certified by the cia. i guess that they're secure. and i think most of the members have top security clearance. and so are you saying that the state department employees just send these e-mails back and forth over something and that we shouldn't be seeing that? >> no, sir. related to the document requests and the 40,000 pages of documents that you have, there are some classified documents. there are some unclassified documents. >> and what would be considered classified from another agency that members of congress would not need to see? >> there's a process for determining when information is classified as well as to what level -- i can't speak in total specificity, but generally when communications are classified between agencies or within agencies, that type of information, as related to the document requests, we're also seeking. >> so is the cia the last agency to get the redactions to say

what needs to be lifted and what doesn't? >> i believe the process is that we've gone to all the agencies who are relevant to these documents and asked for a review. >> but mr. higgins said they lifted some of the redactions. >> yes, and we as well in an agreement with the committee several months ago also agreed with the committee's desire to have minimal redactions. and so we went back over these 40,000 documents and minimized the redactions. >> you know, there was an outside group prior to this committee being formed that had a freedom of information act and got some information. i believe it was from the state department, with no redactions. and as a member of the intel committee, we had gotten the same information redacted. now, would it be easier for this committee -- or to have better

information if we go through the freedom of information act rather than requesting it from y'all? >> well, my understanding is that we receive 18,000 foya -- we received 18,000 foya requests last calendar year. >> they got -- >> i'd say it's significant. >> they got theirs quicker than we got ours, with to redactions. >> and this is in part and parcel in our cooperative working relationship with the committee is to provide these documents with minimal redactions. many of the categories that were redacted from the state department, we have reduced. >> your understanding of a cooperative relationship is probably a little bit different than some of ours. but i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair would now recognize the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. as i sit here, i just want to

make sure that we are all pursuing the same thing. i've heard a lot of comments. let me be clear. we've never, ever tried to be told the chairman the subpoena power. it just never happened. and i made it clear to him over and over again. what we have asked for is to be true partners in this investigation. and, you know, i think it's sad that -- i mean, in over my 18 years in the congress to see how distrust wells up. and when distrust wells up, it's very hard to get anything done period.

mr. rubin, i was watching you a minute ago when you talked about ambassador stevens. and i watched you as you -- you may not even have realized it -- became emotional talking about your friend. and as you became emotional, i couldn't help but think about all the other employees at state who's probably watching this right now and how they go out and give their blood, their sweat, their tears away from their families to do the jobs that they do. so the first thing i want to do is thank them. the same thing for you, mr. higgins.

the -- you know, it seems as if -- i mean, when i think about this effort that we're making, and i don't care what anybody says. it is a search for the truth. and be clear that what is one person's truth, somebody else may say something opposite, and that's their truth. but our effort is to bring our heads together, our best efforts, and hopefully have some trust to look at all the facts and come to some conclusions. mr. smith is absolutely right. if we end this with a republican saying this and democrat saying

that, what have we really accomplished? you know, one of the things that we did -- and i thought it was great that we did it -- was to sit down and meet with the families. and i meant -- i made every one of those meetings. and it was painful. it was painful. they did not ask for republicans to sit on one side of the room and democrats to sit on the other. they wanted us to sit down and work together, period. one of the things that they said over and over and over and over again, don't make this a political football. one of the family members said and democrats to sit on the if you're going to do that, don't even bother. they talked about how they wanted closure.

they talked about how they wanted us to truly work together. and what we have asked for is to merely be partners, to do what we were sworn to do, what we do every two years and affirm when we put up our hand and swear that we are going to support the constitution and we're going to support the people that we represent. and i've said it before and i'll say it again, and i'll say it until i die, each one of us represents over 700,000 people. and all of those -- and all of us have value. all of us bring something to the table. and so it should not be about the gotcha moment. it should be about the big-picture moment. it should be about how do we make sure that this does not happen again.

