tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 29, 2015 8:00pm-10:01pm EST
s who are talking about how important it was for political leaders to stand up for law enforcement. particularly in the aftermath of a terrible tragic shooting of the police officers in new york city. we saw some very aggressive rhetoric from republicans suggesting it's important for men and women in uniform to know that their political leaders have their back. i'm not sure what you can do two more undermined the relationship between political leaders and law enforcement than to threaten to withhold their paychecks even while they are doing their job. that's not the proper way to show our support for them. ..
>> today a 62 to 36 but was passed on the keystone pipeline. how speaker john boehner read the statement that we hope president obama will drop his threat to veto this commonsense bill that would strengthen energy security and create thousands and thousands of good new paying american jobs. more reaction to the senate votes available on our website at c-span.org. former secretary of state henry kissinger, madeleine albright and george shultz testified to the senate armed services committee hearing. they discussed the russia ukraine conflict and the islamic
>> [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i would like to say to my colleagues in our distinguished witnesses this morning that i have been a member of this committee for many years and i have never seen anything as disgraceful and outrageous and despicable as the last demonstration that just to ways.
you know you're going to have to shut up or i'm going to have you arrested. if we cannot get it peace in here immediately, -- get out of here you lowlife scum. [applause] [applause] >> doctor kissinger, i hope that on behalf of all of the members of this committee on both sides of the aisle in fact, from all of my colleagues i would like to apologize for allowing such disgraceful behavior towards a man who has served this country with the greatest distinction and i apologize profusely. the senate armed services committee meets today to receive testimony on global challenges on u.s. national security
strategy. this is the third hearing in a series designed to examine the strategic context in which we find ourselves, one characterized by how this informs the work of the committee and the congress. well, we have had previous testimony from general keane and amaral william fallon and we have heard consistent themes. our foreign policy is reactive and we need to repeal sequestration and we should not withdraw from with afghanistan on this timeline and we need a strategy again. we will explore these topics and many more with today's outstanding panel of witnesses and i am honored to welcome three former secretaries of state among our nation's most admired diplomats and public
servants, doctor henry kissinger, doctor george shultz and doctor madeleine albright. our nation owes each of these statements a debt of gratitude for the years of service advancing national interest. the secretary has held nearly every senior position of our federal government on his illustrious career. doctor albright was an instrumental leader with key points in our nations history and influencing policies in the balkans in the middle east. finally i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge that personal debt of gratitude that i go to doctor kissinger. when henry came to conclude the agreement that would end america's war on vietnam, the vietnamese told him that they would send me home with him and he refused the offer. saying that the commander will return the in the same order that the others, he told them. he knew my early release would be seen as favoritism to my father and a violation on the
code of conduct by rejecting this last attempt with a dereliction of duty and he saved one of my important possessions my honor. for that, i am eternally grateful. thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today and i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, let me thank you in welcoming us and we have provided leadership in so many capacities and we are deeply appreciative of you for joining us this morning. it is an opportunity to hear from individuals who have witnessed and shaped history over the course of many years and we thank you again for joining us. i also want to commend the senator mccain for these hearings that have allowed us to work very carefully as the strategy of the united states and in view of many complex problems that face us today. you all have done so much again
and let me reiterate our appreciation and our thanks. and each of you throughout your career has demonstrated an in-depth understanding of historical economic and ethnic political situations and each of you emphasizing the need to use all instruments of national power, not just military power but also diplomacy and economic power. to address the challenges. the international order and the united states today is seen as complex as any previously. and we would be interested in your perspective on the challenges and the principles that should guide our security strategy. on a recent hearing as was mentioned we have held off on additional sanctions with
sufficient time to reach a conclusion and indeed the senate banking committee is considering the issue in a few moments and i would like to participate in a markup. we would certainly be interested in this critical issue. regarding the military aspects of the security strategy, we need to have a clear understanding what the political objectives are in the region and he also made clear that any intent to impose a solution would come at a very high course. doctor, you talk about the importance of this and also warned against the united states and owning it and we have to be very careful going forward. all of these issues and many more from this to the impact of cyber, national security policy, i think that we would in a fit enough from this and your wisdom. we thank you so much and again,
thank you and senator. >> we will begin with doctor albright, thank you for being here today. >> i'm delighted to be here chairman members of the committee. thank you very much for inviting me to participate in this important series of hearings and i'm very pleased to be here alongside with my distinguished colleagues and very dear friends, secretary kissinger and secretary schultz and this embodies the best positions of bipartisanship and foreign policy and we have long believed that congress has a critical
role to play in our national security. when i became the secretary of state, i valued my regular appearances before the senate foreign relations committee and then headed by jesse helms, he and i did disagree on many things, but we were respecting of each other in building an effective partnership that we believe because america had a unique role to play in the world. and that informs the perspective that i bring to our discussion today. it doesn't take a seasoned observer of international relations to point out that we are living through a time of monumental change across the world and we are reckoning with new forces that are pushing humanity down the path of progress while also unleashing new contradictions in the world team. one of these forces of globalization which has made the world more interconnected than ever before. also adding new layers of complexity to the challenges. with globalization it is impossible to act as the global
problem solver, another force is technology which has released unprecedented innovation and benefited people the world over and also amplifying their frustrations and empowering networks of criminals and terrorists. globalization and technology are disrupting the international system and we are struggling to keep pace with change and nowhere is this more apparent than where we have largest refugee crisis and a dangerous competition is playing out for regional primacy. and mark the first time since
european borders have been altered by force. events have shown that what many have assumed would become a frozen conflict is still red hot. meanwhile in asia the growth and rise of new powers are creating new opportunities in the united states and these are also as part of this and world war ii. and the intensity of complexity seems daunting, particularly after we have been through 13 years of protracted war and threat such as climate change nuclear proliferation and also looming on the horizon. and the american people may be tired, but we must afford another danger lurking in this new era of temptation to turn inward. because for all the turmoil
this century has brought america remains the mightiest economic power with a resurgent economy and an energy revolution giving us new found confidence in our future. we're the only nation with not just the capacity and will to lead, but also the ideal and ideal to do so in a direction that most of the world would prefer to go towards liberty and justice and peace and economic opportunity for all. and as the president said last week, the question is not whether america should lead but how it should lead and that in many ways is the focus of today's hearing. so let me just suggest a few basic principles that might help guide this discussion. first, we are the world's indispensable nation but nothing about this requires us to act alone. alliances and partnerships matter. enhancing our power and working on our actions.
