and the international community to deal with the humanitarian crisis, and i would agree with you. we also need to deal with the political underpinnings of why people have to flee their homes. for the first time since world war ii, almost 60 million people have been forced from their homes and displaced in their own countries and are forced to flee abroad. we're seeing more conflicts that do not end and result in expone exponential increases in need. the situation is increasingly desperate for both the refugees and host countries like jordan, lebanon, turkey, and northern iraq because syrians are finding increasingly difficult to find safety. they are forced to move further afield. that's why so many are risking their lives to cross the mediterrane

mediterranean. there are 7.6 million internally displaced syrians suffering and into need of humanitarian assistance. more families are forced to send their children to work or marry off their young daughters. it is hard to comprehend the millions of refugees on lebanon, jordan, and turkey. the number of refugees in lebanon would be equivalent to the united states receiving 88 million new refugees. that's a shocking number for that country. turkey has already spent $6 billion in direct assistance to refugees in its care. that's a huge part of the turkish economy. at the same time, we in the west until very recently have been relukt tar reluctant to admit even the most vulnerable syrian refugees. although the white house announced it would admit 10,000 syrians. we know that the syrian

humanitarian disaster, which has destabilized an entire region, is not the accidental by-product of conflict. instead one result of the strategy pursued by the assad regime. the united nations commission on inquiry of syria has documented that the assad regime is using barrel bombs, bombardment of homes, hospitals, and medical facilities to terrorize the civilian population. as millions of families are displaced multiple times and with the casual numbers now approaching 300,000 syrians that have been killed, the number of people fleeing the country will only rise. mr. chairman, i agree with you. the ultimate solution here is for assad to leave. we know that we need to have -- and i believe he should leave for the hague and be held accountable for his war crimes. so we need to work on a political solution.

i know the president is in new york today meeting with world leaders to talk about a political path forward, but in the meantime we do have the humanitarian crisis and there is no end in sight to people trying to flee, as you said. what everyone would want, a safe environment for their families. syria's neighbor next door iraq, the people requiring assistance has grown to 8.2 million people. half of the displaced are children. to the south, yemen is on the brink of humanitarian catastrophe. that country was vulnerable even before this convict. there's an alarming level of suffering and violence. anne an estimated 20 million people are afflicted by war and humanitarian assistance. the global refugee trends are

indeed alarming. the international assistance being provided is not keeping up with the scale of the problem. the united nations has only been able to raise 38% of the $47 billion it needs to care for the syrians. we need to ask ourselves hard questions about how we can increase the effectiveness of assistance. with many refugees displaced on average 17 years. let me underscore that point. our refugee program is aimed at looking at refugees as being a temporary and how do we get them back safely to their homes. that's what a refugee was always thought to be, but if you're in some other place for 17 years the chances of you going back to your native country is remote. some of the communities don't exist where the people have left, and many others have been transformed to a point it would not be safe any time in the future for syrians to return to

their home environment. we need to rethink our refugee laws to recognize that a large number -- there's about 20 million refugees worldwide. a large number are not returning to their native countries. the united states needs to look at a refugee policy that is sensitive to the new norm, which is a number much larger than the caps we have to deal with the realities that people need to find new homes for their families. i believe strongly we need to use the humanitarian dollars more skillfully so we can provide solutions. in closing, we must recognize as that has conflicts proliferate, no corner of the world will remain unafflicted. as we seek to win the hearts and minds in this region, our effort to provide real tangible humanitarian assistance to people will be more effective than sending more military

assistance or more weapons into a conflict where there's no pathway for success. our humanitarian engagement is a moral and political necessary 't 't -- necessity. >> thank you very much. thanks for a lifetime of effort ensuring people have appropriate human rights. >> can i had one thing, if i like, mr. chairman? our chairman who is always even tempered and in a good mood is particularly proud today. he became a grandfather for the first time. i know our committee offers their congratulations. [ applause ] >> thank you. no doubt an incredible experience. the only wish people were

talking about today have similar experiences. so thank you again for your comments. our first witness is the honorable david miliband, president and ceo of the national rescue committee. he served as foreign secretary. thank you for being here. our second witness today is michelle gabaudan. thank you for being here, sir. president of refugees international. michelle spent more than 25 years at u.n. hcr. our third witness that we'll hear from today is ms. nancy lindborg, president of the united states institute of peace, someone who we also have seen many times and thank her. nancy has served as president of mercy corps. thank you for that service. i know you've been here many times. if you could each spend five

minutes giving your positions, we'll obviously, without objection, your written testimony will become a part of the record. if you can go down the line and give your testimony, we appreciate it. we look forward to your questions and certainly your comments. thank you. [ inaudible ]. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think you probably heard, but i want to say thank you and i'm honored to be here. i want to congratulate you on not just holding a hearing on the humanitarian situation in the middle east, but recognizing the lengths between the humanitarian situation and the geopolitical situation. my organization has a unique perspective on the crisis because we're working in the conflict zones of syria, iraq, and yemen. we're in the neighboring states that you referred to both.

we're in greece where half of the refugees arriving in europe are landing on europe soil and we're active in the united states. the conflicts in the middle east present the most challenging, dangerous, and complex humanitarian challenge in the world today. and i think they present a p preimminent moral case for renewed engagement. i want to confine my remarks to four areas that more or less follow my written testimony and focus less on our analysis of the situation but what might be done. first, inside syria there is a war without law and there is misery without aid for the millions of people you referred to, senator. it's driving people to risk life

and limb to get to europe, and almost worse than the numbers you recited is that there's no structured political process at the moment to offer hope of an end to the war. the number one priority that we would present to the committee is to turn or help turn the words of u.n. resolutions, which are good words into actions. we advocate as a practical measure the appointment of humanitarian envoys, distinguished political or diplomatic figures that are able to work on the ground on the local access that is so essential to helping the humanitarian aid reach where it's needed. the neighboring states are coping with unprecedented numbers of refugees. it's worth noting a world food program voucher is worth $13 a

month for a middle-class family that's fled its home in syria. for us, the priority must be for these neighboring states a multiyear strategic package that recognizes that these people are not going home soon. in written testimony, we compared the packages needed to the martial plan, a multiyear plan which is not just an aid package, but aligns private sector effort with public sector effort and addresses the economic conditions people face, not just the social conditions. third, i'm just back from the island in greece where half of the refugees are arriving. i won't dwell on the responsibilities of european leaders and european citizens suffice to say they need to show both competence and compassion, both of which have been sorely lacking over the last few years. the three priorities in europe are first of all to establish safe and legal roots to become a

refugee in europe. without those safe and legal routes, you empower the smugglers. secondly, to improve reception conditions notably in greece and on the roots into northern and western europe. thirdly, to implement a robust program in europe. finally, it is worth pointing out that european aid for the neighbori ining states does exc american humanitarian aid. that european lead, so to speak, which is $200 million, will stretch to $1.2 billion. finally, there is an important symbolic role for the united states in resettling refugees. so far just over 1800 syrians have been admitted and with the greatest respect, the respect of

someone who is a visitor to your country, even though i work here now, this 1800 figure is not fitting for the global leadership role the united states has played over a very long period in refugee resettlement. the administration's commitment to take 10,000 citizens is a limited number to the effort. we want to raise the ceiling for the number of syrians allowed in. i hope we get to explain why the figure of 100,000 has been reached to be admitted over the next year and how that speaks to the global need. secondly, to fund that drive properly, including in the department of homeland security where we strongly support effective security screening and can speak to that. thirdly is this scope for expanding access through family reunification schemes for syrian

american communities who are in this country across the country and have grandparents, cousins, relatives in syria who want to come and join them. this is a dna-based family reunification scheme that could offer a practical and short-term way of circumventing delays that have plagued the problem. i very much look forward to a real dialogue. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, ranking member ca cardin, and distinguished members of the community, thank you very much for holding this hearing. the chaos and distress reflect -- over the past year,

despite the tremendous amounts of funding that have been provided. i want to thank the u.s. for being a leader in humanitarian funding to the syrian crisis and certainly congress for having made the right appropriations. we have undertaken 12 missions in the last three years. we have looked at how displacement has evolved, how the situation of refugees has changed over time, and importantly how the funding has been drying up. the drivers of displacement are multiple from the actions of the shia militias at the beginning to the development of a tremendous military operations by the assad regime to the rise of extremist groups, but also to the tremendous deteriorating social economic situation in syria, which makes life unsustainable for people who would cross outside to find some ways to sustain themselves. however, when you talk to

refugees in southern turkey, in jordan, on what is the primary reason why they move, they all have the same answers. it is the barrel bombings over markets, over schools, over medical facilities. ngo has reported the month of august saw the largest number of medical personnel killed by these shellings and barrel bombs. the response to the crisis in neighboring countries has been i must say remarkable. we've seen very few crises in the world where borders have remained open to long, where governments have accepted the refugees spread out amongst the population. most refugees are living in an urban setting mixing with the local population. services have been accessible to refugees. quite remarkably, in all the interviews we had with refugees, there is a rather low reporting of abuses by authorities.