and, you know, as i listen to a lot of the discussion, it was an issue of the question of whether the democrats had put forth witnesses and -- the fact is is that we need a scope, we need an idea of what we are going after. and i wouldn't even be here -- i wouldn't even be talking about this if we didn't already have eight reports. and we talk about asserting, but we've got a situation where millions of american taxpayers' dollars have been paid for these reports. we've had members of congress that have been paid to sit in hearings. we have staff members that have produced these reports. and some of them are bipartisan. some of them are bipartisan. and so when the democrats on

this committee -- while we were waiting for things to move forward, we got our staff involved and we created something that answers questions. and it's not -- contrary to what the chairman has said in writing, we weren't trying to -- we didn't say that these are things that we -- that -- we were not judging the facts. we just went to the sworn testimony. we went to the various documents from various hearings. documents that had been presented and just the very questions that had been asked, the main questions, we just presented the documents. just the facts, ma'am. that's all we tried to do. and then we said now that we've done that, now that we've got that, let's see what it is that we can work together on if there is something that has not been answered. just want some scope.

and we've been asking for scope. so mr. rubin, you talked about priorities. the chairman basically lays out, as i understand it, basically what he wants. have you been given priorities? >> thank you, mr. cummings. we have been given priorities, which is to ensure that in the immediate term that we provide additional documents related to a specific search for former secretary clinton as the top priority and that a second priority that the four ds agents -- that we work to help secure interviews. >> and how did that come about? in other words, how did it come about that there was a list of priorities? how did that happen? and why did it happen? >> it was initiated through the continual contact and communications between staff in committee and our officials, our personnel at state including

with the letters on december 4 and at the end of november -- november 18 as well, that laid out those questions. and then through engagement with staff, it got refined. >> see, this is the thing. that's why we need to have an idea of where we're going, because -- and i assume that the chairman's goal is to address certain issues in a certain order and he needs certain information. i agree with that, that he needs certain information. >> yes. >> but when it comes to priorities, he sets those priorities, not you. >> we're responsive to the committee's priorities. >> and tell me, when -- tell me the priority list right now. what is that list? number one. >> it is -- number one is the production of documents that were requested regarding former officials, and at the top of the list was for former secretary clinton. number two is the interviews of the four diplomatic security agents we referenced.

that's not to say that the other requests are forgotten. that's not it at all. what it is is to say those are the issues -- those are the items that we have worked most diligently on, and we will be. we have good story that we are producing within several days, we will begin producing to the committee those -- beginning of those documents that were requested. it's only been six weeks, roughly, since the initial request. and then a few -- about a month of the finalization of that. and in between that, we've prepared for hearings that didn't come about. we had the holiday break. and then this hearing as well, the request was last wednesday evening. and we're here this morning on tuesday. >> i just emphasize as i close that we have got to -- we've got to move to higher ground. that's what these families deserve. that's what the american people deserve. and i think that's what we all want. with that, i'll yield back.

>> the gentleman from ohio. >> democrats asked for no hearings in august and october and now they complain the democrats picked the topic for the first hearing, the arb recommendations. now they complain. democrats asked and got a second hearing on the arb recommendations. now they complain. in that second hearing, mr. smith, a member of the committee, was given the courtesy i have not seen in my eight years after summary to call in and ask questions. now they complain. i mean, so suggest that the chairman has been unfair is ridiculous on the face. now, the one thing they have said that makes some sense is the pace is way too slow, and that's why we've got you guys here today. we have got to pick up the pace for the families that

mr. cummings just referenced. so, mr. rubin, i'm going to start with an issue i dealt with in my work on standing committee here in the house and has carried over to this committee and that's the arb process. are you familiar with that, mr. rubin? >> i'm not the expert on the whole arb process. >> specifically, do you know something about the benghazi arb process at all? >> i do in general terms. >> we've had two hearings on it. the first two hearings that the democrats requested. it's a pretty important issue. >> and secretary stark came and testified. >> he sure did. many claim the arb process and the arb report was independent. mr. cummings said this. he said -- called it the independent accountability review board. the report was independent. jerry connelly, another member of congress, said it was the independent accountability review board process. greg starr who you just referenced, a colleague of yours who's testified twice on this committee, said the first two hearings said this -- thank you for inviting me today. this is at the last hearing. to provide insight on the department's progress to implement the recommendations made by the independent benghazi arb. i mean, they use the term independent almost as if it's part of the title, part of the official title. now, i think there are problems with that claim. secretary clinton picked four of

