seen success in accomplishing that, you know, i think better than almost anyone in his hand, maybe almost better than anyone in this country, how really hard it is to get the job done. what is always interesting to me is how many speeches are given, how many brave statements are made when the hard choices are made, how few people are less at the table. because it is not popular. the hard reality is doing what has to be done to reform entitlements is not popular. to reform the revenue system, that creates its own challenges. and to face up to costs in every part of the federal government, there is a constituency for every dollar. nobody knows that better than you do. i want to

the budget control act ask for $480 million in savings -- that in the president's budget. the budget control act also calls for a sequester if the special committee did not come up with the specified level of savings. the special committee failed. that is the hard reality we are left with. they did not succeed. we're left with a sequestered which calls for additional savings out of defense. i think the number was used $535 billion. our number is slightly different than that but almost the same. you said a sequester goes too far, but is there outdate place in between. i know you want to negotiate against yourself. i was part of the simpson-bowles

commission and it had savings almost as big as what was in the control act. other bipartisan commissions have called for similar levels of savings. i understand it loud and clear that from your perspective, it goes too far. is there no additional savings that can be derived beyond those that go beyond the budget control requirements? >> having been the true this process a great deal, the $487 billion, almost half a trillion dollars, is the largest amount ever included in the budget agreement i've ever worked on.

it is a big number and yet, i thought it was very important to be able to work with that service chiefs and others to develop a savings to develop the kind of force we needed the future. we have tried to do this in a responsible way and what i need to have to make this work is a degree of stability with regard to the defense budget as to where we are going over the next 10 years, particularly in light of the threats we are confronting. this is not like the past. we have significant threat still out there in the world. any one of which could have less immersed in a new conflict and any one of which demands we have a presence in the world.

what we have presented is a strong budget and it is fiscally irresponsible and sets the right path for the future. if at some point in the future, if there are areas of efficiencies and threats are reduced and we can gain savings, we will look as additional savings. but for now, what we have put in place represent an important step we should stick to. >> let me just say and i want to be very honest and direct -- i don't know how to write a budget that achieves the kind of deficit and debt reduction that we need. i would go further than what the president has presented. i would go further and want to try to balance the budget and that -- there is not support for going that far.

i think you know where i am coming from. i would like to achieve a balanced budget at the end of 10 years given the level of that we have. i do not know leeway to do that without fundamentally reforming entitlements, without fundamentally reforming the tax system. and asked those who are the best off upon us to enjoy certain tax preferences to give them up. i don't know any way to do it without asking for additional defense savings. before the simpson-bowles commission, an analyst appeared and i asked them, they reminded us that 51% of all police are the departments of defense. they reminded us that did not count contractors. when we asked some contractors there are, they said they could

not give the number. i said what is the range, and they said one to 9 million. can you give us a better assessment today at holy contractors there are at the department of defense? >> i'm not sure where that came from. we have limited data on the number of full-time equivalents, but it is more like 300,000 contractor equivalents. they may be including multiplier effect in the budget, but that is a rough estimate. >> what is the cost per soldier to maintain a soldier for a year in afghanistan? >> about $850,000 per soldier. i would be careful for that number because there are fixed costs built into that number and the decisions you make about that number will affected. >> we understand that.

when people back home ask me and the number i had was $600,000, so that takes my breath away. when i tell them $600,000, it takes their breath away. can you help us understand why that cost -- $850,000 a year per soldier, -- a beach -- >> the major component of the extra -- when you are in a war, you are operating at a much higher tempo. that's a good part and is probably 50% of the budget. there are all of these in a blur costs like the costs from an improvised explosive devices, we have coalition support payments, all that is amortized

into it. $600,000 might be closer to a variable costs. you are operating at a very high tempo in a war zone. >> i think it did reflect the variable cost. i have gone over five minutes, but we will go to senator sessions. i want to conclude this by saying that at the end of the day before we are done, it is not going to be possible absent some other thing happening, and goodness knows that could happen tomorrow. we all understand that. but budgets have to be based on what we know at time we write them. we're going to have to have additional savings of we're going to deal with the debt threat in the country.

>> could i just comment on that? >> this congress proposed as part of the budget control act, a trillion dollars in savings. you cannot meet that challenge you are facing in this country by continuing to go back at discretionary spending. that's less than a third of federal spending. if you are not dealing with entitlements spending and revenues, and you are not going back to the same place, frankly, you are not going to make it. not only by cutting defense but by cutting discretionary spending. >> i could not agree with you more. i don't know what could be more clear. you have actually written budgets around here as have i..

