can you not make the distinction between depicting the prophet mohammed in "charlie hebdo" and the french comedian who promotes violence against jews? >> you can make a distinction between what constitutes incitement to criminal conduct. and we do that. direct advocacy of incitement to criminal conduct within a high likelihood that it will occur is not protected, for example, by the first amendment. but that is a pretty polar extreme of speech. my reaction to that -- falsely crying fire in a crowded theater

was trivializing what that was about. if anything, we give more protection to political speech. not just speech in the theater or something like that. there is nothing that is more protected under american law band commentary about how the world ought to function, who ought to be elected, how government ought to behave, assessments of people. under our law i don't believe the fire in a crowded theater motion really helps too much, because if anything it understates the level of first amendment protection that is given and is needed with respect

to political or socially relevant speech. >> if i go on television and suggest a really good idea would be to kill all the first amendment lawyers in the u.s., when you think that would be protected? [laughter] it is just an example. >> there was a cartoon was in "the new yorker," with the supreme court sitting around a table and one of the justices says "do you ever have a day when everything seems unconstitutional?" [laughter] that is what your question suggests to me. >> just one thing -- he doesn't call for killing jews. that would be easy to qualify as a crime. he says this well-known jewish journalist it is a pity he didn't perish in the gas chamber.

then he does the last thing -- he put on a twitter account "je suis charlie" -- the killer at the market. that fits into the glorification of terrorism charge. but then again that sentence, "je suis charlie" can be interpreted in different ways. it is difficult. >> this prosecution for those kind of acts -- does it make him more popular? >> yes absolutely. to go back to the anti-semitism there is a strong streak of

anti-semitism in the muslim community and in the arab world. there is no denial of this. it is not the anti-semitism that we knew in france in the vichy regime in the 20th century. it is a different one. the result is unfortunately the same but the origin is different. he is very popular in some segments of french society. the more he is prosecuted, the more popular he is >> other audience questions? >> in deciding to publish after the murders how much was your own newspapers security and fear -- how much did you say well, in

citing a violent act against us? >> we didn't take this into account. we had a discussion, we had a debate among editors, but that was not really as the people who went to the rally didn't take into the f account there might be more after-the-fact. >> it was a major factor. he was my colleague. we thought long and hard about it. it has more people overseas than any u.s. newspaper combined.

we given a great deal of thought. the cover of "charlie hebdo" -- the cover after the attack -- was met with a great deal of consideration and the liberation. by the way, i received -- he was on film are the other day. someone tweeted to me that he wants to buy me a plane ticket to syria so he can enjoy watching me be beheaded. response was to retweet it. i think that is the only way to answer these people. exposure for who they are. >> question? >> i am a former -- i have more

of a comment with the freedom of speech comes up the responsibility, especially for newspapers and media organizations. when we discuss whether or not it should be published newspapers should have a policy some principles, that you are producing eight curated product -- a curated product, whether you show a beheading. those are questions of what is made public. over time, everybody can publish. but it now becomes incumbent on the consumer to actually decide what best serves their purposes. i did have a question, i would

throw it back to the journalist in terms of what are your editorial policies? and how are they centered? are they centered to serve the public? >> the point you make is an excellent one. we are agents, essentially, at the journal. we are institutions safeguarding freedom of the press and at the same time we are curators of the culture, what is taboo and what is not taboo. and how taboo involves. -- evolves. we are a family newspaper, so we will avoid foul language whenever possible. there are occasions when you cannot escape using an epithet a foul word, if it is in transit to understanding the story. when you reach those moments

the judgment has to be made as to whether you can communicate the same information without offering the explicit language or the explicit images. : let's say is that there is no science to this. it is editors sitting around a table making difficult judgment calls. i wrote the editorial on why we would not publish the cartoons back in 2006. after "charlie hebdo," it seemed like a different set of considerations were in effect. people started to look for hard and fast, simple rules for how these things are done -- the truth is there are none. we tried to be responsible adults making serious judgments about difficult questions. anyone who would suggest that there is some simple line or

that it is all one way or all the other i think is not engaging in a serious conversation. >> other questions from the audience? >> there are many americans who have never heard of "charlie hebdo" before the murder. i saw in paris and i didn't read it. what is the difference from someone like yourself -- how they came to think of it, and what is the future of "charlie hebdo?" >> i was not a regular reader. my brother he is a subscriber. he is a teacher. we had the discussion sometimes i would joke with him and say how can you read this? he said, he would explain -- because of the irreverence the impertinence which is the mark

of "charlie hebdo" i would -- i would conclude that i am glad you can read it. i think it is average -- its average circulation is 50,000 copies a week. people are happy it is around. it is an important part of our life. and those cartoonists were very famous in the general public. some of them wrote comics for children. not the same drawings, but some of the cartoons or comics i read as a child or teenager included drawings from them. they were also invited to tv

shows, talk shows. they would draw while people were debating. they were really popular figures in french culture and the french public. and now it is going to go on. of course they have collected quite a lot of money but i don't know how much that allows -- how long they can go on with this money. but they are trying to put together a museum. i think they have that next issue in a week. next week, yeah? they are working out of the newsroom. it will go on, definitely. >> one minute.

>> a factual correction -- we did have "national lampoon" for many years. that was more for children. >> it was pretty subversive. >> but we had "south park," which i think is our own version of "charlie hebdo." there was an episode of "south park" that involved mohammed in a bear suit. jesus, buddha, and moses were busy snorting cocaine, looking at pornographic magazines -- it was so brilliant and so profound and i would say it is a higher version of "charlie hebdo," a greater degree of genius. >> i want to thank everybody. thanks to everybody. [applause] >> benjamin netanyahu declined

an invitation to meet with senate democrats during his trip next week to washington. prime minister netanyahu will speak before congress next tuesday and we will have live coverage here on c-span. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on book tv, allan ryskind talks about the communist party in hollywood. sunday at noon, our life, three-hour conversation with a harvard law professor. her books in clued "the tyranny of the majority." on american history tv, saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern a discussion about the burning of columbia, south carolina, halloween the surrender of the

city in 1865. sunday afternoon, an interview with a former consultant to the nixon white house on the pentagon papers, a classified study on vietnam which he copied and gave to "the new york times." find our complete schedule at c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> you track of the republican-led congress and follow its new members through its first session. new congress best access, on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> prime minister david cameron

said british troops will be deployed to ukraine to train soldiers fighting russian separatists. prime minister cameron spoke tuesday at the liaison committee at the british house of commons. from london, this is 50 minutes. >> welcome. this session will have two parts. one on foreign affairs, dealing with countries affected by islamist extremisms and ukraine.. the second will talk about the machinery of government. >> good afternoon. can be returned to the subject of sanctions against russia?

