tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 18, 2015 6:00am-8:01am EDT
. i think there's a serious conversation in this area. i have tried to make clear what the relationship between the safer sound the world. we must be open but not assume. >> i do not disagree. that's why i asked if you would have been do study. when can we expect to see a study? >> i would have to get back to you. >> please do. that is the job. it is called the office of financial research. they are the most logical place. >> they have done a lot of analysis to understand what happened on the day. they are very much in the space of helping to make it possible to look between the
data. >> which is their job. i'm just asking to have them do their job. as policymakers who would love to see the. it may impact the policies we decided make. as someone who enforces those policies obviously you have some ability to change the way you do your job. he love to see that information. the sooner the sooner we can see it the sooner we can make an informed decision as opposed to either one of us. let's. let's look. >> i cannot agree more. >> please ask them to do study those details. i think when you see what's going on separately from regulation were a lot of people are simplifying the
business model of those three things come together in a way that can really cause a liquidity crisis in the future, and i just want to make sure that we look toward it and try to anticipated. the other question with regard to designated systemically important institutions as anyone talk to you about that? >> a number of questions earlier. >> do you think the $50 billion -- let's talk about banks were 2nd many folks have said that is inadequate an artificial.
>> we have to create institutions of different sizes differently and after i do need to continue to ask if it's being done as well as we can. so i think some of the suggestions i have heard about drawing the lines are bad policy. the heightened supervision. >> let me suggest an alternative's. have you looked at non-bank assets assets that are not under the coverage institution? that is where the systemic risk is created. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. >> there has been discussion, a considerable amount regarding the debt. you seem to be somewhat dismissive of this concern.
>> i spent most of my life trying to control spending been working to cover expenses. >> do you see it as a level of concern? national security and economic security. >> if we played on the course with iran and 2,008 -- >> sir, listen to the question i'm asking. how do you how do you view the threat? important to my concern that we have? and economic threat? do you sense that? >> obviously there are different. >> there are. >> we have made more progress. >> i understand. he heard the statement earlier. you hear it still today.
still talking about the directors been. he made the statement publicly this last fall regarding the spending levels in the debt. a lot of people get clear focus on the debt and see it as a major priority and concern. you see the same level of concern. does that keep you awake? >> we have made enormous progress. >> that is not my question. >> if you had asked me this question that given you a different answer.
>> am asking you today. >> i don't think it is a pressing concern today. >> 18 trillion is not a concern. >> as a percentage of gdp we are stabilize the deficit. >> the spending is going up not leveling off. >> we had a stable a stable debt and deficit situation. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> october 2014. the deficit is projected to return. return. a lot of small people disagree with you. [inaudible conversations]
>> thank you for your patients. we talked a lot today about market liquidity. the center for financial stability is found the market liquidity has declined 46 percent. a recent article in the "wall street journal" provides this analysis. talk to any banker or investor and on topic is likely to dominate the conversation.
government bond markets without moving prices the regulations played a part in this liquidity issue. have you heard from bankers? less likely today to engage in market-making activities as a result. >> supported by facts and some of which are not. >> do you -- >> am not doubting anyone sincerity. sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong. what you just cited, people
are having trouble moving blocks of bonds without movement. that has something to do with market structure. structure. there are different players that maintain liquidity and do multiple transactions. >> i don't understand the difference. >> i understand, acknowledge that when banks become reluctant that impacts liquidity. >> there are different kinds of market-making. market-making. there's a lot of market-making command you cannot roll back the clock. the fact that you have the emergence of electronic trading and our high-frequency trading there's a lot of activity taking place no space that is not the traditional broker-dealer model. >> this is the collateralized loan obligations marketplace. 350 billion that provides
financing for dynamic job producing companies which are in my district. acknowledge that the laws forced banks to take pretty significant losses and triple and aa paper. >> obviously it still taking effect. being forced to divest. >> banks are going to have to not have proprietary investments that they have in the past. >> do you know how many triple or aa charges of notes defaulted? the answer is zero. you are forcing banks to divest and safe investments. you you have to acknowledge that has a destabilizing impact on the financial stability of institutions.
>> you also have to acknowledge the exposure to risk and proprietary investment -- >> what risk? notes that have never defaulted and have been well >> the objective is to reduce the level of risk exposure by getting them out of proprietary investment. they would be better off in the markets will adapt. >> you do not dispute the fact that they force banks to divest aaa paper that has not defaulted in 20 years. >> with the exception of treasuries, it's a pretty table. >> let me conclude. community banks of the bankers to the bankers tell me .-dot frank is an avalanche and has impacted the bottom line. the numbers bear this out.