the five members of the board of this so-called independent board. secretary clinton was never interviewed by this so-called independent board. sheryl mills, her chief of staff, wasn't interviewed by this so-called independent board. sheryl mills, her chief of staff, was given a draft copy of the report before it went public to make edits of this so-called independent board. admiral mullen, a co-chair of the board, after interviewing charlene lamb, employee at the state department, then called up sheryl mills and said, hey, ms. lamb's going to testify in front of a congressional committee. she's not going to do a good job. i'm giving you a heads up. when the co-chair gives up a heads up about a potential witness coming in front of congress, that doesn't really scream independence. but, mr. rubin, let's assume they're all all right. let's assume they got it right that this is independent. in spite of those facts, in spite of the fact the secretary picked four of the five people who were supposed to investigate her, i don't know where anywhere

else in life where a potential subject gets to pick their investigators. despite the fact she wasn't interviewed, sheryl mills wasn't interviewed, despite all those facts, let's just assume that mr. cummings, mr. connelly, mr. starr are correct when they say independent, how do we test that claim if you guys won't give us the documents? how do we test the claim of independence if you guys won't let us see the record? mr. rubin, you've had a subpoena congress issued in august of 2013 saying we want every single document, or as the chairman's made clear, all documents relating to the arb investigation. we want to know, when are you going to comply? >> sir, as -- >> when are you going to put those top people that mr. roscum referenced, when are you going to put those top people on a subpoena that's been issued a year and a half ago to

get us the documents so we can test the claim that this arb was actually independent? >> sir, as i just mentioned with mr. cummings, the top two priorities that were communicated to us for the immediate term were these interviews and these other documents -- >> here's what we've got to get past. wait, wait, wait. this is what we've got to get past, this priority line you keep using. the subpoena was august 2013. this wasn't -- we're not talking a couple months ago. we're talking a year and a half ago. so you got top people working on it. so here's the point. you can't have it both ways. you can't claim, oh, this was the independent be all, end all definitive statement that the arb made on benghazi and then not let us see the record. all we're saying is, ok, we'll accept this fact. we don't think it is independent. we'll accept it. show us the record. >> so we had two hearings with secretary starr about the arb implementation. the arb's themselves are crucial to providing security for our people. that's why they're there.

and the documents request that you're referencing, there are documents as well in the 40,000 pages of documents that are related to the arb. >> that's where i wanted to go. you're right where i wanted to go, mr. rubin. you've given us 40,000 documents. are contained in that 40,000 documents, are -- within that 40,000 documents, is every document that the arb received from the state department, so the state department gave the arb a bunch of documents, are everything the arb had contained in that 40,000? >> i have not read all 40,000 pieces. >> no, i don't expect you've read them. >> i don't want to misstate that. >> have we received everything the arb received? >> again, sir -- >> simple question. >> i did not draft the arb, and i have not read all 40,000 pages. i'm here to convey to the house, to the committee, what it is that we're working on. and so the -- it's not something i would be able to testify on here. >> this is the key question.

the documents the arb got from the state department, are they in the 40,000 that we now have? every single thing that the arb got from the state department, are they in the 40,000 documents we now have? yes or no? >> the document that you requested -- >> you can say i don't know. >> the document request was related more broadly to an overall search for documents from the state department. now, as far as the arb investigation, it's important to also recognize that arb's, over time, need to stand independence as you've cited, and that is for the security of our personnel. >> mr. rubin, there's two components to the subpoena. there's what i was just talking about. does this committee now have everything that the state department gave to the accountability review board? that's question one. question two is, the notes, the records, the files, the interview notes, everything that the arb compiled in their