this is not something we experience in my places where refugees seem to be targeted much more than we have seen. we all have to recognize turkey, lebanon, has done tremendous work in welcoming refugees. however, that urban nature creates some particular challenges because the impact of refugees on host communities is much stronger than when you have refugee camps, which are easier to manage. we're seeing now there's some erosion of the tolerance of local population when they see the schools overburdened, access to medical facilities dependent on very long queues, the rise in price of apartments or wherever they live going up and the price of basic food commodities going up, so there is an impact on the

local population that after four years starts to generate reaction of rejection or tension with the refugee community. the humanitarian needs remain because many refugees are poor. what we have seen over time is refugees being pushed from poverty to misery. more begging is happening from istanbul. there are children working because their parents are not allowed to work. they do send their children to work. it's easier for children to work illegally than adults. we have seen the lower of early age for marriage for women. we have seen an increase in what we call sex for food in basically the trading of the young ladies to just be able to feed their family. all these are trappings of the popularization of the refugee

population. there were not many indications that people wanted to move until the end of 2013. when we talked to people in the first years, they say we go back to syria as soon as we can. it's only at the end of 2013 that the mood started changing. in 2014, they moved through egypt and libya trying to get these smugglers' boats to italy. the numbers remain sort of tolerable, perhaps, compared to what saw in 2015. sm the poverty they have suffered as their own resources were depleted over time certainly a main factor. for many people, the lack of education for children is also a motive for trying to move forward to europe. but also as i mentioned, the fact that they're welcome is drying up.

governments now realize that they have a huge amount of people that are getting poorer and poorer and being like a lead bull on their own developments. and local populations are starting to react. we had riots in different countries against the refugees. that outflow will not stop because either the europeans get their act together, which we hope they will, or it stays as it is now. we have seen the difficulties they have faced to date have not really staunched the flow. unless we go back to the root causes, which is how we address the situation of refugees, i think the region's stability will keep on. we have to look at increasing support to humanitarian funds. it is true that funds have been available over the years in larger quantities, but they have not kept up with the needs.

what we have seen is the proportion of u.n.-funds programs has been cut down. food rations have been cut in half in the last few months. we look forward to u.s. leadership in this field. but we need to activate a much stronger response to the development needs of neighboring countries. most of the challenges they face are -- cannot be dealt by humanitarian agencies. they need development money. they need bilateral aid where the key drivers of development are the development banks. i think it's time to look at ways for the governing bodies of these banks to put this sort of situation as part of their regular mandate. it's not just a question of humanitarian response. it's a question of guaranteeing the stability of neighboring countries to syria. i think why we're seeing these

host countries becoming extremely nervous. however, even with the highest number we can dream of, it's going to touch a small percentage of the refugees. and it cannot leave us neglecting the needs of development in our humanitarian aid. finally, mr. chairman, we hear there are some attempts to reinvigorate the peace process. we have always believed there was no real military solution to the conflict. i think it is very important that the people who come to the development negotiating table must make a much stronger commitment to protection of civilians and we must stop seeing the barrel bombing of civilians. if this does not happen, we will not see at any time any possibility of return. >> thank you very much. ms. lindborg.

>> thank you. good morning. thank you, chairman corker, ranking member cardin, and members of the committee. i testify before you today as president of the united states institute of peace, which was founded by congress 30 years ago specifically to look at how to prevent, how to mitigate and recover from violent conflict. and we do so by working in conflict zones around the world with practicali solutions, research, and training. there's a deep connection between what we're seeing right now in the humanitarian crisis and conflict that has spun out of control and become very, very violent throughout the region. i agree wholeheartedly with both of my colleagues. both of you, i think, have aptly described what is a starkly terrible crisis, numbing

statistics, and heartbreaking stories through the region, so let me use my time to look at four recommendations i would make as we look forward. and most importantly even as we seek solutions for the crisis in europe and the resettlement that michelle and david have talked about, i urge that we use this moment to expand our commitment to providing assistance in the region and look at solutions ultimately in the region, because even if europe and the u.s. take the most generous number of refugees possible, that will only scratch the surface of this crisis. so first of all, we absolutely must sustain and increase our collective commitments to meeting the most immediate needs. as we've heard, the number of commitments have decreased against the needs. thank you to all of you for having supported a very generous

u.s. commitment. about $4.5 billion to date since the syrian crisis, but this is against a global backdrop of 60 million people currently forcibly displaced from their homes. there is a global burden that is stretching the humanitarian system, straining it to its limits, and we need to ensure that not only does the u.s. continue its commitment but that we get a larger collection of countries to help shoulder that burden. it consistently falls on a small number of countries. we need to expand the number of people -- the number of countries that are providing assistance. secondly, we also need to ensure that that assistance is as effective and as efficient as possible. we have seen, as senator cardin noted, we continue to treat the problem as if the refugees will

go home when there's a 17-year average rate of displacement. i've recently returned from iraq where i met with a number of civil society organizations and kurdish officials in iraqi where one in five among them are now displaced. they have some 3 million displaced iraqis who fled isis over the last year, and despite a huge mobilization to provide assistance to these folks, they're infrastructure simply can't cope.

their water systems, electrical systems, schools, clinics, so you have people who are sitting in camps in containers in squatting apartments, studies interrupted, no way to make a living, and they don't see a future for themselves. a number of displaced iraqis, they want to go to europe because they do not see a future for themselves. as one civil society activist told me, we have seven camps. that's seven time bombs. this is something we need to look seriously at, and it is far worse as you move into lebanon and jordan and turkey in terms of the burden, the stretch on their infrastructure. so our assistance needs to focus more on education, on employment, on the kind of trauma counseling that can help people recover and on helping the communities bear the burden more effectively as we ask them

to continue hosting. thirdly, we can start now to help people return. in certain places in iraq there are opportunities to return, but we need to ensure we're helping communities deal with what could become cycles of convict because of the mistrust that now exists between communities in the wake of isis. and so by working with communities to have the kind of facilitated dialogue that builds bridges, reduces tensions, and builds social cohesion, we bring people a better opportunity to return home without repeated cycles of conflict. then finally in addition to pushing hard on the kind of diplomatic solutions that get at the roots of the conflict in syria, i would also urge us to look more broadly at how to increase our efforts to provide the kind of development assistance that focuses on those places that are most fragile

whether they're weak, ineffective, or illegitimate in the eyes of their citizens that are the source of the flow of refugees, not just syria and iraq, but afghanistan, yemen, somal somalia, places where you have a web of hopeless born of conflict, oppression, and poverty. at usip, we say conviflict is inevitable. how do you manage it? i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you all very much for not only what you do, but for being here today. senator cardin has a conflict, so i'm going to let him ask questions first. >> the conflicts are all over. >> as long as you manage them. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the courtesy. let me thank all of our

witnesses not only for being here and what you do to help in regards to this humanitarian international challenge. u.s. leadership is so desperately needed in multiple strategies. yes, in the geopolitical landscape to deal resolving these conflicts so people can live safely in their homes. that's obviously where the united states must put a great deal of attention. as has already been pointed out, a lot of these refugees are going to be in border countries for a long time, and the cost is tremendous not only the dollar cost, but as it effects the stability in that country. and there are an international responsibilities. we are significantly below what the united nations indicates it needs on the dollars. lastly, the resettlements. i just want to talk a moment