almost bizarre what the strategy has been so far. the strategy is to go after discretionary spending that's the part of going down as a share of gdp. we don't go after the part of spending that is going up as a share of gdp and those are the entitlements. we have to be honest with people. we have to help them understand what is the place we are spending over time is really rising dramatically. it is in the entitlement accounts and on the revenue been it's the lowest has in 60 years. this is reality talking and i'm glad you get a dose of it here. hefts senator sessions. >> thank you. mr. secretary, thank you as we

wrestle with these challenges, i would just say the discretionary spending in this country, not defense has grown at substantially in the first two years of the president's tenure and not counting the stimulus package, it was almost a trillion dollars in addition to that. we are spending a lot of money there. food stamps as an entitlement have increased 300%. there is a lot of abuse and waste in that program. the defense department base budget is up 10% while the war costs have been dropping over those years. medicaid is a huge growing a program. medicare, increasing it almost 8% a year whereas that economic

growth is projected to be about 3% over the next 10 years. that is unsustainable. would you agree that is an unsustainable path? >> and there are a lot of unsustainable path. >> i hope we understand this, food stamps, medicare, medicaid, social security were exempted from any cuts under sequester. not a dime. the cuts fell dramatically on other discretionary and defense. defense had not had as much increase prior to these cuts taking place as the other discretionary did. i think defense being a core function of government, this is a dangerous path for us to be in. we have to get off of it.

mr. secretary, we talk about the money shortfall the admirable -- the admiral says that suggests is -- says -- do you agree it threatens our national security? >> i do. >> with regard to the sequester, and the situation we are in, the president's budget calls for an almost $2 trillion in new taxes. as a reality, that's not going to happen. he also basically abandons the sequestered. increases spending by about $1.6 trillion over where we were when

the sequester was in place. i am worried we may not reach a conclusion before you face a financial challenge of great significance. do you have plans to deal with the of it jollity that's perhaps an agreement will not be reached and you would have to go forward with a sequester reduction? >> we have not made any plans with regard to sequester. sequester has a meat axe approach for cuts across the board and frankly you cannot do a helluva lot of planning for it. it would truly be a disaster. i would have to take the strategy i presented to you and throw out the window if they

sequestered it happen. for that reason, i urge congress to come together and we will work with you to try to develop some things that will de-trigger the sequester. >> i agree that we have to do. we have multiple threats around the world. i just returned from a trip in afghanistan and egypt and libya. tunisia, israel, you never know what danger will break out next. there's a lot of tension in that area of the world and we have a lot of obligations of the pacific. that is very significant. there are things that a core defense budget have to be maintained to meet the challenges we face and i do believe the remaining 5/6 of the

budget, almost half of it not touched at all with any reduction in spending -- it's got to be allowed more than half. that has to be a challenge to us. we cannot balance this on the back of the defense department. if we break faith with those fabulous men and women who have been deployed immediately and you are placing their lives at risk -- at risk, if they see what they -- what we have done targeting them for the wasteful washington spending that is going on, we will have broken faith with the best madwoman this country has produced. i know you share those concerns. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for being with us today. i'm going to pick up on base

slightly different tangent and my friend from alabama and suggest to you that everybody understands our country faces a huge economic challenges. our middleclass is collapsing. we have more people living in poverty than any time in modern history of this country which is one of the reasons medicaid is up, one of the reasons food stamps are up, we have 15 million people have no health insurance and millions of families are struggling to send their families to college and pay for child care. how we deal with every aspect of the budget impact on every other. somebody correct me if i am wrong, but military spending has tripled since 1997. we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. i want to start off by asking you, my understanding is a the

added say it still operates 268 military installations in germany and 124 in japan. in germany, people all of health care and their kids go to college. without having to pay for it, as a matter of fact. i am interested to know why we have 268 military bases defending germany. i thought that war was won a few years ago. can someone help me out on that one? >> i will yield to general dempsey on that. that 268 number sounds high. we have cuts almost 148 basis out of europe over the last few years and bringing down to additional brigades of europe, we will bring down that infrastructure even more. >> i may be wrong, -- but why -- world war two has been over for

a few years. who are we defending? the soviet union doesn't exist. why do we have that kind of presence in germany when we have 50 million people in this country with no health insurance? >> i cannot answer the latter part of your question but i am an advocate of maintaining our relationship with nato. they have a $300 billion budget in the aggregate. >> who are we going to war with in europe? >> if we go to war, the first people we will ask to go with us are europeans. >> but the question is why do we have 268 military installations? >> i will give you the data. i spent 12 years in germany and i never counted anywhere near 260 installations but we will take that for the record. >> i want to pick up another question the chairman asked

about defense contractors. my understanding is in the past, the department defense has estimated that we have some 500,000 or 600,000 people who are military contractors. the government accountability office has estimated that number at 900,000. >> i need to see the definition of what we are including. are we talking about the multiplier effect? i will agree they are rough and no. but the full-time equivalents we believe we are paying is around 300,000. >> i had an interesting experience in afghanistan about a year-and-a-half ago. we were being taken around by two fellows in an armored car. one was from the military and what was a private contractor. they were doing the same work. the guy who was the contractor

was making substantially more than the fellow who was in the army. does that make sense? can you talk about that? >> let me just say, senator, that the area you have pointed out is an area that frankly need attention at the defense department. one of the reasons we are looking at $60 billion in trying to make the place more efficient is going after contractors and trying to reduce those numbers. i am aware of the problem. secretary gates at one. basically said he did not know how many contractors he had at the defense department. the number is too large and we need to do what we can to reduce it. >> my office has gotten involved in terms of fraud. you have a huge budget dealing with thousands and thousands of defense contractors.

