this is the most serious. there are many sayings in the military. one that rings most true is you fight the way you train. in benghazi, we did. many with firsthand knowledge recounted the heroism displayed that night. they fought the way they trained. that is in the record. outside of libya, there were discussions that churned on about what we should do. the elements also fought the way

they were trained, specifically, the predisposition to enter agency influence had the military structure and spirit of government support waiting for a request for assistance. there were counts of time, and capability, and discussions of the question, could we have gotten there and made a difference. while the discussion is not, could or could not of time space and capability, the point is we should have tried. as another saying goes, always move to the sound of the guns. we did not know how long this would last when we became aware of this, nor do we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it a kidnapping, rescue, recovery, hostile engagement, or any and all above. what we did know early on was that this was a hostile action. it was no demonstration gone terribly awry. to the point of what happened, the facts lead to the conclusion of a terrorist attack.

the attacks became attributable very soon after the event. thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee. i take this matter very seriously. i am prepared to take your questions. >> thank you, general. >> the starting point for a conversation about libya is that this is the sailing stake. security is eroding and governance is ebbing. as a result of those things, libya is not able to capitalize on its one big advantage, the oil revenue on which its economy is predominantly based. unless we are not interested in the outcome, both for libyan themselves and from the threats that are emanating to us from them, american policy should actually work to strengthen security in libya and strengthen governance in libya, so that the economy can help buffer the

transition time of a fragile, democratizing government. our policies are not doing that. our policies are principally interested in limiting our involvement and, as a result, the problems inherent in all transition societies, the societies that have lived 40 years under a repressive government, and had his functional economies, they need structure assistance and help to the united states knows how to do that in terms of security sector reform, in terms of governance, and yet, we helped overthrow a government without helping establish security or governance. we largely ignored the growing restlessness of the militia in libya, and of the migration of jihadist to libya, where jihadist saar now in possession of a libyan government military

base less than 20 miles from the capital. in overtaking the base, they also got ready valuable american military equipment, which we will be seeing in syria, libya, and even in our own country, unless we really help manage the problem of jihadist him in libya and elsewhere. building government capacity is the key to doing that. we cannot expect the libyan government is going to be able to disarm militia or to control the spread of jihadist him in their territory. that will be the result of political negotiation, it cannot lead clinical negotiation. militia will not disarm until they have a high level of confidence that the reason for the political vacuum that exists

in libya -- the libyans are having a messy and slow, one step forward and one step back conversation about governance in their country. but they deserve an awful lot more help from us and nongovernmental solutions the united states supports. instead, we have largely been silent on an election that was marred by violence and enrich -- and in which yesterday's parliamentary vote in tripoli was prevented from coming to conclusion by storming out of the parliament by armed men. as was said, we need to do all that is necessary to help the libyan government transition and we are not. the last thing i would say is that if american policies will not help the fragile government transition to establish security they have criticized the motives

and actions of others in that of encouraging them into our own policy by leaving. >> thank you. >> it's an honor to appear before you to discuss the successes and failures. two days ago it seemed we were seeing good news out of libya they had come to an agreement. the previous prime minister

resigned after only six days. the prime minister before him was kidnapped i rebels. vote didn'tnister go well. this is libya today. leads to aorward step back. the central government cannot execute basic sovereign functions in its own capitol building. last year gunmen shut down the ministry of justice and foreign affairs for two weeks due to political activity, the equivalent of shutting down the department of justice. outside countries are questioning whether it's even safe to keep diplomats in libya. heldiplomats are being jihadist, and there are many other attacks. i need not remind anyone hear what happened to ambassador

stevens. nato responded with extraordinary speed. this was accomplished with no panel me aalties $1.5 billion cost. the question remains. was going to war in libya the best choice? i would suggest the strategy of intervention would -- should be called into question. several argue the arab spring had stalled at the time and intervening could help reeve the new momentum into the revolutionary events. the desire to see dictators fall is noble but noble intentions do not automatically make for wise actions. the intervention came when there were already wrenching changes and unpredictable situation.

egyptian leaders have fallen and there were other revolutionary rumblings. it was not just the decision to stop gaddafi's advance but to speed up change. the problems associated with speeding up events could be seen in the second order of consequences. the most well-known occurred in north molly a, where a collection of al qaeda linked jihadist, including al qaeda's north african affiliates gain control over a lot of territory, prompting a french led intervention in january 2013. the rebellion has a long history, but gaddafi's overthrow transformed dynamics. the via's dictator had been a long supporter and with him gone, they lost a major contributor. there are other ways libya's intervention contributed. after the dictator defeat, they later wept as caches. the heavily armed return to molly reinvigorated.