about that because for 20 million refugees, we know 4 million are from syria. most of these refugees are not returning home anytime soon. some are not going to be able to return home, and our refugee policy numbers caps were based upon the philosophy that refugees would be returning to their host countries. that's not the real world today, so for the united states to have a cap at 75,000 or 85,000 or 100,000 recognizing there are 20 million refugees worldwide, many of those are not going to be able to return safely to their homes, many of whom want to resettle in a place where they can have a future for their family that lived 17 years as a refugee on average. i guess my first question, should we be reevaluating not just the united states, but also europe, i understand, is

changing their numbers on resettlements, but should we be looking at the 20 million differently and determine how many of these individuals need permanent placements, particularly those who are recent and don't have roots in the border country but want to reestablish roots for their families? should we be looking at these numbers more realistically today? >> let me say three things in response to what i think is an american peop excellent question. the central question is is this a trend or is it a blip. those numbers were a world record last year. more than any time since world war ii. my thesis to you is this is a trend and not a blip. your question is right. i think three things are important.

refugee resettlement is important for the substantive help it offers to the 100,000 people that you mentioned, but it's also a symbolic value of standing with the countries that are bearing the greatest burden. no one can pretend that refugee resettlement is going to quote/unquote solve the problem. it's a symbolic as well as a substantive show of solidarity. the vast majority of refugees live in poor countries neighboring those in conflict. at the syria case is a prototype. local integration is going to be the solution either because we acknowledge it or embrace it or it happens de facto. i think what michelle gabaudan was saying is we have to embrace this point that there are going to be the majority of refugees in neighboring states. do they become economic contributes or are they an

economic drain? the world bank isn't allowed to work in lebanon and jordan because they're considered middle income countries. it has to be a central part of the world bank's modus operandi that fragile states where the extreme poor now live -- it's got to be a central part of the philosophy of the world bank that its got to be a point of reflection for the ngo and humanitarian movement. economic interventions need to sit alongside the traditional social interventions we've done. the third and final point is that already in the course of the 45 minutes we've been together it's evident that the words humanitarian and the words development don't do justice to the policy problems that are

faced here. i would submit to you that the budget headings don't do justice. and the institutions we've got, some of them working on humanitarian kricrises and some development, that separation doesn't do justice. 28 billion was spent on development interventions. now the truth is they have to work together, and that is a major challenge to the international system, which i think it will be tremendously positive if the committee was able to engage with them. >> let me change gears for one moment. the united nations estimates there are over 400,000 people inside of syria that are besieged, that cannot be reached as far as humanitarian help. they're saying there's another 4.8 that are hard to reach. do we have a strategy for dealing with that vulnerable population that we cannot effectively establish through

conventional means, help who are displaced within syria? >> well, the u.s. government was the leader in providing assistance that was going across borders, across the turkish and jordanian boards to reach those who could not be reached through the u.n.-damascus-based efforts. many courageous ngos were a part of that. that has been curtailed by the incursion of isis into some of those areas. although the work continues and there continues to be an extraordinarily courageous efforts to reach those folks, the barrel bombs are equally a problem, as my colleagues have noted. and despite the provision of a u.n. security resolution that david mentioned, there is not a serious effort to provide civilian protection. so as we look at resolving this

conflict, civilian protection has got to be chief among the goals that we collectively put in front of the international community. in the absence of that, people are just being pummelled by both sides. by assad's people and by isil, and that further curtails ability to reach them with assistance and if you did, they are threatened with death. >> the short answer to your question is no, there isn't a good strategy for reaching these besieged areas. those people are in a worse position today than when the u.n. security council resolutions were passed. those on the ground trying to organize the delivery of aid is one idea to try to break this terrible deadlock that was at one moment once a month. the u.n. secretary general reports that medical aid is being taken off lorries and

dumped and there is no accountability for that kind of abuse of basic morality, never mind in international humanitarian law. i think your focus on this and your demand, or the implicit demand, this has to be at the absolute center of any approach to the humanitarian approach in syria is absolutely right. >> there's no question that these vulnerables that we cannot reach or are hard to reach are going to add to the numbers of casualties and the number of people trying to exit syria for a better life. it is going to add to the number of refugees. it's going to add to all the numbers we're talking about. it's just a matter of how quickly they can find a safe place or exit for their families or they become casualties of the war. >> thank you. thank you very much. dr. gabaudan, i think people in our nation get confused. we allow about 70,000 refugees into our country right now each year, and i know the administration has talked about

raising that to 85 and then to 100 over the next couple of years. there have been statements of adding 100,000 syrians into our country immediately not by the administration, but by others who are advocating for that. i know we have the chairman of the homeland security committee here, but is there a way to actually screen and deal with that or is that a number that's not realistic relative to our ability to screen those coming? >> senator, in terms of the capacity, the u.s. has shown in the past it can admit large numbers. we saw that with cubans and kurds. there is capacity in this country. there is a question of resources, of course. i think that the u.s. system has the most serious vetting system in the world. if you look at what other countries that resettle refugees, they don't come half the way the u.s. does in vetting

the people in which it meets. the u.s. resettlement program has a tremendous quality, which is it chooses people on the basis of the vulnerability. when you look at people who suffer torture and the sort of criteria the u.s. uses, i think you already have a filter that is then deepened by the work of homeland security. so i think there is certainly the technique and the capacity. for syrians, i do understand it will take sometime to reach the numbers because i was told that the intel that the government has on the syrians is not as good as the one it had on the iraqis, et cetera. so there are genuine difficulties that will have to be overcome, but our experience over the past 40 years in dealing with resettlement is that this country has the expee willingness to do it when the

conditions require it. >> let me just some discussions right now about us working with russia as it relates to syria. and i just want to understand from your perspective, dealing with refugees, are they fleeing assad's barrel bombs or are they fleeing isis? i know they're fleeing both. generally speaking can you get at for this discussion the greater roots or roots, if you will, of why they're fleeing the countries briefly? then i want to follow with questions. go ahead. >> last week in greece over the course of two or three days, i must have spoken with 200 or 300 refugees, the majority of them syria. the answer to your question, it depends where in syria they're coming from. they're from aleppo, greater

damascus out in the east of the country. it's a different situation in different parts of the country. but the point that you made, they're facing a movement -- on one hand they have the barrel bombs of assad. on the other hand they have the terror of isis. it's almost as they flee from the barrel bombs they end up being driven into the hands of isis and that's what's forcing them out the particular circumstances in different parts of the country are obviously a matter of detail. but there is a wider significant point. 95% of the barrel bombing attacks that -- and other attacks that the assad air force are undertake ing are not again isis targets. >> if i could, so people understand, these are just against civilian populations, right? >> and other rebel group. and some of them are against other rebel fortifications. but it's certainly the case that a very small proportion of the

bombing raids are targeted on isis. >> does anybody differ or want to add to that? >> i would just add, having been in iraq last week, that it very much differs depending on the circumstances. for example, i met with a couple of sisters who had recently escaped, having been sold to three different men. they're now living in a container with another family. clearly dealing with enormous trauma. and they don't really have a sense of what their future is. and they have no ability to imagine going home, which is true for a number of minority populations that have been pushed out of their homes. in the absence of security guarantees they're saying we want to be resettled. we can't go back unless there's security. so, that's one set of specific issues. but i also met with a young sunni woman who had been

studying for her university exams when isis swept through mosul. she fled with her family, living in a very crowded apartment. she hasn't been able to resume her studies. it's been over a year. she is just wondering what is her life likely to be. and she also wants to go to europe. so there are lots of reasons that people are desperate to envision a better life. >> let me just ask this question. so, if an effort -- it's hard for me to contemplate this even. if an effort were put in place to strengthen assad, which is what russia and iran are pursuing right now, what effect would that have if we were somehow a part of that or winked and a nod and said that was okay, what would that do from your perspective, based on what you're seeing on the ground relative to the refugee crisis. i think i can answer for you. if you would, answer for the recor record. >> i congratulate you on the precision of your question and

leading a humanitarian organization, i'm going to have to be extremely precise in my answer. i mean, i think that from our point of view, the violations of international law and basic rights are coming from all sides but the majority are coming from the assad government. secondly, it's evident to anyone who reads the newspapers or follows the debate that significant actions by the assad government have bolstered isis and have enabled the growth of isis. thirdly, any diplomatic or political approach needs to address both sides of the coin if it is to have a chance of success. >> i would just add that, as we mentioned earlier, there is a tool.