my understanding is the top three defense contractors, boeing, lockheed, at northrop grumman paid over a billion dollars in fines to sell -- to settle a fine -- to settle fraud allegation. that's just three. are we moving aggressively to address that issue? >> that is part of our effort. to be able to go after those kinds of fraudulent activities in the various contracts that we have to try to achieve savings there. in addition, we are at department that cannot audit all our books and that is crazy. >> thank you for raising that point. people talking about we need more money and what you've told us is we don't even know where

we are spending more how we are spending it. >> we do not have a lot of stability and that's something we owe the taxpayers. >> i would think so. >> we have to stop there and we are one minute over. with the number of senators we have, if we don't impose that discipline, we will not be done in time for the secretary to meet his requirements. >> thank you at a want to congratulate you on this historic hearing. this is one of the few times the secretary of defense has appeared before the budget committee. i know you have been here in a number of other capacities. i'm from wyoming, which is a patriotic state which has one of the highest percentages of people serving in the military. there is a river attributed to the president that says there would be what base in each state that would be eliminated. in wyoming, we only have one based in cheyenne and it's our biggest city of 56,000. it's a big part of the city and

i appreciate the military doing it a breath test -- doing a number of tests, so i appreciate the comments you would be going through a crack process. i know it has been difficult but fair in the past and i just want your reassurance that the process you will be using. >> that is correct. >> thank you very much. as a founding member of the air force caucus and a former member of the air national guard, i noted your reduction in strategic airlift. am i correct in assuming that will rely more on air national guard units? would that be a fair assumption? >> the chief and the air force responsible for it to legs of

the triad, i do not have the answer about how well the fact that guard but we can give you the answers. >> i hope you will look at the efforts. my third concern. i mentioned we only have one base in wyoming, that happens to be a missile base. senator conrad and i share concerns -- are there rumors about unilateral reductions in nuclear force regardless of the requirements of start? is that the future of the icbm force? in art -- are there any significant budget savings from icbm reductions? >> one of the things that our budget is to maintain the

nuclear triad and the deterrents that we have. we think we need to maintain our missiles, submarines and bombers that are part of our deterrent. the one thing you are referring to is a review being conducted pursuant to review our nuclear stockpile and the there were a number of options that were discussed. there have been no decisions of that and at one of the options presented was maintaining the status quo. >> i appreciate that, particularly in light of what is happening in iran right now. my final area of concern, i got a letter just this week for a man and the military who is about to retire. his family has been part of try care, but he has heard these

comments about how the cost for try care, the participation was going to have to go up. he wrote me because he has a sister on welfare and his sister pays no where near the costs he does. he is not sure the military is such a good deal compared to welfare. that seems to be a terrible comparison. is that something that is going to be taken into consideration as you look these additional costs? >> we do based on income levels with regards to retirees and what they are asked to provide in additional fees. the problem that we have is that the cost for health care have grown dramatically. we've got about $50 billion in the defense budget that goes to health care and we're looking at ways to see if we can provide additional cost control and

increasing those fees is something that we have maintained and we do that recognizing the try care program is much more in terms of cost, it's much less than the private sector in terms of the same benefits. it's a good deal we provide even though we are asking for these additional fees. >> i appreciate the brevity and clarity of your answers. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary, thank you for your long and distinguished record of service. even when i had the privilege of serving with you when we were both young congressman, and you were the head of reconciliation

in the budget committee in the house. nobody understood what reconciliation was, and here we are, some of three decades later, still talking about reconciliation, so thank you. i want to call to your attention a subject matter not directly in your jurisdiction, but i have filed what the administration has requested -- a veterans conservation corps for unemployed veterans to bring them into the federal employe for one year -- these are veterans coming home who are unemployed, to do projects helping the environment, a teachers' aids, etc. and give these veterans a chance to get over the hump.