it is very important that the eu speaks with one voice to wards russia. the sanctions are due to expire at the end of july, but there are a number of different positions inside europe. some take quite a hard line and some are rather hostile. how are we going to approach this in order to try and get unanimity? >> it is going to be difficult because the european council worked on the basis of unanimity. wendy sanctions expire, we need unanimity to renew them. there is one set to be released in july and another in september. there is a case in the commons to bring forward the reveal, particularly of further action by russian separatists. we want to make a very strong

statement. i think the way to achieve unanimity is to point people to the facts. we gathered at the european council last time, after minsk 2 was signed, and poroshenko came from that meeting to brief the european council. they were rightly congratulated on how they put together the deal. what happens next after that was -- i think that shows who we are dealing with and how strong we need to be, and we need to use all our diplomatic and other skills to convince those that have been more skeptical about sanctions that it is only a firm stand that will be taken notice of in the gremlin -- the kremlin. britain has quite an important role to play. we should continue to play that role. >> are you optimistic that they

will be extended? >> i am always optimistic. i think some of it will depend on what happens on the ground. i think if miraculously, heavy weapons are withdrawn, cease-fires are held, elections start -- all the elements in place -- i think you will see people wanting to lighten the load. if you don't see that, you will get a different view. britain's role is to be at the top or end of the spectrum and try to keep the european union and united states together. i think we should be clear about this pattern of behavior we have seen from putin. that is the argument. >> do you think you will stand up or deepen them? >> i think the extension should happen in any event, even if not very much changes. they should be deepened it further steps of the stabilization are taken.

people will be looking at mario paul as the next potential flashpoint and i think the argument for further action would be overwhelming. i think that would be the point ofview of the baltic states and we would have to argue strongly. what is the argument we are making? of course there is short-term pain when you put sanctions on the country. the argument i make is that in the medium to long-term, the countries depend on a rules-based system. we will yield if we don't stand up to russia and the long-term and it will be deeply damaging to all of us because you will see further destabilization. next it will be moldova or one of the baltic states.

it will be dreadful for our economy and our stability and that is why britain takes such a view. >> russia should no longer be considered a strategic partner to the eu, but this poses problems. as a permanent member of the security council, russia votes on a number of important issues. iran, syria, afghanistan. >> it's a good question. i don't think russia is behaving like a strategic partner to the european security council. where we are working together, as we are with the approach to iran we should continue to work together. it is important that iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon, that we keep a long time line between wherever they are now. russia has the same interest as us. it is perfectly possible to have a tough approach over sanctions

while continuing to work in this . >> could we have a look at the abuse of article five? if the russians start to destabilize the region, cyber warfare, proxy forces, does article five offer them any protection? >> i think the protection they are offered in those circumstances is that we are friends, allies, colleagues -- we have sent british planes to do the baltic air policing. we work very closely with their intelligence services. on things like ciber, we will work with them and strengthen their defenses. they know, and maybe we need to do more to emphasize this, that they have a very strong friend. if you talk to lobby our

lithuanian, it couldn't be stronger. >> is it essentially a political decision? what would it take for us to say the line has been drawn? if we were to start operating in any of the baltic states, we would consider that the breach. what whatever reaction be? >> i think that is a very good question and i don't want to give and not thought through cancer. we are committed to their collective defense. we would intervene and help with their stability and we would help them. i think we need to do more frankly, in the area of information. what you get from the baltic states is that there is nothing to protect from the daily show -- the deluge of russian backed media.

that is one of the strengths we have is a country. we have a fairly strong and impartial media, a wonderful brand and the bbc known for its impartial news. we should be supporting the bbc to provide new services where people otherwise are getting a diet of russian. >> that initial activity did start, what we consider that a breach of article five? >> we consider those sorts of threats to states something we would be helping them to defend against. >> how would you respond to russian incursion in our waters? we have been coming up the channel the other day -- do we shrug it off or do we treat it as a more serious threat? >> of course it is serious because we defend our airspace very carefully. we have the resources to pilot

the plane the information systems to do that. i think we should be careful that in our response we are clear, calm. the russians would like us to react in a sort of volatile way. so far, they have scrambled an aircraft twice. last year it was eight times. 2007, it was 19 times. i think we should be strong, measured, and clear. that we should -- we are more than capable of protecting the homeland. >> the defense secretary had something to say in his briefing to the "telegraph."

was he misunderstood when he said there is a real and present danger in the baltic states? >> i think he is right to highlight the fact that the baltic states feel this pressure very greatly. they don't always feel the rest of europe understands that. from where they sit, they are having russian sanctions against them and their goods, bans on lithuanian cheese, they are having the russian media blast into their airspace. they are subject to a loss of destabilization and they want their nato partners to understand that. that is why they welcome those 4000 british troops. we have the baltic air patrol missions a lot to reassure them that they get nato protection and every way -- protection in

every way. i think he sees it very clearly and he is right to talk about it. >> with the incursions into our airspace he spoke of the cold war. it looks like it is warming up. >> i have given you the figures. i think the russians are probably trying to make some sort of point. i believe in reacting calmly and reasonably. look, our economy is growing and the russian economy is shrinking. our economy is not dependent on oil. our country has a robust, free democratic political system with freedom of speech. let's have the confidence -- our economy is bigger than russia. our economy is fully capable of

supporting the fifth-largest defense force in the world. we don't have all sorts of legacy assets that don't work anymore. when we look at the situation terrible though it is, in ukraine, let's not talk ourselves into some idea that this has all been a fantastic success for russia. the people of ukraine have voted to try and have a more open democratic, less corrupt relationship with the countries of the european union. we should talk ourselves into thinking that a couple of russian planes flying around the channel means we can't defend ourselves. >> one side doesn't understand the position being taken by the other. don't you think we have to have a pretty clear understanding of what rush of positive to our -- what russia's intentions are?

>> yes. that is a very good point. president putin knows that we will stand by our obligations. if a country of nato is attacked, an attack on one is an attack on all. i signed up for that absolutely and that is what we have committed to. a sort of technical question -- if there is a cyber attack on the baltic state, that does trigger -- i'm being as clear as i can. clinton knows that -- ptutin knows that if he attacks on nato countries he would have a response from nato. he knows that.

we understand his strategic goals. i would argue we have seen a clear pattern of behavior, in georgia, with ukraine. he would like if the countries respond weekly to try and restore some of the -- that is what he would like to do. that is not acceptable. these countries are democracies and they should be able to make a choice about their journey and we should support them. that is not to say we are insensitive to russian b pride. i have tried to have a relationship with putin and show our understanding of that. what we can't do is say -- let's have a combination. they are not really countries.

whatever they vote for, whatever they do -- i think that would be writing off 11, 12, 13 countries and that is not how britain behaves. we have made these mistakes in our history talking a faraway countries of which we knew little and it is not a sensible thing to do. i am not saying we should send huge numbers of troops to ukraine, or that we are even at this stage of arming ukrainians. what we should do is make the weight of our economic power europe and america, play against russia if they continue to behave in this way. who knows -- putin knows that he continues down this path you will have a different relationship with the west. and if he wants to take the consequences of that, less economic growth, if you want to take that path, he can.

