doing the fighting, say the fighting to defend the protest movement. so there is a link even if you can't say that the fighters themselves claim they're fighting -- >> you think it's in our national interest, and i'll close with this -- do you think it's in our national interest to be involved in military operations, arming operations to join in with al qaeda and hamas and others and certainly the folks that are on the ground, the opposition groups, to overthrow this government? >> senator, as i said, we have beped by the arab states for a political transition. the secretary spoke earlier this week of some of the discussions that we've had in-house about

how complicated this is in terms of thinking about arming people in syria, arming the opposition. how complicated it is in terms of, a, knowing who is it exactly you're giving the arms to, and what do they represent? this gets into a little of your question of what are they fighting for? how would you dleliver it? what good would it do when facing tanks or heavy artillery? these are extremely complex questions, and i think we are not yet at a pioint where we could discuss it in this kind of forum, at least. >> thank. and i appreciate you lying out the tremendous complexity and competing forces and the lack of knowledge of even what this is really all about and hopefully over time we'll understand that more fully and i'm sure you'll play a role in that. thank you. >> senator webb? >> thank you mr. chairman. gentlemen, appreciate you being here today. both of you are great repository of experience in the region and

i appreciate the opportunity to listen to you in a number of areas. i'd like to pick up a little bit on this notion of afterwards, which you mentioned several times today. what exactly is the "afterwards"? what it could potentially be and what would it potentially not be? we can look back in fairly recent history and there are a couple of realities, i think we ought to be looking at as starting points. one is that repressive regimes sometimes do survive. probably the best example of that is the chinese government itself, when it turned its army and tanks on its own people in tiananmen square about 22, 23 years ago, and depending on the count, killed more than 1,000 of its own people, and it's still in power. it's more than still in power. we all know.

another reality is that particularly in this part of the world, and both of you have an enormous repository of experience in this part of the world, the outcomes from these types of unrest are rarely quick. they're rarely clean and they're rarely fully predictable. i have an engineering degree, and i look at a lot of what's been happening over the last year, sort of through the eyes of the chaos theory. you know, the chaos theory actually is a scientific theory. it's not political -- it's a political term, but you know, one -- one degree off, one assumption off, you end up with a compilation of results that's far away from where you thought it might be, and perhaps the best clearer example of that is lebanon itself. looking back in the '80s and

beyond. but also i think we have to say openly that we don't know what's going to come out of the last year. we don't know how the arab spring is going to play out. it's going to take years to -- for it to clearly manifest itself in some sort of a political apparatus in a number of these different countries. so i actually would -- there are two questions -- i'm going to ask them both together in the interests of time here. that i would seek your thoughts on. the first is, that there are actors in this region, government actors, that quite frankly may not be saying this openly but might be very -- h hesitant of the syrian regime believe a weakened regime might

be more palatable. even in terms of security any some of these countries, than what would result from capitulation, and i think ambassador ford your answer to senator corker kind evof shows w difficult the building blocks would be to put together a replacement regime. and the second is we talked a lot about russia. but i'd like your thoughts as to why china has declined to be more forthcoming? >> senator, thanks. you're absolutely right that we don't know how these arab transitions are going to turn out. and, of course, the challenge is that our interests in how they turn out are great. but we have to be modest about how much influence we can play in helping to determine those o finger on a big, you know, a big issue given the transitions going on in the arab world. in terms of the united states,

it's not in our interests to see the bashar al assad regime survive. we've obviously talked a lot about the moral, the hume's rights, ethical questions today, but also on the strategic questions. this was a regime that exported tearer in iraq that killed our soldiers in iraq. >> trust me, i'm not advocating that end result. the question was that there are countries in the region that would be making that point quietly if not openly. >> but i think if you look at the arab league transition plan and talk about what happens afterwards, the arab league t transition plan was designed with that fear of chaos and civil war in mind. because it was designed in a way by which not assad himself, but parts of the current system and the opposition movement together work on a pragmatic, practical transition plan that preserves

