aggressive effort we're pushing them back. >> maybe be needed a bumper sticker there's a lot going on. board and you think. [laughter] . .

appearance here because we are thankful to have you here and i think for obvious reasons he's not been willing to come. i think the focus of today's hearing will be syria and i don't think anyone here can be proud of the united states role and what is the greatest humanitarian disaster of our time and what we have done to enable that to happen. as i think about your appearance here today, i think in many ways it will be helpful as we think about the next administration and as we think about the next secretary of state as we think about the relationship that

needs to access between the executive branch into the secretary of state's office i know that you came over from the national security staff so you were at the white house. you came over to the state department i know sometimes executive branch folks like to have their own people at the state department and i know for instance you were up here yesterday that the president ordered you to turkey instead so it speaks to the sort of overlap that exists between the executive branch and the department of state. as an observation, the entire conflict again is something we are not proud of and i don't think anybody here is proud of. it's interesting that many of the people in the establishment have even though i think they

would view the administration's foreign policy generally speaking as a failure i think that is just an observation history will write. it's interesting that secretary clinton has received support from much of the establishment because it is so well known that she tried to count her so much of what has ended up happening and has lessened our standing in the world and i think that is a reason many people have migrated into foreign-policy establishment. i think all of us are aware of her trying to encounter what happened in iraq and do more to support the rebels. i think that's just widely known.

secretary kerry team an came ina lot of excitement. people thought that he left his whole life to be secretary of state. he'd been involved in foreign policy and made his name if you will on the stage here. and that moved feelings to anger as we've watched what was happening to now we have a breakfast with him just a week and a half ago and to me, it has become somewhat of a sympathetic figure in that he is out there trying to deal with this situation and yet there is no support from the white house. we have had the general who was on his behalf working to create a no-fly zone.

turkey was supporting that and get no decision from the white house. the best example to me of why the foreign policy has been such a failure as this weekend. we were trying to set up a meeting to come to some other option that might create an outlet for the victims and yet not undermine our sovereign immunity issues. i know i've been talking to the white house for some time. i talked to the secretary twice and we agreed the best way to resolve this was to have a meeting with them and mysel bend the senator and adjust to sit down and see if another option

could be developed that might cause us to move to an outlet of some kind and yet maybe not to have some of the adverse consequences that some of us fear. secretary kerry couldn't even get them to call a meeting. let me say that one more time. the outburst yesterday from the white house over what happened is remarkable. when they wouldn't even sit down to meet with secretary of state and us to try to create a solution to a problem they thought was real so i have to tell you i think i know all of you write books after you leave, it is going to be a fascinating walk-through but i believe to be a failed presidency as it relates to foreign policy and deal with the tough issues that

we have to deal with and there is no way to deal with them without conversation and to not have a plan or maybe you will share one in the diplomatic actions that can't be backed up because russia and al-assad realized there is no plan b. and can't be. so i look forward to your testimony. i know i'm being a little tough on you today but i think that it in response to just seeing again why failure has occurred and why the inability to sit down and get involved to be willing to put forth tough consequences when things don't occur, and again nothing could be more evidence of that van and the unwillingnesthan theunwillingned try to propose another way of dealing with the situation that we dealt with yesterday so with that i turn to my good friend

and look forward to the opening comments. >> secretary, thank you for being here. senator, the chair man and i have been partners during most of the congress on this committee and we share very similar views about the policies and priorities and we had an opportunity to work together on many issues and as i was listening to senator corker in the beginning of his comments, i thought we were going to be able to continue that because i share those views on the extraordinary talents to conduct the foreign-policy and the frustration. i think that was highlighted through circumstances that neither he nor i could control where the administration could

control and that is that the timing required us to take the overnight before the recess. i think if we could have had that override me would have had more opportunity to explore ways in which we could try to accomplish the needed removal of the sovereign immunity that stands in the path of the victims but in a way that doesn't cause the risk factors that this legislation causes. and quite frankly the leadership or the president could affect the timing because the timing data to act with a certain number of days the congress was required to take up the message immediately which was unlikely so i think it put us in a position where options were not as robust as i would like them

to have been so i'm not as critical of senator corker were secretary kerry i know that he felt pretty passionately about the legislation and he expressed his views. i had a chance to meet with the secretary on a plane for a considerable period of time and he used that opportunity to explore what we have here, so i very much admire the secretaries optimism and his unrelenting pursuit of peace in the world and we had a chanc the chance to experience that firsthand in colombia as we saw after five decades of civil war and peace agreements signed this past monday and i was proud to be there with the secretary. ..