chart from 776,300. meanwhile there is consolidation. big banks a larger. too big to fail is a bigger problem now because we do not have diversity or as much competition. response to that financial stability issue. >> the consolidation was going on before wall street reform was enacted. i'm not sure it's leading. mostly smaller banks. and it is an issue that we have shared interest in making sure communities have access. >> i encourage you look at consolidation. the exacerbating. >> they will not be
recognized today. i would like to thank the sec. for his testimony. all members have five legislative days within which to submit additional legislative questions. we ask that you respond as promptly as are able. i mean, this most respectfully and sincerely. we ask the treasury sees the response the night before. [inaudible conversations]
i'm not going to speculate on hypotheticals. we are not negotiating any u.n. security council resolution. >> let me just say in conclusion what's disturbing about some of the remarks of the president has made is that there is the hand or maybe not even a hand, that perhaps next time around on some of these resolutions rather than vetoing them the
anti-israel bias resolutions, we might just sustain and that, of course, would allow it to pass. when some of us here that we cringe because if we can count on the united states to stand firmly behind israel against these ridiculous one-sided bias resolutions, and i think it makes the u.n. almost worthless in terms of trying to be someone, group moving the process along rather than beating up on israel with the built in bias. when we hear those remarks from the president that disturbs many of us that have supported a two-state solution, that supports israel's right to exist, and fight against the legitimization of israel all the time. thank you. >> represented elian
ros-lehtinen chairman of the subcommittee on the middle east and north africa. >> thank you so much mr. talbott, and madam ambassador, thank you for being so kind to me in terms before the session. following up on the excellent remarks made by ranking member engel as when a president obama issued a not so veiled threat to israel that the u.s. may not be able to support a veto of the french resolution at the u.n. security council and palestinian statehood. use of the word opposed. we will oppose but will the united states, yes or no veto any resolution of the human the forces imposes the two-state solution on israel? what will our position be? will we veto you say we oppose, but will we veto? that will send a strong message. >> again given that we worked last summer on u.n. security council resolution with israel and we're potentially prepared to support, we weren't able to
get everybody on the council to rally around. i think it's perilous to make a blanket statement but i want to underscore we are consistently opposed, we will oppose anything that is by skim anything that would undermine israel's security. i think our track record is very solid. >> thank you. i think that's a track record that worries israel's, i applaud you for saying that you going to root out the anti-israel bias that exists, and sometimes we don't have to look too far to find that bias. moving onto human reform, can you provide to this committee later in a written form a breakdown of exactly how much money across the entire u.s. government have we contributed annually to the u.n. since 2011? i would appreciate that, madam ambassador. regarding the iranian nuclear deal and iran and the sanctions with on iran recent reports indicate that the administration will not only seek to lift
sanctions at the u.n. on iran nuclear program, but also lift sanctions on iran for its ballistic missile program, its conventional military support for care for abysmal human rights record will be a demonstration lump all of these actions against iran as nuclear related? when we tried to bring it up they said they're not nuclear related but it seems that to you lift the sanctions, everything is nuclear related? >> first on your first question, thank you for not asking to do that math here on the spot, it would've been deeply humiliating. >> it's tough for me to chew on that, too spent and second, on iran absolutely not. i think is the answer to your questions. the sanctions that we the united states up in places that are so
important, human rights, deplorable human rights record which has not improved, better support for egregious atrocities in syria, support for terrorism to all of those from the administration standpoint should remain in place. >> thank you. last week a u.n. panel stated that the u.s. has neglected to report iranian sanction violations which the administration has denied. has the administration deliberately failed to report or refer violations of security council resolutions to the sanctions committee? and has there been a formal or informal directive on the white house did not fully implement or report on violations of security council sanctions? >> absolutely not, and i myself am involved often embracing sanctions violations that iran is carried out. we've also, even over the life of this last negotiations, institute more sanctions designations under the existing
bilateral sanctions framework that congress have been such a critical part of. there's no pulling of our punches even during these negotiations, or ever. >> i remain concerned that the security situation in haiti. just last week this committee sent staff to haiti to report back to us on the status of its elections. according to our staff several of several people in the security and diplomatic sector express concerns that full u.n. troops -- poly-u.n. troops out during an election year was a huge mistake and the haitian national police may not be ready to ensure stability and security. what is the justification for the troop withdrawal at this critical juncture and why were those concerns ignored? and we commit to keep a few troops that will remain in haiti after the elections are finished, we hope, in 2016? >> thank you. i myself was in haiti in january asking the same questions that
you just post. i think what's very important is that the entire now in haiti is different from the environment from the earthquake. we teach engineering battalions were part of the u.n. mission in haiti who are removing the rubble now. almost all of the rubble in the country has been removed. we've seen this yes, a drawdown in terms of the authorized number of troops in the something the united states has helped spearhead in part back to the chairman's comment at the beginning, recognizing the system is massively stretched around the world recognizing that the answer up here also terms of the budgetary demands that u.n. peacekeeping makes on the american people as well as of the member states. but mainly in this instance, recognizing that formed police units, more mobility, fewer engineering battalions, but basically you need a recalibration of the nation according to the circumstances. so it is true that there has
been a significant drawdown but they're still substantial infantry presence, still the ability to rapid response. we have introduced more helicopters to allow troops and police to move more quickly across the country. and a lot of the functions of you peacekeeping mission have been performing are now migrating to the so-called u.n. country team the development professionals. that's not the job for the military in many cases. i would note you're right that the haitian national police have a long way to go but the strides they have made i think over the last two or three years a really extraordinary and very much the product of u.s. and other member states bilateral support as well as the u.n. training that has gone on their. >> thank you so much. haitian americans have greatly enrich our south florida committee and we pay such close attention to haiti. thank you so much. >> mr. brad sherman of california, ranking member of the subcommittee on asia and
pacific. >> ambassador, thank you for your service not only in carbon but before you join the government, thank you for your work and exposing, opposing genocide, particularly the armenian genocide. want to echo the ranking member on the protection of israel at the united nations. we were all concerned by some indication that the administration would cut back that support. it's good to support israel. it's even better when it's difficult, and i want to praise the administration for standing with israel at the npt consensus review process, where in order to prevent actions chemical to israel would not only oppose the
amendment goal actions but we opposed because we had to the entire agreement. so hopefully that answers the question as you have your when you committed to the ranking member that it is our position to veto one-sided anti-israel resolutions at the u.n. for president has recognized that involving the u.n. in the details of the peace process is not the way to advance peace. obviously, the u.n. might adopt a resolution that had a few noncontroversial provisions two-state solution peace and security for all. but would we be doing any u.n. resolution -- would we veto any u.n. resolution to try to codify the parameters of the peace deal and included controversial elements in that codification?