that in directly effect you, even though it is going to be run through the department of the interior and with the concurrence of the department of veterans affairs, i wanted to ask you about this sequester. let's remember what it was. it was an attempt to try to create a guillotine that would hang over the heads of the super committee so that the super committee would have a significant incentive in order to come to agreement. the super committee did not and now we are having to deal with a sequester which is law unless we change the law. you talk about what you need is

certainty in budget 8 for the defense department, yet you have this guillotine hanging over the head of the defense department that would go into effect in january of 2013. how do you deal with this in our budgetary plans? >> it is a very unfortunate because it sends a very dark cloud over the defense department and our defense department contractors that worry about the possibility of sequester and what it means for their employment force as well. there are a lot of very concerned people looking at the prospect that it might happen and for us, we are not planning and have made no plans for sequester because it is a natty

formula and goofy to begin with. it is not something that anybody who is responsible ought to put into effect. it was designed as a gun to the head and i was disappointed the super committee failed in its job. i have to tell you having been in the budget process for a long time, there was a time when we had to be in a room negotiating with the administration on budget reductions and we were not allowed to leave the room until we have resolved the issue. that is what should have happened here. >> it should have. >> i know i am taking up your time, but i feel as though we showed the charter -- times in the past when we have done drawdowns, you mentioned that we

should plan for what we know. one of the things we know is that this is drawdown is not encourage a -- not occurring in an era following peace and stability but one following an area that is more dangerous than the one we are leaving. on sequestration and our ability to program for, we have to change the strategy. the third thing to understand is some of the variables we could affect are fixed. our manpower, we are off ramping 120,000 soldiers and marines. that's a fixed variable ended the structure is fixed. there are four places we're going to go for money. operations, made a strain, and modernization. there is no place else to go. if you ask me to go back and

look for money, not in this environment. >> a quick question on another subject. your secretary of the navy has stated the policy of the defense department, given the fact of the lessons of pearl harbor and how you need to spread the assets of ships, that there be the spreading of those assets have -- as they have always been, the carrier's on the atlantic coast, just like they are spread on the pacific coast. is that what you understand to be the policy of spreading the carrier assets of the atlantic to two ports? >> yes. >> thank you. thank you for your service. i mean that sincerely. i would like to reinforce a

couple of points senator sessions made earlier. first, i would like to dispel the notion that the wars in iraq and afghanistan have been the primary cause of our deficits. it is just not true. we spent about 1.3 trillion dollars in this graph shows the spending of the wars and blue and the deficit is in the red. so many people believe the war spending caused the deficit. that's simply not the case. that is the first point. secondly, i am new to town here and i'm an accountant. i like looking at history and numbers and i was really surprised when you look to the average spending on defense during my lifetime how it has declined.

we have gone for about 8% in the in the '90s. a record low during my lifetime. if you look at defense spending as a total of the budget, it went from 43% in the '60s to 25%. the 2013 budget would have that 16%. i believe that the defense of the nation is the top priority of government and it looks like our federal government has changed its focus from defending the nation to protecting entitlements. let me start out by asking why is it the case president obama and an awful lot of democrats picked up defense first for

adjusting the fiscal situation? that is the first thing they want to cut. i don't understand it. do you have any explanation? >> first of all, that is not true. it was the congress through the budget control act that mandated reductions in defense i am implementing. i'm following the law and congress passed that law. >> or to the defense cuts pushed by the democratic side and the president? >> let's face it. that was the hammer over the republicans had, defense sequestration, which you referred to as mindless and i agree with that. my understanding is you came up with it about a trillion dollars in discretionary savings and congress made a decision that you were going to fence those funds for national security and non-defense discretionary and that established close to $500

billion we would have to reduce defense. i think it is unfair to say that somehow the democrats were pushing for it when it was basically a bipartisan deal. >> next question. as the chairman pointed out and i think you agreed with, entitlement spending is driving the deficit long term. can you explain why the president has not proposed any kind of reform for saving social security and medicare? >> -- there is absolutely no plan to try to save social security. why's that? >> if i was the director of the management and budget, i could talk to you about that but i am sure the president has indicated if there is a willingness to come together and look at all the elements of federal spending, including

entitlements, there would be a willingness to put together the kind of comprehensive solution i have always been a part of in my budget history. >> i understand that, but everybody recognizes social security and medicare is driving beat up as a problem and just it is used as a political football. >> it is the old game. on one hand, -- that is the problem. it is a game. >> that is unfortunate because on one side, people will defend not touching revenues which need to be part of the deal and on the other side, those will defend not touching entitlements which have to be part of the deal. if you want a deal with the size of deficits this country is facing, you better put everything on the table. >> we are asking the military to

increase their contribution to try care and we're not asking any other government employee to do that. why is that? why ask the military and not maybe they unionized members of the federal work force? >> i am dealing with the defense budget. not dealing with other elements of the budget. in order to control the health- care costs, this is one way to try to do that. >> thank you. >> i ate like to give all but of good news. where we were three years ago and where we are today, just the headlines from yesterday, u.s. stocks rising on home sales data. people are now remodeling and spending on the homes they live in. pending home sales rise to a

two-year high and the economy is moving in the right direction. forecasters raised expectations for employment and new home construction and business spending because the economy is moving in the right direction. consumer confidence is up for the sixth straight month. unemployment claims are at the lowest level since march of 2008. this is a budget committee meeting and we want to talk about where we are in this economy. is it where we want to be? no. is it better? absolutely. i want to my colleague on the other side, i can't answer your questions on insurance premiums -- they pay a lower premium than folks who work in the federal government as a civilian worker.