in the success of u.s. diplomacy and leadership, foreign-policy arena. secretary kerry is correct in his belief that the tools of diplomacy should always be the preferred method for stopping

violence saving lives and restoring stability. i want to commend the dedication of secretary kerry and yourself and in our nation's diplomats for the work you have done around-the-clock through allies and adversaries to forge an agreement to end the violence in syria. that's what we need to do. there is no way to and that civil war through the military. we need to be able to have a negotiated diplomatic solution where all sides respect a government that respects its rights but now we are clearly at an inflection point. the u.s.-russia cease-fire agreement was raised on the assumption that russia could compel the assad regime to ground its air force, that russia would compel its regime to allow immediate humanitarian access. we have clearly seen that neither of these two objectives

were achieved. russia strives to appear one that is essential to solving global problems but i seriously question the reliability of russia in this regard. we must reevaluate our approach to russia and the middle east and beyond the middle east. russia continues to attack ukraine forces and illegally occupies crimea. it has had into her commuter system and sought to destabilize our luck tauro process. these are not the actions of our government. these are the actions of an adversary and i think we have to recognize that. with our focus on russia in iran's nefarious role in syria and beyond. i ran is backing they assad regime. iyer vc commanders have died fighting in syria and i ran has launched intelligence to support syria and russia targeting to

mobilize hezbollah. there must be consequences for these actions and there are plenty of tools we have at our disposal. i reject utterly false narratives that i ran in russia's activities in syria are constants.counterterrorism had i look forward to hearing from you mr. blinken on what actions the united states are considering, what are our options? turning to our practice for a moment if i might account her plight is just the first step in starting stability and i'm cautiously optimistic that military options can push out and down the military operations or want to raise the alarm bell about winning the peace. i think we will win the war but can we win the peace? iraqi leaders and bag dad must get their act together. the political infighting and maturing and still no confidence at leaders in baghdad erbil and

other potential battles are prepared to put the iraqi people first. we know that the iraqi security forces, the kurdish forces another forces cannot fighter bomb their way to a stable iraq. it will,, driesell to be. not confident that iraqi leaders are sufficiently engaged to respond to a planetary crisis when hundreds of thousands of civilians fleeing muscle. i'm not confident they are in control of the popularization forces to prevent sectarian reprisal violence but are not confident the iraqi leaders are committed to recovering stabilization and governance that will give all iraqis a state of peace. weeks ago i was in a situation region particular syria could not be worse now we know that it can. russia is guilty of war crimes for bombing a humanitarian aid convoy. assad is beryl bombing aleppo with impunity and using water access as a weapon and denying

humanitarian aid was not sufficiently deplorable. these are crimes against humanity to the longer the assad regime remains entrenched in damascus the longer isil remains active in the region and the more hopeless and more susceptible are vulnerable populations following extremism and more strained our governments in jordan and lebanon to respond to these pressures. our risk is an entire generation of children in the region that have only known war and governments and some governments who want to stay with them but have been unsuccessful. it risk is an entire generation of children who only know refugee camps that don't have access to clean water schools and employment opportunities. this situation cannot continue. the u.s. must provide more decisive leadership to protect the civilian population.

thank you mr. chairman. sin i appreciate your comments. i think this is what we have been saying since about 2011. my comments about secretary kerry being a sympathetic berry are not negative towards him. he is out there without the ability to do diplomacy because everyone knows there's going to be no backup effort in the event's diplomacy fails which is a recipe for disaster. we have known that now for five years so again it was more of an indictment of the president than our secretary of state. but with that our deputy secretary of state tony blinken who we appreciate you here today as a substitute and we thank you for your service and we look forward to your abbreviated comments, your written testimony

and without objection will be entered into the record. >> mr. chairman thank you very much and let me start by thanking you personally as well as the committee staff for your courtesy in rescheduling this hearing today. you know was originally going to be yesterday. i very much appreciated. it did allow me to make this trip to turkey which i'm happy to talk about in senator cardin thank you for referencing the best bilateral meeting i had during the week in new york at the general assembly by far the most informative and interesting session. mr. chairman ranking member cardin and members of the committee thank you for this opportunity to discuss the civil war in syria and its regional implications. now in its sixth year the civil wars destroy the fabric of life in syria, it's killed at least 40,000 people triggered the worst humanitarian displacement crisis since world war ii put neighboring countries and asylum

under enormous pressure exacerbated regional tensions helps wealthy ranks of most notably da'ish and a credit to the conflict continues the fueled by patrons and proxies with very diverse and interesting priorities at a time of unprecedented of people in light of the middle east. as governments pursue new models of political rule and regional influence. in short the syrian conflict presents one of the most complex challenges we have faced. the united states is clear-eyed about our role and responsibility. the civil war in syria is not about us nor can it be solved solely by us but it challenges our security and strategic interests and our moral values. we are working to leverage our country's unique capacity to mobilize others to end the civil war and handle its consequences even if we leave the international coalition to counter an ultimately defeat da'ish.