>> referring specifically to ukraine, last week has been three days since the prime minister said he would be alongside america as ukraine's strongest ally. he also said his country has been invaded and that the ukrainian armed forces are confronting not just separatists, but regular russian troops tanks which they are not equipped to resist. will britain consider supplying ukraine with the defensive weapons which they have requested, including radar antitank weapons? >> we are not at this stage of supplying lethal equipment. we have announced a whole series of nonlethal equipment -- night vision goggles, body armor --

which we have already said we would get to ukraine. over the course of the next month we will be deploying personnel to provide advice , and logistics for medical care. we are also developing an infantry training program in ukraine. it revolves around a number of service personnel who will be well away from the area of conflict. this is the sort of thing we should be helping with. i don't think we should rule it out going further. i think america is thinking carefully about it, and i think we have had discussions, very clear decisions that we should be in the space of providing nonlethal support. you have heard from the ukrainians that they say the same thing. they see us as a very strong friend and i think that is where we should be. i think the reason for not going

further is we don't believe that there is some military solution to this issue. there needs to be a diplomatic solution, which should be enabled by sanctions and pressure. obviously, where we can help we should. >> ukrainians would say that they are simply unable to resist the strength of russian aggression. while they welcomed the aid we are giving it is not going to be enough to allow them to stop russian aggression. will we at least consider the possibility of defensive weapons if they continue? >> we are helping the ukrainians with their defense but i would approach the argument in a slightly different way. what we're seeing is russian

aggression, and after the russian troops and tanks and missiles, you can't buy these things on ebay. we have got the intelligence and the papers and the world knows it. sometimes people don't see it but that is the fact. i think what we should putting into place is a sense that if there is another development that will trigger a round of sanctions that would be materially different what we have seen. that is what i would like to see. if you look at the effect of the sanctions on russian banks and companies, it is having an effect. it hasn't changed their behavior but it certainly is beginning to change some of the advice and the thinking of putin. business people can see it is a dead end. >> can i explore that point further?

ukrainians believe that russia's ambitions do not stop at donetsk. if that continues with britain consider imposing stronger sanctions if necessary to get beyond those within europe? in particular, the possibility of temporary suspension of russia's banking and financial institutions? >> i think the short answer is that yes, we should not rule out those things. itf it warrants major incursion, we should be clear about what that is. that is trying to dismember a democracy, a member of the united nations, a sovereign state. it is not acceptable. i would help that the european union collectively would respond very robustly with new sanctions, tier three sanctions.

were that not possible, we should look at other avenues. looking at the swift banking issues is a big decision. there is a logic for it, which is that if russia is going to leave the rules-based system of the 21st century than russia is going to have to start thinking about whether it is going to be in the 21st century system when it comes to banking the other things that make our word work. you can take one part of the world, the u.n. charter, and not destabilizing sovereign states. there is a logic in what you say. >> they have also suggested that the only way to maintain the cease-fire is with some kind of extension. is that something which britain

might suggest? >> i think where we are now is supporting the osce, losing them with extra money -- the sting them with extra money. -- boosting them with extra money. in terms of peacekeepers, i think there are lots of problems. is there a piece yet to keep? have you get u.n. backing when you have russia's opponent on the security council? where with the troops be drawn from and what with the rules of engagement be? i think we should be focusing on the diplomatic sanctions and other pressures to try and make this work, and if that doesn't work we have to look at other states. >> if ukraine is to have a viable economic future it is going to need a huge amount of support. along with the imf package what

is your response to the suggestion of what was put forward by congress? that's some kind of marshall plan which would provide guarantee against political risk? >> i think the imf program and the eu contributions are important. i would make one sort of point -- they have got to deal with issues of corruption and government, and if you don't reform the institutions it will disappear quickly. we should be very hardheaded about it. we are a strong supporter, a very big backer of ukraine's right to decide its own future, we should be very tough. that is a good reform program worth billions of dollars of aid. one of the concerns i have is that while there are some effective reforms in the

government they are different plans, and i think we need a unified plan to get behind, which involves getting those things. >> i spent several days in lot theatvia. we kept on bumping into the european affairs committee. yesterday i asked you about the need for the united kingdom to stand up for u.k. interests, as we have so successfully in the past. you replied that we played 18 in leading role -- a key and leading role.

and what you have just referred to, the u.k. was excluded by the german -- who advised this format? why was it advised in that way? it was stated this morning "we decided together not to put european -- at the negotiation table but to make clear that the efforts by germany and france were european efforts." they insisted that they should fly their own flags as when she was in the white house having discussions with president obama. where does this lead in europe? >> i will try to give a really

long answer. we shouldn't be too precious about not being involved in every negotiation. there are a lot of negotiations that take place, and we have a very clear role when it comes to ukraine. it has won us the support if ukrainians, the baltic states -- we are the most reliable ally. we were the first argue for proper sanctions the first to really demonstrate our support. we shouldn't be worried about that. how did it come about? it was when we were in normandy, commemorating the heroes of the day -- of v-day. president obama and i thought this was not the moment and the

right time to have a roundtable with russia and ukraine. the discussions went ahead with france and germany and i would commend them for their diplomatic efforts to try and put together a diplomatic package that the ukrainians and the russians can support. the key has always been getting them to work together. all credit to them for doing this work. i think what she is saying, is that they quite like the eu to be in the room. i suppose that is fair enough. the key thing is not just to hold these diplomatic discussions, the key thing is what happens when and if they don't work. what really matters is can we persuade the rest of europe to close the sanctions? can we make sure there is a

robust response? in that, britain is very much in the lead, listened to by others in europe when it comes to financial systems and sanctions knowledge of the key industries. we have as good a situation as anyone else. don't be too precious about being in the room. >> prime minister, you said there is no military solution to this ukrainian crisis, even though it has brought about a dictator who clearly believes in military solutions. recent history would suggest the majority of cases has a military solution. what evidence is there that we

can stop this russian aggression without a similar demonstration of military war? >> i took a slightly different lesson from the georgia experience. i don't think russia necessarily believed that america was going to intervene. what happened was -- i think the lessons from georgia are that no consequences followed from russia's dismembering of georgia and the creation of -- that is the problem. what should have happened after a sovereign member of the u.n. goes through that experience is that there should be permanent long-term consequences, sanctions that are put in place so that russia learns sns a lesson.

