very much, but ms. dory, we will let you go. thank you. we go now to rhonda santos -- ron desantos. >> florida. >> thank you mr. chairman. dr. sewall, i know my colleague from south carolina, mr. duncan had asked whether the boko haram attack on the school girls was anti-christian in nature, whether that was one of their motivations motivations, and you seemed to suggest that it was not. did i hear you correctly? >> i believe what you heard me say is that the attack was against nigerian school girls. >> but you don't think that it was an attack motivated by being anti-christian at all? >> again, you're asking for speaking to motivation when i'm unable to be in the mind of someone and i hope never to be in the mind of someone like the

leader of boko haram. >> and i don't expect you too -- >> and of course in the case of the school girls, i believe it was some 15% of them were muslim. so it was the education and the freedom and empowerment and the progress that boko haram was attacking as it attacked the school girls as much as it was anything to do with religion. i'm not denying that religion doesn't appear to be a very important factor for the leadership, but that is -- that is different from saying it is the sole motivation and it is different from trying to understand the impact of their actions on muslim civilians throughout the northeast. >> well, and i appreciate that. and certainly you can't get into their head. and i don't necessarily say that it's the sole motivation but i think we have to realize this is an animating feature. you can't get into his head but you can listen to what he says. and this is quoting from his speech. we know what is happening in the world. it is a jihad war against

christians and christianity. it is a war against western education, democracy and constitution. this is a war against christians and democracy and their constitution. a law says we should finish them when we get them. so clearly he believes that christianity, constitutionalism liberal democracy he's putting those things together and he's saying that his belief and his version of islam is what's motivating him to do that. and i think to try to -- i mean there was a colloquy with mr. perry about, you know, are they an islamic terrorist group. would you feel confident putting the fact that yeah they're a terrorist group specifically operating in the name of islam? >> well again, you know i don't -- when they recruit people forcibly and make them fight for them, i don't know what percentage of their force is essentially enslaved and what percentage of their force represents the extreme and

neolistic views of the leadership. i agree with you that their rhetoric includes significant religious motivation but it also includes motivation that reflects westernization more broadly. we know that modernization and westernization and education for that matter is an equal opportunity inclusive of all faiths process, and so they are motivated by something that goes beyond just christianity based on what they say and what they do. >> but it conflicts with their faith. he said i'm greeting you in the name of allah. the law is great and has given us the privilege and temerity above all people. so the anti-western posture is flowing from this. you read his speech and he starts getting into all kinds of issues. he says he believes in marrying

off 9-year-old he thinks that's acceptable, and he cited the justification. he defends slavery and criticizes human rights. again, he cited islam as the reason for that. he threatens to kill the president of the united states, and so i think we're dealing with here -- you see the video. the school girls being forced to wear islamic garb, being forced to cite the koran. he is trying to spread this ideology, this group is spreading the ideology by the sword because they know that it's fundamentally at odds with human reason and that if these girls are allowed to be educated in that school, they're obviously not going to think that his ideology is something that's very attractive. that's what we're dealing with here. i just hope that we can understand the motivation. if we try to put a western frame of reference on how they behave and say well, maybe it's because they think there's some economic problem, this and that, some of those things may be a

factor, but at the end of the day had he think that that speech and that conduct make clear what their motivation is. i would just hope that we would be willing and always have our eyes open and not try to blind ourselves to reality. i yield back. >> we go now to lois frankel from florida. back for calm sounding board here today. mr. chair, for this bipartisan bipartisanship bipartisanship -- i would call it a bipartisan show of humanity, and i very much enjoyed meeting today also with debra peterson. she has a lovely sparkle in her eye and a lovely smile. wonderful resilience. she told us the very sad story of how she basically fled nigeria three years ago after she witnessed the murder of her father and her brother because

her father was the pastor of a christian church, and then her 14-year-old brother was shot because as debra related, her -- one of the terrorists said, well, he will grow up to be the pastor of the church. i hope mr. chair that we're going to be able to help her with her viesa issue and to unite her with her mother. debra, i wish you the best. she's studying to be a doctor. i know you will be a very fine doctor. you know what, when i heard about the children being kidnapped, i'm sure i reacted like most people around the world, which is i thought of the time when my son was much younger, and i would drop him off to school every day, and i can't even imagine what it would be like to have learned that his entire school had been kidnapped and then maybe sold into slavery and i know that i would be

screaming from the top of my lungs and insisting that this government do everything possible to get them back. there are some crimes against human apt, and no matter where it happens, it requires a response. i know it's complicated, but i want to add my echo to what the chair said that i -- first of all, i hankthank the president sending a team working with israel, france united kingdom to try to bring these girls back but as much as we can do, i want to add my voice to those who say we must bring these girls home. you know, this is more than just a crime against humanity. i want to fwet into this education angle because the boko haram means i think, western education is a sin. because they know -- they know that when you educate children

it is a step towards freedom, democracy, and peace in the world to have educated children educated with a western slant, and so when we ignore -- when we allow children to be kidnapped because they are partaking in western education, we are failing our own children here. i hope we can do more, and along those lines, i wanted to ask you -- i know this is a long-term situation, but what are we doing to try to fight the corruption that we're finding which seems to be indemmic in so many government that is are having such serious problems around the world. >> thanks. so first, we don't shy away from the issue. we raise it as in the bilateral

conversation because it is ultimately a limiting factor not just in how we interact with the government, but also in terms of the government's ability to provide for and protect its sit sfwlenz, and so we are vocal about our concerns. we also work with specific elements within the law enforcement sector to improve both investigatory capacity and in many cases judicial capacity to identify and prosecute corruption cases. this has been a hallmark of our existence in many different areas of the world and it is capacity building in a all-bound, values-based, accountable and transparent ethos. it is slow work. it is painstaking work.

it does ultimately require the commitment of an everenlarging circle of leadership within whichever country. many countries take different approaches to trying to address widespread and systematic corruption, and there are different degrees of success with different approaches. we continue to do whatever we are able and in the case of nigeria, it has been very specific training and capacity-building. we will continue to press this issue because nigeria is the most populous country in africa. it is an economic juggernaut and it is extraordinarily diverse and extraordinarily important for a whole host of american security interests. they have elections coming up in 2015. there are the future of democracy is very much at issue in those elections in terms of both the transparency to the elections and the risk of

violence afterwards. if nigeria can handle -- can address its corruption in a meaningful way there is no limit on what that country can become and it is a huge opportunity there for the government to seize so it's very much in their interest to address it but the conversation will be ongoing, and we will continue to press it. >> thank you. i yield back, mr. chair. >> we go to -- from florida. >> thank you mr. chairman. doc, appreciate you sitting through this. i'm looking at your title undersecretary of civilian security democracy, and human rights, and you've been there since february 2014. correct? i just find it interesting when i look back over the history of nigeria the amount of foreign aid that's been giving there. it's roughly over $400 billion, which is six times the marshall plan to rebuild europe after

world war ii for one country. yet, it's wrought with corruption, and the undersect of -- we've been fighting that campaign for, what, 20 30, 40 years to try to correct that problem over there and without putting blame on any administration, it's a problem with what we're trying to accomplish and how we go about it. we give money over and over again. last year we gave $6399 million. $2012 we gave $647 million. the majority -- their legislators make the highest wages in any government in the world. more than the british parliament. yet, the average wage over 70% of the population lives below 1.29 pounds a day which is about less than $4 a day, and we're giving all this foreign aid, and then we have the

situation with what we have with boko haram and the situation we have with that we're not getting to the root cause of the problem. how do you -- what do you see that we do different than what we've done in the past to change the dynamics, because if you don't change dynamics nothing is going to change. they're going to continue to kidnap people. they're going to continue to kill people, and they're going to continue to have a corrupt government. what are we doing? i saw the obama administration threaten to cut off all foreign aid to them, which i applaud. how do we go further and change the dynamics over there, and i would like to hear what you have to say about that. >> sure. well, i think, you know again, if we parse the question a little bit in the context of what kind of aid do we provide and what do we get for it my understanding is that the bulk of our assistance -- certainly now. i can't speak to 40 years ago, but certainly now it's in the realm of health assistance. significantly h.i.v. aids

assistance. >> that's going to continue. the problem is going to continue. if they don't care for their own people, we can't go in there. we can build any school you want, but if they're going to come back there and just dismantle it, it's -- what do you do to the government to change government without telling them how to live? you know, what is that underlying cause or core value that they want to see succeed in their country for their people? if they don't have that, we don't need to be giving them aid. >> the government is not tearing down things. it's boko haram that's tearing down things. the government -- the issue of government -- government performance in the northeast is related to its -- it has many different components. >> boko haram is just a fruition of government not being in check and taking care of what they need to because they're not building the infrastructure. if they're taking all that wealth, i mean there is $11 billion in oil money that was funneled off that went to the politicians. back in the 1990s there was the