our primary task is to defeat da'ish which poses the most immediate threat to our citizens and to our country and our allies and partners. we have built an international coalition with 67 partners. we devised a copper has a strategy to attack da'ish at its core in syria dismantle its foreign financing recruitment efforts stop internal operations account for and affiliates. we are aggressively implementing the strategy and we are succeeding. our conference at campaign is systematically liberating terrorism and da'ish and cutting off its finances stemming the flow of foreign fighters combating its narrative that allowing citizens to return home gutting the foundation which its ambitions rest. we have deprived da'ish of 25%

of the territory controlled in syria and 50% of the territory it once controlled in iraq. we now face a moment of both strategic opportunity and urgency. the opportunity before us is to effectively eliminate da'ish physical by taking back the last pieces of holds mosul and iraq and raqqa in syria. with support from the coalition local forces are preparing to launch these operations in the period ahead. these battles will be hard but the consequences to da'ish will be devastating both tactically and psychologically. but this opportunity is matched by urgency. as the news around da'ish is tightening we have seen them adapt bye bye plotting are cursing indiscriminate attacks in as many places as possible to this puts a premium on this during its internal operations that were especially in raqqa for many of these operations are plotted planned and directed. in iraq mr. chairman two weeks

ago and then in turkey this week i held discussions with our partners on the campaign to liberate mossel bay feet in raqqa. it requires court nation not just militarily but also to ensure we meet the humanitarian stabilization and governments needs of newly liberated territory. this effort ensures that da'ish is defeated and stays defeated in senator cardin i think you're exactly right in a sense the harder questions are almost the military defeat of da'ish in iraq and certainly in syria. ultimately we will not fully succeed in destroying da'ish until we resolve the civil war in syria which remains a powerful magnet for foreign terrorist organizations and draw strength from construction of its own nation. the objectives and processes that we agreed to earlier this month with russia were the right ones. the renewal of the cessation of hostilities, the immediate resumption of unhindered aide

delivers the degradation of the focus on da'ish and al qaeda in syria the grounding of the syrian air force over civilian populations the beginning of a syrian led integration track that can provide a path where the conflict and make possible the restoration of the peaceful syria. the actions of the assad regime and russia aided and abetted by jihadist now rests fundamentally undermining this initiative destroying what was the best prospect for ending the civil war. the september 19 attack on the u.n. humanitarian aid convoy near aleppo was unconscionable. then followed by the regime and russia renewing a horrific offensive than aleppo that includes the killing of innocent civilians and apparently intentional attacks on hospitals the water supply network of the civilian infrastructure. yesterday secretary kerry or in the foreign minister of russia that unless russia takes immediate steps to end the assault on aleppo and restore the cessation of hostilities the united states will suspend

u.s.-russia bilateral criteria including the establishment of the joint implementation center. president obama's direction we are actively considering other options advance our goal of ending the civil war in starting a political transition in syria. we maintain close links to the moderate opposition to support their viability. it's important as archer member how the crisis in syria began not with barrel bombs but with peaceful protests by citizens calling for peace and change. the humanitarian catastrophe that we bear witness to it is an outgrowth of the vengeance of its own people and the cost is rising every day for the region, for europe and most of all are the syrian people. we will continue to work with the coalition we built to defeat da'ish and we will explore and is appropriate pursue every option in the civil war in syria and bring about transition that the syrian people want and deserve a thank you very very much mr. chairman. senate thank you mr. secretary

pitt and going to asked one question and may interject as we go along. is it from your perspective but that the white house and the state department and important role is that your observation that the only way for us to be successful in our foreign policy endeavors and for the secretary of state to be successful is further to be a close relationship between the white house and the secretary of state and the knowledge that the white house will back up the initiatives that the secretary of state endeavors to achieve? >> i think mr. chairman any of of. >> is that a yes? we have had i know numbers of proposals from the state department including the no-fly zone in the northwest triangle of aleppo and the exclusion zone along the turkish-syrian border

that the turks were supportive of. why is it that in that case come in the case right now where secretary kerry is out there on a tether, you just mentioned we are going to cut off bilateral negotiations in syria. i just have a feeling it's not much of a price to pay from russia's standpoint so there has been discussions of the plan b. secretary kerry talked with several of us in munich in february about the cessation of discussions and there was going to be a plan b at a failed. i have never seen signs of a plan b. i know russia has a plan b and assad doesn't believe there's a plan b and iran doesn't believe there's a plan b so whenever for to this how can the secretary of state have any chance of success in ending the murder, torture,

the and bombing of innocent people in the killing of young people, how does the secretary of state have any chance of success when the white house is unwilling at any level to have a backup to what he is doing if diplomacy fails? >> mr. chairman on all of these issues including syria be worked through a very deliberative process involving all of the agency's relevance to the issue. at the nfc with the state department, with the pentagon and the intelligence agencies etc. and we tried to work through these things deliberately and make the best possible assessment of the best way to advance our interests and to evaluate both the benefits and risks of any course of action and that is what we have done in this case. a policy that emerges is the product of these deliberations. the secretary of state is very much fully a part of it.

