mr. secretary on the first of december congressman asked general dunford, have we currently contained isil, general dunford, we have not contained isil. mr. secretary, do you agree with general dunford? >> i agree with what general dunford said, yes. >> so if we have not -- we have not contained isil, how are we to know -- believe that we are succeeding against isil? >> i think that we are building momentum against isil, i'm going to be very careful about describing, describe it had trajectory of that success all around iraq and syria. some actions we're taking in libya. it's not my principal responsibility but i met with director of the fbi t director of national intelligence and other initials to talk about what we could do more to strengthen the defense of the home lan as the department of defense, but as our principal responsibility, i described the action that is we have taken and i think they are building momentum. >> thank you, how long do you think it'll be before we take mosul and raqaa? >> it's hard to say because it depends on the iraqi security forces in building themselves into a more capable combat force. with respect to ra

mr. chairman. >> thank the gentlelady. mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i know you're aware of the fact that there have been allegations that intelligence officials at sent couple have secured findings on the isis war to please their superiors and to please those in washington. i'm holding a daily beast article from november 23rd. it says analysts accused sent couple of covering up sent couple intelligence. and inspector general is looking into sent couple's perhaps cooking the intelligence to make the picture more rosy than what is occurring. and goes on to have a concern that in fact, e-mails and documents may have been deleted before they were turned over to investigators concerning the sent com. the chairman of the intelligence committee said to the inspector general a letter about those documents having been deleted. now, i have also attended the classified portions of briefings of this committee. and you said you can only go so far into this hearing. some of this -- i can only tell you what's unclassified. but you say we are gathering momentum on t

mr. jones. >> mr. chairman take young mr. secretary and general dunford thank you so much for being here today and your leadership. i have listened to your testimony and i read in the papers and classified briefings you all have got an unbelievable complex task on behalf of the american people and certainly our military. thank you. a few of us when mr. boehner was the speaker asked for a debate on the floor of the house for a new aumf. in fact while he was still speaker of the house he related to the president that you need to send us aumf which president obama did in february of this year, 2015. since becoming the new speaker of the house, 22 republicans and democrats wrote to mr. ryan and i want to read one sentence. we wrote this on november the sixth. taken altogether, these represent a significant escalation of united states military operations in the region and placing u.s. military personnel must write lines of combat operations. we hear from the senate and they say we need to put boots on the ground. we continue to not need our

mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary and general selva for being here. mr. secretary, you noted in your testimony that russia which is publicly committed to defeating isil has instead largely attacked opposition forces, it is that it's time for russia to focus on the right side of this fight. what's it going to take to have russia turned its attention to fighting isil rather than popping up assad? >> i can't speak for the russians but have spoken to the russians, and i have explained to them why their actions are wrongheaded and counterproductive, even from the point of view of their own security. because it fuels the civil war in syria, which we discussed, which is the underlying cause of the radicalization vicky pryce to isil which is that everything they fear. so their actions are, the phrase i've used is pouring gasoline on the civil war in syria student i'm sorry, mr. secretary. so is russiaville, indiana, in the discussions with those with secretary kerry and some of the other parties that need to be at the table in ending the civil war in syria? are th

mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, and general selva, for being here. mr. ecretary, you noted in your testimony that russia, which has publicly committed to defeating isil, has instead largely attacked opposition forces. and you said it's time for russia to focus on the right side of this fight. what's it going to take to have russia turn its attention to fighting isil rather than propping up assad? >> i can't speak for the russians, but i have spoken to the russians. and i have explained to them why their actions are wrong-headed and counterproductive even from the point of view of their own security. because it fuels the civil war in syria which we've discussed, which is the underlying cause of the radicalization that gave rise to isil, which is the very thing they fear. so, their actions are -- the phrase i use is pouring gasoline on the civil war in syria. >> i'm sorry, mr. secretary. so, is russia fully engaged in the discussions to end -- with us, with secretary kerry and some of the other parties that are -- that need to be at the table in ending the

mr. o'rourke. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary to go back to some comments and questions that you answered earlier. if we are in fact at war, how will we know when we have won? >> the destruction of isil entails their expulsion from any territory they claim to occupy, and their destruction elsewhere around the world, including their various branches and so forth. that's what's needed. >> so as long as isil is in iraq or syria or libya or afghanistan or anywhere else in the world, we will still be at war? >> i believe that in today's world, these threats areg&dvz difficult to confine to one place. and that is the reason why we have to go there and why we have to go to syria and iraq and strike at it and strike at other places where it is. it's in the nation of today's world, mobility among peoples. you see that underlying this. and above all, mobility of information, which can radicalize people who have never gone anywhere except on their keyboard. >> i think it's important, if we are at war, to define in the clearest, most precise

mr. secretary-general of the united nations, mrs. secretary-general of the the u.n., ladies and gentlemen, at the outset i would like to thank his excellency the french president for the kind invitation, hospitality and organization of this conference. i also wish to express my condolences to the leadership and people of france, for the victims of the vicious terrorist attacks in paris, and we regret our strong condemnation of the attacks and the full solidarity of egypt with france in our common fight against all kinds of terrorism. we are facing crucial juncture in our international endeavor as all of our people are watching and hoping that this conference proves to be a turning point in achieving our common goal to secure a better future of humanity, and protect the rights of the next generation by reaching an ambitious, sustainable, balanced and international agreement to face the increasing dangers climate change related challenges. a few months ago we all participate in adopting an international ambitious development agenda on s

mr. miller. mr. miller: mr. secretary, who does it feel like we are at war with? ecretary carter: isil and its accompanying -- and by the way, i don't use this word lightly when i'm talking to the troops involved in it, congressman. that is who feels they are at war -- mr. miller: i understand. who is the enemy. secretary carter: isil and associated groups. miller: have you heard any member of congress say we are at war with muslims? secretary carter: no. mr. miller: what are the president say the gop's rhetoric has become the most potent recruiting tool for the militant group. why do we say that? secretary carter: i can't say. i'm not familiar with that quote . i know what the president has said in the past, which is obviously true, that we this is not islam e that stands behind the islamic state. it is a particular group of very radical extremists, and that is an important distinction to make. i have always heard the president -- i don't even think he uses the word radical extremists. but i think it's pretty disingenuous when he makes this into a football -- a po

mr. sanders: let me just -- let me just -- david: secretary clinton, thank you. mr. sanders: let me just jump in. my name was invoked. [laughter] david: senator? mr. sanders: so with that invocation, let me say a few words. [laughter] secretary clinton, i don't have a super pac. i don't get any money from wall street. you have gotten a whole lot of money over the years from wall street. but most importantly, when you look at what happened in the 1990s, go to berniesanders.com. i'll advertise my web site as well. [laughter] and what you'll find is that i led -- helped lead the effort as a member of the house financial committee against alan greenspan, against a guy named bill clinton, maybe you know him, maybe you don't. [laughter] against the republican leadership, who all thought it would be a great idea to merge investor banks and commercial banks and large insurance companies. what a brilliant idea that would be. go to youtube. find out what i said to greenspan. at the end of the day, if teddy roosevelt were alive today, and the governor makes a good point about trade, anti-trade, anti-monopoly activities. wall street today has too much politica

mr. secretary? mr. carter: tom. >> the general that led this marine corps study said in a joeo to joe denver that -- dunford that opening up roles would mean more casualties for marines. is that statement overblown? i understand what general dunford's concerns was sent women in the experimental units suffered more injuries than men. he was concerned he would lose some hardcharging women marines. mr. carter: both of -- first of all, to the first point, combat effectiveness is the critical criterion in implementation. that the first court out with is something that must be dealt with, and i believe can be dealt with, in implementation. it needs to be taken into account. combat effectiveness is why we are here. with respect to -- i'm sorry, your second point was? >> the concern was some of the women in the experimental battalion -- mr. carter: oh, yeah. >> that you would lose some hardcharging women marines due to injuries. mr. carter: there are a number of studies that indicated that. it doesn't suggest t