and when possible, we should work with coalitions of friends and allies. second, given the fluid nature of today's threats, we must make wide use of every foreign policy option. from quiet diplomacy to military force to protect america's national interest. enter the foundation of american leadership must remain what it has done for generations. our belief in the fundamental dignity and importance of every human being. we should not be shy about promoting these volleys and that is why i am proud to be chairman of the national democratic institute and i know that you mr. chairman, are proud of your leadership of the international republican institute and the things we do together. working with allies and partners, balancing our diplomatic economic military tools of national power these will all be critical in navigating today's challenges and this means in the middle east we must continue working
with european and regional allies to apply direct military pressure against the islamic state while making clear that these violent extremist are guilty not of islamic terrorism but of crimes that are profoundly un- islamic. and this includes those that have fled the terror of isis and the depravity of the bashar al-assad regime. another challenge remains iran the president has rightly made it the policy of the united states to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and he has taken no options off the table to achieve that and we are exploring a diplomatic resolution. if this fails or if iran does not honor its commitments, the united states should and i believe will impose additional sanctions with strong support internationally. but i believe it would be a mistake to do so before the negotiations run their course.
and until russia honors its commitment and draws its forces from the ukraine, there can be no sanctions relief and if russia continues this pattern of destabilizing action, it must face even more severe consequences. on economic reform the administration has made strong pledges to work with our allies and we do have to help them interns of military assistance so they can defend themselves and we should not make this road harder by suggesting that we see the future subject that russia has vetoed. i have many other comments that i would like to reserve to put
in the record and i thank you very much for your kindness in asking all of this. >> thank you, madame secretary. secretary schultz? >> thank you. >> please push the button there. >> i appreciate the pillage of being here. you can see i'm out of practice. [laughter] i haven't been here for 25 years. and we had the idea when i was in office but if you want me include me at the table. so we did lots of consultations. and so i would like to set up basic ideas that we use and president reagan uses in thinking of his foreign policy defense policy and applying
those to areas that are important right now. and so first of all is the idea of execution. to arrange itself in the way we go about things to execute the idea that you have in mind. i remember when i returned to california after serving as secretary of labor and secretary of treasurer. and so i came away feeling that
this guy wants to be president but he wants to do the job making things work. i remember not long after he took office, the air controllers went on strike. and people keep running and saying this is very complicated. and he said it's not complicated, it's simple. they took in both of office and they violated it. but he had surrounded himself and the transportation department who had been the chief executive a large transportation company. and so all of the world it's like he plays so you better pay attention. so it's execution. the second thing in his playbook
was always be realistic and do not kid yourself. recognize the situation as it is and don't kid yourself, it's very important as a principal. and the next, be strong. and i don't know sequestration seems to me -- i can't run anything at a percentage basis we have to be able to pick and choose. and we need a strong military and a strong economy something vibrant and to go on and we need to have that kind of self-confidence that madeleine talked about. so that we have all this adding to the strength.
and the next thing is to think through the agenda. not the other guy's agenda. don't spend time thinking about what he might accept. stick to your agenda. that is what you are after. and i remember one president reagan proposed the zero option and people said you were crazy well, we went through a lot of pain and agony, but we wound up with zero and zero and so we tend to respect that. and so i think it's very important to be very careful with your words. mean what you say, say what you mean. i know that the chairman at the start of world war ii was a noreen core boot camp and the surgeon handed me my rifle and
says take good care of this and remember one thing never point is rifle at anybody unless you're willing to pull the trigger. i'm sure they had the same experience in boot camp. and you can translate that when you say or do something, do it. they can't do what you're going to do, they can't trust you. so i think this is a very important principle. and then once you have this in place hell people engage with you but do it on your agenda and with your strength. so that is the outline. so let me turn to something that could be on your agenda and that
is the neighborhood. president reagan felt that our policies stored in our neighborhood and this is where we live. and that trade between these countries has been apart of this. and listen to this the imports from canada are 25% u.s. content and the imports from mexico are 40%. so there is a process going on here. even more in terms of people until fertility in mexico now is down to a little before this level of crisis.
