divinity. the word impressive doesn't get it. she is a rare individual. i study people from the standpoint of a religious biographical perspective so that when you begin to look at what i might call the genius of character, it has come down through the generations. i mentioned in my written statement that her grandfather was a baptist minister, but three grandfathers before then. they serve their congregations and their communities with daring, with distinction, and above all, wisdom, and that wisdom was born of a depth of insight into human nature as to how leaders should best behave

and be effective in garnering a following, and leading them in a way that works for the good of all. loretto -- i have seen this throughout the years -- is a kind of person who can relate transparently enough to inspire trust and confidence so that you don't have to work a long time, wondering if what you are seeing is truly honest. this place on its way out in the sense that she is a due diligence kind of person. i understand the hypothetical kinds of issues and questions but my own background as a scholar would say at best a hypothetical only approximates a real-life situation. in a real life situation character really comes forth when you do the kind of due diligence that puts you in a position to make the quality of judgments that makes for a positive difference.

this is in her bloodline line. this is in her spiritual dna. i don't know if her father is still in the room, but i can tell you that it has played out in the way that he has provided leadership in north carolina whether he had to stand alone or stand with 1000, it was the true the right thing, and the right thing, and character, and character, and character all over again. i don't want to trivialize this process by using a sports metaphor, but i am an old broken down football player who played at duke when we were still winning games. >> that was quite a while -- >> quite a while ago. but we tend to think in terms of a franchise kind of player. she is an exceptional human being, and i cannot avoid the sense of passion i feel right now for the good that would come to our nation in having a person

who would be good, absolutely superb, and even healing our nation through the responsible discharge of her duties as the u.s. attorney general. >> so you would be for her? >> i would be for her. >> that was very powerful testimony. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator franken, senator sessions. [inaudible] >> thank you for recalling for us that a lot of people we have disagreements with can be wonderful people. i do sense that about her. she was raised right. i can tell that. sometimes you just get caught up in things. issues become a big, and an individual becomes the focus of

a controversy. sheriff clark, thank you for your leadership. i have a piece put out saying there were 36,000 convicted criminal aliens in detention the they were released, and a group of people were convicted of crimes such as homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault. i noticed one individual was just arrested for murdering a 21-year-old convenience store

clerk on january 22 of this year after having been in custody on a drug and gang related felony burglary conviction, but was released on bond after a few days. if you release 36,000 people who have been convicted of crimes based on your experience in law enforcement, can't we expect that group is likely to commit the kinds of crimes i just mentioned? isn't that predictable? >> thank you, senator. if for no other reason because of the recidivist nature of crime regardless of what demographic is involved with that, i would say releasing 3600 into communities that don't have the support structures is at

best dangerous policy. they don't have the support structures in place. we start talking about criminal aliens, the first thing they will do is flee. my experience in working with ice -- we do cooperate with federal agencies in the pursuit of justice like we do any other federal agency -- they come with many aliases, difficult, and it takes a long time to identify them, but they realize the individual released on bail, they realize it is in their best interest to flee. then they turn up in another community. we have had those same horror type stories, individuals who have been brought to ice's

attention, and for what ever reason, they decided not to put a detainer on the more had a detainer and released it. it goes on to engage in even more heinous acts. the easy ones are the ones who are involved with murder, sexual assault. those folks are probably not going to get out on bail. we don't have to worry too much about them. >> well, this report indicated in number of them, like 193 of the 36,000 that were released were homicide convictions. you are right to assume that serious crimes would be almost unbelievable if they were being released, but data shows that a lot of them are the most serious crimes that are being released. >> sometimes some of the reports are some of the rhetoric used in

the discussion is on the lenient side. they call the low-level offenders, but some of the stuff that i see are not literally low-level offenders. >> you're responsible for protection of people in milwaukee and that area. the federal statute says someone convicted of a serious felony shall be deported. it doesn't say ice has an opinion about this. it says they shall be deported. does it make your lives more difficult? the place the people of milwaukee at greater risk of the officials are not following the law and deporting people who have been convicted of serious crimes? >> sherry does. -- sure it does. in my limited knowledge of legal language it is not discretionary.

>>. you think it is common sense and just that if a person is in the country illegally and they commit a serious crime, they should be deported? >> yes. it's beyond common sense. we have a duty to protect people. >> and a lot requires that. -- the law requires that. >> senator, i think sheriff clark just made one of the strongest arguments in favor of the president's executive actions. the main point of the new prosecutorial priorities is to be able to focus resources on precisely the individuals whom he is describing, and hopefully it will have that effect. i don't know why in this case the state authorities released a person while the person was pending trial. they must've thought it safe to release them. i'm not sure why the onus is shifting to ice. >> this isn't a matter of

discretion. i know you served with the uscis. this part is mandatory the point of racing. nothing congress passes apparently, has the ability to be effectuated in reality. that is a problem. congress will pass things, and they don't happened. we mandated a fence 700 miles. it did not happen. he said there should be annexed to -- be an exit-entry visa. it still hasn't been completed. are you aware that the group that you work with, the federation of government employees who represent ucsis has opposed this bill vigorously

and say it will not work, and is not helpful? >> this is the very same group whom some people are suggesting will refuse to obey the secretary's instruction to exercise discretion and will instead rubberstamp these cases. >> professor eastman in his testimony before the house on discretion says there is nothing in the memo to suggest that immigration officials can do anything other than grant deferred action to those meeting the defined eligibility criteria. indeed, the overpowering tone of the memo is one of woe to align immigration officers who do not act as a memo tells them they should, a point that has been admitted by the department of homeland security officials in

testimony before the house. in the house chairman goodlatte of the house judiciary committee said quote, dhs has admitted to the judiciary committee if an alien applies and meets the daca eligibility criteria, they will received deferred action. in reality, the immigration officials do not have discretion to deny daca applications if the applicants meet these criteria. professor rosencrantz, you indicated it might be an illusory thing here. isn't that proof that it really is illusory discretion, in fact it is mandatory? >> absolutely. >> the memo says the opposite. it says these are cases that, quote, present no other factors that in the exercise of discretion make the granting of deferred action appropriate.