president sonny abacca died in bed with two indian prostitutes, and they're not taking care of their own country, and if they don't want to take care of their own country, nothing is going to change, and i want to know what we're going to do from a foreign policy standpoint to change the dine mechanics of that. >> so one of the important changes has been the movement towards democracy. i think we can all agree that that is a significant change in the context of nigeria's history, and so one of the more important things to do is to support a transparent and accountable democratic process, and i spent a significant amount of time talking to the government about the upcoming 2015 elections and how it would be run and how hopefully they won't be disenfranchising the three states in the north by virtue of a state of emergency and how we need to be planning now and encourage them to plan now for violence that predictably happens after the elections, but more -- so democracy is one big theme of change, but in terms of what i think you're coming from -- and then the issue of if you have a

democratic system that is vibe vibrant, you have the ability to hold people to account. the focus that the united states has had on enhancing civil society voices to hold governments accountable and to demand greater transparency in budgets, for example, is a long-term process but i think that's one hopeful mechanism. >> how can you do that when over 70% of the population is below poverty? they don't have a voice. >> well, in many countries including our own there's great income disparity, but if you have a vote, you have a vote, and so that is i think an important l. democracy. i think in terms of what -- when i look at the state department's contributions to things that are occurring into capacity building within nigeria, i think they're in line with efforts to make the country more accountable and more responsible, both as an international security actor and as a government so, for example, military training and education enhancing them in their role as regional

peacekeepers, anti-terrorism assistance, piloting program on women, peace and security, helping them in the context of their regional security responsibilities and their west african regional security responsibilities and improving rule of law those are the kinds of programs that the state department facilitates that i think are necessary elements of progress, but i agree completely with your point, and i hope i made it effectively in my opening remarks that ultimately the government does need to be accountable and corruption is an indemic problem. >> i appreciate your response. i'm out of time. i yield back. >> we're going to steve stockman of texas. >> i'm listening to this debate. it reminds me of the 1930s. we had a similar problem where we were trying to rationalize irrationale behavior, and we didn't want to call it anything. we had a judge, if you want to call him a gentleman, who is committing genocide in the country, and we can't say what

his motivation is. you may not be able to say it, but it's hatred, and he continues to hate, and i really resent one of my colleagues to say that our side is asking questions by political motivation. we had the deepest compassion. we want to resolve thshg but we want to -- we want to support the president, but we cannot gather around a hash tag. we want to call it what it is. this gentleman or whatever you want to call him, hates. i hear the same words coming from this administration that they call the speaker of the house, and the speaker of the house they called a terrorist, and i don't think he is the same as what we're seeing in nigeria, and i like to yield a minute to my colleague from alabama to respond to i think unfair criticism and the balance to my friend from new jersey. we have to start calling things what they are, and to quivocate as to what they are and who they are is a mistake. >> let's yield to mr. brooks,

and then we'll have the response. >> mr. chairman, i take a moment to respond to the rather part sfwlan mischaracterization and my remarks by congressman connolly of virginia. as the record shows and proves i merely ask the witnesses to detail what the obama administration has done or not done to encourage the united nations in accord with the first sentence of its charter to engage in "effective collective measures for the prevention of threats to the peace." mr. chairman i submit that questions directed at getting the united nations to do its job so that america does not have to once again be the only sheriff in town is something all members of congress of both parties can get behind without the kinds of partisan attacks and responses that were recently uttered. thank you for the time. >> thank you to my friend for yielding. first of all, i want to make something very clear. this hearing has made me even more concerned than i was when i caulked in the door.

that is a fundamental radical nature of boko haram and the radical islam belief. as my colleagues mr. desabt yoes pointed out so eloquently, we have to be able to call it for what it is. in 2012 47 christian churches were attacked two mosques. 2013, 53 churches attacked, two mosques. i went to mr. emmanuel was there when we went to an idp camp. we met with hundreds of christians that were targeted for one and only one reason. because they were christians. one man we brought here and he sat where you sat, mr. odamu and he said they put an ak-47 to his jaw and blew his face off after he would not answer the question correctly. will you convert to islam or not? he said no, i am ready to see my lord. i am a christian. they blew his face away. that is the underlying

fundamental of boko haram. they hate western education. they hate a lot of things. at the core as mr. desantos pointed out so well just watch what they say. it is about radical islamic belief, and i wish -- you know, you said you wish they would -- they would differentiate or discriminate -- they were so discriminating. yes, they'll hit other nigerians. they'll hit other westerners, but christians are their main target. secondly, i want to strongly associate my remarks and concerns with concerns raised by chairman rice at the leahy amendment as having the unintended consequence of precluding best practices military training of well-vetted nigerian forces. you said wrerl and i hope it was out of context that it's not our problem to solve this. well, maybe not alone but certainly in tandem with the neej earian deposit and the families that have lost their daughters and others who may be at risk of losing their sons and

daughters. one of the biggest takeaways i had was talking to our own people who said leahy is -- we're all for leahy. it needs to be looked at in a calibrated fashion. there can be stood up those forces in the nigerian military who are well vetted to become a strike force and make all the difference in the world and maybe they're about to do that, but it should have been done for years. there's nothing whatsoever partisan about this. i have raised this. members of the other side have raised first the fto concerns and then we get, again, johnny carson saying -- i quote this because i still am amazed at this. "the phenomenon of boko haram is one of discrediting the central government and power for its failure to deliver services to the people." that's an insult to the poor. poor people don't join the -- there's a radical islamic perspective being promoted here

and a gang-like mentality, and, of course, al qaeda and the like and others like it are a part of this. please take back the idea of what mr. chairman royce talked about because we do things, i think, strongly. we've got to be able to help the military stand up with capability. >> thank you. congressman, i appreciate your passion, and i appreciate your leadership on this issue for so very long. it's very important that congress be participating in the formation of foreign policy and i want to be very clear because i don't want to be understood. the question that i was asked was whether there was an official state department position on the motivations of boko haram, which i simply don't have with me. if the question is does the leadership of boko haram and through the abbings of boko haram, target christianity absolutely unekwifically. more fundamentally, had he target other things too, and they are a threat to the government and to the region, and so i loved the very clear

characterization that was just offered, which is that boko haram is motivate bid hatred. i don't think anybody would disagree with that. i endorse it 100%, and i think it simplifies the problem because we all recognize that boko haram is a threat that must be addressed. in terms of the leahy law, well vetted units, we work with. we work with now. we've been working with them for years. the problem can arise when units cannot be vetted, but where units are vetted and only 50% have not been able to be vetted, the united states is engaging in robust security cooperation, and so i think it's just very important as we look at the leahy law and as we remember that the fight in nigeria is fundamentally about human rights and freedoms. we would wish to honor the leahy law's commitment to human rights in that context, and it's only if we were to find that we could not do that, be both consistent to the leahy law's commitment to

human rights and work in support of the human rights of nigerians, that we would need to look at alternatives. so i just wanted to both be very clear about my endorsement of the characterization as the motivation of boko haram as being hatred, and i think that's a very powerful and unifying way to think about the problem, which is a regional if not international problem and agree with you that in the context of the leahy law where units are well vetted we should and we are work closely with them to enhance nigeria's capacity to address this horrific threat. thank you. >> thank you doctor. i'm just going to clarify this point because this testimony was as late as last week by the defense department testifying in the senate and i'll quote because this gets back to the point at hand. the leahy law is a persistent and very troubling limitation on our ability to provide

assistance particularly training assist wrans that the nigerians so badly need. with my opening line of questioning i laid out the difficulty. the difficulty is finding a way for our forces to assist with the capabilities that we bring which are unique, to help track on the ground and rescue these girls, and so without that waiver to come down to the bottom line, without that waiver to allow them to do that and direction from the administration to have you know, our navy seals with this special capability that they have and the ability to download information from satellite technology m field and from drones and the ability to track in the jungle, the ability to sort of stand up that nigerian

unit and plan that operation right up to the point where boko haram is engaged and then allow the nigerians to carry it out. if we do that, then our likelihood of success is many multiples in the viewpoint of everyone who has looked at this. many multiples of what it would be, and since we've had the offer from the british and from the french to engage and assist, it would be very wise simply to go back, get us that waiver because this is an extraordinary circumstance. i made the point before. i just want to reiterate it because i don't want us to get off the sunl. >> i didn't get a chance to respond before. may i respond? >> absolutely. >> there are two different issues. i'm not familiar with the d.o.d. comment, but i'm suggest that the concern about leahy to the consaint are -- which is some 50% of the nigerian military. i don't wish to suggest it's not

a problem but it's 50%, and so i just want to defer differentiate that from the question about the need to be cooperative and very operational sense with the effort to return the school girls and there we are by virtue of an agreement that i carried with me to abua. we have now intelligence-sharing arrangements. sflo to get to the point and if you'll recall my original testimony you know what we do with the lords resistance army. we put our special ops in the field on the ground with ugandan units and other units in order to track, in order to try to suppress joseph cohen. okay? so in this particular case we --

