U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

93–532PDF 2015

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

(

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

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

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

(1)

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. 

2

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. 

3

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 largescale 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 

4

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. 

5

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 

6

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 

7

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 

8

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:]

9


93532a-1.eps
10


93532a-2.eps
11


93532a-3.eps
12


93532a-4.eps
13


93532a-5.eps
14


93532a-6.eps
15


93532a-7.eps
16


93532a-8.eps
17


93532a-9.eps
18


93532a-10.eps
19


93532a-11.eps
20

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 

21

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. 

22

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. 

23

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 

24

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. 

25

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-yearold 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. 

26

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 

27

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. 

28

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, 

29

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 

30

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 SecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 May 26, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\022515\93532 SHIRL
31

retary 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 

32

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.’’

33

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 

34

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? 

35

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. 

36

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. 

37

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.’’

38

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 

39

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 

40

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. 

41

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. 

42

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. 

43

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.’’

44

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. 

45

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. 

46

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, alBaghdadi 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——

47

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. 

48

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, 

49

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. 

50

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 NagornoKarabakh; 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 

51

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 

52

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 

53

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. 

54

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 

55

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 asVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 May 26, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\022515\93532 SHIRL
56

sumption 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. 

57

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, adviseand-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 longterm 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 

58

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 alQaeda? 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 alQaeda 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 alQaeda. 

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 

59

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 

60

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 judgVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:59 May 26, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\022515\93532 SHIRL
61

ment 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 

62

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 21⁄2 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, 

63

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. 

64

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. 

65

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.] 

(67)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

68

f


93532n.eps
69


93532m-1.eps
70

f


93532m-2.eps
71


93532b-1.eps
72


93532b-2.eps
73

f


93532b-3.eps
74

f


93532c.eps
75


93532d-1.eps
76


93532d-2.eps
77


93532d-3.eps
78

f


93532d-4.eps
79


93532e-1.eps
80


93532e-2.eps
81


93532e-3.eps
82


93532e-4.eps
83


93532e-5.eps
84


93532e-6.eps
85


93532e-7.eps
86


93532e-8.eps
87


93532e-9.eps
88


93532e-10.eps
89


93532e-11.eps
90


93532e-12.eps
91


93532e-13.eps
92


93532e-14.eps
93


93532e-15.eps
94


93532e-16.eps
95


93532e-17.eps
96


93532e-18.eps
97


93532e-19.eps
98

f


93532e-20.eps
99

f


93532f.eps
100

f


93532g.eps
101

f


93532h.eps
102


93532i-1.eps
103

f


93532i-2.eps
104


93532j-1.eps
105

f


93532j-2.eps
106

f


93532k.eps
107

f


93532l.eps
108

NOTE: No responses were received to the following questions prior to printing.


93532o-1.eps
109


93532o-2.eps
110

f


93532o-3.eps
111


93532p-1.eps
112


93532p-2.eps
113


93532p-3.eps
114


93532p-4.eps
115


93532p-5.eps
116

f


93532p-6.eps
117


93532q-1.eps
118


93532q-2.eps
119

f


93532q-3.eps
120


93532r-1.eps
121

f


93532r-2.eps
122


93532s-1.eps
123

f


93532s-2.eps
124


93532t-1.eps
125


93532t-2.eps
126


93532t-3.eps
127


93532t-4.eps
128

f


93532t-5.eps
129

f


93532u.eps
130

f


93532v.eps
131


93532w-1.eps
132


93532w-2.eps
133


93532w-3.eps
134


93532w-4.eps
135

Æ


93532w-5.eps