the ultimate judgment as to whether an immigrant is granted deferred action will be determined on a case-by-case basis. the memo refers explicitly to discretion. >> we said we will do and exit-entry visa. the officials are going to approve the people if it meets the memorandum standards. >> the important thing to notice is it flips a presumption. the presumption is that the law will not be enforced, and somebody might have discretion to enforce the law in a particular case but this is turning prosecutorial discretion on its head. presumption is that the law will be enforced, and discretion will be used to exempt some to create an exemption to the rule. here the enforcement will clearly be exception to the rule if it happens at all. >> check that the deferred memo is ---- this memo lays out an exception. if you meet the following criteria uscis has the

discretion on a case-by-case basis -- >> if the people don't meet the standards, and someone does get turned down -- the projection is less than half the people, 5 million out of 11 million -- what if somebody is turned down? are they going to be deported? >> generally i would think yes. if they bring their presence to the attention of the enforcement authorities, and if it fits within the prosecutorial discretion priorities, i can't think of any reason -- >> they are not going to be deported. the only ones being deported today are people who commit serious crimes are and we found that even they are not being deported. we reached a lawless stage in immigration. the american people are not happy about it. they have a right to demand that their laws be enforced and the president's actions are some of the most dramatic steps to violate plain law that i've ever

seen in my experience. thank you, mr. chairman. my time is over. >> we were preparing for yesterday's hearing. i found a quote i would like to talk about in a minute, a quote from a speech given by ms. lynch about a year ago in which she made the following statement that caught my attention because it raises some alarm bells. it says, 50 years after the march on washington, 50 years after the civil rights movement, we stand in this country at a time when we see people trying to take back so much of what dr. king fought for. we stand in this country, and people try and take over the statehouse and reverse the goals that have been made in voting in this country, but i'm proud to tell you that the department of justice has looked at these laws and looked at what is happening in the deep south and in my home

state of north carolina, has brought lawsuits against those fight -- voting rights changes. close quote. when i read this, i became concerned. i was wondering what was she was talking about, what laws were out there, what legacy of the civil rights era that was trying to be overturned. ms. engelbrecht can you guess as to what she might have been talking about, referring specifically to her home state of north carolina? >> i can't. i reviewed the same comments that you referred to, which i think was taken from a speech in february in los angeles. what continues to boggle the mind is that the vast majority of americans want, understand, and appreciate the need to [indiscernible] our elections.

the thought that asking a voter to prove they are who they say they are is somehow discriminatory -- it seems to me to be more about pushing a political agenda than protecting the people. >> i wondered about this, so i asked one of my colleagues on this committee with me, senator thom tillis, who at the time she gave this speech was the speaker of the house in north carolina. i asked him what she was referring to. these are pre-bold statements, and if someone is going to accuse a state legislative body of moving to undo the legacy of dr. martin luther king and trying deliberately to diminish voting rights in this country, i feel like we need to know what that is. he suggested to me that it might have been directed towards a voter id law passed by the state of north carolina at the time to senator tillis was the speaker of the north carolina house of representatives.

i asked him about this law and he told me that when it came forward, there was concern about voter fraud, the risk of voter fraud in north carolina. he said, i want to find the most fair statute that there is on the books anywhere in this country, and i want to make it that much fairer. i want to put the belt and suspenders and another belt and another set of suspenders on it, make sure no one's voting rights are diminished at all. they started with the model of an indiana statute, a model that was itself quite cautious. it continues to allow no excused absence he voting without -- abs entee voting without an id. it pays for an id issued by the department of motor vehicles without any charge to the voter. they start with that as the model, then they added additional protections that neither indiana nor any other state that is adapted and evolved like this has had.

a two-year ramp-up period, a program designed to allow homebound individuals to vote but also allows for documents for a register of deeds or the department of health and human services that can be used to verify id. it establishes a $1 million trust fund to reach out to those people who might not have id's. this is the most cautious carefully protective statutory scream -- scheme i can imagine in this area. if this was the target of this description, do you think it's fair to describe this legislation this way, as an attempt to undo the gains of the civil rights movement and the gains of martin luther king and those who fought with him valiantly to protect voter rights in america? >> absolutely not. i don't think it is appropriate or fair. if that is truly the believe

that is held, we need to understand what's behind that. it belies anything you have just read in making sense. >> with your involvement in efforts to prevent voter fraud what would you say to those who have made the argument that there is no such thing as voter fraud and therefore we need not be concerned about it, and the only reason somebody could push for it would be because they subjectively want to undermine voting rights? what would your response to that be? >> i think our history is replete with examples of voter fraud. it is something we should take very seriously. you don't need a whole lot of fraud, you just need a little bit in the right places. the less that you create a system that secures everyone's votes, the more open it is to

these kinds of manipulations that further divide our country in ways that serve no purpose. >> thank you. >> sheriff clark, i wanted to talk you about the relationship between the department of justice and law enforcement right now. how would you describe the relationship between law enforcement and the department of gecko quick>> i will not engage in the hyperbole or exaggerate. the mission statementz that i decided early ona talks about partnerships and from the milwaukee experience, we need the help of the u.s. attorneys office in the eastern district of wisconsin to deal with instances of the violent crime of the repeat your -- repeat

offender. we are not talking about people who may deserve some remedy for some transgression they made. i talked about the 10-year-old. both of those individuals, convicted felons. the prohibition of not being able to be armed with a firearm means nothing to them. the state has not shown a willingness at that state level. i think it is a legitimate question to ask, what are they doing at the state level with some of the cases? too much leniency. i will tell you one thing from a deterrent standpoint, criminal fear the federal -- the justice system. they just do. if we would have, for instances, cases -- there was a case where

the assistant u.s. attorney who we do have a great relationship with use the -- used the hobbs act to charge a man who had gone on a robbery spree and i believe one of them received a 15 year sentence and class, they use the firearm -- a firearm in the commission of those crimes. they do not have to charge all of them. i know they have not heard about the prosecutor -- prosecutorial discretion that i think if we take this elephant and tried to eat at one spoonful at a time, the elephant being violent crime ravaging all kinds of urban towns in america but if we take the worst offenders and subject them to federal sanctions, that will first of all ensure a better chance at a conviction, a

better chance of more link the sentence. -- more lengthy sentence. for the person who is just not care about the sanctions applied. that is the sort of help we need from the federal prosecutors office in milwaukee. i will not really wrap the u.s. attorneys office of law enforcement. not bringing in the cases. the ones they are they are doing well. the armed violent offenders are the ones i would like to see go to federal route. >> thank you. today we have heard from a number of witnesses that have testified to move lynch qualification, which are in itself impressive. i know of no finer lawyer or human being traders and david.

