Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20131101 : c

through carbon, having it at a renewable center was a big advantage in something i have always wanted. >> i think there are some best best practices of state and local governments. we see the best practices occur a projectwill appoint manager to shepherd personal cell phone, give details 24 hours a day, call us, and we will solve the obstacle. opportunitiesl are more standard there are some sharings they have been across the board. wax one thing we talked about is infrastructure. maybe just share a little bit about what we could be doing to make sure we are investing in our infrastructure. >> this is near and dear to me. around the world, every leader is looking for a way to find jobs, and they have lack of capital for infrastructure. that is how they can create more jobs. one thing that is very clear, when you look at countries that infrastructure, there is a partnership between public and private. it is imperative that we have a policy for infrastructure building, and we do believe there is billions and billions of dollars of capital they would like to be investing in this. one problem we have is we cannot find enough high-quality investments that are long-term in nature. most of our clients money is for retirement. it's hard to find that high- quality investment. thing i have been scurrying around trying to make sure we have a policy so there is public and private partnership. if we can't do that, i believe there is areas of dollars going -- billions of dollars going .nto investments i could go on and on and on. the money is there for the private sector. imperative that we make this an emphasis in the future. >> i will take a plus minus on this one. i think we have talked about the u.s. economy from the context of businesses and many others like us. businesses are now supplied james. -- supply chains. it's a big number. i think most of us are at .0. the u.s. economy, 100 years of growth. our infrastructure is at 3.0, and we have got to do something about that. other economies are putting in infrastructure. they will enter, but they won't enter where we entered. they will build ecosystems. countries are going to , especially if they're infrastructure is advance. this capital point he makes on how to get this long-term return, and there is an example. there is a government arm, but it is a phenomenal example of how all things government are not bad. we need to figure out how we do infrastructure. think airports and all that, the positive side is the reason our energy market has become what it has become is because we have infrastructure. the pipeline and storage isworks and energy, which why it is important we don't disable that. that is why we have a domestic energy sector that is so competitive. wet is why it is something have to tackle. >> our supply chain is world- class. we see infrastructure all across the world. we have opportunities to improve. the u.s. infrastructure is among the best in the world. the term infrastructure conjures old law, but it is really dynamic. what was a 100 year infrastructure lifecycle became 30 year, became seven or eight year life cycle, and i think the discussion around rebuilding should not be an initiative. it should be a permanent fixture. the frequency is going to increase at light speed. to be a base of what we do. there is a lot of right that capital dollars we need to invest in that once we figure out the policy side. >> we have heard this a lot. larry obviously organized a discussion we had at the white house with investors around the we have responded ensuring our tax law is generous to a foreign pension, as it would to a domestic pension, so that is one important area. some of it is all of us working together, because it's not just supply of capital. it's making sure people can figure out ways to create a that isevenue stream what the potential for investors would be interested in. then again, it is not limiting ourselves to and narrow view of infrastructure. just to give you a small example of something that would affect lots of countries, the president has an initiative that would happen. they ensure every school in our country has enough high-speed broadband that every child can sit at your desk within individualized learning device. infrastructure if you , the new andlace exciting thing might be an industry of lower-cost that every student has. has that itdent might be context. very focused for jobs reasons, improving our roads and bridges. we need that, and it is partly an issue of fiscal strategy. it is partly our tax laws. we also keep our eyes on the infrastructure of the 20th century. small businesses were using first.ernet it generated a lot of growth and productivity, and we are going to make sure we stay at that now. i want to be clear. we learn from other countries. his ine president did sourcing, he listened to them say why they chose another country on things we could have done better. to improve, but we are listening and learning. if there is something you make -- something you think makes a difference, we welcome that. bute are coming to a close, -- end, we had a pretty, and you were frank. maybe if you could share your doesective on what that for the united states in terms of reputation and potential for investment around the world and your perspective going forward. >> let me start by saying i am -- veryhawn america, bullish on america, but washington is making it difficult to remain bullish. ofare the standardbearer principles. democracy in america is a standard. around the world are looking to the united states. ofthese hundreds of years rentable's, we have had the being af eating -- currency that is in trade worldwide. we are the reserve currency of he world. we have a luxury we can borrow trillions of dollars in money overseas. 50% of the debt owned by -- owed by the federal government is held by foreigners, and when you have a narrative talking about default, and narrative of threat, it goes against all the principles. if you would go to the bank and say, i am not going to pay the loan, what would be given back to you? if we continue to act in this petulant way that we can walk away from commitments, walk away and i was ales, source of many angry phone calls from many angry foreigners who had been investing millions of dollars in u.s. debt, and i do believe i have calmed everybody the midst ofare in another negotiation as we speak. we have a process in which we where we arelearn again. this process has to be much smoother. it is important we dropped the conversation about default. i could tell you ceos in the united states i spoke to, they are pausing. they are putting a pause on hiring. they are putting a pause on investment until they understand. the average ceo in the united years, so to build something, you need to have a that you areence building out these factories for hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the narrative in washington is forcing everyone to put a pause button on. i was talking to bill earlier. i am sure consumers are putting on the pause button at an important time when we have i amtmas sales coming up. alarmed. i remain to be alarmed. if washington understood how many hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted with every type of country setting up contingency plans if there was a default -- i had people working andrds what if scenarios what do we tell our clients? what does it mean if there is a default on u.s. treasuries? if one of the u.s. treasuries does not meet its payment, that is a watershed. of noise anda lot uncertainty over how do we navigate. i am very lashawn america. i think we have more opportunity in the last five years than the last 10, and we need the to be more pro- opportunity unless narrative about talking about walking away from standards and principles. >> thank you. [applause] sharing that perspective. president obama is committed to making sure our full faith and credit is protected, and we will do everything possible to avoid any future such crisis, because we would much rather those of you doing contingency planning were instead figuring out how to invest in america. i want to they each of the panelists for taking the time to be with us this morning. and ouru for listening, panel is now finished. thank you. [applause] >> the panel sessions will begin shortly. we welcome you to tour the facility. >> the senate homeland security committee investigated the navy yard shooting, specifically security for contractors. the full hearing is available at our website, but here is a part f it. >> what is the answer? be doing theas to job we do better. the other has to do with using data that is available. for 20 bucks you can get 90% of the information on the internet. we pay 2400 dollars. >> for top it is a little more than that, more than 4000. >> for secret what do we pay? >> 462. >> for $20 you can find out 90% of this stuff online, so the question is, maybe we need to say, first, we have way too much stuff pacifier. we have way too many people who need clearance. how we are doing it is not utilizing data that is readily available. number three, we have had a response that they are going to start coordinating with the irs. people would say that is kind of a no-brainer. thing you wantne to check. it looks like no one ever cross- referenced that with the irs. no one ever checked to see if it i guess mye. question and final point is this. creating the expectation your clearance is tentative on the basis of your passing some type of renewal and not knowing when that is going to be, the cia used to have random polygraph .est they don't even have random polygraph test. i can pass any polygraph test with two drugs in me, and you won't ever know it. we need to where we environment, lessen the number of people who need clearance, we do a better job of clearing, and we need to create the expectation you are going to be randomly check to see if you deserve that clearance. difficult. are it and holding contractors accountable does not seem to be happening. how do we solve this? are, butout where we how do we solve it? have all these areas, three pages of instruction, five pages of names, 17 pages of employment, 29 pages on relationship, to pages on , a pages on financial records, five pages on association, and re-signature pages. i know you are reforming, but the point is we want to go for the gold. not all of this is checked from a quality assurance check. number three would be can we create a process that gets to the gold and not rely on the form as much as the data that is already out there that the government already holds? 