    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

       ADVANCING U.S. INTERESTS IN A TROUBLED WORLD: THE FY 2016 FOREIGN
                                 AFFAIRS BUDGET

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 25, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-24

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
                                      or
                           http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    93-532 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2015
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                         COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    MATT SALMON, Arizona                 KAREN BASS, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   AMI BERA, California
    PAUL COOK, California                ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas            GRACE MENG, New York
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    CURT CLAWSON, Florida                BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
    DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
    TOM EMMER, Minnesota

         Amy Porter, Chief of Staff      Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director

                   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                    WITNESS

    The Honorable John F. Kerry, Secretary of State, U.S. Department
      of State.......................................................     4

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    The Honorable John F. Kerry: Prepared statement..................     9

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    68
    Hearing minutes..................................................    69
    The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
      from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement..........    71
    The Honorable Brendan F. Boyle, a Representative in Congress from
      the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Prepared statement...........    74
    Questions submitted to the Honorable John F. Kerry for the record
      by:
      The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of California, and chairman, Committee on
        Foreign Affairs..............................................    75
      The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of New York........................................    79
      The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of Florida....................................    99
      The Honorable Albio Sires, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of New Jersey......................................   100
      The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of California.................................   101
      The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly...............................   102
      The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of Ohio............................................   104
      The Honorable Brian Higgins, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of New York........................................   106
      The Honorable Joe Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the
        State of South Carolina......................................   107
      The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of Rhode Island...............................   108
      The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the
        State of Texas...............................................   111
      The Honorable Alan S. Lowenthal, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of California.................................   117
      The Honorable Matt Salmon, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of Arizona.........................................   120
      The Honorable Grace Meng, a Representative in Congress from the
        State of New York............................................   122
      The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of South Carolina..................................   124
      The Honorable Brendan F. Boyle.................................   129
      The Honorable Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from
        the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.............................   130
      The Honorable David A. Trott, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of Michigan........................................   131

                     ADVANCING U.S. INTERESTS IN A TROUBLED
                       WORLD: THE FY 2016 FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                                     BUDGET

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2015

                           House of Representatives,

                         Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Royce
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Royce. This committee will come to order.
    Committee will come to order, if all members will take their
    seats.
        Today we hear from Secretary of State John Kerry. The
    Secretary is just off yet another overseas trip dealing with
    issues that we will discuss here today.
        And, Mr. Secretary, your dedication is clear to all.
        Secretary Kerry comes to present his Department's budget
    request. Needless to say, given Washington's chronic budget
    deficit, wasteful spending is intolerable. Even good programs
    may be unsupportable at levels we would want. But we must also
    appreciate the many serious challenges we as a Nation, and the
    Department in particular, faces worldwide.
        These challenges seem to grow by the day. Iran and North
    Korea are pursuing nuclear weapons; Russia is gobbling up
    neighboring Ukraine; we see beheadings, crucifixions, and
    immolation by ISIS; cartoonists and Jewish shoppers are
    targeted and killed on Paris streets. Indeed, some days it
    feels as if the world itself is coming off of its axis.
        Regarding Iran, Mr. Secretary, all of us want to see you
    get a meaningful lasting agreement. But the committee, as you
    know, has real concerns about the direction of these talks. I
    am hearing less about dismantlement and more about the
    permanence of Iran's nuclear program.
        That is particularly disturbing when you consider that
    international inspectors report that Iran has still not
    revealed its past bomb work. This should be treated as a
    fundamental test of the Ayatollah's intention to uphold any
    agreement. Iran is failing that test. Also, it is still
    illicitly procuring nuclear technology. Recently Iran was
    caught testing a new generation of supersonic centrifuges. To
    be frank, as this committee reads about us being on the brink
    of a ``historic agreement,'' you have a challenge in terms of
    Congressional buy-in. Meanwhile, Iran and its proxies are
    wreaking havoc throughout the region.
        And in Eastern Europe, Russia's military aggression is
    matched only by the size of its propaganda. Russia is spending
    more than $\1/2\ billion annually to mislead audiences, to sow
    divisions, to push conspiracy theories out over RT television.
    Yet, the agency charged with leading our response, the
    Broadcasting Board of Governors--is, as your predecessor
    testified to us--dysfunctional. Last Congress the House passed
    legislation authored by Ranking Member Eliot Engel and me to
    fix the BBG, the Broadcasting Board of Governors. We hope to
    have the administration's active backing as we again push this
    reform.
        And in the Middle East, ISIS is on the march. The
    administration was tragically slow to react to ISIS's rise,
    missing the chance to devastate them with airstrikes. During
    the first 7 months, 8 months of ISIS moving from Syria into
    Iraq, town by town, taking these cities, air power was not used
    to devastate these columns out on the open road as it should
    have been applied. Today the Kurds are still severely
    outgunned. Our training of the Syrian opposition isn't off the
    ground, and Arab allies complain they don't have the weapons
    needed.
        And while the administration is focused on the fight
    against ISIS in Iraq today, it is still unclear what its plans
    are for Syria tomorrow. As the committee considers the
    President's request for a military authorization against ISIS,
    members need to hear a better articulation of the
    administration's strategy and see a strong commitment from the
    Commander-in-Chief.
        As terrorism from Islamist terrorist groups spread, the
    committee knows that that puts more of our diplomats out there
    at risk. In the past half year, the Department has had to
    evacuate staff from two U.S. Embassies, Libya and Yemen.
        On this note, the committee stands ready to assist the
    Department on Embassy security. We passed a State Department
    Authorization and Embassy Security bill last Congress and look
    forward to working with you to get our next bill signed into
    law. And as the Department works to finalize its second
    Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, know that we are
    ready to assist the Department to be more effective and
    efficient to meet the demands of the 21st century's diplomacy.
    We have policy differences, but these should never compromise
    the day-to-day operation of your Department and certainly not
    the safety of its personnel.
        Mr. Secretary, our Nation faces great challenges. Through
    it all, though, we must work together to ensure that America
    maintains its positive and essential role in the world. That is
    our challenge.
        And I will now turn to our ranking member, Mr. Eliot Engel
    of New York, for his opening statement.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, welcome back. We are fortunate to have you
    as our top diplomat as we face so many challenges around the
    world. Whether it is violent extremism or nuclear
    proliferation, health epidemics or climate change, these are
    challenges that threaten our security and values, and that
    demands robust investment in international affairs. That is why
    the President has put forward a strong international affairs
    budget, and that is why his proposal deserves the support of
    Congress.
        The President's budget would end sequestration, something
    long overdue, including a 7.7 percent increase in international
    affairs spending. Why is this increase so important? The Kaiser
    Family Foundation reported recently that many Americans believe
    we spend much more on foreign assistance than we actually do.
        Here are the facts: International affairs totals just over
    1 percent of our Federal budget, and foreign aid accounts for
    less than 1 percent. With that narrow sliver of the pie, we are
    keeping Americans safe, strengthening ties around the world,
    and promoting American leadership abroad.
        We are getting a pretty good bang for our buck. Still, we
    can always be more effective, more efficient, and more focused.
    And I would like to mention a few of my questions and concerns.
        Let me start with institutional and bureaucratic challenges
    of the State Department. We need a Department that can adapt to
    evolving foreign policy and national security issues. We need
    diplomats equipped to deal with constantly changing demands.
        Are we recruiting the best talent? Do our diplomats have
    the tools and training they need to do their jobs right? I am
    curious about how the Department will implement the forthcoming
    recommendations of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
    Review.
        On our response to the Ebola outbreak, Mr. Secretary, I
    want to applaud you, the State Department, USAID, and the
    thousands of heroic Americans who have played such an important
    role. This crisis has required tremendous resources, and our
    strategy is working. The situation in West Africa continues to
    improve, but we must remain vigilant until this scourge has
    been eliminated.
        This crisis underscores the need for global health funding.
    Preventing future epidemics requires investment in research,
    infrastructure, and personnel. So I am disappointed by proposed
    cuts to global health programs dealing with tuberculosis,
    neglected tropical diseases, and other dangerous illnesses. I
    would like to find a way to avoid these cuts and keep giving
    these programs the resources they need.
        Turning to Ukraine, I have serious doubts that the Minsk
    agreement will end this crisis. We have taken a handful of
    incremental steps, but they have not been enough to get ahead
    of the crisis or deter further Russian aggression. The United
    States has a major interest in Europe's stability and security.
    Decades of American investment is on the line. I know dealing
    with the Kremlin is delicate, but we must not allow Ukraine to
    lose more territory or to fail economically.
        In the Middle East, more than 11 million people have been
    driven from their homes in Syria and more than 200,000 have
    been killed. This crisis has spilled across borders. It has
    created large-scale vulnerability to sexual assault, child
    marriage, hunger, and other kinds of abuse and exploitation.
    The budget prioritizes this humanitarian disaster, but much
    more needs to be done by both the United States and regional
    partners.
        This crisis has been fueled by political instability in
    Iraq and Syria. The new Iraqi Prime Minister has taken some
    steps to make Iraq's political system more inclusive, but we
    remain far from the point at which Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds feel
    like they have a stake in Iraq's future.
        The way forward in Syria is even less clear, but we know
    one thing for certain. That country's future should not include
    Assad. As you have said, Mr. Secretary, he is a one-man super
    magnet for terrorism. So while we are going after ISIS or the
    Islamic state, we should not forget that Assad must go. He
    cannot be part of a Syria for the future.
        On that note, I welcome the President's decision to send
    Congress a request for a new authorization to use military
    force, AUMF, against ISIS. The President's proposal is a
    reasonable starting point, and this committee will continue our
    efforts to review the language and the overall strategy to
    defeat ISIS. I look forward to working with you and my
    colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure we get this
    right.
        Briefly, on Iran, I have said many times that my preference
    is a negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.
    However, we are hearing troubling reports on the scale and
    duration of the program, that Iran may be allowed as part of a
    deal. As you have said many times, Mr. Secretary, no deal is
    better than a bad deal. And so we must ensure that Iran has no
    pathway to a nuclear weapon, and that's any deal we sign is a
    good deal.
        And, finally, I want to commend the proposed $1.1 billion
    in funding to address root causes of child migration from
    Central America. We need to ensure that these resources are
    targeted toward the most vulnerable communities that the
    children are coming from across this sub-region.
        And, finally, getting back to Europe and Ukraine and
    Russia, I really believe that NATO hangs in the balance. I
    think, if Putin continues to push Ukraine around and threaten
    other countries and NATO is not a sufficient deterrent, we are
    sort of sending the word to Putin that we are really a paper
    tiger.
        So I wish you would talk about that a little bit because I
    really do believe the future of NATO hangs in the balance. Four
    countries give 2 percent of their budget to defense as is
    required, and that is very, very troubling in terms of NATO.
        So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the
    Secretary's testimony.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
        This morning we are pleased to be joined by Mr. John Kerry,
    the 68th Secretary of State.
        And, Mr. Secretary, welcome again here to the committee.
        Without objection, the witness's full prepared statement
    will be made part of the record and the members here--each of
    you will have 5 calendar days to submit any statements,
    questions or extraneous material for the record you may wish to
    submit.
        So, Mr. Secretary, if you'll open for 5 minutes, then we
    will go to the members for their questions.

     STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE,
                        U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

        Secretary Kerry. Well, thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman,
    Congressman Engel, ranking member, all the members of this
    committee.
        In respect of your time, I will try to summarize my
    comments, Mr. Chairman. I hope I can do it in 5 minutes.
    Thereis a lot to talk about. And your questions will, needless
    to say, elicit an enormous amount of dialogue, which I really
    welcome.
        I can't think of a moment where more is happening, more
    challenges exist, there's more transformation taking place,
    some of it with great turmoil, a lot of it with enormous
    opportunity that doesn't get daily discussion, but all of it
    with big choices for you, for us, you representing the American
    people, all of us in positions of major responsibility at this
    important time.
        We rose to the occasion, obviously, and we would like to
    extol it. We all talk about it. I did certainly as a Senator. I
    do as Secretary of State. And that is the extraordinary
    contribution of the greatest generation and what they did to
    help us and our leaders did, Republican and Democrat alike, to
    put us on a course to win the battle against tyranny,
    dictatorship, and to win the battle for democracy and human
    rights and freedom for a lot of people.
        And no country on the face of this planet has expended as
    much blood, put as many people on the line, lost as much of our
    human treasure, to offer other people an opportunity to embrace
    their future, not tell them what it has to be. It is really a
    remarkable story.
        And now we find ourselves in a moment where we have to make
    some similar kinds of choices, frankly. I don't want to
    overblow it. I am not trying to. But this is a big moment of
    transformation where there are literally hundreds of millions
    of people emerging on this planet, young people. Count the
    numbers of countries where the population is 65 percent under
    the age of 30, 60 percent 30 and under, 50 percent under the
    age of 21. I mean, it is all over the place.
        And if they live in a place where thereis bad governance or
    corruption or tyranny in this world where everybody knows how
    to be in touch with everybody else all the time, you have a
    clash of aspirations, a clash of possibilities and
    opportunities. And to some degree, that is what we are seeing
    today. That certainly was the beginning of the Arab Spring,
    which is now being infused with a sectarianism and confusions
    of religious overtones and other things that make it much more
    complicated than anything that has preceded this.
        By the way, the Cold War was simple compared to this.
    Bipolar, pretty straightforward conversations. Yeah. We had to
    make big commitments, but it wasn't half as complicated in the
    context of dealing country to country and with tribes, with
    culture, with a lot of old history, and it is a very different
    set of choices.
        In addition, that is complicated by the fact that many
    other countries today are growing in their economic power,
    growing in their own sense of independence, and not as willing
    to just take at face value what a larger G7 or G20 country
    tells them or what some particular alliance dictates. So that
    is what we are facing.
        And I heard the chairman say, you know, we shouldn't
    compromise the day-to-day operations of the Department, but let
    me say to you the day-to-day operations of the Department are
    not confined to making an Embassy secure. We need to do that.
    But if that is all we do, folks, we are in trouble. We are not
    going to be able to protect ourselves adequately against these
    challenges that we face that we will talk about today.
        The United States--you know, we get 1 percent of the entire
    budget of the United States of America. Everything we do abroad
    within the State Department and USAID is within that 1 percent.
    Everything. All the businesses we try to help to marry to
    economic opportunities in a country, all the visas, the
    consulate work, the diplomacy, the coordination of DHS, FBI,
    ATF--I mean, all the efforts that we have to engage in to work
    with other countries' intelligence organizations and so forth
    to help do the diplomacy around that is less than 1 percent.
        I guarantee you more than 50 percent of the history of this
    era is going to be written out of that 1 percent and the issues
    we confront in that 1 percent. And I ask you to think about
    that as you contemplate the budgets because we have been
    robbing Peter to pay Paul and we have been stripping away our
    ability to help a country deal with those kids who may be ripe
    for becoming part of ISIL. We have been diminishing our
    capacity to be able to have the kind of impact we ought to be
    having in this more complicated world.
        Now, I am not going to go into all of the detail because I
    promised I would summarize. But I believe the United States is
    leading extraordinarily on the basis of that 1 percent. We have
    led on ISIL, putting together a coalition for the first time in
    history that has five Arab nations engaged in military activity
    in another Arab country in the region against--you know, Sunni
    against Sunni.
        I don't want to turn this into that sectarian, but it is an
    important part of what is happening. We helped to lead in the
    effort to transition in Iraq a Government that we could work
    with. Part of the problem in Iraq was the sectarianism that the
    former Prime Minister had embraced, which was dividing his
    nation and creating a military that was incompetent, and we saw
    that in the context of Mosul.
        So we wanted to make sure that we had a Government that
    really represented people and was going to reform and move in a
    different direction, and we worked at it and we got it. We have
    it today. Is it perfect? No. But is it moving in the right
    direction? You bet it is.
        In Afghanistan, we rescued a flawed election, brought
    together the parties, were able to negotiate to get a unified
    unity Government, which has both of the Presidential candidates
    working together to hold Afghanistan and define its future and
    negotiate a BSA that defines our future going forward and give
    Afghanistan a chance to make good on the sacrifices of 14 years
    of our troops and our contributions and so forth.
        On Ebola, we led that fight. President Obama made a brave
    decision to send 4,000 young American troops there in order to
    set up the structure so we had a capacity to be able to try to
    deal with it. One million deaths were predicted by last
    Christmas at the time that we did that.
        And not all the answers were there for questions that were
    real, but the President sent those people in. We have made the
    difference. And now there's a huge reduction in the cases in
    Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and we are not finished, but we
    are getting to a place where you are not seeing it on the
    nightly news every day and people aren't living in fear here
    that they are about to be infected.
        On AIDS, we are facing the first AIDS-free generation in
    history because of the work that we have done.
        On the Ukraine, we have held together Europe and the United
    States in unity to put in place sanctions. The ruble is down 50
    percent. Therehas been $151 billion of capital flight from
    Russia. There has been a very significant impact on day-to-day
    life, on food, product availability. The economy is predicted
    in Russia to go into recession this year. And we are poised yet
    to do another round, potentially, depending on what happens
    with Minsk in these next few days.
        On Iran, we have taken the risk of sitting down, of trying
    to figure out is there a diplomatic path to solve this problem.
    I can't sit here today and tell you I know the answer to that,
    but I can tell you it is worth trying before you go to more
    extreme measures that may result in asking young Americans yet
    again to put themselves in harm's way.
        We are pursuing the two most significant trade agreements
    of recent memory, the TPP in Asia, Pacific, and the TTIP in
    Europe, both of which represent about 40 percent of GDP of the
    world, in order to have a race to the top, not a race to the
    bottom. And if we can achieve that, we will be achieving a
    major new structure with respect to trade rules on a global
    basis.
        In Africa, we held the African Leaders Summit, an historic
    summit with more than 40 African leaders coming to Washington,
    out of which has come a series of events that will help, we
    hope, to meet our obligation to help transform Africa.
        And, finally, on climate--there are other things,
    incidentally. I am just skimming the surface of some of the
    most important. I know not everybody here is a believer in
    taking steps to deal with climate. I regret that. But the
    science keeps coming in stronger and stronger and stronger.
        On the front page of today's newspapers are stories about
    an Alaskan village that will have to be given up because of
    what is happening with climate change. There is evidence of it
    everywhere in the world. And we cut a deal with China,
    improbable as that was a year ago.
        The biggest opponent of our efforts has now stood up and
    joined us because they see the problem and they need to respond
    to it. And so they have agreed to target for lowering their
    reliance on fossil fuel and a target for alternative renewable
    energy by a certain period of time, and we have set targets.
    And that has encouraged other countries to start to come
    forward and try to take part in this effort.
        So I will adamantly put forward the way in which this
    administration is leading. I know not everybody agrees with
    every choice. Are there places where we need to do more? Yes.
    And we will talk about those, I'm sure, today. But we need to
    work together.
        I will end by saying that, historically, that 1 percent has
    produced more than its monetary value precisely because your
    predecessors were willing to let foreign policy debate and
    fight become bipartisan. Let politics stop at the water's edge
    and find what is in the common interest of our country.
        That is what brings me here today. That is why I am so
    privileged to serve as Secretary of State at this difficult
    time, because I believe America is helping to define our way
    through some very difficult choices.
        And last thing. This is counterintuitive, but it is true.
    Our citizens, our world today, is actually--despite ISIL,
    despite the visible killings that you see and how horrific they
    are, we are actually living in a period of less daily threat to
    Americans and to people in the world than normally--less
    deaths--less violent deaths today than through the last
    century.
        And so even the concept of state war has changed in many
    people's minds, and we are seeing now more asymmetrical kinds
    of struggles. So I would say to you that I see encouragement
    when I travel the world. I see people wanting to grow their
    economies. I see vast new numbers of middle class, people who
    are traveling. I see unbelievable embrace of new technologies.
    I see more democracy in places where it was nonexistent or
    troubled. Big changes in Sri Lanka and other countries. We can
    run the list.
        But I hope you will sense that it is not all doom and gloom
    that we are looking at. Tough issues? Yes. But enormous
    opportunities for transformation if we will do our job and
    continue to be steady and put on the table the
    resourcesnecessary to take advantage of this moment of
    transformation.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Kerry follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                  ----------