u.n. security council resolution 2139, unanimously passed, that has not been upheld by key actors in the region who are now making different moves. and so there is an urgent opportunity to ask, push for key actors to take that seriously. that addresses the targeting of civilians, the barrel bombing, the withholding of humanitarian assistance. >> i know i'm running out of time myself. i would say i don't remember many u.n. security council resolutions that have been adhered to. when they're not adhered to, we just change them to something that can be adhered to. so i'm sorry, i'm a skeptic. but dr. gavinon? >> i fully subscribe to what david was saying, regarding the source of the main drivers of exxodus. of course, there are changes.

clearly driven by the isis offensive. if you speak to refugees on the border, the majority will refer to the barrel bombing. this is the story we get on and on and on. syrian doctors who work for ngos who have a 501-c3. i'm not talking about wild groups, et cetera. and my fear is that any attempt at peace that does not immediately have an impact over how, in this case, barrel bombing are being used against civilian are going nowhere, will be -- >> if i could, unless the barrel bombing stops, the refugee crisis will continue to get worse. and just in closing, i apologize to my colleagues here, are any of the arab countries, saudi arabia, some of those that are working to unseat assad in certain ways, are they taking

any refugees at present? >> they're not signatories to the 1951 convention. they don't recognize the status of refugees. they would say there are 500,000 syrians living in saudi arabia and 120,000 syrians living in the united arab emirates. some arrived recently, others have been there for a long time but their status is not as refugees but as migrant workers. >> thank you. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you. i would like to thank our witnesses today, not just for being here today but what you're doing in the middle of a huge crisis. we all empathize. i would like to start with you. in 2011, u.s. created a vacuum in which isis began to grow. they needed land to legitimize the caliphate. they've done that.

now we've seen in the last few weeks the formalization of russia's presence there with military troops and so forth. in the last five years especially, we've seen iran and russia supporting the assad regime, which we've been talking about today. my question is what complication does russia now showing up with military presence and do you have any perspective, being in the region -- you talk about development and humanitarian help coming together. i would like to know how this development and the lack of a u.s. strategy in the region complicates your ability to deal with the ongoing crisis. i have a couple of follow-up questions about that on prevention. >> thank you very much, senator. i should say that every time the senators applaud the work of our organizations it's very reinforcing for our staff out there in the field in really the most dangerous places doing extraordinary work i want to thank you very much for what you said, which i see as a tribute to their work. i think that in respect of the

complication, i think you said, that's been inserted by the russian moves over the last two or three weeks, i have to defer to those who are privy to the intelligence and to the military option making that's going on as the leader of a humanitarian organization, what i have to keep on stressing is that all the decisions, both military and political and humanitarian need to be made with the needs of the citizens at the heart. what i would point to the last five years is the extraordinary fragmentation and complexity that's developed both within syria and within iraq as well. and that complication makes it doubly difficult for us to do our job. the negotiation that's necessary to have local consent to deliver aid depends on engaging without building an array of local actors whose power changes sometimes on a weekly basis.

the wider point about the russian role, i think, has to be split into two parts until the passage of the u.n. security council resolutions, there was no cover for the cross border work that we and others were trying to do. and so the issue then is trying to get that cover. since the passage of the resolutions, however, we haven't actually been able to do more work. we found our situation constrained in part by the position on the battlefield but also the lack of official backing from those who supported the resolution. that's why the emphasis that nancy has put on turning those words and that resolution to action notwithstanding the history that the chairman referred to remains very, very important. security council resolution is only as strong as the nation states who back it and their willingness to see it through. >> you know, yesterday -- and i want to move this question now to assad and putin's relationship with assad.

yesterday made a comment, and i quote, refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. the only way to resolve the problem is to restore statehood. my question, and i'll start with dr. gavinaw, can we solve this problem as long as assad is barrel bombing his own people, targeting open markets and children? the question before us is can we solve this? one level is obviously the immediate crisis and then the long-term solution. as you said, this is no longer a blip. it is a trend. if that trend is there, going back to what senator cardin mentioned earlier, we have to develop a different strategy. this is not just about feeding people for a few weeks. it's about educating, training. in trying to prevent this now, at least getting at the immediate crisis, how should we look at putin's comments relative to assad and what iran's position has been over the last decade with regard to

bashir assad? >> i can only answer this from the perspective of what i heard from refugees. i hope you'll take my answer in this context. i certainly think that if negotiation takes place with assad and has to be credible with a large number of people who fled the country, they should be an immediate stop to the deliberate attack against civilians. any process that does not control that from day one will be doomed. it will not lead anywhere in terms of satisfying. it's very violent. whether he is prepared to do that is a precondition for getting into peace negotiations, i don't know, to be honest. and i'm not anywhere close to this discussion. but i think it's essential that people are going to be associated through a peace settlement, have to make a commitment to stop immediately the sort of deliberate attack on civilians. in a conflict there will always

be civilian casualties by the very nature of the contact. but the deliberate attacks on civilians is something that is far too egregious to sustain a peace process. >> we've all traveled to the region. senator card sbinin and i were this spring. if the united states had accepted refugees that would be the size of england, for example. they're overwhelmed. we see that. what i'm really concerned about long term are the children. we talk about it being half the problem basically today. will you speak to that and elaborate a little bit more about what we can do in the immediate future and what the long-term implications those are? it looks like a breeding ground for dissent. will you speak to that and what we need to be doing now in order to prevent further exaggeration of this crisis in the future? >> yes. you're absolutely right. there is an enormous population

of children who are out of school, both from the syria crisis and iraq and through the region who are the next generation growing up without a future, without a sense that they have something positive to connect to. and so as we look regionally at this whole issue of how to counter violent extremism while at the same time we are not, as a global community, enabling these displaced kids to connect to education and something more positive in their lives, we are absolutely creating, as the activists in iraq told me, you know, seven hot spots. seven time bombs. and so there was a very important effort launched two years ago cold no lost generation, an effort to gather focus across the humanitarian and development community on education and on enabling there to be fuller support for kids.

and one of the challenges that we have -- and david spoke to this -- is that we get trapped inside the differing mandates and stove pipes of the way in which we deliver humanitarian and development assistance. and so my hope is that this current crisis will really catalyze us to move further and faster on some of the innovative ways that we know we can use to provide more appropriate assistance that gives people a chance to have a living, to get the kind of help they need to recover from trauma, to get their kids educated. that is one of the most important things that would enable people to not leave the region because they have a sense that only by going to europe or the united states will they have an opportunity for those basic ways of having a more dignified life. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i might just point out that

barrel bombs are being delivered by air. i think everybody understands that. i can't imagine what these many refugees and people around the world are thinking about nations like the united states and others that know this is happening as we're sitting here in these nice circumstances and are continuing every day to allow that to happen. plus the torturing of people in its prisons yet we're going to the u.n. security council and talking about hollow, hollow resolutions. anyway, senator menendez? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for your testimony. let me just briefly join the chorus of voices that have recognized the international rescue committee. i've done work with them. it's extraordinary work and should be incredibly proud to lead them. as someone who comes from a community that were refugees to the united states, i have a very

strong appreciation of the willingness of the country to accept those who are fleeing for whatever the reasons. so i'm a strong supporter of broadening our response. but i also understand that at the core of the problem, as miss lindbergh said in her testimony, that the most generous contribution of the united states only scratches the surface. at the end of the day unless we get to the root causes, we are treating symptoms but not the causes of what makes people flee from their home. and in this case and in the case of syria, the ongoing conflict. the barrel bombing, which unfortunately is in and of itself a horrific act, is also exacerbated by the use of chlorine gas in violation of international standards as well as my thought was that when this committee passed an authorization for the use of