in the case of syria i think it's useful for a second to step back and ask yourselves this question, how do civil war particularly ended and we know from experience. >> i don't want a history lesson. i would just like to understand what plan b is. the plan b has been referred to it since february and was supposed to be leveraged to get russia to quit killing innocent people, to get assad to quit killing innocent people. just explain to us the elements of plan b. >> two things mr. chairman. in the first instance plan b is the consequence of the failure as a result of russia's actions of plan a and that what is likely to happen now, if the agreement cannot be follow through on and russia reneges on its commitment which it appears

to have done, is this is going to be bad for everyone but it's going to be bad first and foremost. >> i want to hear about a plan b >> sir this is important because russia has a profound incentive in trying to make this work. it can't win in syria. it can only prevent aside from losing. if it gets to the point where the civil war accelerates all of the outside patrons are russia will left propping up assad. >> i understand that. what is plan b? give me the elements. >> again the consequences i think to russia as well as to the regime will begin to be felt as a result of plan a not being implemented because of russia's actions. second as they indicated the president has asked all of the agencies to put forward options,

some familiar, some knew that we are actively reviewing. when we are able to work through these in the days ahead we will have an opportunity to come back and talk about them in detail but we are in the process of doing that. >> at me just say what we argue no. there is no plan b and when i referred to secretary kerry as a sympathetic figure i say that because he gets up everyday and some say he should resign over lack of support but there is no support. it's possible to be successful in negotiating an agreement with someone if there is no consequences. in this case the consequences that you are laying out is that russia will fully determine the future of syria. >> i think russia is going to bear significant consequences.

>> so far that hasn't been the case and i know that's what the president said when they came in a year ago. i rest my case. diplomacy without any plan of failure is something that cannot be successful and i again for my experiences this weekend with the administration who is unwilling to even sit down and talk about a solution with the people who are involved because they think it's bad for our country but unwilling to sit down and talk about a possible option just leads me to believe that we will continue to have non-success in syria, non-success in other areas and again all of us have tremendous sadness over the fact that our country has idly sat by after

encouraging the people of syria. remember ambassador ford was cheering these people on, cheering these people on. we made commitments to the opposition which i remember meeting with general address in turkey. we could even get the trucks that we committed to so it's a statement without a plan. it's a statement of red lines without follow-up and again i fear that more bad results are going to occur and with that i will turn it over to senator menendez. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you to the ranking member. we have had a train derailment with fatalities in new jersey. it's an incredibly important topic. we have had a lot of missed opportunity with this committee passing it -- with a strong

bipartisan vote to train and to assist the bedded syrian rebels at the time that could be done and gave the president the power and wherewithal to do that. it wasn't done then. then when it's done it was done so feebly that those that we trained were largely eliminated and then instead of having a safe zone which many of us call forwards would have given an individual the opportunity to have an ability for security and maybe to organize those who might want to fight for their country, that wasn't done and so i move forward and i see what has happened to date and the one thing which makes it testimony much longer but there's one paragraph that's incredibly important to talk about. you talked about da'ish but you stay in your statement ultimately we will not succeed in fully destroying da'ish until we reach the civil war in surrey

which remains a powerful mag ed for terrorist organizations that drive in the ungoverned spaces and draw strength from assad's brutal destruction of his own nation and i fully. that's the problem here. having missed opportunities and now creating a vacuum where russia comes in. i know that i keep hearing the equation that russia will ultimately come to an understanding that it's paying very large consequences for his participation. that hasn't changed their calculation at all. as a matter of fact they avoid assad in this process. i think that the temporary truce that was created never had any russian perspectives never had a real pack elation to actually effectuate the result of the secretary kerry's content of which of course i would have applauded but was to give assad the to rearm in american eyes and immediately the incredible

despicable attacks made against the humanitarian convoys. so my question, i would have asked what plan b is too. i don't get the sense that there is one and that worries me. i don't think we should wait for the next president to start devising something that moves in that direction and i understand that secretary kerry has threatened to enter bilateral talks with russia over syria, but i can't fathom for the life of me what those talks would be anyway. russia seems to agree only for the purposes of giving assad time to rearm and regroup. what leverage do we really have? what are we doing here to russia to change its calculation because now whether we like it or not they are a major player here and i have had a totally different view that russia does not share our results.