        Chairman Royce. Mr. Secretary, you are certainly right. It
    is not all gloom and doom. But the reality for us is that, even
    as we discuss these issues, there are still rallies going on in
    Iran in which the refrain is, ``Death to America. Death to
    Israel.''
        Even as we attempt to engage--and we hope that we get a
    verifiable agreement--but even as we attempt this, we still
    have the Ayatollah and we still have the cadres that come out
    and say: ``Death to the Great Satan. Death to the Little
    Satan.'' And that is a reality that we have to face because
    sometimes, when people communicate those types of threats, they
    mean it.
        And I mentioned my concern about the direction of the Iran
    talks. And, of course, we understand we are still negotiating
    in this, and I understand you have cautioned not to judge a
    deal we haven't yet seen. But it is important that the
    administration know the committee's concerns as you negotiate.
        And one thing we do know is that Iran has continued to
    stonewall international inspectors concerning its past bomb
    work. And as you have acknowledged, this is a critical part of
    these negotiations and it is a fundamental test of Iran's
    commitment. And it has been well over a year, I think.
        And I have talked to the Secretary General of the IAEA
    about this. You know, I saw press this morning. I don't know if
    this is correct or not--and we could go into closed session at
    some point to discuss it--about the concern of a secret
    facility.
        But the concern I have at the moment is what the Secretary
    General says, and he indicates that he is concerned about signs
    of military-related activities, including a--including Iran
    designing a nuclear payload for a missile.
        Inspectors in Iran, you know, they--or the IAE inspectors
    have amassed over 1,000 pages which showed research,
    development, and testing activities on technologies needed to
    develop a nuclear weapon. And of the 12 sets of questions that
    the IAEA has been seeking since 2011, Iran answered part of one
    of those.
        And so I would like to ask you for a response on the
    concerns on the part of the IAEA and us on the committee.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, they are legitimate. And the
    questions have to be answered, and they will be, if they want
    to have an agreement.
        Chairman Royce. Well, we had 350 members write you
    expressing deep concern about this lack of cooperation. And, of
    course, from our standpoint, unless we have a full
    understanding of Iran's program, we are not going to be able to
    judge a year's breakout time with certainty.
        That is the conundrum we face here. And they are
    withholding that information. And without going into detail
    again--but, as you know, I have concerns about the fact they
    were caught with that supersonic centrifuge, testing that, and
    the whole procurement issue.
        Secretary Kerry. Let me just say, on that centrifuge, when
    you say ``supersonic,'' they have some advanced centrifuges
    that do more than the centrifuges they have today. We are well
    aware of that. We have been tracking all of that.
        And, really, there was a misunderstanding of the language
    in the interim agreement which did allow current testing. There
    was a question about whether that had been current. We raised
    it, and immediately, within 24 hours, it ceased. There was no
    question. And therehas been no further effort on that.
        In fact, the IAEA has signed off that Iran has complied
    with every single component of the interim agreement.
        Chairman Royce. And let me----
        Secretary Kerry. We raised these questions regarding the
    IAEA, Mr. Chairman. And, as I said, they are going to have to
    be answered. So that is part of the discussion right now.
        Chairman Royce. There is a piece today in the New York
    Times: ``Inspectors say Iran is evading questions as nuclear
    talks enter a crucial stage.'' Per my conversations with the
    IAEA, I know those concerns are there.
        I want to just turn to broadcasting reform to discuss that
    with you because I know, in an exchange you had yesterday in
    the Senate, you expressed your frustration that our effort to
    confront Russian propaganda is simply nowhere near where it
    ought to be.
        It is an area where Mr. Engel and I also share frustration.
    We know that Putin is dominating the essential information
    battle on the ground. But this isn't just about resources. It
    is also about what we can do with an initiative for the
    Broadcasting Board of Governors to overhaul that institution
    and make it effective.
        Myself and Mr. Engel put that bill into the Senate last
    year. We were not able to get it up and passed. And the
    question I wanted to ask was for your assistance on the Senate
    side in getting our legislation through this year so that we
    can get the reform that this troubled agency needs and get up
    and running with the type of broadcasting that you and I, I
    think, want to see to offset what President Putin is doing
    right now.
        Secretary Kerry. All I can say is, Mr. Chairman, I am with
    you 100 percent on this. I look forward to working with you
    further. I appreciate your leadership on this issue. You have
    been a champion of reform on the BBG.
        I am absolutely committed to the reform of the BBG. And our
    next meeting is on April 29. I have had long conversations with
    our Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, Rick Stengel, who is
    very seized with some things we need to try to achieve.
        Now, there are two issues here. One is sort of the reform
    of the BBG, and the second is what we ought to be doing on a
    global basis with respect to the propaganda that is coming out
    of Russia.
        On the BBG, we have had a slight difference with you on the
    issue of whether it is improved to have a situation where you
    have two boards and two CEOs. I think you know I raised that.
    And, also, I think State, given our engagement with it, needs
    to be part of that process. I am confident we can find a way to
    drive this more effectively.
        The bigger issue is: What is Congress prepared to do in
    terms of putting some resources on the line to help us do this?
    I have found, when I have traveled to the Baltic region or to
    Poland or to Bulgaria recently and elsewhere, they are just
    getting flooded with propaganda. And propaganda is exactly
    that. It is propaganda. It has the ability to affect the minds
    of those who hear it if they don't hear alternatives.
        Chairman Royce. Yeah. Well, Mr. Secretary, we are on the
    same page with you. I think your request was 1.3 million to
    confront Russian propaganda in this budget.
        Secretary Kerry. Correct.
        Chairman Royce. We are on the same wavelength--Mr. Engel
    and I and the committee--with you on this.
        If I could just turn to one other issue that is going to be
    a topic here----
        Secretary Kerry. Sure.
        Chairman Royce [continuing]. Of this hearing today, and
    that is the question that is on our mind in terms of AUMF to
    ensure that the Commander in Chief has the authority needed to
    decisively defeat the enemy. And that will be part of our
    dialogue here with you this morning.
        I will turn now to Mr. Engel for his opening questions.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, again, welcome, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Secretary, I mentioned to you just before the hearing
    began my concern about a report that was in yesterday's New
    York Times that says, ``Negotiators weigh plan to phase out
    nuclear limits on Iran.''
        And, essentially, it is saying that we would possibly
    accept a fudging, so to speak, of how many years Iran would be
    prohibited from these various moves to have a nuclear weapon,
    whether it would be 10 years, 15 years, so on and so forth.
        But it essentially would ease limits on Iran's production
    during the later years of an accord and saying that, by doing
    that, it would be an attempt to bridge the differences between
    the two sides over how long an agreement should last.
        Can you talk about this. Because it is very disturbing.
    Obviously, I believe and others believe and I know you believe
    that the longest amount of time preventing Iran from gearing up
    to have a nuclear weapon is preferable. And if we are sort of
    fudging it, if those reports are true, at the end, it is very
    concerning.
        You know, no one here, certainly not you, needs to be told
    about the threat of Iran and that Iran having a nuclear weapon
    would be a game-changer. We need to support our ally Israel.
    Iran is an existential threat to them.
        And so, when I hear that the end portion of this agreement
    is sort of nebulous or we are going to be a little cloudy about
    it, it is very disturbing. So I would like your response to the
    report in the New York Times.
        Secretary Kerry. Absolutely. Couldn't be a more important
    topic, and I absolutely welcome the chance to talk about it.
        I regrettably can't talk about it as much as I would love
    to talk about it because we don't have a deal yet. And so I am
    not going to go into great lengths and detail here for that
    reason. And I would caution others not to be running around
    combating a deal that hasn't been made.
        Secondly, I will say, Ranking Member, you just said--the
    language you used was we don't want to see a reduction of these
    measures that might then permit Iran to go build a nuclear
    weapon.
        Please understand there is no reduction at any time that
    permits Iran to build a nuclear weapon. Iran is forbidden from
    building a nuclear weapon. That is the nature of membership in
    the Nonproliferation Treaty, which they are a member of, and
    that is the nature of certain responsibilities that you accept
    in the context of verification and transparency.
        Now, I am not going to go into all of that here today
    except to say to you that, obviously, that has got to be
    adequate. Unlike North Korea, which is not a member of the NPT,
    Iran has certain obligations that go forever.
        So don't get lured into believing that because something
    might change or be reduced with respect to, you know, some
    component they are allowed to do or install, et cetera.
    Countries that live by the NPT are permitted to have a peaceful
    nuclear program. That means they can produce power for their
    nation with a nuclear plant.
        Japan has very intrusive inspection, and they enrich and
    they are engaged in producing fuel and doing their capacity.
    Now, Iran has already mastered the fuel cycle, folks. They did
    that a number of years ago.
        When President George W. Bush was President in 2003, the
    Bush administration policy was no enrichment. And Iran went
    from 164 centrifuges to 19,000 that are installed. And thereis
    claims of some others being out there, which we are going out.
    So, you know, they have learned how to enrich. By the way, a
    different administration had an opportunity to stop them or do
    something, and they didn't.
        So we are where we are today. They know how to do the fuel
    cycle. And the question is going to be: What restraints can you
    put on that now in a way that guarantees you that you know they
    are not going to build a nuclear weapon?
        We have said there are four pathways to that nuclear
    weapon. One is through Fordow. Another is through Iraq. The
    other is through Natanz. And the fourth is through covert.
    Covertis hard. That is the hardest.
        So we are now negotiating the methods by which we can show
    that the four paths are cut off and that they are not cut off,
    folks, for 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years. They are cut off
    forever, for as long as they are living up to the NPT. And you
    have to build some process of a knowledge base and of a system
    that gets you there over a period of time. That is what we are
    trying to do.
        So, Mr. Chairman, today I don't want to jeopardize these
    talks. I don't want to mischaracterize them in any way. They
    are tough. They are hard. There are some very big issues yet to
    be resolved. We are not there. But we are not going to evade in
    on a piecemeal basis, and we certainly don't think it is
    appropriate to condemn it before everybody knows what it, in
    fact, is, if there is an is.
        Mr. Engel. Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you a final
    question about Ukraine. I believe that the United States should
    provide Ukraine with defensive weapons. I know that Germany and
    France have resisted it. I really think that whathas happened
    with Ukraine--under the 1994, as you well know, Budapest
    Memorandum, Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons with
    assurances from the U.S., the U.K., China, and Russia that they
    would be protected.
        We haven't, in my opinion, lived up to the 1994 Budapest
    Memorandum at all. And, as I said in my opening remark, I think
    that the credibility of NATO is hanging in the balance with
    Putin bullying all the countries around Ukraine.
        I am wondering if you could--you can comment on the
    defensive weapons to Ukraine to help them repel Putin's
    aggression.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, we have sent a lot of different
    items to Ukraine, actually, over a period of time. We are one
    of the more significant donors. We have been sending counter-
    battery radars. We have been sending night vision. We have been
    sending communications gear, MRAPs. I mean, thereis a long list
    of items that we have sent.
        And, in addition, we have been--let me just run through--we
    have got about 118 million we have given in training and
    equipment; 52 million including body armor, helmets, advanced
    radios, explosive ordnance, disposal robots, rations, first aid
    kit supplies; 47 million in protective gear for state border
    guard service, vehicles, up-armored SUV, heavy engineering
    equipment, thermal imaging, monitoring equipment, patrol boats,
    uniforms, generators.
        And we provided training and equipment to six companies and
    headquarters elements--that is about 600 personnel--and
    Ukrainian National Guard, and thereis more. So we have been
    doing a lot.
        I think everybody understands that we are not going to be
    able to do enough under any circumstance, that, if Russia
    decides to match it and surpass it, they are going to be able
    to do it. Everybody knows that, including President Poroshenko.
        The debate is whether or not there are some weapons that
    could be given to them that give them a greater ability to
    defend themselves in order to prevent the creeping land-
    grabbing that has been taking place or at least raise the cost.
    That is a very legitimate discussion.
        President Obama has not yet made that decision partly
    because even yesterday there was a meeting in Paris of the
    Russian Foreign Minister, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, and
    the French and German Foreign Ministers to measure the
    implementation of Minsk and to see if they can move further.
    Some weapons have been pulled back. Some troops have been
    pulled back. Obviously, Debaltseve was the site of a continued
    battle. That is a violation. There have been many violations of
    the Minsk cease-fire since then.
        So the measurement now is: Are we on a downward track to
    actually seeing an implementation or is there now a Mariupol or
    some other effort that may be taking place which would
    immediately merit a much more significant response, which is
    teed up? And that could be very serious, next level of
    sanctions, coupled with other choices the President may or may
    not make.
        Chairman Royce. We go now to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chair of
    the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
        I will ask about Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and the
    Palestinians.
        You testified in the Senate yesterday that, ``The policy is
    Iran will not get a nuclear weapon.'' However, last month your
    deputy, Tony Blinken, testified that the deal being negotiated
    is meant only to constrain Iran's breakout capabilities. So
    which one is it? Constraining or eliminating?
        And if the deal is to truly prevent Iran from ever
    acquiring a nuclear weapon, then why are we allowing Iran to
    enrich, to keep some of their stockpiles and centrifuges?
        Your agreement is based on the assumption that we can
    verify if Iran cheats, but the Defense Science Board and former
    CIA Director, General Hayden, have stated that our capability
    to detect Iran's undeclared or covert nuclear sites is either
    inadequate or does not exist. So can we catch when Iran cheats?
    And when they do cheat--not if, but when--what consequences
    will Iran suffer?
        And a report surfaced yesterday, as the chairman said, of
    an undeclared Iranian enrichment site. What information can you
    share about this new site? And how will this development impact
    the negotiations?
        On Cuba, Mr. Secretary, yesterday in the Senate you said,
    ``The change that we are making we believe actually assists the
    United States to be able to promote the democracy and the
    rights that we want for the people of Cuba.''
        However, a Cuban spy, Josefina Vidal, who is leading the
    Castro delegation, this week said that Havana will not accept a
    U.S. Embassy that will assist Cuba's civil society and said
    that, ``Change in Cuba isn't negotiable.''
        Now, the regime has arrested over 300 opposition members in
    just the last 2 weeks. Berta Soler was among them. Only 3 weeks
    ago, Mr. Secretary, she was sitting in your chair, testifying
    before our committee on the gross human rights abuses going on
    in Cuba today. She returned to Cuba on a Saturday. She was
    arrested Sunday.
        Yet, the U.S.-Castro talks are still scheduled to go on
    here at the State Department on Friday, but the U.S. didn't
    even get one cosmetic commitment to democratic reform from the
    Castro regime and the regime keeps demanding more from us:
    ``Give back GTMO,'' ``Pay us billions of dollars from the
    losses we suffered from the embargo.'' Utterly ridiculous.
        And just yesterday, Mr. Secretary, Raul Castro bestowed
    medals on those whom your administration pardoned, including
    Gerardo Hernandez, who was responsible for killing U.S.
    citizens. On the very anniversary of the killing of our
    citizens, Castro gave a medal to his killer, a killer who was
    pardoned by this administration.
        Of all the bad deals that we have seen--Bergdahl, et
    cetera--isn't this Cuba deal the weakest one yet?
        And on Venezuela, Mr. Secretary, just a few days ago, a 14-
    year-old child was killed by police thugs--actually, just
    yesterday, 14 years old. He was shot in the head during a
    peaceful protest.
        Now, we in Congress passed a sanctions law to punish such
    acts, but you have not fully implemented our law. State's
    decision to deny some visas to some people is only a small slap
    on the wrist. People are dying in Venezuela, and all we are
    hearing is excuses. Enough is enough.
        Why have you not fully implemented every one of the
    sanctions laws that we passed against human rights violators in
    Venezuela? How many more peaceful demonstrators must die before
    you sanction them.
        And, lastly, on the Palestinians, our courts just a few
    days ago, as you know, ordered the Palestinian Authority and
    the PLO to pay for terror. And, yet, the PA has hired a DC
    lobbying firm. We all know that money is fungible.
        So isn't our money to the Palestinians actually paying for
    their court-ordered terror penalties and their lobbying efforts
    here in Congress?
        Secretary Kerry. Well, let me answer the last two very
    quickly, and then I will talk about the others.
        The answer is no. That money is not paying for it. In fact,
    that moneyis not flowing right now because of the ICC and what
    is going on. And the PA is nearly bankrupt at this moment. It
    is in nobody's interest, Madam Chair, for the PA to fall apart.
    That is not----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. And on Cuba?
        Secretary Kerry. So we don't want that to happen.
        And I will come to Cuba in a minute.
        On the 14-year-old Venezuelan, that is horrendous.
    Venezuela keeps moving in the wrong direction and making the
    wrong choices. And the answer is the sanctions are being
    implemented right now as fast as possible. We are working with
    the National Security Council. We are working with the
    Department of the Treasury and other agencies to implement the
    provisions of the law as rapidly as we can.
        So we have no disagreement whatsoever on the egregious
    behavior, the repression of people, the arrests, the false
    accusations against us that are emanating out of Venezuela. We
    invite frequently President Maduro to realize that thereis a
    completely alternative set of options available to him. We hope
    he will take them.
        On Cuba----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. But he can commit these acts with