and so the border that we need to be worried about is mexico's southern border. and we need to be worried about how can we help and why is it that conditions are so bad in all cell door and guatemala that parents send their children north to see if they can't do something better. and it isn't just ranting about our border, it's much more diverse than that. and then i want to turn to iran. what is the reality? let's start with reality. the first point to remember is that they are the leading state sponsor of terrorism. it started right away when they
took people in the embassy hostage for the first year. one of the first acts was also to act this way. they acted indirectly through his power. and so i think it's probably a fair statement to say that if it weren't for this they would be in syria right now. but it is an iranian entity and we shouldn't kid ourselves about that and that's point number one about what they are like. point number two is they are developing ballistic missiles and they are pretty advanced and that as far as i can figure out. and that is a military item. number three in turn away there's a lot to be desired in the way that they have lot of
local executions and the mayor also trying to develop nuclear weapons. there is no sensible explanation for the extent and the money and the talent that they have devoted other than the development of a nuclear weapon. so we are negotiating with them. and there is nothing going on about this let alone internal affairs. it's just about the nuclear business. and we had numerous situations and i always seem to talk about
as they say we have the right to enrich an already we have talked about how much and their agenda is to get rid of the sanctions. and they are doing pretty well and the sanctions are eroding. the more you kick the can down the road, the more the sanctions of rogue. and it's not so easy to put back i hear people talk about snapback. if you've ever tried to get sanctions imposed on someone you know how hard it is, you try to persuade people who are making a pretty good living out of trade with somebody to stop doing it and it isn't easy. and so i'm very uneasy about the way the negotiations with iran are going on. and i think it's not a bad thing
because they are reminded that sanctions can be put on and will be tough. the money just say about russia. i think that in addition to the always things about it rush is showing a lack of concern about the borders. and it is in a sense attack on the state system it was in agreement with us that they would respect the borders of ukraine. and you never hear about that agreement anymore. and all the neighbors are nervous.
the money just turn to the question of terrorism and isis. it is just related in an odd way to what we are doing. and i think the development of isis is not just simply about terrorism but a different view of how the world should work. they are against the state system. they say that we do not believe in countries. in that sense there is an odd relationship with what russia is doing and what they are doing. so what we do about it. we'll first of all, i think that we do have to understand the scope of eight and that is the head military person that we spoke about the other day who was more worried about terrorism
then the country and about isis establishing itself in pakistan. this idea is this is something that they are trying to pursue for ideology. so what do we do? welcome i think that we obviously need to recognize that this has been around a long time and i would like to put that in the record mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> i would like to make a point that terrorism has been around a while and in the speech we have talked about this as well. and the terrorists profit caused by this succeed when governments change their policies out of
intimidation. but if a government response to by slanting down on individual rights and freedoms, governments that only acts even in self-defense thing only undermined our own legitimacy something that we have to figure out how to react and the magnitude of the effect is so great that we cannot afford halfhearted measures. it is a contagious disease that will inevitably spread if it goes untreated. and we cannot allow ourselves worrying and flee over how to respond. but we have to be ready to respond. and what should we do? welcome a pretty good set of proposals by your friend senator joseph lieberman.
and it's a very good piece and he said about something so we should do and i agreed to put this in the record and i think that would be helpful. >> without objection. >> in addition to military things that we should be doing, i think we also have to ask ourselves how do we encourage members of the islamic faith to disavow these efforts and this is an important thing that we need to build upon. and i would like to call your attention to something that has come out of san francisco and many think that we are a bunch of nutballs, but there is a man in san francisco who is a
retired bishop of california and he talked about something called the united religions initiative and his idea is to get people -- if you get the people together and you talk about subjects of interest with them they basically forget about their religion and they tried to get somewhere with this subject. so by this time they have what he calls cooperation circles and there are millions of people involved. and he has a big list of religions involved with the most important as christians and as long as is followed by hinduism and jewish. but there are a bunch others as of others as well.
the kind of things that they talk about are economic development, education, health care and nuclear disarmament and other issues and so on but i think things like this are to be encouraged because you get people from different religions to say there are things you can get together on and work on together and that tends to break things down and he has given me a little handout on that and i would like to put that in the record also. >> without objection. >> so thank you for the opportunity to present this. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. secretary kissinger. >> mr. chairman. thank you for this invitation to appear together with my friend 50 years to whom i owe so much
and madeleine albright, with whom i have shared common concerns for many decades. and you put me in a place when she was the secretary of state and i introduced her at a dinner in new york and i said welcome to the fraternity. and she said the first thing you have to learn is that it's no longer a fraternity. and now it is also a sorority. [laughter] and so mr. chairman, i agree with the policy recommendations that my colleagues have put forward and to try to put forward the conceptual statement of the overall situation and i
diverse complexity. since the end of the second world war. one reason is that the major of this unobjective power to include this role. and this is in the process of being redefined. and the concept is being challenged. and the relationship is also being redefined. so for the first time in history that affects each other simultaneously. the problem of peace was historically posed by the
accumulation of power in this includes the emergence of a potentially dominant country with the security in nature. this includes the disintegration of power because that put authority into non-governed spaces and this includes the challenge from a threat organized from beyond borders with his domestic situation in origin in many parts of the world. this includes the territory and the encouragement of human
rights. [inaudible] in this includes europe's roles of over three centuries ago. this includes technologically and territorially and as the united states became its guarantor and it's indispensable protector. in key regions of the world, a quarter is in the process. the leading states set out to prove their sovereignty and crisis had taken place in this
way and along with it the definition of the transatlantic partnership which in all the post-world war ii time, has been the keystone of american foreign policy. he has determined to overcome and this includes the process of redefinition. and there is a willingness to contribute the so-called soft power and a reluctance to play a role in the other aspects of security. the atlantic partnership faces the challenge of adapting to an alliance based on global views.
in this includes the strategic orientation of states once constrained and it may spark an interest in vindicating this and the vitality of the states and the satellite status. we are now mounting an offensive paradoxically. and on many issues this should prove compatible. so we face a dual challenge.