>> that was a good answer to a different question. we were prepared to up the ante militarily. >> i would argue that the popping of the ante -- one of the biggest effects we can have is an economic effect and i think we should focus on that. you look at -- should they provide more armaments to the ukrainian army? that is obviously an avenue, and america's thinking about it. my argument is that the greatest power we have is an economic power, and that is what we should be leveraging. >> let's move on to syria. the goal to degrade and destroy isis. do you accept that the collapse

of the rassad regime which is not very likely offers interest? >> i don't know if i would accept that. my view is that assad is one of the great recruiting sergeants of isil. the brutality of a sought against his own people in syria and the utter uselessness of the monarchy in a rock -- that combined with islamic extremism those two things combined with a narrative to create the isil phenomenon that we see. is there a solution to iliisil in syria that involves assad staying in power? no, there isn't.

it would open up the possibility of some sort of government in syria that could represent all of the people rather than some of the people. >> the alternative scenarios are a vacuum. >> i don't think that is where they stick because at the end of the day we are seeing this in iraq where isil has lost 700 square kilometers of territory and you are beginning to see problems unbelievably brutal and hideous -- the vast majority of people in syria don't want isil they just want a decent inclusive government. all these problems come to the same question -- how do you build inclusive government with the rule of law that isn't corrupt, that represents all the country?

that is what we are trying to get in iraq. i think they are doing a good job and we should back them. it takes longer in syria so we need to build up the forces of moderate opposition, and bring about a transition where syria moves from assad to something better. that will take a long time but i don't think there are any shortcuts. >> who are natural partners in syria? who are we going to work with? is there any prospect that we could turn to the syrian kurds? >> they are our natural partners in syria. the majority of the syrian people who want a multi-sectarian, inclusive government. that includes syrian kurds. it must include -- were there to

be a transition, you would need a figure to take over who could take some of the ally population with them and appeal to the majority. >> update us on iraq. clarify our policy there. we seem to be focusing very much on the military side rather than the political. >> what we are doing in iraq -- there is a joined up strategy. people are frustrated because these things take time. we are supporting the iraqi government, which is now less sectarian. it is trading of the iraqi security forces, with particularly things like counter ied. it is also about the reconnaissance and strike capabilities we have above the skies of theiraq.

the truth is we are the second largest provider of strikes. we account for more than friends and the next two countries combined. we have also got voyager aircraft refueling intelligence and surveillance aircraft's, ships that are involved -- it is a pretty large british military component playing its part in international strategy. the military is one part of it. i'm sure more can be done as a diplomatic and political search. >> do you think we could be doing any more to help the kurds? we supply the heavy machine guns and people to train them. all the help we have given has to go through a torturous route through baghdad.

do you have any extra equipment -- >> i don't have the numbers in front of me -- perhaps it will be useful for the committee to provide a note bringing together all of the things we are doing in iraqi kurdistan. i have got here 40 heavy machine guns 50 tons of nonlegal support. we have gifted 1000 metal detectors. in terms of fighters, we have got experts in the kurdish region. perhaps it would be useful to give you a full list of all the things being done, because it is an enormous list. what i say to the system is that don't feel you have to do something or everything. try and work out where the

british contribution can be its most is significant. that is why i pushed so hard for the vote in parliament to allow the strike work. if you look at the capability of the aircraft with the pods, they are more capable than anything the americans have. don't feel you have got to do something or everything -- try to figure out how you can get the greatest effect. >> they are our most reliable partner. a lot of them have died in action. yet they weren't invited to the anti-isil coalition conference we had in london. is there any reason for that? >> they went to the munich security conference. >> i suspect that if you have a

conference which is a conference of sovereign states, including iraq and other neighboring states, it is more difficult to have regions. i suspect that is the answer but i will include that in my letter. >> turning to libya. it is in chaos at the moment. uncontrolled flows of refugees migrants -- isis is moving in. in your statement yesterday, you mentioned the initiative trying to establish national unity. what are the prospects of success of that? i gather this morning that one of the groups ruled out working with a dialogue. >> it is an extremely difficult situation. it is not just him who was working out there -- there is a human special representative --

there is a u.n. special representative. the aim is to bring these different parties -- it is difficult because there is an argument about which ones are beyond the pale in terms of support for terrorism or support for the narrative of terrorism. it is often difficult to get those countries that are most trying to help to agree to who should take part. there is no shortcut here. what happened -- i would defend our action in libya. there was a potential of genocide by gaddafi and we stop that from happening. that gave these people a chance of a future but it is a chance they haven't yet taken. we need their politicians to demonstrate and the militia

leaders to demonstrate a will to take that chance and come together. but it is very difficult. >> thank you. you talked about the importance of creating a golden thread of governments. he just said we had a dysfunctional government in iraq and now it is more unified. can you indicate what you see working with the parliament, which is now an effective institution in iraq? >> working with mps is part of the process. i think -- there are common themes to all these countries, whether it is yemen, libya, syria -- all the areas where you

see problems of extremism popping up because you have got ineffective government, a lot of it comes back to ndo you have the building blocks of democracy the rule of law? do you have an effective army? to you have a way of calling your government to account? is your government represent just one bunch of people? or is it an inclusive government? these are the vital questions of improving the safety of our world and the prosperity of the people. >> we spent more money on supporting elections than on the people. >> something i need to reflect on. elections matter but it is the building blocks that matter more. i have made sure that the foundation for democracy does get properly funded.

>> you have also -- we lovedoked at different states. it is common knowledge that preventing a conflict saves money. do you think we are doing enough to prevent conflict, the way we have managed to get people working together to stop escalating? in that context, do you think funding should do more? you set up a conflict of stability, which will have one billion pounds next year. can you give us an indication of how that money is going to be deployed in a way that is different to tackle complex situations? >> what is different is that this funding will be discussed around the cabinet table with the national security council.

the foreign secretary. broken countries that need mending. we want to think about how we can help these countries. the proper conversation, what we can do to try and prevent conflict. i think it is an excellent thing. we have to sit around and discuss where it goes, countries like somalia where early intervention can prevent breakdown. i think this goes for a bigger argument. never my just conflict and prevention -- so much of what we are doing is develo development with security. that is one way to explain to people why we are meeting our 80 target. -- our aid target.

somalia has the capability of delivering to the world violence, drugs -- but if we can stabilize it they can be successful. there was a massive problem with paris off the coast of somalia -- of pirates off the coast of somalia. >> is so much as talked about boko haram in afghanistan. it is the most populated country in south africa. boko haram is more and more on

our shores. how are we going to deal with that if it happens and how are we going to work without ever -- whatever it is we have in nigeria to try and reverse that situation. >> we have had a number of sessions on nigeria. we have the development secretary who has one of the largest programs of any country in nigeria. they come back and explain what they think is going on. you have the secretary of defense whose pilots are flying over somalia. who's military it -- military is assessing what help we can get. we have experts in counterterrorism working with counterparts in nigeria. all of this is in one place with one budget.

to make sure that we maximize the impact of written can have on nigeria and the political relationship have. it is still extremely testing inc. has nigeria has massive challenges in terms of corruption in the government and all the rest of it. we are pressed to find a country that has a more clear thought-through of approach to what nigeria needs in terms of help from us. our committee will do a report -- promoting infrastructure. but it says it has concerns. how can we be sure. sure that our money is actually delivering what it is intended to do rather than be divergent.