the state unities, the state's institutions. it's one of the themes we get repeatedly from syria's neighbors, as well as from sayrian opposition. the army has to be preserved. the security services need to be preserved. so i think the people are, in fact, working on a transition plan with the idea that you can preserve the state, but a state that's no longer a malignant actor in the region but can be a positive actor in the region. >> give a -- we've got a -- a vote was called. out of respect for my colleagues, i appreciate that observation. could you give me just a quick thought on the situation with china? >> yeah. i don't -- neither one of us are great experts on china. having served our careers in the middle east. but china tends to follow russia's security council in many of these cases, is what my colleagues in the international organization's bureau tell me. and china also has certain

trading interests inside syria, but china also has interests elsewhere in the arab world, and there's where i think that the dialogue with china needs to focus on which is what china has to lose by losing credibility elsewhere in the arab world. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator webb. as he said, we had a vote go off at 11:31. so it's a 15-minute vote. but i think we'll be able to finish. i just have a few questions, be able to finish up here and release you and adjourn the hearing, unless we have other senators come in. there are reports that saudi arabia and qatar may be planning to arm the rebels in syria, and -- or may have already begun to arm the rebels. in addition it's been reported that religious support for army in the rebels have increased in saudi arabia. wrap is the position with the u.s. with regards to the

possibility that saudi arabia or other arab countries are arming the rebels and are we communicating our position that arming -- about what our position is on arming the rebels an could that lead to the empowerment of hamas and al qaeda as a result? and i realize, and i apologize, i was in the chair presiding over the senate. some of this may be ground that you've gone over, but if you could answer that, that would be great. >> senator, we've been very hesitant about pouring fuel on to a conflagration that assad himself has set. so we're very cautious about this whole -- this whole area of questioning, and that's why we have worked with this international consensus on political tracks on economic actracks, in order to get to the tipping point we were talking about earlier. now, there's self-defense going on inside syria right now. we cannot criticize the right to self-defense when people are

facing the incredible brutality. but we would like to use the political tools that are at our disposal. that includes the security council, in order to advance the tipping point, because it's not clear to us that arming people right now will either save lives or lead to the demise of the assad regime. there are a lot of very complicated questions. robert went through some of them earlier. you know, right now the syrian regime is using tanks and artillery against entire neighborhoods and homes. i don't think when you hear the size they're talking about arming the opposition subpoena they're talking about somehow getting tanks into the opposition and how would the opposition know how to use them anyway? so it's a really serious question. people are talking about it, people are looking at it, but there are a lot of complications that one needs to consider. >> ambassador, if you have any thoughts on that? >> i'm agreeing exactly with

what ambassador feltman said. we understand the earnest desire, the need, for people under siege in a place like homs or in a place like dae when they're homes are being attacked. we understand that. it's human, i mean to protect your family. we can't criticize that. however, senators kerry and lug irbo ar both spoke to us about finding a durable solution. and that is why we have been -- that is our thinking, too, and that is why we've been so strongly in support of the arab league initiative and the transition process that it laid out. if i may just add one other

comment, senator. we, too, have noticed the increase in support from religious figures in some arab countries for taking up more arms against the syrian government. we have seen statements by various religious figures across the arab world. we have cautioned the opposition that if they declare some kind of big jihad, they will frighten many of the very fence-sitters still in places like da plass ki damascus and it will make ultimately finding a solution to this a durable solution, more difficult. we don't want to see syria go towards civil war. we want to see the violence stop immediately, and to see syria begin a political transition. >> the other -- thank you for those answers. the other issue, and it may have

been touched on a bit is this whole issue of weapons of mass destruction and what's happening in syria if and when the assad regime falls. are we considering and making plans regarding how to account for those weapons? how to ensure they not fall into the hands of terrorist organizations such as al qaeda is this an issue discussed about mong the allies and people in the region that are concerned? >> senator, put your finger on an extremely important point. this is a topic discussed actively with syrian neighbors, with our allies? europe and elsewhere. sear d syria is not a signatory of the weapons convention. it's a reminder of the destabilizing role syria has played over the years the fact that these stockpiles even exist. we don't have any indication at this point that these stockpiles