investigation, we want those too. does this committee have those notes, records and files that the five-member arb panel had, do we have that information? >> again, i cannot tell you specifically every single document has been in there. again, if the committee tells us that that is in their priority the number one thing, i'm happy to convey that back and have us move on that. >> mr. rubin, are you familiar with the statute, the statute pertaining to arb says this -- records pertaining to administrative proceedings under the arb process shall be separated -- shall, not may -- shall be separated from all other records of the department of state and shall be maintained? so here's the point. you should have a file already with everything nicely and neatly organized of all the documents that the state department gave the arb and all

the notes, files, and records that the arb compiled in their investigation, when they did the interviews, how many people they interviewed, did they do it alone or in groups you should have all that in the file. that should be the simplest thing in the world to hand over to us, and you haven't done it. and yet -- and yet everyone claims the arb was independent. how can we test the claim when you won't give us what the statute requires? separated, segregated file on what the arb did, and you guys keep it? >> part of the core integrity of the arb -- >> do you have that file separated and segregated like the statute requires? >> sir, the core integrity of the arb is reliant upon discretion and the ability -- >> mr. rubin, these questions are so simple. is there a segregated file like the arb statute requires, do you have that separated, segregated ready to hand over to us -- a long time ago, frankly -- but do you have it separated and segregated? >> i'd have to go and ask our experts about that. the liaison -- >> this is amazing. you were invited to come here today to tell us about the documents. the statute says you're supposed to have them separated and

segregated, maintaining those, and you don't know if you have them and can't give them to us? >> no, i'm saying i'm going to get our experts -- >> you said i don't know. i got that answer. >> to convey that. i want to get you the proper information. >> one last thing, mr. chairman. in the article you wrote, one month after four americans were tragically killed, one of them a friend of yours and a great ambassador, in the article you wrote that mr. roscum cited earlier, you talked about not rushing to judgment, and you specifically said we should wait to get all the facts out. direct quote from your guest blogger column. and here's the irony. wait to get all the facts. you said wait to get all the facts, and now you're the guy who can give us the facts. you're the guy who should have the arb files separate segregated, ready to hand over and you guys won't do it. after you'd said that a month after this tragedy and now this should be ready to give over to us, and the state department's saying keep prioritizing. we've got top people on it.

keep getting in line. we're working with you. we promise we'll work with you. we're going to get to it someday, sometime, somehow. it's not going to fly. >> sir, we've been proactive with the committee. we have provided briefings that the committee didn't request, and we're always open to, as i said earlier, to have these communications. >> the subpoena was a year and a half ago. i don't know how you can say you've been proactive and helpful when you won't even comply with the statute and give us -- give us what the law requires you to give us and have it segregated and separated for us. and, oh, by the way, claim independence in the process. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman from ohio. mr. rubin and mr. higgins, i think both of you have something in common with every member of the committee, which is a deep and abiding respect for the four people who gave their lives for this country. so i think that you share our desire to do what the house instructed us to do. and you'll note the department of justice is not at the table.

you made reference, mr. rubin, to the department of justice. ms. sanchez made reference to the department of justice. and i asked her to yield time so i could clarify that. and she's well within her rights not to do so. the department of justice did write us a letter. and we met with them. and we addressed the concerns that they had about protecting the integrity of their prosecution, which i can assure you, given my former line of work, i want them to be wildly successful with their prosecution. so i would never do anything to jeopardize that. we met. we discussed it. we worked out the issues. they're not at the table. that's why they're not at the table. i don't enjoy these hearings. i'd rather have a hearing about substance, not about process. i don't want another hearing like this. but when my colleagues are complaining about the pace, and i've got colleagues on this side which i never thought i would ever hear in my life that i am too polite, i never thought i would hear that.

i hope my three sisters are watching. we're going to have to ratchet it up. and if the letters don't work then we're going to have to resort to a more formal legal process, because i want this concluded. and i will note -- i don't think any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had an opportunity to highlight this point yet, but i'm sure that they would agree with me there's not been a single leak of anything that either of you have provided to us. there's not been a single selective release of information. not one. so the people on this committee take their responsibility seriously. this is not a political exercise for us. most of the people who ask me about benghazi i could not tell you their political ideation, if they have one. they just want to know what happened. and i intend to tell them, and i intend to tell them sooner rather than later.

