hardcover or e-book from your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. next, u.s. ambassador to the u.n. samantha powers speaks of the foreign relations committee about u.s. peacekeeping missions. this is two hours. >> this committee will come to order. i think our witness, i know that she has significant responsibilities right now at the un security council. a chance this week to meet with all the members. quite educational on both sides. we certainly appreciate you being here and bible introduce you in just a moment.

but today's hearing, we will review united nations peacekeeping operations and explore opportunities for reform to make peacekeeping work better in the u.s. national interests. as a permanent member of the un security council, the u.s. has a u.n.cular interest in how peacekeeping mandates are set and operations are carried out. that united states cannot be everywhere all the time. there is an important role for peacekeeping and supporting student -- stability around the world. traditionally, missions have focused primarily on negotiating peace agreements and sorting blue helmets that separate conflicting parties over these agreements and generally monitoring and keeping the peace. u.n. peacekeepers are now being asked to take on new and difficult responsibilities such as protection, disarming active

combatants, and developing the capacity to engage on the antiterrorism fund. these missions and mandates raise many questions which we will be exploring today. what are the risks when u.n. peacekeepers actively engage combatants in a war zone? they forgo trials in these instances and what are the implications for our interests? if you are to ask for our logistic support in the humanitarian crises such as the ebola fight in west africa, what challenges does that raise? i am particularly concerned with the recent and disturbing reports of sexual explication and abuse by certain u.s. -- u.n. peacekeeping troops. the policy is zero tolerance but such abuses continue with disturbing regularity. it is our hope to find commonsense ways to address these issues and exploring these

and other topics. ourgain want to thank distinguished witness for being here and i will turn it over to our ranking member for his comments. >> thank you chairman corker. i appreciate you convening this hearing on an important topic, and i want to thank all of our distinguished panelists today. extraordinary individuals who have given so much to our country. powers,arly, ambassador good to see you here. when you have the u.n. presents it is a global presence and that is preferable. right,. does many things

providing life-saving assistance, food to 90 million people in 80 countries, worldsting 58% of the children saving no less than 3 million lives. recently, and launched sustainable development goals which have a powerful impact globally when reducing corruption or governance. of or hass datable already done a great deal of good in the world. u.n. could be the stronger and more effective if there were greater transparency and accountability across the organization. their continuing anti-israel bias is unhelpful toward our shared interest in a peaceful and stable middle east. in terms of syria, the assad regime continues its barrel bombing. those responsible for war crimes have yet to be held accountable. ensureted states cannot

national security alone nor should it have to. they remain one of the best burden sharing tools we have to help and the war and protect the civilian population and secure territory. by drawing upon the financial and human capacities of all states, they help the united states share the responsibility of promoting global stability and it reduces the need for unilateral intervention. united nations peacekeeping has managed to protect hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians with more than 120,000 military and police personnel. currently serving as part of 16 missions on four continents, they now represent the largest employed military force in the world. there are more u.n. peacekeeping missions today because peacekeepers are being asked to do more. in increasingly dangerous remote and deadly operational environments. we need to recognize this and make sure that the united nations and troops contribute in countries are given peacekeepers placed in harm's way for

protective equipment training support that they deserve. the peacekeepers themselves are often seen as legitimate targets for attack by extremist groups and others. we saw that recently in malley work terrorists linked to al qaeda killed 20 people including an american from maryland. peacekeeping missions has suffered 42 fatalities at the hands of militants it's january. we know that it is a cost-effective tool when compared to other military options. the u.n. annual peacekeeping budget only makes up about .5% of the total military expenditures. i think this is a particularly important moment considering we are debating the omnibus in dealing with fiscal issues of our country and trying to balance the budget. cost permission, the peacekeeper per year is about $16,000. in 2014, each u.s. soldier in

afghanistan cost $2.1 million. according to the study by the gao, u.s. peacekeeping operations are eight times less extensive than funding a comparable force. this is not to say the should continue unchanged. skills assessment should be reworked and i'm confident that ambassador power and the u.n. team are focused on that goal as well. nothing will erode it faster than the horrific reports we received on sexual abuse by peacekeepers and certain missions. i've long been concerned about the disturbing reports of sexual exultation and abuse is largest contributor to the united nations and is a permanent member of the un security council, the united dates has a responsibility to ensure that they hold the highest standards of professionalism and peacekeeping operations. the failure to hold the

individual peacekeepers, the commanders and troops accountable is unacceptable. the u.n. secretary-general ban ki-moon recently announced a series of proposals to combat sexual explication. 100 represented is from contributing countries. it's only a start but more must be done i the united nations and member states and i look forward to hearing about how the united states can't continue to push for effective reforms. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses and to have a robust discussion. >> we have two distinguished panels and we want to thank all who are here to hear their wisdom. the first person is a permanent representative to the united nations, samantha power. we thank you for being here with a tight schedule and we thank you for bringing haley back, who served so well with senator cowan's and was one of the

koontz.-- senator if you can keep your comments to about five minutes, we would appreciate it and then we look forward to q&a. >> thank you so much mr. chairman and ranking the cardin for convening this hearing and to distinguish members of the community for making time to be here to discuss peacekeeping. committee is acutely aware of the extent to which conflict on the other side of the globe can come back and threaten american security. we have seen time and again how conflict can displace millions of people in markets and destabilize entire regions. all too recently and all too frequently, we have seen how such instability can attract and enable violent extremist groups who exploit the vacuum of authority to recruit new members, plan, launched, and inspire attacks.

they play vital role in the efforts to address more violence and instability. as president obama said in september, we know that they are not the solution to every problem but do remain one of the most important tools to address armed conflict. they can help shore up stability, deny safe harbor to extremists, and more. all of which reflects deep american values while ensuring greater burden sharing by the international community. we have been working aggressively to make sure that you and peacekeeping operations are better able to meet the demands of security, which has been noted that those requirements have changed considerably over the last 20 years. peacekeepers today are undertaking more missions. the number of personnel has risen from fewer than 20,015 is ago to over 100,000 today.

than 20,000 15 years ago to over 100,000 today. risen from fewer than 20,000 15 years ago to over 100,000 today. this is not your mother's peacekeeping, it has evolved significantly. while peacekeeping has never been more important american interests, it has also never been more demanding. this is why president obama released the first peacekeeping operations directing a wide range of action to strengthen and modernize u.n. operations. partnerg by building capacity and leading with a form

of u.n. peacekeeping. i just want to briefly touch on a few key lines of effort we have pursued. these are described in greater detail in my written submission. where working to make sure that countries with the will to perform peacekeeping have the capacity to do so. one way that we are doing this is to the rapid response harder ship which president obama announced in august 2014. states aprep, the united is investing in six african countries that have proven themselves leaders and peacekeeping. and these countries have promised to keep peacekeeping forces that can deploy rapidly. it is our primary tool for building peacekeeping capacity. it will help ensure that more soldiers deployed for peacekeeping missions will be fully prepared. i hope that the house and senate will fully fund this initiative.

we are expanding the pool of police and contribute in countries and bringing advanced military back to peacekeeping. president obama convened an historic high-level summit, the first of its kind, to rally newcomen's to peacekeeping, marking -- to rally commitments to peacekeeping -- new commitments to peacekeeping. not only that, more of these troops will now come from advanced militaries who bring with them equipment and expertise critically needed on the ground. we saw this in mali when dutch attack helicopters helped bangladeshi infantry repel fire on their camp where civilians were taking refuge. the united states is making contributions in this respect as well. we are looking specifically for ways to leverage our military's

to support abilities peacekeeping operations including by enabling faster deployment. we are working to ensure a higher standard of performance and conduct. specifically in two critical areas. combating of sexual exultation and abuse. the additional troops will prove invaluable to both by allowing the u.n. to be more selective as to which troops it deploys. giving it the leverage to repatriate poorly performing troops, in instances where there are credible allegations of sexual abuse. volatile deploy in situations they have to be willing to use force to protect civilians and carry out mandated tasks. too often, peacekeepers have shied away even when they are being perpetrated.