always great to see you and each of you have put a lot of thought into your testimony. i appreciate your written testimony and what you spoken to us today. the records for the hearings will remain open for a week for members to submit written questions for the record. the hearing will be adjourned. thank you. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> this week house democrats are meeting at their policy retreat. vice president joe biden will be speaking, live on c-span.

democratic leaders will be hosting a news conference as they lay out their strategy for the next two years. we'll have that at noon, eastern. this sunday on "q&a," the neuroscientist on the recent discoveries about the teenage brain. >> they don't have their frontal lobes to reason the cause and effect of consequences that are not very clear to them because their frontal lobe is not as readily accessible. the connections cannot be made as quickie -- quickly for split-second decision-making. and the level of hormones are changing in their bodies and the brain has not seen these yet in life until you hit teenage years. so the brain is trying to learn

how to respond to these new hormones and actually locking onto receptors -- so it is trial and error. it continues toward this roller coaster experience that we watch as parents. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." on the next "washington journal," discussion on the obama administration's call for more authority. linda dempsey and robert scott. then, rob morrison, executive director of the national association of alcohol, on heroin use in the united states. and a look at the well-being of young adults today with jonathan vespa and erin career. -- currior.

you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. former secretaries of state testified before the senate armed services committee today about national security strategy, focusing on iran's nuclear program and combating the islamic state. testimony from henry kissinger madeleine albright and schultz. at the beginning of the committee, senator john mccain responded to protesters.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] criminal. john mccain chairs this two-hour hearing. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning, all. >> the meeting will stand in row recess until -- >> could i -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] new paragraphs [chanting loudly] nuke aircraft [chanting loudly]

>> [inaudible] >> would we don't want to hear from you any. >> in the mame of the people of chile and vietnam and the people of east -- >> you foe what. >> in the name of the people of cambodia. in the name of the people of laso. [inaudible] >> i would like to say to my colleagues in our distinguished witnesses this morning that i have been a member of this committee for many years and i have never seen anything as disgraceful and outrageous and despicable as the last demonstration that just to ways. you know you're going to have to shut up or i'm going to have you arrested.

if we cannot get it peace in here immediately, -- get out of here you lowlife scum. [applause] [applause] >> doctor kissinger, i hope that on behalf of all of the members of this committee on both sides of the aisle in fact, from all of my colleagues i would like to apologize for allowing such disgraceful behavior towards a man who has served this country with the greatest distinction and i apologize profusely. the senate armed services committee meets today to receive testimony on global challenges on u.s. national security strategy. this is the third hearing in a series designed to examine the

strategic context in which we find ourselves, one characterized by how this informs the work of the committee and the congress. well, we have had previous testimony from general keane and amaral william fallon and we have heard consistent themes. our foreign policy is reactive and we need to repeal sequestration and we should not withdraw from with afghanistan on this timeline and we need a strategy again. we will explore these topics and many more with today's outstanding panel of witnesses and i am honored to welcome three former secretaries of state among our nation's most admired diplomats and public servants, doctor henry kissinger, doctor george shultz and doctor madeleine albright.

our nation owes each of these statements a debt of gratitude for the years of service advancing national interest. the secretary has held nearly every senior position of our federal government on his illustrious career. doctor albright was an instrumental leader with key points in our nations history and influencing policies in the balkans in the middle east. finally i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge that personal debt of gratitude that i go to doctor kissinger. when henry came to conclude the agreement that would end america's war on vietnam, the vietnamese told him that they would send me home with him and he refused the offer. saying that the commander will return the in the same order that the others, he told them. he knew my early release would be seen as favoritism to my father and a violation on the code of conduct by rejecting this last attempt with a dereliction of duty and he saved

one of my important possessions my honor. for that, i am eternally grateful. thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today and i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, let me thank you in welcoming us and we have provided leadership in so many capacities and we are deeply appreciative of you for joining us this morning. it is an opportunity to hear from individuals who have witnessed and shaped history over the course of many years and we thank you again for joining us. i also want to commend the senator mccain for these hearings that have allowed us to work very carefully as the strategy of the united states and in view of many complex problems that face us today. you all have done so much again and let me reiterate our appreciation and our thanks.

and each of you throughout your career has demonstrated an in-depth understanding of historical economic and ethnic political situations and each of you emphasizing the need to use all instruments of national power, not just military power but also diplomacy and economic power. to address the challenges. the international order and the united states today is seen as complex as any previously. and we would be interested in your perspective on the challenges and the principles that should guide our security strategy. on a recent hearing as was mentioned we have held off on additional sanctions with sufficient time to reach a conclusion and indeed the senate banking committee is considering

the issue in a few moments and i would like to participate in a markup. we would certainly be interested in this critical issue. regarding the military aspects of the security strategy, we need to have a clear understanding what the political objectives are in the region and he also made clear that any intent to impose a solution would come at a very high course. doctor, you talk about the importance of this and also warned against the united states and owning it and we have to be very careful going forward. all of these issues and many more from this to the impact of cyber, national security policy, i think that we would in a fit enough from this and your wisdom. we thank you so much and again, thank you and senator. >> we will begin with doctor

albright, thank you for being here today. >> i'm delighted to be here chairman members of the committee. thank you very much for inviting me to participate in this important series of hearings and i'm very pleased to be here alongside with my distinguished colleagues and very dear friends, secretary kissinger and secretary schultz and this embodies the best positions of bipartisanship and foreign policy and we have long believed that congress has a critical role to play in our national security. when i became the secretary of state, i valued my regular appearances before the senate