that's just a fact. the other thing, the chart was interesting about military expenditures, but we have to include a state department, the cia, agriculture, and of the a. the va, which will be trillions to the expense of these wars. we cannot forget that. i serve on the veterans committee and i know a couple of my other members do. that is an ever-growing cost we'd much bear and we are responsible to do. they served our country and did it at our call. the -- we can argue over the worst, but the veterans must be taken care of. it is important that the public is subjected to watch us and they get the facts. i want to be a little parochial but i want to follow up by

question asked earlier which leads to my questions about the air force base in alaska. but before i do that, i know there was some details about how many bases in japan, but there are 600 military bases overseas and my concern is as we look at the realignment, now that we have identified the asia-pacific as an area we to be engaged in. alaska is the closest other than an ally, despite how they put alaska down by california all the time. we are closer in a lot of ways. i'm a little confused on why we have these bases with ltd. -- i know you're thinking about two brigades. we asked for this and now there is some discussion.

the f-16s are planning to move -- this was the same debate, the exact same debate, but we are not doing it now and the folks are just doing it. did the legal counsel look at this and how it conforms or not to what may be required? this seems to be going around the system. >> the reason the president would request that is to go through the process of what infrastructure should we reduce in this country? that is the process i would expect to go through. >> this is what gets me concerned. they say they're going to move these f-16s and the air force's doing the analysis that is going to save money, whereas the army

is actually going through a process before they determine what they are going to do. i do not get this. it's almost like they picked the location and they are now starting be analysis. yet this is the same debate we had on the same location. >> i strongly urge you talk with the air force chief. we have had him up in alaska and that's why you are here today and that's why i am asking you. >> can i look forward to having a response back? >> i will put them up for the record, this committee one year ago and the work of the chair bringing that in front of us that we discovered some expenditure that we think is not the best use of the money. i need a definition as to why we are finding that again.

>> we will give a full response back to you, but the problem is if we do not meet our funding requirements and the obligation we mate, we will incur an even larger fine. >> every contract any department signs is subject to appropriation. knowing that this body -- we never exercise that. let's just not give the money. they signed the contract with that obligation. >> appropriations ultimately makes that decision and one way or another, we will pay the price if we do not meet the obligation. >> >> thank you.

i have great respect for you and your service to the country and the important role you play, but i have to ask about the interview that she gave with cnn because i need to understand when you were asked about what we were counseling our israeli partners with respect to iran and you said you were counseling them not to attack iran and then you said you believed the administration believes that the iranian regime is a rational actor. can you help me understand why you would have said that particularly in a public interview about one of our

closest allies? i am really concerned in doing that that we are sending the wrong signal to iran. can you help me with that? >> thank you. you beat senator gramm to the punch. i want to clear up some things. first of all, i did not counsel israel not to attack. we have had a conversation about the issue of time and that will require a much longer conversation but on the issue of rationality, i agree iran is dangerously misguided. look at its behavior. a low that its neighbors and interferes and threatens its neighbors and disregards its own citizens. none of that is acceptable to us. but it fits their pattern of thinking and a 30-year history

of conduct. my view is we cannot afford to underestimate our adversaries by writing them off as irrational. i personally do not mistake their rhetoric for a lack of reason. i think the issue for us all is we have to decide what global pressure, including the use of force can turn that regime away from its nuclear weapons ambition. >> as i understand your testimony, you would not take force as an option off the table? >> absolutely not. >> one of the things i am concerned about -- the way the description came across, this issue that if they acquire a nuclear weapon, it's not just about them using a but the

possibility they are a great state sponsor of terrorism and could provide a that nuclear weapon and let others use it on their behalf. is that not a risk? >> that is a real risk as is nuclear proliferation among those who feel threatened. >> when we hear those types of possibilities -- we have just heard that is a real risk, most of us think that it cannot be a rational act from our perspective in terms of looking at that and the number of innocent lives that could be lost if a terrorist group provides a nuclear weapon. you would agree that maybe by their calculations it is rational but by hours it would not be? >> i think that is exactly the point. as we seek to influence their behavior, we have to understand

their way of thinking. that is the only point i was trying to make. >> i would ask secretary panetta as a follow up, the bigger question -- in the president's budget, you are recommending increases to active duty and veterans in terms of health-care costs, but it does not seem the president is proposing any increases to the civilian work force. that is hard to ask of our military when they're making so many sacrifices and we are making sacrifices on the civilian side. do we all -- members of congress, i think all of us should be in sacrificing. but i worry we're asking them to go first. i know health-care costs are a big issue. >> if i was the office of