the report in march last year andd that 500 attacks civilians from 2010 to 2013 peacekeepers virtually never used force. thousands of civilians likely lost their lives as a result. this cannot continue and a growing number of troop contributors agree that the 50,000 should enable more capable and more willing troops to staff these missions. the same is true on sexual explication and violence. we share the outrage of everyone on this committee. peacekeepers must not abuse civilians. and exploitation have no place. in any society it is especially abhorrent when committed by those who take advantage of the trust communities are placing in the united nations and those responsible must be held accountable.

addressing the scorch strengthen the implementation of zero tolerance policy including bolstering reporting and accountability measures and pledging to set up an immediate response team to investigate certain cases. it will also require more vigilance. there must be far more thatparency to ensure justice is served. u.s. should be able to take advantage of this pool of police by suspending from peacekeeping any company that does not take seriously the responsibility to investigate or prosecute allegations. the fourth priority is to press for bold reforms within the u.s. -- u.n. itself. move to a more comprehensive approach that

integrates military and's civilian tools and we have spearheaded efforts to an act further reforms including longer -- longer troop rotations, ,enalties for troops to show up and we will continue to work aggressively to cut costs. the u.s. has already cut peacekeeper cost by 17%. we are also working to advance reforms proposed of the secretary-general's high and panel peacekeeping operations which are intended to address troop deployment, uneven leadership, breakdown of command procurement --d to slow down the procurement of resources not intended for the streets of new york. the united states has played an instrumental role in making the impossible, but there is much more to be done. we are not satisfied with them

fulfilling only parts of their mandates. with these keeper standing up to protect some in their investigations, some but not all of the time. peacekeepersed by today is too important. for the sake of our security as well as the millions around the world whose lives may depend on peacekeepers, we will continue to work and strengthen peacekeeping so it is tailored for the threats that peacekeepers face. we appreciate your support and continued dialogue on these matters. >> thank you for those comments. senator isakson and i were at darfur years ago and just infuriated by the caveats that the u.n. peacekeepers had. they can only fire at people when fired upon. collecting wood from their villages being raped and abused. weeds being murdered like

but we have evolved. as you mentioned this is not our fathers peacekeeping mission. as we have evolved these missions and people are placing themselves more in the center of conflict and in some cases taking sides, how has this isnged the way the u.s. viewed in these peacekeeping missions. i assume you think it is in our national interest. but how has it changed the way these blue hats are viewed in these areas? >> thank you senator corker. u.s.f the lines that the struggles to walk is that it has on the one side peacekeepers charged with an aggressive enforcement of mandates which entails protecting civilians not just peacekeepers themselves than you have u.n. country programs that look indistinguishable driving around in white vehicles unarmed

passing of food providing shelter. trying to provide counseling to those who have been victimized by sexual abuse. the been challenging blurring of functions across these missions. the only thing worse than confronting that challenge of having people distinguish who does what is having people in these societies rely on peacekeepers, know that the mandate says to protect civilians and have them bunkered and more interested in collecting a paycheck and going home then being out and about delivering on the promise of that blue flag. we have come a long way but as i noted, the statistics are not inspiring. there are many contribute in countries to send troops in without strict guidance that you will be sent home if you do not enforce the mandate you are given.

conferenceiate the -- comment made about the call, for someunderstand it, of these countries even though the cost to us is far less than having u.s. soldiers, the paid for the soldiers is far greater than they would otherwise receive in their own countries and that money goes to the countries so they are benefiting financially and sending troops there. in some cases, some of the lower income countries and that situation of having troops there that are not carrying out their mandate in an appropriate way who are not qualified or equipped. drivingus about what is having folks within the peacekeeping missions that are certainly not conducting themselves in this professional manner. >> mr. chairman, thank you. it reflects a real understanding

of the dynamics in these missions. the performances uneven, the motivation is uneven, the incentives for troops is uneven. if you take rwanda and peacekeepers who do get a more substantial stipend by serving peacekeeping missions than they might if at home, but they are totally driven by what happened in their country 21 years ago and view protecting civilians as a way of showing the world what should have been done when the genocide unfolded in rwanda. contrast that with other troops who institutionally are not given the guidance from capital that they need to be out and about. that there is a risk entailed with patrolling but there are risks entailed by being bunkered. on the specific question of the stipend, at the senator said, this is a very good deal. these are extremely difficult environments.

not only for the risks of militia and government forces targeting peacekeepers as they are out and about, but also the conditions in terms of the just ask, access to water. these are missions that are not expending resources in a manner that our missions to when they deploy internationally. i think it is important to incentivize their participation. some countries are doing it because they are able to secure additional resources that they are investing in ways sometimes we don't have full visibility into. sometimes in other parts of their government. but i think his point is very important. we are getting a lot out of the 100,000 plus troops active in these conflict areas. these are places where in some instances if you look at molly or lebanon, places that are

theaters in terms of terrorism and extremism. if it was that peacekeepers putting their lives at risk and may come to the united states to advance our security. >> as for the issues of the abuse taking place that is a torrent, in fairness, i think people on both sides of the aisle have concerns about the u.n.'s ability to put reforms in place. understand how the u.n. operates in a note you talked about the leader's desire to create reforms. we sent a letter suggesting that we have on-site court marshals. particularway these soldiers report openly. we also made other suggestions. is your sense that those types of reforms can be implemented relative to peacekeeping? meas the ambassador behind

will attest, the life of the u.n. you have a challenge on reform in the sense that there are two places you have to secure. will and follow-through. the first is with the countries that comprise the u.n.. so every contribute in country has to be prepared for the kinds of ideas we have been pushing in new york and implement in their own military changes to ensure oversight and follow-through on the investigations and accountability whether a court martial or some kind of prosecution in civilian court. there is probably no one-size-fits-all solution country has its own set of procedures for following up on abuse. then there is the u.s. itself which has to be more aggressive and shining a spotlight on those countries not taking the steps needed.

this is not something one should site as an improvement -- it should never have been otherwise, but where those individuals were alleged to be involved in sexual abuse are not being paid by the u.n.. they are being recalled to their capital and training and vetting is changing so there is training on presenting sexual abuse and exploitation. you had an idea about a claims commission. at treatinglooking a victim support trust fund which is something we would wish to support as well. it will require going back to member states but maybe some of the docked pay of those against whom there are allegations could be used in service of such a fund. and having more aggressive on sign investigative capacity celestine pasts between an allegation and actual follow-through. lastly, the two aspects of reform come together.

in order to secure meaningful reform that matters for potential victims, there has to be more transparency between what's going on in the field and what we are made aware of in new york. too often we hear from ngo's or journalists about sexual abuse and exportation rather than from the u.n. itself. if we are going to go to a developing country and enhance their capacity to investigate, we have to know who has been accused of doing what at what period and be in a support -- position to offer support. we have to knows so we can look at our bilateral leverage and whether we might suspend some forms of assistance and whether or not there is a recurring pattern of not taking seriously the zero-tolerance policy. >> thank you, my time is up. questioning, igh know that the president has made

additional pledges to the u.n. beyond our normal peacekeeping budget and i hope at some point it will come to light as to where those resources are planned to come from. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you ambassador power for your service to our country. as i said in the opening statement i am a strong supporter of the mission of the united nations and the incredible progress that is made in global issues. i want to talk about transparency and accountability. it has come up quite a bit on several subjects. one of the clearest ways to try to help the safety of civilians is to hold president assad of violatinguntable for international were crying type activities. do we have your commitment as our ambassador that we will seek full accountability by president

assad for the war crimes he has committed in any of the negotiations taking place? >> let me say that one of my more unsuccessful days in my office since this body was good he for my jobirm was -- to confirm me for my job was a resolution that we brought to the un security council, notwithstanding our own nonparticipation. we believe it is a venue that should be looking at chemical weapons attacks, barrel bombs attacks and systematic torture. in the referral was detailed by russia and supported by china. we understand it will be negotiations that involve the

united states and the united states will have to sign off on those negotiations. do i have your commitment that your position will be to hold president assad accountable for the type of activities that you just described? >> the ultimate settlement will be between the syrian opposition and the syrian government. the united states position i hope is well known. we are absolutely supportive and have been aggressively supportive in building an evidentiary base to assure that a saw than others are held accountable. >> it is not up to the government and opposition to determine whether a person has violated international standards on conduct of war crimes. war crimes are global. >> their too separate issues. one is the standard threshold question for where accountability should be provided or whether prosecution