foreign relations committee and then headed by jesse helms, he and i did disagree on many things, but we were respecting of each other in building an effective partnership that we believe because america had a unique role to play in the world. and that informs the perspective that i bring to our discussion today. it doesn't take a seasoned observer of international relations to point out that we are living through a time of monumental change across the world and we are reckoning with new forces that are pushing humanity down the path of progress while also unleashing new contradictions in the world team. one of these forces of globalization which has made the world more interconnected than ever before. also adding new layers of complexity to the challenges. with globalization it is impossible to act as the global

problem solver, another force is technology which has released unprecedented innovation and benefited people the world over and also amplifying their frustrations and empowering networks of criminals and terrorists. globalization and technology are disrupting the international system and we are struggling to keep pace with change and nowhere is this more apparent than where we have largest refugee crisis and a dangerous competition is playing out for regional primacy. and mark the first time since european borders have been altered by force. events have shown that what many

have assumed would become a frozen conflict is still red hot. meanwhile in asia the growth and rise of new powers are creating new opportunities in the united states and these are also as part of this and world war ii. and the intensity of complexity seems daunting, particularly after we have been through 13 years of protracted war and threat such as climate change nuclear proliferation and also looming on the horizon. and the american people may be tired, but we must afford another danger lurking in this new era of temptation to turn inward. because for all the turmoil this century has brought america remains the mightiest

economic power with a resurgent economy and an energy revolution giving us new found confidence in our future. we're the only nation with not just the capacity and will to lead, but also the ideal and ideal to do so in a direction that most of the world would prefer to go towards liberty and justice and peace and economic opportunity for all. and as the president said last week, the question is not whether america should lead but how it should lead and that in many ways is the focus of today's hearing. so let me just suggest a few basic principles that might help guide this discussion. first, we are the world's indispensable nation but nothing about this requires us to act alone. alliances and partnerships matter. enhancing our power and working on our actions. and when possible, we should

work with coalitions of friends and allies. second, given the fluid nature of today's threats, we must make wide use of every foreign policy option. from quiet diplomacy to military force to protect america's national interest. enter the foundation of american leadership must remain what it has done for generations. our belief in the fundamental dignity and importance of every human being. we should not be shy about promoting these volleys and that is why i am proud to be chairman of the national democratic institute and i know that you mr. chairman, are proud of your leadership of the international republican institute and the things we do together. working with allies and partners, balancing our diplomatic economic military tools of national power these will all be critical in navigating today's challenges and this means in the middle east we must continue working with european and regional

allies to apply direct military pressure against the islamic state while making clear that these violent extremist are guilty not of islamic terrorism but of crimes that are profoundly un- islamic. and this includes those that have fled the terror of isis and the depravity of the bashar al-assad regime. another challenge remains iran the president has rightly made it the policy of the united states to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and he has taken no options off the table to achieve that and we are exploring a diplomatic resolution. if this fails or if iran does not honor its commitments, the united states should and i believe will impose additional sanctions with strong support internationally. but i believe it would be a mistake to do so before the negotiations run their course.

and until russia honors its commitment and draws its forces from the ukraine, there can be no sanctions relief and if russia continues this pattern of destabilizing action, it must face even more severe consequences. on economic reform the administration has made strong pledges to work with our allies and we do have to help them interns of military assistance so they can defend themselves and we should not make this road harder by suggesting that we see the future subject that russia has vetoed. i have many other comments that i would like to reserve to put in the record and i thank you very much for your kindness in

asking all of this. >> thank you, madame secretary. secretary schultz? >> thank you. >> please push the button there. >> i appreciate the pillage of being here. you can see i'm out of practice. [laughter] i haven't been here for 25 years. and we had the idea when i was in office but if you want me include me at the table. so we did lots of consultations. and so i would like to set up basic ideas that we use and president reagan uses in thinking of his foreign policy defense policy and applying those to areas that are

important right now. and so first of all is the idea of execution. to arrange itself in the way we go about things to execute the idea that you have in mind. i remember when i returned to california after serving as secretary of labor and secretary of treasurer. and so i came away feeling that this guy wants to be president but he wants to do the job

making things work. i remember not long after he took office, the air controllers went on strike. and people keep running and saying this is very complicated. and he said it's not complicated, it's simple. they took in both of office and they violated it. but he had surrounded himself and the transportation department who had been the chief executive a large transportation company. and so all of the world it's like he plays so you better pay attention. so it's execution. the second thing in his playbook was always be realistic and do

not kid yourself. recognize the situation as it is and don't kid yourself, it's very important as a principal. and the next, be strong. and i don't know sequestration seems to me -- i can't run anything at a percentage basis we have to be able to pick and choose. and we need a strong military and a strong economy something vibrant and to go on and we need to have that kind of self-confidence that madeleine talked about. so that we have all this adding to the strength. and the next thing is to think through the agenda.

not the other guy's agenda. don't spend time thinking about what he might accept. stick to your agenda. that is what you are after. and i remember one president reagan proposed the zero option and people said you were crazy well, we went through a lot of pain and agony, but we wound up with zero and zero and so we tend to respect that. and so i think it's very important to be very careful with your words. mean what you say, say what you mean. i know that the chairman at the start of world war ii was a noreen core boot camp and the surgeon handed me my rifle and says take good care of this and

remember one thing never point is rifle at anybody unless you're willing to pull the trigger. i'm sure they had the same experience in boot camp. and you can translate that when you say or do something, do it. they can't do what you're going to do, they can't trust you. so i think this is a very important principle. and then once you have this in place hell people engage with you but do it on your agenda and with your strength. so that is the outline. so let me turn to something that could be on your agenda and that is the neighborhood. president reagan felt that our

policies stored in our neighborhood and this is where we live. and that trade between these countries has been apart of this. and listen to this the imports from canada are 25% u.s. content and the imports from mexico are 40%. so there is a process going on here. even more in terms of people until fertility in mexico now is down to a little before this level of crisis.

and so the border that we need to be worried about is mexico's southern border. and we need to be worried about how can we help and why is it that conditions are so bad in all cell door and guatemala that parents send their children north to see if they can't do something better. and it isn't just ranting about our border, it's much more diverse than that. and then i want to turn to iran. what is the reality? let's start with reality. the first point to remember is that they are the leading state sponsor of terrorism. it started right away when they took people in the embassy hostage for the first year.