mr. chairman, appreciate that. >> mr. secretary, on the first of december, before the house armed services committee, congressman forbes asked general dunford, quote, have we currently contained isil? general dunford, we have not contained isil. mrecretary, do you agree with general dunford? >> i agree with what general dunford said, yes. >> so if we have, we have not contained isil how are we to believe that which are succeeding against isil? >> i think that we are building momentum against isil. i'm going to be very careful about describing the, i have to described the trajectory of that success all around iraq and syria. some actions we're taking in libya. it's not my principle responsibility but i met yesterday with the secretary of homeland security, the director of the fbi, the director of national intelligence and other officials to talk about what we could do more to strengthen the defense of the homeland as the department of defense but in our principle responsibility, which is to take the fight to syria and iraq, i have described the actions that we've taken just -- here last time and i think they are building momentum. >> thank you. how long do you think it will be before we retake mosul or raqqa? >> with respect to m

mr. mr. secretary you mentioned you haven't heard any alternatives.didn't talk about the third alternative. war was never talked about. he talked about this negotiation could we never talked about book about these people to the table in the first place. i noticed the sky and i know how serious the sanctions that hurt them and i think we could have doubled them and talk about that as an alternative that i want to come back to the word naÏve. before you do that but they said they record straight. my colleague from california said this was not bipartisan i take issue with that. this committee unanimously passed a bill, it was an act that gave us a look at this bill. otherwise nobody would know what was in this agreement other than administration so i give you guys full credit for that. but we never got a vote on it. we couldn't even get it to the floor of the senate to have a vote on it. that's what drives my people back home. absolutely apoplectic, i'm sorry but this is wrong with this process. it's all talk. 50-42, four democrats voted to even put on t

mr. chairman. appreciate that. >> mr. secretary, on the 1st of december before the house armed services committee, congressman forbes asked general dunford, quote, have we currently contained isil? general dunford. we have not contained isil. mrary, do you agree with general dunford? >> i agree with what general dunford said, yes. >> so if we have not contained isil, how are we to believe that we are succeeding against isil? >> i think that we are building momentum against isil. i'm going to be very careful about describing -- i've described the trajectory of that success all around iraq and syria. some actions we're taking in libya. it's not my principal responsibility, but i met yesterday with the secretary of homeland security, the director of the fbi, the director of national intelligence and other officials to talk about what we could do more to strengthen the defense of the homeland as the department of defense. but in our principal responsibility, which is to take the fight to syria and iraq, i've described the actions that we've taken just since i appeared last time, and i think they are building momentum. >> thank you. how long do you think it will be before we retake mosul or raqqah? >> with respect to mosul, mr. ch

mr. chairman. appreciate that. >> mr. secretary, on the 1st of december before the house armed services committee, congressman forbes asked general dunford, "have we current will i contained isil?" general dunford -- "we have not contained isil." mree with general dunford? >> i agree with what general dunford said, yes. >> so if we have not contained isil, how are we to believe that we are succeeding against isil? >> i think that we are building momentum against isil. i'm going to be very careful about describing the -- i've described the trajectory of that success all around iraq and syria. some actions we're taking in libya. it's not my principle responsibility but i met yesterday with the secretary of homeland security, the director of the fbi, the director of national intelligence and other officials to talk about what we could do more to strengthen the defense of the homeland as the department of defense. but in our principle responsibility which is to take the fight to syria and iraq i've described the actions that we've taken just since i appeared here last time and i think they are building momentum. >> thank you. how long do you think it will be before we retake mosul or raqqah? >> with respect to mosul, mr. chairman, it

mr. chairman. >> mr. turner. turner: mr. secretary, no you are aware of the fact there have been allegations that intelligence officials at centcom and centcom have skewered findings on the isis word to please washington. i am holding up an article about a cover-up. it says the inspector general is looking into cooking the intelligence to make the picture more rosy than what is occurring. it goes on to have a concern that e-mails and documents may have been diluted before they were turned over to investigators concerning the centcom doctoring. the chairman of the intelligence committee has said to the inspector general -- sent to the inspector general of letter about documents being deleted. i also talked about declassified portions of briefings of this committee, and you said you can only go in so far in this hearing. in your written testimony, i can only tell you what is unclassified. you say we are gathering momentum on the battlefield in syria and iraq. you say all of these efforts have shrunk the isil-controlled territory and bot

mr. president. >> thank you very much, mr. vice minister. it's my privilege now to yield the floor to his excellency, mr. manuel domingo augusto, secretaryf state for relations of angola. >> thank you. we thank the united states' secretary of state mr. john kerry for presiding over in this important meeting. we also welcome the adoption of this landmark resolution. which delineates the process which will bring about the end of the syrian crisis. it is a step forward by pledging to support the ceasefire in syria. we encourage all parties to abide by its provisions in order to successfully lead to the transition, insuring that the continuity of governmental institutions as well as -- territorial integrity of syria. we ask all parties in syria as well as the international community to maintain the focus and commitment to principles stipulated in this resolution and in geneva communique. mr. president, conflict in syria became one of the most appalling situations con fronting the international -- confronting the international community. with the violation of political and humanitarian and economic -- the security council has addressed this o

mr. chairman. thank you mr. secretary and general for being here. mr. secretary you noted in your testimony that russia, which has publicly committed to defeating isil, has instead largely attacked opposition forces. and you said it's time for russia to focus on the right side of this fight. what's it going to take to have russia turn its attention to fighting isil rather than propping up assad? >> i can't speak for the russians. but i have spoken to the russians. i have explained to them why their actions are wrong headed and counter productive even from the point of view of their own security. because it fuels the civil war in syria which we have discussed which is the underlying cause of the radicalization that gave rise to isil which is the very thing they fear. so their actions are, as the phrase i've used, is pouring gasoline on the civil war in syria. >> i'm sorry mr. secretary. so is russia fully engaged in the discussions to end the -- kerry , with secretary and some of the other parties that are -- that need to be at the table in ending the civ

mr. secretary -- is a working? mr. secretary-general, thank you for the this press conference and thanks again to you. my colleagues and i am wishing you and your family a happy new year. your press conference is a very important for us and for the 2016 were asking if the excellent practice -- once a month can be translated? and finally my question on north korea. a few weeks ago, a few weeks ago who was news that you ready to land and challenging for an historic visit but suddenly everything was put on hold another preparation, looks almost radioactive. could you please tell us what the situation is? thank you. -- pyongyang. >> i have been consistently told you that i am ready to provide my roll as secretary-general, whatever they take for peace and stability, contribution on the korean peninsula. i have, that condition unchanged. as i stated under discussions with the authorities of dprk, i sincerely hope that we will be able to find a mutually convenient space as soon as possible and this is what i can tell you at th

mr. chairman and mr. secretary. i have a lot of the same concerns as my colleagues with operation enduring freedom within the southern watching an iraqi freedom. i would like to follow-up on this question about the drivers of the tracts in the leaflets dropped by a salmon tells them how to surrender? >> the first round. >> first of all, the doctor in the front in the back of a column considers you don't get away you will be bombed. that was the message. >> so there was no effort to capture the truck drivers or to get intelligence? >> we don't have forces on the ground. >> is that a problem? >> if you want to capture them someone has to be on the ground. >> is that a problem that we don't? >> the lack of human intelligence inhibits the campaign for scheerer. >> is that part of what we do going forward? i adjusted to read on this issue hominy combatants have recaptured? >> i have to get back to you. >> is that not a critical part? >> it is for a bottle have a number. >> a couple hundred? a couple thousand? from a handful. >> i will get back to we have not been involved in combat operations severe not in a position to capture isil. >> one of the reasons for targeting for says precisely to get intelligence but one person recaptured was the wife. >> where she now? commission is detained. >> by whom? to read the government of iraq. >> of course, so what intelligence to be get from that? american one dash considerable. >> does that not demonstrate the value? >> it does. >> so we start capturing them? period one of the reasons is precisely for that and it will be a valuable source of intelligence. and it is critical with the deployment of air power with forces to enable on the ground. >> how long did we know about them before we destroy them? "the new york times" is reporting actually the treasury department reported $10 million to fund isis? how long did we know before we did anything? >> we knew there were oil trucks from the beginning of course, what we could not do is distinguish of there being directly used to finance isil now we have the intelligence to do that now we can isolate and target them we may change our tactics. >> that truckdriver that ran away because he told them to where are they now? are they now farmers? this is critically important we're trying to win a war. >> how was that essentials? >> the idea is you believe they did not know their rand paul to fund isis? ltd. they didn't before. >> a new in their enemy combatants? >> chairman explained that they are people who are making a buck so we gave them every opportunity to survive. >> i am astonished we need to learn more why we did not destroy the trucks along time ago why we drop leaflets to tell them to run away with it is astonishing if we're trying to win. >> they give four years' service and dedication. i am somewhat concerned about putting forces on the ground that whenever ripa forces on the ground we want to make sure we have adequate support with particular medevac my experience in northern iraq you cannot rely on air all the time so the ground crew with armor is a good idea. day you concur that having a sufficient force package would incorporate in theater for security? >> so then we looked at the threats. so emerging china and russia? >> where would you rather than stack global warming with the list? >> i think that strategy of geography you mentioned china and russia and have the privilege of speaking before the conference with that nuclear deterrence has been raised and tarascan of global warming or climate change because of those military conditions to be a department that looks ahead. so how that will change the operations. >> the immelt threat to the 5-meter threat the most emerging threat facing us today is isis and al qaeda and the nine nations to a terrorist activity. >> mr chairman think fee-for-service by greatly appreciated. god bless. >> much more we can talk about you have been patient thank you for answering our questions and next time i will suggest we start on the bottom two rows because setting some of the best questions come from the more junior members. recharger and. -- we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] moi [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] events dictate that the president rams things up somewhat but never enough to make a difference. nizolek is responding to events we're always a step behind. i have a lot of confidence in these guys but the other thing as was very explicit the u.n. to go from 320-0500 up at 320-0520 iraqi have to get the president's approval so as i mentioned the micromanagement on the military continues to be very concerning. >> are these changes indicative? >> no. i didn't say that they have a free and but the idea that you sent folks in there to help target air strikes that is a change the pre