it does not have the same interest as we do. it has a very different set of interests so understanding that gives me a sense of what leverage specifically, what leverage do we have, why are we still engage in a conversation which we have a quote unquote partner that continues to undermine our purposes in syria as well as that of the international community which is why i understand some british and french counterparts walked out of the meeting recently at the u.n.. >> thank you senator. two things. first, we believe that the effort that we have made to reach this agreement with russia was the best way to effectively move toward ending the civil war because had it succeeded and indeed it still can succeed and i think we will know in the hours ahead whether russia is responsive or not, the cessation of hostilities would be restored, humanitarian

assistance would flow, we would get the syrian air air force out of the skies over the civilian populated areas. russia would be focused on iceland dice. >> we understand the benefit if it had succeeded. but it's not going to succeed because russia doesn't want to. again i know this may not fully resonate but first russia escalated in syria because it's been there all along and it's been there for years. precisely because it was at risk of use -- losing its only foothold in the middle east and the cayman harder to dave aside from falling at a time that he thought he would although i think that assessment was overly optimistic. it's now in a position where having gotten in its very hard to get out because assad cannot win. so the leverage in the first instance of leverage is again

the consequences for russia but being stuck in a quagmire if it's going to have a number of profoundly negative effects. first they are going to be bearing the brunt of the civil war escalates as a result of their actions of an onslaught of weaponry coming in from out side. second they will be seen in their own country and throughout the world and in the region as complicit with assad, with hezbollah and iran in the slaughter of sunni muslims. 15% of their own population is muslim. >> we agree there are ready complicit on that. >> if the civil war gets worse as a result of their actions and the effort to get to peel away countries for example in ukraine i think the international reactions they are taking in aleppo will make that even more difficult that already is so as i said in response to the chairman's question we are also

very actively looking at additional options that we can bring to bear to advance in syria and those objectives are ending the civil war and getting local transition. >> i know what the objectives are. i just don't see the consequences you are suggesting can be levied. >> senator rubio is here but he wants to get adapted. >> thank you mr. chairman and secretary blinken. what has happened has happened and i think history will reflect decisions that were made and whether they were the right decisions at the time. we need to learn from the past and decide how to move forward. there is no question that there is an urgent need to protect human life in civilian life in syria and the united states needs to act globally. i am encouraged secretary blinken by your comments that

there will be significant consequences for russia's actions. i look forward to seeing how that is translated into u.s. policy and u.s. international leadership working with other countries. we need actions to protect civilian lives. we need that now. i look forward to reviewing with you the options that are being considered and the actions that are taken to protect civilian life and the significant consequences concerning russia. ..

are we restarted because the jcp a way, my understanding is that does not restrict us but has there been diplomatic restrictions as a result of the jcp a way that has limited our ability to hold iran responsible for its actions? >> the answer is no. >> why haven't we taken action? >> with regards to the activities? they've been imposethey have bee entities that have sought to support the regime. >> i understand we have sanctions that are related to

the actions related to the nuclear activities, but i'm not aware that we had increased those sanctions or looked at ways that we can apply more pressure against iran. it's my understanding that we have been pretty guarded in his activities. >> we put in place various sanctions to put pressure on the regime and they also include sanctioning individuals or entities who do business in various ways with the military etc. and in that context my understanding is the individuals have been sanctioned. >> you said we are looking at all options with regards to the current crisis is part of that is taking action against iran?

>> i don't want to get ahead of where we are in our discussions but iran is along with its proxy the most serious impediment to ending the civil war and its support for the regime is the most significant. as i said at the outset i believe given the support that has gotten greater since russia increased its engagement it has the capacity to change the actions of the regime but there is no question that iran and hezbollah are the most important supporters of the regime. >> i think you would agree with me that since it's been agreed upon, iran has shown no slowing

down so i would hope that we would see some aggressive leadership to make it clear that conduct doesn't get a free pass. i would hope that would be part of the options being considered and let me also say with regards to russia it's not an isolated problem that we are having. russia attacked america through cyber to try to compromise our electoral process. russia has violated the agreements and is causing ukraine to be compromised today, and i could list a lot of other activities russia is participating in. so as we look at very significant consequences that russia will play as a result of their value to live up to the cease-fire agreements, i hope in that each station will go these other activities so that there is a message to russia that u.s. leadership will not tolerate

that conduct and we are prepared to take unilateral action and work with the willing to make sure there is a price to be paid for their activities. >> i'm sure there will be more awards and i would love to have a briefing if that's what it takes i think we all understand that it's nonexistent and the only thing that is is words. >> thank you for being here. in your statements you mentioned russia six times but there is an omission. i don't believe in the testimony you mentioned iran a single time. earlier this month you said you couldn't guarantee the funds that were received as a result of the payments that were made haven't been used for trigger for some i think it is common

sense we have seen for example press reports of the council to transfer $1.7 billion by the way i don't think that number is a coincidence. we have seen the top commander say that the allies supply intelligence for the air strikes so i think the first thing we have to play to is they ultimately helped them help russia target to increase the dominance of the region or the role in the region, and again i don't know how we justify the transfer of all of these fun to the regime knowing that it is deeply involved in propping up the regime and in the process providing assistance to all of these atrocities. how do we justify that?