to overcome the immediate threats that opposes along the borders and to do so in a manner that leaves open a context for the long-term roles in international relations. including where it is needed and many economies and societies are flourishing and at the same time there is a lot of conflict and there is no formal arrangement to constrain the rivalry ended
introduces a measure of relatively seemingly local disputes. in this includes the relationship between the united states and china. [inaudible] and that is analogous to the relationship between germany and britain before the war. two successive american and chinese presidents which joined aim to deal with this [inaudible] and yet it is also true that significant spokesman with the adversarial aspect in both
countries and now india is entering this with its vast economic potential of democracy and it plays a situation in which the united states is welcome. in this includes political alignment and in the middle east this is unfolding sadly and it is a struggle for power within states. ectopic between states and religious groups and on the
in all existing institutions and this includes the conflict with isis that must be viewed and not within the context of individual episodes to overcome that. to pursue this power within other countries. beyond the control of national authorities and sometimes constituting this within the united states. for example in lebanon and elsewhere in all this while developing a nuclear program of potentially global consequence.
and that includes nuclear talks with iran which i welcome and it came as an international effort with three european countries and the united states joined it only in 2006 with all of these countries and together we will have the resolutions of the security council to deny the capability to develop this military nuclear capability as negotiators have now come and
and the old order is in flux. while the united states is indispensable in a time of global upheaval and it magnifies this and requires lots of intervention and the united states working together with mexico and canada in an economic partnership can help to shape the emerging world in both the atlantic and the pacific. and all this is part of a
long-term bipartisan definition and we should ask ourselves the following question, what is it that we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens is it a necessary allowance and what we seek to achieve even if not supported. and what do we seek to prevent the supported by an alliance. and this includes by other groups as well. and what is the nature of this and the answer is proper education. and we must understand that this
will be determined by the quality of the corrections that we ask and this includes as we continue to play this role as well in providing this with international trade to follow. and this is a sense of basic security and a strong and consistent american political presence is made possible many of the great strides of this era. it is even more important today. and this should have a strategy
for the budget and not a budget driven strategy. and in that context attention must be given to the modernization of the strategic forces. and america has played in its history the great stabilizer and division for the future. this includes all the other achievements before they become a reality. and i would like to thank you, mr. chairman, for conducting the hearings. >> thank you very much, doctor.
thank you for your compelling statement and i think all the witnesses. i will be brief so that my colleagues can have a chance to answer questions and we will probably have to break within a half hour or so since we have votes on the floor of the senate. secretary, should we be providing defensive weapons to the ukrainian government? >> mr. chairman, i believe that we should. i bet they are moving forward with a reform process which i think can be healthy and i ain't dead their security also needs to be interred and i do believe that countries have a right to defend themselves and we should be careful about a confrontation ourselves. >> you described it the secretary described it rather
well. but i'm not sure that the average american understands the iranian ambitions and why should we care? baby beginning with you, secretary shall. >> thank you. the ambitions are to have a dominant role in the middle east to continue the pattern of terrorism and to enhance their position by the acquisition of nuclear weapons. he gives every indication, mr. chairman that they do not want a nuclear return.
and so it is a very threatening situation, i think. and actually nuclear weapon used anywhere it would dramatically change the world, saying that we have to do something about these awful things and it can wipe out a state. >> doctor? >> every country is making history. as a national state in the region, in this capacity the united states is quite parallel
and that is a goal. secondly iran reflects a history of empire. and it spreads across the entire middle east and that was one of the major themes of this history. extending into the 19th century. and this includes the state advocate of the islamic jihad including national borders and faces foreign policy. ..
positive -- but the existing iranian regime has never allowed its policies that include imperial and religious domination and it is supporting groups which are state within the state and other countries and hezbollah attack from syrian territory into an israel border. when one speaks of political cooperation whether the political orientation of the
regime they cannot be judged alone by the nuclear agreement in which the removal of sanctions is a great iranian interest. that is the challenge we face and that we can only assess what we know of the outcome of the negotiations. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you all very much for your service to the country and for being here today. i want to begin with a report that was asked to be done by the department of defense that the rand corporation did looking at the last 13 years of war and what lessons we have learned from those 13 years.
the report draws a number of conclusions and i won't go through all of them but first it suggests that the u.s. government has displayed a weakness in formulating national security strategies and the weaknesses are really due to a lack of effective civilian military process for national security policymaking. you about the need to have a clear strategy for what we are doing. i wonder if you could comment on whether you think those conclusions are going in the right direction and thinking about how we address future foreign policy, foreign and military policy or if you think that's totally off base? secretary albright do you want to begin? >> thank you very much and it's a pleasure to be here. let me just say i haven't read the rand report but i do believe one of the bases for our
government civilian military relations the control of the civilian controlling the military the decision-making process is one in which the military has to be heard in which there may be different opinions but the whole basis of the national security system in the united states is that different voices are heard. there needs to be processed and i agree in terms of what george shultz said they need to be ideas and execution while there may be voices at times that disagree ultimately it is important to get a common policies. i do think the last 13 years have been particularly difficult in terms of determining why we were into wars and try to figure out what the decision-making process really was in getting into those wars not in terms of
rehashing them but in terms of trying to figure out what the appropriate decision-making process is, what the channels are, are there those that operate outside of the channels and i do think i am very much in favor of a process where civilian and military opinions are both regarded but ultimately civilian control over the military. >> thank you. dr. shultz. >> i recall a time when president george h.w. bush deployed forces -- forces along with coalition forces to expel saddam hussein from kuwait. that was a clear mission endorsed by votes in the congress as well as in the event and when that happened he stopped. one of the most dramatic examples of not allowing mission creep to control what you are doing and there were some
mission, it was accomplished and it stopped that he took a lot of heat to that. you should've gone on to baghdad and he should've done this and you should've done that but i thought it was a very important moment. we take afghanistan i think after 9/11 it was practically a no-brainer that we should go and try to do something there and we did. and we succeeded brilliantly. and then our mission changed and we were there forever because of mission creep. i think to a certain extent we failed to take some advice on iraq of some of the challenges that you have to have a greater amount of manpower there so that you have some control. if there is looting it shows you are not in control and there was a lot of looting.