mr. franks. >> thank you mr. chairman and i think both of you for being here. mr. carter or secretary carter i remember that you and i had a conversation here many months ago related to the and the peshmerga efforts and to your credit i think he strongly agreed that they had stood out as an effective force against isis paid one of the peshmerga peshmerga -- voiced a hopeful view and the fighting -- defeating isis. he said for the last 15 months as i have been fighting dyess i have never seen them so weak they are literally running way and that as you know is probably the general's efforts to improve the morale of the soldiers and keep going but it is clear that they have done a marvelous job and therefore isis brings a paris or in ankara or beirut like a tax united states i think it's very important that we really get on the ball here -- you know this administration, ambassadors and secretaries, they pushed back quite a lot related to the amendment this committee passed to directly arm and support the and there's a tremendous amount of pushback and assistance to that. i quite honestly

mr. chairman, appreciate that. >> mr. secretary, on the first of december before the house arms services committee congressman forbes asked general dunford "have we currently contained isil?" general dunford, "we have not contained isil." mr. secretary, do you agree with general dunford? >> i agree with what general dunford said, yes. >> so if we have not contained isil, how are we to know -- believe that we are succeeding against isil? >> i think that we are building momentum against isil. i'm going to be very careful about describing the -- i have described the trajectory of that success all around iraq and syria. some actions we're taking in libya. it's not my principal responsibility but i met with the secretary of homeland security, the director of the fbi, the director of national intelligence and other officials to talk about what we could do more to strengthen the defense of the homeland as the department of defense but in our principal responsibility, which is to take the fight to syria and iraq, i've described the actions we've taken since i appeared last time and i think they are building momentum. >> thank you, how long do you think it will be -- >>> you can see all of defense secretary ashton carter's testimo

mr. secretary -- is it working? >> yeah. >> okay. mr. cretary-general, thank you for this press conference and thanks again to you and madam ban for attending -- monday night. we are wishing you a happy new year. your press conference is a very important tool for us and for the 2016 we are asking if the excellent practice of having you in this room for 30 minutes once a month can be reinstated. and finally my question on north korea. a few weeks ago -- a few weeks ago there was news you were ready to land in pyongyang for an historic visit, but suddenly everything was put on hold and now the preparation of the trip looks almost radioactive. could you please tell us what the situation is, if the trip will ever take place? thank you. >> i have been consistently told you that i'm ready to provide my role as secretary-general wherever it may take for peace and stability on the korean peninsula. i have that conviction unchanged. still under discussions with the authorities of dprk. i sincerely hope that we will be able to find the mutually con

mr. indyk: mr. secretary, as you head off to paris again, i think i can speak for everybody here. , andsh you god's speed thank you for all that you do. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [indistinct chatter] [indistinct chatter] [indistinct chatter] president obama addresses the nation tonight from the oval office. he is expected to talk about the ongoing investigation into the shootings in san bernardino, california, as well as steps the u.s. is taking to counterterrorist threat. attorney general loretta lynch was asked what to expect from the president's speech. >> the president understands that the country is very concerned about this issue. and i think what you will hear from him is a discussion about what the government is doing to protect the american people. i think you will talk about the steps the u.s. has taken to keep the american people safe. you may hear him call on congress to take action as well. i think he will call on the american people to pull out the best in themselves and not give into peer at this time. >> is this time for a gun-control conversation? >> we are in the middle of that conversation. we always are. we are talking about this terrible san bernardino shooting now. a week ago, we were talking about planned parenthood in colorado. , or a gun problem violence problem? isi think dealing with guns one way to handle the violent crime issues we have in this country. announcer: we will bring you the president's address to the nation live tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. we will follow with your calls and reaction on facebook and twitter. right now, we are asking what you want to hear from the president tonight. go to facebook.com/c-span and leave a comment. or you can send us a tweet using the twitter handle @cspan. persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states, give their attention. announcer: monday on c-span's "landmark cases," we will look at baker versus carr. it rolled federal courts could intercede in disputes in the drawing of election districts. enn called it the most important during his time. >> they live and five of the largest cities in tennessee. they are the actual victims of a statutory scheme, which devalues, reduces their right to 1/20 the value. announcer: population shifts in states like tennessee had a majority of voters from rural areas move into the cities, yet those world districts held voting power equal to the larger urban districts. so a group of voters from nasa, memphis, and knoxville challenged the disparity and took their case all the way to the supreme court. it became a major milestone in supreme court activism and has continuing relevance today. joining us in the discussion, theodore olson and douglas smith. that is live monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span and c-span radio. case,ckground on each order your copy of "landmark cases" companion book at c-span.org/landmarkcases. a marble bust of former vice president dick cheney was in bill this past week at the u.s. capitol. the ceremony included remarks from the former vice president, as well as former president george w. bush, joe biden, and several lawmakers. this is one hour. >> -- on rules and administration, roy blunt. senate president pro tempore, orrin hatch --. speaker of the house of representatives, paul ryan. president, george w. bush. and vice president, dick cheney. [applause] [applause] [indistinct chatter] >> ladies and gentlemen, please stand for the presentation of the colors by the united states armed forces color guard, the singing of our national anthem, and the retiring of our colors. >> ♪ >> halt. >> ♪ o say can you see ♪ by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight over the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming and the rockets' red glare the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there star-spangledt banner yet wave the land of the free and the home of the brave ♪ >> halt. forward. >> ♪ gentlemen, please stand as the chaplain of the united states senate, dr. black, gives the invitation. -- invocation. >> let us pray. refuge and, our strength, as we begin this unveiling ceremony of the marble bust of vice president take cheney, -- dick cheney, we thank you for his service to you and country. remembering the many years he labored in the political arena. we are grateful for your gifts of people who are passionate about keeping this nation strong. keep viceo bless and president cheney and his loved inspirationreceive from his contributions. ,emind us that with your power we are strong enough to overcome the difficulties that trouble our nation and world. lord, strengthen our commitment to you and country by turning our thoughts towards hope, our hearts towards justice, and our hands towards works of peace. name.y in your cyber amen. >> please, be seated. >> ladies and gentlemen, the chairman of the senate committee on rules and administration, the honorable roy blonde. >> welcome this morning. it is a great opportunity for us to be here and be part of this presentation of welcoming vice president cheney officially to the capitol as part of the collection that the senate started in 1885. 130 years ago, the senate decided it would be appropriate to recognize the vice in his job as president of the senate. certainly we get to recognize spent a lot of time in the senate as vice president and before, the 46th vice president of the united states, dick cheney. impact on theheir country is an important part of history. as we celebrate the event today, -- we get a chance to welcome the former members of the house and senate, some of whom you will hear from, former members of the cabinet, justice scalia, and of course by president bush and vice president biden. asare particularly pleased the vice president is to be here with his family. it is an important part of his great partner, mrsshe has been a partner in so many other things. she has written great children's history and adult history. a wonderful book, speaker ryan, on speakers of the house, when , ands serving in the house lucky to have her come last year and visit about groundbreaking book on james madison. a member ofeney was the house, i remember him telling me that he and others founded the dennis thatcher society. mrs. cheney was the chairman of the national endowment for humanities. they thought they should band together and see what it was like to have a spouse with a more powerful job than they had. they have been great partners and when mrs. cheney said she captured theam had character of the vice president, whom she and the vice president got to see the bus for the first time, that was probably the most important indication that anything -- everything was going to work out all right. we also have members of their family here with us today. this is the second bust he has done, part of the vice presid

mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentlemen. now recognize the gentlemen from mr. south carolina, mr. gowdy, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. bersin, secretary johnson is quoted as saying that there were legal limits on his ability to do some background investigations. i think that was a really unfortunate phrase that he used, but let's you and i see if we can kind of demystify that a little bit. do you agree that noncitizens who are not in the united states are not afforded any protections under the fourth amendment? >> that's my understanding, mr. gowdy. >> well, you're a u.s. attorney. you're being modest. not only is that your understanding, it's also the law. the fourth amendment does not apply to non-u.s. citizens who are not here anymore the eighth amendment applies to u.s. citizens who are not here. would you agree with me that there is no legal bar to accessing data from noncitizens who are not present in the united states? >> absent a treaty to the contrary, that's my understanding, sir. >> would you also agree with me that there is no legal right to immigrate to the united states? it's a privilege that we confer on people, but it

of item two on the agenda, and i am pleased to give the floor to the secretary general, excellency mr. ban ki-moon. >> thank you, i'm mr. president of excellency mr. ban ki-moon secretary of the united states of ministers, excellences president of the financial action task force atf thank you gentleman. mr. president let me thank you by thank hadding the government of the united states of the leadership in convening this historic meeting of ministers. i salute your decision to focus on encountering the financing of terrorism. as other terrorist groups disseminate hate for propaganda, and murderous attacks, we must join forces to prevent them from deploying resources to the further. we know the challenges that are before us. the terrorist take advantage in financial an regulate begins to raise funds. they circumvent to have detection and exploit technology and to refer resources they have links with the criminals. and they abuse to take individuals. they are adjoined and are attaining resources for their hain use acts to the earth we have made progress in identifying limiting efforts of terrorist financing in many cases

mr. secretary general of the united nations, mrs. secretary general of the u.n., ladies and gentlemen, at the outset i would like to thank his excellency the french president for the kind invitation, hospitality and organization of this conference. i also wish to express my condolences to the leadership and people of france for the victims of the vicious terrorist attacks in paris and we reiterate our strong condemnation of these attacks and the full solidarity of egypt with france in our common fight against all kinds of terrorism. we are facing crucial juncture in our international endeavor as all of our peoples are watching and hoping that this conference proves to be a turning point in achieving our common goal to security the future of humanity and protect the rights of the next generations by reaching an ambitious sustainable balanced and international agreement to face the increasingly dangerous climate change related challenges. a few months ago, we all participated in adopting an international ambitious agenda. the effort has

mr. president. >> thank you, mr. secretary general -- >> our correspondent james bays. james. >> reporter: yes, julie. there john kerry making a few more comments before big moment, the vote. this resolution was only circulated to 10 members of the security council after its very late negotiation. is now going to be voted on. that was about two hours from now. so at this point it's where we will get all of the 15 members asked to vote, raise their hands, let's listen to the vote. >> to vote now. will those in favor of the draft resolution contained in document s-2015-996, please raise their hand. the result of the voting is clear, it is the draft resolution has received 15 votes in favor. and therefore the draft resolution has been adopted unanimously as resolution 22-54 of 22 -- of 2015. i will now make a -- >> reporter: so a you nas plus vote and now each of the countries did he had to say their thing, the first statement will be from john kerry himself on behalf of the u.s. >> distinguished colleagues, i want to begin by thanking the other p4 members, who joined together to help fashion this resolution. and who spent time this morning working with our colleagues in order to bring us here this afternoon. plus our nonp4 member germany for whom we are very grateful for their participation also. i want to thank all the members of the council for coming together at this late hour. and i thank you in particular second general ban for your leadership and commitment. i also want to thank foreign minister lavrov for his collaboration and his efforts over the course of both vienna conferences to produce the two vienna communiques that are integrated in to this resolution here today. by approving resolution 2254 today, this council is sending a clear message to all concerned, that the time is now to stop the killing in syria and lay the groundwork for a government that the long-suffering people that that battered land can support. after your 1/2 years of war, this is the first time that we have been able to come together at the united nations in the security council to embrace a road forward. during that time one syrian in 20 has been killed or wounds. one in five is a re refugees. one in two has been displaced. the average life expectancy in syria has dropped by 20 years. we need to reverse the course. and that is the council's goal here this afternoon. to put an end to the indies crit natural bombing, the act of terror, the torture and the bloodshed. and our shared task is to find a way to make this happen. in support of this objective, president obama has set for my country three interrelated goals. the first is to support our friends and to insure that the instability created by the civil war in syria does not spread further beyond its borders. that is why we are providing a record amount of humanitarian assistance. and it's why we are doing more to help syria's neighbors to strengthen their capacity to safeguard their territory and to defend against external threats. second, we are determined with our coalitional partners to degrade and defeat the terrorist organization known as daesh. in the past half year the coalition and its partners have worked with iraqi forces in liberating tikrit, free sinjar, removing terrorist commanders from the battlefield. cutting off terrorist supply lines, hitting their oil facilities. and depriving daesh of more and more of the territory that it once controlled. now we are intensifying the pressure. helping our iraqi partners recipients take most of ramadi to squeeze supply routes in to mosul and we are pushing ahead in to northern syria. assisting our partners along the iraqi-syrian border, and on the recruiting and propaganda efforts. further, as evidenced by the finance minister yell that was held right here in this very chamber yesterday. we are multi flying our effort to his cut daesh off from the revenue source that his support its did he paragraph a depravitl natural. but the truth is nothing would do more to bolster the fight against the terrorist than a broadly support diplomatic process that gives the syrian people a real choice, not a choice between assad sad and daesh but between war and peace violent extremes and the newly empowered political center. that's why we have joined with so many of you in support of an urgent diplomatic initiative. again and again, country i red sox not just around this meeting today. but countless meetings in various parts of the world have reaffirmed the notion that there has to be a political settlement. this is the test, this is why we have joined here in a broader more action oriented effort to isolate terrorists and put syria on the road to a political transition envisions by the geneva communique, now embraced by the international community and the united nations security council resolution. as the council's action today reflects, we have made important progress in recent weeks. and progress that should give us all fresh grounds for encouragement. last month in vienna, the united states and other members of the international syria support group, agreed on a series of steps to stop the bleeding in syria. to advance a political transition. to isolate the terrorists. and to help the syrian people to be able to begin to rebuild their country. last week in riyadh, with the support of his majesty king salmon and his government. a broad cross-section of syrian opposition representatives came together to form a high committee for negotiation. under the resolution approved today, the purpose of those negotiations between the responsible opposition and the government is to facilitate a transition within syria to a credible, inclusive, nonsectarian governance within six months. the process would lead to the drafting of a new constitution and arrangements for internationally supervised election within 18 months. i might add, geneva never had those dates. it is the vienna process and the vienna communique that is produced a 6-month and 18-month time horizon. and it's the vienna process that also has embraced the ceasefire concept as well as embraced a set of principles and values about the shape that a new syria might be able to take as directed by syrians for syrians. it's our hope that a nationwide ceasefire can go in to effect excluding only daesh and al-nusra and any other group that we might decide at some point to designate. so i would close by saying we are under no illusions about the obstacles that exist. they are -- there or obviously remain sharp differences within the international community, especially about the future of president assad. we have emphasized from the beginning that for this to work, the process has to be led and shaped and decided and implemented by the men and women of syria. it cannot be imposed from the outside and we are not seeking to do so. but we have also seen in recent weeks in vienna, paris and other capitals and then today here in new york, an unprecedented degree of unity on the need to negotiate this political transition. to defeat daesh. and then indeed to end the war. the resolution that we just approved is a milestone. because it sets out specific concepts, with specific time frames. accordingly, we need to work hard together to help these political talks to go forward, to prepare for a ceasefire, and to encourage all of the parties in syria to participate in good faith. in closing, lets me just underscore the urgency of our task. like many of you, i have met with refugees in and out of refugees camps, i have met with survivors as you have, met with caregivers as you have, met with many of the people who have been on the frontlines of this conflict. i have talked to women who have struggled to hold their families together, despite constant danger, bitter cold, shortages of food and great danger. i have heard the blood chilling stories of doctors and relief workers who have been dealing with humanitarian trauma on a daily basis month after month, year after year. now in to the fifth year. i am aware as everybody in this chamber is of the atrocities that have been committed. and are being committed even as we sit here this afternoon. and being committed too often against innocent civilians. looking ahead we know that daesh can never be allowed to gain control in syria. so we have a global imperative here to deal with a terrorist entity, but also to end the civil war. and to bring legitimacy back to the govern's of syria. president assad, in our judgment, and not everybody shares this, but the majority of the people in the i.s.s.g. believe that president assad has lost the ability, the credibility to be able to unite the country and to be able to provide the moral ability to govern it in to the future i say not as a matter ideology, not as a matter of choice but purely as a matter of reality, as a matter are fact given the situation on the ground, that if the war is to end, it is imperative that the syrian people agree on an alternative in terms of their governance. that logic is compelling and it provides a unifying principle for most of the people in our efforts going forward. we have a lot of distance to travel. some would say miles to go. but the truth is, that in the past two months, we have started from a standstill, from a nonexistent process to have three separate meetings of the i.s.s.g. and now united nations security council embrace of a process. we have agreed on a plan of action. and the council's vote today is an important boost on the road to a political settlement. it is a particularly important step because it reaffirms this body's endorsement of the geneva communique about the transitional governing body with full executive authority. and it also endorses the progress and the statements that we made in vienna to set a timeline, a timeline from for transition aircraft timeline no election, and standards for that election. the eye ohio' highest standardse supervision of the council. it also brings principal that his can guide the shaping of syrians, for syrians, so let us proceed with confidence from here and the determination to end this war, eliminate the terrorist threat and enable to the people of syria to return safely to their homes. i now resume by function as president of the council. and i give the floor to his excellency, mr lavrov, minister of foreign owe fairs of the russian federation. >> translator: colleagues, first and foremost, i would like to thank john kerry for his initiative to conduct today in new york the third meeting of the i.s. s.g. this has been a time to meet in this room. the meeting of the i.s.s.g. underscored the commitment of all of the participants to the vienna process. the resolution just adapted. approved the 14 november 2013 agreement that spoke of a way to implement the geneva communique from 30 june, 2012. here it's clearly set forth, first and foremost that all three documents are a single platform for resolving the bloody syrian crisis. secondly, that the vienna format is the only one which will bring together all influential foreign players to insure a contest for sustainable and fair settlement through talks between the government of the syrian republic and the whole span of the opposition. the resolution provides an international law weight to collective work for such neg