there were signs that now, a year later, the jihadist may be back and indeed, southern libya has laid a role in their combat areas fighters from al qaeda fled from the advancing french and allied forces into southwest libya and blended with local militants. jihadist ignored after have also been in a situation in libya. a variety of groups operated training camps there. millions have benefited from the flow of arms to neighboring countries. the factors make libya a concern. 30 miles from the libya border, which have multiple links to libya, including training. despite the superb execution of the intervention, this created a

complicated regional dynamic for the u.s. senate helped jihadist groups and has had negative consequences for libya's neighbors. it is not clear the intervention saved lives. some scholars argue that the fact the nato intervention prolonged the were meant that it cost more lives than it safe. even if it saves more lives than libya, further lives were lost as a result. this is why i cannot join with those who reclaim nato's intervention to be a strategic success. i appreciate the opportunity to testify and i look forward to answer your questions. >> thank you. chairman, ranking member cummings, committee members, i am grateful for the opportunity to speak with you about libya's security crisis and what the international community can do to assist.

i bring the perspective of both a scholar who travels frequently to the country and a military officer who served in tripoli prior to the revolution. ice oak with libya government officials, military officers, and militia leaders across the country, including benghazi. at the core of libya's crisis is the power of its militias, who draw support from a wide array of local tribal, ethnic, and religious constituencies. their persistence is rooted in the absence of an effective governance, representative institutions, and a strong and central army and police. since 2012, the militias have become politicized. they use armed force to compel the passage of a sweeping law barring gaddafi era laws from the government. they kidnapped a prime minister and stopped oil production in the east. weapons are the de facto currency through which demands

are pressed. militias have also captured tracking networks. libya's instability has been aggravated by the weak transitional government to put the militias on the payroll. under the loose authority of the defense and interior, the idea was to harness the manpower of the revolutionaries to fill the security void left by the nonexistent army, which was deliberately kept week by gaddafi, who feared its potential. by all accounts, this has been a disastrous bargain. it has attracted new recruits and has given the militia bosses even more political power. that power is especially evident in the east, where militias demand the removal of personnel through state institutions and the implementation of a sharia-based competition before they surrender arms. these actors remain on the outer fringes of libya's politics and security institutions. overwhelmingly, the the countries reject violence for political means. based on a weakness for the central government and an array of informal societal actors come a ngo's and religious authorities have mobilized against the militias, especially radical groups. they have demonstrated a

societal resilience in a moderation that is kept the country from sliding down the path of civil war. i want to emphasize that every libya and i spoke with a true to the crisis to the enduring legacy of gaddafi's rule, rather than policies or decisions during the nato-led intervention. he deprived libya of even a basic rule of governance. erect the economy, kept the security institutions deliberately weak, and marginalized the eastern part of the country. libyans overwhelmingly remains supportive of the operation and welcomed outside assistance. where are the areas where this insistence can be best supplied? most important task is reforming

the sector. the u.s. and its allies are currently engaged in such a project under the offices of what is known as the general-purpose force. in doing so, they must ensure the ranks of the new force are inclusive of libya's diverse tribes and region and that effective oversight is in place so political factions do not capture the new security entities as the personal militias. it is important to recognize lasting security cannot be achieved without a dressing the economic and clinical motives that drive support for militias. the government has tried to disarm the mobilized and integrate the young men of the militias. none of the efforts has succeeded because the country is paralyzed between opposing political factions. each side sees any movement on the security sector as a win for his rivals. in essence, libya suffers from a balance of weakness amongst its factions and militias. no single entity can compel the

others to coercion, but every entity is strong enough to veto the others. with this in mind, the ultimate solution for libya's woes lie in the political realm. in the drafting of a constitution, the reform of its election, and a broad-based affiliation under the broad-based national dialogue. these are areas where outsiders can lend advice and measured assistance, but where the ultimate word must be borne by libyans themselves. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you here today. >> thank you. i now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. you were not on this or the armed services committee's

primary list of people interviewed in the process, and yet you came forward here today, came forward to the committee, and could you explain to us why you believe it was necessary to come forward to offer us your testimony? >> yes. i came forward because, as a retired officer, most importantly having served a number of years, i felt it was my duty to come forward. the young men and women who serve in uniform, those that serve along with us, in civilian clothes, the circumstances of what occurred in benghazi that day need to be known. with all of the discussion that ensues over a full forthcoming to the american people, it is important. it is a duty to be here. >> thank you. our committee has interviewed a number of people, including those downrange, people poking libya and benghazi.