so i think that was the case of we have been better off taking more military advice. but in terms of the decision to go ahead in both cases it would seem to be very well taken because the evidence at least as it turned out not to be so that the evidence seemed to be clear that iraq was moving on weapons of mass distraction and we have of course 9/11 and afghanistan. i think we have to be very careful with these things and assess the situation. there's a mission in the military cf to tell to tell me more precisely what the mission is and i can tell you what it takes to do it and that gets decided in the new go and you are successful and you have to be careful that the mission doesn't changed. it's something you didn't provide for to begin with. >> thank you very much. my time is ended.
i don't know dr. kissinger if you have anything you wanted to add to that. >> there are two aspects. it's the organization adequate to give an opportunity to express itself but the second challenge we have faced in defining a national strategy is that in our national experience we have had a different experience than most other nations. we have been secured so for americans security presented itself as a series of individual issues for which there could be a pragmatic solution after which there was no need for further engagement until the next crisis
came along. but for most nations and for us now more than ever the need is for a continuing concept of national strategy. we think foreign policies is a series of pragmatic issues. other countries like the chinese don't think in terms of solutions because every solution is an admission to another problem. so it is a question of national education in answering the question about our objective. what are the best means to achieve these objectives? how can we sustain it over period of time?
i have experienced six and eight after world war ii we ended with great enthusiasm and a great national difficulty and in a number of them including the last two especially withdrawal became the only definition of strategy. we have to avoid that in the future and we must know the objective when we start and a political strategy with which to culminate it. that i think is her biggest challenge. >> thank you very much.
thank you mr. chairman. >> senator inhofe. >> thank you mr. chairman and i would like to say i'm just overwhelmed to be before the three of you and there's nothing i can say that would thank you enough for all that you have done. thank you so much. one of the things they only major thing i wanted to accomplishing at this hearing was to help to try to describe to the american people because they don't know and he would probably assume they do know the current conditions of our military. i'm going to read something that you will remember. this is going to be to dr. shultz and dr. kissinger. this was 1983. ronald reagan was talking about how we should budget for national security. i'm going to quote him. we start by considering what must be done to maintain peace and review all the possible threats against our security has been a strategy for strengthening defending against those threats must be agreed
upon and finally our defense establishment must evaluate to see what is necessary to protect against any and all potential threats. the costs cost of achieving these ends is totaled up and the result is the budget for national defense. does that sound good to you? >> right on the mark. >> dr. kissinger? do you agree with this statement from 1983 by president reagan? >> yes, yes. >> thank you. the problem we have right now is we have watched what has happened to our force structure and people don't realize and in a minute i want to ask you about ukraine but when you think about the places where we should be could be and all of that we have to consider we don't have the capabilities we have had in the past. we have always had that capability. our policy has been to be able to defend america onto regional
fronts roughly that it may change the words around a little bit at the same time to two regional conflicts at the same time. we are not where we can do it right now. i would like to ask the two of you how how you abbadi way our current conditions of our military capability starting with you dr. kissinger. >> with respect to ukraine? >> no our overall military capability of our united states military. and strength. >> i think our capability is not adequate to deal with all the challenges that i see and with some of the commitments into which we may be moving. and needs to be reassessed
carefully in light of the shrinkage that has taken place on budgetary grounds in the recent decade. >> dr. shultz. do you agree with that? >> i think you have to recognize that a prime responsibility of the federal government is to provide for security. that's number one so one of the things as you read from ronald reagan one of the things he did was build up our military. he got a lot of objections from its budget director but he said this is the number one thing. and as our economy improved things got better budget early but still lets build up our military. many we took office we had the vietnam syndrome and her people were not even wearing their uniforms into the pentagon. he said stand up straight, be
proud of yourself, wear your uniform. then we had a the military buildup of considerable size. the statement was peace through strength. we actually did not use our forces very much because it was obvious to everybody that if we did we would win so we had the better careful and don't mess with us. >> excellent statement and dr. albright i agree with your issue in ukraine partly for different reason. i happen to be there at the time of the elections in november and a lot of people don't realize what really happened with poroshenko and arrest celebrating the first time in 96 years that they have rejected any communist seat in the parliament. now in light of that the free world is looking at what's happening in ukraine. what do you think what effect do you think that has on many of our allies the action that we
have not taken there? >> i think that we do need to help them defend themselves. the senator and i were there for elections and they took very many brave steps. they have the people of ukraine had been disappointed by what happened after the orange revolution in terms of their capability being able to bring reforms into place. i think generally in the larger question people do look at how we react when one country invaded another and takes a piece of territory. that is as both my colleagues here have said it is breaking the international system and therefore i do think that it's important to take a strong stand there by providing capability of ukrainians to defend themselves but also that nato in fact can and is taking steps in other parts of central and eastern europe are providing some forces
that move around and nato has been a very important part. i do think if i might say in respect to the questions you asked the others i do think i am very concerned about sequestration in the deep cuts that have been taken and i hope very much that this committee really moves on that because i do think it jeopardizes america's military reach. as somebody who worked for senator muskie at the beginning of the budget process i do know about function 150 and 05 though having defended 150 long time. i also admire what secretary gates said about the importance of providing money for the foreign-policy aspect of our budget because an answer to many questions here i think we are in the middle east for a long time and the military part of this is important that we also have to recognize and what you said george in terms of the
longer-term aspects they are where we need to figure out what the environment is that has created this particular mess and be able to use other tools of our policy to deal with that. >> thank you very much. my time has expired but one question for the record for dr. shultz. you outlined i thought a very good course of behavior for us in the united states. i would like for the record for you to submit how we are doing relative to that course of behavior. thank you very much. >> and i say a word about the military? in considering the ukraine issue in my view we should begin a definition of the objective we have tried to reach and then see which measures are the most suitable. i'm easy about beginning a process of military engagement