force to stop assad's use of chemical weapons against its people that we would be looking at a permanent stoppage of chemical weapons against its people. and while i certainly rejoice in the fact that we did do a lot to relieve the risk to the people of syria by a variety of chemical weapons, we have not relieved them from the total risk at the end of the day. and so at some point, it is hollow if you don't follow through. so what i wanted to get a sense of, first of all, on your statement the most generous contribution of the united states scratches the surface. maybe plrks millibrand, you can help me with this, too. in other countries, the number of refugees flowing into them, what would be the percent,

vis-a-vis, taking place? >> one-fourth of the jordanian population. in occurred stan it's one-fifth of their population. these are unimaginable numbers. >> 20% to 25%? >> 25% in jordan is syrian refugee right now. lebanon, sorry. >> just to follow that, 85% of the world's refugees are in developing countries. the european comparison would be germany has agreed to take 500,000 refugees -- accept 500,000 asylum claims over the next year and each of the next three years, a population of 90 million. italy, population of some 60 million, has taken in each of the last two years 120,000 refugees. the uk prime minister has pledged they'll take 4,000 a year in a population of 60 million. you can see the variation there and the big gap between the

neighboring states in the middle east and the european government. it's worth saying the u.s. at its peak was taking about 180,000 refugees a year in '89, '90, '91. >> so 85,000 total refugees, that is not necessarily syrian refugees, that would be about 2% of the american population. so i say that in the context of understanding the challenges of other countries here compared to what the united states is looking at. and i say to myself in that regard, you know, we are either going to choose to help countries where, in fact, refugees are flooding to in the

first instance and to -- well, we are, to be more robust about it. or we have to think about what is a number that is acceptable here in the united states as part of an international commitment. but i want to go to the core question, which is how do we stop at -- i would assume -- correct me if i'm wrong for the record but none of you advocate that in order to stop the refugee crisis that we should accept the violation -- the violent violators of human rights and core principles as a way to solve that. is that right? you're nodding, if you could say yes for the record. >> yes. >> okay. if that is the reality, in the case of syria moving away from assad, even in transitional -- but at the end of the day moving away from assad. i only see the circumstances getting worse, not better.

we're doing nothing to stop the barrel bombing, including that with chlorine gas. we have russia, that is now sending all types of military hardware and creating an air base for itself in syria. i see at the end of the day that they have been a patron of assad and will continue to be a patron of assad until they see a solution that protects their interest at the end of the day. so, in the interim, i see them using that force. and whatever entity they are using that force again -- let's say isil, inevitably in a circumstance such as this, it will create more refugees. and i see iran that has continued to support assad. so, i don't see a lessening of the refugee crisis. there are still, as i understand it, millions displaced, who have not become refugees.

at some point their displacement is going to lead them to be refugees. when it leads them to be refugees we'll have an even more significant crisis. so at the end of the day, isn't our goal while in the interim doing everything we can for those who sought refuge to really dedicate ourselves to ending the violence, stopping the barrel bombing and getting a transition in syria? because if we don't do that, there isn't enough space, time, money to ultimately meet the crisis of the lives of these people. >> senator, you spoke very powerfully about symptoms and causes. and you have to treat the causes as well as the systems, i think you're saying. you're absolutely right. the way i would put it for my own organization's work, we can

staunch the dying but we have to stop the killing. staunching the dying is very important. we could be doing much, much better. we could also be doing more than staunching the dying. we could be staunching the radicalization, the misery by much more effective work by both inside syria and the neighboring states. if your question is, are there true limits to the effectiveness or impact of humanitarian work in the absence of peacemaking of a serious kind the answer has to be unequivocally, yes. until we stop the killing we're not going to be able to be doing justice to the people on the ground or the values that we all stand for. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator gardner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss lindbergh i have a couple of questions for you. security council resolutions in 2014, couple of security resolutions passed, in february 2014, you mentioned demanded

parties promptly allow humanitarian access and resolution 2165, calling upon notification. >> i think as david mentioned there is a monthly report on progress and there is a routine where lack of progress is reported and there isn't any teeth in the resolution to do anything about it. hence, senator corker, your skepticism. you know, there isn't a chapter seven provision because there isn't agreement among the security council members. and for a number of years there was a bit of a charade where there was not even full belief by all the security council members that we had a humanitarian crisis going on inside of syria. i think what is going on

globally today makes that a very difficult case for people to still make, for countries to still make, that we don't have a humanitarian crisis of truly epic proportions. and it does provide one tool for forcing the conversation and forcing the agreement that the killing is at the root of the crisis. >> in terms of 2139, what ought we be pushing in terms of -- >> i'm sorry? >> 2139 in terms of what we're pursuing. >> there's no enforcement built into the current resolution. it was a hard-fought effort to get the passage of it the way it was and it is without teeth. >> okay. you talked a little bit about -- in response to the chairman's question, a little bit about barrel bombing and isis and the movement that you described, what would change if the refugee

crisis if barrel bombing were to be stopped? how would that change the refugee situation? >> well, it would certainly decrease the deaths as we've heard the targeting is often of medical personnel, of clinics, of markets. we've seen the utter destruction of cities like aleppo. people are fleeing often because their lives are just literally in shambles. and their loved ones killed. there is still obviously the threat of isis and of other armed groups. it's a very chaotic situation. and yet in pockets there are efforts to still maintain a life. and there are efforts to still have local administration in parts of syria. and so i would add that we also need to continue and double our efforts to support those who are on the ground, who are seeking

to create some sort of ongoing stable lives for their communities. >> would you like to talk about that in terms of putting an end to the barrel bombing, what that would do? >> as it continues with isis and others? >> there are two ways of looking at it. one is obviously on the more political side and that's something that you'll be thinking about as you contemplate your views about the ultimate resolution of the conflict. but there's no question of the position on the battlefield. it creates traction on the wider diplomatic and political front. and i leave that to you. on the humanitarian front, there's no question that the daily humanitarian abuse -- someone said to me aleppo is hell. i had to escape from hell. it's as blunt as that. frankly, we've had our own

people who are not actually our staff but were benefiting from our services go home. we lost seven of them. barrel bombed. now, this is a daily reality for people who are, to pick up something the chairman said at the beginning -- giving up hope. at the moment they say their chance as putting their fate in the hands of smugglers and criminals who say they'll get them to europe as offering them more than staying in their own homeland, in their own country. and that is obviously an indictment of the global response over the five years of the conflict. >> now stretching across the swath of war-torn countries.

as we continue this conversation i want to make sure we're providing the most effective support possible. humanitarian aid refugee aid in the united states, europe, isn't going to solve the problem alone. we have to get to the bottom of the barrel bombing and continued drivers of this conflict. because we can open up as much as we want but the crisis will still exist. >> thanks to the witnesses for the work and your testimony. just to explore, the u.n. security council resolution, what it called for, has been incredibly disappointing. i know everybody worked hard to get it passed in 2014 originally. that wasn't easy. the fact that it was brought up in the middle of winter olympics in russia probably made it harder for them to throw the veto in with they have in the past with the eyes on them

during the olympics. senator mccain was probably the first in this body, beginning really in the fall of '13, to start to talk about the notion of the no-fly zone, some military force to save space and most likely in the north of syria, turkish border where people could go if they're fleeing assad. they could go and the thought of that creation of that zone and protection of it with military force would allow the cross-border delivery of aid under circumstances where the aid workers and others wouldn't be jeopardized. i was originally not a fan of that proposal. by probably february 2014, seeing the numbers dramatically increase, my first visit was at a time when there was 750,000 refugees and now it's 2 million. other countries are seeing the same thing. now we're seeing it spread through neighboring nations and throughout europe. it's not easy.