mrs. clinton. dear secretary clinton. dear mrs. clinton. i'm 9 years old.'m excited that you have the chance to become the first woman president. from george washington to obama it's ridiculous there has never been a female president before. kennedy: 44 boys is just too many. will this ad capture the elementary school voting bloc? that's actually not bueno. girls are bad at math. that's not a surprise. >> but she ran against obama. of course, it's too many for her. >> it many silly we are pulling the girls out and i think it's politically unwise as well. kennedy: isn't it great watching a politician exploit children? >> it calls to mind for me the stadium of north korean children singing to their leader. this idea of kids being -- moreover it's the implication that hillary is going to end killing with guns which is something one of the little girls would see. she is not going to end killing with guns and her being a lady has nothing to do with it. kennedy: we are learning she had a cozy relationship with senator lyndsey graham. richard, if you were herred a

mr. chairman, thank you, mr. secretary and thank you general for being here. i want to echo -- i have the same concerns as my colleague ms. mcsally and i was involved in the war in iraq from the beginning, operation enduring freedom, that was, of course, in afghanistan then southern watch, iraqi freedom, shock and awe, all those things. i'd like to follow up on this question about the drivers of these trucks and the leaflets that were dropped. i presumed the leaflets told them how to surrender, is that correct? . those were the leaflets that we dropped in iraq the first time around. >> the leaflets -- first of all, we did a couple things. we dropped ordnance in the front of a column and the back and then dropped leaflets that said if you don't get away from your vehicle you're going to be bombed so that was the message that was sent. >> so there was no effort to capture the truck drivers or get any kind of intelligence from their operations? >> we don't have any forces on the ground that could capture those truck drivers. >> is that a problem? >> well, if you want to capture -- congressman, i'm not trying to be flip but if you want to capture them you would have to have someone on the ground to capture them and we don't. >> is it a problem we don't have somebody on the ground to capture them? >> the lack of human intelligence inhibits our campaign, for sure. >> i can't imagine. so is that going to be part of what we do going forward is -- let me ask this because i'm ignorant on this issue, how many isis combatants have we captured? >> i'd have to get back to you, congressman. >> is that not a very critical part of trying to win this war? >> it is. but i don't have a number -- >> can you give me annest senate a couple hundred, couple thousand? >> probably a hand. one two? >> a handful. >> a handful. so five or less. >> i'd like to get back to you, congressman, to talk about that. we have not been involved in combat operations, we, the united states, so we haven't been in a position to capture isil. >> now on these -- >> can i add something to that. one of the reasons for the expeditionary targeting as far as precisely to gain intelligence and one of the ways you do that is by capturing people and i can tell you one person we captured, that is the wife of abu saayef. >> and where is she now? >> being detained? >> by the government of iraq. >> of course. we have got considerable intelligence. >> does not value the demonstrate of human intelligence? >> of course it does. >> are we going to start capturing these folks? >> i just said one of the reasons for the targeting force is precisely that. that's what i said earlier and it will be a very valuable source of intelligence and as the chairman said, that is critical to effective employment of air power, to the effective identification of forces that we can enable on the ground. >> let me ask you this -- how long did we know about them before we destroyed them? because the "new york times" was reporting -- actually it was the treasury department, i believe that reported $10 million a month to fund isis through these smuggling of oil operations? is that correct? $10 million a month? how long did we know that these strucks were being used to fund isis before we did anything about it? >> we knew there were oil trucks in iraq from the beginning, of course. what we could not do is distinguish those that were being directly used to finance isil. we now have the intelligence to do that which allows us to effectively isolate them and target them. that's what we're trying to do. we're using the tactic and we may change our tactic. >> so let me ask you, the truck drivers that ran away, mr. secretary, the truck drivers that ran away because we told them to run away, where are they now? are they now farmers in syria? i'm just asking the question. this is critically important to trying to win a war which you're telling us we're trying to do. >> i'm sorry, i'm not understanding why knowing what the truck drivers are doing now is essential to knowing how to win the war. >> so the idea is that you believe these people did not know that they were involved in funding isis. that's what you're telling us? >> well, if they didn't realize it before -- >> so they knew they were funding isis and they're not enemy combatants? . can you explain that? >> i think the chairman already did. these are people who are making a buck so we gave them every opportunity to survive the strike. >> mr. chairman, i'm astonished. we need to learn more about why we didn't destroy these trucks a long time ago, where the enemy combatants are now, why we are dropping leaflets telling them to run away and