management and budget director, i would give you an answer that dealt with the entire budget. but as defense secretary, have to deal with what i am responsible for and that is why we approached it based on where we thought savings could be achieved. >> i worry about your ability to go to the military and ask them to do this and make the sacrifice when civilian employees of the federal work force, including members of congress, because we get the same health plan, are not making a similar sacrifice. as the leader of the department of defense, i worry about the message we're sending to our military. i worry about you having to go and sell at. >> i understand, but one of the great things about our men and women in uniform is that they go where they are told to go and they do what they are supposed to do and they salute and do the job. >> we have a responsibility for

them. >> senator -- >> mr. secretary, welcome. the last bract ground only addressed the american bases, but the question in the upcoming background would be what infrastructure should we reduce in this country? is there a way to and should we include both domestic and overseas bases, particularly given the extent so much of what has done can now be done from a remote location because of our electronic capabilities? we fly aircraft from remote locations far away in remote

locations. >> we have close about 140 bases in europe and we are looking at another 40 or 50 basis that will be closed. fox we do have the authority to look at the infrastructure abroad and try to reduce that. when it comes to this country, the only way we can do that is with the approval of congress and that's why the process was developed. >> i get that there is a difference between the political ability of the required congress to approve of or tolerate the decision to close a domestic base. nevertheless, when you are looking at our posture as a military, trying to figure out where the most affecting -- most effective basis is, can you have the process a look at american bases and over it -- and not

overseas bases? can it be put into a global braque? >> if it proceeds with the process, but they have every right to present the rationale to what we're doing with regards to infrastructure abroad at how that fits the larger picture. i agree with that. >> let me jump to cyber security. i say they did is necessary since we are behind the curve since the threat is developing a far greater rate than our defense capability. could you speak about military supply train -- military supply chain security against planted cyber threats? we of supply chain security for

textiles, yet we have aircraft flying a warrant that has components built overseas. do you need more resources now that the cyber threat has become more great to make sure our supply chain security is protected against cyber intrusion? >> it has been pointed out and we east are seeing increasing cyber attacks not only in a private sector but the public sector as well. this country has a responsibility to develop the defenses that have to be there in order to ensure that this country is not vulnerable to those kinds of attacks. the money we have identified tries to improve our technology and capabilities within the defense department, but i would suggest part of the

consideration has to be what we going to do to make sure the equipment and technology we're getting has adequate protections against cyber attack. >> let me make a request for the record. if you could break out what is related to security -- if you could -- lasting are like to do is focus on health-care reform. you are a very big buyer. a lot of that gets delivered here. there is a significant reform

movement taking place. i want to be engaged with that with the department of defense. >> i will have are under secretaries responsible for the health-care area get in touch with you and go through the issues we're dealing with there. >> thank you. >> thank you. i would like to think secretary hale for making sure that the cfo's around government and i appreciate his conversations with me in that regard. auditing, it seems like the most critical thing is to make sure we are doing it right.

i am concerned we still don't have the kind of sound audit we would like to have that the department. could you give us the status on that and what you are doing to accelerate the audit ability given the huge sacrifice the department of defense is being asked to make? >> we have a plan that we set up a couple of years ago to move it toward audit and we're focusing on the information used to manage budgetary information. we have accelerated the budget statement portion of it since it is a key one. with all of the statements being audit-ready as the law requires. we have set aside a fair amount of resources.

we have a summit near-term successes. the fund's distribution department got that and we're trying to do new cure -- near- we are not there yet, but we are committed to its. secretary panetta's support is a golden opportunity for us and we will leverage it every way we can in this important area. >> i just want you to know that we are watching it and appreciate your efforts and having a former omb director helps. congratulations, leon, for continuing to exceed expectations of omb directors. i heard your testimony, that it creates risks, the $487 billion.

you also said these are acceptable risks. how do you describe those risks that would be entailed should we move forward with this sequester as currently planned? >> they would be devastating, because the cuts would be made, as you know, according to the formula across the board. it would come out of force structure, it would come out of readiness, it would come out of, i assume, compensation would be on the table as well. it would come out of every area of the defense budget. the danger is that when you do it that way, you automatically hollow out the force. what you are doing is you are weakening every area of the defense budget by some kind of blind formula.

even though we will have a smaller force structure as a result of those cuts, we will be ill-equiped, ill-trained, and ill-prepared -- >> mr. secretary, when do you need to start making the changes? january 1 next year is when the the sequester goes into effect? when would you make changes to dod? >> i would have to look at -- >> sometime prior to the summer. we are now into the spring. let me give you a statistic i have -- i hope it is not right, because it is scary. $17.4 billion is what you spend on health care in 2000. $50 billion to date paid the biggest increase in our budget, as i understand it.