we have a situation -- we're not doing this. what i'm suggest issing we're not doing it when the issue is raised. the response is, well, we would have to have a waiver to do that. if that's the case get a waiver. not from you, but from -- we're not doing what we need to be doing on the ground in order to track and rescue these girls. this is what this whole debate is about. not the rhetoric around it. we're not doing it. if you don't need a change to do it, if you don't need a waiver to do it go back and report that -- in congress we feel it needs to be done now. the longer we wait and debate it the farther removed these groups get with they are capital he haves and the harder it's going to be to apprehend and rescue these girls. it should have been done immediately. in the future if a situation like this comes up, i would just

suggest you have the discretion. use it. immediately go into the field and assist in the rescue. without objection, we have a member who is not a member of this committee but sheila jackson-lee wanted unanimous consent, if we could, for her to ask a question, so she might ask one question now. >> let me thank the chairm and ranking me february for their enormous courtesies and thank you for your presence here today. i actually stayed in the home of a family. the father was an engineer, and i feel the consternation in this committee, but i will tell them that the emormty of people in nigeria are not corrupt and are looking for opportunities to do what is being said in this committee to build this country into you one of the best and most productive countries for

their young people not only in africa, but in the world. i am very grateful for this committee that has focused on africa with its subcommittee, but more importantly by its members, and i encourage our colleagues to go as you have gone and many others. i hold in my hand the lis of kidnapped girls, and i do it and carry it with me all the time because these are names and people. i would like to pose a question around your testimony about the rescue and more importantly as well about the regionalism of boko haram from chad to cameroon. ghana is not far from nigeria. the first question is members of congress, women, went to the nigerian embassy, and asked the country to establish a relief fund for the families. just announce and put in -- put dollars in for the pain, the displacement, many of them may be trying to follow where the

girls are. i want they want to see whether the state department, beyond our moans that, we are giving, for them to establish a relief fund. i am concerned that we would not endanger the girls. however, i do know that it's very, very concerning that there is not that concerted push. using these particular battalions and special forces, so my question is on the relief fund and how can we collaborate with the african union on the regional aspect? is there any grounds for the u.n. peacekeepers? i know the ambassador powers is not here. and is there any way that you can encourage president jonathan

that his voice now even though it is painful -- his voice continuing to speak of their concern to the world. he made one point and i will tell i take a little credit for that. we were calling into nigeria the day before the world economic council and indicate that he needed to say something of which he said a little bit when he made his opening remarks, but now there's dead silence, at least coming this way. i ask in your engagement can you explain to them that it is important? we know how great nigeria's potential is and what they have done, and i want to promote it all the time, but can we focus on this siege because this terrorist group is not going away unless we get our hands around it. >> thank you, congresswoman. >> i'm not aware of any new state department initiatives to create a victims fund. >> it is for nigeria to create a relief fund.

>> i would encourage them to do something for all of those families and pronounce it publicly and nationally. >> i think it's fair to say i did not specifically initiative in all of our engagements with nigerian officials from the president throughout the administration. we are communicating very clearly that their leadership and their vocal leadership and their expressions of empathy with the people of the northeast and the fight -- and the victims of the fight against boko haram is absolutely critical and that more can be done to convey both the attention and the commitment and the empathy on that point. as you point out in terms of the regional ramifications, i believe this is a very important moment for concerned nations, if not the international community to convince nigeria of the need

to redouble its efforts to rethink its tactics in this fight, to flesh out its commitment to a soft approach and to identify clearly what that means in terms of the nonmilitary elements of a strategy to combat boko haram, to strengthen all regional platforms to both better understand the nature of the problem and to facilitate actions to address the problem concretely. i think this is a very important moment, and while the tragedy of the kidnapping is a heart break for us all, i certainly hope that we can use this as way to do, as you say which is to improve collective efforts to address the underlying problem of boko haram which is not likely to disappear in the next year. thank you. >> i thank the chairman very much, and i just want to conclude by saying i heard my colleague, and i truly believe that the religious aspect looms very large because it started many years back and christians

were at the direct hit of boko haram. it is obviously spread and i'll finish by saying that we tracked, and i know you have, millions of dollars that have come from the al qaeda structure to boko haram. it is really an international issue, and it really is an issue that will impact the united states, maybe at some point and i think it is very important that we're in it for that reason and the reason for the love and need for these children to be returned to their families and the respect we have for the continent and its friendship to us. i yield back. >> we appreciate both of our witnesses being here this morning. the situation with these girls is critical. members of the committee want to do all that they can to assist state and department of defense with any additional authority. we may immediate in order to

help secure a rescue. what i was suggesting the seccal terminology for it is an upgrade to an advise and assist role, so if that could be conveyed i very much appreciate it. also, we very much appreciate debra peter being with us, and thank you so much for your meeting

>> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for coming. welcome to the chairman's forum. we're delight to have you. please join me in welcoming ambassador debra jones, our ambassador to libya. ambassador jones gets special credit for coming to today's event. she's in great demand right now in washington. mad to spending time with her daughters and with college graduation and all those things thank you so much for coming. extra credit. it's a particular pleasure to welcome a respected colleague and a great friend, ambassador debra jones, who is our u.s. ambassador to libya since march of last year. she has previously served as the u.s. ambassador to kuwait.

she is a true expert on middle east diplomacy and actually global affairs having served not only in the middle east, but in ethiopia, in argentina. she has searched in iraq tunisia, syria, and united arab emirates. she's held important positions in the department of state headquarters. she's been a role model and mentor to up and coming male and tee mail foreign service officers and a true leader. deb remarks thank you so much for coming. this is not a news program. this is a discussion with sort of a broader optic but i can't ignore events of the last few days in libya and so i'm going to start with that, and then we will try to get a sense of where how we move forward in libya, what we should understand in washington, what the path looks like to stabilize the country, what the american role can be. as you well know, there is a former general calf he'lla

heftar who has started something called operation dignity to purge the country of islamists. there's been armed action against ansar al sharia. the state department has already issued a statement, of course saying they've not had contact. they do not condone or support and nor has the u.s. government assisted in these actions. we are continuing to call on all parties to refrain from violence and to seek resolution through peaceful means. my question to you, ambassador, would be what would be a scenario for all parties to seek resolution through peaceful means? >> that's an easy one. first, i think it's important to clarify some of what's happening and to make clear that this is different things are happening in different places in libya that reflect underlying issues that have been simmering for some time, and i would probably narrow down what you said about

that he has -- he it's not necessarily islam per se. it's terrorism that he is actually declared that he is with ansar al shaara and groups that, in fact, wenl were probably responsible for the attack on our own embassy or our mission facility in benghazi in 2012. anyone who said they're an expert but between what i call the status quo/secularist groups, many of them tribal groups who actually had an accommodative relationship with gadhafi, but then participated in the revolution and then

expected following the revolution to go back to more or less the status quo and way of operating the secular state as opposed to the islamist group's revolutionary islamists who really saw the revolution as an opportunity to advance an agenda that was far more -- not only islam and in some cases i think the range, actually on that side that goes from kind of what i call the islamist or islamic politics which would be something like christian democrats or the party in turkey all began in belhaj accident and then at the extreme end you do have ansar shaara, the taqfudis and jihadists that want no part of any democratic process or deposit and are, in fact, look towards the opportunity to establish the islamic state. how do we deal with that?