    impunity because nothing happens. We really aren't implementing
    those sanctions.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, no. The law is being implemented. It
    is being implemented. Sanctions--you know, everybody thinks you
    just sort of slap them on day one. Thereis a very specific set
    of requirements in the law for what you have to do to prepare
    in order to----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. How about the killer of this 14-year-old?
    We know who did it. Why didn't we sanction him yesterday? We
    have the video.
        Chairman Royce. We are going to have to keep moving. And I
    am just going to suggest----
        Secretary Kerry. Let me just say that sanctions are being
    applied.
        And Cuba--don't measure it by where it is today. Measure it
    by what begins to happen as this process of normalization takes
    place and we have an opportunity to be able to press those
    issues and shed more light on them and create the change we
    hope will take place. And I could go on at some length about
    that, but I want to get to the other things you mentioned very
    quickly.
        On Iran, there is no equivalency between--you know, with
    what Secretary Blinken was talking about with respect to
    preventing them from getting a weapon and the question of what
    happens with respect to their compliance with respect to their
    nuclear program.
        If you have a year of breakout time--by the way, everybody,
    I think it is a publicly known number that has been bantered
    around in the press that, prior to our joint agreement, the
    breakout time was about 2 months, maybe 3 max, but somewhere
    around 2 months.
        We have already extended that, and our effort in this
    agreement is to get a period of time--I am not going to say how
    long--but a period of time during which they have got to live
    by a 1-year breakout.
        Now, a 1-year breakout does not mean time it takes to get a
    bomb. A 1-year breakout is time it takes to get enough fissile
    material for one nuclear weapon, which they haven't yet
    designed or been able to test or put on a warhead or explode or
    anything. So that is many more years it takes to get there.
        We don't lose one option that we have today, not one
    option, during that period of time. Slap back on the sanctions.
    Make them worse than they are today or, of course, if you have
    to, you always have a military option. So we don't take away
    any option. We actually expand the period of time during which
    we can determine what is going on.
        Now, I will tell you, Israel is safer today with the added
    time we have given and the stoppage of the advances in the
    Iranian nuclear program than they were before we got that
    agreement, which, by the way, the Prime Minister opposed. He
    was wrong. And today heis saying, ``Oh, we should extend that
    interim agreement.''
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Will you share the agreement with
    Netanyahu?
        Secretary Kerry. Of course. Of course. We continue--I think
    even today our Department is on the phone to the National
    Security Advisor and we are having calls. I have----
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Secretary, I am going to make a
    suggestion to the members here.
        Members, if you use the 5 minutes to ask your questions, we
    are just going to go on to the next member, and then we will do
    the response in writing.
        Secretary Kerry. Fair enough.
        Chairman Royce. We are going to go right now to Mr. Brad
    Sherman of California. Thank you.
        Mr. Sherman. I have a lot of questions for which I would
    just like a response in writing, and then I will end with one
    that I would like an oral response from.
        First, I want to commend the----
        Chairman Royce. I had actually hoped to encourage dialogue,
    if the gentleman----
        Secretary Kerry. Had the opposite effect, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Sherman. I am responding to the chairman's policies.
        Secretary Kerry. I am happy listen to an hour's worth of
    questions and will respond.
        Mr. Sherman. I want to commend you for the action regarding
    Ebola. I want to be one of the first to commend you for the
    administration's approach to Iraq and Syria.
        We got chemical weapons out of the area. Otherwise,
    theywould be in ISIS's hands. And we repelled attacks on the
    Haditha Dam, the Mosul Dam, and, most importantly, Baghdad, all
    without any U.S. combat casualties.
        Now, a lot of people throw out other ideas: You should have
    done this. You should have done that. Maybe they would have
    made things better. Maybe things would be worse.
        But I will tell you this: Every one of those other
    strategies would have resulted in an awful lot of American
    combat casualties. Your strategy has done more without
    casualties to Americans in the service than any other strategy
    could have.
        As to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, you say it shouldn't
    be a race to the bottom, but Vietnam is 30 cents an hour. That
    is the bottom. And we are told that we are going to get free
    access to the markets of Vietnam, but they don't have freedom
    and they don't have markets.
        They were told that there is going to be labor rights for
    Vietnamese workers. They don't dare assert them because the
    human rights situation is such that they risk their own lives.
    So, I mean, 30 cents an hour is the bottom, and that is what we
    are racing to.
        Also, as to China in this Trans-Pacific agreement, with the
    rules of origin in our other agreements, goods that are 50, 60,
    80 percent made in China can then go to another country, get
    slapped with a tag, and come into the United States duty free.
        The chairman raised the Broadcasting Board of Governors
    issue. I just want to raise one small part of that, and that is
    how important it is that we broadcast in the Sindhi language. I
    think I mentioned this to you before.
        This committeehas voted to spend $1.5 million a year to do
    that. And thereis no population in the world more important to
    world stability than that of Pakistan. There is no place where
    there are more crazy ideas than Pakistan. And if you are trying
    to reach a population, you can't just do it in Urdu.
        Senator Kerry, you championed recognition of the Armenian
    genocide. We now are about to have the 100th anniversary, and I
    would hope that you would show the courage that you are
    personally known for and, on April 24, use the world
    ``genocide'' to describe what happened in Anatolia 100 years
    ago.
        In your earlier testimony, you said that Iran is not
    permitted to have a nuclear weapon ever because they are
    members of the NPT, unlike North Korea. North Korea was a
    member of the NPT. They withdrew in 2003.
        And I would hope you would clarify for the record that
    North Korea is not entitled to have a nuclear weapon and that
    Iran does not become permitted to have a nuclear weapon should
    they at some future time decide to withdraw from the NPT.
        I hope that you would furnish for the record a statement
    that our position is, once you are in the NPT, you cannot get
    out. Otherwise, every country is just one letter away from
    being permitted to develop nuclear weapons.
        You have talked about 1 year to breakout. What I am
    concerned about is how long to sneak out. The MEK sometimes
    gives us accurate information. They are the ones that told the
    world about the Iranian nuclear program. They now say that
    there is a secret facility at Lavizan-3.
        One approach is that--well, what I would like to know is:
    Are you willing to accept an agreement in which the IAEA does
    not have the right to go anywhere on short notice to look at
    undeclared or potentially undeclared or credibly believed to be
    undeclared nuclear sites or are we going to settle for the cat
    and mouse game in which you can tell us it is a year to
    breakout and the Iranians have undisclosed facilities and we
    can't even check them out?
        I would ask that he be allowed to answer that for the
    record.
        Secretary Kerry. Do we have time left?
        Mr. Sherman. I hope you have time for that one last
    question.
        Chairman Royce. We will do the last question, but we will
    need to keep moving. We only have 5 minutes for each member,
    and we want to get as many as possible.
        So go ahead with the last question.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, let me just say, clearly, Iran does
    not have a right to step out of the NPT and then go. And if
    they began to do that, we will hopefully--and this is part of
    what is being negotiated--have the ability to know immediately
    ifthere is any movement in that direction. And then we have all
    our options, as I said, that are available to us.
        Going a step further, on this secret facility, we are well
    aware of the accusation--or the allegations regarding that
    facility. It will obviously have to be--any questions would
    have to be answered to have any kind of an agreement, and I
    think people should rest assured that will take place.
        And on the IAEA, we are negotiating for the appropriate
    standards and process that the IAEA needs in order to be able
    to answer appropriate questions. That is a critical part of
    compliance with any NPT country. There is a process, as you
    know, that is required in order to achieve that. So that is
    obviously part of the negotiations.
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Chris Smith of New Jersey, chairman of
    the subcommittee on Africa and Global Health.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your service and
    for your leadership. I certainly like the use of your phrase
    ``race to the top.'' If only that were true when it comes to
    respect for human rights among many countries around the world,
    including in China and Cuba.
        Ileana Ros-Lehtinen--we cochaired that hearing just 3 weeks
    ago, and Berta Soler sat right where you sit. We were all
    concerned about her welfare and well-being going back. And of
    course she was arrested when she went back for speaking the
    truth. On Friday her case and that of all the dissidents
    hopefully will be front and center. It has to be.
        I also a couple of years chaired one of 49 hearings on
    human rights abuses in China I have held. I can't even get a
    visa to go there anymore. We had five daughters who testified,
    all of whose fathers are political prisoners. All of them in
    unison as the hearing went on asked to meet with President
    Obama. They said, ``He has two daughters. He will understand.''
        I tried for months to arrange that meeting, 5, 10 minutes
    with these unbelievably wonderful five daughters speaking out
    for their dads in prison in China. We couldn't get it. I
    respectfully ask perhaps you can help make that happen. Gao
    Zhisheng's daughter is one of those. I know you know about
    Gao's case. And perhaps you might even meet with them as well.
        Let me ask you, on Nigeria, Mr. Secretary, will you
    immediately seek to restart and significantly expand critical
    military training of human rights-vetted Nigerian Armed Forces
    to combat the existential threat posed by Boko Haram?
        On Iran, the status of Pastor Abedini, Robert Levinson,
    Amir Hekmati, and Jason Rezaian from the Washington Post, do
    you expect that they will be free soon?
        And then, on the issue of child abduction, several
    deadlines have arrived, or are imminent, pursuant to the Sean
    and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and
    Return Act.
        And I want to thank you publicly again for your strong
    personal support for the new law, including the process to
    develop and to enter appropriate procedures, including MOUs
    with non-Hague countries with unresolved child abduction cases
    like India. Japan--as you know, has signed the Hague
    Convention--has been breathtakingly unresponsive especially to
    abductions that occurred prior to the ratification of the Hague
    Convention.
        Iraq war veteran Michael Elias from northern New Jersey and
    numerous parents from the NGO BACHome have been utterly,
    utterly, frustrated even to meet with their children, much less
    get them back.
        And then there is the issue of India. Bindu Philips is a
    New Jersey mother of twin boys abducted to India 6 years ago.
    Bindu got full custody in a New Jersey court, testified before
    my subcommittee 2 years ago, and this past Monday I met with
    her in my office in New Jersey and she pleaded for you, Mr.
    Secretary, to help her to get her kids back.
        I just want to ask you because I know you have a heart for
    this: Did President Obama raise child abduction cases with
    Prime Minister Modi when they met in late January? Did you
    raise it on your trip earlier that month? And, if so, what was
    Mr. Modi's response?
        Secretary Kerry. Well, we have raised those cases. We raise
    them in every conversation that we have. In fact, all of our
    missing citizens--we have a number of them in various parts of
    the world and we raise them on a consistent basis not only
    through our Embassies, but anytime that I visit either here or
    go somewhere and we meet at high levels, we raise these issues
    by name.
        We have raised the names of the folks, Mr. Abedini, Mr.
    Hekmati, Mr. Levinson, Mr. Rezaian, most recently when I was in
    Geneva just a couple of days ago. And we consistently--and we
    are working--we actually have a process now in place where we
    are working quietly, trying to see what can be arranged.
        With respect to the parent child abduction, I have worked
    on that very, very hard when I was here. I worked on that as
    the Secretary and had a very tragic case in my State of
    Massachusetts, a gentleman whose kids were stolen and taken
    back to Egypt and we have been trying to get access back and so
    forth.
        We have a caseload of about 1,000 international parental
    abduction cases, and we are trying to expand The Hague
    abduction convention to efforts throughout the world. We have
    approximately 75 professionals who are full-time assisting
    parents with respect to this horrendous plight that they face.
    I mean, there is nothing worse, obviously.
        I applaud and thank you for your constant focus on these
    issues, Congressman. You are really the primary focus of the
    entire Congress on this, and we appreciate it enormously.
        With respect to Nigeria, I visited there recently in order
    to try to keep the election process from leading to violence.
    We knew there was a possibility of some delay. Now we are
    trying to make sure that this delay does not become an excuse
    for rigging the election, trying to steal it.
        We are working hard to have a transparent election, which
    would then give us leadership one way or the other, prepared to
    move forward on the military training, on the efforts to
    coordinate on Boko Haram. And, as you've seen, the neighbors
    have come together--Chad, Cameroon, others--in an effort to try
    to put pressure on Boko Haram. I am confident that, over time,
    we will be able to.
        We have done the proper Leahy vetting with respect to the
    units that we were training in Nigeria. I assure you that has
    not been the problem in our training program disruption.
    Unfortunately, equipment was not delivered to them internally
    that should have been given them. And, frankly, there have been
    some leadership challenges with respect to that.
        So, hopefully, this election can clear the air and put us
    in a position to move on an effort against Boko Haram and to do
    some of the training that you have talked about.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        We go now to Mr. Gregory Meeks of New York.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you.
        Let me first--you know, some have said that the United
    States no longer leads. I think they mean leading in a
    unilateral way. I want to compliment you on leading in this
    administration because I think leadership in today's world
    means leading in a multilateral way.
        And what you and this administration have done was bring a
    lead by bringing countries together, whether it is bringing the
    country together on the P5+1, which those sanctions is what put
    Iran into the position that it currently is in, whether it is
    bringing countries together to fight Ebola, bringing countries
    together when we deal with the Ukrainian and Russian situation,
    bringing countries together to deal with ISIL.
        That is leadership, and it is difficult leadership when
    everybody has their own competing interests. And I think that
    the leadership that we are doing today so that we can share
    this world that has shrunk by talking about, ``We just can't do
    it our way, by ourselves, with no one else'' is real
    leadership. It is hard work, and sometimes it is not thankful.
    So I appreciate the work that you are doing in that regard.
        It is difficult because, when I look at my constituents,
    for example, even going back to 2003, they have had a sense of
    both hope and skepticism when multilateral negotiations
    regarding Iran's nuclear program initiated. And there have been
    many stops and starts since that time. And my constituency has
    expressed strong concern over the years about the prospects of
    an agreement with Iran. The current multilateral negotiations,
    of course, are no exception. And today we are at the precipice
    of a deadline set by the P5+1 under the Joint Plan of Action.
        So my question simply is--and I want to ask three
    questions, and I am going to try to be quiet so you can answer
    them all--on this area, should my constituents that are so
    concerned--they tell me concerned and it is emotional for them
    because they are really concerned about the threat to Israel
    and about Iran having a nuclear weapon.
        So should they be hopeful or skeptical at this point in the
    current negotiations? And what would you consider a
    comprehensive agreement, knowing that we are not there, if we
    can do that? And how does the administration's budget support
    that end? That is on Iran.
        Quickly, I went to Asia just last week. I visited
    Singapore, Malaysia, and Japan. Clearly, there, being on the
    ground, was very helpful. Can you just tell us how important,
    when we look at TPP, for example, just on an economic side--but
    as I talked to some of those countries, they were looking at it
    also from a geopolitical aspect--how important it was for us to
    have a presence in the region.
        So how important is TPP with reference to--geopolitically
    on top of the economics? And then when you talk about Vietnam,
    maybe even talking about capacity-building they are in.
        Let me keep quiet and give you the few minutes I have.
    Because I just want to know whether we have any other tools
    because I--subcommittee on Europe----
        Secretary Kerry. Can you just clarify the second part of
    your question, which was how do we support that end regarding
    your constituents. What was the----
        Mr. Meeks. Well, the question is--I wanted to know whether
    or not with my constituents, who are skeptical----
        Secretary Kerry. All right. I got it, skeptical.
        Look, I think it is fair to be skeptical until you see the
    agreement, and it is important to be hopeful. And that's the
    way I would put it. I am not sitting here expressing
    confidence. I am expressing hope because I think we are better
    off with a viable, acceptable, good, diplomatic agreement than
    with the other choices. But it remains to see whether or not we
    can get that kind of an agreement.
        So I think it is healthy to approach something with a
    certain amount of skepticism until proven otherwise, but I
    wouldn't be damning it on the skepticism. I would just wait and
    be hopeful and see what we can produce. Give us a chance--I
    mean, look, remember how many people--I can remember sitting
    here--and I won't go into who said what, but there were plenty
    of folks in this committee who said, ``Terrible agreement. You
    are giving away the store. This can't work. They won't live up
    to it.'' I sat and listened to all of that, and I said, ``The
    proof is in the pudding.''
        Well, guess what, folks. They have lived up to every single
    piece of it. The 20 percent enriched uranium has been taken
    down to zero. That fuel has been shipped out. Stockpile is
    lowered. They have given us access to Fordow. They have given
    us access to the storage sites of centrifuges. They have given
    us access to the milling, the uranium, the mining. I mean, we
    have had--you know, they have stopped Iraq. They didn't do any
    further work on it. Everything they said, so that, in effect,
    they agreed to roll back their program and they rolled it back.
        So we are beginning now with, frankly, a baseline of a year
    of measurement. And you can't just dismiss that and throw it
    out the window. So I think that is cause for hope, and that is
    all I would say about it at this point in time.
        On TPP, of course there is a geopolitical component in
    this. If the rules of doing business are written by people who