mr. chairman, if i can get a commitment from you, you, mr. secretary, on continuing to work with my team to implement what you've already committed to me. we can't wait. >> absolutely. >> the idea of you guys pushing this back. remember, commitment was right here. mid-november. it was all going to be done. it's not done. >> yep. i know the deputy secretary and i have spoken about this. he has committed to it. the secretary's committed to it. he was also in alaska, as you remember. he absolutely understands what you're talking about. you have never deviated from this. we're not deviating from it. it is taking longer. but that's why our staff in alaska are doing what they can to help veterans right now. it's not enough. and you're still hearing the comments. we're going to stick with it. i don't want to be giving excuses. i only want to fix the problem in alaska. we're going to stick at it. >> okay, all right, thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i just want to observe that this time dialogue is exactly where this committee is for, for us to work with the administration and with the department to come together and solve solutions in alaska and montana and georgia and washington state. i appreciate your active engagement. i think we had on the kansas issue earlier and the alaska issue now, i think we found some meaningful common ground and where we need to do better. i'm going to recognize the senator in one second and then senator tillis. i'm going to have to leave for about 20 minutes. i want to relinquish the gavel. i will return later on. i just wanted to make you aware of that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of you for being here today. the proposal gets implemented and this i guess is for you, sloan. do you see an increase in the overall ratio ofz2e veterans be referred to non-va care? >> i think it's highly unlikely there will be. from looking where we are right this instant, you know, we s

mr. chairman, with that, i yield back. feel free to elaborate in writing. >> it is not a technical thing. it is a descriptive. >> mr. chairman, in all due respect to the secretary, the word war is not just some light term. when we war, it is a technical word and it needs to be used very, very carefully. i think whether we use it in this committee or elsewhere. with that i yield back. >> ms. davis? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to both of you for being here and the challenges that you're facing. i want to go back for a second. i know that you have said you have whatever you need basically in terms of the authorities and yet i have an understanding that in afghanistan, for example, that in fact, we've had some in ability to act preemptively. is that -- would that be the case in any way? >> since general dunford was our commander there, he is probably in the best position to answer that. >> afghanistan is a declared area of hostilities and certainly as the commander i didn't have any restrictions to act when there was a threat to u.s. forces or to the mission. >> again, preemptively, that was not a problem? >> absolutely. if we had actionable intelligence, if there was a threat to the force or mission during my time in afghanistan, a threat to afghan security force we acted against individuals or groups designated as hostile. >> thank you. i appreciate that. there seems to be some misu

mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house the senate has passed s. 993 cited as the comprehensive justice and mental health act of 2015, in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore:

mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object, when secretary kerry chose to ignore my request that the state department not submit this catastrophic iranian nuclear deal to the united nations, secretary kerry did so with open eyes. he did so knowing the consequences because i had spelled them out explicitly that the political nominees that he would want to put forward at the department of state would not proceed if secretary kerry chose to undermine the authority of the congress of the united states, to undermine the sovereignty of this country and to instead treat the united nations as the relevant decision-making body. he did so nonetheless. and as a consequence, the obama administration is proceeding forward under this iranian nuclear deal as if it is binding law. the obama administration is proceeding contrary to law under the explicit terms of the congressional review act. the period of time for congressional review has not begun to commence because the obama administration has not submitted the entire deal to the united states congress. t

mr. secretary, on the 1st of december before the house armed services committee congressman forbes asked mr. dunford, have we currently contained isil, and general, no, we have not contained isil. and mr. secretary, do you agree with general dunford? >> i agree with what general dunford said, yes. >> so if we have not contained isille, how are we to now believe that we are succeeding against isil? >> ah, i think that we are building momentum gaiagainst is >> in a moment, i am going to speak with barbara starr and pamela brown about the implications of what happened on capitol hill, but right now i want to go to the e emancipation wall of capitol hill, and the president is about to make a radfication of the amendment that abolished slavery. let's listen. >> please, have a seat. thank you. in giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free. that is what president lincoln once wrote. honorable alike in what we give and we preserve. we shall nobly save or meanly lose the last best hope of earth. m mr. speaker, leaders and members of both parties, distinguished guests, we gather here

mr. speaker, will the women's desire -- mr. secretary, will the women's desire to enter combat roles or missions be entirely voluntary or will there be a time where they could, like many of their male counterparts, be required to go into combat missions? secretary carter: absolutely. if you're a service member you have some choices but you don't have absolute choice. people are assigned to missions, tasks, and functions according to need as well as their capabilities and women will be subject to the same standards and rules that men will. >> are you concerned as you alluded to in your opening remarks that that could actually cause women not to want to enlist in the military, if they thought there was a possibility they would be required to go into a combat role? sec recare carter: -- secretary carter: i assume there are people, men and women who don't join the military because they don't want to live by the military' standards. but if you do decide to join you're subject to our rules an standards, periods. >> mr. secretary, back to the absence of general dunford ecause given that he was the only service chief that asked for an exemption of all of them and given that he's now the senior military advisor, wouldn't it be important for him to be here to send the message that the u.s. military is ready to is lute smartly and carry out your orders. his absence may be sending an unintended message that he's not fully on board. secretary carter: general dunford and i have discussed this many, many times. i met with him on the other chiefs earlier today. he will be a full part of implementation. i came to a different judgment act a part of the conclusions of the studies conducted by the marine corps when he was commandant but agreed with the great bulk of them and they will be reflected in implementation. the issues that were raise by those studies, i believe, can be addressed in implementation and will be, that's my judgment, and he understands that's my judgment and we will -- he will be at my side

mr. president. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. let me thank you personally, secretary hammond, for your personal engagement and collaboration on this. it's been key. so we're very appreciative for the help. i now give the floor to his ex lensy. >> thank you very much, mr president. we embrace dialogue as a way to deal with the crisis in syria. the main victims of the crisis are first and foremost the syrians themselves. today's resolution comes to the for the quarter million of people who have lost their lives over the last couple of years. international law has been violated and continues to be violated. the war in syria is at the same time a challenge due to the implications that it has for the entire region. it has been the trigger for the escalation of the terrorism of daesh that has become a threat to the international community on a global scale. spain is keenly aware of the attacks in paris, the attacks in beirut, the blowing up of a russian airliner in the sinai. we should focus on a political solution to the conflict while we continue to fight against terrorism. today, this is our top priority. in upcoming months, spain will continue to actively participate in the anti-daesh coalition in various domains, including the training of iraqi securi

mr. chairman, with that i yield back. thank you, general. and feel free to elaborate on any of that you want to in writing. >> mr. secretary, if there's something you want to say about the comments -- >> no, i just want to be candid. i'm not using this in some technical sense, but this is serious business. >> and, mr's what i mean by "war." it feels like that to our people who are engaged in it, and it has that kind of gravity. it's knotts a technical -- it's not a technical thing, it's a descriptive -- >> mr. chairman, since i have 60 seconds left, and all due respect to the secretary, the word "war" is not just some like term. when we use "war," it is a technical word, and it needs to be used very, very carefully. i think whether we use it in this committee or we use it elsewhere, and with that i yield back. >> looking live at the u.s. capitol where in just over five minutes the u.s. senate will return from their party lunches, about 2:15 eastern. majority leader mitch mcconnell said yesterday that he hopes to begin work this afternoon or tomorrow on a measure that would repeal the 2010 health care law. more on that now from a reporter covering the issue. >> host: and the senate going to starlet its reconciliation process with provisions to repeal parts of the health care law. we're joined by bu

mr. sullivan was gentleman enough to keep the door open for me. >> senator sullivan. >> oh, okay. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, senator tillis, mighty kind of you. look, dr. shulkin, mr. secretaryi think you guys probably know where i'm coming from on this. you know, i'm a big fan of yours. i really appreciate you coming up to alaska. and, you know, senator man chin talked about going to rural communities and seeing what the frustrations are. you've ghad a heavy dose of tha in my state when you came up in august. you talked about quick wins. i thought we were going to have a quick win in alaska. you laid out a plan. one of the things i emphasized to the veterans when you guys came up there, i said, i know it's a frustrating, please be calm, you didn't create the problem, you're here to fix the problem, but i need to tell you that now i'm the one getting frustrated, because it's been a hundred days since you guys were up there. you talked about your six points, which i still have here. i appreciated it. here they are, on the alabama pilot program. and i am getting hit every day in my state. i was on a plane coming down here two weeks ago. three veterans within a circle of two ro

secretary-general mr. ban ki-moon and the president of the financial action task force or fatf, mr.chin, for their presence and their presentations. president, our country would like to point to the unity and common effort that paved the way for the unanimous adoption of this resolution. particularly given that it contains key elements for addressing this issue that is global in scope and also serves to update the existing strufs and mechanisms of this body against the peak drbackdrop of y of isis. we would like to underscore when the necessary political will exists the security council is able to effectively fulfill its mandate. we hope that this spirit will prevail and grant key issues that for many years now have been awaiting the full attention of this very council. president, venezuela would like to reiterate its categorical condemnation of terrorist acts in all their forms and manifestations irrespective of the underpinning motive and of wherever and by whomever they are committed. bearing in mind at all times that such terrorist acts constitute flagrant violations of internat

mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, secretary card and transport for being educated about this incredible important topic or i agree with chip and. there's no question that isis is a true threat to we need to be confronted. they are without question the greatest fascist of the threat that we face right now. it is important to keep in context that's what is not just isis. it was al-qaeda, now it's i suspect it is part of a broader ideology that we need to confront, that we've seen spread throughout the middle east and north africa and south asia. in many different forms. al sharia, al-shabaab, boko haram. we need to figure out how to confront it and defeat that threat. there is no question that isis renamed a great threat to western targets as well stability in middle east. that said i don't think the pictures quite as bleak as the chairman portrayed. in fact, there was an article yesterday about how isis is beginning to lose some of their supporters because their momentum has been stopped in terms of gathering territory. one of the biggest things, selling points they have from the very beginning was unlike al-qaeda they held territory, and they were growing at one time in terms of the territory they held so they could recruit people saying we are truly going to build an islamic state. they had not gained any territory. they have lost a few downs. in the bombing campaign we have committed and primarily potential the back in certain places and has undermined that confidence in the jihadists. that's the positive. however, the chairman is correct. it's not enough. it's not enough to contain isis because as we have seen in paris and in beirut and elsewhere as long as they exist it to launch attacks. we must put together a clear strategy to defeat them. that's the other thing i will agree that chairman on, probably not as strong but the demonstration is -- disney to be clear in saying what that search is at that they are committed to be. i think they have a better strategy and more comprehensive strategy than the times they have set. let's not forget the president said i think less than a year ago we don't yet have a strategy. that's the kind of thing that doesn't need to be said. we need a much clearer message about what the charge is but i think we have, that search is was going to use our military force in combination with as many allies as possible to try and help our allies in the region. but that is the key point. we could send 50,000 u.s. troops into iraq and syria and in short order i'm sure clear out a good portion of what is now isis. but will he also know from experience in iraq and in afghanistan isn't a western force came in and tried to pacify or mollified as part of the world, another terrorist organization would grew up in a heartbeat i said what we called it 7% itself as the alternative, as silly people defending muslims against western aggression. so i hope we don't over react. because what we need, the only way we can win this fight is if we find sunni allies in the region who are willing to lead that fight. that is what we have to do. at also part of this is removing aside from power. as long as he's in power, that is another rallying call for isis, to fight against a brutal dictator who is oppressing their people. that's the trick that we have the isis is fighting aside, but we need to defeat both outside and i suspect and get i think this notion the u.s. military might is going to show up and fix the problem has been disproven by what has happened. understand what gives these groups the greatest force. what gives them their greatest force is make them stand up and say we are defending islam against western aggression. if all we have is western aggression, we will never win. we have to use our force, work with our allies in the region, but at the end of the day what we need is sunni allies to carry this fight. and that means we have to continue to put pressure on the baghdad government to bring sunnis into that's the biggest thingthing that greeted isis was prime minister maliki, now a body have both aside to run a sectarian shia government. so this is me not like isis but as between that and the allied with shiite iran backed government, they choose to isis. so that's what i think we need to do. yes when you have a clear strategy. i hope we don't fall into the trap of thinking that use military might is what's going to solve this problem. it is a far more complicated problem than that. and without i look forward to the testimony from witnesses and the questions. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. secretary, chairman dunford, again thank you for being here but more importantly, thank you for the service that you providing the nation in very difficult jobs in very difficult times. added don't think any of us underestimate the challenge that's before you. mr. secretary, you're recognized. >> thank you very much, chairman thornberry, ranking member smith, all the members of this committee. i thank you for inviting me to discuss with chairman joe dunford and accountability strategy and its execution, and chairman, i agree with you. we do need a greater effort. we are applying a great effort to go to try to describe so the ways we are doing that, and mr. smith, the underlying strategy at its clarity, i will try to provide that clarity. now, i was a tax in paris, like those that provided elsewhere, were barbaric and they were an assault on the civilization we defend. isil requires and it will receive a lasting defeat. the president had directed us to intensify and adapt the military

mr. perry. >> thank you mr. chairman. ms. gottemoeller or secretary gottemoeller about a year ago as i recall we had a very similar hearing to this one. and you enumerated and through the course of the conversation we came to an understanding of the alleged violations we realized or kind of confirmed that the administration knew years past at that point that the violations hadn't been made but we hadn't been made aware of them. and at that time i asked you very specifically what was going to be done. what was the panoply of options that might be available to us. and i think we reserved that for an executive session. i'm wondering at this point, because it's also my understanding that the chairman of the joint chiefs has offered a series of options to remedy the situation to bring russia back into compliance, is there any plan to implement any of them? and if that -- if there is a plan, is it available to be heard in open session? >> well, congressman i've laid out in my opening statement our overall response to russia's behavior, including a sign off violation. there's more that i can say in closed session about some measures we are going to understake in partnership with our nato allies. >> is there a plan to implement it, though? i know there are options. but is there a plan to implement it with a time line? administration seems to be happy to give our adversaries time lines when we'll withdraw from countries and combat et cetera. is there a time line when russia can expect implementation of this plan? >> sir, there's a number of capabilities we're investing in, some of which are on the books. some of which will be new or increased in the fy-17 budget, and built in to the future years defense program. so it will be a continuing effort, as i said, to respond to what we see in terms of russia's growing military modernization, and its capabilities. and its behavior including its inf violation. there won't be a specific point where you will say ah-ha, everything is in place. we're working to counter what we see as the threat posed by russia's activities, including the inf violation. >> so we don't have milestones that we can measure, their accountability and their compliance? are there milestones? >> sir, i'm outlining for you what the department of defense is going to be doing. over the coming year and into the future past this administration, assuming these plans are carried forward. we continue to have a separate conversation with russia about coming into compliance with the treaty. they will see these activities and they will see them in our budget, and they will start to understand we believe that this response is not making them any more secure. >> with all due respk and i'll end my questioning it seems to me our response years and years in the making without any forced compliance, without any repercussions to failure of compliance, is just going to lead russia to believe that they can continue to be in noncompliance without any accountability. and that's what i've seen. that's what i learned a year ago, and it doesn't seem to me that much has changed in the year between now and then, with all due respect. with that i yield back. >> thank you gentleman. chair now recognizes ms. kelly for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair. mr. mckeon in your assessment, other than the inf treaty, are there any arms control obligations that russia's not complying with, or is in violation of treaty agreements with the united states? >> congresswoman, i've probably deferred to undersecretary gottemoeller who controls the pen on the compliance report. the conventional forces treaty in europe is one of them. we have compliance concerns about other treaties including the open skies treaty. but -- >> ma'am, i will only add that as far as the additional treaties we have long-standing concerns about the chemical weapons convention and the biological weapons convention. we cannot confirm russian compliance with those treaties because they have not provided, as we believe, full information on data about soviet era programs. their past programs, before the soviet union fell apart. nevertheless, they are good treaty partners in the chemical weapons convention. they are continuing to destroy tons and tons of soviet era chemic

also previously served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs. mr. thompson, thank you and welcome. mr. thompson: mr. chairman, thank you. i want to talk to briefly today and summarize remarks and hope that this will be put into the statement. i am the executive director of the national sheriff's association, we represent more than 3000 sheriffs nationwide, from the smallest parish to the largest urban county. in my conversations with sheriffs it has become clear that the alien removal policies are putting sheriffs in and until level position and in the words of a sheriff in ariza, the current policies are institutionalizing defense issues. in light of these words, let me be clear about one thing. sheriffs support the goal of removing criminal aliens from this country and they stand ready to assist our federal partners in preserving our national security. but sheriffs will not act outside the bounds of the constitution, nor will they ignore their office. any policy advanced by this and ministers must be legal, but within both contacts -- c ontexts, constitutional. otherwise, which law