without knowing where it will lead us and what we are willing to do to sustain it in order to avoid the experience that i mentioned before. ukraine should be an independent state free to develop its own relationships with a special aspect with respect to nato membership. it should be maintained in existing quarters and russian troops should be withdrawn as part of a settlement. but i believe we should avoid taking incremental steps before we know how far we are willing to go. this is a territory 300 miles
from moscow and has a special security implication. that does not change my view of the outcome which must be a free ukraine and it may include military measures as part of it. but i am on easy speaking of military measures alone without having a strategy to put forward. >> dr. shultz d. want to add to that? >> i would like to add to that. i agree totally with henry statement of where we want to wind up as a free independent ukraine. but i think we have to be active in trying to help that about. i would point to two particular things that we should be doing. number one we should be organizing an energy effort to
see to it that the countries around russia are not totally dependent on russian oil and gas which has been used as a weapon. i'm interested to know there is an lng receiving shift in the port of lithuania. i think they're getting their lng from norwegian but we have a lot of gas in this country. we should be ready to get it there. there's plenty of oil and as you get there and we want to relieve those countries of this dependence on russian oil and gas. and maybe it would teach them because in addition to low oil prices is market share probably permanently. but then i wouldn't hesitate and i think i am here let's do everything we can to train and equip the ukrainian armed forces. they have boots on the ground. let's help them be effective
because the russian boots on the ground don't anybody kid themselves about what's going on. >> thank you. dr. albright i will suggest that you become a member of the budget committee again. we can use your expertise and experience. senator manchin. >> thank you mr. chairman for this outstanding hearing and thank you the preview for attending here. it's such an honor to have your expertise and your history knowledge in this country to hopefully get us where we need to be. you said in her testimony united states is not faced such an array of crisis and the world were two. my generation is vietnam. the generation of today is 9/11 and afghanistan and iraq. now it's kind have gone into another direction of concern that we all have. i would like to hear from the preview and i think you have touched on it about how we would
approach it that when you look at where does the united states of america truly willing to spend its treasure and contribute its blood which is a horrible thing for any of us to have to ask americans to do but if we are going to give treasure and blood where are we going to be addressing the greatest threats that we have and we are limited in such an array of complex problems that we have. which ones would you identify first and i would ask simply this. we have gone to afghanistan because of 9/11. we went to iraq and we can talk about that all day. we have iraq that didn't do what is it that we did and we did we had isis in syria. we have all of that going on right now and we have ukraine and russia so do we try to do a little bit of everything or should we be pinpointing something we should be focused on right now? and whoever would like to start
dr. kissinger if you would like to start on pinpointing where you think their greatest concerns may be and where effort should be put? >> my thinking on international relations was formed during the cold war and in terms of danger the conflict between a nuclear-armed russia and the nuclear-armed america was greater than any single danger we face today and the most anguishing problem one could face was what happens if the strategic plans of both sides had to be implemented or were implemented by accident or whatever. but it was a relatively less
complex issue than we face today where we have a middle east whose entire structure is in flux. as late as 73 american policy could be based on existing states in the region. and achieve considerable successes and maneuvering. today middle east policy requires an understanding of the states, of the alternatives to these states of the various forces within the states, a situation like syria were the two main contenders are
violently opposed to america violently opposed to china and a victory for either of them is not in our interest. in the rise of china apart even from motivations of leaders present a whole new set of problems and an economic competitor of great capacity a state that is used in its tradition of being the central kingdom of the world that by its very existence is bound to step on each other's toes. but it's a different problem
from the middle east problem. >> the middle east is the most dangerous one you think we are facing right now a nuclear iran? >> and then we have a nuclear iran so we have i would say the most immediate problem is to get rid of a terror base state that controls territory. that is isis and we must not let that generate into another war that we don't know how to end. the more long-term problems also exist and the challenge to our country. it's not to switch from region to region but to understand the
things we must do and separates them from the things they probably cannot do. so that is a novel challenge in that magnitude are the current generation. >> mr. chairman would it be possible -- dr. shultz would you give us your idea but do you think are most grievous concerns are right now? >> of course i agree with what henry has said that let me put some additional points on it. i think we tend to underestimate the impact of information and communication age. it changes the problem of government because people know what's going on everywhere. they can communicate with each other and organize and they do. so you have diversity everywhere
and it has been adored or suppressed but it's asserting itself. remember the problem in iraq with maliki was he had to govern over diversity but he didn't understand it at all how you govern over diversity. so you have that problem which tends to fragment populations and make governments weaker. this is what's happening in the problems that demand international attention are escalating. i think as henry said and as i said in my initial testimony there is an attack on the state system going on. the attack on ukraine is part of it. isis is a major part of it. they are in major challenger to the state system. they want a different system. i have a sense henry that china is in a sphere of influence way
of thinking. that's different from the state system. so that is a challenge. i see nuclear weapon proliferation coming about. that is devastating. a nuclear weapon goes off somewhere and even my physicist friends say hero shema was just a little plaything. look at the damage it did. a thermonuclear weapon would decimate the washington area early. the threat of nuclear weapons is a big threat. they were making process but that's been derailed in we are going the wrong way right now. it's very controversial but i have a friend retired chief of naval operations and we started a project on the arctic.
sun oversold and those about the arctic. there's a notion being created there. that hasn't happened since the last ice age. their big mills all over the world taking place. the climate is changing and there are consequences some that is happening and we will never get anywhere with atmosphere somehow able to have actions to take oil on a global basis. i might say parenthetically i had the privilege of sharing the m.i.t. advisory board on their big energy initiative more or less the same thing at stanford. we had an m.i.t. scientist come to huber the other day and i think he has cracked the code on large scale storage of electricity.