one of the first acts was also to act this way. they acted indirectly through his power. and so i think it's probably a fair statement to say that if it weren't for this they would be in syria right now. but it is an iranian entity and we shouldn't kid ourselves about that and that's point number one about what they are like. point number two is they are developing ballistic missiles and they are pretty advanced and that as far as i can figure out. and that is a military item. number three in turn away there's a lot to be desired in the way that they have lot of local executions and the mayor

also trying to develop nuclear weapons. there is no sensible explanation for the extent and the money and the talent that they have devoted other than the development of a nuclear weapon. so we are negotiating with them. and there is nothing going on about this let alone internal affairs. it's just about the nuclear business. and we had numerous situations and i always seem to talk about as they say we have the right to enrich an already we have talked

about how much and their agenda is to get rid of the sanctions. and they are doing pretty well and the sanctions are eroding. the more you kick the can down the road, the more the sanctions of rogue. and it's not so easy to put back i hear people talk about snapback. if you've ever tried to get sanctions imposed on someone you know how hard it is, you try to persuade people who are making a pretty good living out of trade with somebody to stop doing it and it isn't easy. and so i'm very uneasy about the way the negotiations with iran are going on. and i think it's not a bad thing because they are reminded that sanctions can be put on and will

be tough. the money just say about russia. i think that in addition to the always things about it rush is showing a lack of concern about the borders. and it is in a sense attack on the state system it was in agreement with us that they would respect the borders of ukraine. and you never hear about that agreement anymore. and all the neighbors are nervous. the money just turn to the question of terrorism and isis.

it is just related in an odd way to what we are doing. and i think the development of isis is not just simply about terrorism but a different view of how the world should work. they are against the state system. they say that we do not believe in countries. in that sense there is an odd relationship with what russia is doing and what they are doing. so what we do about it. we'll first of all, i think that we do have to understand the scope of eight and that is the head military person that we spoke about the other day who was more worried about terrorism

then the country and about isis establishing itself in pakistan. this idea is this is something that they are trying to pursue for ideology. so what do we do? welcome i think that we obviously need to recognize that this has been around a long time and i would like to put that in the record mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> i would like to make a point that terrorism has been around a while and in the speech we have talked about this as well. and the terrorists profit caused by this succeed when governments change their policies out of intimidation. but if a government response to by slanting down on individual rights and freedoms, governments

that only acts even in self-defense thing only undermined our own legitimacy something that we have to figure out how to react and the magnitude of the effect is so great that we cannot afford halfhearted measures. it is a contagious disease that will inevitably spread if it goes untreated. and we cannot allow ourselves worrying and flee over how to respond. but we have to be ready to respond. and what should we do? welcome a pretty good set of proposals by your friend senator joseph lieberman. and it's a very good piece and

he said about something so we should do and i agreed to put this in the record and i think that would be helpful. >> without objection. >> in addition to military things that we should be doing, i think we also have to ask ourselves how do we encourage members of the islamic faith to disavow these efforts and this is an important thing that we need to build upon. and i would like to call your attention to something that has come out of san francisco and many think that we are a bunch of nutballs, but there is a man in san francisco who is a retired bishop of california and

he talked about something called the united religions initiative and his idea is to get people -- if you get the people together and you talk about subjects of interest with them they basically forget about their religion and they tried to get somewhere with this subject. so by this time they have what he calls cooperation circles and there are millions of people involved. and he has a big list of religions involved with the most important as christians and as long as is followed by hinduism and jewish. but there are a bunch others as of others as well. the kind of things that they talk about are economic development, education, health

care and nuclear disarmament and other issues and so on but i think things like this are to be encouraged because you get people from different religions to say there are things you can get together on and work on together and that tends to break things down and he has given me a little handout on that and i would like to put that in the record also. >> without objection. >> so thank you for the opportunity to present this. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. secretary kissinger. >> mr. chairman. thank you for this invitation to appear together with my friend 50 years to whom i owe so much

and madeleine albright, with whom i have shared common concerns for many decades. and you put me in a place when she was the secretary of state and i introduced her at a dinner in new york and i said welcome to the fraternity. and she said the first thing you have to learn is that it's no longer a fraternity. and now it is also a sorority. [laughter] and so mr. chairman, i agree with the policy recommendations that my colleagues have put forward and to try to put forward the conceptual statement of the overall situation and i will be happy to go into

specific policy issues. the united states, by any standard of capacity, we are in a favorable position to achieve that additional objectives and as serious as we look around the world, we encounter a people and chaos. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] don't no.

>> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> thank you. [applause] [applause] [inaudible] [inaudible] [applause] [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. the united states faces a diverse complexity. since the end of the second

world war. one reason is that the major of this unobjective power to include this role. and this is in the process of being redefined. and the concept is being challenged. and the relationship is also being redefined. so for the first time in history that affects each other simultaneously. the problem of peace was historically posed by the accumulation of power in this includes the emergence of a

potentially dominant country with the security in nature. this includes the disintegration of power because that put authority into non-governed spaces and this includes the challenge from a threat organized from beyond borders with his domestic situation in origin in many parts of the world. this includes the territory and the encouragement of human rights. [inaudible]

in this includes europe's roles of over three centuries ago. this includes technologically and territorially and as the united states became its guarantor and it's indispensable protector. in key regions of the world, a quarter is in the process. the leading states set out to prove their sovereignty and crisis had taken place in this way and along with it the

definition of the transatlantic partnership which in all the post-world war ii time, has been the keystone of american foreign policy. he has determined to overcome and this includes the process of redefinition. and there is a willingness to contribute the so-called soft power and a reluctance to play a role in the other aspects of security. the atlantic partnership faces the challenge of adapting to an alliance based on global views.

in this includes the strategic orientation of states once constrained and it may spark an interest in vindicating this and the vitality of the states and the satellite status. we are now mounting an offensive paradoxically. and on many issues this should prove compatible. so we face a dual challenge.