mr. presidt, ladies and gentlemen, heads of state and government, mr. secretary general of the united nations, madame executive secretary of the united nations ramework convention on the climate change, ladies and gentlemen, ministers, ladies and gentlemen. allow me in turn to once again to present to you and the french nation ministers, ladies and gentlemen. allow me in turn to once again to present to you and the french nation our most sincere condolences following the cowardly and hateful rrorist attacks which bereaved tran frad the international community. i'd like to reiterate to you our tireless support in jointly sustainedly combatting terrorism in all its forms. 53 years ago, the world was emerging from the worst humanitarian disaster in our mod he we ern history. out of this rubble, the international community built its salvation through a consensusout of this rubble, th international community built its salvation through a consensus in the form of the universal declaration of human rights in paris on the 10th of december, 1948. today it is this same consensus that we have to create, this same courage that we have to draw upon, these same -- this same sense of responsibility, this same duty, the duty to protect our planet and to leave to future generations a liveable planet. for these reasons, we must impose constraints upon ourselves for posterity, for humanity here in paris as was the case for the universal declaration of human rights. mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, since the rio summit in 1992 in brazil, the threat of climate change has only worsened. and yet it is clear to everybody that the international community certainly has not lived up to the immense challenge represented by the global environment for crisiisis we fi ourselves faced with. and this is even though we now understand its theoretical underpinnings. and this is even though we have increasely effective tools that can guide us in our growth in ways that are more respectful of the environment. this is the paradox, a paradox which our fellow citizens find hard to understand and which is unacceptable for the many countries which experience climate change as a countdown towards hostile and uncertain future. it is certain that if nothing is done, in less than half a century this east africa and at middle east, it will be impossible for human beings to survive due to extreme temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. soil degradation, wells running dry,

mr. secretary, on the 1st of december, before the house armed services committee, congressman forbes asked general dunford, quote, have we currently contained isil? general dunford, we have not contained isil. mr. secretary, do you agree with general dunford? >> i agree with what general dunford said, yes. >> so, if we have not contained -- we have not contained isil, how are we to believe that we are succeeding against isil? >> i think that we are building momentum against isil. >> more is coming to light this morning about the married couple who killed 14 people in san bernardino, california, last week. investigators say syed farook first talked about staging an attack three years ago with his friend and neighbor enrique marquez. but then got cold feet. marquez has been talking extensively to federal authorities over the last few days. he's reportedly told them he knew farook had radical beliefs but he knew nothing about the attack on the inland regional center. multiple sources tell nbc news that farook and his wife tashfeen malik left behind evidence that they were contemplating an attack on other targets. officials say smashed phones recovered from farook's home contain photos of local bu

mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 571, cited as bill of rights number two. in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of the hezbollah international financing prevention act. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. the house first passed this bipartisan legislation on may 14 by a vote of 423-0. that's as bipartisan as you can get. on november 17, the senate sent the bill back to us with a number of very modest changes. by passing it again today, we send to the president's desk. i want to commend my friend, chairman royce, for being the driving force behind this very, very important bill. when chairman royce introduced the bill, i was glad to join as an original co-sponsor. i also want to acknowledge representatives deutsch, meadows, and message for their hard work -- meng for their hard work on this important legislation. mr. speaker, over a decade ago i offered the syria accountability and lebanese sovereignty restoration act which is now law

mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. much. secretary, last spring the committee held a hearing on the new u.s. china cooperation agreement. during the hearing we discussed very credible allegations against the liberty or as i suggested, unwillingness for its commitment to prevent bad actors from selling ballistic missile technologies to iran and other countries of concern. they've conducted to ballistic missile tests in violation of un security council resolution 1929. which countries did you do you believe are providing ballistic missile technologies to iran. >> my assessment is the same as it was this spring that the primary source of the advanced missile technology for the ballistic missile program are companies in china. i believe the chinese government has stepped up its efforts to enforce its own wall and un sanctions however i cannot say they have reached a satisfactory point of enforcement. it's been a nuclear agreement without conditions attached to it that i do not have to support on the committee and the senate to attach the conditions but the conditions would have imposed the requirements to put in place safeguards against others transferring the ballistic missiles into iran and north korea and other countries. we essentially have the equivalent of the nuclear materials which i think now under the bullets but the missiles are the guns and we are in a gun-control discussion here today. ballistic missiles they can deliver the nuclear bullets to other countries in the world. and china is the gun manufacturer. so from my perspective, we missed a great opportunity here to condition that agreement. i think we should have. because this whole discussion on ballistic missiles now goes back to that agreement since they are from the administration's perspective the most likely source of the ballistic missile technology. and we had a lot of leverage at that point and i argued we should condition it at that time. but again i think there that was a great historical missed opportunity to draw the line on the nuclear proliferation issues and create the linkages so that we could have put stuff safeguards on the nuclear material program in on the gun program. it will be clandestine and as long as people are able to move about without impunity i think that we are going to continue to have a very serious problem. and we might as well just have a hearing on the subject because that is the ballistic missile discussion in iran and its going to be other countries like china that belief notwithstanding their public support for gun control that they find their own way around relatively poorly enforced restrictions because we don't step up and use our leverage when the historical opportunity arrives arrives at his china civilian nuclear agreement. it's what china was looking for at that point to have the discussion. it didn't happen. so, going forward,. what do we have is a tool to let china know about how we don't intend on the convention of an international agreement in the entire world at least ostensibly since they believe it's very important to the long-term global stability. >> i will be in beijing again next month. i can't predict and can't forecast at this moment what additional actions we will take against chinese entities that are complicit in providing the ballistic missile technology. i will only say as we said earlier that under active consideration now is additional effective measures in response to the october contest. >> i appreciate that. i think it's inadequate. i don't think that it's going to have the kind of weight force behind it. it continues to raise the question of the nuclear 123 agreement at the very high hypocrisy coalition that had been as a message to the rest of the world, and i would hope that next year we take up once again the 123 agreement of climate that we have created around the world that we supply ourselves and we unfortunately turn a blind eye to often to the other suppliers who are out there who do not believe that there's going to be a sufficiently well enforced international response when it's clear that there are violations taking place and i don't think there is any question that he is the gun dealer, the ballistic missile together, one of them anyway but at the top it still is not sufficient chinese response and i don't think there's response from our own country's perspective i just think we have to take a line on it and there is really no point trying to convince people that iran is sincere if they are engaging in an ongoing clandestine ballistic missile program with supplies coming in from china. that leaves the impression that we are in a temporary period of advance before the attach the bullets to the top and that is a cynical approach they are taking at the chinese are taking and we have an opportunity that i think we have to focus on this next year so that we can come back to this question once again. >> thank you for your continued vigilance. i know that we shared concerns and we both realized where the issues stood in the senate as a whole but i think you for your efforts in that regard. i get back. this is a joke. it has been for months and years now. i'm going to answer the rhetorical question. do you think that this is the soft stuff? yes. are they standing up shaking their fist and saying death to america and we are going to prove it. we have prohibitions against us but we will continue to develop them and continue to test them into your absolutely right in your statement that it doesn't matter they will continue to do that regardless of consequences. so, the only hope that we have into generally agree he talks about going to spotlight the violations. they love a spotlight and their violations. they just love that. they say look at us. the report of the ballistic missile firing we had to wait. we didn't have to wait. everybody in the world menu when they fired at those ballistic missiles but that was a violation of the agreement. you think this is soft stuff, it is tremendously soft stuff and we will keep their own tony toughen up. a 200 days from now when we inaugurate a new leader that leader is going to convince the iranians that indeed we are going to do something about this and we are going to protect the american people and we are going to stop them from testing ballistic missiles into doing what we all know that they are going to continue to do in this agreement. >> thank you mr. chairman. appreciate you being here today. i want to try to put a fine point on senator boxer's comments. i appreciate some of the name-calling here today. i support the agreement not because i'm an apologist for the administration that because i think that it's the right thing to do for the national security and i think that she and senator corker are right and correct there is a broad agreement here that we need to take definitive steps to respond and we take the ambassador at his word that this is the start of the consideration of options and this is a predicate of action and there is an agreement but that is an absolute necessity. the disagreement is over this broad labeling of the culture that may exist with respect to the actions that iran is taking and frankly the report that was issued by the iaea describes a culture of purpose of this dot allows them up to 2003 and in some respects after 2003 to conduct a military scale nuclear weapons research program. there was a culture c