    don't adhere to our standards of doing business, that is a race
    to the bottom.
        And if we are not helping to bring countries together to
    create an understanding of how we are going to treat each other
    in business, of what kind of access we will have of non-tariff
    barriers being eliminated, of fair trade in certain products
    and so forth--if there aren't rules that raise the standards,
    we are in trouble.
        Now, I will tell you right now labor standards, environment
    standards, business standards are all going to be written into
    this agreement in ways that they haven't been previously.
        In a place like Vietnam--and I know Vietnam pretty well
    because I was involved in the effort to end the embargo with
    George H W. Bush and then, ultimately, the normalization, and I
    have seen the transformation that has taken place.
        People are living a higher standard of living. People have
    the right to strike. They do strike. There are labor rights. It
    is not as uniform as in the United States, but a huge
    transformation is taking place.
        And there is no question in my mind that being able to
    implement this will be a game-changer for people's attitudes
    and possibilities as we go forward in the future.
        And China has actually said to us, ``Could we join this
    ultimately?'' And we have said, ``Of course you can, if you are
    prepared to adopt the standards.''
        So this is geostrategic. It is vital to America's presence
    in the region. And I urge everybody to think of it in that
    context. And that is part of the reason why TPA is so
    important.
        Chairman Royce. We are going now to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of
    California, chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and Emerging
    Threats.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        And, again, though we ask pointed questions, we wish you
    the best of luck and are very proud of the hard work that you
    are doing, even though we may have some disagreements with
    specific policy.
        It seems to me about your opening statement--when you
    talked about how complicated the world is right now as compared
    to what confronted the greatest generation, I just would like
    to respectfully disagree with you. The fact is that I believe
    what the difference was is not that the world wasn't so
    complicated, but that the greatest generation knew how to set
    priorities.
        And Reagan exemplified that in the Cold War when he said,
    ``What is your goal with the Soviet Union?,'' who was our
    primary enemy at that time. He said, ``We win. They lose.'' And
    he knew that that was his number one goal. By the end of his
    administration, we had eliminated the Cold War without a direct
    military confrontation with what we had been at war with in the
    Cold War.
        I think that today we should set the priority, which is who
    is our primary enemy, who is the primary threat to the well-
    being and security of our people. And I think that we have to
    come to the realization that radical Islam is the primary
    threat to our safety.
        And I know our President has a little bit of difficulty
    saying those words together, ``radical Islamic terrorism,'' but
    I have no problem saying it. And that is the primary enemy for
    the security of our people. That includes, by the way, the
    Mullah regime in Iran.
        Just right off the bat, when you mentioned that the Mullahs
    had actually went ahead and they have actually moved forward
    and accomplished the agreements that they had pledged to do
    about nuclear weapons, did the Mullah regime tell us about the
    existence of this new nuclear facility that our friends in the
    MEK who were permitted to sit out in the middle of the desert--
    did we know about that nuclear facility?
        Secretary Kerry. Well, you are saying it is a nuclear
    facility. That has yet to be determined. But we know about the
    facility. Yes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So had the Mullahs disclosed that facility
    to us?
        Secretary Kerry. Well, it has not been revealed yet as a
    nuclear facility. It is a facility that we are aware of which
    is on a list of facilities we have. And I am not going to go
    into greater detail, but these things are obviously going to be
    have to be resolved as we go forward.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Let me note that most of us have
    been somewhat upset because, again, the administration seems
    unable to prioritize the helping of our major friends. To me, a
    major friend is: Who is the greatest enemy of our enemy who can
    help bring down our enemy the most?
        For example, we have left--and, again, this leads to a
    question--we have left the most heroic person in this effort,
    Dr. Afridi, the heroic individual who helped us bring to
    justice Osama bin Laden, Osama bin Laden, the man who helped
    plan the murder, the slaughter, of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
        Yet, the man who helped us bring him to justice has been
    sitting in a dungeon in Pakistan. And what do we get? I
    mentioned this to you last year. He's been sitting there the
    whole year. And, yet, the administration is still planning to
    give more than $500 million in aid to the Government that has
    basically committed the ultimate hostile act and slap in our
    face by putting Dr. Afridi in jail.
        Are we going to hold back any of that $500 million until
    they let Dr. Afridi go?
        Secretary Kerry. Are we what?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Are we going to withhold any of the $500
    million in aid that we are proposing until they let Dr. Afridi
    go? And what message does that give to our friends if we let
    Dr. Afridi sit in that prison?
        And this is a message to the Kurds and anybody else. We are
    not going to help you. You may put yourselves on the line for
    us, but we are going to let you die a lingering death if that
    is what--rather than make some tough choices.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, we are not doing that, Congressman.
    We are actually--and I respect and appreciate your passion and
    concern for Dr. Afridi, which I share. And I have raised this.
    I raised it formerly with President Zardari and Prime Minister
    Sharif. We have raised it at the highest levels. We believe his
    incarceration is both unjust, unwarranted, unfair,
    counterproductive to our efforts, and we have made that case.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. We have made the case.
        Are we going to withhold the support, Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Kerry. We believe the best way to try to solve
    this problem is to do this through the diplomatic channels,
    through regular communication direct and high-level engagement,
    which has a chance of being successful.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. That is where we disagree, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Kerry. I know.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I don't think you have been successful at
    it. And it is symbolic to our other--the Kurds----
        Secretary Kerry. I can guarantee you----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. We have war trying to placate the people
    who are not our best friends in Iraq at the expense of the
    Kurds. We want to put them secondary, make sure they are put
    down in a subservient role to Baghdad.
        This whole idea that we can't prioritize and stand behind
    our friends is a problem. I think it is a strategic error on
    the part of administration.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, nobody is condoning or allowing
    people to be ``put down.'' In fact, we fought very hard for the
    arming which is taking place of the Peshmerga and of the Kurds
    for the oil deal that was made between Baghdad. In fact, it is
    thedirect contrary of what you just said. We are actually
    elevating the capacity----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. When you were here last year, it was one
    thing. We asked you about: Could we give weapons directly to
    the Kurds? Are we doing that now? Are we still saying it has to
    be approved by Baghdad?
        Secretary Kerry. Some things have gone to them directly.
    Some things have gone through Baghdad. And that is appropriate
    and it is working. Baghdad has seen to it that they are getting
    what they need and has worked very effectively in coordination
    with them. That is one of the virtues of what Prime Minister
    Abadi is bringing to the table right now.
        But I want to go back to your original comment, which I
    think really merits a moment, Mr. Chairman. When you say you
    disagree that there wasn't a greater simplicity to the choices
    of World War II, I am not diminishing it.
        I am one of the greatest admirers in the world. I am in awe
    of what they did. I have been to the beaches of Normandy--I
    don't know--15, 20 times. To me, it is religious ground. It is
    an amazing place.
        And everything that went on in that war is stunning in
    terms of the coordination of global effort to defeat fascism,
    tyranny, dictatorship. I don't simplify that. But I am telling
    you, in terms of a choice, it was communism, fascism, and
    tyranny versus democracy, freedom, and liberty.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. But it wasn't. We sided with the Soviet
    Union because we knew they were less priority. The Nazis and
    the Japanese had the highest priority.
        Secretary Kerry. Because they were going to help us defeat
    that particular----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Correct.
        Secretary Kerry. I just want to finish.
        Chairman Royce. We understand both the gentlemen's points.
        Secretary Kerry. What you have today, what has been
    released as a result of the fall of Berlin Wall and all of the
    things that have happened with the Arab Spring, you have
    complications of tribes all over the place with different
    agenda. You have Sunni versus Shiite. You have Arab versus
    Persian. You have culture and Middle East and modernity and
    religion, a host of things and different agenda by different
    countries that are part of different efforts.
        For instance, the coalition to deal with ISIL is split on
    whether or not there ought to be a focus on Assad or not a
    focus on Assad. That is a complication. You begin to do one
    thing, you lose some. You do the other, you lose others. How do
    you hold them together?
        That was not the problem with respect to the challenge of
    whether or not you had to beat the folks in the Pacific and win
    in Europe at the same time in World War II. So there is a huge
    difference in how states are behaving today and in what their
    economic power is and in what choices they have.
        Chairman Royce. We go now to Mr. Sires of New Jersey, the
    ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today.
        Mr. Secretary, one of the things that I read was that the
    largest democracy in the Western Hemisphere encouraged us to
    get rid of our embargo with Cuba, that it would help the
    relationship.
        I am just wondering why some of these countries are not
    speaking up against the abuses that go on in Cuba and in
    Venezuela. I mean, somebody pointed out before that a 14-year-
    old boy was shot yesterday. Places like Brazil, how come they
    don't say anything about the human right abuses? How come they
    don't say anything? If they encouraged us, it seems like we
    were left alone. I just think they are fearful of Cuba stirring
    up the university students in some of these countries.
        Secretary Kerry. I don't know if that is the reason they
    don't do it, but I don't disagree with you. And not only, by
    the way, in this hemisphere. I think that there are a lot of
    countries in Europe and elsewhere that have been willing to do
    business without any kind of voice of accountability for those
    kinds of abuses.
        I think one of the things that will happen with our
    diplomatic presence, frankly, is an ability to help mobilize
    that, and we ought to. We are not going to turn our backs on
    one notion of what is important with respect to human rights
    democracy, change, so forth, and we have made that clear.
        Mr. Sires. Well, we could go on, but I have a couple of
    other questions.
        Secretary Kerry. I am sure you could.
        Mr. Sires. Well, that is what I'm here for.
        Colombia. You know, I have a great deal of Colombian
    population in my district. Some of the Colombians are concerned
    about our decision of sending Harrison, our envoy, to
    participate in this treaty. They feel that, if things don't
    turn out well, you know, Santos has somebody to blame, which
    has always been the ugly American in South America, which is
    us.
        I know that he asked. I know that we complied with his ask.
    But I was just wondering what do we really get out of this
    other than--if it doesn't go well and the Colombian people turn
    down this pact, we are going to wind up being the bad guys.
        Secretary Kerry. Let me tell you why I don't think we will.
    But it is a good point, and it is an appropriate question to
    ask because, under the wrong circumstances, it is possible that
    could happen.
        We are not at the table. We are not a negotiating partner
    in this.
        Mr. Sires. But the impression out there seems that we sent
    Harrison over----
        Secretary Kerry. We are doing this in order to try to help
    facilitate, if it is possible, because they believe that the
    United States could be very helpful as a friend and a partner
    because we have existing assistance programs to Colombia that
    are helping to lay the groundwork for the implementation of a
    possible peace agreement and because we have been so committed
    through the years.
        I mean, you all--certainly those you in the top daises
    here--were deeply involved in helping to do this, 1990s, Plan
    Colombia, highly controversial. We put a billion bucks and more
    on the line. We became deeply engaged. And together with the
    leadership of Colombians, a country that was near failed,
    certainly failing, turned itself around to become one of our
    most trade partners and allies in the region.
        Mr. Sires. Yeah. But they were pretty much outcasts,
    Colombia, because they were dealing so much with us. And that
    concern----
        Secretary Kerry. Well, there were----
        Mr. Sires. And the last question I have is----
        Secretary Kerry. Sure. But look at the success they are
    today. Measure their success today against countries that
    haven't chosen to do that.
        I think Colombia is a leader as a result, and I think other
    countries are saying, ``You know, maybe we are missing out. I
    think there is an effort we can make to do a better job of
    reaching out into Latin America.''
        We are trying to do that. That is part of what is in this
    budget, by the way, in the $1 billion we are trying to put----
        Mr. Sires. I am just concerned that we are going to wind up
    looking bad, as usual.
        The last question I have is: Where is our progress with
    Joanne Chesimard as far as being sent back to the United States
    to face trial? Joanne Chesimard is the Black Liberation
    Movement woman that killed a state trooper in New Jersey. And I
    read where the Cuban Government said, ``That is out of the
    question. We are not sending her back.''
        Secretary Kerry. We are continuing to seek the return from
    Cuba of fugitives from U.S. justice. We raised these cases. We
    have raised the case of Joanne Chesimard. We raised the case of
    William Guillermo Morales with the Cuban Government during the
    migration talks that just took place a few weeks ago. We raised
    those cases when we met in January. There is a meeting here
    Friday, and we will raise the cases again on Friday.
        And we have had some limited success in recent years. There
    are four non-Cuban national, U.S. national fugitives who have
    been returned to the United States since 2011. We are going to
    continue these discussions in the context of this new
    relationship and, hopefully, it might open the door.
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Steve Chabot of Ohio.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for being here, Mr. Secretary.
        Last week State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf espoused
    the interesting proposition that we should create a jobs
    program for people who might be inclined to support groups like
    ISIS, jobs for Jihadists. She didn't call it that, but I will.
    And just where will these jobs come from? I guess not at the
    mall. It is apparently too dangerous to work there now.
        Are these shovel-ready jobs or are they yet to be created,
    like Keystone Pipeline jobs? And, Mr. Secretary, did Ms. Harf
    consult with anyone else in the State Department--yourself or
    anyone--before announcing this new initiative? If not, who did
    she consult with?
        I realize that, according to Ms. Harf, many of us are not
    nuanced enough to grasp the wisdom of such an enlightened
    proposal. And I am sure some of any colleagues would appreciate
    some insight just where in the heck this idea came from.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, Congressman, let me make it
    absolutely clear. That is not what she was saying, if you take
    the full breadth of what Marie Harf was talking about.
        In fact, what she was talking about is the notion that, if
    all we do is have a military approach to the problem of
    violent, religious extremism, whether it is Islamic or other,
    or whether there are violent extremists, we are going to fail.
    You will have the next Secretary of State or the one thereafter
    or a continuum of Presidents coming to you with new acronyms
    for new groups that are a threat.
        And everything that came out of our White House summit on
    violent extremism underscored the fact that there is one
    component that you have to do for sure, which is the military.
    You have to take ISIS fighters off the battlefield the way we
    are, and that is for certain. But if you don't want them just
    replenished, like those three kids from Britain who just
    traveled ostensibly to Syria to join up----
        Mr. Chabot. Another very disturbing thing that happened.
    Absolutely.
        Secretary Kerry. Okay. Well, let me just go further.
        It is not just kids from Britain. There are several
    thousand people from Russia. There are multiple hundreds of
    people from France, from Germany, from Australia. The
    Australians are in the targets now. This is a spreading cancer
    and it is not going to be eliminated by just shooting at people
    once they finally get to the battlefield.
        Everything that came out of the conference we just had the
    other day pointed to the need to deal with prevention. And a
    very distinguished professor who testified there, Dr. Peter
    Neumann from King's College in London, specifically who has d1
    years of research on this, talking about the nearly 4,000
    people who have gone since 2012 from Berlin, London, Stockholm,
    and Paris--they are all young people, and you can find them on
    Facebook, on Twitter, on Instagram, Tumblr, social platforms.
    They are talking, schticking back and forth, and nothing is
    answering it.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I have limited time
    here. I think I gave you extensive time to answer the question.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, I just want you to know--don't make
    fun of what she was talking about.
        Mr. Chabot. We have got an awful lot of young people that
    are unemployed in this country, and I think we ought to work on
    that.
        Secretary Kerry. That is not what she was talking about.
        Mr. Chabot. It sure sounded like it. I know it was awfully
    nuanced. But let me move on.
        Mr. Secretary, in mid-January, Taiwan's President Ma
    decided to release former President Chen Shui-bian on medical
    parole. As you may know, my Democrat colleague, Eni
    Faleomavaega, and I visited former President Chen in prison. He
    had a whole range of medical conditions: Multiple strokes,
    severe depression, Parkinson's disease, and on and on.
        We besieged President Ma to issue a medical parole--or
    humanitarian parole. He ultimately did. I give him credit for
    that. But it was only for 30 days. And he will probably, unless
    there is some change, be taken back. His condition was just
    startling.
        I would urge you to look at the case. I know it is an
    internal problem. I would like to say a country, Taiwan--you
    know, the PRC doesn't like that, but they are a de facto
    country. And I know that we, for the most part, consider that
    to be the case, although it is not necessarily our policy. You
    can't tell them what to do.
        But I would urge the administration to look at that matter
    and, to the extent that we can exercise some reason on the
    Taiwanese Government, that that parole be made permanent so he
    can stay with his family.
        Secretary Kerry. Will do.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        Chairman Royce. We go to Mr. Connolly of Fairfax, Virginia,