that's a game-changer because it takes the intermittency problem of solar and wind and also they must know how paul burrell our grid is. we are much safer in the any rate i think they're beginning to get somewhere. but that's a big threat so these three things are huge concerns of hours and we need to have a strong military. we need to have a strong economy and we need a strength of purpose in our country. we have probably done the best job with all of our problems of dealing with diversity because we started out that way. we are the most diverse country in the world. our constitution provided that. you remember if you read lynne cheney's book on madison, to wonderful book. it's clear that george washington having suffered because of the continental congress wanted a strong
government that he and his colleagues never got the constitution ratified unless they provided a lot of oil for states and committees. our federal structure emerged and it's a structure that allows for diversity. it's very ingenious. you can do something in alaska. we don't have to do it in san francisco. they certainly don't want to do the same thing in new mexico. there's a difference. but the differences prevail. so we have these big problems and in a sense you look at them and say tactically how do we handle iran? how do we handle ukraine? how do we handle isis? it falls within this broader framework. >> i do think the biggest threat of climate change. it's national security aspect as has been described and that leads me to say the following
thing. our problem is that not everything can be handled militarily and we also have a shorter attention span. these are very long-term problems and also americans don't like the word multilateralism. it has too many syllables in it ends and an-ism but basically it's a matter of cooperating and if you look at these issues it will require american leadership within a system that other countries play a part in. otherwise i agree with everything both henry and george have said. but i do think short attention span and won't see lateral ways of dealing with it. >> i'm sorry mr. chairman. >> not at all. senator sessions. >> thank you all. it's time for us to think about it our role in what our strategy will be and what we can realistically accomplish in the future and the longer i've been around these issues the more or less dreaming i have become.
dr. kissinger i think i'm reading world order and i thank you for your contribution to the world without book. i think you quote bismarck and maybe you can get it correctly. unhappy as the statesman who is not as happy after the war as he was before the war or something to that effect. so we have just got to be careful about power and how we use it and sometimes long-term thinking can avoid short-term problems. i thank all of you for contributing to that. our subcommittee deals with nuclear weapons that i'm very concerned about proliferation and dr. shultz as you indicated worry that our allies are losing confidence and our umbrella and they may expand and of course iran will clearly likely kick
off proliferation of dave per seat -- achieve the weapon is one of the noted i think dr. kissinger you indicated we moved from iran not having a nuclear weapon to iran to get close to having a nuclear weapon but not having one. you expressed some concern about that? would you expand on that a little bit? >> yes. >> yes dr. kissinger. >> i am concerned as i pointed out a shift in the focus of negotiations from preventing iran from having the capability of building a nuclear weapon to a negotiation in which seeks to limit the use of that capability and the space of one year, that
will create a huge inspection problems but divers are my comment. but i would also emphasize the issue of proliferation. assuming one accepts the risk -- inspection as valid and takes account of the stockpile of nuclear material that already exists. the question then is what do the other countries in the region do and if the other countries in the region include that america has approved the development of enrichment capability within one year of a nuclear weapon and if
they then insist on building the same capability we will live in a proliferated world in which everybody, even if the agreement is maintained will be very close to the trigger point. i hope and i would wish that this proliferating issue be carefully examined because it's a different problem from not having the capability at all to having a capability that is then then -- within one year of building a weapon especially if it then spreads to all the other countries in the region and they have to live with that fear of each other that will produce a
substantially different world from the one that we knew and from the one in which the negotiations were begun. >> it should be pointed out that a bomb made from enriched uranium is much easier to make. the hero shema bomb was an ingredient that wasn't even tested. the plutonium bomb was tested but you can make it unsophisticated bomb from enriched uranium fairly easily. so the enrichment process is key. >> in the short term than dr. kissinger i think i hear you saying short-term meaning the next several years this could be
one of the most dangerous points in our foreign-policy this iranian nuclear weapon because it goes beyond their capability to creating proliferation within the area, the threat to israel and the danger that we don't need to be facing if we can possibly avoid it. >> i respect the administration's effort to overcome that problem but i am troubled by some of the implications of what is now publicly available of the implications of the objective on the future evolution of nuclear weapons in the region and the impact of all of this on an international system where everybody is within a short
period period of getting a nuclear weapon. nobody can fully trust the inspection system or some may not. that is something i would hope gets carefully examined before a final solution is achieved. >> we have historically tried to draw strong line between access to the technology to produce a nuclear power plant and access to enrichment technology. we have tried to put that line in there very strongly and we have cast that line the side already in the iran negotiations. >> senator cain. >> thank you mr. chairman thank you to the witnesses for the very instructive testimony. really just one question. a week from sunday we began the seventh month of a war the war on isolaz described by the
president and by others in the administration. american service personnel have lost their lives and coalition partners have as well. there has been no congressional debate or vote upon this war. i think all agree that it will likely last for some period of time. it was justified by the administration based on two authorizations for use of military force that were passed at different times under different circumstances under slightly different geographies under a different administration under vastly different congress. as former secretaries of state would you agree with me that it is more likely that the nation will sustainably support a war there is a full debate on it before congress and of congress in fact weighs in as constitutionally contemplated with respect to any war being
waged by this country? >> my experience is as an administration official to get a much better policy and you get a much better ability to execute out policy if it is discussed and there is consultation between the administration and the congress. as i said in my testimony our watchword was if you go on a landing including the takeoff. so i think the consultation will provide a better policy and a better execution. but i would say this war we are now talking about it started a long time ago. i read testimony from 1984. i was 30 years ago and i think this is a deep problem that goes beyond terrorism. terrorism is a tactic. the object is to change the state system and we need to understand what these people are