>> thank you. i think that's a reprise of the congresswoman's question with a slight shift. i really am going to resist making blanket declarations on hypothetical resolutions. our position again i think has been very clear for some time. heights that they can we would oppose anything that was designed to undermine israel security. but i think again it's perilous there's no resolution in front of us -- >> i will move on to less hypothetical question. first, under current u.s. law the administration required to come up housing it is the palestinians pursue or support charges against israel at the icc, and i'm confident that you will follow the law on that one spirit and letter. i won't even ask that as a
question because i know other dedication of law. the united states constitution vests specifically power over your international commerce especially sanctions or particularly sanctions in the united states congress. the administration has recognized that congress is the primary arbiter and has asked us to pass a statute providing limitations and structure. but i want to make sure that the administration will follow article one of the constitution when it comes to sanctions on iran. we've got this review process. i would hope that you negotiate a deal in switzerland so good that congress, universally supports it but that may not be the case to imagine a situation in which there is a deal that is cut, the administration supports it but less than one-third of
either house has indicated support for the deal. they are news reports that you will prevent a lifting of u.n. sanctions at least for a month to give congress a chance to go through the process of review. will you be allowing lifting of u.n. sanctions during the statutory review process? >> thank you. i thought you're going to another hypothetical but you went directly to an issue i know that's in the news. it is a useful and appropriate needless to say for congresses voice to be heard, and i think the bills that come not through old houses provide -- >> and signed by the president. >> and signed by the president. provide a structure for the voice and there's their some predictably
to i think at least in terms of process. as you indicated our view is that we will be able to defend any deal that is good enough for us and we will come up here and seek to do so on the precise sequence, it is clear that there are now two bodies whose voices will be to be heard and how that will all work i think is again one of those details -- >> so you're saying it's possible that if the united states congress declares that over a two-thirds majority in both houses houses that we reject the deal? that if we established u.s. policy on this deal you may still be at the united nations undermining that policy declared by congress? >> if the gentleman will suspend, we will have the ambassador answer the question but we're going to try to get everybody in with their five minutes. >> okay. just because they can, that's a
hypothetical, about what the vote in congress would be. again we feel this would be a deal we can defend where we can convince congress also to support the deal. all i'm getting is that the actual, the precise choreography about the secrets he works through, that's just a matter still for the negotiation. >> thank you so much. and now we turn to mr. smith of new jersey, chairman of the subcommittee on africa global health human rights and international operations and will try to do those in five minutes so everyone will have a chance. >> taking madam chair, and welcome ambassador, thank you for your testimony and for your work. more than a decade ago, madam ambassador, sex trafficking and sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping was exposed in the democratic republic of congo. i chaired a series of hearings in 2000 by. i spent a better part of a week meeting with peacekeepers and trying to get a real plan to try to mitigate and a to eradicate
that horrific abuse. i chaired a number of hearings. trying to get a zero tolerance for the secretary-general zero-tolerance policy for a force of some of our witnesses event and some would say still, there is a lack of compliance with the blue helmet bold and. last year the budget committee on administration budget said nearly half of the allegations reported in peacekeeping position of the most egregious form of sexual exploitation, abuse of minors. they cited haiti congo sudan south sudan as the chief of thinking diplomacy by may 15 agenda u.n. office of internal oversight services evaluated efforts to combat sex exploitation and abuse by u.n. peacekeepers. they found person to the m.o.u. oops distributing countries who retained the primary
responsibility to investigate misconduct apparently i'm not doing a very good job. questions about the quality of the investigative standard, wide variations in sanctions that weekend at the commitment to zero-tolerance, and get this the penalty is often simple repatriation and disbarment from any future u.n. peacekeeping deployment, not prosecution and jail. oi os make recommendations, six of them, that i think consideration on an expedited basis. pratchett speak about and they also noted that was a real lack of helping victims particularly legros who have been abused. secondly, let me ask you about a serial work our crimes tribunal it in 2013 i wrote an op-ed for the "washington post" and held a series of inspect with the former prosecutor from the sierra leone special court
india and some other state declared the icc is not up to the task. we need a regime court like yugoslavia, sierra leone and rwanda to tickle the lessons learned from that and prosky both in iraq and syria. those and it is either committed or any side these terrible atrocities put your thoughts on the. and, finally the committee on ngos for ecosoc voted down the application for consultative status and american ngos known as freedom now. the no vote came from china russia, venezuela, sudan iran, nicaragua, among others. i worked with freedom now for over 15 years. a great organization. on the same day the palestinian refugees center which worked with hamas and hezbollah was approved. what are we doing to try to help freedom to give their accreditation?