84% of thezed that arele in this country ?ulnerable to top-secret data that puts us at risk. whoever wants to answer my broad commentary or educate me in a different direction, i would love to have it. >> an arrest report a be part of the background check, but there is not a requirement that the underlying police report be obtained. i will tell you why this is a shocking revelation. i am a former prosecutor, and the vast majority of cases that would reveal a mental disturbance will not pass this position. the criminal justice system does a very bad job of adjudicating the mentally ill, because the notally ill, if they have hurt anyone, putting them in prison sometimes creates more so most than it solves, prosecutors when confronted with the mentally ill issue like someone who says they have heard voices, someone where the police have been called on a disturbance where someone says there are microwaves coming through the events and people are here to get me, they will do , and most of the time the police department won't even try to file charges. that is a disturbance call related to someone that in their minds they do this all the time. that is not something especially in a city as large as seattle or or st. louis, that kind of disturbance call where someone is making a racket because they are mentally disturbed, most prosecutors won't even take it to the department. we are horrific with even getting that person to mental health services. the vast majority of these shootings are not going to be around the issue of whether or not someone has shown a violent tendencies but whether or not they have shown tendencies of so thea mental issue, notion we are saying if a police department won't give us the report, we have checked the box. gut check on do a the issue we will realize a lot of the work we have in doing around this is ticking boxes. i get that we can't go one-on- one and poll every threat on every application for clearance. although if we did that we would probably make them so expensive we would be much more disciplined about deciding who gets that, but the notion of calling what you are doing quality control is probably offensive. think there is a lot of checking boxes going on. what i don't have is that there asus a more random thorough investigation? acis a more thorough investigation. random basis of more thorough investigation. i would like to see if who is getting clearance. this is risky. we could be back here saying, why didn't he have security periods? -- security clearance? we are giving the impression that all these millions of people who have security clearance we have checked them out. we are confident a are mentally stable, they are not criminals, and they obey the law. we have no idea if that is true. we are clueless because this process has become pro forma with contractors, and the reason they are off the reservation is because they beat an amount, and -- bid an amount and that contractor wanted to make money. i agree with the chair and the ranking member that it's time for all of us to quit nibbling around the edges and get to the meat of the matter. that doesn't work in this subcommittee has learned we have had a lot silence on installations. learned the navy with evening these contractors 28 temporary passes. >> you can watch the rest of these hearings on www.c-span.org . coming up next, the senate foreign relations committee will talk about this. syrian civilthe war and then the iraqi rime .inister >> on the next washington cofounderaron smith, and executive director on why his group is encouraging young adults to sign up for health care, and then congressman jeff denham talks about immigration reform and why he will join democrats in cosponsoring a plan that will give millions of unauthorized immigrants the chance to obtain citizenship. >> this is a tough time for in a say where everyone says what are you doing or why are you doing it. actuallyet together we say it is much more important that we defendy this nation and take the beatings than it is to give up this program that would result in this nation being attacked. we would rather be here in front of you today telling you why we thended these programs giving them up and having our nation and our allies being attacked and people killed. >> intelligence officials defend the nsa surveillance program at an intelligence hearing. sunday, your comments .or kitty kelly that is at noon on book tv. tv,on american history remembering john f. kennedy. accounts of kennedy possis assassination. kennedy's assassination. >> this was originally painted as my grandmother's official white house orchard. in the 1960s lady bird johnson went looking for portraits of first ladies to rehabbing in the white house. that was important, and she could not find my grandmother's portrait. she called and said, do you know where that painting is? my grandmother said, yes, it's on my wall. mrs. johnson said you should not ,ave that. my grandmother said no, that's my payment. it's on my wall, and that's where it's going to stay. i think mrs. johnson tried a couple more times, and >> watchy she gave up. that on our website or see it on c-span. we continue our series as we look at first lady eisenhower. >> the senate foreign relations committee held a hearing on syria. than 100,000 syrians into an a half years of fighting. >> this hearing of the senate foreign relations on syria will come to order. we have two panels today. first panel is robert ford, ambassador to syria, the assistant administrator for the bureau of democracy atu usaid, and the assistant for international security and nonproliferation. our second panel we will have an ambassador for the center of the atlantic council. we welcome you all. i look forward in this hearing to hear your respective on the realities we face in syria, the state of play, the progress we have made, and where we go from here strategically, especially given the catastrophic humanitarian crisis that is spreading across the region. 7 million syrians have fled their homes. more than 2 million refugees have fled to surrounding countries. the regional impact is enormous. in lebanon, the presence of 750,000 refugees is equivalent to 58 million refugees entering the united states. with 4000 refugees fleeing syria every day, for the sake of the region of the world we must find a resolution to this humanitarian crisis. now we read reports of the breakdown in syria's health services with the world health organization warning of confirmed aces of polio which will be that the iceberg and a setback in the campaign to eradicate polio warm wild. while players seek to address the humanitarian crisis, there is no one in sight. despite the fact that most of us today would agree that a negotiated settlement is certainly preferable to any military action or the collapse of the syrian state -- state, the lack of consensus on a traditional plan portends continued bloodshed and suffering. while the international community holds meetings about meetings, the assad regime continues its brutal assault on the syrian people backed by iran, russia, and hezbollah. the consequences of failure to achieve a political settlement are frightening. a field syrian state bordering iraq or lebanon, turkey, jordan, and israel becomes a haven or training ground for extremist roosts in an unstable region. i am concerned about what comes next strategically, at the political, diplomatic and humanitarian levels. i would like to hear what -- achieve could be going forward in your assessment of the conflict. will the geneva conference take place in november? how can it take face when the opposition remains fragmented? how can it take place without empowering a silent -- assad? what needs to happen for the opposition in a governance plan, and will the u.s. recognize the syrian opposition speak for syria? how can we get when i should -- how can we galvanize support when assad is backed by those who see a different set of goals? what is the impact of the concerns raised by our partners about u.s. commitments to addressing the crisis? what are the consequences of a failed state in syria? i want to take note of some very important progress that was largely fueled by the vote of this committee for the use of force that allowed the president to make it clear of what would be his intentions that there could not be a negotiation, and that is the purpose we are making on destroying and dismantling the chemical weapons infrastructure supplied. today the confirms it has destroyed equipment syria used to make chemical weapons with. so far inspectors have visited 21 chemical sites identified by syrian authorities within the timeframe specified. the two remaining sites are in contested areas where the challenge of getting there is more difficult, but i hope ultimately can be succeeded at as well. let me conclude by saying i want to make clear my views at the outset, the united states cannot and should not be the key that resolves every dispute in this region, but we have a very real strategic state in this region to make sure that syria does not become a failed state. we need to increase our humanitarian assistance and insist on humanitarian access as well as increase our support communities hosting syrian refugees in lebanon and jordan and to getting others in the international community to live up to their responsibilities in this regard. calling on donor nations to join us in this time of greatest need, because syria is a global problem. we need an answer to what we need to do to push all sides in this conflict toward a settlement and a future for syria does not include a thought. the people of syria, the region, and the world, and we need to have a comprehensive strategy and an answer to the basic question about what comes next? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses of both panels for being here today, and i look forward to your testimony, and i want to thank the committee. in your leadership, mr. chairman, we have had two really big stats that have taken place in this -- big steps that are taken place, and one was laying out a strategy, and regardless of how people voted, i think it was one of the finer moments of this committee, and, secondly, if you remember, i think everybody remembers secretary kerry came in on september 3 asking for the authorization for the use of military force, which was passed out of this committee at his request and at the president's. at that time, the secretary said there was a strategy relative to syria. it was a strategy similar to what was laid out in this committee. obviously, things have changed pretty dramatically on the ground since that time. and with the issue of the chemical weapons, basically, as far as i can see, there is no real strategy relative to the opposition. i know we are still formalizing that there is a strategy. i look forward especially to ambassador ford's testimony regarding the opposition. let's face it, guys -- what really happened when the russian offer came forth was it was less about seizing an opportunity, and it was more about our country not having the stomach to follow through on a strategy over the longer term relative to syria. look, i very much hope that we are successful and think we will be relative to chemical weapons. but in the process, we have diminished our standing in the middle east. i think everybody watching understands that in essence we have thrown out any real strategy there and are just trying to figure out a way out of this. we have empowered assad. we have weakened ourselves relative to other issues in the middle east. i am very this appointed -- i'm very disappointed. i hope there is a good outcome of this for our nation, and i want to support any and every effort that is taking place. i think we ought to realize, there is no strategy right now for the opposition, none. there's no strategy. for that reason there is unlikely to be a very successful geneva ii conference, because who isn't we are going to be dealing with, who will we be bringing to the table? we have weakened ourselves. i hope there's a good outcome and hope there are other opportunities for this committee to be involved in these outcomes, but i look forward to our witnesses. i look forward to them helping us, help the administration and help our nation develop a better, longer- term and better long-term strategy for serious. i thank you for calling this hearing. >> thank you. ambassador ford, we will start with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. raking member corker and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to come and give you an update on the united states government's syria policy. i have submitted written testimony for the record. i have been alternating one week in washington and one week in the middle east for the last month, as we work to provide assistance to the moderate opposition, and as we push for political settlement. at the focus on those two elements, strategy with the opposition and focus on the political settlement, and i will let my colleague's assistants talk about humanitarian assistance issues. the conflict is a war of attrition. regime is suffering serious manpower shortages. it has brought in foreign fighters from hezbollah, from the iran revolutionary guard, and even iraqi shia militiamen. the moderate opposition that we support is fighting on two fronts, both against the regime and against militants, extremists directly linked to al qaeda in iraq, the same al qaeda in iraq that we used to fight. the battle front in syria is war, located now, but neither the regime nor the various opposition factions can throw a knockout punch in the foreseeable future. and our strategy is based on that assessment. secretary kerry, therefore, it working extensively with russia, with other concerned members of the international community, including countries like us that strongly support the syrian opposition, and he is working the united nations to promote a political solution. last week, on october 22 in london, 11 countries that strongly support the syrian opposition can together and we all reaffirms our support for a negotiated settlement based on the full implementation -- and i want to underline that -- the full implementation of the june 2012 geneva communique. this full implementation of the geneva to medicaid is also what we have agreed upon during the summer with the united nations and the russian government. we, the russians, the london 11 countries, and the united nations all agreed that a geneva peace conference should result in the creation and transition the governing body established by mutual agreement between the syrian regime and the opposition and this is a political solution which most syrians and those countries supporting the opposition and supporting the regime would back. we have confirmed with the russians during our summer discussions and among the 11 countries that just met in london that mutual consent -- i mentioned mutual consent to set up this government -- would mean the opposition has a veto on the formation and the details of that transition government. speaking frankly, no one who knows the groups that are resisting and fighting the regime now thinks they will ever accept assad. the regime also has a veto, and so if we do get to a geneva conference, we can expect very tough negotiations. the syrian opposition has a role to play here. it needs to tell other syrians not only what it rejects, but what it proposes that in terms of your reasonable alternative to the existing assad regime. it needs to put that on the table. why? because many of the people who support the regime now do so fearfully. and i have heard this repeatedly from them, from people i have met. they want to know, is there a way out of the conflict? and the russians, who backed the regime, but say they are not tied to a assad, they too want to see the opposition put forward an alternative. so the opposition has a lot of work to do in this regard. and that reasonable alternative is especially needed now, because of the growing competition between extremists and moderates inside syria. and, mr. chairman, members of the committee, i really want to emphasize that we have to weigh in on behalf of those who promote freedom and tolerance within the syrian opposition. people who resist the regime, but who also resist al qaeda- linked extremists. i said that last spring when i appear before you, and it is more true today. our nonlethal support of the opposition is vital, and it is a point that a general has made me repeatedly. more broadly, since the start of the conflict we provided over 250 million dollars in nonlethal assistance the coalition and a range of local counsel grass roots groups to help preserve institutions of governance in places where the syrian regime has withdrawn. as i said before, syria presents incredibly difficult challenges. we will push forward on a political solution. we look forward to working with congress as we move ahead. i will be happy to take questions. thank you. >> secretary countryman -- and all of your statements will be included in the record. >> i want to thank the ranking member for this opportunity for review of the progress made in the elimination of syria's chemical weapons program. today was the date that the organization for the prohibition of conventional weapons is able to announce that it had met the first target date in the program completing the distraction of production, mixing, and filling of equipment, and i agree with both of you that the action of this committee last month attributed notably to the results we have achieved so far. since you have my written testimony, i would like to make just three quick points. first, our timetable, our target aides are ambitious, but they -- our target dates are ambitious, but achievable. we have partners who are prepared to contribute financially and in terms of technology to achieving this goal. we have a very determined cadre of federal employments who are working hard to make sure that we have thought through a plan that is complicated, but achievable in terms of logistics and security. and i am increasingly confident that we will be able to complete this task, the elimination of syria's cw program, within the target date of june 30 next year. secondly, a couple of key factors that will contribute to the achievement of that target date, and that so far are going well. first, we discussed back in geneva with the russians that the removal of dangerous precursor chemicals from syria, the bulk of which are not weapon -- weaponized, not inside shells, are crucial to completing this task on time. the plan embraces exactly that concept, and we are confident that we will have a host country that can work with us to effect the distraction outside of -- the distraction outside of syria of these precursor chemicals. secondly, our cooperation with the russian federation has so far been strong. we will continue to expect the russian government to press the syrian government for full compliance with its obligations. this will be essential as we move ahead. third, we continue this process with our eyes wide open. we are about to enter what could be the most complicated phase in terms of both logistics and security, that is, there are mobile of chemical precursors and large oddities from several sites within syria, to the coast, for removal on a ship to another country. that has both big logistical problems to think through and certain security risks. the same time, while the record so far is acceptable, we do not assume or take for granted that the syrian government will continue full compliance with its obligations. we have the tools we need opcw executive commission and the united nations security council. we intend to do so. that is why our statement here reflects the cautious optimism that we have at this point. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. >> chairman, ranking member, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today, and this is specially thank you for your support for humanitarian programs around the world. they're making a difference in the lives of many. since i last testified seven months ago, there has been 30,000 additional deaths among the syrians. in the last year, the number of deaths has traveled to more than 100,000, and the number in need inside syria has gone to more than 6.8 million. this is equivalent to the total populations of vermont, new hampshire, maine, and connecticut combined. the pace of escalation is staggering. according to a recent u.n. report, in the two years of conflict, syria has lost 35 years of human development progress. with the 2 million refugees, this is a national crisis that has become a regional crisis about putting serious strains on neighboring countries. there is a toll on the syrian people, the kids who have not gone to school for two years, women who've endured rape and abuse, and the 5 million displaced syrians who do not have a place to live or enough to eat. at the crisis has escalated, we have accelerated a response, and our assistance is now reaching about 4.2 million people inside syria, and we are helping to support 2 million refugees. the same stubborn challenges that i talked about seven months ago, access, security, and resources, continued to prevent us and others from reaching everybody who needs help to get it and the need continues to escalate. in early october, field by the momentum of the resolution to eliminate the chemical weapons, un security council unanimously passed a presidential statement on humanitarian access. this statement urges all parties to the conflict to facilitate immediate access to all those affected, including going across borders and across the front lines. this agreement or presents the first and the most significant show of global political will to help those who need it most. and the challenge now is to translate that commitment into real action on the ground. recent reports of starvation campaigns underscore the urgency. the u.s. government is working to mobilize the international community to act with the same intensity as it did around chemical weapons to ensure life- saving assistance reaches those who need it desperately. we are continuing to provide humanitarian assistance through all possible channels, through the u.n., ngo partners, through local organizations, and since this time last year usaid has doubled the number of partners inside syria so we can we reach all. medical care, we have set up hundreds of medical facilities and treated hundreds of thousands of patients. we are working with an unbelievably courageous group of syrian doctors and health workers who put their lives on the frontlines everyday every day. we are particularly concerned about the 10 cases of polio confirmed by who, and are calling on all parties to allow access for the vaccination campaign that who now has underway way. we remade the second largest donor of emergency food crisis. counterpart is are now reaching more than 3 million people in syria and a million refugees each month with food. there are millions more displaced. we are focused on protecting the most vulnerable, willman and children always very the worst in a war. this crisis is no exception. we have elevated our focus on the scourge of gender-based violence and work to provide assistance inside and in the camps. the single greatest factor limiting assistance remains the ongoing and intensifying conflict. the u.n. estimates 2.5 million people in need have not received help in almost a year. the regime is actively blockading whole communities. we aren't urged russia and china supported this agreement, and we must now see that support translate into meaningful pressure. a quick word on the neighboring countries. we are working to combine at development and humanitarian resources so we are providing help not just for refugees but for the host committees that are putting under the strain of this influx of refugees. we work closely with the international humanitarian donor community to make those resources count for the most. in conclusion, humanitarian assistance will absolutely not end the bloodshed in syria, that it is saving countless lives and it is alleviating real pressures in the region. or support has been absolutely vital, so once again, thank you very much, and i look forward to questions. >> thank you all for your testimony. we will start the round of questions. let me say, ambassador for, i heard her statement and i appreciate your incredible service, but i did not hear a strategy. that to me is challenging at this stage. i understand that in syria there are not great options. this is a pretty bad hand that the region, as well of all those who care about it, have been dealt. but in the midst of that there has to be some effort of a strategy to get us to where we need to be. assad says he will attend geneva if there are no preconditions. that is a red line for the opposition. the opposition is fragmented, has its own worked offer -- has its own work to do to offer where that will come. assad is talking about running for president in 2014. he sees himself as an indispensable partner when it comes to the chemical weapons program elimination. the russians, in a war that you described in which there's no one to deliver a knockout punch, will continue to stand by assad. so in the face of all of that, what is our strategy? irish energy to get the russians, whether we need -- what is our strategy to get the russians, whether we need a stretch, what is our strategy to change their calculus? what is the strategy to get the moderate elements of the opposition to be able to come together with a plan for the country? what is our strategy to be able to at the russians to help us, assuming that can be done, to press assad to ultimately leave? what is our strategy to move forward on the chemical weapons the structure and come as we are trying to do all these things together -- i just do not get a sense that we have a strategy. i wish the oz reservation that this committee passed in may would have been used at that time because the dynamics were different. and i think we could have far better effected the efforts towards a negotiation that we still aspire to. but the administration chose not to use that at the time. so give me a sense of what the strategy is, because i do not glean it from your remarks. >> senator, it is a two-track strategy. first, keep wishing to get the -- keep pushing to get the two sides to the table. but we understand that the assad regime is a very tough, brutal regime. nancy went to the details, the suffering inflicted on the syrian people. we'll have that pressure on the regime to get them to make concessions at the table. the pressure can come from a couple of places. one, it will, the ground, and so we, the americans, have organized a group of 11 countries who are the primary backers of both the political and the armed opposition, and we coordinate our efforts on that, and we call that group the london 11. it includes the gulf states, european states, and the main backers of the syrian opposition meets regularly, boat at my -- vote at my level and at the secretary level. most recently, october 22. push for negotiations, but help the moderate opposition be in a position itself to press for concessions from the regime when it gets there. yes are source of pressure were below the russians. secretary kerry has talked extensively with russian foreign minister laugher off. based -- laugher off -- lavrov. they speak several times a week on syria. the russians share an interest with us in syria about not having that country become a ace extremism. basis of concerned about the country, were assad to leave, becoming totally an anarchichal place, and talk about needing a manage transition. you cannot have that until the opposition is forward proposals that the russians and the others can look at, senator. otherwise we are in an absurd chicken and egg situation. i've been talking extensively to the opposition about putting some things on the table that the russians and the rest of the international community and, most importantly, other syrian's can look at to say -- >> give us a sense of what that would be that would assuage the syrian people and the russians tonight find this opposition? >> for example,, if assad to go, who would replace him and what would their authorities be? we have talked to russians extensively about what that would be, and we agreed with them that the new transitioning governing body will have the authority over the intelligence establishment, military establishment, or the financial charge of the country of the government. we agreed on that with the russians. now we need the opposition to come forward and say this is how we would put it together. very frankly, senator, they were so busy pushing us to intervene military a that -- militarily that they have less push to put this together, which should your letter this must come. were they to put that forward now, the russians would at least have an opportunity to study it. i do not think they would accept it at face value, but it is something where you can begin a process. that is our strategy, to get a process started should -- started, where all of us, moderate opposition, the united states, international community, including russians, put pressure on the regime and the opposition to come to a final deal. >> let me say that in the midst of the civil war, having a desperate group of opposition the financial agenda needs a lot of assistance at the end of the agendane a national needs a lot of assistance at the end of the day to achieve it. it also needs to have some understanding of what our baselines for the russians are going to achieve it and see if they cannot be commensurate at the end of the day. when i talk about a strategy, i would like to hear and i will move on to senator corker, but i would like to hear in some setting the detail of what our effort is, because i just to not get the sense that we are headed anywhere there. one final question, mr. countryman, i applaud the work being done in the chemical weapons, is a major concern. but originally published reports had it he believed there were 45 sites, and as i understand it, the syrians declared funny three sites. -- declared 23 sites. what is how we are ensuring access to the entire inventory of what we believe exists in syria? >> thank you, mr. chairman. on your earlier comment, i wanted to say that while assad may see himself as indispensable to the elimination of chemical weapons, that is not our view. syria among the syrian arab republic of has accepted an obligation that is binding upon this government and binding upon the next government, each we hope to see soon. that is what increases the urgency of both destroying and removing chemicals as rapidly as possible so that the regime cannot cling to its fantasy that it is an essential part of the process. we have a strategy to move forward on chemical weapons distraction. we have a great advantage in this task over all the other tasks in syria, in that there is no opposition to it. russia, the regime itself, the opposition, the united states, and the world all want to see these chemicals removed and destroyed rapidly. it is therefore not a political issue, not an issue on which there is a decrease agreement -- a disagreement between the u.s. and russia, it is rather a logistical and technical issue. i would be happy to come back at any time and briefed on the details of how we will get to complete elimination by the middle of next year. on your specific question, we have long tracked the sites that we believe are associated with research department, production, and storage of syria's chemical weapons program. the number of sites, as you note, that we have checked is more than 40. the opcw has talked this week both about visiting 21 of 23 sites and has also talked