i'm assuming that they're -- i assume there's a whole lot of challenges in doing that. but to me, it just seems like if we don't go upstream and try to create some safe area, with an additional nearly 8 million displaced people within syria, that the crisis is going to continue. and even if we wave a magic wand and say the u.s. will take ten times the number of refugees we said we would take, it's a drop in the bucket that compares to the challenge that is likely to come. am i wrong? is that a strategy that's the wrong way to go about it? i'm not sure you would get a majority of votes in this body for it. i think the vote we had about using military force against the use of chemical weapons against civilians barely got a majority in this committee and likely will not get a majority in the senate or in the house. still if the administration were to advocate strongly for it, there is some bipartisan support

for the notion. as folks who do this work, am i looking at this wrong? >> senator cain, i have long wrestled with this question through this crisis. you know, the history of safe zones and no-fly zones for humanitarian purposes is fraught with cases where it didn't work well and it's filled with moral hazard. and at the same time i think that as the crisis progresses and the level of killing continues -- that is prompting this level of crisis for us to continue to not take some action that is forthrightly about civilian protection creates enormous tragedy for the people of syria and it's not at all consistent with who we are as a country. and it seems to me that as we did in places like kosovo that it warrants a very, very hard look that with our allies or

through concerted diplomacy with other actors who claim to be interested in putting solutions on the table that we look very closely at how to provide civilian protection. what is the best way of doing it and have that be the joint concerted goal of our actions and look at what the military means might be required for no-fly zone or security area. >> other thoughts? >> i say two things, senator, about this. first of all, i think it would be very welcomed if the debate about no fly zones moved from slogans to details because the details really matter. >> uh-huh. >> secondly, i think ngos like ours can offer the benefit of experience of different ways in which governments around the world have tried to deliver no-fly zones because we've suffered from the details being got wrong.

and i think that immediately you see that a safe area which is designed to protect some people in some part of the country immediately creates the moral hazard that nancy referred to because, for us, barrel bombing any part of the country of syria is an affront. not just in parts of it. but that only is to make the point that, obviously, the debate about safe areas engages other questions and merely syrian protection, proposal for safe zones as recently in the armed services committee last week was for reasons beyond the humanitarian. and that's why i think our best contribution is to advise on the humanitarian impact of different models of military and other action to protect civilians. on that basis i think we've got something to say without taking away from you the ultimate judgment that you have to make about who to put at risk and in what ways. >> but clearly we're all in a position here where the existence of a u.n. resolution that calls for cross border

delivery of aid without the consent of the syrian government and the stopping of border bombing, that that resolution now a year and a half old with zero enforcement of it -- i mean, the impotence of that and the message that sends and the willingness of the members of those nations to do anything to back up their word is incredibly destructive not noenl this circumstance but generally. wouldn't you agree with that? maybe this is the wrong panel to ask this. but is there a legal precedent for a group of nations taking action to enforce a u.n. security council resolution that the u.n. is unwilling to enforce? >> the closest precedent would be the kosovo experience. where obviously there wasn't a u.n. security council resolution and the u.s. administration at the time decided not to put a

vote in the u.n. it didn't want a russian veto. but the action took place. i can't think of an immediate precedent at the time of the kind you describe. >> looking back on that action, what is the humanitarian sort of ngo's conclusion about that in retrospect? was that a good thing to do or not? >> having been with an ngo at the time, i think there was widespread concern that kosovo was undergoing the beginnings of mass atrocities and that without the campaign, there would have been terrible, terrible loss of life in kosovo. and with some mixed feelings, there was gratitude that action

was taken that saved so many lives. >> uh-huh. so action taken to save lives in an ethnic cleansing situation even without the predicate of a resolution council calling precisely for delivery of aid in this area. i know you can make mistakes and there's risks and mixed feelings about it. the general sense was gratitude that the actions were taken. what projections have your organizations done -- i'm about done but what projections have your organizations done about the likely pace of continued migration out of syria the next year or two if sort of status quo continues? >> just to finish off on your previous question, the other relevant example would be the raw a. ndan genocide earlier in the '90s than kosovo, of which people have very strong opinions. >> and on that, just -- was there a security council

resolution but no international action was taken or it was taken horribly late so that the -- you know, the slaughter was just dramatic levels before anybody did anything? >> i want to go back to your first question, senator, projections and outflow. i don't think we have numbers in mind. certainly the people leaving now, certain level of education and who have the resource to pay the smugglers. that is going to dry off. >> yeah. >> and the people staying in turkey, lebanon, jordan, et cetera, are those who are getting to the levels of absolute misery. these are those we have to retain. >> i'm sorry, i didn't answer your question. we didn't make any -- none of our projections included a scenario where the german government would say three weeks ago anyone from syria can claim asylum in germany. and so the truth is what projections have we done? they need to be revised in a very substantial way.

now i think it's only fair to the committee to say both within -- from within syria and from within the neighboring countries there's been a significant uptick in the last month or two months of people leaving, including people who are staff members and others. undoubtedly there's not just a movement inside syria, there's also a movement from people from syria and the neighbors are leaving. the second piece that's very significant is the number of people we anticipate crossing the agean during winter we anticipate to be quite high. i was told that the u.n. are projecting 20,000 people to cross the agean in december, which would be unheard of. obviously, the dangers of hypothermia and other health hazards are very large. if where you're going with your question is do we have to prepare for very, very significant numbers, leaving syria and leaving the neighbors in the next year, the answer

would be yes. and, obviously, what's happening in europe shows the difficulty of playing catch up on this. europe has had its eye on the euro crisis and the ukraine crisis. it hasn't had its eye on the refugee crisis and playing catch-up is in a much weaker position. there's a warning there about what might happen in the next year. >> i've gone over my time. thanks, mr. chairman. >> before turning to senator reyes to clear something up, senator cain mentioned the ethnic cleansing taking place in kosovo. for what purpose is assad barrel bombing clinics and others? it's not a military strategy there. for what purpose would he be barrel bombing his own citizens? >> i've been interested in my two colleagues. there's two ways of seeing this.

assertion of strength, display of strength and certainly he is engaged in using air power, the only force, syrian belligerent with air power to attack some of the rebel groups. and he is not taking any care as to where the mortars land. >> senator rich? >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, when you look at this, this is a pretty depressing situation because the solutions that are on the table, as i understand the u.s. policy, is that number one, the policy is to return people back to where they came from. that's the first objective. that doesn't work, number two, that they be kept safely in the areas where they're housed and only thirdly do you look at resettlement. if you look at those policies, you wonder if that really works

under the present situation. i think the description of this is epic. certainly is an understatement probably. but these people that now have -- the number is about 20 million, as i understand it, worldwide. is that a fair number that you work with? you talk about 20 million people who have left their homeland and essentially people who maybe wouldn't have left under normal circumstances but now have been forced out -- once they've been forced out and they see what the rest of the world is liked they aren't inclined to go back, as is the number one policy, supposedly, that we have, of seeing that they return to their homeland. so when you're talking about 20 million people, i mean, that number is staggering. what troubles me is after this has happened -- and people have watch this had with the internet we have now, the communications

that we have now. what's going to continue to happen in the future to people who look at this migration that has taken place and have said, you know, i'm tired of living where i am. this isn't good here. i'm going to move on. even though they're not forced out that they are going to make that move and as you noted, the woman you talked to said look, there's only two places to go, the united states and europe. this is a challenge of staggering proportions. what we have now, which most people don't realize -- but i think what's coming in the future when people see that this migration takes place -- and you can do it. you can become a citizen of another country by simply packing up and moving. how do you see this playing out? this is a problem that looks to

me like it's just going to overwhelm the planet. anybody want to take a run at that? >> just to make you more depressed i think the relevant number is 60 million, the number of people forcibly displaced right now. 20 as refugees, 20 as displaced within their own countries. >> but probably subject to the same thought process i just went through. >> absolutely. >> we've left our home. why stop here when we can move on to -- >> i think we've talked a lot about some of the urgent, shorter term solutions that one might employ in dealing with the roots of the syria conflict, which is this raw, bleeding conflict that is driving a lot of people through the region. i would put a couple of other considerations on the table. one is that in iraq where there is movement right now to cle clear -- we have the urgent

opportunity to help people return where they're able to and where they would like to. and usip has been working with communities on the ground in places like takrete. you really need to work on a concerted dialogue process that gets rid of the mistrust and rebuilds the social cohesion so they can go home and live side by side with neighbors who might be different from themselves. and as we look at investing in our military action in iraq, we need to ensure that we are investing in all of those solutions that do enable people to go home so they don't join that migration that you've talked about. among the syrians who are going to europe these days, among the 20 or 60 million, almost everybody is from a country that one would term as fragile.