>> thank you, congressman. al-qaeda move quickly through each of these three very important issues. first, i look backwards. on freedom now, couldn't agree more they're doing so the most important work to highlight the plight of political prisoners around the world. i know i personally use the work, try to reinforce whatever their campaign other than the members of congress have teamed up with them. and the there is effect is the ngo committee in which members are elected by the u.n. membership often by the region's is stacked with a group of countries don't themselves tolerate ngos in their own countries. and so it's almost every frustration that one feels about who gets elected to this or that in the human body stems from the same issue which is that regions are not taking sufficient responsibility for the integrity of who they're putting forward on behalf of the continent. and this is a classic example but we are not giving up. we are working behind the scenes with freedom now and have a chance now that goes to the full
economic and social council from this subset, smaller ngo committee, with a chance to overturn the vote. it will be challenging because recall in the united nations as a whole, a body of 192 countries, more than half are not democratic. we have our work cut out for us but we been up to score a number of very important victory for political prisoners and human rights and other bodies and will dedicate ourselves to that and welcome the support of congress, also leveraging relationships in capitals and so forth. second making working backwards, on syria i remember very well your op-ed, and i think it's a very, very important idea that you put out there. the issue with the icc it may well not put up to the task but the bigger issue is there's no way to get icc jurisdiction that doesn't go through either the syrian government which harper wants to itself accountable for monstrous atrocities or through
russia which by supplying and supporting the same regime is implicated in some of those atrocities. the same challenge as you know well would applaud if we were to try to replicate the yugoslav party rwanda tribunal. both came about through those interested could council. that goes back to the first point i made in my remarks at the outset which is just the form of the in a way where government member of the security council can block the referral of the creation of a national criminal tribunal for the kind of which are surviving -- describing i think was chairman royce raised this issue before on accountability sank you always say that will be held a candle to the question is whether in the last six by placing perpetrators of the crime carried out 20 years ago held accountable not on at the icc would have been held accountable but also in serbia proper, boston, et cetera. >> thank you. i apologize. >> i will find a way to get --
>> afterward. now please turn to congressman mr. sears. spent ambassador, welcome. during last year's gaza crisis, five latin american countries told the ambassadors from israel, and i'm talking about chile, peru, ecuador and brazil i'm wondering what efforts are we making towards those countries to send ambassadors back? i know we have sent letters to those countries urging them to get reengaged again. are we making any effort to urge them to send ambassadors back? >> i think i'm going to take that question. all i can really speak to is what i do everyday in new york which has lobbied those very countries not to take the positions that you should take in genoa summit on the human rights council on the specific
issue of the level of representation. i actually to have an answer but we will get back to you quickly. >> that's going to bring me into the human rights commission, the u.n. human rights commission. i personally feel that they are not effective when you have a human sometimes leaving a human rights commission. since the president made his announcement, the abuses have increased. people are put in jail. women are beaten just to go to church come and the human rights commission i never hear anything regarding abuses on the island. and i know at one time -- was in charge of the commission protect the biggest joke i ever heard. so what can we do to get them to speak up about the abuses on the islands? timing this is a crackdown on
the very people that we are trying to help supposedly. >> thank you. again, let me just say that on the question of the conditions inside cuba i couldn't agree more. there have been, i just looked up these numbers on the way over 600 arbitrary detentions just in the month of may a loan and 2300 over the course of this year in 2015. so there remains a significant human rights crisis inside cuba and i want to underscore again that the effort that normalization is aimed at getting at some these issues. now clearly it's not having an overnight affected i don't think anyone expected it would but that that we are making is that over time more access to information, more intimate, more exposure to americans and american values is going to actually, you know help ensure
that cuba in overtime liberalizes. but anytime you to speak out about the the -- >> osha's good at, if somebody speaks up about it. >> well, i certainly do. >> no matter what efforts we make. >> if i could come again addition to the earlier follow-up that i owe you i was into the public statements made i senior u.s. officials, even since the changes in a relationship with cuba announced because i don't think we have again held our tongues at all. no to also make a point to meet with dissidents like sanchez, and the people who may well have been murdered by the regime and. i mean we need to walk and chew gum at the same time, extreme important. but if i could distinguish that from the human rights council issues you raised they are related to the human rights council is vulnerable to the flaws that you and congressman
engel and others have pointed already in this hearing and others have made clear their views on. it is again a body in which a country that does not have the human rights record can end up in a leadership position that is officially to the it is also a body that the trend by virtue of being a member has used to great commissions of inquiry for syria, that otherwise another this exist. moved the ball very substantially on lgbt rights to its the first time you in sf lgbt rights are human rights. at a special repertory broadband would not exist if not again for the human rights council. so like a lot that exist at the u.n. is not asked that it is not
about -- >> can we expect maybe this also happened towards cuba if the ideas versus? >> one but the effects over time in the u.n. system of the steps the process taken these the cuba, my prediction would be that people will be focusing less on the embargo and on u.s. policy, which is been a diversion from the human rights situation inside cuba and i will have a better chance of drawing people's attention to the human rights crisis inside cuba. >> thank you very much. >> thank you mr. sears. we turn to mr. rohrabacher of california. >> thank you very much, madam chairman and madam ambassador, thank you very much for your service. you are much respected. your energy and your commitment, and although there are some things that we disagree on i want to associate myself with my colleagues concern about the blackout of reporting of human