    Gerry Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And welcome, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Secretary, we had a hearing a few weeks ago, and the
    nuclear inspection model of South Africa came up. And the
    assertion was made that South Africa might be the ideal model
    for unannounced, unpredicted complete access. Anytime,
    anywhere--you name it--we get to inspect, and South Africa has
    agreed to that.
        Have we thought about using the South Africa model for IAE
    inspections with respect to our negotiations with Iran?
        Secretary Kerry. We are examining every possible model. We
    are looking at Japan, South Africa, all existing enriching
    country models. And we also have to measure whatever those
    models are against a particular country we are dealing with.
    But that is what we are doing.
        Mr. Connolly. I think some of us would be very interested
    in hearing more about that as you proceed.
        You have counseled us to keep our powder dry. After all,
    there is no agreement yet. I think you surely--having been in
    Congress as long as you were in Congress, you can understand,
    however, that there is anxiety while waiting, a means that I am
    handed a fait accompli. We don't amend the agreement.
        Meanwhile, we have the head of another Government coming to
    speak to Congress under circumstances that, in my view, are
    shameful, but, nonetheless, he's coming. And he's not keeping
    his powder dry.
        And he is somebody, as the ranking member indicated, with
    an existential concern about this. And he says that is going to
    be a bad agreement, ``It is so bad, that is why I am coming to
    speak to Congress. I have got to go over the heads of the
    Secretary of State and the President of the United States and
    plead with Congress and the American public to derail this
    agreement because it is going to threaten Israel and, frankly,
    other nations in the region.'' So he's not keeping his powder
    dry, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Kerry. I beg your pardon?
        Mr. Connolly. He's not keeping his powder dry. And it is
    awfully hard for us to pretend he is.
        Secretary Kerry. And that is something that you and people
    in Israel and everybody else have to make your judgment about.
    I am not going to get dragged into that particular choice or
    how it came about. I don't think that is helpful.
        I will say this----
        Mr. Connolly. It is his criticism I am asking you to
    address.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, let me say this. The Prime Minister,
    as you recall, was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken
    about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush, and
    we all know what happened with that decision.
        He was extremely outspoken about how bad the interim
    agreement was, during which time he called it the deal of the
    century for Iran, even though it has clearly stopped Iran's
    program. And, more importantly, he has decided it would be to
    good to continue it.
        So, you know, I talk to him frequently. We work very, very
    closely together. We are deeply committed. We, this
    administration--I think we have done more to help Israel. I
    have a packet of 25 pages or more of things we have done on
    behalf of Israel in the course of this administration to stand
    up for it, stand with it, protect, fight back against unfair
    initiatives.
        So we won't take a backseat to anybody in our commitment to
    the State of Israel. But he may have a judgment that just may
    not be correct here. And, you know, let's wait and hear what he
    says. I am not going to prejudge his statement any more than he
    should prejudge this agreement. But when we have heard, if
    appropriate, I will respond.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        My other question has to do with the Minsk agreement. Since
    Minsk won, there have been over 300 violations, according to
    the European Union, and, in part, Minsk II exists because Minsk
    I kind of melted away with Russian aggression.
        Is Minsk the right framework for us, given Russian
    aggression, given what has just happened in eastern Ukraine?
    And does it sufficiently address the illegal annexation which
    should never be recognized of the Crimea? Doesn't all of this
    flow from the fact that perhaps the West was a little slow in
    responding to what happened in Crimea?
        Secretary Kerry. No. That is not what it flows from at all.
    And the answer is the Minsk agreement, if it were implemented,
    would be a good way to deescalate. And that is what everybody
    hopes for.
        This does not flow from what President Putin chose to do
    with respect to Crimea, which elicited a beginning response
    with respect to sanctions.
        It flows from a view Mr. Putin holds about the new Russia
    that he talks about and about his efforts to try to push back
    against what he feels is a threat from Europe and from us in
    the West in encroaching in what he deems to be his sphere of
    influence. We don't deal with spheres of influence in that way.
    We deal with independence and sovereignty of nations and
    respect for agreements.
        The Bucharest agreement says we would all protect--Russia
    included--would protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
    And long ago, through the United Nations and other agreements,
    the respect for international boundaries and lines and not
    taking territory by force and subterfuge has been the standard
    for which nations have been trying to fight.
        President Putin clearly has made a set of choices that
    violate all of that. So in Luhansk and Donetsk and now in
    Debaltseve, he has empowered, encouraged, and facilitated
    directly land grabs in order to try to destabilize Ukraine
    itself, and it stems from his policy, his decisions, which
    violate all the international norms with respect to territory
    and behavior.
        So we have, I think, made it very--I don't think anybody in
    this committee is suggesting the United States ought to be
    sending the 101st Airborne at this moment or the on 82nd or
    something even greater than that. That is not what I hear. I
    think people feel that this is a time for smart policy.
        And it is clear that, from the policy we put in place, the
    Russian ruble is down 50 percent. There has been $151 billion
    of capital flight from Russia. Russia is about to go into
    recession this year, according to economic predictions.
        So I think, while Putin may be achieving the short-term
    stuff, the long term is a problem, the long term for Russia.
    And I think we are pursuing a policy that is smart and
    effective at the same time.
        And our preference is to deescalate this, get back to the
    norms, and restore a relationship with Russia that could be
    more public and more productive in many, many different
    respects.
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Mike McCaul, chairman of the Homeland
    Security Committee.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, let me just say sincerely I want to thank
    you for your service in these very challenging times we find
    ourselves. I appreciate your comments about the greatest
    generation.
        My father was B-17 bombardier in the European theater.
    Truly was a great and is a great generation. They were all in
    and they were all in to win, and they won. And they defeated
    fascism.
        I see a new threat. It is Islamist extremism. It seems to
    me the best homeland security policy we can have is to
    eliminate the threat where it exists rather than it coming into
    the United States.
        Before this committee we will be deliberating an
    authorization for the use of military force. We had a meeting
    with White House officials--the chairman and myself and
    others--and were presented with the President's policy on this.
    I must say the reception was not a warm one.
        I have concerns, concerns of a timetable telling ISIS how
    long we are in the fight, concerns about tying the hands of our
    generals, concerns about--usually, an authorization is asked
    for by the Congress to expand the President's authority and the
    military's powers rather than restrict them. I cannot support
    this authorization as presented by the administration.
        The authorization I would like to see--and I would like to
    get your opinion--would be an authorization to degrade and
    destroy ISIS wherever they exist.
        Can you tell me whether you would support an authorization
    like that.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, that is in the authorization. There
    is no geographic limit purposefully in order to be able to
    destroy them wherever they exist.
        The President's thinking, which I agree with, with respect
    to the continuation is, ``Look, there is a huge divide in
    Congress.'' We all know that.
        There was an unhappy experience with a prolonged war in
    Iraq that became a war of choice and which didn't, in most
    people's judgment, have to be fought. And people are tired.
    They don't want to go back and do another 14-year military
    excursion. And there is a divide as to sort of, ``How do you
    balance this?''
        So what the President did--I came up and testified on the
    AUMF in December. We listened to both sides of the aisle, where
    some people were resisting the idea of something that is open-
    ended, where you are going to be working 14, 15 years from now
    on the same authorization.
        And the President, I think, thoughtfully and appropriately
    said, ``You know what. Congress ought to be able to unite. The
    American people ought to be able to speak with one voice to
    say, `We are going to go out' ''----
        Mr. McCaul. If I can just--it sounds like a political----
        Secretary Kerry [continuing]. `` `We are going to destroy
    and degrade ISIL.' ''
        Mr. McCaul. And I agree it says wherever it exists. But it
    puts all the limitations on our military. And I think all the
    options--options should not be taken off the table. I think
    that is a dangerous precedent. This would restrict the
    President's authority compared to the 2001 AUMF that he has
    current authority under.
        I would like to you ask you--and I appreciate your letter
    of response in the Syrian refugee.
        Secretary Kerry. But, Congressman, can I just say to you
    very quickly the reason for giving--nobody knows who the next
    President is. The next President ought to have the right to be
    able to say, ``I need more,'' ``I want more'' or, ``Let's
    continue it the way it is.'' Nothing is going to stop you from
    doing that. The policy clearly is committed to degrade and
    destroy ISIL.
        Mr. McCaul. We agree with policy. I just don't think you
    can achieve that goal if you put restrictions on the military.
        You were in the Vietnam conflict. We had a micromanaged war
    that I think didn't allow our troops to win that war, and I
    don't want to make the same mistake with ISIS. And I think our
    precipitous withdrawal with that status of forces agreement
    quite frankly created ISIS to some extent.
        Syrian refugee issue. I had a hearing on this. I had the
    FBI testify. We have 500 refugees in this country. But the plan
    of the State Department, as I understand it, is to bring
    thousands more into the country as we are trying to block
    foreign fighters from coming into the United States from
    western Europe and Americans who have traveled.
        The idea of bringing in thousands of Syrian refugees I
    think poses a potential risk to Americans. That was borne out
    not only by Homeland Security officials at my hearing, but the
    FBI made it very clear that they don't have the intelligence
    and the proper databases to properly vet these Syrian refugees
    who would be coming into the United States under your program,
    this federally sanctioned program to bring in refugees.
        I think this raises serious risks and concerns and I think
    rightly so when the FBI is me telling that and agreeing with
    that as well. Can you tell me what your plan is.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, the plan is to engage in what we
    would call super-vetting, I mean, an extraordinary level of
    vetting. And if the FBI is not satisfied, I am quite confident
    that people aren't going to be allowed in.
        So I don't see this as a conflict. I mean, we have amazing
    ways of being able to dig down and dig deep. We are doing it
    now, by the way, with respect to the Syrian opposition that is
    being vetted in order to join up to the training and equip
    program.
        I think we are about, you know, some--well, I am not going
    to put the numbers out here. But there is a disparity between
    the numbers who have signed up and the number of who have
    actually been proved and who have entered the program, and I
    think the same thing will happen.
        Mr. McCaul. Well, and I will close with, when I was in
    Jordan, I saw the refugees. And I agree. Most are mothers and
    children.
        Secretary Kerry. We have been doing this for years now.
        Mr. McCaul. Well, we made some mistakes with Iraq. The
    Iraqis have been prosecuted for being terrorists. But the
    Minister of Interior in security in Jordan told me personally,
    ``I don't know who these people are. I don't know who they are
    because I don't have the intelligence to vet them.''
        Secretary Kerry. I think the vetting will reach the
    Security Minister of Jordan and others. And when they weigh in
    accordingly, I don't think you will see those people coming in.
        Mr. McCaul. Okay. Thank you.
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Ted Deutch, ranking member of the
    Middle East Subcommittee
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here. I also want to extend
    sincere thanks for your service at a really crucial and
    difficult time in our history. Thank you for that.
        I want to talk about Iran and where we stand at the moment.
    I first want to follow up on Mr. Smith's comments from earlier.
    I am grateful for the way that you speak up about the Americans
    who are being held, and I just would implore you to continue to
    turn up the pressure.
        In my case specifically with respect to my constituent
    Robert Levinson, one of two things, it seems, are going to
    happen over the coming months. Either negotiations will succeed
    and there will be some agreement on the nuclear issue or we are
    going to have to figure out how to deal with Iran's other
    despicable behavior when negotiations fall apart. Either way,
    pressure will significantly decrease on Iran to cooperate on
    the case of Mr. Levinson.
        On March 9, Mr. Secretary, Bob Levinson's family will mark
    the 8th anniversary of his disappearance. You will meet your
    Iranian counterparts many times between now and then and now
    and the end of March. And I thank you for raising it, and I
    implore you to continue to do so.
        Now, with respect to where we stand, you asked us not to
    prejudge. I don't think that we need to prejudge, but I think
    it is only fair to be able to comment on media reports about
    where this may be headed, particularly since often--let's be
    honest--a lot of the reports include information that comes
    from the administration. So given that, just a couple of
    points.
        On enrichment, you had said earlier that you came and sat
    before our committee as others suggested the JPOA might not
    work. But, also, if I recall, at that hearing, with respect to
    enrichment, in the JPOA, it referred to a mutually agreed-upon
    level of enrichment, which you suggested might well be zero. It
    is not just actions taken in prior administrations. The U.N.
    seven times in security resolutions suggested that there would
    be no enrichment.
        So the frustration that some have when you look at a deal
    that may ultimately include as many as 6,000 or 7,000
    centrifuges is trying to understand why Iran would need that
    many, since currently there is one nuclear reactor that is
    fueled by Russian fuel. They can't use any of the uranium they
    are enriching to fuel that reactor. There is just some concern
    about how we have gotten to that point. That is number 1.
        Number 2, when you talked about Iranian compliance with the
    JPOA, you said that the IAEA has certified that they have
    complied in every way, but Deputy Secretary Blinken testified
    just last month that there were situations that we believe were
    violations of the JPOA. I would like to know what those were
    and what it says about Iranian intentions for a long-term
    agreement if they are already violating those terms.
        Next, on the issue of PMD, also the IAEA there published 12
    sets of questions about Iran's past work, and Iran has only
    partially tackled one of those issues. Again, as we look toward
    a potential agreement, how can we be assured that Iran will
    comply with it if they are not willing to come clean on what
    they have done in the past?
        I would ask if you can confirm that any deal can only be
    agreed upon if it provides for anytime, anywhere, inspections.
        And, finally, for me and for a lot of us here, most
    importantly, the role of Congress, you had said yesterday on
    the Senate that, of course, we will have a chance to review it
    and we will have a vote because a vote will be necessary to
    ultimately terminate sanctions. That is clear to us. I
    appreciate you saying it.
        If you could speak to Congress's role going forward and
    answer also whether you believe we should start talking now
    whether there is a role for Congress to play in talking about
    what would happen in the event there is a deal and in the event
    that Iran violates the terms of that deal. Would it be helpful
    for Congress to work with the administration to lay out
    specifically what the ramifications would be in that instance?
        Secretary Kerry. Well, Congressman, first of all, I want to
    impress on everybody that I find very helpful and I think the
    administration finds very helpful the discussions with you,
    whether here or in classified session.
        And we are not at all suggesting that, by raising a
    question or making suggestions as you just had about one
    potential complication or suspension to negotiate these other
    things--they are all fair questions and they help us. Actually,
    we factor that in and it helps us in terms of thinking about
    every aspect of the negotiation.
        That is different from actually condemning the deal and
    sort of turning off and saying, ``There is no way this is going
    to work'' or, ``It is a bad deal. You are about to make a bad
    deal'' when you don't really have all of the components of the
    deal in front of you and we don't even because it is not yet
    resolved.
        So that is the distinction I am trying to draw. But we
    welcome this kind of a question. And I would simply quickly say
    to you the U.N. Security Council resolution--and I went back
    and reread it, in fact, in the middle of the negotiations these
    last few days.
        Paragraph 37 of the 1929 resolution, in fact, has not been
    lived up to. It has not been met, and it is not relevant to
    what we are doing right now, to be honest with you, because it
    talked about suspension of enrichment.
        It didn't say they can't enrich. It talked about
    suspension. And then the negotiations would decide what is or
    isn't allowed, as long as it meets the terms of the
    Nonproliferation Treaty and so forth. So that is the
    negotiation we are in right now.
        Now, Wendy Sherman in her discussion with you, I know did
    not raise any violations because there haven't been any
    violations. We have sanctioned individual companies--during the
    course of this period of time with the interim agreement, we
    have actually imposed more sanctions. We have sanctioned
    individuals. We have sanctioned companies. And there has been
    an ongoing effort to hold the sanctions regime accountable.
        The final thing I would say to you is Iran already operates
    light water reactors at Bushehr, fueled by the Russians, Russia
    design. And these reactors pose less of a risk for the
    potential of civilian power production and other types of
    reactors that are prohibited by the U.N. Security Council.
        So what they are doing now is not, in fact, a violation.
    And we have been clear in defining that the purpose of the
    negotiations we're in now with Iran is to ensure that their
    nuclear program is exclusively for civilian purposes. That is
    the key here. They can have a civilian peaceful program.
        So when you get into the number of centrifuges and this and
    that--if you have a civilian power plant that is producing
    power legitimately and not a threat to proliferation, you can
    have as many as 190,000 or more centrifuges.
        There are millions of centrifuges involved ultimately in
    power plants that are producing power. So the key here is: Is
    this a peaceful program? And are the measures in place capable
    of making sure you know it is peaceful? That is the standard we
    are trying to apply.
        Chairman Royce. We now go to Judge Ted Poe, of Texas,