i would say recently you've all seen the news about proliferation of envoys and you know who is who and who is out there. the u.k. has named someone -- the e.u. has named someone. i think that spain recently may have named one. france is continuing naming someone. latvia. no, i'm teasing. we have the secretary has asked david satarfield to play in a personal capacity because david has a day job at the mfo to really focus on a political dialogue political reconciliation because what we have come to believe rightfully or wrongly but i think accurately is that wft reasons that all of the problems -- that the programs that the international community and we have been engaged in in the three years following the revel have failed to gain significant traction is because there are underleague disagreements and disputes within a very ununified, disunified and weak

government, which is in a continual battle with the general national congress, which is largely seen to be dominated by islamist elements but our approach now is to say we're going to try to reach out to all influencers in society and that can include spoilers as well as positive, you know, what everyone might say, positive or negative and, in fact, my activities in this regard have generated a lot of fizz and gossip and negative commentary and everything else that suddenly you know the element that i'm at with belhaaj it was that -- it's to send a tweet linking me to one of my congressmen and who is actually dealing with benghazi, and i would say the ambassadors have gone over to the muslim brotherhood. in any case the goal is to decide to look at some particular issues. it's pretty clear that already some broadly put basic issues

that have to be addressed in this dialogue and we work out the rules for competition within leba. those have to do with the political isolation law. how do you modify that and look at carving out areas of inclusion for people who actually can contribute and have made clear by the previous actions that in fact, they are pro with the revolution, et cetera. when i say that, i'm not using it in a dark meaning of killing them all. i'm saying neutralizing as a political force because right now they are playing an outsized role. i think that when we talk about demilitaryizing or disarming that's obviously important, but wait that that happens has to be part of a before broader package. in any way it's done, but to remove them as that arm of the political beening so that things can progress without their interruptions, which we're

seeing now, looking at the power structure, the fundamental flaws and the constitutional declaration that -- sorry, i'll get through this -- that confused mightily executive and legislative power within libya so that a prime minister is basically a simple clerical employee trying to deal with a gnc that is dom naturing executive authority in a way that we would understand executive authorities. also powers that goes from the center out into the municipalities out into the country itself, and then obviously the sharing of resources of libya's natural resources, how that's managed, how that's managed equitably, transparently, and fairly in a broad nutshell. >> but clearly having rules clarifies things. >> right. >> and building consensus strengthens things. but the fact that libya has been pulled in different directions has something to do with the fact that both the oil ports and the militias, the islamist

militias are armed and have been disruptive, and so my question just before we leave former general heftar the former prime minister and -- is it conceivable that he or some -- again i think that's a mischaracterization, and i think it's an opportunistic endorsement. it's dangerous to assume that all militias or to lump all militias in the same category as well. the issue of the militias is a problem, but heftar's focus is on a very specific terrorist group. not necessarily militias. not all militias are terrorist groups. not all militias are islamist extremists. these happen to be residual

elements that were never as suitably reintegrated into society just the same way that we had the challenge of regreg rating militias followingure own revolution many some cases. the reason that they play an outside role and the reason we have the oil stoppage is back to this fundamental political dispute. people who don't want to see the oil flow to a government which they consider infiltrated or permeated by islamists so that it will squeeze that government and force it to either step aside or be pulled aside by the people versus people who believe that, you know, a different group who thinks that that oil is being misdistributed and there should be more of a federalist or a distribution or more federalist authorities. i mean these are not unnatural debates in a we to have in a post revolutionary setting, and i think it's important to remember that, but i also think it's important from the beginning to kind of turn around the narrative that people -- i

bought for a while this narrative that somehow gadhafi had, you know, taken over this brilliantly running functioning state with all of these good solid institutions and exploited it and destroyed it and in 42 years dismantled the state. i have -- my own view has changed dramatically -- considerably. i believe now that there were never any kinds of institutional -- there was never ae functioning libyan state per se with credible enduring institutions beyond personalities or beyond, you know, what was being propped up elsewhere, and that is a result of that, that weakened state is what permitted gadhafi to basically come in and for 42 years exploit the state and make deals and keep everything off track. i can't think of anything else that would explain it otherwise. i mean he was not -- he was very clever, and he used all the same kinds of divisions that we have right now in the state to manage to exploit it and use the oil wealth abuse the oil

wealth, and he was frankly like an abusive parent. i still think that that political agreement that power sharing agreement has to be worked out. it's interesting. he is not declared that he wants to be the ruler. he has not declared he wants to be in charge of the state and anyone frankly would be kind of a fool because it's a tough job. he wants the gnc to step aside because the gnc has thus far failed to take any action to respond to the unhappiness of many libyans that it was -- it's outstayed its time, and there's no forcing mechanism to compel it to leave.

to work on a constitutional draft, the constitutional drafting committee. it's a caretaker government because another triggering event for this weekend's events was the naming of akhmed as prime minister from -- and largely seen by many as an islamist or at least supporting some sort of islamist agenda and, therefore that would have been the final straw. the process would have completely gotten locked their hold on the government as well as the congress as well as institutions, and i think that's what this is really about. >> so you see some sort of blocking actions. the security council unanimously passed a chapter 7 resolution the other day. essentially authorizing if asked to keep i will lift oil exports from leaving the coast. you see these other actions you've mentioned.

you're describing a political process that overcomes the legacy of want only gadhafi, but the monarchy beforehand. the prime minister in march the constitutional monarchy, and i want to ask you the civil society question. is libya capable in the near term of erecting an edifice, a political structure that they can agree on and function under that gets past the cult of personality and the sort of culture of personality and egypt just had a little bit of trouble with civil society building. tunisia has done very admirably. where does libya come out on that? >> let me back up and say a few things. first of all i think that mohammed abdulaziz endorsed the idea of a constitutional monarchy. i don't think he was speaking in his role as foreign minister because that's certainly not a policy position of the government, governments don't issue that. and he's been notably silent as

far as i know on these recent events as well. but in terms of is libya capable of developing a civil society? well, of course, it is. although, again in our business you have to look at geography first and foremost, and i think there's some things that are fairly clear cut. predictable agriculture produce and hydrocarbons, et cetera, generally produce strong authoritarian governments whether it's iraq, france egypt. countries that are divided geographically by mountains or deserts or what have you, whether it's afghanistan whether it's switzerland italy which was not unified -- >> lebanon. >> keep going. they produce fragmented governments. as to what a country finds, and i do think this goes back and i think it's a great question because all the arab spring so-called countries, i love to go back to april 2011 analysis

which i think was brilliant and succinct which is there are two driving issues. if you want to do an analysis of every country that's gone through this it's about two issues, it's about legitimacy and humiliation. you can do the calculus and say who feels both of those components? they werelike they were likely to have erupted in some kind of outburst. in libya it was clear for them what the humiliation piece was it and they could all unify against it just as the case wasisiatunisia with hosni mubarak in egypt. i think what the foreign minister was suggesting was that you need a figure. this is commonly said you need a father figure and oh by the way, how many of us grew up with picture painted by gilbert stewart of george -- what's the name of the town we're in right now -- washington who at the time because the country needed

a figure that unified us and, in fact, george washington's salary as president of the united states in 18th century was $20,000 a year. in today's money that is $4 million a year, folks. why was that? it was to give him an imperial stature and an ability to create a presence that americans would coalesce around and say this is our leader, this is our figure. so all i'm saying is that works for some people, too. you know it is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but it helps to have a heroic leader as well. libyan society is a little different. it is not a society that by and large likes heroic leaders or picks or wants to go back to a dictatorship. what people have said to a person almost, is we like what he's doing because he's filling a gap that the government hasn't taken care of but we don't want him as an individual to step in

and play that role. so civil society. how does that work? what libyans do work at is at the local level at the municipal level, things actually work for them at smaller levels, consensual levels, so the question is how do you build basic tools of a sovereign state, army the security piece, the regulatory piece for commerce, and the rule of law piece which is work that can be done on one level but again we have to sort out these bumps and get some kind of consensus toward that and then they can work at their local levels with local councils with the tribes with whatever they're already doing and we do work with them on those programs to learn how do you create a budget how do you decide what your municipality needs? one thing that most libyans i think consider a great success of the revolution apart from getting rid of gadhafi and apart from the embracing of democracy which they do and they have and they continue to do, is the

devolution of power from the center at the top down into society. >> it makes sense but let me sort of -- you've given us a broad analysis based on the sort of geography and history and whatnot, but i wanted to look at the last few years of events and sort of, if you will ask a tough question about are we -- can we -- what can be done now? it seemed in 2011 there was a very aspirational sense with the february 17 revolution you had a national transitional council a constitutional declaration that seemed very much like an abraba arab spring democracy road map in many respects. there may have been flaws, but it was unusual in terms of what it departed from. all of these things pointing to a new day in libya. today you have the former prime minister who was kidnapped and driven from office last year. you had the interim prime minister was not granted the

authorities he sought. i may be wrong on some of these but this is the press. the general national congress danmate ex mandate expired and they granted themselves an extension. pirated oil being offloaded by a north korean tanker. you had militias some of them arm and extremeistextremist. the move against the islamist militias. armed federalists. so the question is now with all of these trends, and maybe i'm being unfair, but you tell me, what institutions or processes can the libyan people cling to? what can they turn to now that they do regard as legitimate and reflects popular sovereignty for everyone. >> the constitution drafting piece. i mean, look, the constitutional declaration of august 2011 that laid out a lot of these time lines, and, again, some of those artificial time lines. there's no mention of a date, february 7th in the constitutional declaration. that's part of the problem, that it laid out a series of time

lines for the accomplishing of certain objectives, none of which has been accomplished thus far, but if you looked at the document itself and said this shall be done in four months or this shall be done in six months, what have you, it led people to say, okay, february 7th is the date that's the end of this gnc business, they should step aside. now, unfortunately, no one challenged that date in court. i wish they had. i wish that someone had taken that to the constitutional court or some higher authority and said is this date a date but nobody did because, in fact i'm not sure they would have won that case because it was not spelled out per se. but libyans do support the constitution drafting process. there was a lower turnout, but in fact, in the head of the committee was elected from benghazi. he's a secularist. he's a technocrat, and he got something like 66% of the vote in his district. so i think that's indicative of something, and i haven't given up hope. and i think the young people -- look, 60% of libyans are under