what more can be done? >> it is the first step. there are the steps we have to look at as we look at the kind of health care costs generally. probably the first step would be to increase the tricare fees, and then continue to kind of look at health care delivery in the future. >> may i add to that? we are doing a number of things to the health care area. it is not just tricare fees. trying to improve the quality, and our undersecretary of personal readiness can address this better. but we have looked at provider costs. we are seeking authority to use federal pricing schedules for pharmaceuticals, which significantly reduces the costs, using medicare payment rates for outpatient payments, would also significantly reduces costs. we did a number of those things before we look at the tricare

fees last year, and in this proposal we made this year. we are looking across the board at health care and trying to hold down costs while maintaining the quality of care, which is critical. >> can i just add one thing on sequester, mr. chairman? it is already beginning to have an effect on the defense industrial base. there are those within our defense industrial base within this specter of sequester hang over them that are already making decisions about their work force. this is an immediate problem for them that will become a problem for us eventually. >> thank you. i know my time is up, but the odds are critical, and we've got to be sure that we are dealing with health care costs, because it takes away from readiness and operations. the chairman has talked about putting a budget together and we have got to do something quickly

to avoid eroding for the industrial base and having dod make decisions that would be detrimental in devastating. >> senator murray. >> i spent a lot of time worked with democrats and republicans on the issues that you are talking about today. all of us went into the committee knowing that sequestration would be a terrible outcome. we understood that across-the- board cuts to these programs, as well as middle-class families, the most vulnerable americans, would be bad policy. that was the point of the bipartisan trigger that senator reid and speaker boehner agreed to. they were supposed to be painful to push us toward a compromise. i am disappointed that despite the fact we put on our site at some pretty painful cuts out, we cannot get to an agreement because we cannot get to that shared sacrifice moment. compromise is needed to get to that. i hope that everyone on both sides is, because we are concerned about where that is going to go. but i wanted to question -- actually, a question about an issue that has become very

important, and has recently come to light at madigan army medical center in my home state of washington. a number of soldiers had behaviorial health diagnosis changed from ptsd to other behavioral health disorders that did not come with the same level of benefits. however, the following, as you may know, an independent review at walter reed, a number of these diagnoses were then changed back to ptsd. obviously, this is really troubling. what is even more troubling to me and to many service members and their family members in my home state, and a lot of people i've been talking to, is the allegation that the decision to strip those soldiers of a ptsd diagnosis came from a unit at madigan that seems to be taking the costs of ptsd diagnosis into

account when they were making their decision. now, there is an investigation going on into this, but really, to me, one of the things that is clear is that oversight to within the army and at the departmental level allows this process to go unchecked. i'm really concerned about how the services and -- ptsd behaviorial health conditions, where service members are administratively separated instead of going to the physical disability process. i want to ask you, given that the adjustment disorder is comprehensible by dod, required to use the rating schedule, what is the reason for dod treating the adjustment disorder differently? >> i was very concerned when i got the report about what happened at madigan. i think it reflects the fact that, frankly, we have not learned how to effectively deal

with that, and we have to. we need to make sure that we have at the psychiatrists, the psychologists, and the medical people who can make these evaluations, because these are real problems. i have met with men and women who severed this problem. i met with a couple last night. they had to go through hell in order to get a diagnosis that was required here. that should not happen. we are investigating, obviously, what took place, but i directed our personnel undersecretary to look at this issue and to correct it, because it is unacceptable to have the process we have in place. >> i appreciate the attention given to this. it is going to take a lot of work. i am deeply concerned that when someone comes home from war and they pack to go through a diagnosis like this, it is hard enough after you have been told to man up for your time of

service to then have ptsd and then have that reversed and change back and told that is nothing wrong with you. it is devastating to these men and women and their families. this is something i will be following closely and i want your personal attention on it, and i think that the issue of race at madigan shows that we need a more clear, consistent guideline for particular practices -- >> i agree with that. you are absolutely right. >> i never want to hear anybody say that we will not give you a diagnosis of ptsd because we have a budget problem. >> senator thune. >> i also want to recognize the colonel who commanded one of the finest bases in the country. mr. secretary, you touched on

this once already, but i want to put a fine point on it. you recommend in a budget that congress enact two more brac rounds. it seems like a lot of the excess capacity among domestic bases could be filled with those overseas bases, particularly in europe, bringing troops home from bases in the continental u.s., particularly given the fact that it seems we have had a military presence in europe for a long time, obviously. it seems to make good sense to get some of these folks home. if you could just elaborate on why you have not recommended closing overseas bases in this budget, especially in parts of the world where it is no longer necessary to have that kind of military footprint. >> we have had recommendations

with regard to reducing military infrastructure abroad. as i pointed out, we have closed about 140 bases abroad. we are going to close additional bases, particularly as a result of reducing the number of brigades in europe from four down to two. at the same time, i have to tell you that operations, particularly in the middle east, have required some of the key bases in europe to be important launching points for our air force and for travel and for supplies to that area. there is any need to try to maintain those basics area, and in addition to that, our nato requirements and our partnership required that we engage in exercises and in a rotational presence there to work with in a note so that we can build up that partnership to make it capable of dealing with its

responsibilities as well. having said that, we are in the process of looking at additional reductions abroad. when it comes to the united states and the kind of infrastructure reductions that have to take place here, finally, there is no other way to do it again through the brac process. >> mr. secretary, the president has said that he would veto any attempt by congress to prevent the effects of the sequestration on military spending. i want to share with you some things you have set, for example, at the munich security conference, that you and the president "are not paying attention to sequesters, sequester is crazy," and you expect congress to come forward and de-trigger the amount. it would virtually devastate our national defense. i am trying to figure out -- there are conflicting messages coming out. you are urging congress to deal with the sequester at the same time that president has said he would veto legislation dealing with it.