>> first as you know since you've been focused on this for many years, iran has been engaged in the destabilizing activities for a long time during the sanctions in other words before the nuclear agreement during the negotiation of the agreement, and indeed since the sanction has been lifted in the context that has been consistent throughout and they were doing this before when we had the regime in place. we have taken a nuclear weapon off the table which is profoundly good for our interests but as we said all along we expected that they would continue to take these actions in various ways and places after the agreement and that's why we worked very hard

to continue so we worked closely as you know with building up their capacity and we just signed a record-breaking deal to make sure they had in place what they needed for their security and we continue to implement sanctions. >> basically we weren't involved in terror before and now and i consider them to be a part of that. the only thing that's changed is that we made it harder for them to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. the second thing that changed they have access to millions of dollars they didn't have access to before. so it's now millions of dollars more tha than they once did and there is no evidence that they are using it to build orphanages or sponsor food programs around the world. we don't see them providing food and medicine to people. what we see is an increased amount of support for the regime and the sponsorship of terrorism so one of the things that has

changed as they have access to millions of dollars they didn't have a year and a half ago. >> our best assessment is that given the significant economic difficulties of both of the resources they had access to is the result of the agreement or to supplement these funds have been dedicated to mount the regional activities. under the nuclear agreement, we believe they now have access to roughly $50 billion that had been frozen or restricted. they need to have a trillion dollars in the government obligations propping up the currency etc. and as i said, they have engaged in these activities before, during and after and also unfortunately a lot of support they are providing isn't very resource intensive. so that's why even as we have implemented the agreement which in our judgment is a good thing we worked to intensify our efforts to counter these

activities. >> that even if the money has been used ultimately if that were the case, the domestic economy would produce more revenue they could use to fulfill the funding needs of their priority which is terrorism and the propping up against the plate for the average americans watching this issue here is the bottom line you have to supreme sponsor of terrorism who has billions of dollars more than they once did as a result of this and we are supposed to believe it's being spent to improve the way the economy functions and that this isn't being used to increase their other games they have around the world and that includes propping up this extraordinarily vicious regime into there are any builders in russia so again i think this is another example of how this deal and everything that surrounds it has provided more resources to the regime to continue to do what they did and one of the things they've done is they are able to fund their intelligence gathering capabilities and allow them to help with the airstrikes

and those struck the convoy of the ago in creating the situation on the ground that we haven't seen in decades anywhere in the world. >> secretary, thank you for being here this morning. sadly i have to say that i share my colleagues views that despite the best intentions that our policies have contributed to where we are today and there was a news report that just came over that russia rejected the demand for the cease-fire and they vowed to press ahead with their operations, so i guess that says to me they escalated the civil war and they intend to

continue to do that no matter what the expense to his own people. i'm not going to beat the horse because i appreciate that you haven't been able to share with us what might be considered and maybe you're not able to talk about what options are being discussed that we might still have, that it seems to me that we need to look at all of those options because the current effort isn't working, and i appreciate the arguments you are making. i just don't think they are working. so, let me go on to a couple more areas where i am interested in what you can share with us.

on the meter summit on refugees i thought your appearing on sesame street was a good thing. it's nice to let young people in on what's going on. can you talk about which states have been particularly generous and what has come out of this summit and what is being made to implement the refugee summit? >> as you know him but the committee knows, we are facing the largest displacement since world war ii. it is a global problem, a global crisis because we see the migration of one kind or another. there's about 12 countries that are forcibly displaced by conflict. central america, afghanistan, pakistan, so the president

brought together countries and leaders around the world on the margins of the general assembly to take action not just to talk about the problem, but to do something about it and that is exactly what we did. there were three objectives we had. one was to get more resources around the world into the amount because as the committee knows, unfortunately it is significantly underfunded an ino this basically overmatched by the scale and scope so we wanted to get more resources and countries that haven't participated as much to participate or to do more and be succeeded. we have countries all told to put in about 30% more than they did so we are looking at billions of additional dollars and second, they were looking for countries to make additional commitments to resettle the refugees and we sought to basically double the number of

legally resettled persons around the world over the next year. that objective was also achieved. third and finally, we wanted to help build the resilience of countries that were receiving refugees basically the first asylum in the case of serious, turkey, lebanon and jordan which the committee knows have extraordinary burdens with millions of refugees. we wanted to increase support for them but we also wanted them to make additional commitments to make sure children could go to school and adults could go to work because as the senator said we do risk the lost generation of children from the conflicts. we have commitments over the next year to be an additional 1 million places in schools around the world for refugee children and another 1 million jobs legally around the world so these are significant and real and concrete. ultimately, the answer to a lot

of this has to be resolved in the underlining conflicts that are causing people to leave their homes and families in some cases. we recognize that and that is of course why it is so important to end this conflict but we did make a major advance now the critical thing would be to make sure the countries make good on their commitments. >> i will wait for the next round. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. secretary for being with us today. a comment and a question. at the heart of the most spectacular u.s. foreign policy failures in the last 50 years is hubris, is this idea that there is a u.s. solution usually a

u.s. military solution to every problem in the world. you can read vietnam and iraq and libya. the current policy leads to a radically different reality on the ground as fantasy. i hate the place we are in today. it's an ongoing global tragedy that this idea that there was a magical moment in 2012 week. shoot onto the rebels and the would have overrun isn't true.