>> he came to the meeting and brought his expensive watch. look, you can never be sure that the money is being spent right. you have to be extremely careful. we are probably the most transparent country in the world. we have established an independent body to check on how money is spent. but there is no perfect place you are going to get to. >> prime minister, thank you. they said yemen is collapsing before our eyes and hands the world cannot stand by and watch it happen. there is a humanitarian crisis and al qaeda in the southwestern peninsula is gaining ground. you and another have played an of very important part.

now, we have a real crisis. what on earth can we do to save yemen? >> in my experience of trying to work out how you can help countries and prevent what's happening from happening is thoroughly depressing. one of the most depressing cases because every normal toolkit contact with neighbors. diplomatic advice and support. aid programs. and yet there is a situation where the north of the country has been taken over. it is an extreme situation. your question, what can we do next, the most important inc. is to work with the most important

neighbor which is saudi arabia into tried to work with them to work out how to best provide some level of stability in yemen. the only thing i would say is if -- a common theme across all of these things -- if there is a need of a common government, yemen is yet another example because, of course, while everyone was trying to get behind, it was still an inclusive government representing the country. as demonstrated by the --. >> eight yesterday you made a statement about the three youngest london girls who went to syria to support isil. is there a number on how many

young people are being radicalized and ending up in places like yemen, syria, and iraq? >> the estimate i can give you about the number of people who have traveled to syria, but a number of how many people are looking at radicalized information on syria on the internet is hard to estimate. i have got a feeling or a way to think about it, but i will ask the experts. it is one of those figures that would have to be quite concoct the -- concocted. but, as i said, it is a hugely serious problem and it goes to this point about recognizing everyone is in the battle with extremism. we cannot just say the police

should have intervened, it would have been great if they had done. what we need the schools to combat extremism. the community. that is the point about the whole duty. we're all in this together. we all have to play a role. social organization -- a social media organizations can do more. they are taking down pages and pages of extremist material that there is more they can do. >> at david cameron will be back at the british house of commons tomorrow for prime ministers questions. we will have coverage on c-span at two. >> here are some of our featured programs. on c-span two book tv saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern

alan risk in the, whose father was a screenwriter for the marx brothers talks about hollywood. and a conversation with harvard professor and law professor about her books. on american history tv on c-span3, saturday at 6 p.m. eastern. a discussion about the burning of columbia, south carolina following the defeat of william tecumseh sherman and his troops. sunday afternoon on oral history, an interview with daniel ellsberg on the pentagon papers. the classified study onvia. which he copied and gave to the new york times in 1971. follow our complete schedule on c-span.org.

call us at 202-6 26-3400. or send comments to the addresses on your screen. >> veterans affairs secretary robert mcdonald apologized about what he told reporters. here he is. va affairs sec. robert mcdonald: thank you. good afternoon and thank you for coming. i'm bob mcdonald. as you know, when i was in los angeles, engaging in a homeless man to determine his veteran status, i asked the man where he'd served in the military. he responded that he had served in special forces and in an attempt to connect with that veteran, to make him feel comfortable, i incorrectly stated that i too had been a special forces.

that was wrong and i have no excuse. i have great respect for those who have served our nation in special forces. they and all veterans deserve a department of veterans affairs that provides them the care and benefits that they have earned. we at v.a. are working hard to restore trust and again i apologize to those who may have been offended by my misstatement. we remain very focused on continuing our progress to better serve veterans. i'd be glad to take your questions at this time. >> mr. secretary, -- [inaudible] >> hi, dave. >> have you had time to think a little more deeply about what caused you to burst out like that and what was your motivation? >> as i said, my biggest motivation was to connect with the veteran.

as all of you know, in my first national press conference, i gave out my cell phone number and many of you have been kind enough to publish it and repeat it and i get calls from veterans every single day. my whole purpose in this job is to try to connect with veterans and to better serve veterans. that's what i was trying to do. >> a lot of people are wondering, mr. secretary, with your experience, your service to the military then and now, how could you possibly say such a thing? >> i made a mistake. i apologize for it. i was in the army, i went to west point. i was an army airborne ranger. went to jungle warfare school in panama, desert warfare school. when i was in the 82nd airborne division we were the rapid deployment force for the u.s. military. >> did you even realize that you had made that mistake as you call it?

and did you ever think to correct it? >> i was talking to a homeless veteran. i was concerned about getting that homeless veteran, if they were a veteran, the kinds of cares and services that they needed. what i said was not on my mind at the time. i was trying to connect with him and we had people with us that could help get them into a home if they were a homeless veteran. >> [inaudible] special forces say they feel a bit insulted even with your service, even with your ranger -- \[inaudible] >> i apologize to them. >> mr. secretary, do you think -- >> suzanne. >> you say -- [inaudible] >> what you try to do when you

connect with someone is try to find common ground. and with veterans, my common ground is my veteran experience. so what i was trying to do is find a way to connect with that veteran. and as i said, i made a misstatement. i apologize for that. i have no excuse for it. but if you look at my 61 years you'll never find anywhere in any of my biographies that i've claimed to be a part of special forces. i've never claimed that. it was a misstatement. it was a mistake. >> did anyone tell you that you had spoken -- [inaudible] >> the question was, did anyone around me tell me i had misspoken. the answer is no. >> you also recently stated that 60 people had been fired from the department based on misconduct around the scandal allegations before you were secretary. now about the misstatement, are you concerned that these are going to -- [inaudible] >> for my 61 years, integrity has been one of the foundations

of my character. it's the reason i was a boy scout, the reason i went to west point, the reason i went in the infantry at the 82nd airborne division, i reason i joined the procter and gamble company and the reason i'm here. the reason i want to be here is to care for veterans. so integrity, character is part of who i am. and i will do better to make sure that i don't make mistakes like i did in los angeles. >> right now capitol hill lawmakers are expecting your apology. do you feel like you've used your one free pass you have -- [inaudible] >> trust is something that is gained every single day, one veteran at a time. when i get these phone calls from these veterans or text messages, they tell me the problem they have, i go away and work on it with a team of people that i have and if i can solve that problem, i've earned one bit of trust. now, i may give up a bit of trust the next day, but my job is to work for these veterans every single day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and get them the benefits that they've earned. i served with them.

>> did you ever consider resignation? >> i want to serve veterans. i'm here to try to prove that we can make v.a. work and that the veterans who we serve can get all the benefits that they've earned. that's what we're working for and we're making progress. wait times are down 18%. backlog is down, the claim backlog is down about 60%. homelessness is down 33%. great progress made during general shinseki's time. we're trying to keep that going. i can't hear. >> [inaudible] -- of the number of people who have been fired, you said 900 people were fired. 60 were correctly related to the wait scandal when in fact a much smaller number there.

might be a pattern of credibility. >> chairman miller and meet frequently. we talk on the phone frequently. we have a great relationship. we work together to help solve veterans' issues. i think what you saw in our last committee hearing was tremendous unanimity from all the members of congress and the v.a. around what we need to do. we're here to serve veterans. everybody wants that. nobody can dispute that. thank you very much for your questions. thank you. >> what were you trying to say? >> senator majority leader mitch mcconnell he said that to the homeland security department does not include provisions -- we will hear from senator mcconnell. then, secretary of state john

kerry takes questions about russia, ukraine, and nuclear negotiations with iran. >> unless a funding deal is reached, the department of homeland security will partially shut down by the end of the week. we will get an update on the next washington journal. we will also talk to house foreign committees member mark meadows of north carolina about homeland security funding and immigration. and a conversation about the recent evacuation of the embassy . you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is live each morning on c-span. >> not only are there 43 new

republicans and 15 new republicans in the house and 12 new republicans in the senate, there are also 108 new women. the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of using it congressional chronicle on c-span.org. there is lots of useful information there including voting results and information about each session. on c-span, c-span2 c-span radio and c-span.org. >> funding for the department of homeland security runs out on friday. unless congress can reach a deal, we will hear from congressman mcconnell next who said he is willing to present a so-called clean bill. that is next.