have fallen out of control of the syrian government but it's one of the reasons why a managed transition is so important rather than a chaotic transition, but we are watching this. we're watching it carefully. discussions with neighbors and discussions in a setting different than today. >> right. thank you. ambassador, you have any other thoughts on that issue or are you -- -- >> i would just underline that it is a subject of great concern to us. and we are looking at what needs to be done, but let me assure you, senator, we've got a lot of people working on it. >> yeah. well, i know you do, and you know, when i get home to new mexico, a lot of people, you realize there's a lot of concern about kind of the brutal massacre of the syrian people by its government, when really this started out as a peaceful protest and then evolved into what we're seeing today. so we, all of us, i think on the committee very much appreciate

senator kerry holding the hearing. we very much appreciate both of you being here, and if there -- we're going to keep the record open until the end of the week, there may be additional submissions and you may or may not get additional questions as was indicated earlier, but thank you very much for your service, and with no additional questioners here, we would adjourn the hearing.

members of the foreign relations committee are wrapping up here to head over to the senate chamber to vote on the amendment to the transportation bill they've been debate thins last week allowing employers and insurance providers to opt out of providing coverage if they have a moral objection to it. unrelated to the transportation measure itself, where much of the debate on this bill has been centered. senators are voting on whether or not this afternoon to set aside this particular amendment. actually the vote is under way right now. you can see it on our kpaian network c-span2. coming up live this

afternoon on c-span, remarks from president obama in new hampshire on his efforts to boost domestic energy production and call on congress to repeal $4 billion in annual subsidies to oil and natural gas companies. this marks the president's second visit to the state in about three months. we will have his remarks live for you at 1:40 eastern, again, on our companion network c-span. louisiana governor bobby jindal is scheduled to reveal this proposal for balancing the state budget. $900 billion in the red. mostly cloudy and 37 degrees at the airport. 38 at barksdale and 38 in mendon. you're listening to shreveport bossiers news and weather station, newsradio 710. this weekend, "book tv" and "american history "tv" explore shreveport, louisiana. saturday at noon eastern on "book tv" on c-span2, the union army's failure in louisiana from

one damn blunder to the beginning to end. and then a look at the over 200,000 books of the john smith nobel collection at the archives then a walking tour of shreveport and bossier city with neil johnson and on "american history tv" on c-span3, 5:00 p.m. eastern from barksdale air force base a look at the base's role on 9/11 plus a history of the b-52 bomb are and also visit the founding fathers' autograph collection at the state museum and from the pioneer center, medicine during the civil war. shreveport, louisiana, this weekend on c-span2 and 3. even a person who's a senator, even a person now who's president of the united states, faces a predicament when they talk about race. they face all sorts of predicaments. they face the fact there are

some, an appreciable number of americans who are racially prejudice. they face the fact a much larger portion of the american pop lule wants to deny this even now. >> randall kennedy on racism, politics and the obama administration. the rhodes scholar is the author of five books and will take your calls e-mails and tweets for three hours live on "in-depth" live on c-span2. energy secretary steven chu testified earlier this week before the committee on energy and water development. topics included the president's decision to hold on on the nuclear waste storage facility, energy research projects. if passed the president's budget plan would eliminate $4 billion in annual tax incentives for oil and gas companies. this is about an hour and a half.

good afternoon, everybody. i'd like to call this hearing to order. secretary chu, i'd like to welcome you back once again to the subcommittee. i understand through the grapevine that today's your birthday. is that correct? and that it's also your wedding anniversary. >> what's he doing here? >> we appreciate your being here, of course, and you're here today to present the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request for your department. your request totals $27.2 billion. a $1.5 billion increase. $1.5 billion or 5.7% increase from the fiscal year 2012, enacted level. nearly one-third of that increase comes in one program.