weak, ineffective or -- and/or illegitimate in the eyes of its citiz citizens. these are the countries that have the billion people living in poverty. they are the ones that have that mixture of owe pregnancy, of violent conflict and poverty that are driving people to seek better lives. longer term, we collectively need to refocus how we think about development programs, moving development, humanitarian assistance to work hand in hand with security and diplomacy. we just had new, sustainable development goals passed in new york this week where there was the historic inclusion of something called goal 16 which basically calls for inclusive democratic societies with accountable justice for all. which sounds very polyanna-ish but every nation has signed off

on this, giving us a platform for insisting that we not continue to have these kind of bleeding sores around the world that create these kind of humanitarian crisis. and keep so many people in misery and poverty. >> can i briefly address -- i think a very important point that senator rich has made, which is to understand the distinction between someone who is fleeing for economic reasons and someone fleeing for reasons of political persecution, which is what defines a refugee. it's a world on the move. there are 200 million people moving around the world for economic reasons. and i think one of the lessons of this crisis is it's very important, indeed, to maintain the status of a refugee, well-founded fear of persecution and the erosion of that status has damaging implications for the politics of this issue and policy of this issue. the truth is, it's harder to reach america as a refugee than

any other way short of swimming across the atlantic. the checks, the vetting, et cetera, are far, far tougher to arrive in the united states as a refugee than under any other visa or other regime. in a way you can understand that. because there are rights associated with refugee status that are earned. if you have a well-founded fear of persecution that you have rights and the state has obligations to you. i think it's important that we don't allow that status to be undermined. when it becomes part of a simple migration debate -- in honest truth that's what's happened in europe. for the confusion of the migration debate with the refugee debate it's very, very hard to hold the public never mind to run the policy. >> interesting. thank you, mr. chair. >> before i turn to senator markey, to put things in context, our staff looked up the numbers relative to the yugoslav war of a decade. there were 148,000 people that were killed and 4 million people

displaced. if you look at the scale, this one causes that to pale. and yet no real action relative to the barrel bombing. senator markey? >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary milliband, i have been and remain a skeptic of policy recommendations that increase the risk of americanization, westernization, of the armed conflicts in iraq and syria. i would much rather see us work to influence parties toward internal compromise as necessary to end violence and work together to establish governments that fully represent and fairly treat all people. most recently, we have heard that u.s. policy may be moving toward creation of so-called safe zones.

protected by coalition air power where a moderate sunni force could be supported and where additional forces could be trained, internally, displaced persons could find refuge and syrian opposition could organize. but on september 16th here in the foreign relations committee we heard testimony who told us that such zones cannot be considered safe. i have been advised that there are three requirements for true, effective humanitarian safe zones. one, parties to the armed conflict must agree to the creation of the zone and to respect it. and it is critical that this force not be a party to the conflict or supporter of any party to the conflict.

thr three, the zone must be demilitarized meaning it must not be a base for any military activity or operations by parties to the conflict and this must be rigorously enforced by the impartial security force. in august, the u.n. special envoy for syria, stefan mistora completed a round of sanctions that the u.n. has endorsed. could you provide your opinion on how diplomatic support for his efforts could be increased? how might a process create true humanitarian safe zones in syria that meet the criteria i just mentioned? >> thank you, senator. i would say two things. first of all, your skepticism about military engagement is widely shared and.

>> the greater the responsibility to act on the humanitarian and the political. secondly, i said earlier that i thought that in the debate about safe zones, no fly zones, it was important to move from slogans to details, which is what you've done, and also learn the lessons of history. because all of us actually, my colleagues here, with far more personal experience than me, can speak to the different ways in which different tactics for the establishment of safe zones have worked or have not worked. where i can comment and the well-known example of the kurds who were protected, in the way one of my frustrations is that we've got to go beyond just using those two examples as clubs with which to beat the argument. we need to get right underneath

the details. the truth, to my mind, is that the situation in syria and iraq at the moment is unlike anything else we've seen before and we need to learn from history but not be imprisoned by it. you asked about the diplomatic engagement. the statement that is to look not just at the numbers but the absence of engagement. ongoing engaged backing on a day-to-day basis. and that contrasts with the situation of the balkans where there was accepted content of formations by the security council and others to put.

it does. and the humanitarian crisis is an important way in. it is not the leading edge of this crisis as it presents globally. secondly it's very dangerous to conflate military approaches with civilian protection. and any approach that conflates those goals, i think, is a perilous way forward. so i think that's a contrast

with general petraeus and think it's important to put that out here on the table. i think that's central to this issue. mr. chairman, i wanted to ask an additional question about yemen. >> sure. >> that can wait. is that all right? >> just out of curiosity, since we understand your point of view -- and i think david milliband does, too. are you saying on the other hand that you would support u.s. intervention to stop the barrel bombing if it was not about military activity taking place within that safe zone but protection of civilians? >> are you asking -- >> no, i'm asking you that just out of curiosity. because that would be a breakthrough. >> i think the breakthrough, honestly, has to be obama and yeltsin -- i mean obama and putin sitting down and reaching an agreement on this i think that's the only way it's going to happen.

any other intervention, i don't think, will be effective in the long run. we need a political resolution of this and everything on the table. and we need the major powers to get this back out of the cold war framework. that's my view. >> thank you. >> and i apologize. >> mr. chairman, for the record, before i get or my organization get signed up to propose -- >> no, no. can i say you did not answer. >> i just want to say that none of these points of details really matter. let's take the point of a demilitarized zone. in an area of a country flooded with arms of all kinds is a nice aspiration, but doesn't speak to the detail of the situation on the ground. and i would suggest that the imperative is to look at what a detailed proposal actually is and then measure it against the situation on the ground and the objectives for it. in the end the application of the principles is what's going

to matter. frankly the devil is in the detail. my goodness, we've seen that in the last few years. >> frankly, miss lindbergh, looking back to last winter and spring, it seems we were on autopilot to support a decision to intervene in yemen without a full examination of alternatives. what are your thoughts on this? what do we need to do to assess what we might have done differently last winter and spring? particularly diplomat icadiplom? >> well, i would answer it this way. we're seeing where the military intervention is preventing humanitarian assistance from reaching populations that were very, very vulnerable to begin with. and we are already seeing the beginning of pockets of famine in yemen. and if there isn't an ability to provide assistance on

on the next washington journal, we'll continue our coverage of the republican effort to defund planned parenthood. democratic caucus chair javier becerra will weigh in on the upcoming change in gop leadership as well as the budget and a possible government shutdown. then congressman john flemming, a member of the conservative freedom caucus on federal spending, funding for planned parenthood, and a contest to replace outgoing house speaker john boehner. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span and we welcome your comments on facebook and twitter. wednesday republican presidential candidate donald trump holds a town hall at keene high school in new hampshire live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2.