>> good afternoon, everyone. as all of you know, i put on the calendar last night what we call the collins a bill which if in a deadwood prevent the president's executive actions from last november from going into affect. procedure early a vote on that will occur friday. it will be closure on the motion to proceed on that help. in the meantime, i have indicated to the democratic leader that i would be happy to have his cooperation to advance the consideration of a dhs bill

which would carry us through until september 30th. with democratic cooperation on a position they have been advocating for the last two months, we could have that to vote to very quickly. but in any event we will have the vote on the collins hill on friday. >> so, over the last week recess a very important decision was handed down by the federal court in brownsville, texas. a ruling in the case brought by 26 states claiming that the presidents executive action was illegal. the court wrote a lengthy opinion an excess of 100 pages long and issued a temporary injunction barring the executive action.

the administration is seeking a stay of that and and if they do not get in at the federal district court, and they won't, they will then go to the fifth circuit court of appeals in new orleans. the most important thing we need to knowledge is that with this federal court injunction in place, any money that the united states congress appropriates for the department of homeland security will not go to fund the president's illegal executive action inc. as it is barred by a federal court injunction and subject to a contempt of court finding. that is why the administration is seeking the stay. what we need to do this week is make sure the department of homeland security is funded. we will do that. we would already have done that if it had not then for the filibusters on four occasions by

our democratic politics. at the end of the day, once we start the department of homeland security under this, no money can use to undercut the president's illegal executive action. >> i know there is a lot going on this week but i want to draw your attention to something that might be under the radar. thursday morning the federal communications commission, on a partisan line vote, will vote out something called an order in support of net neutrality. the thing that concerns me about that is this will be the first time that to the fcc will have the internet subject to the heavy hand of legislation as opposed to the light touch. i hope february 26 does not go

down in history on that date as something being driven by bureaucratic decision-making. but that is what we're looking at. a very partisan nontransparent way in which the fcc has carried out their business. there is a much better alternative. i have been working with my colleagues on the house side that is only six page long that prevents the things of the fcc says they want to prevent but does not essentially hand them carte blanche authority to do whatever they want when it comes to regulation of the internet. even if this survives in the court it could be changed by a future fcc commission. this is a bad precedent to and one that does not have to happen. we told the president in the

white house, the fcc, that we want to work with them on a solution that addresses the concerns people have. but one that does not cede to the fcc everything they want and does not put the world at jeopardy with the internet. >> a bipartisan bill has been delivered to the president took for the keystone pipeline. after six years of delay and obstruction, the president will finally have to decide where he stands. does he stand with the majority of the person who support this bipartisan bill and the energy of jobs that come with it or his he going to stand with special interest the in washington lobbies. the president likes to talk but it is time for him to listen. he should listen to his state

department. we told him this is safe it it provides jobs. he should listen to the american people who wanted jobs and energy. the president, by choosing to veto this piece of legislation, he is choosing washington lobbyist and special interests over the needs and desires of the american people. the republican party in the house and the senate will continue to put bipartisan bills on the presidents desk that will help america move forward. >> our friends in the house have been saying it is up to the senate and they are right. they have been presenting us -- preventing us from going forward on the ba bill.

now, the senate will act. i do not know what the house will do. but, we have a responsibility to act here. we have a solution to the problems that deals with both things giving senators the opportunity to express their disapproval of what the president did in november in and some have already agreed they agree with me on that. the other gives democrats the opportunity to have what they have been saying they wanted for two months, to fund the department of homeland security through the end of the year. i do not know what is not to like about this. this is an approach that respects both points of view and give senators the opportunity to go on record on both. finding the department of homeland security and expressing their opposition to what the president it did last november.

[indiscernible] >> i would be happy to do that. that would depend on the democrats going forward and passing what they said they were going to pass. they may be trying to prevent us from achieving passage. of a bill they have been saying they wanted for the last two months. >> [indiscernible] you won that fight in the senate -- [indiscernible] [indiscernible] >> i am not sure what your question is but the issue before us is this.

do you want a department of homeland security through the end of the fiscal year so we are up and running and capable of dealing with all of the threats it against us around the world and at home and would you also like to express your disagreement with the presidents overreach last november? this gives us in opportunity to do both. it gives the senators an opportunity who said they are in favor of finding the homeland security bill to fund an end to give senators who object to what the president did a chance to express their dissatisfaction. and number of democrats have said publicly since i put the bill on the counter last night that they agree with me, they appreciate the opportunity to go on record. we will have that for you on friday. thank you very much.

[crowd murmuring] >> i had a pleasant meeting was senator mcconnell this morning. he has announced to his caucus

that he is willing to have a vote on dha's funding and some kind of a vote on collins. the problem is, i am waiting to hear from the speaker. we have to make sure that people understand the nature of the congress we serve in. to have senator mcconnell just pass the ball over to the house -- i am waiting to hear from the speaker. he has indicated to me through his staff that too will be in touch sometime soon. until that time comes we are where we were. we are willing to debate anything they want dealing with immigration after we fund homeland security. this is extremely important. we talked about it today on many different occasions. we need to protect our homeland. we have people being beheaded,

people being stacked in cages one of them has been burned in a cage. we have the direct threat to our malls around america. we have to be as prepared for these had people as isis is prepared and these other terrorist groups are prepared to do harm to us. >> it is hard to believe we are about another government shutdown. inc. about that. in less than four days the prospect of shutting down the one agency that is supposed to keep america safe. how did this new america reach this point. they forgot the obvious. first, defend america. pass the security bill. second, it is in their power to consider whatever they want next. if it is immigration, so be it. but our first obligation is to protect this country from

terrorism. the department of homeland security can do that only if it is fully funded. why they decided to choose this department as their whipping boy is beyond me. if we are going to avoid a government shutdown of the department of homeland security, we need a commitment from speaker boehner that we have a bipartisan approach to and this deadlock. >> our decision -- our position remains the same. we're willing to discuss anything after the department of homeland security is funded. it takes two houses to fully fund a department as well as the president's signature. where's the house? where speaker boehner? is he willing to fully fund the department of human security or a c holding the department

security unless he gets his way on emigration? all eyes are on speaker boehner. will he fully fund the department of human security in a bill and then send it to the president and then both houses can debate immigration if both want to? or is he going to say he will do this, that, and the other thing but not fully fund homeland security? without senator painter -- boehner funding it won't happen. we need money to go to our police, firefighters, and the people protecting us especially at these times when we are at risk. >> a year in a half ago the republicans shut the entire government down because they were holding the funding bill hostage to a political issue.

they found out how that worked for them. not well. i need to do what we did last time. fund the government. this time it is a critical agency that affects every single american. we are willing to debate political issues. it we are not going to hold funding issues hostage now or in the future. the issue is simple. fully funded the department of human -- homeland security. that is up to speaker boehner. to do what he did last year which is to fully fund the department of human security. >> [indiscernible] >> let's be very clear. there was a consent agreement on the floor. they reject did it.

to answer your question, yes. we will agree to full finding. if he says he will agree to full finding we will be happy to debate anything he wants to on emigration. va affairs sec. robert mcdonald: -- >> unless the speaker is an on the proposal, of course we need to make sure we get a build to the president. not send a hot potato to boehner. that does not do the trick. we are being hypothetical. we have set for four weeks, we must fund homeland security. we cannot do it alone. unless boehner is it in on the deal, it will not happen.