but as i said earlier, we, for the most part, have not interviewed people, the exception being general ham, although carter ham was at the pentagon on september 11. do you believe it is appropriate for us to interview other officers and enlisted personnel that serve with you that day as part of our discovery of what they believe could have been done, not just in what we military people call the to shop, but also in the three shop and so on? >> sure, i think is any information that gives the most well-rounded picture, they are important to obtain. one of the questions, as we fan out here, one of the questions i have for you is, your primary job is knowing the risk, knowing who the bad guys are and where they are and knowing what might face them. is that correct?

so your expertise is not in the operational response of what reef you lose will wear and react with in time. however, you are intimately familiar with the risk of extremist groups in egypt, libya, and throughout north africa and all of africa. now, african command, basically, does not have any jets. it does not have any conventional divisions. so you leverage all of the other commands when you need physical boots on the ground. >> roots on the grounds, planes in the air, ships in the sea, etc. >> however, the role of african command, and i'm not trying to put words in your mouth so please correct me if i'm even a

little off, it is in fact to look at a continent in which we have almost no troops and almost no basing. we have a small joint ace but for the most part, we have no military assets in africa. is it fair to say that counterterrorism, looking for and being aware and working with the government in africa, with or without it, necessary, to combat terrorism and to make sure governments are stable and able to support our missions and the eight missions and the embassies? is that really to a great extent why there is a unique command with a four-star general in start -- in charge of it that focuses on this continent of a billion people larger than north america? >> that is precisely the understanding. to help africans help africans, and work with africans and our

other partners to do so. >> so in that role, on september 11, earlier, there was an attack in egypt. did you know of, anticipate, or believe that the attack in egypt was based on seeing a youtube video? >> personally, no. >> that never came to you even though intelligence and what may have caused something would have been right up your alley. and in the hours that ensued after the attack on our compound in benghazi, did you hear youtube video? >> briefly discussed, but not from any serious standpoint. >> what time did you first hear there was a video? >> it was early in the evening. >> before 3:50 in the morning. >> absolutely.

i would have to say probably i dismissed the notion by then by working with other sources. >> i want to follow quick one last thing. you have heard about this early on and, as the deputy and the highest-ranking person that moment working these issues, you dismiss the idea that this attack was in fact a demonstration that went awry and was based on a youtube video out of los angeles. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. more than three years ago, a wave of clinical change swept through the middle east and north africa. the arab spring promised hope for people oppressed by dictators for decades.

but it also led to abrupt change and i look forward to learning how this movement has evolved and how the united states can support a peaceful democratic transition in the region. i would also like to focus on the choice our country faced when the uprising against dictator gaddafi again in 2011. at that time come the united states could have done nothing and allowed gaddafi to remain in power or we could have supported the liberation of libya. at the time, both republicans and them that's called on the president to support the rebels and gaddafi. for example, lindsey graham -- "you cannot protect our vital interests if gaddafi stays." in a general level, do you agree with senator graham? >> yes, i do. >> dr. flake, how about you?

>> yes, i do. >> earlier, i think you would agree with me that there are things you would do to be supportive of the government. what with those things be? >> there are several things. as several parent mentioned, helping establish a national army that is helping to police libya'territory, rain in the militia as you begin to get political solutions to problems that will permit their disarmament. second, support and structure that helps organized civil society and elections in libya. we are doing much too little in helping libya move forward. we do that largely with examples, our own but also what all of us know about society. we know how to do this and we

are just not doing it nearly enough. >> three months later, on july 3, 2000 11, senator john mccain stated, and i quote, "if gaddafi stays, it is a direct threat to our national security." what is your view and did you agree? >> i did not. he was a brutal dictator. but he was also about as rehabilitated as a dictator could be. the statement he threatened our national security would have been very true in the 1980's, but in 2011 -- >> therefore, you disagreed with the senator. >> yes, i do. >> do you agree with the senators?