rights abuses in cuba. and let me just note, this idea that well it's offset in some way by the fact that there's going to be more intimate connection between people and more communication with people of the united states. the people of cuba no when the neighbor has been arrested or beaten up in front of them. they don't need to see it over the internet. and the people who were beating them up and throwing them in jail, they know, too. what they know is we've given up a huge amount of leverage over them and gotten nothing in return as they continue to oppress their own people. and i believe perhaps this travesty that we're discussing and describing really reflects why some of us don't have faith that the united nations,
considering that there is a cuban at the head of the human rights commission and we don't have faith the u.n. will be doing the right thing to create a better world. the united states has to play perhaps a more active direct role rather than trying to spend our time maneuvering through the united nations all kinds of different resolutions and policies that could have the opposite in fact of what we are looking for. with that said, i'd like to ask you a little bit about ukraine. you were mentioning the people who were shelled a family, that you know or you described being shelled by the soviet, or actually russian allies that they are in ukraine. how many civilians have died
since this whole incident began do you know? >> 6300 is the official number but we think there's underreporting because the separatists don't allow access. >> well, about 6300 how many were separatists and separatist towns and villages speak with that i don't offhand. >> you know what i ask that question almost nobody knows. but it was my understanding i went over to europe and met with some people involved with intelligence agencies in various countries and they were telling me that actually in the ukrainian military, which was one-third made up of people who were not in the military but were instead on the payroll of some oligarch, they had heavy artillery and for indiscriminately shelling these separatist villages. do you know anything about that? >> first let me correct what i said earlier he asked how many
siblings have been killed. to my knowledge the 6300 6330 we have is both civilian and soldier to let me get you the breakdown on actual civilians if it exists. one of the issues that i raised in ukraine in my visit was how critical it is for the ukrainians to abide by international dimension law. is absolutely critical in hearts and minds as well as -- >> is it possible that the majority of the civilian casualties as you were talking about were actually civilian casualties that were the victims of the ukrainian army and the oligarch that financed one-third of the arm at one point? is that possible? >> if i could say two things first. first, i think is highly unlikely basis of the report and we receive from the united nations and on the osce. second i want to underscore why this conflict started to get started because russia moved troops and weapons and so forth -- >> just so you know madam
secretary, the russians would suggest it started when it was divided over the of an elected government spirit right. i don't make it a point of listening to president clinton as a general rule spent i think you should pay attention to everybody's claims and you should refute it if they can be refuted rather than dismissing them. because i happen to believe that if a violent overthrow of, violent overthrow of an elected government had not happened, we would not be in this situation and the ukrainians would have been spared this. go beyond that were our european allies didn't offer the deal you want the most people in ukraine have, they don't like rush and they didn't want to be in agreement with russia. it didn't start with russia going into the separatist areas. the software started, at least that's what they claim.
>> thank you. now we turn to mr. deutch of florida, recommend on the subcommittee on middle east and north africa. >> thank you, madam chairman. madam ambassador, thanks for everybody. thanks for standing up for the human rights of the people of ukraine. i also want to thank you for the outstanding work you've done representing this country and the values that the united nations. the efforts on the sake of it, you will to speak out in support of human rights come to efforts to get the u.n. to act and your unrelenting perspective to delegitimize israel deserve to be commended. in city we cannot say the condition that you taught me psychic numbing, despite the ongoing slaughter. and i thank you for pointing out today that the use of chlorine against once people is the use of chemical weapons against once people. i also want to especially thank thank you for your recent efforts at the npt review
conference to block length which that would jeopardize efficiency could and preventing antisocial efforts to put this on the list of children's rights abuses the kind of film for you continued future platform to prevent all efforts to use the united nations to delegitimize israel or in poorly to oppose any outside solution additional palestinian conflict when only a negotiated settlement can ultimately bring peace. i appreciate your efforts as welcome to describe the human rights council, but i would suggest that the human rights council cannot be taken seriously. and i am someone who believes in engagement at the u.n. but i am repeatedly shocked by the decisions of the council including of some of the world's worst absolute worst human rights abusers are allowed to sit on the council. my colleague from new jersey talked about cuba cuba's ally venezuela plays a prominent role as well. and i expect the same bias will
apply when the investigation into last summer conflict in gaza comes at which we expect will be equally one-sided i find it absurd that council has only one standing agenda item, agenda item so that relates to specific country and the country is israel. my question is while it says at the human rights council's website that it is god election process but is a general estimate takes into account the contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights as well as their volunteer pledges and commitments in this regard. under your leadership, madam ambassador, has the united states suggested in the reformed community to the council so that the members of the council perhaps has to have come has to recognize the importance of human rights as well? >> thank you congressman. let me say the language that you just read out was language to negotiate a hard-fought language
negotiated by our predecessors combined the bush administration, by the united states. unfortunately, simply putting that language in the kind of founding ethos of the human rights council doesn't make it such. fundamentally as i was saying earlier, regional groups put forward to the candidates they seek to put forward and sometimes there's a whole set of backroom arrangements you know all kinds of bilateral issues that our state in which people agree to give votes to certain country on the face of things have nothing to do with human rights. such as stipulated. the are two reasons that i would like to least appeal to you is to consider the united states membership in the human rights council very worthwhile. the first is the very reason that you point to which is the absurdity of having a single stem agenda eyed on israel and not on north korea, not on shared which is gassing its people. not on isil, you know.