>> what would you like to see --? >> if the speaker says that is what he will do, i will take his word for it. >> is your bandage gone for good? is this a sign you are getting better? >> uh, we are working on my beauty. >> for a change. >> i have these on, tomorrow we will try other things. i can see out of my right eye, but not very well. i have to be patient. i appreciate your interest, but this is the best i can do. >> senator, -- >> what project? >> -- [indiscernible] >> with the judge in texas has said is that it has not passed.

he never ever said, that anything the president did was unconstitutional. i am sorry, what? >> [indiscernible] >> i do not know what is popular, i just know it is the right thing to do in my mind and to the right thing to do is to make sure that we do not run up another -- increase the debt by $7.5 billion. we want to continue moving forward, improving the economy of this country. >> did you hear from boehner that he would bring the bill of? >> they say, who says, when boehner wants to talk to me, i will talk to him. and with his permission, i will

share his conversation with everybody here. until then, that is where we are. remember, we are hours away from being totally shutdown. unless there is in agreement, there's no way we can get that done by saturday at noon. there is no way. procedurally, there is no way, unless there is an agreement to get it done. we are waiting to hear from the speaker to make sure that the government, security, protecting our homeland, is funded. >> thank you. >> did you speak to senator boehner today? >> -- >> burgess average covers congress for politico. we appreciate you being with us. walk us through the day. >> senator mcconnell has offered a deal for the democrats.

he will allow a vote on a bill funding the department of homeland security through september if the democrats will cooperate and allow a quick vote , senator mcconnell will speed through a change. it looked like it was going toward a shutdown. he says it no deal, unless a boehner says he will pass that same bill. so, right now, we are at a stalemate. there has a been some movement but we do not have a sense of what the house' appetite is for this. right now, there is no resolution. this has been absorbing the congress's energy for more than a month. >> as you indicated, there is -- this is one of those quintessential stories. you really do get whiplash as this goes back and forth. >> right, and at the house has said that they have done their work, because they passed the bill tying immigration and the president's policy to the funding bill.

they are trying to find a way out, he is adamant that there is not going to be a shutdown. he is working actively to find a way out. he has been adamant there will not be a shutdown. i'm am not sure we have a good sense of what the houses appetite is, but the early returns have not been very encouraging. >> how about the politics between house republicans? >> it is a conservative group, compared to the senate group. they want to take a hard line on this. they think that they are right to be over writing -- overriding the president's actions on immigration, particularly the 2014 product sheltering of millions of immigrants from deportation. they were able to pass that bill, the senate was not able to. they do not understand why the

senate could not do it. so they are more -- to do a clean bill like mcconnell has said. they want to take this to the brink. they think the public relations piece of it is on their side. on the other side of the capital, mcconnell's calculus is to show that he is responsible and a good steward of the senate, and that is why he is holding a little to the democrats. and the politics are weird for the democrats to, because it is something that they have been asking for for weeks. mcconnell, give as a clean bill. now they have it, but they will not go for it until they get an extra step of assurance from senator boehner. >> if you had to guess who would blink? >> we have not discussed the other option, which would be short-term funding, and continuing the fight for another month or two. and that would be everybody blinking, but only partially. i still think that is the most likely option, right now. >> something that the dhs secretary doesn't want.

>> nobody wants it, but it is slightly better than a shutdown. to most of members of congress although there are some conservative saying that if the funding lapses over the weekend, republicans will emerge stronger and the democrats will cave. i see no indication to support that, that many say that is the case. >> at politico.com, senator mcconnell is offering a -- think you for your time today. >> veterans affairs secretary bob mcdonnell apologized again for the second time, veterans -- thank you for your time today. >> benjamin netanyahu declined to meet today. he is scheduled to attend a joint meeting of congress on tuesday. we will have full coverage here on c-span. >> it this sunday on q&a, police

commissioner anthony batt to on the challenges of policing the city. >> it was clear to i still had a problem and a had people disbelieving what i said. regardless that i stand before them and say things like lawsuits are down, shooting are dramatically down, we are moving in all the positive ways, people in communities say they do not believe in. >> a sunday night on 8:00 p.m. pacific on cue ian davis. >> the political landscape has changed with the one hundred 14th congress. not only are they knew republicans in the house and senate, there are also 108 women in senate including in the house and the first republican woman in the senate. keep track using congressional chronicle on c-span.org.

statistics about each session of congress. on c-span, c-span. two c-span radio and c-span.org. >> now, secretary of state john kerry testifies about the russia ukraine to conflict, and ices. he was also asked about benjamin netanyahu's talk next week. mr. kerry chaired the senate foreign relations committee.

>> the meeting will come to order. mr. secretary, you have done a lot of traveling around and you have important issues to deal with and we appreciate you coming in to talk about your budget and your testimony today. as you know, the purpose of this hearing is to learn more about the state department's budget request. i know that these become in many cases, a time to talk about public policy issues. i know you know that there will be some other issues brought up. we appreciate you answering all of those. one of our top priorities is to complete the authorization and it helps the department become more effective within a sustainable budget. chairman perdue will take on the effort and we met yesterday with heather hickam bond, and we had

a good meeting to watch that. a lot of us want to make sure that as we are dealing with the many crises that we are dealing with around the world, that the state department is set up in a way to leverage our efforts and to ensure that we are doing on a daily basis everything we can to make sure that we continue our national interest in so many ways. obviously the president has set forth a budget. i think all of us understand that is where we are going to be. we know we have some challenges in front of us. and we appreciate you being here. the state department is proposing some increases in foreign aid.