>> i believe gadhafi was keeping a lid on a lot of things brewing. he was probably not a direct security threat the way he was in the 1980's. it depends on how we define security. many of the ills that spilled over from libya in the current from of libya it were because of his rule, how we kept things quiet down and civil society, marginalize the east. the seeds of extremism were sown during his regime. in that sense, it was a security threat, i think it we know libyans were fighting in iraq and afghanistan. >> what do you think we should

be doing? what steps should be taken to improve the situation in libya? >> under the circumstances, the u.s. is doing quite a lot with other partners in europe and elsewhere. the u.s. is committed to train over 19,000 new libya soldiers as part of the general purpose force. this proposal is underway. we are engaged with the civil society. much of the problem is the other side. much of the delay we cannot really invert -- interface with them. they have not agreed to provide payment or the general purchase force, which is why we are unable to move forward with the training of the new army. during my travels to libya since the revolution, i found the international community has been engaged in terms of reforming the sector and helping oversight, reaching out to libya's vibrant civil society. a lot of this is the problem of access. the security situation does not permit us to go out and reach

libyans. >> what would you have us do their? -- there? >> no longer serving in having access to a lot of the pertinent information and data, i would not be able to give you a strong military answer to that. my personal answer would be one where it is a set of circumstances where we would have to work together. that development would have to be very engaged on the ground. >> thank you. i ask unanimous consent to put something on the record at this time. >> the commander general ham, we have also interviewed the advice commander. the admiral, and admirable -- admiral losey.

would you agree to provide the committee additional suggestions of the people for your recollection outside the hearing so it not be public, the people you believe would be most helpful to gain knowledge directly on the fact of the ground that day. >> yes sir. of course. of the list of people we have already interviewed, would they be people that would be able to render an opinion? i am not saying you would come up with the same conclusion, but to have the same type of information? we have the same public service, motor people -- i'm just curious. >> each of those general and, i know them.

they are fine officers. >> would they be in a position to render an opinion? >> yes, sir. >> we have established we will get additional names and the names we already interviewed to be ones on your list. >> thank you. a couple of questions. >> he testified we view the night of september 11 that this night was not just some of the video that has been shown -- and assert -- a concerted attack. that being said, in your position, you would know who would do what. the state department would also

have known pretty instantaneously that there was an incident going on, i've seen videos of some of those transmitted. we had a pretty good idea of what was going on. the state department should have or could have? >> they could or should, yes sir. >> the attacks started at 9:40, three: 40 in the afternoon here. proximally a six-hour difference, i think.

>> yes. >> so it was not an unusual time here in the united states, that the appropriate people in the highest level people should be alerted that something serious is going on at one of our posts. >> during the day here in the united states, yes sir. >> i do not know if i could have saved the ambassador or the aide with him. they may have been killed -- would you say that is a pretty good assumption? that it was not possible to save them because they were probably killed within an hour or two? the u.s. does not have the capability of responding, not that we should not have had on the ground the capability to

respond to some kind of attack. would that be a correct assumption? >> typically, the greatest desire or whatever situation you will be into, to have adequate security. >> i know we have over 100 posts. there were about 14 lifted -- listed and benghazi was one of them. >> he would have to look to the state department. >> someone failed. they failed to have the proper protections every post does not have the same risk and every point does not have the same risk ear that was one of the major ones. the time frame did not allow us to save the ambassador as they came in and attacked. it was an attack.

a demonstration in the street. i believe they were killed at approximately 5:15 a.m. it started at 9:40, a good six hours. i have been to italy, spain, turkey. as a member of congress, if we had an incident, this is for benghazi that we could respond and had the capability of responding. particularly, and ambassador or american citizens from north africa, it is not exactly the toughest spot. i believe we could have saved those who takes action.

do you think we have the ability to do that? >> presently or at the time? at the time, it did not happen that way. others have discussed -- >> did the united states have the ability to protect -- >> people at that post, within six hours -- >> the military could have made a response of some sort. >> the military could have made a response. i believe those two individuals were not saved. we went and interviewed people. our military personnel, they were not given the go-ahead.

they were not given the assets. no one responded to go in and save the two individuals who lost. i believe we had that capability. can you tell the committee if you think we had the capability of saving them at that time once again? >> you mentioned personal assets and time and distance. all those things put together at that moment? i was not in operations -- >> again, we had that capability, i believe.