-- there is a whole set of tactical questions about how it should be pursued. overlapping question about what the terms of a political settlement would be is not something on the verge of happening so i think the details have not yet been fleshed out and it is something we should consult on. that the underscore final agreement has to be something that both the opposition and the government can get behind. >> it doesn't quite answer my question. i think the members of this committee. if he is notad -- held accountable there will not be support for any solution in regards to syria. number two to issue on transparency. the chairman has already talked about that, the abuse allegations. if this is not done in an open manner where there is complete

understanding and disclosure of what is taking place, the confidence factor of those responses being held accountable will not be there. >> i agree completely. i'm not sure what to add. as i said, there has been insufficient reporting back to the security council. we have now taken sexual abuse and exportation and made it an in theo be discussed security council and the secretary-general has committed to reporting back. >> i have seen them and they are good but you have to follow through and they have to be done in a way that international communities and the activists and those following this can be who aret that those responsible have truly been held accountable so it will not happen or retaliated in the future. important point.

it is not just a closed investigation but that we have "your of this issue. and commitment on how to go forward and how these matters will be handled. >> right now senator it is very fair to say that the victims who come forward do so at their own peril and do not do so with confidence that having taken that risk and potentially ostracized themselves in their own communities that there will be accountability on the backend. and that has to change entirely. i suspect if it does you may see more people coming forward. >> that is the budget system at the united nations, it's anything but open and clear and transparent. it is been that way for a long time. it is hard for me to understand on the assessment peacekeeping is 28.63%, almost three times higher than the next country and significantly higher than our general allegation for

the u.n. budget. that doesn't seem to me a transparent way to budget. can you just briefly inform us as to the u.s. position in regards to a fair allegation of the u.n. budget in an open and transparent manner? through which the u.s. share of the peacekeeping budget is a very complex formula. let me say in brief that it some commendation of our share of the global economy plus a premium that we play -- that we pay by being a premium number and with the veto getting to dictate whether admission comes into existence and whether it doesn't along with the other permanent members as a whole. we pay a premium for being a permanent member. we were able to secure the cap on the regular touch it. the formula would have us pay anna higher rate if not for the cap that investor holbrook

secured 15 years ago. the one thing i want to stress is that our emphasis is on ensuring that countries contributing to more and more of the global economy are paying more of their share and we are in the midst of skilled negotiations now on the peacekeeping budget. on emphasis has been ensuring countries who see -- you can see the economic growth but not the correlation in terms of their contribution. the chinese contribution has more than doubled in 10 years and we can anticipate such -- that the chinese share will be up around 10%. similarly, the russian contribution has doubled. >> we should point out that china is still about one fourth of the noted states and russia is 1/8 of the united states. capeems to us that the 22%

we understand. it was well deserved. like the united nations is equalizing through the peacekeeping percentage and the 22% cap is being violated because of our higher contributions to the peacekeeping efforts. i urge you that the more transparent this process the better it will be received politically in our country. we do think it is a fair number and we think it should be honored and honored in the peacekeeping. >> i want to underscore that the agreement was secured on the 22% cap, no similar agreement was secured. having a 22% cap helps us in the peacekeeping realm

because it becomes the baseline on which these unions are agreed to. i want to stress that we share the same objective. we want to get other countries to step up and pay their share. we still believe that if you look again at what this means for u.s. national security, this is a version of the argument you made at the beginning that even when you compare it to nato where that united states bears the lion share of defense investments that having the rest of the world paying 72% of the peacekeeping budget is a good deal for the american taxpayer. >> i hope this will be covered as the chairman said, the safety of civilians is critically important. me it is not a matter of numbers. inthey have the will to go and stand in front of civilians to protect them. we haven't seen that.

by not sure i was comforted your supply that we have greater capacity by numbers. we don't have greater capacity by will. the civilian will be a great risk. point that ithe emphasized in my testimony was we have succeeded in getting contributions from advanced militaries. europe had got out of wecekeeping by and large and think it is very important that they get back in. there is no necessary correlation between having advanced military and the political will to put yourself in harm's way, but we think that giving the u.n. the choice, now it has a pool from which it can choose. if there are people who show insufficient will, we think that having this pool of forces which include more professional and advanced militaries and better

aviation, engineering, and infantry capabilities -- giving the u.n. that selectivity will the over time that performance of peacekeepers will improve. it will mean anything if you of't have 50,000 commitments political will that we see in the pool substantial commitment from those we think do have that will. >> i just want to thank the ranking member for bringing up an issue that its product consistently, certainly on our side also. i want to emphasize that with nato, we have become the provider of security services allies areo generally speaking the consumer of security services. the same thing is happening with peacekeeping at the u.n.. i know it is a different set of actors but the very people who

enforceur efforts to china is taking advantage of us. it is in or u.s. national interest that we have peacekeeping missions, stability and security around the world to bethink we continue not as good as we should be at forcing other nations to be responsible. so i went to thank senator cardin for bringing this up. to have a lackng of transparency that does exist at the u.n.. over time it will erode support. it is already not particularly high because of the many issues that we see going unattended like not dealing with the ballistic missiles being fired by iran in violation of 1929. so i would say i'm glad there is bipartisan concern the hope you can address it with that, senator purdue. >> let me also echo that, i want to complement the ranking member

for continuing to bring this up. i wanted to talk about that for a second. right now, we are spending about $2 billion in peacekeeping forces. because of the assessment disagreement where some $345 million in arrears, in terms of what the u.n. says we know them, i would like to point out mr. chairman that it is not just the percentages here in relation to the size of the gdp. it also should be taken into account the percentage of gdp in these countries that spend all their -- that they spend on their own military. given the situation we have in over the last few years, 35 to 40% of what we have been spending is borrowed. i think this is timely time to have that serious conversation in the u.n.. i want to thank you for what highe doing, given your

school years in georgia, we claim you and we are proud of what you are doing. i want to talk about hezbollah and lebanon. in 1978, the interim force was created. 2006esolution of strengthened the monitoring with the illegal transport of weapons into lebanon. but we know today they have an estimated 120,000 rockets. some of these sophisticated and guided weapons. it looks to me that if that mandate or directed to keep weapons out, they are failing against that mandate. can you talk about their current role and 1701, what is their role, and -- we have had reports that there have been threats around the reprisals if they report violations.

what can we do to strengthen them there and to preclude lebanon from the evening of transport of dangerous weapons? -- unifill has played an ameliorative role but there is the question that hezbollah has been able to maintain an expanded arsenal and we continue to urge them to be more aggressive in patrolling, monitoring, and speaking out about violations of the mandate. and i think that what you have seen in recent months is more transparency on the part of them. part of the challenge here, as we know from confronting terrorist organizations in other parts of the world. when you are not at war with

those terrorist organizations, you are using political pressure, particularly by lebanon's own sovereign institutions which are themselves every week as we know from the current paralysis in lebanon. your shining a spotlight and trying to ensure the introduction of weapons before the even get to the theater in question. so you to fill is not a perfect fix for everything that ails lebanon or for the threat posed by has below. but it has a responsibility to be vocal and to take seriously the reporting mandate so countries in the region know what is happening in an area from which threats have come routinely in recent decades. >> let me ask you to add a comment or two. the u.n. disengagement and observation forces actually withdrawn on the syrian side

because of the fighting. can you speak to their role and how they are interacting and i have one last question. >> you are right there has been a reconfiguration. this is something he's done in close confrontation with israel. it's a response to the fact that he made advances on one side of -- >>ne and right now didn't he actually kidnap some of your u.n. forces? asked exactly, senator, they did. and the release of those forces had to be negotiated and even that incident shows it is not the same as civilian protection, but the unevenness without units responded. some held onto their weapons refusing to be cowed and others holding onto their weapons and unfortunately in a manner that left them off weaker -- weaker

and those weapons had to be replenished. we still believe that the prior configuration is the stabilizing configuration but i think the israelis are well aware as well that the circumstances do not lend themselves to putting the observers on the other side of the line. is --t question i have the chairman mentioned it, but the violations of it ran, we have been concerned that they would violate our agreement incrementally. they are violating the u.n. agreement in a major way. is a reservations and 2231 with the launch of october and we have reports the last week or so of the second lunch what are they doing in relation to the sanctions that back those up. >> this is something i've had occasion to talk to the chairman about. it is music to a u.n. ambassador's ears when resolution 1929 or resolution