to overcome the immediate threats that opposes along the borders and to do so in a manner that leaves open a context for the long-term roles in international relations. including where it is needed and many economies and societies are flourishing and at the same time there is a lot of conflict and there is no formal arrangement to constrain the rivalry ended introduces a measure of

relatively seemingly local disputes. in this includes the relationship between the united states and china. [inaudible] and that is analogous to the relationship between germany and britain before the war. two successive american and chinese presidents which joined aim to deal with this [inaudible] and yet it is also true that significant spokesman with the adversarial aspect in both countries and now india is entering this with its vast

economic potential of democracy and it plays a situation in which the united states is welcome. in this includes political alignment and in the middle east this is unfolding sadly and it is a struggle for power within states. ectopic between states and religious groups and on the international system in these

various conflicts and that includes what challenges all the institutions in which in the name of this is a territory explicitly designed to undermine all of the existing weapons of legitimacy. and that includes what is under terrorist control that has name in all existing institutions and

this includes the conflict with isis that must be viewed and not within the context of individual episodes to overcome that. to pursue this power within other countries. beyond the control of national authorities and sometimes constituting this within the united states. for example in lebanon and elsewhere in all this while developing a nuclear program of potentially global consequence. and that includes nuclear talks

with iran which i welcome and it came as an international effort with three european countries and the united states joined it only in 2006 with all of these countries and together we will have the resolutions of the security council to deny the capability to develop this military nuclear capability as negotiators have now come and they essentially bilateral negotiations.

including the scope of that capability [inaudible] and the impact will be to help prevent and manage it and form the avoidance of proliferations to its limitations. from this needs to be considered with whatever agreement emerges. and the old order is in flux.

while the united states is indispensable in a time of global upheaval and it magnifies this and requires lots of intervention and the united states working together with mexico and canada in an economic partnership can help to shape the emerging world in both the atlantic and the pacific. and all this is part of a long-term bipartisan definition and we should ask ourselves the following question, what is it

that we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens is it a necessary allowance and what we seek to achieve even if not supported. and what do we seek to prevent the supported by an alliance. and this includes by other groups as well. and what is the nature of this and the answer is proper education. and we must understand that this will be determined by the quality of the corrections that

we ask and this includes as we continue to play this role as well in providing this with international trade to follow. and this is a sense of basic security and a strong and consistent american political presence is made possible many of the great strides of this era. it is even more important today. and this should have a strategy for the budget and not a budget driven strategy.

and in that context attention must be given to the modernization of the strategic forces. and america has played in its history the great stabilizer and division for the future. this includes all the other achievements before they become a reality. and i would like to thank you, mr. chairman, for conducting the hearings. >> thank you very much, doctor. thank you for your compelling

statement and i think all the witnesses. i will be brief so that my colleagues can have a chance to answer questions and we will probably have to break within a half hour or so since we have votes on the floor of the senate. secretary, should we be providing defensive weapons to the ukrainian government? >> mr. chairman, i believe that we should. i bet they are moving forward with a reform process which i think can be healthy and i ain't dead their security also needs to be interred and i do believe that countries have a right to defend themselves and we should be careful about a confrontation ourselves. >> you described it the secretary described it rather well. but i'm not sure that the average american understands the

iranian ambitions and why should we care? baby beginning with you, secretary shall. >> thank you. the ambitions are to have a dominant role in the middle east to continue the pattern of terrorism and to enhance their position by the acquisition of nuclear weapons. he gives every indication, mr. chairman that they do not want a nuclear return. and so it is a very threatening

situation, i think. and actually nuclear weapon used anywhere it would dramatically change the world, saying that we have to do something about these awful things and it can wipe out a state. >> doctor? >> every country is making history. as a national state in the region, in this capacity the united states is quite parallel and that is a goal.

secondly iran reflects a history of empire. and it spreads across the entire middle east and that was one of the major themes of this history. extending into the 19th century. and this includes the state advocate of the islamic jihad including national borders and faces foreign policy. ..

with respect to israel. they have a positive basis. but the existing iranian regime has never disavowed its policies that include religious

domination. it is supporting groups like hezbollah, which has states within a state and other countries. and the front of a hezbollah attack from syrian territory into israel's borders. when one speaks of cooperation the question is, whether the political orientation of that regime has been altered. it cannot be judged alone by nuclear agreement in which the removal of sanctions is of iranian interest. that is the challenge we face

and can only assess when we know the terms of the outcome of the negotiations. >> senator shaheen? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your service to the country and for being here today. i want to begin with a report that was asked to be done by the department of defense. the rand corporation did looking at the last 13 years of war and what lessons we have learned from those 13 years. the reports draw a number of conclusions. i will not go through all of them. first, it suggests that the u.s. government has displayed a weakness in formulating national security strategy.

and that the weakness is due to a lack of effective civilian military process for national security policymaking. you all talked about the need to have a clear strategy for what we are doing. i wonder if you can comment on whether you think those conclusions are going in the right direction and thinking about how we address future foreign policy. or if you think that is totally off base. secretary albright, do you want to begin? >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to be here. let me just say, i have not read the rand report. i think one of the bases of our government, our civilian military, relations, the control of civilians controlling the military. i think that the decision-making process is one in which the military has to be heard.

in which there may be different opinions but the whole basis of the national security system in the united date -- states is that different voices are heard. i agree in this in terms of what george schultz said -- there have to be ideas in execution. file there may be voices that disagree, ultimately, it is important to get a common policy. i think the last 13 years have been difficult in terms of determining why we were in two wars and try to figure out what the decision-making process was in getting into those wars, not in terms of rehashing them, but trying to figure out what the appropriate decision-making process is, what the channels are. are there those that operate outside the channels. i think i am in favor of a

process where civilian and military opinions are both regarded, and ultimately civilian control over the military. >> dr. schultz? >> i recall a time when president george h.w. bush deployed forces along with coalition forces to expel saddam hussein from kuwait. that was a clear mission endorsed by votes in the congress and the u.n. when that had happened, it stopped. one of the most dramatic examples of not allowing mission creep to control what you are doing. it was a mission that was accomplished, and he stopped. he took a lot of heat for that. people say you should have done this, should have done that. but i thought it was an important moment.