so the letters haven't worked and the southern politeness has not worked. we're going to ratchet it up. because i need access to the documents and the witnesses, and we need to be able to conclude our work. with that -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> certainly. >> just for one question. you know, as i listened a few moments ago to the last questioner, you know, i just want to make sure that the -- in consistent with what you've just said, us getting the job done, that apparently they have priorities that are being set. and i want to make sure that they have the proper instructions. i mean, on the one hand, we have some members saying, you know, give them everything and don't worry about priorities. but on the other hand, they say that you've set certain priorities. i just -- i mean, i want to make sure that they are clear as to the marching orders, that's all. >> well, that's a great question, mr. cummings. in a perfect world when people

ask you for priorities, that's exactly what they want. they want to know what your priorities are because they intend on complying with all of your requests. they just want to know what are we going to do tomorrow, the next day, and the next day. after a year and a half of waiting on compliance with a subpoena, the argument that we need priorities just rings a little bit hollow. and if i were to tell you, if i were to tell you i want you to prioritize mr. cummings' e-mails, then someone is going to spin that into the we don't care about the other people's e-mails. we're just obsessed with the gentleman from maryland. we don't care about any other witness. so i'm not going to fall for that. i'm not going to fall for the trick of telling you what's really important. it's all important. that's why the word "all" is in the resolution. so i can't tell you -- i can tell you this -- if you start producing documents on a regular basis, consistent with our request, nobody is going to complain to you that

you're not giving them to us in the order in which we want them. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> the reason why i asked that question is because it's my understanding that your staff had told them that it was ok to not make the top priority the arb information. and you can correct me if i'm wrong, and then concentrate on the other things. is that right? >> that's my understanding. >> and so all i'm saying is, you know, i just want -- i understand what you're saying. and it makes a lot of sense. i just want to make sure that we're clear. and that way you talk about not wanting to have more hearings. i understand that, too. but then i don't want folks to be in a position where they come back and say, well, he said one thing, and we tried to do what you said, to ask us to do, and then there's no -- i don't want any wiggle room, i guess. >> i appreciate the gentleman from maryland's point. i guess my point would be that this committee did not even become constituted until last

may. so what was the priority between the time oversight sent you the subpoena on the arb and this committee even coming into existance? because god knows it couldn't have been anything we asked for. so you kind of get my point. i mean, you can't wait a year and a half and say, well, we didn't give it to you because we didn't realize it was a priority. >> we were producing significant numbers of documents throughout that period. we've been producing documents practically every month since october of 2012. >> i understand that, but it's been how many years now? >> unfortunately, two -- 2 1/4. >> i've asked if there are some people in the administration that benghazi happened a long time ago. i'm telling you that family members waiting, it might as well have been yesterday. so they want the truth. and nobody gets better with time. memories don't improve. documents get misplaced. recollections fade. that's why we have a speedy trial clock. it's ironic, the department of

justice has to try khattala within a certain period of time for that very reason. so to ask me to prioritize when all of it is important, i'm not going to fall for that trap. having said that, i'm going to repeated again. i have zero interest in having another hearing like this. none. i don't think for a second you are a decision-maker. i don't think you decide which documents to produce and which ones you don't. i would like you to go to your department say i don't want to go back there. let's find a way to be in compliance with the request sooner rather than later so the committee can do its job and we can all produce a product that we can take pride in, answer the questions, and we can all go back to doing whatever it wasn't for the speaker asked us to do this. fair enough? >> with that, we are adjourned.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> earlier today vice president joe biden spoke at the house democratic retreat in philadelphia. he urged democrats to be proud of what they accomplished in the last six years, including job creation and improvements in education and health care. you can see his entire comments tonight at 8:05 eastern on c-span. over on c-span 2, state of the state addresses from governors around the country beginning with south carolina's nikki haley, new york's andrew cuomo the records of nebraska, the inaugural address for john hickenlooper, and independent governor bill walker. it begins at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2.