if blood [inaudible] i just say maybe every bad thing that happens in the world isn't the fault of the failed u.s. policy and maybe there are times and places where there is not always a u.s. answer. i think we can be incredibly helpful. i think we can work with partners to try to make the situation better. but i read the last three years as a continuous ramp up albeit very slowly if the military engagement and situation on the ground of people getting worse

and worse and worse. not better and better. i think history should probably teach us those things are not a coincidence. so i would reject the idea that there are easy alternatives the administration isn't looking at. this is a hard problem with no easy solutions and we should operate from an assumption there are not always us-led solutions. let me ask you a question about where the failing of hubris could get us in trouble in the coming weeks and months and that is in those old. so a new announcement that we are going to put 600 more u.s. military personnel on the ground coming off an announcement that we are going to make a diplomatic surge in and around to try to solve some of the

governance problems in the city. some share with me and the answer to my skepticism that a military surge is ultimately going to solve the political problems that you correctly identify. we don't have a military quagmire yet. we can solve the military heartbeat by putting another 2,000 troops in. we have a political problem. so it seems to me to be an example where you have responded to pressure to try to make progress by announcing the military surge. how does that get to the political, and what allowed for

isis to overrun in the first place wasn't a military vacuum, it's a political vacuum in that city. how do we make sure there is a military hubris that doesn't get us into the same exact situation that it has over and over again in the region? >> coming back to your opening comment i have a question. it is and will be the culmination of the counter campaign. and as i said in my remarks, it is a vitally important opportunity. it's political as the caliphate that has been at the heart of its narrative and at the heart of its ability to project success, so it's vitally important. your comments are also vitally important because you are right, it cannot be and is not just a

military effort. we are working along multiple tracks at the same time and coordinated action on the military piece making sure that all of the forces are coordinated under one plan by bringing in all of the call of duty for political forces the kurdish push america into critically tribal elements for manila. there is an objective of raising 15,000 members from the tribes and we are on track to do that. part number two is making sure that we have in place all the capacity we need to deal with the consequences of seizing those old and in particular displaced persons. they are projecting there could be up to a million people forced to flee as a result we are working very hard with the un and the iraqis to put in place everything that they need to

care for these people with food and shelter and medicine and that also is on track. it's challenging but we've made the money to do it. third, stabilization of those old so people have something to go back to as quickly as possible. we have raised resources and have a plan on basic security. security. fourth and finally, you are right. unless the basic government structure is in place and everyone agrees to if we are going to have problems after the liberation. we've worked with others centered around the governor that is the constitutionally appropriate person for the province, the provincial council but also persons designated by baghdad to support them and the city is still in effect divide d with some think sure as much as

possible that those decisions are very closely represented of the people for whom they are making decisions. , this is a coordinated effort and you are exactly right it has to bring in the supplements and that is what we are working on. we also try to learn from the past where it was liberated as you know we saw some reappraisal atrocities committed by the popular mobilization forces. we have made sure that there will be no southern going into the cities and similarly no kurdish push her to and as i said a significant hole to force comprised from the regions both in the security forces and so we tried to learn from that and also they are screened before they go to find refuge provided to them by the government and

the united nations. we want to make sure that the process is done as quickly as possible keeping families together and again without any of the elements being part of it including we very much have that in mind. on the initial comment i do think it is important that we not be bound by history that informed by it. in the case, we do know this. civil war throughout history ended in one of three ways. one in five wins. that isn't likely to happen because as soon as one side gets the advantage, the patrons of the other come with more in the right balance and that is what has happened. so, dynamic is outside a trend can make sure that no one loses but it's hard to make sure one side wins. second is the exhaust themselv themselves. what we see in history is that it takes on average ten years.

[inaudible] >> when there's a multiplicity of factors involved the third way the sand is outside intervention either military or political. military intervention of the scale necessary to actually end the conflict is technically possible but then whoever does that is going to be left holding a heavy bag with all of the consequences and i don't think the united states or for that matter russia or any others are prepared to do that and that leaves outside powers, the united nations and others trying to put in place and as necessary in prose some kind of resolution. that's what we have been working on because we see the best way to try to end this. i always appreciate my friends comments and perspectives.