    chairman of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation subcommittee.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
        I will start with ISIS. I think it is important that we
    define different participants in this war with ISIS. I think it
    is important that we define who the enemy is, whether it is
    ISIS or IS or ISIL or Daesh, as it is now being called. I
    define them as radical Islamic terrorists. I want to know what
    you define them as.
        The second question is, we need to define who the victims
    are that these folks are killing. The victims have been people
    who, in the name of free press, criticize them, Jews,
    Christians, and other Muslims who don't agree with their idea
    of Islam.
        And the third is we need to define why they do this. What
    is the cause of this reign of terror throughout the world? My
    opinion is they do this in the name of their radical Islamic
    religious beliefs.
        And then the plan. What is the plan? We don't have time for
    you and I to discuss what the plan is to defeat them.
        So how would you define the enemy? Would you define them as
    Islamic radical terrorists?
        Secretary Kerry. Well, I think many of them are. Not all of
    them, but many of them are. And certainly the top leadership,
    al-Baghdadi and folks around him, are formulating their concept
    of the caliphate--of the caliphate on the basis of their
    interpretation of Islam.
        Mr. Poe. Okay.
        Secretary Kerry. So----
        Mr. Poe. So some of them are.
        Secretary Kerry. To the degree they are establishing a
    caliphate and hanging some of their notions of organization and
    discipline and battle based on that, there is a component of it
    that is a distorted sense of Islam. Sure
        Mr. Poe. Who are the victims?
        Secretary Kerry. Well, but let me also point out----
        Mr. Poe. I am sorry. I want to get an answer to all three
    questions.
        Secretary Kerry. No, I am going to give you an answer.
        But also there are a lot of criminals and thugs and
    adventurers and thrill seekers and--involved in this. There is
    a kind of criminal anarchy in all of it, notwithstanding
    whatever basis they want to claim with respect to Islam. And it
    is important in coming at this that you not empower them
    through the language we use to be able to make the argument to
    their people that in fact we are at war with Islam, and they
    are building that up as a recruitment tool, and we create more
    of our own problem. I think that is what people are trying to
    be sensitive to here.
        Now, when you get into the deep analysis, yes, there are
    clearly a very distorted sense of radical extreme Islam being
    put forward.
        The victims are anybody who stands in their way or people
    who are different or who have different beliefs. They can be
    Christians. They can be Yazidis. They can be officers and
    police officers who are Sunni and trying to stand up for their
    village or their town in Mosul. I mean, they go out and kill
    the mayor. They kill young kids. They will kill, you know,
    people they think are apostates. So----
        Mr. Poe. So define the third question----
        Secretary Kerry [continuing]. Very complicated, and the----
        Mr. Poe. Answer the third question.
        Secretary Kerry [continuing]. Third piece is, why do they
    do this? They do this for power and for the extension of their
    leaders for their misguided notion of their caliphate and their
    desire to be the power that is defining not only their version
    of Islam but to have the power within that region to run the
    show.
        Mr. Poe. Reclaiming my time. I had another question on a
    different issue. Twitter. Under Federal law, it is against the
    law to aid or assist or provide services to a foreign terrorist
    organization, as you know. Foreign terrorist organization--
    ISIL, ISIS--uses Twitter to recruit, to raise money, and to
    spread its hate propaganda throughout the world. And myself and
    others have asked Twitter to pull down these sites because they
    are a foreign terrorist organization that is being allowed to
    do this. Twitter pulls down pornography sites, child
    pornography sites, without a problem.
        My question to you, Secretary Kerry, 4 years ago, the White
    House said they were going to come up with a plan to deal with
    this issue. I have seen no plan yet--2011--but be that as it
    may, what is your position, the State Department's position, on
    Twitter allowing foreign terrorist organizations to use an
    American company to recruit, to raise money, and to spread
    their propaganda? We would have never allowed New York Times to
    take out an ad for the Nazis to recruit during World War II.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, we don't----
        Mr. Poe. Can I get an answer, Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Royce. Well, I am anticipating one.
        Secretary Kerry. The answer very briefly--the answer is we
    don't like it, and there is a lot of discussion taking place
    with all of the entities of social media to try to figure out
    how to minimize it.
        Now, we have made some progress. You haven't seen the
    videos that have been posted, and there are a lot of things
    that are being reduced. So some progress is being made.
        And the final comment I want to make, I neglected to say
    this. When you ask who the victims are, the primary most
    significant number of victims are Muslims, and people really
    need to focus on that.
        Chairman Royce. We are going to go to Mr. Brian Higgins of
    New York.
        Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Just on the Iran issue. Centrifuges, uranium enrichment,
    breakout capability. Ten years ago, Iran had about 164
    operational centrifuges, which are the machines which mix
    uranium at supersonic speeds to create weapons-grade material.
    Today there is over 19,000, and it is suggested that 9,400 of
    them are operational centrifuges to enrich uranium.
        How important is the number of centrifuges to the
    negotiations ongoing right now?
        Secretary Kerry. It is important.
        Mr. Higgins. Do we accept that Iran should have thousands
    of operational centrifuges to enrich uranium for peaceful
    purposes?
        Secretary Kerry. Well, that question is so general that it
    doesn't allow for the question of, you know, what is their
    production level, what are they doing, et cetera, et cetera. I
    am not going to get into the numbers at this point in time
    except to say to you we have established a critical measurement
    of needing a 1-year breakout time for a reasonable period of
    time and an ability to be able to limit the impact of whatever
    is produced by whatever centrifuges are running. In other
    words, you have to look at, what is the stockpile? What happens
    to the spent fuel? What happens to other things? So there is a
    larger equation of how you measure what is happening, but the
    answer is it is part of that equation, and we are very much
    focused on it.
        Mr. Higgins. Mr. Secretary, let me ask you this. You know,
    we are sitting at the table with the Iranians negotiating,
    obviously, a very, very important issue relative to the nuclear
    program, relative to their nuclear intentions, not only to the
    region but to the world. And concurrently, we are involved in
    Iraq, Syria. And the Iranian influence there, despite the
    Americans believing that we have a friendly government in Iraq,
    it seems as though the loyalties of the Iraqi Government are
    more closely aligned with Iran and the Quds forces commander,
    Qasem Soleimani. The Shiite militias have been successful of
    late against the Islamic State, but the concern is they have a
    bad history with us.
        You know, we authorized, you know, the President's request
    for military force in Iraq. And we are going to be right in the
    midst of fighters who are experienced but also have a
    contemporary history of shooting our guys, essentially. So,
    while we are both fighting ISIS, there must be concerns on the
    part of the American military about how do you influence the
    Shiite militias who will also be there fighting, you know, the
    same target?
        Secretary Kerry. Well, we are greatly concerned about some
    of the behavior of some of the militia, and that has been
    raised very, very directly with Prime Minister Abadi. We have
    raised it with the Iranians. It is a component of the violence
    on the ground and has created some challenges with respect to
    the Sunni participation and some of the changes in reforms we
    are looking for, but by and large, writ large, Iranian
    engagement with respect to Iraq, while it is present in the
    form of Soleimani, as you say, and even some people fighting in
    the northern--northeastern corners, the fact is that there was
    a greater direct day-to-day control and problem presented with
    Former Prime Minister Maliki, which is one of the reasons why
    the Army wouldn't stand and fight in Mosul, and Prime Minister
    Abadi is working very hard to--with the oil deal made with
    Erbil, with the movement of weapons to the Peshmerga, with the
    inclusivity toward the Sunni tribes--to really change that
    dynamic. So, yes, Iran has influence. Iran is present. Iran is
    doing things, but I think overall there is a concerted effort
    to focus on the problem of ISIL, and they are focused on that.
        Chairman Royce. We are going to go to Mr. Matt Salmon of
    Arizona, the chairman of the Asia Subcommittee.
        Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you about the U.S.
    hostage policy. As you know, Kayla Mueller, a young,
    idealistic, and inspiring Arizona women who traveled to the
    Middle East to help Syrian refugees, was captured and held by
    ISIS terrorists for over 18 months before she was tragically
    killed in their captivity.
        While Kayla is the first American woman captured, held, and
    brutally killed by these terrorist thugs, other Americans have
    suffered this fate, which I hope we can all agree is
    unacceptable.
        Now, recently Kayla's family gave an interview where they
    discussed what they went through over the last 18 months with
    the terrorists seeking a dollar ransom. And then, after the
    administration announced that they had traded five known and
    dangerous terrorists for Sergeant Bergdahl, ISIS changed their
    demands from merely money to the release of a terrorist jailed
    here in the U.S.
        Essentially, once ISIS learned that the U.S. does indeed
    negotiate with terrorists, they demanded more for the life of
    Kayla Mueller.
        Of course, it goes without saying that the devastation the
    family felt when they realized President Obama would negotiate
    with terrorists for a soldier that deserted his unit but not
    for their daughter.
        Mr. Secretary, I would just like a yes or no answer on
    this, and then you can expound on the next part of the
    question, but were you consulted when the administration
    decided to conduct a prisoner swap for Sergeant Bergdahl, and
    can you just tell me yes or no?
        Secretary Kerry. Yes, I was consulted.
        Mr. Salmon. And now I would like you to expound. Knowing
    what you now know, would you advise the administration to make
    a swap similar to Bergdahl--this Bergdahl deal in the future?
        Secretary Kerry. Bergdahl was a member of the military who
    was being held as a prisoner of a conflict. And as we draw down
    in any conflict, there are always historically exchanges of
    prisoners with respect to a conflict. He was not a hostage.
        Hostages are people who are civilians or individuals who
    are taken for the specific purpose of ransom, and we do not
    negotiate for ransom. That is our policy. And you can see the
    tracking----
        Mr. Salmon. And I am not disputing that.
        Secretary Kerry. But look at the evidence of other
    countries who have paid. I am not going to name them here, but
    they have had significant increases of their citizens being
    taken hostage, and there is just a revolving fund of money
    coming in from $5 million to $10 million to significant sums
    and it funds terrorism. So that is--it is a hard distinction.
    Kayla Mueller's--Kayla, just an extraordinary young woman.
        Mr. Salmon. And I am sure you can understand why it is
    complicated, difficult for her parents to understand that
    distinction.
        Secretary Kerry. It is very hard, and we have talked to her
    parents. And our people were--have reached out. I won't tell
    you that every contact with one agency or another met with the
    response that perhaps it should have or it wasn't handled as
    effectively as it might be, which is why President Obama has
    instructed a review of that process and we have engaged in
    ourselves in the State Department. And we are doing a lot to
    deal with that, but the bottom line is ISIL is responsible for
    her death. We don't even know precisely how she died, but ISIL
    is responsible.
        Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        I totally agree that ISIL is responsible, but my--the
    distinction that has been made is something that I think is
    confusing to a lot of people. And it doesn't seem like it was
    very confusing to the ISIL folks because they ended up upping
    the ante with her negotiations after this happened.
        Secretary Kerry. Actually, our interpretation is that they
    were never serious. The amounts of money that they put on
    Americans indicated an absolute--it was unfortunately not a
    serious deal for them, but we don't pay money. We never have,
    and we are not going to start.
        Mr. Salmon. I am not saying we should, but I do believe
    that the whole Bergdahl swap sent a message. This distinction
    you have talked about seems to me a distinction without a
    significant difference. And I think that it did send a message
    that we do negotiate with terrorists, and I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Chairman Royce. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        We go to Mr. David Cicilline of Rhode Island.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your extraordinary work in
    promoting U.S. foreign policy all around the world and during
    very challenging times. So I think we are all grateful for your
    service.
        I have a series of questions that I will submit for the
    record and ask for a written response related to Armenia and
    Nagorno-Karabakh; our relationship with Portugal and the
    Azores; international family planning; U.N. peacekeeping; the
    continued fight against Ebola in West Africa; and 100th
    Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. And I look forward to
    your responses on those issues.
        But I want to begin today to speak about the atrocities
    that we continue to hear reported in Syria, particularly
    torture and murder and even some claims of the use of chemical
    weapons. Regardless of the person responsible for these crimes,
    I think most would agree that they warrant immediate attention
    by the international community.
        I know Russia and China have impeded our efforts at the
    United Nations, and I am just wondering what we are doing to
    help push a referral to the International Criminal Court or
    other things to really hold those individuals accountable for
    the atrocities that are occurring--happening in Syria, and,
    secondly, if you would speak to--as we consider the President's
    request for the authorization of the use of military force,
    many of us are very concerned about what our partners in the
    region are doing, what the Europeans are doing, should our
    Middle Eastern and Gulf allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan,
    the UAE, and Egypt be playing a more prominent role. Do they
    have the capacity to play a more prominent role? There has been
    a sort of universal consensus that this is going to require air
    operations and ground troops and a commitment not to use U.S.
    ground troops, but what is the capacity of our partners in the
    region? Are they--I know we are heard a lot about 60 countries,
    but what are they actually doing? What do they have the
    capacity to do, and how much of this will necessarily fall on
    the United States to defeat and--degrade and defeat ISIL or
    ISIS?
        Secretary Kerry. Thank you, Congressman. Good questions.
        On the ICC in Syria, I don't have any doubt in my mind that
    Bashar al-Assad has engaged in some war crimes in the course of
    this. I mean, the use of gas against your own citizens is a war
    crime. The use of barrel bombs indiscriminately against women
    and children. There are other examples. Starvation is a tool of
    war--is a war crime. So there are things that have amounted to
    it.
        Now, mounting that kind of a case, putting together the
    evidence in the middle of the war is always very complicated
    No. 1, and, No. 2, there are other policy choices that are
    complicated about the actual lodging of a complaint, et cetera,
    and moving forward because it can greatly affect the options
    that are then available to you in terms of negotiating and
    coming up with a political solution. So there hasn't been at
    this point in time--I think there is evidence being collected.
    People are examining. You saw the photographs I think of the
    10,000 or so people alleged to have been tortured. Many of
    those issues, by the way, there is not a clarity about the
    evidence as to who ordered it or who did it, et cetera, et
    cetera. So I don't think cases are ripe even though there is a
    lot of evidence.
        And for the moment, I think the appropriate entities are
    busy gathering and evaluating that evidence. I think some of it
    has already been referred to The Hague, but I am not sure
    exactly what specifically.
        With respect to our allies in the coalition, we have said
    from day one that there are many different things that each
    country in the coalition can do. Some countries don't have the
    ability to contribute air power or to engage with troops, but
    they have an ability to contribute with respect to humanitarian
    assistance. Or Japan, for instance, is doing humanitarian
    assistance. They have the ability to be able to provide
    assistance in turning off the flow of money by putting their
    financial systems and banking systems at the disposal of the
    effort to cut off the foreign financing. Almost every country
    has an ability to be able to contribute to try to reduce the
    flow of foreign fighters going in. So airport practices, police
    practices, exchange of information, intelligence sharing. All
    of these are part of the protocol that General Allen and Brett
    McGurk are coordinating with respect to this global coalition.
    And then, of course, there is the effort to change the
    messaging to counter ISIS' message and discredit it in the
    religious community. And that effort is a very, very
    significant part of this, and all of those 60 nations are
    taking part in that one way or the other through the social
    media, through conferences, by helping to organize their Muslim
    communities to have the mullahs, imams, clerics, Grand Muftis,
    others all speak out. Saudi Arabian Grand Mufti, the Egyptian
    Grand Mufti have spoken very clearly condemning ISIL as an
    organ of Satan, as a criminal enterprise that represents
    nothing to do with Islam. So there is an enormous amount of
    global enterprise now being focused on the effort of ISIL. But
    in the end, those who are in Syria, I think we all understand,
    are going to have to be taken own directly on the ground in
    addition to the air power. And a number of countries in the
    region have spoken of their willingness under the right
    circumstances to commit troops to that effort. And that is an
    ongoing policy debate that is taking place even now.
        Chairman Royce. We are going to Mr. Darrell Issa of
    California.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you for your service
    and for being in many ways one of the leading characters on
    foreign policy long before you came to this job.
        Today we are primarily talking, obviously, about budget
    requests, and I think I will try to stick mostly to that, but I
    wanted to first of all thank you for the work that is being
    done on the 123 Agreements, South Korea and China. I am very
    supportive of our partner in South Korea and in trying to meet
    their expectations. Obviously, we have great concerns about any
    agreement with a country like China, who has a record of not
    keeping those agreements. And we will be looking at it, and I
    appreciate your continued work on it and the Assistant
    Secretary's work.
        Additionally, as we talked about just a little bit in the
    back, the Embassy security around the world and the rate at
    which the State Department has slowed in the construction of
    new Embassies and consulates, which, from my observation both
    here and in another committee, seems to have more to do with a
    return to one-off designs rather than the standard build that
    was working so well for many years.
        Can you briefly tell us--can you--can you say that the new
    system is going to deliver the same speed and cost that the
    other had did because, quite frankly, so far, the Embassies