the age of 40, which is always hopeful i think. there's a wisdom in the fact that we get older, move on, and get out of the way. but i don't think that it's a hopeless -- i think what we're doing is we're getting to know -- libya is getting to know itself as well as we're getting to know libya. i think in the immediate aftermath of the revolution, we went through what i call the endorphin phase of revolution. it's like the first six months of being in love. you know, everyone was so focused on the beloved in the form of the revolution it's like those first six months you can be in the middle of the sahara desert and you don't see scorpions scorpions, snakes, or feel the heat. you see the beloved before you and know you want it without thinking of the consequences. one year into that relationship you realize mortality is flawed. political processes are organic processes. i know of no baby that emerges walking and i know of two 2-year-old who doesn't. you know, all things being equal. so the fact is these things are just going to take time and i

don't think the libyans themselves were even as aware of the fragmentation that existed and the other parties that came on board and, you know, have perhaps in the words of some would say have hijacked or tried to hijack the revolution or others who may have had good theories but then were incapable of putting those theories into process. there are some people now, many people, in fact, two argue that the 2012 elections were premature, and, in fact, that it was wrong to expect that absent the other context of kind of a more rules of the road and consensus on what were the issues that were going to be agreed upon, that it may have been premature to have elections. elections are not the solution to everything. >> fair enough. you're speaking as though the libyan people have every possibility of pulling this together on their own time frame and that this can come together. i want to ask you about an

externality, but is, at least one here, that the jihadists are going back and forth between eastern libya and syria. >> sure. >> does the conflict in syria constitute sort of a tumor that's feeding a cancer inside of libya? and also i would note that the general took out the broadcast capability of at least ansar al-islam. could you talk a little bit about the information space in libya. >> it's battle space. the information warfare in libya is as exacting as any other battle space. that's with agreed rules of broadcasting which is a problem, and i see both sides have their stations -- all sides have their stations and the night before last i think the headquarters of the tv station of one leader was

attacked. so it happens. but, yes obviously why are we -- why does libya matter so much to us? libya matters precisely because of its location and the potential it has for becoming a hot bed or a nest of -- for these other groups who are moving within the region because of the absence of border security, because of the absence really -- because of the permissive environment within generated by a lack of government capacity to extend its security measures. so yes obviously syria is problematic. what goes back and forth, there are a number of libyans who obviously have been in syria who are coming back. egypt obviously -- you know, it's an important big neighbor for libya and what happens in egypt has an impact whether politically on libya or

economically or otherwise. you have something like i think close to a million libyans who live in egypt and egyptians are coming across on the other side as well, and, again, what happens -- you know if elements within egypt feel compelled to leave and join kind of a lawless environment in libya, that's a toxic -- that's a potentially toxic mix as well. so that's why libya for us, it's not about the oil for the united states anyway. for us it's not about the immigration problems which, you know predate this situation. gadhafi had immigration issue was europe and was fairly extortionist in his approach to it. send me $5 billion5 billion euros a you're or i will unleash on you. so none of that is new. what's a new piece is flows of terrorist and extremist organizations as using libya as

a crossroads and it's so full of arms. that's the other big problem. the number of weapons and i mean serious weapons, we're not talking about glocks or bb guns. we're talking about, you know rpgs and 14.5 caliber anti-aircraft artillery pieces. yeah. >> well, i want to ask you about u.s. government activity and capacity. let me start by saying going back to the nato operation where it was a joint endeavor and you had consensus of the security council the other day. i note that the embassy often puts out statements in conjunction with the uk france germany, and italy so five countries speaking as one. you just talked about mediators popping up in various capitals. is this a new model for cooperation? is it better for the u.s. to sort of align with several states and speak with one voice

and how much can the u.s. lead in terms of helping this mediation process, advancing civil society, bringing in technical assistance. i'm going to ask you in a moment about what the embassy can and is doing but just in general -- >> sure. first of all, i think, you know the model adapts for every circumstance. in the case of libya, the u.n. was given a special coordinating role after the revolution in -- and the head of it is a former minister from lebanon who is very capable. if you read tariq's assessments at the u.n., they're quite spot on and thoughtful and he's been engaged very heavily in a lot of the political discussion with libyans, but we -- one of the reasons we do coordinate so much more and it is in fact, what we call it the p-3 plus 4 which is actually three permanent members, the united states, the united kingdom, france plus the

eu plus the u.n. and now plus germany because they wanted to join in the mix, and that's fine, but we saw it as a way of first of all efficiency because it's really a task for the government. you know one thing with a weak government like libya has and with a nascent structure really to have multiple ambassadors coming and essentially pummeling them with the same questions or asking the same things doesn't make a lot of sense. we coordinate amongst ourselves anyway and we have a close-knit group and we do coordinate statements on issues at hand. we do coordinate -- in fact, the secretary probably will see something emerge -- i suspect from the next couple days on the situation in libya. but we also coordinate on the programs because in the three years following the revolution, contrary to a lot of popular perception people did not abandon libya. if anything, sometimes libya was overwhelmed with proposals for border security missions, ubam

is doing that right now, but also for civil society for governance, for rule of law projects, and all kinds of things. a lot of things on the security side, police training, military training. the u.s., as you know, as well as the uk and italy and turkey are engaged in training a general purpose force for libya. but it can be overwhelming. i mean as i said, we provided all of this institutional scaffolding this high to a building that was this big. you know, and that tends to crush the building. we've been trying to moderate that and adjust that and to focus on what it is the libyans can also receive. the u.s. -- getting a hug from the u.s. is not always a comfortable hug, but in that sense we can do things, too, that others cannot necessarily do. we can sometimes be a little more of a stick or a little more of a -- you no, i think probably every former ambassador here and there are several in the room i see you, too, ron back there

that has been in a situation where governments almost welcome, and i don't say this with hubris i say it as a practical reality, where given their nature in a consensus driven society it is sometimes helpful for them to be able to say, you know what, the u.s. made me do this or i really came under a lot of pressure from the united states, and i don't think that's always a bad thing. >> well, let me expand on that. here you are in washington. i'm sure you've been to the hill already or are headed there soon -- >> i have been there twice. >> we'll keep you here as long as you care to stay. you have refuge here at stimson. what would you like at washington that you don't have already in hand? what can washington do to strengthen the american role in libya? >> i'm going to get fired. maybe that's a good thing too. shall i get fired? you know, we've had a lot of attention from washington, and i think sometimes there is a sense of urgency that plays out

domestically that, you know -- look, our job as ambassadors at the end of the pointy end of the spear is to make sure that the interagency operating -- it's almost like a dentist drill. you know at one end you have this big machine or the emergency that's all pumping in but it really has to come to a fine point that is hnled with skill and precision on a very delicate situation with the right time, and that's -- can i compare washington to a dentist drill or maybe we're the dentist drill, but i think it's kind of like that sometimes. you know, our job is like -- it's almost like -- i used to say we were like, you know airport flight controllers flight path controllers to make sure that all of the incoming flights, planes are coordinated and they're not going to crash with all the agencies but, again, we're a whole lot of love on this side of the atlantic,

and if all that love comes crashing down at the same time it can be too much too soon in the wrong places, not intentionally, just because people see the size of the problem and see the size of the challenges and everyone wants to help. and there's a lot of help that comes out. but let me put it to you in a very graphic position. there are probably more people in this room today than there are empowered capable people in the libyan government able to absorb the support we're giving them. shall i repeat that? you know and that's the reality. so we really have to be careful, and we really need to look in different ways, too, in private sector and elsewhere, here and in other places, to find different pieces of that scaffolding that is going to support, you know, the fundamental -- getting governance on its feet but before we can go anywhere libyans themselves have to agree on what their road map is going to be, who they want to be, how they want to do it.