231 rolls off the tongue of congress. it was and has been an incredibly important foundation to the international sanctions regime. the ballistic missile launch of october was a violation of 1929. as soon as we confirmed the launch we brought it to the security council. we now will be discussing it on tuesday. the machinery always works slowly. we provided all the information we have on it and in a way, the security council is an important venue for increasing the political cost on iran. 08 --d note that the jcp jcpoa is a threat and the effect on the military is much diminished. the sanctions body operates by

commitment. on something like that it means we have to convince all members of the committee to support our desire and designations. >> what is the u.s. trying to move forward? machinery to get u.n. and report back from the panel of experts and we will look at what the right tool is. i think it is important to look at the bilateral tools that we have. we maintain sanctions even after implementation day on terrorism and human rights. many of the individuals involved have already been sanctioned over the years. so trying to secure a nexus between this launch in any particular individual is let on. looking at the security council and our bilateral tools as couple mentoring is important to regard. thank you, senator cardin and

i both emphasized with the security council two days ago that the possible military dimensions of peace, we thought they might get a d-, but they got and it f. a total hoax. non-action here is just going to empower them to continue to violate. and what the ambassador just said is if the u.n. will do nothing because china and russia will block that from occurring. i hope they are preparing their bilateral efforts. if disappointing that we provide the resources we do and yet we have countries that will not call to other countries to live up to their obligations. very disappointing. kuntz. >> thank you for your tireless and dedicated service and your advocacy for human rights and

representing us at the united nations and your passion for the difficult and demanding mission you're carrying out. i share the concerns expressed by many colleagues about the active and theent of the jcpoa ongoing work to enforce un security council resolutions. i was pleased to hear there is an upcoming meeting around the un security council and i forward to continuing to work loosely with you and secretary lou and others to make sure we're using all of the tools we can to enforce the sanctions that remain in place and to reimpose sanctions should be rainy and behavior necessitates the necessity of doing so. i have had the opportunity to visit you and peacekeepers in the field in a number of countries and have seen both the positives that they can a country in liberia and the drc and some of very real challenges. where as you noted in your opening testimony there is a disconnect between the mission to protect civilians in training

equipment leadership and the will to do so. start if you would by focusing on whether there is a mismatch between un security council mandates and what troop contributor countries are trained and prepared to do. i was encouraged by the presidential leadership in renewing a call for more advanced militaries to deliver not just logistics and intelligence and supplies but trainers and troops. mandates,connect the mission and capacity to deliver in the field? >> thank you senator, let me come back if i could by way of response to something that senator corker mentioned before which is the contrast with nato. is an example where we have national security interests in and peacekeepers and troops from other countries

performing ably. this is not a nato situation where we are carrying a disproportionate share of the troops or the financial burden, that is something we're working to ensure is allocated more fairly. i think on the mandate, troop contributor disconnect, which is real. the first thing you have to do is get more quality troops. it has been a supply driven market. the u.n. goes begging bowl in hand to different countries and there is no standing army that exists in new york. the secretary-general doesn't have anything beyond which he can just -- extract from u.n. member states and that process had yielded very uneven set of troops and police to participate. some who have extensive military experience at home and we know

are capable troops and what's we get in the peacekeeping setting they don't fundamentally believe, they were to go back to traditional prints -- traditional principles to the way peacekeeping was done in the 70's and the 80's. that's up the world we're in. so the first answer is that you increase sophistication, the training the professionalization of the troops and it will be in effect on the ability to perform the mandates. the second answer is on us as a permanent member of the security council which means there needs to be more prioritization in the way these mandates are put in place. it is tough to prioritize because you look at a situation like that in south sudan or that in congo and what of the task that they are slated to perform would you give up? would you give up demobilization or security sector reform or human rights monitoring or

tension to child soldiers? of course not. you need to make sure that the missions are right sized, maybe to do some sequencing in terms of building out those capabilities over time and the u.n. country team and our own bilateral assistance needs to be involved in strengthening state institutions. in the republic of the eastern congo, you have peacekeepers to factor performing the work of states because the states themselves are so weak. , and for allanacea of the complaints we have about you when peacekeeping, i would challenge all of us to imagine what anyone of those countries somewhat like without stabilizing presence. it will not be a cure-all as long as you state institutions that don't function or leaders that are corrupt.

i've seen exactly those challenges from the countries are referenced among others and i continue as an appropriator to advocate for funding for peacekeeping and to deal with these challenges. to seencouraging to me' your engagement on reform. we need to make real progress around the area of accountability. a couple questions and you can take what time you have left to answer. i'm concerned about growing the universe of capable peacekeepers in africa and globally. china made a pledge of a standby force of 8000 and i'm interested to see the future whether they will or will not be deployed and i'm concerned about the african union. i would love to hear how you see that playing out going forward and how we can sustain that investment in a continent wide force.

stress how want to unusual president obama's personal leadership has been. he has told us that anything he can do to ensure these commitments are being followed through on he is prepared to invest his own time. we are dealing with a set of challenges and a level that we have not seen before with a degree of aggressiveness we have not seen before from the united states. administrations have seen the value of this tool in the american and multilateral toolbox. the -- a prepn and the china question come together a little bit. we have a major issue in terms of the delay between a time and mandate is given the u.s. peacekeeping force in the time in which u.s. police are deployed into theater. some of this just goes back to

the troop contributor in countries and their ability to turn on a dime and trained together equipment lined up. to takep is designed these six militaries, all of whom who have a good record in protecting civilians and having the political will to go to dangerous places and we aim to ensure through the deepening of our provision of equipment and the particular forms of trading that we offer so they can get into the theater more quickly than they have up to this point. a lot of them lack their own ability to lift themselves allowing the rwandans to swoop harms carry people into way. but they need to acquire overtime to lift and self sustainment and again, this ability to if not the formally on standby to be ready to go when 911 comes. the chinese commitment of 8000 troops is a very large piece of

business and was a very significant announcement out of president obama's summit. i don't think we have a sense, nor does the u.n. of how they imagine allocating that set of forces overtime. right now they have just deployed their first infantry battalion ever in south sudan. the reports are quite promising in terms of how active those troops are, but also protecting civilians in the displaced persons camps. we need to look and see how the u.n. seeks to use that commitment. rapid response -- if that were something that china could put on offer where you can lose less time between when the international community comes together and way mission is needed and troops show up -- we are two years after deployment and they are still not it full troop strength.

that is a recurring pattern. we would welcome rapid response, but we have to make sure that any piece cooper -- peacekeeper that deploys can put themselves at risk for the sake of the mandate. >> senator gardner. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you madam secretary for your service to this country. i would to follow up a little bit on what should german corker and senator purdue were asking. we know there was a second ballistic missile test from iran which was a clear violation of the resolution. after the first launch in october, we refer the matter to the united nations and called on it to review this matter quickly and recommend appropriate action. stated that the united states will continue to press the security council to respond effectively to any

future violations of you and council resolutions. full and robust enforcement is and will remain critical. as of today, has the u.n. taken any action? i believe they are meeting tuesday? >> beyond having security council discussions, there has been no follow on action. next it's a little bit like a hearing as a foremost congressional action. we had multiple discussions. >> the tuesday meeting. can you describe the actions that will be taken. we willll hear back -- probably not yet hear back from a panel of experts but if we are in a position to confirm the recent launch this is something we would bring to the council. to confirm those reports if warranted and we will get an update from the u.n. in

terms of when the panel of experts report will come back. >> the last lunch we haven't taken any action on. >> what are the sections? >> we confirmed the violation product to the un security thecil and we launched panel of experts investigating the matter and we will report act. >> what other actions as the administration taken other than taking it to a panel, talking about it, and having a meeting? >> we were looking at the bilateral sanctions tools we have at our disposal. that is something the treasury department is following up on. >> what unilateral measures are we considering? >> i believe sanctions, bearing in mind that many of the actors involved in ballistic missile launches and the program itself are already sanctioned under u.s. law. x are reconsidering stopping sanctions relief or sending -- rescinding any previous relief?