it's ridiculous. however, by the united states being on the council we are in the room and we're calling it out. in fact, since we joined the council the number of human rights council resolutions on israel has gone from a half of the human rights council products to a quarter. a quarter is still absurd given the state of the world. >> ambassador come if i could interrupt. we are going to have to recess the committee for 15 minutes and then we will commence again. >> okay. >> i'm going to have to ask the members also we will be clearing the room, leaving the dais, and afterwards we will wreak indeed at the time. thank you very much ambassador. >> thank you congressman. [inaudible conversations] >> this hearing will reconvene and let me say we appreciate the work of the capitol police to make us aware of a secure situation and to ensure that they hearing is safe to
reconvene. and i appreciate the cooperation of our witness. thank you very much, ambassador. we will now go to mr. chabot ambassador power, for the questions he was going to ask. >> thank you, mr. chairman come and welcome back ambassador power. i would first like to associate myself with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle with respect to cuba. this great amount of skepticism. i won't go into that in great detail because others are we did but i share that skepticism. i would like to go into the fact that rush as we all know by force has taken crimea and much of eastern ukraine. yet this administration still hasn't supplied ukraine with the weaponry that's going to be necessary for it to defend itself and our u.n. allies have done very little to help but that's not really surprising to secretary kerry met with putin
last month, and in effect told him that we would lift sanctions on them if they would promise not to take even more territory, not that they would abandon crimea but that cannot take any more territory. earlier this year by democratic colleague, mr. collet and i introduced the crimea annexation nonrecognition act, h.r. 93, which states that if she was policy not to recognize the sovereignty of russia over crimea or its waters or its airspace. what's the u.s. and what is the u.n. doing to get russia out of crimea? and it's no secret that some believe that this administration wants russia's support in the iran deal so badly that it's willing to cut russia some slack on ukraine and a special with respect to crimea. what would you respond to that, please? >> thank you, sir. well, having just returned from
ukraine, these issues are particularly fresh in my mind as is the suffering of the people of crimea, many of whom have been displaced. they touch our committee there unable to exercise its rights come into india completely shut down, disappearances detentions. so there are two issues in a way that one is the fact that russia, a prominent member of the security council, has attempted to block off part of some else's country. the second is the conditions in which people in the tilt toward arnell living over the displacement that has arisen from the abuses being carried out. at the united nations as we discussed earlier, because rush is a permanent member and a veto holder, a privilege that all of us really should exercise great responsibility in having but rush is not our ability to get the security council to sanction a permanent member, a veto
holder of course is a blunted. however, the u.n. general assembly, and this is unheralded and not widely known, we were able to galvanize 100 countries to vote against but rush was attempting to do in crimea to stand for ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity, to reject the referendum which gave the people of crimea choice between independence from ukraine and 20 russia, didn't even give them as you recall the choice of remaining part of the country that they were part of. a consequence of the resolution which may sound symbolic is that the maps at the united nations and that under international law will not change. and so it is still the case that all the maps at the united nations again shall crimea where it belongs which is part of ukraine. as you know u.n. sanctions that were put in place by virtue of crimea will not be lifted until crimea is restored to ukraine.