we need 0 to know why this is necessary and prudent use of american dollars. angered by higher gas and oil price and one major energy source, fossil energy is substantially cut from last year, how does your budget relate to the real world outside of washington where energy costs are eating up family budgets? on top of that, the public's faith has been shaken by revelations that many programs under your jurisdiction have wasted taxpayers' dollars and created markets for various renewables that cannot be sustained without further infusions of federal support. we know all too well the

problems the loan guarantee program face sewed far. is solyndra is its public face. seriously they question the proper role in government -- the proper government role in energy markets and the levels of risk that you and those subordinate to you have taken over the past two years. i respect the expertise and judgment and the need to do political damage control, all loan guarantee opportunities for whatever purpose will now be painted with the same brush.

energy markets fail. we know that. you may have seen a report on february 14th alleging that as much of your funds appointed by appointees. now the white house much show the election year budget is not -- that the election year is not dictating this budget's spending plans.f t blue ribbon commissions recommendations. recommendations which congress

has not blessed even in whole or in part. as a current law of the land, waste disposal at yucca you if proposing any legislative changes to authorize their recommendations. you have to make tough decisions to support the nuclear programs at the nnsa, decisions which this country has been demanding for some time. nuclear security programs are the most vital mission within your portfolio. i have significant concerns about the administration's call for reduced military spending, we showed last year that our national security can be sustained and even improved with less money. it will be the administration's tass tok show that your request does not sacrifice our strategic security for budgetary savings. and together the administration

and congress supported small development of small modular reactors, another positive development as was the recent ground breaking for two nuclear reactors in georgia. mr. secretary, lafrt year we wrestled with how to put together a budge for your department that was fair and balanced. i am proud of our product. i want to thank my ranking member once again as a former chairman and ranking member for his many contributions, his sound advice and experience and that very essential institutional memory. our joint tass thk budget tik will is no different. funding our most critical needs with an eye towards those that protect our nation and, yes, create private sector jobs, sustainable jobs and opportunities. not jobs which rely on government. i hope you'll be able to explain

today how the budget request before us does just that. please be sure that any records are delivered in final form no later than four weeks from the time you receive them. members will have additional questions for the record will have to -- until the close of business tomorrow to provide them to the subcommittee office w that, i turn to my ranking member for any comments he may wish to give. >>ic th >> thank you. i reciprocate at the group this morning that i'm blessed in life, obviously for many, many reasons. but one of them is to serve on this subcommittee. because all of us together want a strong nation of good, sound energy policy as well as the economic development that can fall from an investment in our

water infrastructure. and you have done a great job in bringing us together and, again, resolving differences and making sound judgments. i appreciate that very much. dr. chu, i congratulate you on your wedding anniversary and birthday. you would have been one day before my son's birthday. i congratulate you for that. and do welcome you to the subcommittee for your fourth appearance. i am pleased that president obama continues to recognize the energy challenges facing this nation. "appreciate the budget's strong statement that the leadership will not seed in clean energy. i certainly believe we need to be more conscientious about our energy consumption and further advance our conservation efforts. we need a strong yet balanced approach to energy research and development that effectively nurtures basic sciences leading to significant technological

demonstration, deployment and commercialization. these efforts with a goal in mind towards insuring production in america of these findings. i see no merit for breakthroughs for products that will not be manufactured domestically. government can drive the policies. however, i am and as i have said before, very concerned about making sure that the department exercises strong leadership and fundamental management reform. they do need to be forthcoming at the department of energy. if not, it will significantly inhibit the chance of a successful energy policy. i know contract and project management seem tedious and dull.

i believe you're the seventh secretary of energy i have questioned on the topic. i continue to be appalled at the cost overruns and schedule slips of the department of energy's major construction projects. in 2009, this subcommittee had a hearing on the department's continued appearance on gao's high risk list, a position it held since 1990. given the challenges in the last year on major construction projects, i fear that not much has changed. i do hope you can provide assurances to day that you are taking significant, strong actions to get the department off the list. the chairman notesed some areas of concern, particularly the department's decision in actions on yucca mountain. i speak for myself when i indicate that i shared his concerns in that regard. i would also add my very serious reservations about the inclusion