    being built, including the Embassy in Beirut that I am deeply
    concerned about, appear to be, again, one-off designs that have
    more architectural uniqueness to them than they should.
    Obviously, the moat that surrounds the unique design in London
    might be very British, but it concerns us at a cost of $1.2
    billion.
        So do you have a commitment to at least use a standard
    design whenever possible?
        Secretary Kerry. I think whenever possible, we are. But it
    is not always possible just because of the setbacks, the
    locations where they are today.And, you know, part of this,
    Congressman, is probably best discussed in a classified session
    simply because if I start getting specific, then we get in--you
    know, it sort of telegraphs----
        Mr. Issa. Mr. Secretary, I will stop over anytime a you
    will have me.
        Secretary Kerry. Yeah. Well, I think it is worth having you
    come over and spending a minute with Under Secretary Pat
    Kennedy and going through this because a lot of thought has
    gone into it. Some of it driven by the ARB report and the
    requirements to try to deal with that. We--you all have been
    terrific in helping us to be able to, you know, upgrade. We
    have got a massive upgrade effort going on now. So--and it is
    costly. I think it is about $2.2 billion going into the
    security.
        Mr. Issa. Right. And I appreciate that, and, you know, one
    of my major concerns, and we will follow up in a more
    appropriate environment, but one of my major concerns is the
    rate at which new construction is occurring has clearly slowed
    over the last few years. And in some of the areas of greatest
    uncertainty as to whether or not they can keep--the countries
    can keep their commitments to us in Africa and in the Middle
    East are areas that I would hope that we can try to focus some
    of the funds on moving those forward.
        Let me switch to one nearly a billion dollar activity. We
    have been working--our Oversight committee here at Foreign
    Affairs has been working on the Foreign Affairs Security
    Training Center question. This 900-or-so-million-dollar program
    has had a lot of questions, and, quite frankly, we are short
    some answers. And I would ask unanimous consent that the
    exchange between our Oversight counsel and the Office of
    Management and Budget be placed in the record.
        Mr. Secretary, I will give you this, but what I would ask
    you to do is realize that we have been waiting for the State
    Department to give us the details, whether done by OMB or done
    by State, the details of how the cost estimates were arrived at
    for the $900 million. And when they stripped out the actual
    accommodations, assuming they were going to go to hotel rooms
    that just don't happen to exist at Fort Pickett, how they got
    the other numbers, we were told to go to OMB. Our staff went to
    Office Management and Budget, and they got told to come back to
    you, effectively.
        Will you commit to us today to provide the source
    information and calculations because, as it exists right now, I
    will be very quick, we believe that the existing Georgia
    facility would be a fraction of the cost and would deliver to
    the men and women in the State Department training in a matter
    of weeks or months, where the other facility is going to take
    years and cost at least that $900 million estimate.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, Congressman, we--I am happy to work
    through with you and have our guys work through with you the
    numbers on this. I have talked about it with them the other
    day, and the Department of State and the GSA looked at some 70
    different properties before settling on--including very, very
    deep analysis of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in
    Glynco, Georgia. You know that.
        Mr. Issa. Yes.
        Secretary Kerry. And on, you know, the conclusion of that
    effort looking at the site reaffirmed that Fort Pickett was
    really the more suitable place for it, and that, you know,
    resulted in an initial layout of some money, but let me just
    say to you, just in--I will give you a cost comparison. The
    Department estimated----
        Chairman Royce. Might I suggest this, Mr. Secretary. Might
    I suggest that we do that in writing, and we go now--we
    understand the point.
        Secretary Kerry. Bottom line, I will just say to you, is
    there actually are huge cost savings in going to Fort Pickett
    over flying people----
        Mr. Issa. And thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Chairman, the only thing I did want a commitment on was
    that we would get the source material so that we could evaluate
    it fairly, the GAO could evaluate it fairly.
        Chairman Royce. That was the question.
        Secretary Kerry. I don't know exactly what you mean by the
    source----
        Mr. Issa. The source material. In other words, any and all
    cost analysis done by OMB or on behalf of the State Department.
    That is all we are really asking for is to see what you saw.
        Secretary Kerry. What I can commit to you is that they will
    sit down with you and go through the cost analysis.
        Also, on London, by the way, with the moat, et cetera,
    there was no outlay of tax dollars whatsoever for that because
    it was paid for entirely out of the sale of the other Embassy
    building.
        Chairman Royce. We go now to Mr. Keating of Massachusetts,
    ranking member of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation committee.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
    the Secretary. I know firsthand by his absence from
    Massachusetts how hard he has been working throughout the
    world, and how personally he has sacrificed for our country,
    and I want to thank you for that.
        I just want to follow up on an area of concern to me
    personally that we have been working on in this committee, and
    you did it briefly with an exchange with Chairman Royce
    regarding the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, which I
    think is one of the more important areas we should stress. I am
    hearing that time and time again from leaders from other
    European countries that have come to see me, and without
    exception, particularly in theEastern European area, they are
    saying how one-sided it seems to them; how they are worried
    about Russia powering up their propaganda, and they are also
    concerned about the deployment of the Internet in terms of
    terrorist organizations. So, also, similarly with the Center
    for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications and working
    online with forums to build a better counternarrative, how that
    could compliment these efforts as well.
        So I would just like to ask the Secretary what plans they
    have. I know that they are undertaken already, but what do you
    envision in that regard and what the prospects of success and
    sort of ramping up our involvement with the Broadcasting Board
    of Governors and with the Strategic Center for Counterterrorism
    Communications? It is an important area that I think is cost-
    effective for our funding and something that can be very
    helpful and send the right message to our allies in Europe as
    well.
        Secretary Kerry. You are absolutely correct. It does, and I
    think the amount--I think we have got about 300--if I recall,
    it is some $390 million that is going to go into--there are two
    separate initiatives here. One is the Counterterrorism
    Partnership Fund. The other is the Center for Strategic
    Communications. Rick Stengel, our Under Secretary is down at
    CENTCOM today working with them on this whole strategy for how
    we are going to be able to respond more effectively and deal--
    not just with Russia's massive propaganda but also ISIL and
    other entities. There is a real battle for the flow and control
    of information. So we are now putting together programs that
    will work with all of our Embassies, with local partners. I
    will give you an example. The UAE is setting up a center, which
    we are taking part in, which will have various other countries
    represented that are going to manage responding realtime on the
    social media. It is an brandnew effort. It will further
    regional and global collaboration to try to counter violent
    extremism, and we are expanding this effort in line with the
    discussions we just had at the White House Summit on Violent
    Extremism. We have just about appointed a special envoy and
    coordinator who will reinvigorate the original vision of how we
    take this mandate for information management and bring the
    communities, various communities around the United States,
    elsewhere, together to coordinate them in their ability--I am
    talking about specifically identifiable either Islamic or, you
    know, regional entities that have an ability to have an impact
    on those communities and coordinate their messaging. And we are
    still in the process of sort of laying down the entire plan of
    action, but in large this will be a brandnew coordinated
    communications effort, both through traditional media and
    social media, in order to maximize America's output of
    information and countering to the lies, the seductions, the
    propaganda, everything that takes place in all of those fora
    today.
        Mr. Keating. Yeah. Along the same lines, there was a lot of
    attention recently to young girls being recruited and enticed
    into terrorist activity. This is no news to you. No news to
    this committee because we have had committee hearings on this.
    But it is a real issue on one end, and it is also offers,
    though, I think a concentration on young girls and women. It
    offers us an opportunity on the other end to put resources into
    that--not only educating young girls but also empowering women
    to have a role.
        Could you just comment briefly----
        Chairman Royce. Well, that is a good point, but I think we
    are going to have to go to Mr. Tom Marino of Pennsylvania, and
    the Secretary must depart for another committee at 1 p.m. So,
    in order to get as many members before then, we will go to 3
    minutes for each member. All watch the clock, please.
        Mr. Marino.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, chairman.
        Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Secretary, I want to talk about Yemen for a moment.
    Since 2006, we have given them about $500 million in military
    assistance. Now, since we have had the overthrow that we have
    seen, there is money slated for Yemen. I am just going to make
    an assumption here that that is not going to happen, given the
    circumstances there, but can you address the issue as to what
    you--what we know about the weapons--the U.S. weapons that were
    there? Where are they? Who has them? Would you comment on that,
    please?
        Secretary Kerry. Sure. Very few weapons were active
    weapons. Weapons that were functional fell in--or were
    transferred into the hands of any Houthi. We had a Marine--
    significant Marine presence and a significant security presence
    there to protect our diplomatic mission, and prior to departing
    from the Embassy and leaving to go to the airport, those
    weapons were destroyed or dismantled. The firing pins taken
    out, firing bolts. Different things were done in order to make
    them nonfunctional.
        Mr. Marino. Was part of that--were the weapons instructed
    to be handed over to the--those that overthrew the government
    or is that----
        Secretary Kerry. No.
        Mr. Marino [continuing]. Just a media fictitious statement.
        Secretary Kerry. No. They were not. Some weapons were left
    in the hands of the local guards and local personnel who worked
    with us in order to be able for their security and for them to
    be able to defend themselves and go back to their--and go back
    into town from the airport.
        Mr. Marino. Mr. Secretary, I have 1 minute left.
        Secretary Kerry. Let me just say very quickly. At the
    airport, there were few weapons that were turned over at that
    point in time, but believe me, nothing that they didn't have
    and hundreds and even thousands of numbers----
        Mr. Marino. Okay.
        Secretary Kerry [continuing]. In other forms, but those
    weapons were critical to our people in the event that they ran
    into resistance at the airport and had to in fact fight their
    way or cover their way to go back.
        Mr. Marino. All right. The President stated that Yemen was
    a success, was an example of--quintessential example of success
    and what we have accomplished. What did we miss? How did we go
    from this is an example of the success that we are fighting
    terrorism to being overthrown just like that and run out of the
    country?
        Secretary Kerry. Well, very easy. Very simple answer, and
    it shouldn't be extrapolated to mean something that it doesn't.
        The President was talking about how the work we had done
    with the existing government and the transfer to Hadi from
    Saleh--from Saleh had in fact provided us with a continuum of
    our platform to be able to take on al-Qaeda. So it was an
    example of the way in which we were using a presence and a
    platform, and we were attacking al-Qaeda. We were not engaged
    between Houthi and Hadi's forces and other people. Then that
    changed, obviously, internally in the politics, because Saleh
    was creating problems by remaining in the country, joining up
    with the Houthi, challenging Hadi. Those are things we were not
    there to be somehow able to stop through the counterterrorism
    program.
        Chairman Royce. I am afraid we are going to have to go to
    Mr. Alan Grayson from Florida.
        Mr. Grayson. Oh, don't be afraid of that, please. I
    wouldn't want that on your conscience, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary----
        Chairman Royce. I thought I spoke for all of us.
        Mr. Grayson. Mr. Secretary, the Authorization for the Use
    of Military Force offered by the White House says in section
    2(c): The authority granted in subsection (a) does not
    authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring
    offensive ground combat operations.
        In that context, Mr. Secretary, what does ``enduring''
    mean?
        Secretary Kerry. Well, ``enduring'' means Iraq,
    Afghanistan, long-term ground operations. You could, obviously,
    define it in terms of months not years, but it is a distinction
    between someone engaged in a rescue mission or going in on a,
    you know, advise-and-assist program to help people understand
    how to do fire control over a 1- or 2- or 3-day period or
    something. I mean, there are all kinds of examples that could
    be defined, but ``enduring'' means we are not beginning the
    process or committing to a process of a long-term combat troop-
    on-the-ground offensive engagement in a war.
        Mr. Grayson. Okay. So 3 days is not enduring, from what you
    said; 10 years is enduring.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, I am not going to play with one----
        Mr. Grayson. Well, I think maybe we should. What about 2
    months?
        Secretary Kerry. Depends on what somebody is asked to do,
    but it is a noncombat role. Noncombat engagement.
        Mr. Grayson. Would 2 months be enduring?
        Secretary Kerry. It depends on what they are being asked to
    do and what they were doing.
        Mr. Grayson. Two years?
        Secretary Kerry. Again, are you talking about a combat
    troop in combat operations----
        Mr. Grayson. Offensive ground combat operations.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, we are not talking about--we are not
    doing offensive ground combat operations.
        Mr. Grayson. I am asking whether this authorizes that.
        Secretary Kerry. No, it doesn't.
        Mr. Grayson. Okay. Good let me ask you another question.
    Are there any geographical limitations to this AUMF?
        Secretary Kerry. No.
        Mr. Grayson. For instance--no. Okay. So this would
    authorize military action in Jordan?
        Secretary Kerry. It would authorize action against ISIL
    specifically. And the President had said we will degrade and
    destroy ISIL wherever they are. If it required an action in
    Jordan, it obviously would be in conjunction with the
    Government of Jordan, which is a strong ally, member of the
    coalition, asking for us to do something in a totally
    permissive atmosphere, but the only authorization we would have
    to do it would be if it was against ISIL.
        Mr. Grayson. And also in Libya and in the Sinai and
    wherever else anybody who associates with ISIL might be. In
    fact, you are talking about a world war. Isn't that true?
        Secretary Kerry. No. No. We are not. Absolutely not, and it
    would be incorrect to suggest that mere association would
    permit anybody to do anything under this authorization because,
    under the 2001 AUMF and the 2002 AUMFs, we have clearly defined
    what ``associated'' means, and it means engaged in the fight,
    fighting alongside, or fighting United States and our allies
    directly. So there is----
        Chairman Royce. Other questions and answers can be in
    writing.
        Secretary Kerry [continuing]. Associated means.
        Chairman Royce. We need to go to Mr. Jeff Duncan of South
    Carolina, chair of the Western Hemisphere.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, please don't disarm United States Marines
    ever again. That was wrong.
        Does the administration plan to take Cuba off the State
    Sponsor of Terrorism List?
        Secretary Kerry. Only if they meet the standard that is
    required as to whether or not they are in fact a sponsor of
    terror.
        Mr. Duncan. Okay. I am having trouble defining ISIL based
    on some comments today. So could you--because we have an AUMF,
    I will follow up on Mr. Grayson's comments, what is ISIL?
    Define ISIL for me.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, ISIS is self-defining. They are the
    combatants and those who have pledged allegiance to them who
    have formed a caliphate, fly a flag, wear their black uniforms
    and are engaged in a struggle both within Syria and Iraq most
    directly but also in what they call distant provinces as they
    try to establish their caliphate.
        Mr. Duncan. Right. And so you used ISIS, and the AUMF used
    ISIL. What is the difference?
        Secretary Kerry. It is merely their formulated--it is who
    calls what--ISIL--ISIS is the letters used by them to define
    the state versus the Levant, which is the Arab word for the
    ``S'' of ISIS?
        Mr. Duncan. Right, which is a territory, and I understand
    that. We talk about that a lot.
        So this AUMF, let's assume that the United States Congress
    passes the President's requested AUMF. What does that mean for
    al-Qaeda? Does that mean the drone strikes continue against al-
    Qaeda? Does that mean that our United States intelligence and
    Military Force would be applied to al-Qaeda or not?
        Secretary Kerry. Absolutely. Al-Qaeda is authorized under
    the 2001 AUMF. And that is continuing, and it is our, we
    believe, entirely legally and practically legitimate argument
    that ISIS was al-Qaeda in Iraq for about 11 years; and only by
    changing their name did they assume this new identity. But they
    are, in fact, al-Qaeda too. And we have proceeded against them
    based on that authorization, but the President has felt--and I
    think Congress has felt--it would be appropriate to now have a
    new authorization to demonstrate the clarity with which we are
    prepared to go after ISIS, Daesh, as I preferred to call it,
    and continue the battle with al-Qaeda.
        Mr. Duncan. And, in the limited amounted of time, I think
    we have got look at foreign fighter flow to and from theater,
    intelligence sharing, the damage that was done by Snowden. We
    saw the Brussels shooter that shot up the Jewish museum back in
    late May, early June. Germany knew about it, failed to share
    the information. I think that is critical. You touched on that
    a little bit. We need to look at the Visa Waiver Program, the
    Schengen region, working with our allies within Europe, and I
    believe that ISIS is Islamic jihadist, fundamentalist, and
    radical terrorists, so----
        Chairman Royce. And we need to go to Mr. Alan Lowenthal of
    California. Thank you.
        Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and also Ranking
    Member Engel, and Secretary Kerry.
        First, I want to thank you for being here--I was going to
    say this morning--but this afternoon. And I want to thank you
    personally for your recent appointment of Randy Berry as the
    Special Envoy for LGBT Rights in the Bureau of Democracy, Human
    Rights and Labor. This is an important, I think, and critical
    step in protecting the human rights of LGBT individuals.
    Senator Markey and myself in both Houses had introduced
    legislation that would have the same goal, but you stepped
    forward before this legislation even moved forward. I just look
    forward to seeing you and also Special Envoy Berry this week.
        But I have to--I want to ask some very specific questions--
    maybe you can just answer later on--about which I am very
    positive, about the giving of the $1 billion for Central
    America. And you talked about how in Central America--maybe you