you know, and we can help in many ways, but we can't write that story for them. and our experience is different. and, of course, you're always going to get -- and god bless them, i adore them the libyans who are educated in the united states or have worked for years with oil companies and they are very frustrated. they're more frustrated than anyone else. they go back to libya and they say people don't want to work this way or i have to have consensus with 10,000 other people. one of the reasons -- i think ali tried to brick bring a kind of western executive approach to his job, and there was no implementing institution under it, institutional scaffolding under it. so, you know you can go and like the king tell the waves be still or move all you want and it's not going to change the tide. so what we're really focused on is finding something that

resonates and works, and as part of this dialogue. as i said, i have gone around meeting a lot of people, generating a lot of feedback. bill bushesrns came and met with a number of people. we had a rather historic meeting with a number of people amongst the various groups for the first time sitting on the same side of the table together in the same room since the revolution. they were i think even astonished themselves and afterwards they continued the conversation for at least another half an hour, but of course, there are differences that are there. and it's going to take hard work. it's going to take people sitting down and saying does the libyan state matter to me more than my personal interest? sovereignty is about individual engagement with the state and responsibility toward the state and this is a whole change of -- i mean, people need to understand how radical a change that is for libyans. some of whom joke and say, you know, we used to sit in front of the television and wait for the banner headline that was going

to come on saying the dictator has been overthrown. he said now we're waiting for the next banner headline that's not coming. well, you're the banner headline. you've got to write the news. tough do the story. >> so let me -- before i open it up for your questions, let me ask you about the mission itself. >> uh-huh. >> i take it that it's a fairly -- it's a tailored mission. you probably don't have lots and lots of personnel under the current circumstance. what is the u.s. embassy team able to execute on now and are they getting outside of tripoli are you able to move around the country? >> yeah. well, in limited places. first of all we are a small -- we're lean and mean. we have very few -- we are a tiny embassy. we have a large security component, as you might -- we're somewhat similar to a medieval for tress fortress in some ways. we're well protected.

benghazi will not happen again but something else will it always does. we travel on the seams. i want to dispel the mirth we don't ever emerge from the compound grounds. i get out and about. if you don't follow me already, follow me on twitter to the shores of tripoli, but. i get out -- in fact you know if i go to misrata they say you have been to misrata twice and you've only seen us once. we do plan things. we go out -- libya has some fabulous sights. five world heritage sights. i have to put in a pitch. it has amazing weather. it has fantastic fish. you know it's got so much to offer, and we do get out but it's limbed to the west. we do not get out to benghazi. i hope eventually will be able

to. we can't travel on a dime. >> if i may so the americans who are very interested in tourism in libya -- >> wouldn't do it right now. >> infrastructure. >> it's a precarious situation. how much does a big mac cost? i have the 911 standard which is if you go as a tourist to any country in the world and something happens to you if you call 911, what do you get for it? you know if you're in iceland germany, uk u.s., a lot of places, you're going to get quite a bit. if you're in libya you're going to keep dialing and, you know if you know people, they will come to your rescue. libyans help each other out. one of the things i'm always very moved by and touched by is how often libyans stop and help other libyans. and i tell people one of the stories about libya that's fantastic actually is if any

other society in the world that is that heavily saturated with weapons, you would have a lethality rate that's off the charts. it doesn't happen. why? why doesn't it happen? now it's happening in a very specific way against a very specific group of terrorists who have been assassinating methodically and systematically former government officials. it went from former colonels to police to judicial authorities and then heinously went to civilians, and i mean the killing of these young cadet that is were graduating from this military academy in benghazi by a car bomb that was deliberately timed to go off at precisely the moment when you had the largest congregation of these young men, it was beyond the pale. and this is the thing that led to the declaration of the government about terrorism. this is when the patience and tolerance level was reached. should americans go around? things happen and unless you

really know libyans i would say if you know libyans, you know the place, you have good sources, you could probably go and go in certain places. right now there are areas i would avoid because americans are targeted and abductions have always been part and parcel of certain areas and especially when you have no rule of law. you choose a high value object because in a transactional society, you need something that's of value for your transaction, and human beings work pretty well, and this is age old practice. i'm not persuaded even -- you mentioned the abduction in october which was ostensibly in reaction for the u.s. capture of a target. i am convinced personally, you may be wrong, but considering who helped him out in that process, that there was probably a deal made to ultimately get the release of someone else or bring them back in the country. who knows. i hate to speculate but i can't help but speculate in my

business. you know the abduction -- the terrible precedent set with the abduction of five egyptian diplomats in response to the egyptian arrest of the head of the libyan revolutionary operations when he was in alexandria alexandria, followed by the abduction of tunisian diplomats and followed by the outrageous abduction of the jordanian ambassador, you know, who was thankfully released but unfortunately, released in exchange for a convicted al qaeda affiliate who had tried to bomb the airport who some reports indicate has been killed in the fighting in benghazi. i don't know. unfortunately, that hasn't been confirmed. >> well, fascinating and now i'm going to open it up to your questions. we have many experts in the room. please wait for the microphone. identify yours and ifelf and if you have an affiliation.

>> we'll start with the lady in the second row, barbara. >> barbara slavin. all my admiration to you ambassador for taking this post. you will get a reward i hope of special quality. my question is about other outside forces that are supporting various groups. the general, is he getting support from egypt, from the uae? is this sort of a chance to expunge the muslim brotherhood and its elements from libya? >> barbara that's a good question, and, indeed, you know, certainly there are libyans who have said we need assisi and then i say but you don't have the egyptian army behind him. however, certainly there's been a lot of talk, and one of the narratives that has -- that is commonly heard in libya is that this is not about our own problems. this is about being the victims of a kind of a proxy war that is

being launched by, you know, external forces and i mean everybody knows who those countries are. it's uae or qatar. it's not a secret that the uae and qatar both were supportive of the revolution in different ways and provided very generous support, by the way, in terms of medical care and the offer of free education, et cetera, to various groups. subsequently though, the narrative that many libyans believe and which, frankly, is very difficult to prove concretely, is that each side is funding either training of military or arms or weapons or has an agenda that goes on and on and on. our position has been to call on our friends and our allies to not complicate or confuse the situation within libya because i do believe that it's complicated enough and that enough of these issues are in fact, indige justnous

problems that are exploited by others. you know and i think libyans have to confront them and deal with those problems because, again, other hands can exploit a situation only when it's so weak that it can be exploited. there's two sides to that thing. but certainly there are those on the -- i would say it's certainly libyans who are based outside of libya have interests that are at play, and some of them, you know, are frankly quite open about it because they believe that this is necessary, these actions are necessary to address issues that the government is not addressing. particularly on the terrorism side of the house right now. now, that doesn't necessarily mean a political endorsement. again, i think the role is not very clear yet in terms of what he seeks at the end of this exercise and also how shall we know when the exercise is over. now i have my own thoughts on it because i think that this gets into gaining ground for

tactical purposes and, for example, a lot of debate over the control of the airports in tripoli. one airport is widely said and in fact believed to be controlled by the zintan, tripoli international airport. and another airport is believed to be largely controlled by salafis and receiving arms and weapons and things like this from outside the country. now, the question is whether these groups get into a knock down drag out, and we don't assess that one group is particularly capable of dominating the other group. so that's when the situation becomes kind of dicey but whether they -- i think one group has said they're not going to negotiate, still they're going to use force. i think he's gotten what he wanted which is the gnc suddenly announced a date for elections, june 25th.

when before it was a maybe and maybe in august. i mean it's still very fluid, and we have to watch and see what that is, but he's already obviously produced one thing that a lot of libyans wanted which was a date certain for elections from the gnc. question now though, can the state or can who provide the security for those elections to take place? fairly and honestly. next issue is going to be i'm sure a big issue is ahmed going to continue to pursue becoming prime minister now that you have a june 25th election named in addition to presenting his cabinet, et cetera or are people going to say look, let's leave abdullah as a caretaker government until you have a new parliament which is in effect and is going to name a new

government anyway and a parliament which they're going to be called the house of representatives which -- i was going to say that's ominous. >> i can't have that on my conscience. >> okay. does that, barbara, answer your question. >> you didn't answer whether egypt -- >> oh, egypt are supporting. i said that's -- i'm not aware that they are. i said -- i know that libyaensians who reside in egypt and the uae have expressed support. i have nothing for you on that. >> very good. >> how is that answer? >> let's take a question over here. on this side. any question. all right. so sir, in the very far back, please wait for the microphone. >> miss ambassador, i'm christopher blanchard the congressional research service. i wanted to give you two

opportunities, one to respond to some remarks that were made in an interview which seemed to implicate a broader group than ansar al sharia that do implicate muslim brotherhood -- >> but he's not tried to kill muslim brotherhood. >> his remarks were a bit more ambiguous i think and have obviously generated debate inside libya and are affecting how people respond. and then the other to give you an opportunity to sort of respond to questions about the continuation of not just u.s. security assistance but the sort of general plan to work with the libyan military given the questions about chain of command that are obviously being raised here. can you talk about why the u.s. government may believe that it's still important to proceed along that path or not? thank you. >> are you going to give me the wrote? because i haven't read -- >> sure. i can if you'd like. >> what's the specific quote? >> sure. let's see.