>> the jcpoa sections relief will not occur until after the initial steps have been taken and the iaea has verified that there is initial steps were taken but i want to underscore that the jcpoa -- the point of the jcpoa is to dismantle their nuclear weapons program and that is a very important area of emphasis for us. >> more important than the ballistic missile concerns? >> taking away -- i don't want to talk about relative ensuring that iran doesn't develop a nuclear weapon is a huge priority. >> you mentioned in your opening statement, exploit the vacuum of authority and you are referring to actors in the middle east and other terrorist that they may be trying to exploit the vacuum of authority. sanctions orng doing anything other than

talking are we allowing the exportation of the vacuum of authority? >> this administration has put congress has put them in the first engine -- instance and amplified by what we have done in the u.n. the most everything sections regime in the history of the united nations. i don't think there is a void or vacuum. iran has seen the consequences of violating international norms. we've a sanctions snap back provision that few around the world what a thought we could secure as part of this deal which would allow any single country to snap back in the event of significant noncompliance with the deal. so sanctions is a really important tool. the sanctions that this congress has put in place is one reason we are in the position we're in now to make sure that iran does

not develop a nuclear weapon. >> but nothing has been done other than a meeting coming up to state with a panel of experts ? >> we have increase in will continue to increase the political cost to iran. >> could you give an example of that? >> the work that they ran does to ensure that the un security council does not discuss ballistic missile launches is a testament to the stigma that our still associate with bringing these issues before the security council, the same with a panel of experts discussing this and documenting any violation. something that iran, which wants to become a nation like any other nation within the find it very frustrating that they continue to be scrutinized. they never mentioned the security council resolutions of the cap the fact that they keep functioning keep the oversight and the political cost is an

important step. october, many members of this committee sent a letter to the secretary of state talking about iran's october 10 ballistic missile and i talked what the range of unilateral tools on mitch related activities to impose penalties to engage in proliferation activities, but we have imposed no penalties under domestic authorities are on foreign persons or entities as result of these launches. >> i want to underscore the importance of the broader ballistic missile defense effort that we make. i feel a kind of answer the question you just post several times let me try a different broadening approach which is, our response to a radiant ballistic missile launches is a defense response. it's also the proliferation security initiative. it is everything that has come

out of camp david and our engagement with the gulf countries to ensure interoperability. all the ironed om and other bilateral defense arrangements that we have with the country of israel, many of which are getting deepened as you know. >> they have launched twice. is it working >> -- is it working? if one is thinking in terms of regional defense, one has to take measures to ensure that our partners in the region have the tools to defend themselves. even if you had a designation against someone involved in the ballistic missiles program, the number one deterrent and preventive measure is going to be regional defense. that is where the emphasis was. if i were here and we had designated another actor bilaterally. let's say we find one that has not been designated -- i don't think that would address your concern about the ballistic missiles program, nor should it.

so again, iran has systematically ignored un security council resolutions over the life of the security council regime. the sanctions themselves were so crippling and brought us to the place we could secure the deal because other countries in the international system would be sanctioned if they were engaging with iran and prohibitive behavior. >> this systematic ignoring of the resolutions does that give you concerns about their willingness to supply question mark >> that is why we have that back. as the president said this is not an agreement predicated on trust particularly in light of their past behavior confirmed by the iea pmd report. >> i what to reiterate what been and i did the other day with you in the other members. regardless of how people may wee voted on the agreement, understand it is what is governing our actions right now

with iran. and i think on both sides of the aisle regardless of how people voted we want to make sure the agreement is implemented in a way that it was laid out. i think there has been a concern on both sides of the aisle that there is an air of permissiveness being developed that will cause the likelihood of any pushback overtime to become less real and i think that is what he is getting at and i think people on both side the aisle have been concerned about. 1929 says they shall not undertake any ballistic activity. unfortunately he says it's called upon and i don't know whether they view that as permissive language but this is an issue that i think many people on both sides of the aisle are concerned about. is not veryseeing vigilant steps being taken and setting a precedent for the future. >> thank you mr. chair and thank

you ambassador power. you gave an interview to the pbs news hour december 4 and you noted that more progress needs to be made in uniting the anti-isil coalition. would our unified resolve the clear to our allies troops and isil if congress is willing to finally debate and vote after 16 months of war? >> senator, thank you for your leadership on this issue from the very start. puzzled as to are why -- people that i work with day-to-day at the u.n. are puzzled, given the priority that the american people and the bipartisan basis in both houses of congress attached to the anti-isil struggle and all of the attention to it that has come over the course of the last two years as to how we cannot

arrive at some consensus in order to enshrine in legislation that which we say is true that this has the bipartisan backing of the american people and congress. it would be a really important signal if we could get that done. >> i have not done the research on this but from headlines in my strikes me that at least three of the un security council nations, britain, france, and russia, have had their legislative bodies vote to confirm after a debate military activity against terrorism in syria and iraq. >> that is my understanding as well. other countries who are part of the coalition -- >> germany, for example. the act from last week. last week, the chairman of the

armed services committee, senator mccain, said this -- i didn't -- i don't want to say he was saying it approvingly. when asked when an authorization vote he said, it may require an attack on the nine states of america. in terms -- of that united states of america. in terms of doing your job well, would it be a good idea for congress to wait that long? >> it would not be a good idea for congress to wait that long. this should be an issue that everyone in this country can agree upon, even those with whom there are differences over trainers,he number of different aspects of the shouldons, everyone agree that defeating and degrading isil and showing the world that this is something renderingcongress these operations sustainable and

entering over what is a long struggle, it would be invaluable. >> the president started this war against isil august 8. a year ago on friday, the only vote that happened in congress in terms of an authorization was one reported after -- no action was taken. the rand issued a report to the pentagon that said relying on the 2001 and 2002 authorizations at a minimum involved legal gymnastics that were not helpful and urged congress to take action. it is my hope that we will do that and it is my hope that it will not take a cataclysm that was suggested -- disapprovingly by senator mccain. he thinks congress should act.

you talked about european nations having scaled-back peacekeeping operations. a story for this committee and this congress is columbia stepping up in september saying they wanted to devote 5000 troops to the u.n. peacekeeping mission. columbia is also a peacekeeping participant in the multinational force and observers in the sinai as a relatively recently. we sometimes wonder whether u.s. engagement can make a difference. columbia is an example of a failed state to international security partner in a way that this committee can be proud and three administrations. the clinton administration, the bush admin's ration the obama administration have had dedication to that. talk about them who are coming in to providing peacekeeping forces for the first time and the degree to which we can encourage them. >> senator we view that commitment in the same way. ofseemed a real reflection

however difficult the peace process is and there is a lot of work to do. but they are confident that they will get where they need to get to be in a position to free up resources. latin america has a huge contribution to make. one of the significant features of the president's summit was a number of latin american countries talking about their outing to do peacekeeping of home this year. a lot of them have been dedicating their forces to haiti. who arecommend uruguay taking contributions with the commission working with the colombian saying this is how it worked for us and it would also work for you. commend mexico which is announce it will break new ground and be involved in peacekeeping for the first time in his in the midst of discussions for the first time. could touch upon and i

think it is such an important point. the dividend for us when a country makes progress domestically whether in terms of democratization or in terms of conflict resolution, i am just act from sri lanka, a place that in the wake of its defeat of the people who coined the suicide bomb really regressed in terms of creeping authoritarianism. horrible atrocities carried out in the tail end of the war. none has been a change in government. not only do we see them domestically taking on issues of accountability but we also see them -- their behavior within international institutions transformed. making a substantial commitment to peacekeeping. the standard that take on human rights resolutions north korea etc..