    can answer these--I will state them--in writing, and I will
    submit them this writing--the real lack of educational
    opportunities, the violence, the lack of sufficient investment,
    and the corruption, have been part of the root causes that have
    allowed for the migration to the United States.
        My question is, how will this new policy that we are doing
    really reduce poverty, corruption, and enhance security? How is
    it different from what we have done before? Are we going to
    look at some very specific purposes? We hear all along
    throughout the world that we are going to reduce corruption. I
    would really like to know how you see what we are doing as
    really aiding in this. And also, in Guatemala, Honduras, and El
    Salvador, are they going to raise the revenue to help to do
    this? Are they going to introduce and actually collect
    additional revenues or taxes to really help themselves also? Or
    what does this mean in terms of our ongoing relationship with--
    --
        Secretary Kerry. Well it is a really terrific question,
    Congressman Lowenthal, and I appreciate it very, very much
    because you are absolutely right. Anybody that--and I used to
    be chair of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee for 30 years in
    the Senate. And I remember working on Plan Colombia and the big
    debate; are we going to put $1 billion into this? Is it going
    to be meaningful, and so forth?
        If we just did it the way we used to do some of this stuff,
    your skepticism would be entirely applicable and appropriate.
    But we are not. We have learned a lot about the delivery of aid
    and assistance, about oversight, follow up, mentoring,
    engagement. And I think Raj Shah began an effort as
    Administrator and AID has been transforming. Part of this came,
    by the way, and give credit where credit is due, the MCC, which
    came about during the Bush administration. The Millennium
    Challenge Goal sort of taught people to say, maybe there are
    some metrics you can put in place more effectively----
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Secretary, if we could lay that out
    maybe in a written answer----
        Secretary Kerry. Sure. But I will just end quickly by
    telling you that are three targets: One is enhanced security.
    We think we can track that, do police, do other work. Two, is
    direct economic assistance, promote trade in ways we know work,
    and provide more employment, et cetera. And three, is improved
    governance itself, and that is by being deeply engaged in
    creating the transparency and accountability measures necessary
    so you are getting the changes that you need.
        Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I look forward to your response.
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Mo Brooks of Alabama.
        Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for sharing your
    insight with us here today. I am going to focus on the
    Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic
    State of Iraq and the Levant. And as I understand it--and I
    think you have confirmed this--there are no geographic
    limitations in the force authorization sought by the President.
    Is that a fair statement?
        Secretary Kerry. That is a fair statement.
        Mr. Brooks. And there are other limitations, though, for
    example, enduring ground troops, time limitations, and also who
    the target can be. And as a I understand the target, the target
    of this military force is ``the Islamic State of Iraq and the
    Levant,'' or under section 5, associated persons or forces who
    are defined as ``individuals and organizations fighting for, on
    behalf of, or alongside ISIL, or any closely related successor
    entity in hostilities against the United States or its
    coalition partners.''
        In that vein, there is a February 16, 2015, Associated
    Press article that says, ``Militants in several countries,
    including Libya, Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, have
    pledged allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-
    Baghdadi.'' And as we have heard from other sources, we have
    got Syria, Iraq, Tunisia, Jordan, Sinai, a myriad of other
    potential countries. Is it fair to say that this authorization
    sought by the President does allow the use of United States
    Military Forces in any of these countries if the Islamic State
    or its associated persons or forces are there?
        Secretary Kerry. No, Congressman. A group that simply
    embraces the ideology, pledges allegiance, is not necessarily
    fighting for or alongside or against the United States and our
    associated forces.
        Mr. Brooks. So if they claim that they are doing that, that
    doesn't include them?
        Secretary Kerry. Well, no. It is not a question of claiming
    it. You pledge allegiance. Pledging allegiance to ISIL is not
    necessarily joining the fight.
        Mr. Brooks. So we are going to wait until they kill a bunch
    of people before we attack them. Is that what you are saying
    the administration's position is?
        Secretary Kerry. No. We are going to see whether or not
    they are, in fact, really joined in the fight alongside ISIL.
        Mr. Brooks. Well, aren't we really quibbling--as a matter
    of fact, it is going to be the administration that has to make
    a judgment call, as we all do in the positions that we hold,
    and this administration if it decides that these individuals
    are a part of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or
    associated persons or forces, then they will under this
    resolution use that military force in any geographic area of
    the world. Is that correct?
        Secretary Kerry. If it is ISIS, if it is a group of ISIS
    that is directly threatening the United States of America, and
    we have reason to believe that there is an immediate imminent
    risk, as the President retains the authority today with respect
    to al-Qaeda or any other group, we will take action.
        Mr. Brooks. And that includes individuals in America?
        Secretary Kerry. Excuse me?
        Mr. Brooks. And that includes individuals in America. That
    is any geographic area of the world.
        Secretary Kerry. Well, Congressman, if we have evidence
    that somebody in the United States of America is engaged in
    terrorist activity against the United States, the FBI, the
    Homeland Security, and others will be on him in a nanosecond.
        Chairman Royce. Lois Frankel of Florida.
        Secretary Kerry. We will go through our normal
    constitutional procedures, I assure you.
        Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Secretary, pardon my voice, but I want to thank you for
    your service. I truly admire what you have to deal with. And
    earlier, you rightly stated that we live in a very complex
    world. The threats we face are multifaceted, unlike the bipolar
    threat we faced during the cold war. I just call it complexity
    on steroids, and I think you are dealing with a puzzle that
    doesn't have the pieces that match. And I am interested in how
    we manage and balance competing interests in the world, and I
    want to give just examples. So, for example, when we respond to
    Russian aggression threats, especially to our allies in Europe,
    how does that impact our effort to prevent a nuclear Iran or
    reach a political solution with Assad? When we go to eliminate
    ISIL, are we thereby strengthening Assad, who is killing
    hundreds of thousands of his own people? Are we strengthening
    Iran, like we did when we overthrew Saddam Hussein?
        And I know, I think we see Egypt as an ally against ISIL,
    and so the question is why do we continue to withhold financial
    support? So I guess my question is, what is the guiding
    strategy for American foreign policy in this very
    interconnected complex world?
        Secretary Kerry. Well, Congresswoman, it is really good
    question, and I think I have to give you an answer that I think
    you will probably find a little simplistic, and I hope not
    totally unsatisfactory. But it is really a matter of common
    sense. I mean, you have to apply a standard of sort of
    practicality of cause and effect. What is the impact of one
    choice on other choices that you have? That is what the
    President has to do every day in thinking about what you might
    do on any given day about Assad and the impact on Iraq, on
    Iran, on Shia militia, on a host of other things. But there is
    a connection.
        I mean, I want to underscore, you have appropriately put
    your finger on the fact that what we choose to do in one place
    has an impact on things that happen in another place. And, you
    know, if we hadn't responded with the sanctions on Ukraine, if
    we weren't engaged in putting together a coalition about ISIS,
    might Baghdad have fallen? Might there be a civil war? Would
    there be a civil war in Afghanistan today if we hadn't engaged
    and tried to pull a government together instead of having a
    failed election? Everything is connected to the other.
        And to the degree that the United States commits itself to
    lead in these particular challenges, I am absolutely more
    convinced than ever before after 2 years in this job about the
    impact it has when we make that right choice, the impact it has
    on somebody's consideration about another choice they might
    make. What we choose to do effectively with Egypt or with Syria
    or with ISIS will have an impact on Iranian perception, Russian
    perception, Chinese, other perceptions in the world. It is all
    interconnected.
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Secretary, might I suggest that each of
    the remaining members ask one question, one question only, very
    briefly, and then the Secretary could sum up, and we will let
    him depart to his meeting.
        Mr. Meadows, your one question. Is that all right, Mr.
    Secretary?
        Secretary Kerry. You are the chairman. I am at your
    disposal.
        Mr. Meadows. Mr. Secretary, since it is down to one
    question, I have been very keen on not criticizing the ongoing
    negotiations you have with Iran, so I will ask this one
    specific question. For over 2\1/2\ years, Pastor Saeed Abedini
    has been held by Iran. How can we--how can the American people
    expect that they are going to negotiate in good faith when we
    can't get an American citizen, a pastor, that really was thrown
    in the jail----
        Chairman Royce. Okay. We get the gist of that one.
        Now we go to Ms. Tulsi Gabbard. Your question please.
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
    Secretary, for being here. My question is with regards to the
    AUMF that is before Congress and Syria and wondering as it
    states in the AUMF action against ISIL or associated persons,
    would there be an interpretation of this that would permit the
    U.S. and either individually or working with partners, to
    remove people like Assad or other dictators in other nations as
    it deems that their position of being in power stands in the
    way of defeating ISIL?
        Chairman Royce. Okay.
        Now we go to Mr. Reid Ribble.
        Mr. Ribble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. And my
    question is in relationship to the Democratic Republic of the
    Congo. I know you have been involved related to exit permit
    suspensions. Could you tell us what we could do here in the
    Congress to facilitate the State Department's work to help
    these families gets their children home?
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Boyle. Thank you.
        And I waited the 3 hours here to ask this one question
    because I was concerned that this issue might be overlooked
    with the plethora of issues that we have and that you have,
    Secretary Kerry, around the world. One of the great
    achievements of the last 20 years of American foreign policy
    was forging a peace agreement in Northern Ireland. We are now
    15, 16 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, and tensions
    still remain. The House, the Senate, on a bipartisan basis,
    appropriated $2.5 million for the International Fund for
    Ireland, but the State Department is hesitating in releasing
    it.
        Secretary Kerry, would you please commit to me and to
    Congress that these funds will be released by the State
    Department, and the United States will continue to play a
    strong and active role in the Northern Ireland peace situation?
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Lee Zelden of New York, followed by Mr.
    Tom Emmer of Minnesota, and that is it.
        Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, there was a letter that was sent from the
    President to Congress with the Authorization for the Use of
    Force. If I could just read a couple of sentences from that
    letter: The authorization I propose would provide the
    flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other more
    limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S.
    or coalition personnel or the use of Special Operations Forces
    to take military action against ISIL leadership. It would also
    authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground
    combat operations are not expected or intended, such as
    intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic
    strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other
    forms of advice and assistance to partner forces.
        So this is a letter from the President, four or five
    paragraphs that accompanied the request for the Authorization
    for the Use of Force.
        When Congressman Grayson was asking whether or not the
    authorization was providing authorization for offensive
    operations, you had indicated no. Obviously, for several
    months, we have been utilizing strikes from the air, which, you
    know, one could argue are offensive in nature. So I am just
    looking for a little bit more clarity on what, specifically
    from an offensive end, the President is looking to do to defeat
    ISIS; what is the limit of his authority under this
    authorization?
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Emmer.
        Mr. Emmer. Mr. Secretary, thank you again for all your time
    today. Mine is a question I wanted to ask you relates to
    something that really shouldn't be partisan as at all. It is
    about America's economy and the opportunities that it should
    provide for American workers and entrepreneurs.
        You have long been an advocate for trade, long before this
    position, and I would like to ask you to give me some details
    so that our friends on both sides, regardless of political
    persuasion, understand how important the economic opportunities
    presented by Trade Promotion Authority and the possibility of
    getting trade agreements are to our national security.
        Secretary Kerry. So let me try to run those though as fast
    as I can, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you. Saeed Abedini we have
    raised in the most recent discussions, and you ask how we can
    tell they will negotiate in good faith. We are negotiating on
    that very actively right now, and again the proof will be in
    the pudding whether we can achieve something or not achieve
    something. I think it is a little early to make that prediction
    on both accounts, on the release of individuals that we are
    trying to get back, as well as on the nuclear agreement itself.
        Congressman Gabbard, on the subject of the AUMF, associated
    persons removing outside, et cetera, we have to operate under
    international law. This authorization is specifically targeted
    against ISIS itself, and it would be very hard to see how there
    would be any stretch that would fit any legal authority
    whatsoever to direct that.
        There are other legal arguments available to deal with
    President Assad--let me make that clear--not the least of which
    is the fact that, if he were to join in an effort that actively
    engaged with ISIL or we had evidence of that in some way, he
    could be thereby aiding and abetting. I mean, there is an
    extensive argument you could make. But, no, not directly out of
    the AUMF. That would not be anywhere what is envisioned or
    allowed by it.
        With respect to the DRC and exit permit, we have raised
    that issue. I have talked to President Kabila about it
    personally. We have an ongoing effort to try to make some
    progress on that. I am hopeful that we will finally get some
    kind of success.
        These are those difficult internal kinds of negotiations
    that take place. I think this may be even tied to the prospects
    of the potential election that may or may not take place in the
    DRC. So we are waiting to see what happens, but I will continue
    to push it.
        With respect to Congressman Boyle on the subject of
    northern Ireland, we are deeply engaged still. With the
    President's consent, I appointed former Senator Gary Hart to be
    engaged in those talks. He's been very active. There is a $7.5
    million commitment in the existing piece, impact program. And
    the funding is there for 2011, and we have no reason not to be
    releasing it and engaging it. So we will continue to be deeply
    involved in that.
        With respect to Congressman Zeldin on the allowance of
    offensive operations, the limit of authority, I thought we were
    talking about--so this is a good opportunity for clarification.
        I was talking in the context of any potential of American
    ground forces and the limits of the enduring language. But,
    obviously, we are engaged in offensive operations. The air
    power could not be more so. And we are engaged directly,
    needless to say, you know, in training and assisting, and now
    we have the overt Title X training and assist program.
        So those are offensive operations that the United States is
    going to be supporting one way or the other. But we are not
    talking about American ground troops, and there is no
    authorization in here putting American combat ground troops
    into an enduring offensive combat situation. I think that is
    what I really trying to address.
        And, Congressman Emmer, on the economics and TPA, I will
    just close by saying one of the great changes that we face in
    the world today is the enormous increase of much more powerful
    competitive economic entities. Now, none of them yet match the
    size of the United States, but they are getting bigger. They
    are more active. There is more global market competitiveness
    than there has ever been before.
        And if you were--you know, anybody engaged in international
    business knows how quick you have to move, how veracious you
    have to be, how disciplined you have to be in grabbing market
    share and knowing the markets and working with other partners.
    It is a different marketplace than it was in the 1960s, 1970s,
    when we were the dominant single economy.
        And so this kind of trade regime that we are talking about
    putting together under the TPP or the TTIP is far more critical
    to American jobs, to American growth, to America's influence,
    to America's ability to continue to play the important
    leadership role we have played in the world.
        And so, if we don't get this kind of an agreement written
    to the higher standards of international business behavior, it
    will go down. The standards will go down. The protections will
    go down. The ability of people to have legal remedy will be
    reduced. The ability of people to protect intellectual property
    or have rights by which workers are protected--all of these
    things would be diminished if we are not able to achieve these
    kinds of trade agreements.
        And TPA is critical to the ability to have those agreements
    because other countries will--their leaders will not make the
    difficult political decisions necessary to take one interest or
    another in their country and change the structure in favor of a
    larger set of rules because it costs them politically.
        If they know that what they are doing when they make that
    decision is going to be subject to a renegotiation with
    Congress rather than the passing of what has been negotiated,
    they won't make the agreement in the first place.
        So we actually hurt ourselves in achieving our larger
    interest of trade and growing our markets if we wind up trying
    to micromanage it through congressional day to day without the
    TPA. TPA is what actually empowers the negotiators to be able
    to close a deal and allow those leaders in other countries to
    make the tough decisions they need to make.
        So, in the end, 95 percent of the world's customers are in
    other countries, and we cannot grow our Nation, increase
    wealth, do better, if we are just thinking we can somehow only
    sell to ourselves. We have to sell in the rest of the world. It
    is better for us to be helping to lead the effort to reach
    agreement as to what the rules will be by which we sell and
    raise those standards rather than leave it to somebody else and
    see them lowered. That is why TPA is so critical.
        Chairman Royce. We appreciate the Secretary's time today,
    including today's lightening round. And we have a ton of issues
    to get through together. We thank you.
        And we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                           Material Submitted for the Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]