he's talking about how the muslim brother had organized groups of radicalists and gave them passports. >> those are two different issues. there's a political issue and there's this now very specific tactical issue against terrorists elements camps, all of these in the east. the broader competition and that issue is again that, in fact again, the secularist status quo side has not been as engaged politically and intentionally withdrew from politics because of disgust over what happened after the elections when they felt it was 65% of the vote they should have been able to choose a prime minister and they were, in fact blocked by that tactically by the islamists in the parliament. so, in fact this is a whole different dynamic that is not about necessarily killing but it's about dislodging people who they believe are exploiting or -- it's a lot of -- this is a

political issue, and again i think there are different elements that are concerned about that one as well. now, the airport thing is a very specific and a little different and that will be a force issue. there's the other political half of that. that's why i say it's complicated, it's complex, and there are various players in it and whether this surges and goes away or what i don't know. i think the question and the danger right now is that normally for two sides to sit at a table or for multiple sides, for however many sides, they have to be either -- you know, three conditions. they are either -- one of three. they are either, you know, exhausted, injured, or impoverished by the existing situation to the point that they choose its time to sit down at the table and we're not yet seeing that either of the groups feel that they are either exhausted by the current situation, impoverished by the current situation, or injured

wounded enough by that situation. and that's why we've got to -- you know there's got to be a little more work done now to calm that situation and bring it back away from violence into an operational political dialogue. the building of the army, you have raised a great question it's one we go over all the time, is what will the employment of these forces be? and at the time, of course, that the programs were set up and established, the situation was very different and being presented in a very different way. so even as we speak, you know we are certainly rethinking the program, but it doesn't negate the need for a national army, and, in fact, you know, ahmed already pre-emptively had said he met once with -- we all met with him once as a group of ambassadors after the initial election before it became very clear that this was going to go into a long debated process and then we've not met with him again, but in that meeting with the first point he made was he

supported the building of a national army and in fact, whern when we were in rome in march, may, i can't remember what month it is, march i guess, both the gnc and the government attended and agreed to the building of the general purpose force in the joint agreed communique that was issued which was the whole point was to get both sides to agree on certain steps and then witnessed by the international community as saying you have bought into this so now we are going to hold you to it. so, again how that is implemented ultimately is still obviously a work in progress. because there's no question they need a national security architecture. it's hard to have one when you don't have an agreed policy or a national security concept. >> i think we have time for one more question. sir? wait for the microphone, please. >> former colleague. hi. >> daniel seward from johns

hopkins and the middle east institute. deb, let me add my voice to the encouragement you've gotten and the gratitude we all feel for what you're doing. i wanted you to try to be a little bit more specific about what you expect heftar to do next. what i'm hearing is and you can correct me if i'm hearing the wrong thing, is that you're not too unhappy with what he's done so far. but what signals is the united states going to send him about what the next steps ought to be? >> no, daniel let me be clear. let me clarify something. obviously the government -- and i think we made a statement about that yesterday. you know we were not aware of this in advance. we have not provided support and we are not happy with the need to resort to violence or to

disruption to advance an agenda. and obviously are going to work to limit that to look at that. however, my point is you know, it's very difficult to step up and condemn, you know -- i mean we should but i personally, i have to be honest with this, frankly it's not necessarily for me to condemn his actions in going against very specific groups, which as far as i have seen has been extremely specific, warning civilians to move out of the way and really attacking groups that, frankly are on our list of terrorists. i mean, i'm not saying that's the best way to deal with them at all and i'm not supporting it from that perspective. what i'm saying is i personally am not going to come out and condemn blanketly what he did in that specific instance. i don't think he has huge personal support. i'm trying to describe what i see as a situation within libya

which is i hear a lot of support for his actions against these specific groups, less support for him as an individual given his background and what many see as an opportunistic strike that is using this as a pretext to gain authority, but i'm just saying the jury is still out because it's not clear what is the political agenda behind it entirely yet. again, we want this to be a legitimate process, and he needs -- frankly my earlier advice to the government was reach out to him and try to reign him in and talk to him and make sure you're talkprotecting the civilians in the area. we're going to continue to work with the government and libyans and political influencers and he's obviously become one of those influencers in that equation that we're going to at some point have to deal with and the elements who are supporting

heftar. they say he's voted in two elections so i'm assuming he's an american citizen. he's democratic, small d.d"d." juke check the warden list. >> i don't think he's registered with us on the warden list. >> we will now pay a lot more attention to libya, hopefully with a much sharper lens thanks to the last hour of your insights, ambassador jones. we're out of time. i want to thank our audience for coming, thank our broadcast audience, our sponsors. the next forum is june

we'll call to order the subcommittee on communications and technology. and certainly want to welcome our members, and our witness, the chairman of the federal communications commission, mr. wheeler, we're delighted that you would make time to come and spend with us on this important day with so much going on in the telecommunications world. six months ago this subcommittee met for the very first time with the current complement of fcc commissioners, and welcomed mr. wheeler as the new chairman. today, and let me welcome mr. wheeler back, we meet to

review the record of action and selective inaction that the commission has taken under the first six months of your leadership. unfortunately, given some of the most recent actions out of the commission, i fear that we may be heading into some rough waters. when we last met i offered two pieces of advice to chairman wheeler. and his colleagues. first, i urged them to heed the words of congress where it was -- has spoken and reject calls to act in ways contrary to congressional intent. second, i urged them to bear in mind that even seemingly small changes in the federal communications commission's rules can have significant impact on the marketplace. i called upon all the members of the commission to discharge their duties with transparency, accountability, and a long view of the technological landscape. in sum, my advice was that they must approach their duties with humility and restraint. unfortunately, recent actions have hinted that my advice was ignored. in december, we had yet to know that the d.c. circuit court of appeals would once again reject the commission's attempt to regulate the internet and could

only speculate as to whether the commission under chairman wheeler's lead would mount a third attempt. sadly, we now know the answer. not only has chairman wheeler leading us down this path again the item the commission adopted last week tees up the long dead idea that the internet is a common carrier. this reinvigorated willingness to consider regulating the internet under title 2 of the communications act, rules that find their roots in the 19th century railroad regulation and were designed to regulate the world of telephone monopoly. hearken back to a world in which twisted copper was the only portal for consumers to communication network and voice the only service. the modern communications landscape bears no resemblance to the world title 2 was meant to regulate and application of title 2 to the internet is, at best a forfeit. worse still the practical consequences of reclassification are to give the bureaucrats at the fcc the authority to second-guess business decisions and to regulate every possible aspect of the internet.

we should all pause and consider the prospect that the fcc is a rate-setting authority, over internet access and what that means for innovation in the telephone network of yesteryear. we should also be aware of this path of the door for states to regulate the internet. contrary to any intended effect the reclass fiction of broadband service under title 2 will harm consumers, halt job creation, curtail innovation and stifle investment. in sum at a time when the commission at congress' direction is taking steps toward even greater growth and innovation across internet access platforms, the commission is simultaneously contemplating rules that undermine those very efforts, and compromise the fundamental approaches of both the clinton and bush administrations that laid the foundation for the internet that we know today. struggling with some of the actions taken under chairman wheeler's watch the selective inaction of the fcc is equally troubling. although required under the telecommunications act, the

federal communications commission has failed to complete its quadrennial review of the limitations on ownership of broadcast properties. it's been six years, six years since the commission last fulfilled this statutory mandate. rather than focus on ensuring that the rules reflect reality however the chairman has now announced that the commission would essentially scrap the 2010 quadrennial review and begin in earnest its 2014 quadrennial review. notwithstanding the stale record the fcc also moved forward to make major changes to the regulations that govern media ownership anyway. the adopted changes to its attribution rules that determine how to count stations toward local television ownership rule, the fcc also stated that it would begin counting certain shared service agreements toward the local ownership cap. in order to comply with local ownership rules these pronouncements will likely force broadcasters to divest stations and unwind service agreements that are beneficial to ensuring local content in smaller

markets. these changes do not bring benefits to the communities served by these broadcasters drawing into question how this change could serve public interest. finally fcc process reform has been an ongoing priority of our subcommittee. an issue my colleagues and i are deeply invested in as demonstrated by the unanimous passage in the house of the bipartisan federal communications commission process reform act on march 11th of this year. unfortunately after the events of the past few months i'm sad to say i continue to be troubled by the fcc's seemingly flawed process. in march the fcc chose to restrict license transfers involving certain shared service agreements which had long been blessed by implicitly blessed by the commission. this action was not debated by the commissioners nor was it subject to any kind of vote. rather it was announced by the chief of the media bureau as a fait accompli. recent press reports also allege the chairman's office withheld presentation of revisions to the open internet notice of proposed rulemaking from republicans for as long as 24 hours after having provided the material to the democratic commissioners and to

the press during the run-up to the may 15th fcc open meeting. the concerns raised by these reports is only compounded by revelations that a substantially revised draft of another item scheduled for vote at the open meeting was not presented to other offices until the closing minutes of the evening before. according to commissioner pai, the commission's mobile spectrum holdings item his office received a revised item fewer than 12 hours before the open meeting and the item contained more than 3,000 revisions. so i find myself channeling commissioner rosenworcel who said of the open internet mprm that the quote process