about visiting 37 out of 41 facilities. it is not just a semantic issue, whether we are talking about sites and facilities, whether we are double counting. it is, as you know, a serious question that needs to be addressed. you have received only on monday syria's 700 page inventory of its holdings. we're studying it closely. it is a classified occupant that we would be prepared to speak about in a classified setting, but we have the tools under the opcw and under the un security council resolution to resolve any discrepancies between what we believe and what the syrians have declared. >> we will look forward to having a classified session to get to the bottom of how many of the sites we believe are going to be pursued. and what needs to be done. senator corker? >> thank you, mr. chairman, for your opening statements. i appreciate it. mr. ford, you are a figure that is held up by many in syria and i want to thank you for having for us today because you have to be incredibly embarrassed at where we are and coming in and testifying, knowing what you know is happening in syria, to many of the people that you know. i know it has to be tough for you to do today. let me ask you this -- the opposition that you know personally in many cases -- are they faring better today since we moved towards trying to destroy the chemical weapons that are on the ground? are they faring better since we decided not to go ahead with military force than they were before this discussion began? >> they are deeply disappointed, senator, that we chose not to use military force. i have heard anguish from people that i have talked to over there. i have had to explain the administration's rationale. i have had to emphasize to them that our primary goal here is to find a political solution. >> i am not so concerned about the military force component. what i am concerned about is i would just like for you to tell me that since we have gone through this pursuit with russia, relative to mr. countryman's work, which i appreciate, is the opposition on the ground faring better or worse since we are now pursuing the destruction of chemical weaponry? >> their position on the ground, senator? the opposition has made some gains. but as i said before, neither side in this awful, grinding civil war is able to do a knockout punch right now. one problem that is hampering the opposition is the bitter division among the armed groups. even in the last month, al qaeda groups, especially a group called the islamic state, actually started fighting with the people that we support that were fighting the regime. those people have been fighting a two-front war, which has been seriously hampering their efforts. >> you know these folks. some of us have become familiar with these folks in refugee camps after multiple trips. we had a strategy that we were building in early september. administration has been incredibly slow, and obviously, this covert policy that everybody in the world knows about, where we will train folks covertly so we do not have to talk about it in committee settings like this, but basically, we have trained about 1000 folks. our intelligence folks can train 50-100 per month. we had a minor strategy, but basically, do we really have a strategy at all relative to the opposition? and building their strength against al qaeda on the ground and against the regime? >> senator, we do. today, for example, we delivered trucks to the people there inside syria. >> they were going to deliver those trucks when i was there in august, and then next week. it is unbelievable. so you delivered trucks. does he have weaponry? >> he does have lethal weaponry. i'm not here going to talk about anything except what the state department is doing. click the state department is delivering weaponry echoplex i weaponry?ing >> i did not say the state department is delivering weaponry -- >> the state department is delivering weaponry? >> i did not say the state department is delivering weaponry. we have delivered trucks of supplies. >> i sat down with him in august and those trucks were coming the next week. now you have delivered trucks. are you satisfied with the strategy that we have in syria right now with the opposition? do you feel good about it? when you talk to people on the ground and in these refugee camps, do you feel good about the strategies that we have for these people that we have left out on a limb and told them we would support their efforts against this regime and against al qaeda? do you feel good about what our country is doing with the opposition right now? to allow them to have some kind of say-so in the future of this country? >> there is not a person on my team in the state department that does not feel frustrated, frustrated by the syrian problem in general. but i have to say, we do provide support. we provide a lot of support. you may discount what we do, but it matters to them. every time i talk to them, he thanked us for what they -- what we do. would they like more? of course they would. they would like a lot more from a lot of countries. but for those who are trying to -- together in places like aleppo and elsewhere, just to keep the hospitals running, to keep electricity in the hospitals, to provide clean water, it matters hugely to them. are there greater needs? of course there are. but our resources themselves are not unlimited. we are doing what we can with what we have. the problem itself is tragic. i know people myself who have been killed. it is tragic and we want to help them. but ultimately, syrians must fix this problem and ultimately, it will require them to sit down at a table. the sooner they start, the better. but in the meantime, we will keep helping the opposition. >> i think our help to the opposition has been an embarrassment. and i find it appalling that you would sit here and act as if we are doing the things we said we would do three months ago, six months ago, nine months ago. they must look at us as one of the most feckless nations they have ever dealt with. for you to say that these trucks are being delivered today is laughable. these things had been committed months ago. i have to tell you, i respect your care for syria. i really do. i could not be more embarrassed at the way our nation has let people, civilians, down on the ground the way we have. i know that russia is driving this now. what we have really done is turned the future of syria over to russia. they have their hands on the steering wheel. i don't know how you could feel good about the humanitarian crisis that is taking place. i don't know how you can feel good about how our partners, how they are feeling about our reliability. but i want to tell you again, i appreciate your concern about the people of syria. i cannot imagine that you can sit here with a straight face about what we have done. i hope at some point, this administration will sit down and develop a strategy not only for syria, but for the region. it appears to me after multiple, multiple trips to my this administration acts on an ad hoc basis, looks for opportunities to slip the news as they most recently did an syria. i hope you will help them to develop a longer-term strategy. >> let me thank all three of our witnesses. ambassador, for your service, your distinguished career in- -- in diplomatic service, and all three of you for what you have done. -- in diplomatic service, and we have here is a civil war and we have picked the side. i would agree with the ranking member, it has not been clear what our role is with regard to that civil war. although we have picked a side and we are providing help to the opposition. and then there was the use of weapons of mass destruction chemical weapons in which president obama was very clear that we would not tolerate that for my and if necessary, we would use force. this committee supported the president in that decision, that chemical weapons cannot be used without a response from the international community. you are here today to say that you are following up on destroying those -- or removing those chemical weapons. but i did not hear any one of you say anything about the person who was responsible being held accountable. i hear you say that we will be negotiating between the government and the opposition on a new government. i heard you say that assad will probably not be part of that because the opposition has the veto right. but it seems to me that we are so quiet about holding those responsible accountable for their international criminal actions, and we seem to be timid in raising that subject because we are afraid it makes negotiations more complicated. but if you don't mention them, and we will not get that type of accountability. maybe they will use these weapons -- maybe they will think, we can use these weapons that maybe they will try to take them away from us, but we will survive. they should not get that message. can you reassure americans that our commitment is to make sure that a thought is held -- that assad is held accountable and that those who used chemical weapons, that part of our negotiating strategy will be to old them accountable for their criminal actions? >> senator, we have her. -- we have repeatedly stated, repeatedly, that regime officials will be held accountable for the august when he first use of chemical weapons in the suburbs of damascus. we specifically highlighted that. and many times i personally and the secretary himself have talked about accountability. they couple of things on that, number one, with the support of congress, we are actually training syrian investigators on how to investigate and develop war crimes dossiers. we are doing that now. secondly, we are in discussions with colleagues at the state department with international jurists about what would be the best structure to try these war crimes dossiers that will be developed. we take these actions extremely seriously and we do intend to help syrians hold people accountable with the work of international partners. >> will this be a subject on negotiations between the opposition and government? >> i have no doubt of that, senator, because the opposition will insist upon it. >> will the united states insist upon it? >> senator, we will absolutely support the opposition putting that forward. the united states, senator, is not negotiating. >> i understand that. we are prepared to use our military to stop the use of chemical weapons. are we prepared to use our military might to make sure that those who did are held responsible for their actions? >> absolutely, and i've already talked about the resources we are deploying to help make that happen. >> this humanitarian disaster in syria today, one third of their population has been displaced. 