i think it is something that can be the downfall of all of us. i would say that hubris also from the standpoint of making big statements about what the united states is going to do raises people's expectations. i think we certainly have made bold statements about what we are going to do that were followed up with almost nothing and in that case, we've caused sons and brothers and uncles and goethose in the opposition to be slaughtered as they waited for those things that we stated we were going to do but never did. secretary, last october to former president jimmy carter wrote in "the new york times" that since 2011, the united states preconditioned that he

must go and reinforced the escalation of the civil war and inhibited the discussion about compromised solutions. the president published a follow-up piece in the times calling on the entire international community to focus on one imperative to stop the killing. he wrote the discussions should focus on th the goal of temporay freezing the existing territorial control without the opposition giving up their arms. additionally, the measures should be agreed upon to stabilize conditions in the territories controlled by these belligerents with guarantees of unrestricted access to humanitarian aid. secretary, what do you think about that proposal the united states could advance that in the absence of the agreements by proposing a chapter seven un security council resolution requiring all parties to stop

the killin killing and killing e civilian population and ensure full access to humanitarian relief for all victims. the ongoing atrocious behavior makes it clear that they wouldn't support such a resolution however is what put them on notice that we were about to have this global discussion of the need to just stop the killing. can you talk about the proposal and what you think about it and putting aside the movement for the time being so they can begin to put an end to this humanitarian crisis? >> i would like to be able to read it in detail so i've heard the description but first, in effect, what we have been trying to achieve is the cessation of hostilities that would in effect and the violence.

the provision of humanitarian assistance if needed, and as i was also taking the air force ouoffice guys in the air areas d getting them to focus on the common enemy which is al qaeda so in effect, those were the firsfirst that we thought were critical. now, if we were able to take those steps, we would have in place the conditions under which all the parties could begin to negotiate a political transition. >> it's broken. so, what do you think about taking it to the un or to a chapter seven escalating this to the point where everyone is going to be forced to sit down and discuss it? at least we are going to be focusing on the core problems of stopping the killing.

we are actively looking at what can be done. .. >> we have a our priority has been -- because that poses the most immediate threat to us. russia's priority has been to keep assad in place or maintain its foothold in syria.

the priority and the kurds is been working with the current. >> so all of these things, the saudi's have's have been most interested in checking iran. so in all of these ways because people come to this with different interests and priorities that make the more complicated. that said, i think you are right, further turning up the heat of the united nations is something that we have to very closely look at. >> administration announced that this week it would increase the supply of arms to kurdish militant groups in syria to enable them to play a leading role in a future offensive to take rocca, sunni city back from isis. one of the wrists of relying on a kurdish force for military operations in the sunni arab city? and can you discuss this with the turkish government before you made that announcement? >> in fact i was in turkey just this week and we are working with her turkish partners and

allies very closely and how we campaign in syria to take terror territory away from- >> isis. >> as you know we have worked in northern syria with the syrian democratic forces per that has several components, one is the syrian arab coalition and one also includes kurdish forces, and this course case and the turks have not been comfortable with support to this kurdish element of the syrian democratic forces. that is obviously caused some tensions. but, it, it has resulted in taking back -- which was a critical vantage point. a treasure trove of information about their external plotting came from that. so we need to be able to work with effective actors on the

ground in syria. but we also need to do it in a way that respects the concerns and interests of our turkish allies. so we are in the mist of conversations with them about the best way to move forward including -- >> ending if i could just going back up to emotional again in terms of your statement that it will be a sunni government officials, lb sunni police that will be in charge of multiple, does the government in baghdad agree with that? are they going to keep the shia militia out? >> that is their commitment just as it is the kurdish commitment to keep the kurdish force out of the city. the core of the force that liberates the tribal elements

that are being trained, equipped and brought on board with the goal of getting 15,000 of thousand of them will be predominantly the holding force once it has been a liberated. >> it thank you recommended. i just want to thank our secretary for help here. just keep us involved on the options being considered in regard to syria. in regards to a mosul, could be a wonderful advancement because militarily things look like they're in place. i sent share the senator's concerns that in practice we don't see the ethnic reprisals that we see happen so often when territory has been reclaimed from isis. so i think that it's going to be more difficult thing getting the

confidence necessary so just work together. in regards to turkey i would enjoy getting in talking not through questioning here but how successful we are in getting our nato partner constructive and keeping the border closed but also dealing with the kurdish issues that don't obstruct us from dealing with isis. thank you very much and i look for to continuing this question. >> i too want to thank you for appearing today. i think you for your service and mostly for your response. i do want to say that i think history does teach us a lot. i think it running your form policy and a matter to be not what the last person was, not being your total basis for decisions leads us to a place that has been very negative for

u.s. national interests. what i hope is going to happen for the people of watch and understand that form policy is much more complex, it takes much more engagement than just a policy of not being who your predecessor was. i'm hopeful the next president and the next secretary of state can learn from the failures that we have witnessed and hopefully in some form or capacity what you have learned from this will be helpful in that regard. >> mr. chairman i would love the opportunity to pursue that conversation another time. i have to tell you from my experience where more engaged in more places in more ways than we ever have been before. i think there's a debate. >> will that negative trend. >> i think there's there's positive to but i'd be happy to pursue that conversation. >> i would welcome that and i

would welcome that with secretary carries and others which i know has been difficult to achieve. with that, the meeting is adjourned, the record will remain open through the close of business on monday. if you could fairly promptly with all the other responsibilities you have respond to those, we thank you for being here and the meeting is adjourned. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible]

>> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] [inaudible]