more. all significant stated in your written testimony you're eager to build on pro-sefs the last six months going forward and i hope working together we can move forward in a direction that protects a sector the economy enjoyed and facilitates its continued job and job creation unencumbered by over regulatory overreach i yield back and recognize my friend and colleague from california miss eshoo the ranking member of the subcommittee for her opening statement. >> 45u, mr. chairman. and good morning to all of my colleagues and welcome back to the committee. chairman wheeler. before we do a deep dive into

the specifics of the chairman's proposal, as well as so many other major issues that are before the fcc, i think that it would be well for us to step back and appreciate what i believe is one of the most consequential inventions in human history. this was dreamed up and built by disrupters. it's an american story. it's a product of american genius. the internet. one word. but it is -- it really takes one's breath away in terms of the arc of history. it's not only an invention, it has reshaped lives economies, here and around the world and our thinking and our debate today really should be viewed i think, through the prism of a

critical step that we're taking now in the 21st century. the internet is a continuum of change. it's accessible. it's open. and its innovations continue. they empower individuals, entire fields of learning, growing not only our economy but economies around the world, and serving humanity in countless ways. all of this has taken place and here we are in the second decade of the 21st century. so this is huge. this is huge. this is not what is behind door number one, door number two. door number three, where the price is right. this is not some guessing game. this is huge. this is something, these decisions are going to affect

every single american going forward, just as it has in the past, and it will continue to. so all of us, regulators innovators, consumers, legislators, we have to get this right. the stakes are very high, and mrk cannot lose. it's been our leadership that has advanced the digital age, and now is not the time, and actually i don't think there should be ever a time to unravel the values that have really been the hallmarks and the bulwark of the internet. so the question is, how do we seize the future? at least in my view that's what the question is. i know what i want to see continue. openness, free accessible these are also the hallmarks of our

democracy. and that's why this has been such an extraordinary export of our country. i know what i don't want. i don't want this to become an auction selling off the best in bits and pieces. where some pay for faster lanes, others can't pay, they get stuck in a slow lane. some giant company blocking content, and others discriminating so that they can sell their stuff to keep the other guy's stuff stymied. that's not a very pretty description. but, it's a street description of what can be at hand. i want every day to be essentially the fourth of july for american innovation. so that it just keeps bursting. it just keeps bursting. and i see it every day in my congressional district.

looking forward ten years, 25 years, 50 years, i want this to continue and we should all be thinking on a grand scale because this growth and this economic driver should be for everyone. we need smart, savvy regulations regulatory decisions. we need a congress that's engaged in this and a congress that's vigilant. and i plan to be. so what should the fcc do? i think in all the articles you read there's a debate. should it be 706 or should it be title 2? i think that we have to have a clear-eyed understanding of what has made the internet what it is today, and what basic values need to be protected and preserved. and then what that is going to look like. and there's more on top of all of this. can anyone here today piece

together the effects of a comcast/time warner merger and an at&t/directv merger on consumers in a free and open internet? these are massive decisions. and massive pieces that are moving forward. and what's going to happen to innovation? mr. chairman, chairman walden i urge you to convene a hearing to examine these issues here. i think they deserve to be examined, and to be debated, and questions asked. so as i said earlier every person in the country will be affected by the outcome of these decisions that are before the commission, and before us. and so i look forward to questioning chairman wheeler today. i also ask the unanimous consent, the two letters, two very important letters, be entered in to the record.

one signed by more than 100 vert your capitalists and angel investors who support simple, strong enforceable rules against online discrimination and access fees, and the other signed by more than 100 internet companies, small and large, mostly small, that support a free and open internet. >> without objection. >> and i don't know if i have any time remaining. no, i think i've gone over. with that i'll yield back what i don't have. >> thank the gentle lady for her opening statement and the letters. we now turn to the full committee chairman mr. upton from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. oversight is a critical part of this committee's work to foster a smaller more nimble government for the innovation age. we've held lots of hearings with all of the fcc's commissioners to address issues of national importance, to keep a close eye on budget, and to ensure that commission process focuses on

promoting jobs in innovation. and today's oversight hearing with chairman wheeler will continue that discussion to ensure that the fcc works in a way that benefits consumers industry, and certainly the economy, and i thank you for coming today. there's a lot to discuss. in the six months since mr. wheeler was confirmed as chair, he has addressed a number of items including media ownership, the ip transition universal service and just this past week of course the incentive auctions and net neutrality. while i appreciate the chairman's leadership on some of these, i have serious concerns with some others. as an initial matter chairman wheeler started off his chairmanship with a review of fcc procedure, an issue that this subcommittee has spent lots of time working to reform in a bipartisan manner. but i was disappointed to see some of the process failures that occurred last week. media reports of an open meeting item being circulated to commissioners as lates amidnight the evening before the vote on one item, in what seems to be partisan hairing of items with

democrats as much as 24 hours before sharing them with republicans on another is particularly concerning. regardless of political affiliation commissioners must be given adequate and equal time to consider the items on which they're going to vote. let us all that such incidents of favoritism are isolated and not emblematic of the chairman's new operating procedure. additional i continue to be concerned with the commission's ongoing defiance of its statutory obligations to complete the 2010 quadrennial review of media ownership rules. despite the commission's woefully outdated record on this issue, it is nonetheless moved forward with changes that effectively bar joint sales agreements, and change commission treatment of shared service agreements under its media attribution rules. these actions in the absence of the statutorily required media ownership review do raise significant questions about the commission's commitment to making decisions informed by facts and utilizing sound

process. and lastly i'm troubled by the chairman's insistence on attempting to regulate the internet under rules that were informed by 19th century rail red regs and adopted to regulate the monopoly telephone networks of the past. the internet has indeed flourished under the current light touch regulatory scheme and subjecting it to burdensome regs is a leap in the wrong to consumers businesses in the future of the internet as we know it. nobody wants telephone service to look like it did in 1984. we shouldn't wish for our internet access to return to that rotary phone era either. the communication sector is vital to our national economy and commission action on even small items can have broad impact. thank chairman wheeler for being here today. look forward to working toward a bipartisan measure transparent and responsible actions that do

benefit consumers job creation and our economy. i yield my balance and time to be split between mr. vlada and mr. bart. >> thank you, chairman for yielding. i appreciate you holding this hearing today. welcome chairman wheeler. thanks for being here. the communications technology industry is heralded as a vibrant, dynamic and productive sector of our economy. set works that service to ip based platforms had the flexibility to grow and advance in large part because they have not been subjected to the stifling hand of legacy government regulation. we pursued a light touch regulatory approach to the internet ecosystem because we've seen time and again it serves as catalyst to job creation and competition. look forward to develop policies that would further this growth we would be remiss to overlook the significance regulatory restrain has been fundamental

component of the success. that's why i'm concerned with some of the proponents. broadband internet access services, telecommunications under title 2 of the communications act. this would be an extreme exercise of government overreach and likely result in failed websites, downgraded and poor customer service, less choice and flexibility for consumers, businesses and stifling innovation through regulation. attempts to manufacture and shape markets' outcome proposed solutions in search of problems imposed antiquated regulations will frustrate future progress and innovation. i intend to introduce legislation that prevents the fcc following through on this misguided regulatory proposal. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> the question before the

committee today is are we soon going to be calling him mr. wheeler dealer. i put my statement in the record and yield back the time to the chairman. >> thank you, chairman. turn to the gentleman from california mr. waxman for opening comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome back chairman wheeler. federal communications commission had an historic week last week. you're tackling some of the most complex and pressing issues in the communications sector today. in 2012, congress gave the fcc a big job to create the world's first incentive auction to ensure that beach front low band spectrum is put to its highest economic value. you established the ground rules for this crucial auction last week. you had a hard job because you needed to balance four potential potentially conflicting objectives. one maximizing the amount of spectrum made available, promote

competition and create bans of unlicensed spectrum and raise money. it appears you hit this one out of the ballpark. want to commend you to your advance of unlicensed spectrum. a vision of new super wi-fi can now become a reality. i want to commend you for promoting competition. it will be an enormous setback for consumers. it would turn into a duopoly dominated by verizon and at&t. this is the best and possibly last chance the fcc has to invigorate competition. i would have preferred if you reserved even more spectrum for competitive carriers, but i recognize the pressures you are under and you need to secure

three votes. by the way, you may hear arguments today from republicans on this committee that you lack the authority to promote competition. these claims are nonsense and contradict the express language of the statute. last week you launched the fcc's third attempt in eight years to protect the open internet. you didn't hit this one out of the park, but you didn't need to either. you made a wise decision to solicit comment on a wide range of options. as i wrote you, the time has come to end the legal gymnastics and stop the lobbying games being played by the big broadband providers. in 2010, verizon at&t and comcast pled with the fcc not to use its undisputed authority under title ii of the communications act. then after fcc did what they wanted, verizon sued the