2 million are externally displaced. half a million internally displaced. the challenge of getting into serious to help those who are victimized is challenging. what support are we receiving from the international community to help deal with the humanitarian crisis during this civil war? >> there has been a massive mobilization of humanitarian assistance. the u.s. is by far the leader. but there are substantial contributions, especially from from europe. kuwait hosted the u.n. appeal conference last january and has itself contributed a little more than $300 million. notably, russia and china have contributed very small amounts. there is a goal, especially as we look at the extraordinary needs that continue to amount -- to mount, to bring as many people into the financing of this humanitarian effort as possible. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator rubio. >> let me begin before i ask my questions -- i don't want the tone of my questions or direction in any way not to reflect on my admiration for your service to our country. and not only that, where you have shown consistent interest in the syrian people. but we have a chance to ask a question about the strategy. let me begin with something i think i know the answer to. you have referred repeatedly how the future of the syrian people belongs to the syrian people. but you also believe that what happens there is in our vital national interest. >> senator, just the fact that syria has the risk of destabilizing the region and become a base for terrorism, absolutely. >> i just want to make that clear. why do we even care about what is happening in another country? it is not just a civil war. it has implications in the region. in a few moments on the second panel, we will hear from an ambassador who will testify based upon his written testimony that syria on its present course is becoming the worst of all seek -- worst of all conceivable scenarios, a failed state that is divided between assad controlling a portion of the country, kurds controlling a portion near the turkish border, and a vast majority controlled by the jihadist who will use it as a base of operations for destabilization in a rack, and -- in iraq and eventually jordan. would you disagree with that assessment? is that not the short-term projection it is headed in? >> i would agree with that statement. but i would like to add something. that is why it is important for countries in the region, for the russians, the chinese and the members of the security council, everybody has to do more. right now, it is going in the worst direction. >> i don't want to get into a debate about it, but i'm not sure that the russians care about the destabilizing of syria. they may view it at -- as geopolitically advantageous to them. the right goal here would have been to try to empower non- jihadist opposition forces within serious to do two things, -- within syria to do two things. one, have the capacity to drive a thought out of power, whether negotiated or otherwise, and create a functional state to replace him, and never to, to leavewithin syria for these foreign fighters, these jihadist -- and number two, to leave no room within serious for these foreign fighters, these jihadist. it would have required us to identify who these non-jihadist opposition forces were and then to empower them within the region to do so. i want to again go back to testimony that ambassador hoff will offer. he will point to the fact that it took us until december, 2012 to finally recognize the syrian national coalition as legitimate representative of the syrian people. and even after that, two things happened. one, the united states and united nations continue to recognize the assad led government, which had an enormously bad humanitarian consequence for the syrian people. and number two, many syrians stuck with the devil they know having been denied an alternative that they could see and evaluate. lest we think this is only limited to syria, i want to go to the testimony we will hear in a moment from dr. bell among who will testify that yet another major reason for policy failure is a lack of a coherent strategy. they do not know what the policy is toward the region. they say it is vague and ever- changing. you say in your testimony that the conflict in syria has fostered an environment that grows with extremism and hide a link groups are working to exploit the situation for their benefit. -- and al qaeda-linked groups are working to exploit the situation for their benefit. we need to weigh in on behalf of those who promote tolerance and freedom. i take it that you're saying that is by not empowering these folks, you are actually de facto empowering the people who do not promote freedom. here is my question. why didn't we do it sooner? in foreign policy, doing the right thing is not the only thing. you also have to do the right thing at the right time. why did it take so long to reach this conclusion? and now we find ourselves in a situation where fighting on behalf of those who promote freedom and liberty and tolerance is harder than ever and may be impossible. why did we do this, but sooner? -- why did we not do this, but sooner? it is harder than ever and might be impossible. >> the syrian opposition from the beginning was atomized. that is how it survived the regime's oppression. there was no national leadership. it is very hard to build up something that itself is still very incoherent. it took a long time for the opposition coalition to come together. you are right, we only recognized it in december, 2012. but it was only formed in mid- november. we recognized it as the legitimate representative three weeks after it was established. we have reduced the syrian embassy to the officer. and frankly, that officer is there because a lot of the syrian americans here want a syrian task force and he is able -- to issue them. if i may continue, though, about the it ministration's policy, with respect to the opposition it is still a problem in terms of the divisions. they fight each other sometimes with the same vigor that they fight the regime. even politically. it took an enormous amount of listening from us -- and i was there personally -- as well as some of the other members of this group of 11. to bring in this opposition coalition of the kurds, to bring in an armed opposition so that they would reflect the people fighting on the ground, and to bring in these local councils that are referred to, so that it is not purely an expatriate organization. they themselves only moved forward at a syrian speed. i wished they would go faster. our assistance, as i said, is not unlimited. do they need more? sure, and we are trying to help them generate resources from other countries as well. in a sense, it is a multilateral effort. we have helped organize the countries that provide assistance. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your service and for being here today. ambassador ford, there has been a lot of discussion so far about what our strategy is in syria. and you have laid out what you believe that to be. can you talk about how we are judging whether we are being successful or not, and at what point we may determine the strategy is either successful or not successful and where we may need to make a change? likes senator, we think that the discretion of the chemical weapons is a huge success, if it is carried out fully. that was a core u.s. national security interest. i remember when i came to this committee as the nominee to be ambassador three years ago, we talked about those chemical weapons. that is a success. can i say that our efforts to create a political solution or to contain the civil war are a success? no, we are still working on it very hard, but the situation in the country is still deteriorating. we do not see a way for this to be solved militarily in a community where they think it is existential, where they think if they surrender, they will be murdered. we have to build a political set of agreements between communities, otherwise the fighting goes on indefinitely. >> to what extent are our efforts with the london 11, as you say, actually having an impact? are we coordinating closely with others who are interested in what is happening in syria? >> senator, when i compare it to 14, 15 months ago, it is a lot at her. there is better coordination and assistance flows to the political opposition and military opposition. it is better, but not perfect. there could be better coordination still, frankly. >> and how much gleeful assistance do we still think is being provided by the russians? -- how much lethal assistance do we still think is being provided by the russians? >> i have never seen an estimate of the dollar value of it, but i can say that it is substantial, that it has increased from a year ago. there are more deliveries. and in some cases, they are militarily extremely significant. for example, the general was telling me about how these refurbished syrian air force jets -- he said they don't have many, but the ones they have when they are refurbished make a huge difference. i think the russians would help everyone get to the negotiating table faster if they would stop these deliveries. >> i'm sure there are efforts underway at the u.n. to try to address this, and in bilateral discussions. is there more that we could be doing? are there more international partners that we can bring to bear to try to address this? who are they and what are they? >> there is no real effort at the united nations that i am aware of. >> should there be? >> i don't think the russians are going to pay much attention to recommendations from the u.n. but i can tell you that we have had, including at the level of the secretary, we have had a lot of discussions with the russians. if i can take the time to share a quick story, working with some members of the london 11 countries, we were able to actually turn back a russian delivery. we convinced an insurance company to withdraw the insurance coverage for the ship delivering it. but that is a rare success, senator, frankly. it would be great if we could make better progress with the russians. >> the russian deliveries have become more significant, probably more significant than what iran provides in terms of military assistance. i noted senator corp. -- senator corker's statement of concern about the russians having their hands on the steering wheel to syria. there is something to that, but what is not notice -- not noted is the cost to russians with the rest of the arab world and the entire region when they give their unswerving support to the syrian regime. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i am over my time to my but may i ask one more question? for mifflinburg. you talked about the vaccination challenges as we are looking at the potential outbreak. -- the potential polio outbreak. is there more we should be doing before it extends across the middle east? does that have implications of health and safety for people throughout the region? >> there is an actual outbreak. the concern is that, as you have probably seen in the papers, each of those cases represents the possibility of another 2000 cases. who has already mounted a campaign to vaccinate inside syria as well as the region. they are driving forward. the key will be to ensure that all parties grant access to those workers who are administering the vaccine. >> i understand that. i would hope we are doing everything we can to pressure the russians, they rainy and, and everyone else in the middle east to support -- the iranians, and everyone else in the middle east to support this campaign. >> absolutely. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. i think the witnesses, and that's are -- i thank the witnesses. ambassador ford, i would like to point out that you articulated goals, not a strategy. to call the categorizing and removal of chemical weapons a huge success, that may be. but we are now in the orwellian situation where the russians are assisting us and rna replaceable part of the scenario in identifying and removing -- and are any replaceable part of the scenario in identifying and removing chemical weapons and they are replacing them with conventional weapons. as someone pointed out, a mother watching her child starve to death is not really comforting that the child has not been killed by a chemical weapon. your continued reliance on the russians i find just such defiance of history of russian behavior that it is absolutely remarkable. you continue to call this a civil war. this is not a civil war anymore. it is a regional conflict. it has spread to a rack. we now have al qaeda -- it has spread to iraq. we now have al qaeda insurgents in iraq. hezbollah has 5000 troops there. for you to describe this as a civil war is a gross distortion of the facts, which again, makes many of us question your fundamental strategy because you do not describe the realities on the ground. a usual spokesperson for the obama administration is mr. ignatius. he writes this morning in the "washington post," with the more restrained approach in syria, obama has decided to limit the u.s. effort there to chemical weapons and providing for refugees who may experience massive suffering and loss of life this winter, and catalyzing a political process to replace president bashar al-assad. what obama is not prepared to do is topple assad militarily. while the united states will continue to provide covert aid to the rebels, the goal is to strengthen their negotiations and an eventual peace conference in geneva, not military victory. then he goes on to say, but let's be honest, this is basically a formula for stalemate in syria with a continued carnage and not growth there. did mr. ignatius adequately describe the obama administration's strategy? >> senator, we do not think there is a military solution to the conflict in syria. >> do you believe that if bashar al-assad has the military vantage on the ground that there is a solution? >> i don't think bashar al-assad can win militarily either. >> do you believe he has the advantage on the ground now? >> only in a few places like up around aleppo. he has a disadvantage on the ground in the east and the south and other places. >> is killing remained unchecked, ambassador ford. come on, it seems that is a satisfactory outcome to you. the fact is, he was about to be toppled over a year ago, and then hezbollah came in and the russians stepped up their efforts. and then the revolutionary guard intervened in what you call "a civil war" and he turned the tide. and he continues to maintain his position of power and slaughtering innocent civilians. and you are relying on the geneva conference, right? >> senator, i would agree with much of what you said in terms of the balance shifting against him and the intervention of hezbollah helping the regime. more and more, the regime is dependent on foreign manpower because of the manpower shortage, as i mentioned. but our goal ultimately is to get teary and communities who are afraid of each other to somehow come to a political agreement. i cannot emphasize that enough. until the community that is backing assad feels they will not be slaughtered, they will keep fighting. that is why i talked about the need, while we support the moderates and the opposition, and also to put forward political proposals. now is the time. >> again, realities of warfare are that someone believes they can stay in power, which obviously assad can, and they are not ready to negotiate their departure. that is a fundamental principle. for you to think otherwise is bizarre. let me say again, the reason why the saudi's have divorced themselves from the united states of america is because of what you just articulated to senator corker, trucks. that is a great thing, trucks. as shiploads of weapons come in from the russians. as planeload after planeload land providing all kinds of lethal weapons, and we are proud of the fact that we gave them trucks. i am now at a position, tragically, where i will have to rely on the saudi's to provide them with the weapons they need because it is patently obvious that the united states of america is not going to do so, and in the testimony of the witnesses who follow you, we are seeing an endless slaughter and this is a shameful chapter in american history. >> thank you for holding this critical hearing. and i want to thank our panel witnesses. there are many questions that remain with regard to our path forward in syria. while i am these that we were able to provide for the need without the use of force, we cannot forget that a thought has ordered 100,000 of his own people. not only through chemical weapons that killed 1500 innocents earlier this year, but through the medieval warfare that was described in your testimony. i am pleased that some progress has been made in the removal of chemical weapons and that we are in the process of exhausting diplomatic alternatives to military force, but i find it jarring at the same time that six weeks ago, we sat in the same room and approved a strong policy, directed in part by president obama, a holding assad accountable for his crimes. but today we do not seem to be making progress on a number of those essential shared commitments. let me start, if i could, with the assistant administrator lindell. when i visited earlier this year in jordan, they expressed extreme frustration, anger, disappointment about the delays in the promised delivery of u.s. assistance and support. in your testimony, you have documented some of the ways we have delivered a significant amount of support all across the country. will you say a little more about what has been done to address logjams, ensuring deliveries to syrian's, but also to refugees in jordan and in turkey, and also to mitigate this hugely destabilizing impact to the region and to those vital american allies? >> there has been a huge amount international focus looking at how to address this crippling burden of the refugees in jordan and levin on. -- lebanon. one of the challenges that many are not in camps, but living in families -- with families and in host communities where vital interests are stressed. we have moved to shift a lot of our development programs in jordan, particularly in cooperation with the government of jordan, so that there is increased development within communities that are having stressed water, infrastructure, electrical systems, schools, clinics. we have something called the complex crisis fund that is working with communities in the north in particular to increase access to clean drinking water and to clean drinking water and two drinking water for their animals. this is happening across the international donor community and there has been a lot of work done to create what is called a to create a comprehensive platform to get the sides working together to understand this is a severe and protracted crisis. we need to think about how to maximize our resources. >> if you will forgive me, we have very short time. i will welcome more detail. assistant countrymen, i want to thank you for your work and your testimony. i have a high level of concern on my part as regard has blood and this terrorist organization that you and others have spoken to, that is a threat to israel and targeted americans in the past. is there any inference of transfer of chemical weapons to hezbollah? what you think is the risk as this conflict continues? >> there is no such credible evidence. it is one of the things that drives u.s. russian cooperation on this particular topic, that they share our concern that the longer these chemicals hang around syria, the greater the risk they could be diverted to extremist groups of any complexion, inside or outside syria. >> thank you. ambassador ford, if i might -- one of my concerns about the path that we have taken is a very deep sense of abandonment by the syrian opposition. and the syrian people more broadly. and this is a quote from your testimony. they fundamentally do not trust assad regime and are concerned that external parties will cut a deal at the opposition's expense. while i recognize the challenges that you have spoken to at length, how has this frustration and internal division manifested itself in terms of ongoing radicalization on the ground? what do you see as its trajectory? and how would you provide vital support on the ground for the opposition, the vetted opposition, in a constructive way that pushes toward negotiations, and how are we dealing with a significant sense of abandonment on the part of the steering opposition by our recent actions? >> it is really important, senator, in order to undercut recruitment by groups like al qaeda for the syrians themselves to not feel abandoned. i think that is vital. we, ourselves, on both a political level -- for example, the communiqué that we issued last week out of london with the other countries ministers was actually very well received. it underlines our support and said that assad thought had no role in a transition government. it said that the regime was responsible. politically, they got a good message out of that. it is not the first time, but it was needed then, because of their