i want to dwell on this point because sometimes one looks at the u.n. and it is just a black locks were he are not getting the returns that we want or the votes that we want. the way the u.n. changes over time is countries that comprise the change. to become more at peace within themselves, their institutions and we can see a payoff again in terms of the critical mass of countries that we have as partners in new york to work with. right now to still the case that more than half of the countries are not democratic. that affects the extent to which the u.n. will be a tool on human rights. andhe vote has gone off senator isakson is next. after him is senator menendez. i would ask if you would to chair the meeting while you are asking questions. >> i will be very brief because i have to go to the floor. senator murphy is next after menendez. i will bolt and come back and

thank you both for -- thank you both, very much. >> if he's not back. >> thank you for calling this hearing and i will be very brief because i do a part of this and just a minute but the required reading of every member of congress and every ambassador of the united nations ought to be cement the powers that problem from hell. if that problem had been read a lot of the things we're talking , we would be a lot further along than we are today. that is a great look and everyone should read it. senator corker and i went to rwanda we know about the principle. that's my first question to you. have we adopted the two golly pencil? principal? >> we are not a substantial contributor to peacekeeping so these principles so far have been embraced by the big countries putting thousands of

troops in harms way. 40re 40 police officers and military officers all of the we are incredibly grateful for. we haven't yet but more for that reason than any substantive objection. i can convey that back. >> when i read your speech last night, you did not include this part in the speech but you talked about the principles and what they were developed from which was a learning lesson from what you pointed out in your book. it principle as i understand is that the key peacekeeper thatries need to confirm they don't have to radio back to headquarters to get approval. >> that is our problem in the middle east in terms of the united states. nothing women enough of those authorizations for the engagement of our own troops and onommend you for raising it

this question but i think it is a bigger question in terms of our being able to be effective which is to have the troops in the field that you would deploy for he's keeping or war to have the actual authority for the use of force they need to carry out the mission. it struck me that we were congratulating sri lanka, syria, and other countries in a provided these peacekeeping troops that we have a very -- that's my reason for bringing it up. >> if i may respond well you are here. that.impression is not i think that what president obama has conveyed to the secretary of defense and to the chairman and his commander, general austin and the commanders on the ground is a desire to offer strategic guidance, discuss any big shifts in the strategy at a senior

level and make sure that everybody is on the same page. but there is a huge amount of tactical and operational flexibility that these commanders have and i think you have seen the president say publicly what he has conveyed many times privately in the situation room which is if there are ideas for how we can pursue this campaign more expeditiously in ways that increase the security dividend for the american people sooner i went to see those ideas. meetings.ese we are discussing the way ahead in the anti-isil strategy and i have not heard the commanders not getting the flex ability that they seek. >> thank you for your answer and your service. my last question is not a question but a statement. your wagon is loaded and it's a

new load every day and you are doing a terrific job but i would underscore senator cardin's remarks and the chairman, the more transparency the better. there is a lot of suspicion and a lot of misunderstandings in a lack of trust. the more transparency we can have one who is paying what and how they are paying their share would be helpful to the u.n. mission they really need to carry out their intent from the beginning. x that does me the chance to invite you to new york see you can get immersed in those budget numbers firsthand. we would really welcome visits by members of this body. we would give you a good and deep to her of the u.n.. the africa related issues. as you know the u.n. is on the front lines. >> invitation accepted. >> good morning ambassador power.

the evening of the president's sunday night speech there was a series of social media postings by a wonderful reporter from the piecerk times who wrote a based on those observations the next day and the title was, u.s. strategy seeks to avoid isis prophecy and the idea is if you understand the building blocks of the religious perversion of isis, it is built upon a hope or belief that they are going to be in a military contest on the ground with united states and western powers. i suspect that that acknowledgment is part of what made the president talk about not only the things we should do but the things we shouldn't. not bederstand we will putting you when peacekeepers on the ground inside a complicated

violent civil war a time soon but from a broader perspective, can you talk about -- we try to confront organizations that are in countries like mali that have peacekeeping forces that are trying to goad the united states into a military confrontation. wide multinational and multiethnic forces are going to be perhaps much better positioned than a majority u.s. force to try to preserve peace and order. as part of that answer, talk about the contributions that majority muslim organizations make or should make in the future that is among the reasons white we should be paying more attention to investment and -- reasons why we should be paying more attention to investment and peacekeeping.

>> it is a complex set of ideas. key to effective the plemons is legitimacy. one of the things that multinational deployments can offer but can also forfeit as we have been talking about in the context of sexual abuse is the perception of legitimacy. a perception that the whole world is behind the peacekeeping mission. in truth, having a 65 nation coalition also enhances legitimacy in the fact that countries from the region are part of that and it is something very important to the president to secure that kind of regional support. in thing that i would note areas where terrorists are active, and molly now with --

, now with 44 deaths of peacekeepers on a mission that has only been in place a few years, underscores that there can be a mismatch between u.s. peacekeeping or even robust u.n. peacekeeping, which we support in the could dolly principles -- the kadali principles. where extremists and terrorists may make the united states their number one target if they have that opportunity, but if there are no americans around there perfectly content to it have those peacekeepers. agree to stress that -- i very much with the logic of the article you have described and found it very powerful. a powerful look at isil ideology.

i will use it as a occasion to alert the committee to the peacekeepinghich is being seen increasingly as a soft target for terrorists and extremists in those environments that they inhabit. we have a significant national interest in hardening these missions in ensuring they have the training they need to operate and not only these complex environments but conflict because you can buy it in the fact that the peacekeepers themselves are a target. just to give you one example of how the defense department has been responsive in this regard we are now doing more and more counter ied training for peacekeepers. talk about not your mother's peacekeeping. if anyone would've imagined at the outset that people would train against ied's that were presumably targeting peacekeepers -- i'm not sure it would've ever got off the ground.

i think that your larger point is right, having countries who know the language is a critical component that have cultural overlap with those countries in which they are operating is important. the only other challenge is sometimes countries can be tell go familiar so if they are immediate neighbors -- one of the reasons why the international community went to u.n. peacekeeping was to inject more distant so there would be a greater perception of independence and one would not be seen as a stakeholder on one side or the other. >> let me add my thanks to senator isakson for the number of heavy lifts that you undertake for us every day in new york. thank you for your time. appreciation of the chairman's courtesies, i'm not going to ask for unanimous

consent for anything i would want right now since i am here alone, but let me first ambassador say that i appreciate your service to our country and i have high regard for you. my own personal view is left to your own devices, on some issues you might be more forward leaning. you don't need to respond it's just my observation. let me and that, large this conversation about peacekeeping. i notice some of my colleagues grown to the situation. peacekeeping is very important in the sense of what this hearing is about, but part of the way you keep the peace is to make sure the will of the international community is observed and is not violated. and if it is that there are consequences so that hopefully, a continuation does not lead to the outbreak of war and what flows from that.