if you take afghanistan, i think after 9/11, it was practically a no-brainer that we should go and try to do something there. and we did. and we succeeded brilliantly. and then our mission changed. and we are there forever because of mission creep. to a certain extent, we failed to take advice on iraq from some of the generals who said you need a greater amount of manpower so that you have some control. if there is looting, it shows you are not in control. there was a lot of looting. so i think that was a case of we would have been better off taking more military advice. but in terms of the decision to go ahead in both cases, it

seemed to be well taken. because the evidence, at least has turned out not to be so, but the evidence seemed to be clear that iraq was moving on weapons of mass destruction. we had 9/11 and afghanistan. i think we need to be careful in these things. i sat in the situation room many times. the military saying, you have to tell me more precisely what the mission is. i can tell you what it takes to do it. that gets decided. then you go and you are successful. you have to be careful the mission does not change to something you do not provide for to begin with. >> thank you very much. my time is ending. i do not know, dr. kissinger if you had anything you wanted to add. >> thank you very the question as to what aspect is the organization adequate to give every

significant group an opportunity to express itself. the second challenge we have faced in defining national strategy is that in our national experience, we have had a different experience than most other nations. we have been secure behind two great oceans. for americans, security presented itself as a series of individual issues for which there could be a pragmatic solution. after which, there was no need for further engagement until the next crisis came along. but for most nations, and for us now more than ever, the need is for a continuing concept of national strategy.

we think of foreign policy as a series of pragmatic issues. other countries, for example the chinese, do not think in terms of solutions. every solution is an admission ticket to another problem. it is a question of national education in answering the question, what are our objectives? what are the best means to achieve these objectives? how can we sustain them over a period of can we sustain them over a period of time? i have experienced -- in the five wars after world war ii we

had great enthusiasm. and great national difficulty in ending the. in a number of them, including the last two difficulty, withdrawal became the only definition of strategy. we have to avoid that in the future. and we must know the objective when we start. and the political strategy with which to culminate it. that is our biggest challenge. >> thank you. >> thank you. i would just have to say i am

overwhelmed to be before the three of you. there is nothing i can say that would thank you enough for all that you have done. one of the things i wanted to accomplish at this hearing was to try to describe to the american people, because they do not know, you probably assume they do know -- the current condition of our military. i will read something you will remember. this is 1983. ronald reagan. he is talking about how we should budget for national security. i'm going to quote. we start by considering what must be done to maintain peace and review possible threats against security. then a strategy for strengthening peace, defending against those threats, must be agreed upon. finally, our defense must evaluate to see what is necessary to protect against any and all potential threats. the cost of achieving these ends is totaled up, and the result is

the budget for national defense. does that sound good to? >> right on the mark. >> dr. kissinger? do you agree with his statement in 1983, president reagan? >> yes. >> thank you. the problem we are having is we watch what happens to our core structure. and i do want to ask you about the ukraine, but when you think about places where we should be could be, all of that, we have to consider that we do not have the capability we have had in the past. our policy has been to be able to defend america on regional fronts. they change the words around a little bit. at the same time, regional conflicts at the same time. we are not where we can do it right now. i would like to ask you how you

evaluate our current condition of the military capability starting with dr. kissinger. >> does this effect the ukraine? >> our overall military capability of the military. >> in strength? i think our capability is not adequate to deal with all the challenges that i see. and which some of the commitments into which we may be moving needs to be reassessed carefully. in the light of circumstances in the recent decade. >> dr. schultz? do you agree? >> i think you have to recognize

that a prime responsibility of the federal government is to provide for security. that is number one. one of the things, as you read from ronald reagan, one of the things he did it was told of our military. got a lot of objections from his ledger director. but he said this is a number one thing. as the economy improved, things got better budgetary elite -- budgetarily. when he took office, he had the vietnam syndrome. people were not wearing uniforms into the pentagon. he said be proud of yourself. wear a uniform. we had a military buildup of considerable size. the statement was peace through strength. we did not use our forces are a much because it was obvious that

if we did, we would win. so we better be careful. >> excellent statement. dr. albright i agree with your position in ukraine for probably a different reason. i happens to be there at the election in november. a lot of people do not realize what happened. celebrating, for the first time in 96 years, that they rejected any communist seat in the parliament. never happened before. in light of that, the free world is looking at what is happening in ukraine. what do you think effect that has on many of our allies? >> i think we need to help them defend themselves. i was therefore elections. they took many brave steps.

the people of ukraine have been disappointed by what happened after the orange revolution in terms of their capability of being able to bring reforms into place. i think thatdisappointed generally, in the larger question, people look at how we react when one country invades another and takes a piece of territory. as both my colleagues have said, it is breaking the international's is -- international system. i think it is important to take a strong stand by providing capability for ukrainians to defend themselves and also that nato can take steps in other parts of central and eastern europe of providing forces. nato has been an important part. i think, if i might say, in response to the question you asked the others, i think i am very concerns about

sequestration and cuts that have been taken. i hope that this committee really moves on that because i think it jeopardizes america's military reach. as someone who worked at the beginning of the budget process i know about function 150. i also admire with secretary gates said about the importance of reviving money for the foreign policy aspect of our budget. in answer to many questions here i think we are in the middle east for a long time. the military part of this is important. we also have to recognize, in terms of the longer-term aspects, where we need to figure out what the environment is that has created this particular mess and be able to use other tools of policy to deal with that. >> thank you. my time has expired.

if i could just ask one question for the record to dr. schultz. you outlined a very good course of behavior for us in the united states. i would like for you to submit how we are doing, relative to that course of behavior? thank you. >> in considering ukraine, in my view, we should begin with a definition of the objective we're trying to reach. then see which measures are the most suitable. i am easy about beginning a process of military engagement without knowing where it will lead us and what we are willing to do to sustain it. in order to avoid the experience that i mentioned before.