>> the annual documentary competition for students in grade 6 through 12 is an opportunity for students to think critically of issues of national importance by creating a five 5-o'clock to 7:00 minute documentary in which they can express those views. it's important for students to get involved because it gives them the opportunity and a platform for them to have their voices heard on issues that are important to them so they can express those views by creating a documentary. we get a wide range of entries. the most important aspect is content. we have had winners the past created by just using a cell phone and we have others that are creating used more high tech equipment but it's the content that matters and shines through in these documentariedocumentar. the response from students in the past has been great.

many different issues that they have created videos on that are important to them. we have topics ranging from education, the economy and the environment really showing a wide variety of issues that are important for students. >> having more water in the river would have many positive impacts to better serve the community and the businesses inside it. >> and you said without oil we've come to the consensus that human cans not run without food. >> prior to the individual with detectives education acts, children with disabilities were not given the opportunity of an education. >> this year's theme is "road to the white house." what's the most important issue you want a candidate to discuss in the 2016 plat e presidential campaign. it's full on into the campaign season. there are many different candidates discussing several issues. one of the key requirements in creating documentary is to include some c-span footage. this footage should really complement and further their point of view and not just dominate the video but it's a

great way for them to include more information on the video that furthers their points. >> the first bill is the water resources reform and development act also known as worda. >> we've heard about meals and fish sticks and mystery meat tacos. >> there's a vital role that the federal government plays. it's especially vital for students with disabilities. students can get to our web site, student cam.org and they can find out more information about rules and requirements and also find teacher tips, rubrics to help incorporate into their classroom, more information about prizes, incorporating c-span video and ways to contact us if they have any further questions. the deadline is january 20, 2016, which is exactly one year away from the next president

inauguration. members of the house homeland security committee task force held a press conference tuesday about a report investigating terrorists and foreign fighters traveling to syria to join isis. this is 40 minutes.

. good morning, i want to thank all the members of the task force in creating a bipolar report on combatting terrorism and foreign fighters. in my judgment, the threat to the homeland has never been greater. this is a product of isis growing in the region and in iraq and syria. there's a threat of foreign fighters traveling to the region and then coming back to europe or to the united states. we've had over 30,000 foreign fighters from 100 different countries to what is called the caliphate to fight. we've had 5,000 individuals with western passports so that's of great concern when it comes to visa waiver countries. we've had over 250 americans

travel from the united states to the region, many of whom have returned to the united states. this threat coupled with the threat over the internet that we have seen he which has evolved from bin laden in caves and couriers to now a new generation of terrorists using the internet to radicalize individuals within the united states. so this is a dual threat that we face and again the task force worked for six months in a bipartisan way and the findings are concerning. the findings indicate that we -- number one, the threat is getting worse not better. that we are losing in this struggle. to keep americans from the battlefield because there are still people coming from the region and coming back. i think most importantly that we lack a national strategy to deal with this problem.

we took a delegation to europe to examine the problem, found that there were many security gaps with respect to travel from iraq and syria through turkey into western europe. for instance, e.u. citizens go past their watch lists. but the bottom line i think is that until we deal with the threat where it is, until we have a strategy to deal with the threat where it exists and eliminate that threat we'll continue to have this problem. and until we have a combatting violent extremism effort n the united states to deal with radicalization from within on the prevention side we'll continue to have the problem here in the united states. i think the stats are alarming. over nearly 70 isis followers have been arrested in the last year in the united states of

america i think that's a wakeup call to action and i think that's what this task force was formed to do. to create recommendations to deal with this alarming and increasing problem that we face here in the homeland. i am hopeful that we will produce legislation as a result of the key findings of this report from the task force. so with that, again, i want to thank all the members on both sides of the aisle for coming together, something we're not -- you don't see very often in this congress. working together democrat and republican to address a very, very serious issue. and with that i'd like to recognize the ranking member. >> thank you chairman mechanicc. the committee worked for about

six months but had a specific mission not to produce legislation but to produce recommendations. they've worked hard, there's no question about the terrorist threat that we faced. there's no question about americans going to join isil and other foreign fighters abroad. but the question is whether or not we can determine that some of those people are trying to get back into the united states and getting here. so what we had to have was a bipartisan task force to look specifically at this issue. they've produced a report, we're happy. now i look forward to the bipartisan effort to produce legislation based on this report. the chairman is correct. this committee is one of the few

bipartisan committees here in this congress. when bad people want to hurt americans, they don't ask party, they don't anything, they just want to hurt americans. so it's in that spirit that we offer this task force report but more importantly we look forward to working with meaningful legislation because of this task force. thank you. >> i thank the ranking member and i want to echo those comments that terrorists don't check our party affiliation before they want to kill americans. and so with that i want to introduce the chairman of the task force john katko. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you bennie thompson. one of the things about homeland security is we're doing what we should be doing in congress -- we see a problem, attack the problem and try to find solutions for it. i appreciate the chairman and

mr. thompson for empowering us on the committee to do this job and to form this task force and just let us do our work. a lot of work we did do. we had 16 member briefings and site visits, 29 after the briefings, we traveled to eight foreign countries. some of the countries, we sat across the table from benjamin netanyahu for two hours the day before he formed his cabinet talking about the isis threat and terrorist threat he faces all around him. and it was very insightful. we then travelled to baghdad, iraq, right on the front lines and got it from the leaders in iraq as well as the military leaders in the united states that are advising iraq. we went to turkey to check how the flow of foreign fighters going through turkey into syria is happening and what they're doing about it if anything. we then went to the western european counterparts of ours to find out why there are such gaping holes in security in western europe and that's one of

the alarming findings we had is that that hole is significant. there are about 5,000 westerners at least, at least, and i stress at least because we don't know what we don't know but at least 5,000 westerners have gone to join the fight in isis. many of them are from europe, the vast majority of them and europe has very relaxed travel standards and they don't screen passengers the way we do. it's much more difficult to determine if someone is going over to turkey or syria to join the fight. so that's a huge problem for us because when they come back from the fight they may decide to come to the united states and radicalize and since it's visa-free waiver countries it's a problem. then, of course, you have to problem with the 250 known americans that have attempted to travel to the zone in the last two and a half years and the numbers have gone up significantly. those individuals pose a huge threat to the united states in a couple of different ways.

if they go there and come back, they're ticking time bombs in the united states. they're recruiting others to join the fight with them and they're helping to radicalize individuals over the internet in the united states. and with respect to radical saugs over the internet, that poses probably the biggest problem for the united states because it's that problem that is the most difficult thing, most taxing thing for our law enforcement officials here in the united states. we've had 6 some of incidents like the chairman noted the last year, year and a half ago of americans that have been involved in isis-related incidents or planning isis-related attacks in the united states, that number is expected to grow. there's a lot of work we have to do going forward and this is about finding problems and presenting solutions. 32 specific solutions in the reports but let me tell you some of the general overviews of those solutions. or general issues we have to address. the gaping security loopholes in europe is one of them. trying to get the europeans and

our foreign counterparts throughout the world to work with us and have a centralized database for tracking these foreign fighter travelers. we have to focus on combatting domestic radicalization in a huge way. we have to figure out how to provide off ramps for individuals who are becoming radicalized, identifying them, doing the hard work on the community level. that's very difficult. we need to work on having a national strategy here. we don't have that. we also need to figure out how to do a better job of identifying those individuals trying to go over to europe. one of the things you have to look at is the problem with how the recruiting americans here. they recruit them on the internet and go to the dark spaces of the internet which we can't monitor we have been a court orther, it's very difficult. that's a real problem us. we have to figure out how to do a better job with that. we have to work with our global allies much better than we're doing now in much more coordinated fashion and we have

to encourage information sharing which mr. loudermilk identified during the course of the task force about information sharing between local, state and federal officials and doing a better job with that that there's many more things they have to do but the recommendations are specific and you'll see a lot of proposed legislation coming out of this. we worked very hard on this and i want to thank everybody involved in this, mr. vela did a great job on the democratic side and my republican colleagues here mr. radcliffe, miss mcsally, mr. lauder milk a loud hurd. freshman congressmen and i think the report shows we've done our home work. i want to thank the chairman for allowing us to do this work and thank my colleagues for the great work they did. >> i want to thank you chairman katko for your hard work. i now recognize the congressman from texas mr. vela. >> thank you, i, too, want to

thank chairman mccall for this. and chairman katko took over this committee after he came in and on behalf our our colleagues i'd like to thank you congressman katko and the rest of my colleagues and committee staff who worked very hard over the last six months. i won't repeat a lot about what's already been said but the thing here is that we're dealing with an enemy. people ordinarily want peace but in this case we're dealing with an enemy who wants to concur and cause a lot of harm. the threat of the course over the last six months evolved over the course of our eyes because interned radicalization popped up and things were happening all over the place. so the most important thing