come to the to issue of iran. i know several of my colleagues have pursue the core of the missile test but i would like to ask you. would you agree that for well over a decade, iran as you have said did not recognize the un security council resolutions and moved their nuclear program forward to a point in which it got so big, almost too big to fail, this was too big to end. they violated the international will purposefully and in doing so were able to get to a point that they wanted. is that a fair observation? internationaled resolutions and built up there program. this is probably not the venue

to get into the extent of the program but -- that is well documented. the point is that they violated international resolutions for the better part of a decade and during those violations they progressed. for a good period of time without the kind of sanctions largely generated by congress not the executive branch. so i look at that and i look at your acknowledgment that they have not recognized security council resolutions and i say to myself, there is a history here and a pattern. if you go visit the archive building it says what is past is provost. lack ofcerned we have a will hereby the united states and as a leader by our partners in going ahead and making sure

that iran understands that you cannot violate the international will without consequence, which i consider that to the extent the agreement will produce any benefits that iran must clearly understand that there will be consequences for not following that agreement. the message seems to me that we are sending, that we have sent to the country in various iterations, is quite the contrary. we basically have no real action. i heard your responses about referring it to the committee and having discussions, but the bottom line is that there has been no real action. no consequence. second test and we are talking about verifying, but at the end of the day it took place and there will be no real consequence. see the like to security council be the venue

for multilateral consequence but we can nothing in the interim about an individual consequence. we see a set of circumstances which i predicted that we were going to basically sweep this under the rug and dismiss it resolution that is presently being circulated at the iaea to close this chapter because we want something bad enough, we are willing to go ahead and overlook and in doing so i think we made a grave mistake. , even that with cuba though they violated security council resolutions and shipped missiles to north korea. nothing happened to them. when we want something bad enough, i mean the administration, they're willing to overlook and that is a dangerous proposition. a dangerous proposition. so what is it that we are going

clear,o send a unequivocal message to the irradiance because we are all ushered that notwithstanding the nuclear protocol that we could be robustly active and take actions on non-nuclear issues. this is a non-nuclear issue. action.tions is not an >> thank you, senator. use this as an occasion, since senator corker is back to address a, he made earlier, which is in keeping -- to address a comment he made earlier, which is in keeping with what you are saying.

somehow if you want it bad enough you're willing to overlook. the way that this administration and our predecessors responded recurrentk to prior -- as it happens, over the life of the u.s. regime, hasn't changed. there is no difference in the way we go through this procedure or what we seek to do in new york. and frankly there is not even much to france in terms of the kind of resistance that we face from predictable quarters. the security council regime as you will know built out and force multiplied on the sections that congress put in place and it is that regime that caused iran to make a series of concessions that -- three of you here did not deem satisfactory, but went well beyond what would have been deemed achievable

without the sanctions regime and gives us the confidence that this is a good deal and one that we will dismantle their nuclear weapons program. >> with all due respect, i am not talking about the deal. >> we are talking that the implantation of the deal. >> i'm talking about making sure we have enforcements that are meaningful. >> agreed, but because you are that-- the accusation is we are seeing things differently than you because we have a vested interest in seeing this deal implement it. we have a collective and vested interest in seeing this deal and fermented because we do not want iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. that is our objective and we have put in place measures, whether it is the expanded verification and monitoring or even the pmd for all the

satisfactions that have been expressed about the report and our approach to it, fundamentally the iaea was able to get access that they had not been able to get in the past. the snapback of the sanctions regime is an incredibly important tool in our arsenal and it is leverage. he said that we had given up all our leverage on the front and is not true. we will have that hanging over implementation, reporting of myla tatian -- violations going forward and we will have in our toolbox the violations measures that as a way of responding to lesser incidents of noncompliance and lesser violations. the un security council is one venue and we will do as we have been for a decade just to call a spade a spade, to increase the political cost to ensure that iran is isolated for the violations of 1929 and 2231 once

implementation they progresses, but we also have a set of other tools aimed at iranian that behavior. >> let me just make a comment. i appreciate your answer, you are very good at answering but not answering. let me just say that, you talk about snapback, those sanctions that you admit and the administration has increasingly admitted brought a run to the tole, they -- brought iran the table expire this coming year. and you negotiated away the ability for the administration to support a reauthorization, which i intend to push for. the snapback means nothing if you cannot snapback to something meaningful. the administration just won't talk about that reauthorization because as i read the agreement they don't have the wherewithal to agree to a reauthorization.

point, another example, enforcing resolution 1701, the transfer of arms to hezbollah. during the review of the iran nuclear agreement, the administration repeatedly emphasized that the un security council resolution remained in place. that prevents the transfer of weapons to hezbollah. and we will make sure that is the case. since the announcement of the hezbollah has continued to receive arms from outside lebanon. taken toteps have you stop the transfer of arms to hezbollah? what steps have we taken? >> thank you, senator. i addressed this question earlier for senator purdue, but it is a very important question. i think the point made over the

course of the discussion about the jcpoa is that this body and we were understandably concerned that it could go away at some point -- many of those authorities were elsewhere in other security council resolutions. that was the implication of 1701 in that context. as i said earlier, hezbollah is a terror organization and unifel is a peacekeeping organization. our job is to call a spade a spade and call them out when they are. to alert us and other stakeholders to anything that comes to their attention that is alarming in this regard. unified, it isf had a constructive effect on events in the ground. i'll think the government of

israel would support the perpetuation if it hadn't. but is it a panacea for hezbollah customer it isn't. and it won't be. we are really pressed the you went to step up its reporting and to sound the alarm and to shine a spotlight but in terms of armed confrontation that is not something that we are pursuing. where trine to enhance the capabilities of troops who comprise unified which is one of the stronger missions and we're hopeful that the peacekeeping summit the president shared will give us a broader pool of troops to draw from to make sure that mission is right sized. chairman i want to say that no consequences as a green right -- green light to a violation. here,le the senators are it is true that it is highly unlikely that the un security council will take any actions relative to the violations of 1929. is that correct?

>> we have already taken action. >> the answer is yes. >> we have already taken action. asi'm talking a as far sanctions and penalties it is unlikely that russia or china will go a lot. >> -- go a long. >> i share your assessment that it is unlikely with russia and china. >> when you said that you agree with what i said -- >> at the united states as be more permissive with sanctions violations -- >> we will see. what i said is that the leverage shifts to iran. they are at breakneck speed dismantle and so they get the sanctions relief thereafter and now people believe in january or february they will get all the sanctions relief they are after. for you to say that snapback is a real tool when it is contingent upon the countries participating implementing back those sanctions.

we have countries like russia and china which we likely know will not push back against this issue, if there are incremental violations, all of the leverage is with iran. that is a fact. it is not incorrect. it is with iran because there is no way that this administration is going to consider challenging and incremental violation because they know that all ron has to do is step out and they know that russia, china, and candidly, our western friends in europe will not force them to comply. it is a true statement, not an untrue statement that the leverage ends up with them because they have what they want. we have given it up and we have partners at the un security council that will not cooperate with us. >> let me interject for one second.

us share thatof frustration. i would urge us to work with our european allies on the timing of a response to the violation of the ballistic missiles. we all share the frustration that there is unlikely to be sanctions action by the security council, but i do think that if we demonstrate action with our 5,opean heart nurse in the p it would be a signal to iran that these types of activities are not going unchallenged. >> senator markey, would you much -- would you mind if i respond just briefly. i want to underscore that once we went to the council and confirmed the violation, we did so with the united kingdom, with france, and with germany. doing something like that irrespective of what further

tangible outcome we are able to secure from the council will be very important and perhaps even broadening that. mr. chairman, the one thing i feel compelled to say is when you say they're going with ,reakneck speed to dismantle it's very important to rubber that that's what we want. that breakneck speed and understanding that there is pay-for-performance as part of the deal. the way we have incentivized and allowing the inspectors in, but sometimes the way this was discussed you think that is not a good thing. it is a good thing. that is the point of the deal. >> i understand that, i understand there dismantling antique centrifuges and we are allowing them to continue the r4's, r8's.of r2's, i don't want to re-debate the

agreement. when i think we are focused on now is that the international community knows that they finally did 1929 and in essence they are violating the spirit of another. they are called upon not to do this and we all know that the u.n. security council is not going to take action. that is what is important to us because we believe that after they get the sanctions relief and they dismantle these antiques that they are using that they are going to push the envelope. you andelieve that others there, by not taking even bilateral actions yet are helping create an air of permissiveness. even though we like you and respect you have a policy difference here. >> thank you for your great work, ambassador.