not just in foreign operations. yet, in many cases, there is a difficulty in enforcing that and that is why it is important to have an overseas contingency funding 14% of spending. i think we need to move away from funding oco and get them back on a budget. that is something to the budget process that we will attempt to do this year. i do have four things that i would like to highlight. that is, the state department right now has an overreliance on oco and carryover balances. there is a great concern that those over balances create a lack of discipline in the department. with strategic planning efforts, with the diplomacy and -- for those not being linked up in an appropriate way seem to miss an

opportunity that we are aligned properly. we have a massive increase in peacekeeping with the share of funding. and we have a failure to read prior torus -- reprioritize. it is very difficult to see the resources that are being put forth to do with that. so a look forward to your testimony. i know that there will be a lot of questions, not just about the budget, but other activities that you have been dealing with. we thank you for taking time out to be with us today. and with that i would like to recognize the distinguished ranking member, senator menendez. >> thank you. i see you have a big binder, hopefully it has all the answers that we want to hear. as we meet, it is a challenge -- it is a challenging time for states of budgets and for the nation. negotiations are continuing with

iran even as it perpetuates the war in syria. isil is expanding its territory and sphere of influence in the middle east and north africa. and a pit and has reneged on his commitments to solve the ukrainian crisis. china is rising, pressing for the political and territorial advantages. ebola remains a threat in do part to lack of an adequate medical infrastructure and delivery system so, we have many challenges it in the world. i know that we are trying to meet those challenges. the fact is that world history has taught us that no matter what the threat, dealing from a position of weakness is always a greater provocation them dealing from a position of strength. so i appreciate your total engagement as evidenced by the fact that you have logged 306 travel days, that you have traveled 700,000 miles to 59 we will be looking forward to hear what we have accomplished

and some of that travel. i would like to take one or two moments to talk about one or two issues as a framework. on iran, i stand second to no one to see my desire of a negotiated solution that rolls back and dismantles the nuclear program. but the deal that allows iran to continue as a nuclear threshold state gives it a relief from sanctions, potentially allows it to go from being a threshold to an actual nuclear weapon state is no deal. i am very concerned about the news that is leaking from the negotiations and that this entire deal will hinge on the inspection and verification regimes while leaving iran with a vast majority of its nuclear infrastructure. and we don't know whether they are facts or not, but various reports address it, in a matter of time that it is a far less than anybody would have envisioned. on cuba, i think the deal is

one-sided. the regime has not changed tactics. in fact, it is flaunting its success in negotiations. last week the congressional -- did not include any visits with human rights activist, political dissidents or independent journalists were followed by the arrest of more activists across the island. in havana, seven members of the ladies in white were arrested. several dozen more were arrested for accompanying them. over 90 activists from the cuban patriotic union were arrested in santa a audio. another 13 ladies in white were arrested in santa cruz. but that is not all. over 90 activists from the cuban patriotic union was arrested. but that is not all. one of the ladies in white was actually splashed with tar clearly the regime hasn't changed. and if anything, it seems they

can do this with impunity notwithstanding our engagement. and finally, on ukraine the most recent diplomatic efforts seem to have only emboldened putin. there haven't been hundreds of cease-fire violations and to the city -- has a fallen under rebel control. putin and his forces now threaten, which could provide a land bridge to crimea and his intentions are clear. on february 9, the president said that providing lethal defensive weapons is one option being considered. i look forward to hear whether this option is more likely given the failure of -- it is something that this committee in a bipartisan fashion sent to the president, signed by the president. i held that we will help ukrainians to be able to defend themselves. you know, sending them night vision goggles and being able to see the enemy doesn't do much for you if you cannot stop them. that is where we are at right

now. i want to say, one very supportive thing in addition to recognizing your most recent comments in ukraine, which i applaud, for the past several years i have complained, encouraged, pushed in every way i know how the u.s. needs to direct additional resources to form policy priorities in our own hemisphere. and the budget request for central america focuses on the right priorities and is a very good start. we need to work with these countries and help create opportunities which are in our own national security interest. i look for to discussing those interest with you. >> thank you senator. we will thank you for being here. i think you know the drill. your comments will be entered into the record. if you could keep your comments to about five minutes. with that, thank you again.

we look for to your testimony. >> mr. chairman, and ranking member menendez, my former colleagues and i guess one person, that i did not have a chance, senator perdue, welcome to this great committee. i am delighted to be able to to -- to have a chance to share an important dialogue. i appreciate the comments that both of you have made. i will not pick up on all of it now, because i am confident that during the questions, we will have a chance to dig into most of the things that you have raised. but, i will summarize to try to maximize our time and respect years. i want to just make it clear that since leaving the perch, up

there that you set in. as chair. and having spent what, 29 years on this committee, beginning way over here, even further than my friend dave marky. i have watched a lot of events unfold in the course of this committee and in the senate. a number of wars, major debates. it is interesting for me to see from now serving as secretary, the reality, the degree to which what we choose to do is really important. and how the congress acts, makes just a gigantic difference to the sense of unity, of purpose about our country. this is about our country. it really shouldn't be about party. the old saying that, you know, foreign-policy concerns and national security interests should end at the water's edge.

and, what has come home to me more than anything is the degree to which we in the united states are privileged. and sometimes burdened with the responsibility of leading. i mean making things happen, stepping and where others don't or won't. and i will say to you that i believe we legitimately, you mean -- i mean, you may disagree with how we are doing in libya at this moment, or maybe you think something more should be going on in syria, but i cannot think of a time, and i hear this from former colleagues, when we have had to deal with as many explosive transformational moments historically, then now. and i just want to respectfully suggest to all of you, and i will say this at some point and i will talk about it at length and i hope i get the chance to do so, but we ask for 1%.

1% of the federal budget, 1% of the total budget of the united states of america goes into everything that we do abroad. all of our efforts for our citizens, for these is, our embassies, counterterrorism, our aid, our assistance, everything, 1%. but i absolutely guarantee you that well more than 50% of the history of the aero will be -- the history of this era will be written off that 1% and off of the things that we do or don't choose to do in terms of foreign affairs. and when you look today at the challenge of isis, when you look

at the clash of modernity with youth populations and bad governance, corruption, all of the challenges. we have our work cut out for us. now we are leading in putting together unprecedented coalition. i say that because this is the first time in anybody's memory that anybody knows about five air of countries, engaging and proactive military operations in another country, syria, in order to go after a terrorist organization. and we have five at major channels of effort, foreign fighters, humanitarian, on counter messaging, on counter financing, on the kinetic. all of which is gear to try and win this, and we will win it. i am confident of that.

providing we all make this right -- we all make the right choices. we certainly have the tolls. in iraq, we worked diplomatically to implement the president's policy to make certain that we didn't take over that effort before there was a transitional government in place. and i am telling you, we spent amazing amounts of time and ours and good diplomacy to help the iraqis to make their own decisions about their leadership. and you know, we worked hard to get all of the chemical weapons out of syria. no small feat, particularly when you consider if we hadn't done that they would be in the hands of isil, today. and america is leading an effort to bring people to the table to keep from providing one million people from dying in the a -- ebola outbreak. in ukraine, we have worked hard

to hold together a complex array of partners in the sanctions. the sanctions have had a profound effect. the ruble is down 50%. russia's economy is predicted to go into recession this year. there has been a capital flight of $151 billion. you know, they may be able to pursue this short term goal of stirring the waters of ukraine but in the long run, they are writing themselves out of the future. they are falling behind in technology and production and other things. the fact is, on iran, sure, it is controversial. it may have risks. but we are dairy to believe that diplomacy may be able to provide a better alternative to ridding