tomorrow on "washington journal." kenneth vogel looks at 2016 campaign spending strategies and the announcement that the koch brothers plan to spend $1 billion this election cycle. a drone crashed on the white house lawn this past week. dennis scholl of the community financial services association talks about efforts to regulate the payday loan industry. we will take your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. washington journal is live on saturday starting at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. >> here are some of our featured programs this weekend. on c-span 2's book tv, on afterwards, white house correspondent for american urban radio april ryan on her more than 25 years in journalism.

sunday at noon, or three are conversation -- our three-hour conversation with walter isaacson. on c-span 3 at saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, on the civil war. how the cowboy during reconstruction became symbolic of a unified america. we will tour the house that was the home of the american red cross and examine the life of its founder, clara barton. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> earlier this week, the radel

lynch testified before the senate judiciary committee at her attorney general confirmation hearing. she is currently the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york, being nominated for the job in 2010 by president obama. if confirmed she would be the first african-american woman to hold the office. we will show you a portion of her confirmation hearing on sunday at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this sunday on q and a neuroscientists on the teenage brain. >> they do not have the frontal lobe's to realize cause-and-effect. they are not at the ready. they are not as readily accessible. the connections can't be made as quickly for split-second decision-making. don't forget. a lot of the hormones are changing a lot in the body of

those young men and women in the brain hasn't seen these yet in life until you hit teenage years. the brain is trying to learn how to respond to these new hormones that are rolling around and locking onto receptors synapses of different types. it is trial and error. i think that this contributes to this roller coaster-kind of experience that we watch as parents. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q and a." >> yesterday several former secretaries of state testified about national strategy in response to global challenges, including the russia-ukraine conflict. senator john mccain chairs the armed services committee and the hearing began with a disturbance

in the meeting room. john mccain chairs this two-hour hearing. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] new paragraphs [chanting loudly] nuke aircraft [chanting loudly]

>> [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [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 >> i have been a member of this committee for many years and i have never seen anything as outrageous and despicable as the last demonstration the took place. you're going to have to shut up or i'm going to have you arrested.

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. in 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 >> chile. henry kissinger was one of the

principal architects of the coup that overthrew the democratically elected government. 16 years of repression -- [applause] [inaudible] [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 albright, should we be providing defensive weapons to the ukrainian government? >> mr. chairman, i believe that we should. i think they are moving forward with a reform process which i think can be healthy, but i think their security also needs to be secured, 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 maybe both of you could explain to the committee and the people, why should we care? beginning with you, secretary schultz. >> 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. they give every indication, mr. chairman, that they do not want a nuclear weapon for deterrence.

and so it is a very threatening situation, i think. actually, a nuclear weapon used anywhere it would dramatically change the world. everybody would say that we have to do something about these awful things and it can wipe out a state. >> doctor? >> every country is the results of its history. as a national state in the region, in this capacity, its interests and those of the united states is quite parallel

and they found a reliable partner, and that is a goal. secondly, iran reflects a history of empire. it spreads across the entire middle east, and that was one of the major themes of its history, extending into the 19th century. and, third, iran was the first state advocate of the islamic jihad uprising that sweeps away national national borders and based its foreign policy on the domination of religion.

since the ayatollah regime, its forieng policy regime has never disavowed its policies that include religious domination. in so far as state negotiations, they have a positive basis. but the existing iranian regime has never disallowed -- that include production and its

imperial and religious domination. of a hezbollah attack from syrian territory into an israel border. so when one speaks of political cooperation about the question is whether the political orientation of that regime has been altered. it cannot be judged alone by the nuclear agreement in which the removal of sanctions is a great iranian interest. that is the challenge we face and that we 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. that the rand corporation did, looking at the last 13 years of war and what lessons we have learned from those 13 years. and 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 strategies and that the weakness is due to a lack of effective civilian military process for national security policymaking.

and 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. and 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 civilian 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

states is that different voices are heard. i think there needs to be a process whereby -- and i agree in this in terms of what george schultz said -- there have to be ideas in execution. while 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, but 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. and when that had happened, he stopped. one of the most dramatic examples of not allowing mission creep to control what you are doing. there was a mission, it 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. i think to a certain extent, we failed to take advice on iraq from some of the generals who said you have to have a greater amount of manpower so that you have some control. if there is looting, it shows you are not in control. and 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 very 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. and we had 9/11 and afghanistan. so i think we need to be careful in these things. i sat in the situation room many times. and the military saying, you got to tell me more precisely what the mission is. and i can tell you what it takes to do it. that gets decided. then you go and you are successful. and 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 to that.