ukraine should be an independent state. free to develop its own relationships with respect to nato membership. it should be maintained within existing borders. and russian troops should be withdrawn as part of a settlement. but i believe we should avoid taking incremental steps before we know how far we are willing to go. it is a territory 300 miles from moscow. therefore, it has a special security implication. that does not change my view of the outcome, which must be a

free ukraine. it may include military measures as part of it. but i am uneasy when one speaks of military measures alone without having a strategy fully put forward. >> dr. schultz, do you want to add to that? >> i agree totally with henry's statement of where we want to line up as an independent ukraine. but i think we have to be active in trying to help that come about. i would point to two particular things. we should be organizing and energy effort to see to it that the country -- countries around russia are not dependent on russia for oil and gas, which has been used as a weapon. i am interested to know there is

an lng receiving ship in lithuania. i think they are getting it from norway. we have a lot of gas in this country. we should be ready to have lng. there is plenty of oil around that should get there. we want to relieve those countries of this dependence on russian oil and gas. maybe it would teach them a lesson. in addition to lower oil prices, they will lose market share, probably permanently. but i would not hesitate -- in madeleine's camp, let's do everything we can to train the ukrainian armed forces. they have boots on the ground. let's help them be effective. there are russian boots on the ground. don't anybody kid themselves about what is going on. >> dr. albright, i would suggest to become a member of the budget

committee again. we can use your expertise and experience. >> thank you, mr. chairman for this outstanding hearing. thank you for attending. it is such an honor to have you here with your expertise and knowledge of who we are as a country. hopefully help us get to the place we need to be. dr. kissinger, you said united states has not faced a more diverse array of crises since world war ii. my generation's vietnam. the generation of today is 9/11 afghanistan, iraq. it has kind of gone in another direction of concern that we all have. i would like to hear from the three of you. i think you all touched on it about how we would approach it. when you start looking, where does the united states of america -- where is it willing to spend its treasure and contribute its blood, which is a

horrible thing to ask americans to do. but if we are going to be addressing the greatest threats we have and we are limited in such an array of complex problems, which ones would you identify first? i would ask simply, we have gone to afghanistan because of 9/11. we went to iraq. we can talk about that all day. we have iraq, that did not do what we thought it would do. the have isis and syria. we have all of that going on right now. the ukraine and russia. we tried a little bit of everything. should we really be pinpointing something we should be focused on right now? whoever would like to start. dr. kissinger, if you would like to start, just pinpointing where you think our greatest concerns maybe. >> my thinking on international

relations was formed during the cold war. in terms of danger, the conflict between a nuclear armed russia and an armed america was greater than any single danger we face today. the most anguishing problem one could face was what happens if the strategic plans of both sides had to be implemented, by accident or whatever. it was a relatively less complex issue then we face today. where we have a middle east whose entire structure is in flux.

as late as 73 american politics could be based on existing states in the region and achieve considerable successes in maneuvering between them. today, middle east policy requires an understanding of the states. of the alternative to the states , of the various forces within the states. situations like syria with two main contenders violently opposed to america. the victory for either of them is internally conceived.

china, apart from motivational leaders, they face a whole new set of problems. an economic competitor. of great capacity. a state that is used in its tradition of being the central kingdom of the world as they knew it. by its very existence is bound to step on other's toes. but it is a different problem from the middle east problem. i have described -- >> the middle east is the one you think is most dangerous?

>> we have nuclear iran. i would say the most immediate problem is to get rid of a terror-based state that controls territory. that is isis. we must not let that degenerate into another war that we do not know how to end. but there are more long-term problems that also exist. the challenge to our country is not to switch from region to region. but to understand the things we must do. and separate them from the things that we probably cannot do. so that is a novel challenge.

for the current generation. >> what -- would it be possible that dr. schultz -- would you give us your idea of what you think our greatest concerns are right now? >> i agree with what henry has said. but let me put some additional points on it. i think we tend to underestimate the impact of information and -- in the communication age. it changes the problem of government. because people know what is going on everywhere. they can communicate with each other and organize. and they do. so you have diversity everywhere. it has been ignored or suppressed. but it is asserting itself. remember, the problem in iraq was malaki did not understand

how to govern over diversity. you have that problem, which tends to fragment populations and make governments weaker. diversity. that is what is happening. problems that demand international attention are escalating. as i said in my initial testimony, there is an attack on the state system going on. the attack on ukraine is part of it. the isis is a major part of it. they are a major challenge to the state system. they want a different system. i have a sense that china is drifting into a kind of sphere of influence. that is different from the state system. that is a challenge.

i see nuclear weapon proliferation. coming about. that is devastating. ia nuclear weapon goes off somewhere. even my physicist friends say that hiroshima was just a little plaything. look at the damage it did. a thermonuclear women -- weapon would incinerate washington. the spread of nuclear weapons is a big threat. and we were making progress, but that has been derailed. we are going the wrong way right now. i think, and i gather in washington it is controversial but i have a friend at hoover's chief of naval operations. we started a project on the arctic. senator sullivan knows about it. there is a new ocean being created their.

-- therer. that has not happened since the ice age. the climate is changing. and there are-- consequences. so that is happening. we will never get anywhere with it unless we are able to somehow have actions to take hold on a global basis. i have the privilege of chairing the m.i.t. advisory board on energy initiatives. same thing at stanford. i see what they're doing in r&d. it is breathtaking. and i think he has cracked the code on a large-scale storage. it takes the intermittency problem out. must now on religious >> at any

rate i think these things are beginning to get somewhere. we are much safer in the any rate i think they're beginning to get somewhere. but that's a big threat so these three things are huge concerns of hours and we need to have a strong military. we need to have a strong economy and we need a strength of purpose in our country. we have probably done the best job with all of our problems of dealing with diversity because we started out that way. we are the most diverse country in the world. our constitution provided that. you remember if you read lynne cheney's book on madison, to wonderful book. it's clear that george washington having suffered because of the continental congress wanted a strong government that he and his colleagues never got the

constitution ratified unless they provided a lot of oil for states and committees. our federal structure emerged and it's a structure that allows for diversity. it's very ingenious. you can do something in alaska. we don't have to do it in san francisco. they certainly don't want to do the same thing in new mexico. there's a difference. but the differences prevail. so we have these big problems and in a sense you look at them and say tactically how do we handle iran? how do we handle ukraine? how do we handle isis? it falls within this broader framework. >> i do think the biggest threat of climate change. it's national security aspect as has been described and that leads me to say the following thing. our problem is that not everything can be handled