disappointment about -- >> this is the statement that says, "when a transitional body is established, assad and those with blood on their hands will have no role in that." x correct. >> can we deliver on that? >> we can, senator, one day, along the lines of the geneva communiqué, we can solidly defend the opposition's right to veto whoever and whatever goes into that transitional government. and as long as the opposition does not want assad and they veto him, we will back them up. >> i'm going to have to move forward. i'm sure we will have the ambassador available to you. >> senator mccain has deferred to senator markey. >> thank you for your service. you have very tough jobs. i think we all know that. i also think that we have to approach all of this with a lot of humility, given what we have learned after we intervened in iraq, in libya, and afghanistan, and after what we have seen go on in egypt. we should have a little humility in the united states in terms of our ability to control events on the ground from this country that allows us to, basically in eye watering detail move the pieces around in another country. notwithstanding our concern for the humanitarian practice and our desire to see assad be removed. may i ask you, mr. ford, if you could give us a little bit of an update of the al qaeda forces coming from a rack -- iraq, some of these other extremist groups, the moves they are making and where they are making it, and where the support is coming from. so that we can understand the nature of the threat that we see to the moderates being successful. >> first, senator, i appreciate your understanding about the amount of resources that we put in and our ability to control everything. i think that is exactly right. ultimately, this is a syrian conflict, not an american conflict. with respect to al qaeda, they have been very assiduous to take control of borders, senator markey. and for example, their control of the borders delayed our deliveries of aid into serious. there was some frustration expression -- expressed about the delivery of aid because we had to recapture border points so we could get aid back into them. they have mainly focused on building up islamic courts and structures of governance well behind the front lines of the fight of the regime. to my mind, senator, whether intentionally or not, they are almost acting as allies of the regime. it is a huge problem for our friends in the moderate opposition. the nature of their support comes mostly -- not entirely -- but mostly inside syria. for example, they have captured oil wells in eastern syria and they sell the oil. in this -- in a sense, they are becoming more and more self financed, which is a problem. because now we will have to work with our friends, such as turkey and jordan, to shut off the oil sales that they are trying to do. it is literally like tanker trucks. >> are working on this right now? >> yes, we have had to. but they also rely on things like extortion. they run rackets. that is why they are now beginning to generate an anti- qaeda -- an anti-al qaeda reaction on the street, which is positive. >> who funded these groups initially in order for them to have the resources to take over the oil wells, to take over the cities, which are now terrorizing the more moderate elements of the syrian people? who finance them? how have we dealt with the external resources that have been supplied in order to accomplish these goals with the most extreme groups? >> early on when they did not have control of oil wells and borders, they were getting financing from outside of syria through several private networks never funneling money from laces like the gulf, but even places in europe. >> could you name the places and countries? >> if i say gulf in an open hearing, senator, -- and so we have discussions with those countries as well. >> and the iranians are still providing massive support for the syrian government. even as we are negotiating with them on their nuclear weapons program, they are simultaneously undermining our efforts to bring peace and resolution to the war in syria. and if i may, in the past week it has been reported that iran wants to purchase a new nuclear power plants. how much would that complicate our ability to ever get a resolution if they ever did build a new power plants in iran? >> the iranian government and the russian federation have long been in a discussion about expansion of nuclear power in iran, russian technology in iran. they make announcements about it regularly. i think it is unlikely to proceed very far very fast until the one that has been on the verge of opening for many years actually does begin to function. the negotiation of the five plus one with iran is complex enough as it is. but i do not believe that an expansion of nuclear power, or an intention to expand that will happen much later, really adds to the nature of the negotiation we are in right now. >> may i just say that iran is a big part of the whole puzzle because of assad and hezbollah. there it is as a separate agenda contrary to our interests. we are very thankful that six that six new power plants were not completed before he felt, or the ayatollah would have those in his control. let me just repeat that it is still there plan to use nuclear power plant as a cover for a nuclear weapons program. we have to deal with it now rather than later. we have to make it part of a program that says you do not have an inherent right to these nuclear power plants and we're going to block it. if we don't, we will revisit this issue in another 20 years when those programs get converted to another nuclear weapon with the next regime. it is very important for us to look down the line and understand what the iranians have as their goal to create hegemony command assad is still part of that. i don't think that article four of the nonproliferation treaty is any longer valley -- any longer valid in terms of the iranians and their ability to qualify for civilian nuclear programs in the future. i will work very hard to ensure that those eight nuclear power plants are never constructed, and no one who is in alliance with us is ever allowed to transfer those technologies to them under the guise of the iaea. >> an observation and a couple of questions. much comment around the table about frustration, what our strategy is, the frustration you feel doing this work, the disappointment that members of the opposition felt when we did not undertake military action. we are all grappling with this frustration and challenge and potential loss of u.s. prestige in the area over this and other items. i am wrestling with at the root of this having voted for the authorization with many members of this committee, and it is a vote i would willingly cast again tomorrow if they ever -- and i felt that the crossing of the line of using chemical weapons on civilians necessitated that. i felt we created an opening to have a dialogue with russia about chemical weapons. it is good that these weapons are being destroyed. that the site has been identified is good. but we still see a lot of bad and we are still wrestling with it. i'm still wrestling with one thing. even as much as an obvious good as it is to get rid of the chemical weapons, the american public was not really into the mission. we were into the mission. from what i was hearing from my constituents they were telling me, we don't want to do this. if the effort had been described when we met in august that we are doing this now because of chemical weapons, but to change a regime away from even a murderous dictator like assad, i think the population would have been even more overwhelmingly the american public saying, we don't want to do this. there is a fatigue that the american public is feeling now about the limits of our efforts in this part of the world. senator markey mentioned we have had hubris and now we are feeling the effect of the outcomes. one issue we are grappling with, and i hope as a commitment when there is a time where there is less back-and-forth with witnesses, we can talk to each other about what our public is telling us. and again, even without public feeling, i would vote for that authorization tomorrow because i think crossing the line on using chemical weapons against civilians has to have a consequence. but the notion of being involved with aid and the notion of shifting to a fragmented opposition, there is a reason there is opposition to it. one of the reasons is there is our public telling us not to do it. whether that causes us to lose prestige or abroad, that is what our public is saying to us. we either have to make the case differently, explain mistakes in a different way, or grapple with what it means that our public after 12 years of war in the general real estate is now feeling fatigued about it. those are tough questions. i don't have answers to them. i am really struggling with them here. mr. countryman, you are -- were asked about specific sites. you may have addressed this when i was out of the room. i want to come back to it a little bit. the opcw has looked at 21 of 23 and might get to the other two. i'm assuming that we have intel about additional sites that were not on the inventory and this is information we share with the opcw. that we are trying to get them as much information as we can to expand the sites that are reviewed. talk to me a little bit about what we share to them -- with them and how we follow-up with the information we give them about the insufficiency of the inventory. >> i think we share information appropriately with the opcw. it is a cooperative process. let me start here, which is to say that we have received only on monday of this week the comprehensive declaration by syria of its holdings. it is over 700 pages. it is quite detailed. we are assessing him now and there will be a time at which we will have an assessment of the gaps in that document, good conference is

Related Keywords

New Hampshire , United States , Damascus , Dimashq , Syria , Afghanistan , Iran , Vermont , Turkey , China , United Arab Emirates , Aleppo , Lab , Lebanon , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , May View , Jordan , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Connecticut , Maine , Iraq , Egypt , Israel , Geneva , Genè , Switzerland , Saudi Arabia , Libya , Ireland , Kansas , Kuwait , Americans , Saudi , Chinese , Turkish , Russian , Syrians , Iranians , Syrian Arab Republic , Iranian , Iraqi , Russian Federation , Syrian , Gulf States , Russians , Irish , American , Aaaron Smith , Jeff Denham , Lashawn America , John F Kennedy , Al Qaeda , Bashar Al Assad , Robert Ford ,