and with regard to secretary kerry's meeting i do not that there's been misreporting, the u.s. position has been very, very clear which is minced implementation is required in order for there to be any offer on the eastern ukraine related sanctions. minsk implication as you would result in the restoration of international border to ukraine sovereign control. so that is our position that is the position also the europeans agreed at the g7 meeting. >> thank you meeting. >> thank you but i'm getting close to the end of my time. i've got to question what is going to get to one. as we all know pretty horrific things have been happening especially christians but to muslims as well under isis control. we've seen dozens of people taking out the beaches and beheaded in libbey. we've seen people kidnapped and god knows what's happened, crucifixions, a whole range of things that happen. what's the you doing to protect
christians in places like syria part of iraq and libya? and what we do to push him get them off the dime to get involved? [inaudible] >> several things. i think first part of ensuring protection for civilians who are vulnerable is being able to shelter them when they flee their homes and making sure that they are not available then to secondary attacks. because of the horrors carried out by isil you're seeing a lot of advanced flight of people even do that isolate is en route, they are picking up their families and kids and getting in the car a moving boat. it is the u.n. working with the iraqi government and indeed even in parts of syria but the syrian government and the syrian opposition groups that are providing imaging systems through the world food program unhcr. that's on the humanitarian side. but the u.n. is also the venue
were president obama chaired a city council meeting on foreign terrorist fighters where we have tried to integrate an international framework where people share information, stop the flow of these many thousands of individuals from neighboring countries who have staff to isil, who are helping them replenish their numbers even as the coalition degrades the organization. so the u.n. has become a venue in which we measure compliance and old countries account when they're not doing what they should be taken to prevent people from either leaving their territory or from crossing borders into syria and iraq to staff isil. the coalition effort also has gotten a lot of legitimacy at the united nations. we have 60 countries that are part of the. are backing to the u.n. security council with a letter and asked in fact for the united states and the rest of the international community to step up militarily and for using diplomatic, political and other means against isil pixels also a venue in which coalition
countries come together to kind of compare notes and figure what more we could eat them because this is a long campaign that has a lot of ups and downs but it is going to be critical that we keep the notifying of effort moving at the same time some of the governance issues get addressed the people are not attractive at all to isil it at the all to isil. i seem to encounter violent extremism and her in our own country said they were getting radicalized at the same time we work the social media piece, the foreign terrorist financing which can be done through oral revenue or other resource strings that we've sought to degrade, building on international cooperation but so much of the isil equation is a product of things crossing borders, and this is where again the united nations for all of its flaws shows it's indefensible because it's the one or position that can impose standards that can hold people accountable globally, that can be a venue for naming and shaming also for mobilizing resources. >> we will go to ms. karen bass
of california, ranking member of the subcommittee on africa, global health and human rights. >> thank you, mr. chair, for calling today's meeting. ambassador power, in your opening statement you really demonstrated in the few minutes the complexity of what is happening in the world today. the unprecedented number of conflicts, and in this context i really wanted to commend your leadership focusing on complex and crisis from special interest that often don't rise to the attention of the world. that i wanted to discuss a couple of examples but and then end with ask a couple of questions. you mention ebola whatever they want to highlight the fact that you led the effort in the u.n. to push the international community to take action. he chaired the first emergency meeting to gather momentum and i think it's a source of pride for all of us the role that our
nation played in stamping out the vote in liberia. i don't ask you about this any minute because we have some new case at the entrance of boko haram, in october of last year the security council took an important step. you may know of a weekly campaign that goes on that is led by representative wilson where members come together and make sure that members of congress not forget the girls that have been missing over the last year. i appreciate your support for u.s. money to directly support the au's effort to eliminate boko haram and engines of the central african republic and ruby a combined approach of other people of those countries with you. you were first in pushing our response in in part because he in part because your leadership and form the atrocities prevention board. them understand this the board was informed and responded to the crisis at its onset and delivered $11 million in a
managing support, $69 in military assistance in the international effort. when we traveled to u.n. ambassador thomas greenfield met with the president and encouraged him not to run from the occupied one for a third term and they did just that. there was the attempted coup and now there's chaos. so a couple of the questions i had, i want to note if you can provide an update about the human response to the crisis in burundi, c.r. and also the new cases of ebola that have emerged? >> thank you congresswoman. just the opening point about the extent of the crises, the gravity of the crises, one of the lines i've been drunk on lately is shakespeare's line from the tempest which is help is empty. all the devils are here. >> sometimes it feels that way. >> and just to underscore also the pride i think all of us, it
really is was a massive bipartisan, you know, a shining example of what a significant bipartisan effort can come of the impact they can make in i mean, you know people really stepped up in this country and of course, in the congress providing the resources that we needed and drawing attention to the crisis it president obama sending nearly 3000 troops as well as a couple thousand civilians. and then the american people. ultimately this effort was staffed by sanitation workers, health workers, doctors who left their families and to tremendous risks, recognizing again a kind of course action of the international system which is a will not come here if we can neutralize it there. and just on that scored where we are right now when many of us pretty council you mentioned occurred and when president obama made his announcement we
can use to leverage to get commitments from other countries, he led the cdc and others rejecting as many as a million infections by genuine of 2015. we are now down to around 25 cases a week in sierra leone and guinea. and liberia of course we been down to zero since may. it's tricky the last state and as long as there's one case, it's a case that can quickly exponentially multiply. the systems are not in place so i can the risk of a massive spike has been mitigated substantially by the investments that we've already made. sort of kicking it and getting not just bend the curve but ending the current competitor for challenging last days. the world food program is a better providing for the people who go to clinics as part of the challenge has been ensuring that individual step up and allow themselves to be isolated. they were often worked initially but if they left their families