i know it is complex. you serve our country so well. can we come back to syria? , with allk at assad of his supporters inside the country, he has upwards of 30% of the army who won't be viewed well when there is a peace agreement by the other sunni that have been trying to depose assad for all of these years. the shoulders -- other soldiers that are fighting for him. if there is a peace agreement, think secretary kerry and the entire team are doing a great job and moving us towards that. there will have to be protection for these people to avoid -- i think it to be foolish not to anticipate that it happened in iraq and libya.

and looks for these blue headed soldiers to come in and have some protection to they lay down their guns. otherwise, i don't see a resolution. a matter how hard you try to negotiate a peaceful settlement, you just wind up with an ever continuing conflict. could you talk about that a little bit. and what role you and peacekeepers could play in a post peace agreement, understanding where far from that? just anticipating a potential role for the u.n., also other multinationals here.

to give some guarantees, otherwise it'll think assad his ever leaving. you look at it from the perspective of human nature, and what has happened at all these other countries. they will be dead. they will be killed. be revenge motivation will so high, given the tragedy that has affected his other families. then we have yet another cycle we are participating in. how could the u.n. play a constructive role? ofwell, there is no shortage very complex dimensions to imagining a political sediment for syria. you put your finger on it, or the hardest issues which would reintegration of syrian moderate opposition forces with syrian government weapon whether the air

force, which have been involved in bombing and chemical weapons, -- it will bey truly difficult. -- as you say, we are not at this point of the for there -- in order to be an agreement on a political transition by mutual consent, which is a catchphrase from geneva and is the operative that ise for vienna, going to be one of the questions of both sides are asking. it cuts in the other direction as well when moderates go back to the communities from which there been purged. what happens to them? do they remain at large government forces? way that confident building comes from, who the guarantors reintegration,

and biscuits back to the earlier question what is the accountability mechanism whereby there can be some healing, or truth telling. all of those modalities had been worked through. on both sides, yes. term,n terms of the near we have a soul -- we have isil with a shrinking presence but still considerable for any idea of deploying troops into syria. is being worked through in vienna is the definition of who the terrorist and who isn't so that they can be hd to level and i did everybody can go against these forces together. ifhink what you would need one was going with a true

presence from the outside, you would have to make a judgment that a true presence would do more good than harm. it would create more confidence -- to have that confidence the shoulders on the government side and a moderate on the other side will have to believe that those troops will protect them if they get attacked. if you look at you in peacekeeping missions over the first part of the meeting, that is not always the case. that theyt a role play goalie, even if it is part of the mandate. then you can look at original force and would still ask our contributors ready to invest themselves in enforcing this agreement? is that something some of our allies would be a part of? the only caution i would give in terms of the regional force, and he can all of the costs and benefits have to be thought through, on the one hand you

have the language and the cultural affinities -- in the case of many of the regional players they have been stakeholders in this conflict. the idea they would be then seen as impartial. finding a confidence building afoulism that doesn't run -- they seem to be a party to the conflict. they would be willing to put their troops in harms way on behalf of this agreement will be one of the challenges we have to think through if the party is deemed an outside force. >> i don't see how you can avoid it. i just think the recommendation coefficient will be historically high -- recrimination coefficient is going to be historically high. the bitterness, the acrimony is so great on both sides and won't settle for decades. we need some mechanism to intervene that allows for a. reconciliation and

healing. i think in the absence of a very well thought out plan that is beether, i think it should the together sooner rather than later as a concept. it could moving to assuage the concerns that all parties will have. to see that the removal of assad does not lead to a repetition syndrome breaking out. a different cycle could seek to against thosee that they had grievances against. i think as soon as we think that put in, and what we will there, i think the better the conversation we can have to give some assurance is to be more responsible parties. the death toll is in just going to continue to mount.

moving assad is just one step. i think the next -- it has to be accompanied by a set of guarantees that there will not just the match -- mass carnage afterwards. thank you so much. being with us.r i can see that we're getting close to the end. i do want to change for a moment the conversation. , do your colleagues at the united nations think that somehow congress, and the american people, do not want to defeat isis? >> i don't think they would have that impression. are puzzledis they as to why the can't come up with an authorization. >> puzzled by the fact that the administration is told us over and over again here at this committee, secretary kerry, secretary carter, the white house sending over notes that

they have all the authority they need to continue the fight against terrorism that was authorized in 2001? is that confusing? if i may, i was not speaking to the legal authority question. thedy questioned whether united states has the authority to carry out the campaign. the question is as a political symbol, and as reinforcement of the effort we are making, this should be an ability to get a consensus. >> there is consensus. >> my response was -- if there is a game being played and it is difficult we do understand. on the one hand, witness after witness comes up here and tells us they have all the authorities they need to. then people like you and others come up and talk about how it -- i guess i don't

get it. i voted for an authorization in 2013 to help craft this. from this.way certainly, this committee is willing to take up tough issues when a declaration of war is occurring. and as the president declared war on isis? has he declared war on isis? has he laid out a strategy, publicly, to defeat isis? i want to say, i'm sorry this has been occurring recently especially over the last two weeks. i'm having difficulty understanding when i agree with the administration. they have every authority that they need to defeat and destroy isis. is up, maybewhat the person is receiving criticism and is trying to to congress somehow. i don't know what is occurring. all i can say, i am in full

agreement with the administration that the 01 authorization gives him the authority to do everything they can possibly wants to do to destroy isis. i believe that everyone in the world understands that congress wants to see that happen. let me be clear. the president himself has made clear that he has the authority to prosecute this campaign effectively. i was responding to senator number ofmment that a the other countries in the coalition have gone through a domestic legislative process of late. >> they did not have the authorities, the correct? >> i was after you case-by-case and i'm not familiar with the domestic -- i think in parliamentary systems and go through the exercises they have gone through. this is the reason that the question is a little bit more in

the air that it has been over the last six months. >> i think it is in the air for -- >> the president has said he has the authority he needs. there is no resurrecting this issue for any other reason. >> you agree 100% the president has the authority. has he declared war on isis, by the way? >> esa we will defeat and distresses. >> i thank you for being here today, we respect the job that you have. very bright and intelligent, sometimes i take issue with you when i feel like -- and carrying too much understand sometimes you feel compelled to do so. you takeou well as demonstrative action against 1949 being violated over the next couple of weeks. on the next what you do

journal, of the weekly standard discusses how the republican party is responding to donald trump's candidacy for president and other developments from the campaign trail. from the pewfry research center talks about the american middle class shrinking to a point rate no longer represented the majority of the adult population. and theater of war founder discussing unique methods for helping combat veterans cope with the psychological effects of war. plus, we will take her calls and look for your comments on facebook and twitter. washington journal is live every day. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> she was such an authentic person. i would suck it was part of the story that no one had covered. became i think the first

modern first lady. in -- an big staff and important project. two of the book as soon as she left the white house. she really invented the modern first lady. >> tonight, historian betty boyd discusses her book lady bird and linden, she incorporates recently released pages of the first lady's diary giving in and into her andht lyndon johnson. >> she's a perfect example of the women who felt something in those men, the ambition, the opportunity to really climb and make a mark in the world, and married them in spite of parental objections. she is a good example of that. that is why i decided i had to find out more about her. >> tonight, at 8:00 and he spent q&a.

c-span takes you on the road to the white house, and into the classroom. this year our student cam documentary contest asked students to tell us what issues they want to hear from the presidential candidates. follow c-span's road to the white house coverage and get all the details about our student cam contested a c-span.org. >> congress is in the process of reviewing the visa waiver program which currently allow citizens for more than 30 countries to visit to the west that a visa if their stay is less than three months. a recent homeland security meeting they heard from the former director and other government officials.

>> i was told we wanted to start this at 11:00, we had the vote at 10:45. a lot of senators want to come here and hear what you have to say. i appreciate we were able to set this up as a roundtable. administration officials and people from the outside sitting together to have a good discussion of this. this will be a free-flowing discussion, rather than structured, seven minutes per senator. when we are on a topic i encourage my colleagues to jump in so it is not disjointed. we have obviously got four witnesses here. miss kelly -- >> barisi. >> there you go. >> ms. barisi is the deputy assistant secretary of the office of policy and the department of homeland security.