up to. that will help us design the policies that are needed. >> the president has asked in his state of the union message that there be a authorization of use of military force and i do agree that there needs to be discussion of it and consultation. i think it is very important for there to be more education of the american public as to what the stakes are. >> i agree with what my colleagues said. authorization should be sought but i will reemphasize the point i made earlier. we should not let this conflict with isis slide into the pattern of the previous wars which start with support and after a while
generates a debate about withdrawal especially since the existence of a territorial base for terrorists which have not existed before. a country that its global objective is the ratification of the state system. once america has engaged itself victory is really an important objective. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman and i want to thank each of you for all that you have done for the country and your leadership. secretary albright it was a privilege to be in ukraine with you during the presidential election so thank you. i wanted to follow up to ask you about nato presence in the
baltics and we had dr. brzezinski before the committee the other day. he had talked about putting a small number of u.s. ground combat forces in conjunction with nato obviously is part of the nato contingents in the baltics to ensure there would be a tripwire that the force would obviously be of a size that wouldn't be one where we are trying to send a conflict message. i wanted to ask you what you thought about that in terms of nato's presence in the baltics and what you think we should be doing in addition to providing defensive arms to ukraine to help buttress nato? >> i do think when we were in kiev and ukraine generally together i think we understood because together we met with the leadership the importance of american support for what they are doing their. on nato and the baltics i agree with dr. brzezinski. i do think it's important for
the baltic countries are members of nato and i think it is very important to show that kind of support. the question is whether they are rotating troops or they are permanently but i do think the united states needs to be a part of a grouping which also requires other countries from nato to be there. i know dr. brzezinski spoke about the importance of the germans and the brits etc. being there but i do think it is an important aspect of our common approach to this through nato. i also do think that nato is at a stage where we were talking about organizations that have been started many years ago that our support for nato in getting the other nato countries to pay up what they're obligated to do under the 2% of the gdp for activities. as i have understood the new secretary-general he is talking a lot about the necessity of
this rapid reaction force in making nato more capable to deal with the kinds of problems that are evident in the region. >> thank you. dr. shultz, secretary shultz and want to follow up on what you said about iran's program particularly their icbm program. i wrote a letter with others on this committee to ask the president to include a negotiation of the missile program because their estimates are they will have icbm capabilities and what we heard from her defense intelligence leaders perhaps by this year. so i wanted to get your thoughts as we look at these iran negotiations do you believe their missile program their icbm capability should be included as part of a result that important in terms of our national security interest? >> certainly. i think the support for terrorism should also be on the
table. if you get a weapon you are going to use it. >> that's how i look at those negotiations. those two pieces are missing and in their important house also interested to hear what both you and secretary kissinger have said in terms of concessions have been made on enrichment that make it difficult outcome for a good result that doesn't lead to some kind of race within the middle east in terms of a nuclear arms race if we are going to allow a certain amount of enrichment. >> you have to remember the iranians are not known as rug merchants for nothing nothing. they are good bargainers. they have art across lines and outmaneuvered us in my opinion so we have to watch out. >> secretary kissinger wanted to follow-up on something something that you had testified before the senate foreign relations committee on the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty and you had called attention to the disparity
between russian and american tactical nuclear weapons at the time. i want to get your thoughts on what we have learned according to the state department rushes developing a new mobile nuclear ground launch cruise missile in direct violation of the 1987 the imf treaty that secretary shultz has referenced as well and this missile was likely a development even during these new s.t.a.r.t. negotiations if you look back in the time window. i wanted to get your thoughts on what our response should be to the development of this ground launch cruise missile and as i look at this in our response it's not just a matter for sponsors of a treaty violation but what are the russians interest in developing this type of cruise missile? >> the russian motivation for
developing the weapon base? as i said in my statement i said the least threatened borders the border of russia. but it has a huge inequality population and a long border with the jihadi regions of the world. so the motivation undoubtedly is to use nuclear weapons to balance the inferiority of russian forces along many of its borders. but to the extent that it is incompatible with signed agreements the united states
even if it theoretically understands the motivation cannot accept nuclear arms control treaties are violated because a new strategy develops. so i believe we have to be very thorough in insisting on carrying out these agreements. >> thank you all. >> i want to say to the witnesses and ask you to stay longer than i originally bargained for and i apologize for that. this has been a very important hearing not only for this committee but also for the members of congress and the american people. for the benefit of your many years of wisdom and experience you have provided us with important not only information but guidance as to how we should conduct not only this hearing but our national security policy
senators mark kirk and robert menendez have introduced a bill which adds economic sanctions against iran for its nuclear program. it restores some sanctions that were lifted when i ran into negotiations with the u.s. and imposes new sanctions on senior iranian officials and their families. the senate banking committee met today to work on the bill. this is an hour. [inaudible conversations]
>> the meeting will come to order. as we are getting a quorum here we will move to opening statements. we will then consider a nuclear weapon free iran act of 2015. i would like to come in at this time senators kirk and menendez for their tireless efforts and i mean tireless over so many months including this legislation. earlier this week we heard testimony from senior administration officials and a panel of experts on the need for iran sanctions. i will note that this testimony is an addition to the at least 11 other times administration officials have testified before senate committees on iran since 2013. yesterday members also were
dissipated in a classified briefing on iran sanctions which covered the same topics of numerous classified briefings for members of congress and staff. moreover this topic has been discussed and analyzed with the administration multiple settings by most of us. both the administration and its critics agree that it was escalating pressures of economic and financial sanctions many of which originated in this committee that brought iran to the negotiating table and 2013. in recent months the sting of these pressures seems to be lessening in part because some of the sanctions have been the ease. kohl. ..