>> 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 have had a different experience than most other nations. we have been secure behind two great oceans. so 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. because every solution is an admission ticket to another problem. so 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 time? i had lived now so long that i have experienced the five d wars after world war ii, we had great enthusiasm and head coach

national difficulty in india them. and in a number of them, including the last two especially, became the only definition of strategy, the principal definition of strategy. we have to avoid that in the future. and we must know the objective when we start and political strategy with which to culminate it. that i think is our biggest challenge. >> thank you very much. you, mr. chairman. >> 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 help 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 to dr. schultz and dr. kissinger. 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 all the 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 you? >> 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 have watched what has happened to our force 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 that we have had in the past. we have always had that capability. our policy has been to be able to defend america on regional fronts. they change the words around a little bit. two regional conflicts 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. >> with respect to 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 and needs to be reassessed carefully. in the light of shrinkage that has taken placce on budgetary grounds 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 our security. that is number one. so one of the things, as you read from ronald reagan, one of the things he did it was told of >> one of the things he did was build up our military. he 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 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 as 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 happened to be there at the election in november. a lot of people do not realize what really happened. celebrating, for the first time in 96 years that they rejected any communist seat in the parliament. it had 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 do need to help them defend themselves. senator ayotte and i was there for the 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 that generally, in the larger question, people look at how we react when one country invades another and takes a piece of territory. that is, as both my colleagues have said, it is breaking the international system. i think it is important to take a strong stand there by providing capability of ukrainians to defend themselves and also that nato can take and is taking 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 questions you asked the others, i think i am very concerned 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 somebody who worked with senator muskie at the beginning of the budget process, i know about function 150. i also admire what secretary gates said about the importance of providing money for the foreign policy aspect of our budget, because in answer to many questions here, i think we are in the middle east for a long time. and the military part of this is important. but we also have to recognize, in terms of the longer-term aspects there, where we need to figure out what the environment is that has created this particular mess and be able to use other tools of our policy to deal with that. >> thank you. my time has expired. if i could just ask one question for the record from 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 uneasy 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 its special aspects 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. this is a territory 300 miles from moscow. and, therefore, has a special security implication. that does not change my view of the outcome, which must be a free ukraine. and it may include military

measures as part of it. but i am uneasy when one speaks of military measures alone without having the strategy fully put forward. >> dr. schultz, do you want to but i am uneasy when one speaks of military measures alone add to that? >> i agree totally with henry's statement of where we want to wind up as a free and 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 doing. number one, we should be organizing and energy effort to see to it that the 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 a port 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. and maybe it would teach them a lesson because in addition to lower oil prices, they will lose market share, probably permanently. but i would not hesitate -- i'm here in in madeleine's camp let's do everything we can to train decently the ukrainian armed forces. they have boots on the ground. let's help them be effective because 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.

>> senator senator manchin? >> 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. now 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. but 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 for any of us 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 that we have, which ones would you identify first? i would ask simply, we have gone to afghanistan because of 9/11. we turned left and 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. we have the ukraine and russia. do we try to do a little bit of everything, or 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.

and in terms of danger, the conflict between a nuclear-armed russia and a nuclear-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. but it was a relatively less complex issue than we face today. where we have a middle east whose entire structure is in flux. as late as 1973, 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 these states, of the various forces within the states a situation like syria, with two main contenders violently opposed to america, to each other, and the victory for either of them is not in our interests internally conceived.

the rights of china apart from it is bound and the management of this. but it is a different problem from the middle east problem. i have described -- >> the middle east is the most dangerous what you think we are facing? a nuclear iran? >> and we have nuclear