they would be nobody to take care of the kids or the family. it really have to be a comprehensive effort. i was a the biggest challenge outstanding is in guinea, still the love of community resistance to outsiders and messages from the sender has been an indictment but that's what we have to overcome in the next phase and get this down this year. and then concentrate on building back better so these societies are not only less affordable to an ebola outbreak but other forms of infectious disease and other health crises. very briefly if i may just on burgundy, you're right. i think women look back at the last year we can't on the one hand take some satisfaction that we really did go all in on preventive diplomacy. we recognized that a decision to choose come to seek a third term by the president of burundi would be a violation of the letter and the spirit of the agreement because that agreement had been the social compact on which so many of the ethnic and
political tensions have been if not laid to rest, at least neutralized. violated that agreement was bound to have severe stabilizing effects, and we got ahead of it. a message was sent them yesterday has also traveled in the wake of our visit. huge and sustained high level engagement by the united states. at a certain point you can deliver that message you can say please mr. president, b.r. countries george washington got be prepared to walk away, and certain leaders will put their own self-interest above the risks of severe destabilization. right now there is a u.n. envoy who is attempting to broker a way forward between the opposition and the leadership but the third term issue remains the essential sticking point and it's now been compounded by the fact that the government in the wake of an attempted coup which we condemned, but it has not attempted to shut down almost all of the independent media,
deny freedom of association once people's rights are violated then again it's a further destabilizing phenomenon. >> thank you. >> we go now to the michael mccaul, chairman of the homeland security committee spent in one. thank you, ambassador for being here. let me first outlined a delegation to the middle east and europe, let me commend you and also working in concert with lisa monaco on the turkish officials and the information sharing on travel and why there's a huge breakthrough. and i commend you for that. i also encourage you to keep the pressure up on the foreign fighters. as you know, the eu come if you're a citizen of the european union, and coming out of the region through turkey you are not going to the screen as the watch list from which i thought was sort of a glaring security
get. i know the eu part of is getting ready to address this issue. many of the countries we worked with understand the threat that poses and hope you continue to apply that pressure. let me turn to for me. we give a lot of money to countries that vote against us in the united nations, and president reagan's ambassador, your predecessor jean kirkpatrick, testified before congress. said we need to commute 50 nations that the attitudes and actions inside the u.n. must have consequences for for the relations with the united states outside the u.n. system. in response to testimony, congress passed legislation that would tie their voting patterns to the human amount of foreign assistance provided. however in 1990 this provision was repealed by the state department continues this practice of reporting to congress on voting, include and
support voting at the u.n. and listed foreign assistance alongside countries voting both with and for against the trinity or the obama administration ended if this practice in 2010 and i wonder if you could explain to me why the frustration ended that practice? >> well, i'm actually not aware that we ended that practice because we still retain very very careful record of voting coincidence with the united states is extreme importantly i have studied, look at and the inflow, tried to explain why a country goes from a yes vote to a no vote or abstain to yesterday so it's important and we believe very much in transparency and i'm sure this is something we can look at and maybe we can take off like a if i could get the app i think the hard issue that you raise is not
can we share our assessment of how countries are aligned with those in a range of issues. it's this question of well then, what do you do about it was my view is we should call countries out. we should oppress them public and probably. one of the fish the close relationship i could have with certificate ambassador rice and puts us in a position begin to elevate what often their ambassadors are doing and sometimes without even capital knowing. and making sure that there is an accountability chain back to the capital. depending on the boat i mean, it's conceivable that you could look at more robust steps along the line she described, but let's recall i think that often countries that may vote against us let's say on a resolution in the general assembly, i shouldn't say against us but against a resolution that we've overcome those in countries may
be providing peacekeepers to northern mali, preventing a resurgence of extremism we are seeking to. they may be countries that we are providing their generous contributions on the far and on combating a pepfar. were on the condition that does to educate around the world. a lot of before they can be dedicated to that. ebola we described the investment in the global health security architecture and to make that's in our interests over time. so usually the decisions around we provide assistance to our overdetermined by a set of factors and he said interests that are also very very important to us. so i just think -- >> i know my time is limited. it's very complex extraordinary complex, but if you think congress has to look at this issue. i know you required to submit an annual report on the voting practices of the uintah it was due on march 31 and it's june. are you planning to submit this
report? >> we meet our obligations to congress, so yes. i've looked into where it is. maybe on my desk. >> i'd like to see that and i recognize the complexity but it is important to us. so thank you very much. >> mr. david sicily of rhode island. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ambassador power for being here today and for offering your expert testimony for many of issues before this committee. about to begin by commending you for your tremendous work and your leadership at the u.n. you have been able to lead an effort a lot of the u.s. i want to thank you for service. i want to first turn to the efforts being made to stem the flow of foreign fighters. you mentioned in your written testimony in a little more detail the president convened a summit of leaders at the u.n. in
september where a security council resolution was adopted require countries to have laws to prosecute foreign fighters and those who funded them, keep them from entering the country and crossing territories. what seems to be the greatest challenge and sing those measures implemented? are there things we could be doing to support that effort? as we've heard so much test with over the last several months about this issue of foreign fighters stemming the flow of foreign fighters and it seems like a positive step but i would just like to hear your thoughts on the. >> thank you. it's not often that a question is posed, which is why which i think is really important. and i think we've made substantial headway by putting the issue on the agenda by identifying the categories of action in which countries need to step up. and we are not where we should be. and by we i mean the international community. we just come secretary johnson,
r. secretary pomata could make this point. we held about a month ago the first ever u.n. security council meeting in which interior ministers sat in the chairs, and this was our logic of saying, in the old days if threats were one country crossing into the country's border camp inmates and for foreign ministry people to be talking to one another. but here when the threats are deriving often from lapses in internal security over from community, a community spirit to catch that somebody was drifting off a potential treatment about to become a foreign terrorist fire we need to get people who presiding over those programs together. i think it's whether ua needs to go in the 21st century have more of those technical discussions where people are dealing with threats inside our borders come together. it to your question of why of course it's a combination. first, the are major issues of state capacitance take weakness pashtun state we tested many of
the countries from which foreign fighters are coming our countries at the very poor border security, very weak intelligence services to actually be able to track citizens and how they're moving. and this gets to the president west point speech basically his direction all of us the way to invest far more important capacity. ..