>> i think what the president stated is that there were just an effort to trigger the defense part of sequester, he would oppose that. he thinks that sequester across the board, on the defense and non-defense, is severe enough that both areas ought to be addressed in trying to de- trigger sequester. >> there is a question, too, about whether or not, if there were sequester on defense, how would be applied a section speaks of the sequestration of budget enforcement in terms of budget accounts. it is not declared that sequester amounts must be applied in equal amounts. for example, you could choose to apply that the amount to be sequestered from the navy procurement account to be entirely from one activity in that account. how would you approach this

issue in terms of flexibility? you suggest this would be applied at a very -- >> let me ask our comptroller. >> we will work with omb to understand. this is an arcane law going back to a 1985 act. our lawyers believe that with the low level of detail in that letter, we need to work with the omb lawyers to see what exactly is the case. make no mistake, i don't think anybody questions that at the account level, army and navy shipbuilding, that would have to be equal in percentage terms, and that fits the act's description pretty well. this is a bad idea, it is bad

policy, i hope that the congress will take the steps to de- trigger it. >> i see my time is expired. i'm getting the gavel. >> thank you, senator. we are trying to adhere closely to the five, because we promised the secretary and we would get him out of here by noon. senator wyden. >> i wanted to talk, mr. secretary, first about the guard and reserve. you and i have talked about this in the past. in my view, there unique expertise, particularly the ability to adapt rapidly to mission requirements, is one of the reasons we ought to be especially careful at this time of making tough choices with respect to what happens with the guard and reserve. you are going to get four separate studies to provide in- depth analysis. the company's military members, those on active duty.

what the studies are going to find, all of them, is strong evidence about how much less expensive the guard is compared to the active duty. the question, mr. secretary, for you this morning is what it make more sense to wait until you have accurate model to compare costs before you go forward with disproportionate cuts to the air guard? what we have tried to do is look at the air force, look at the guard, and it seems to me that while all the choices we have in front of you are tough ones -- there is not an easy one there -- wouldn't it make more sense to hold off until you get those studies if there would be disproportionate cuts made to the air guard? >> senator, first of all, i strongly agree that we have to depend on a strong reserve and a strong national guard to

assist us come out particularly when it comes to mobilization. as we reduce the force, frankly, we will need that back up. when it comes to numbers in the national guard and reserve, we pretty much maintain the force we have now and will continue to maintain it. the 1 area where reductions, the air guard reserve, was done pursuant to the recommendations of the air force chief. the basis for that is that in the past, we've reduced airlift in the active force but we have not touched the reserve force. he felt that in order to achieve the savings that we had to achieve under this budget control act, there were a areas in the reserve for he could achieve some savings by reducing some of the airlift capability that was not multi-mission. that is why the decision was made to reduce those areas. at the same time, i met with the governors yesterday and they have some of the same concerns you have, and i indicated to

them that we would work with them to determine whether we can try to do this in a way that can achieve the same savings. but provide some ability relieve some of the impact that this would have. >> thank you on that point, mr. secretary. if you would stay open on that and we could continue to have some discussion on that -- i think that as we look at those four separate studies, it means that what you have done on this is try to make this data-driven. if we could continue that discussion, i would appreciate it. one other area we can get into is energy. you all at the department of defense are one of the largest single users of energy in our country. sometimes it takes your breath away, when you think through the implications. on a recent tour in afghanistan, we heard about the fact that it costs in some instances $100 to get gas out to

the forward operating basis. what do you in addition, mr. secretary, in this budget as actually getting accomplished in terms of making us more energy-independent? >> i am going to have a general dempsey speak to the particulars of what you pointed out. energy is a very important element in driving our national defense. but at the same time, we have made strong improvements in trying to develop energy efficiency, particularly in the navy as well as in other elements. here the goal is to try to continue the investment in energy efficiency, because it saves money in the long run to be able to do that. let me ask general dempsey. >> for me, it is part efficiency in part effectiveness. there is a real operation requirement here. there are places in afghanistan where you cannot get anything by way of resupply except by air dropping it.

that drives the cost of that commodity up. to the secretary's point, we have a commitment in the budget and we have got some plans, milestones, and we're working towards it. >> senator grassley. >> senator wyden brought up the issue i was going to start with on the air guard, so i don't expect you to say anything more than what you said to him, but i would like to make a little comment about your answer. that would be this -- you probably correctly quoted the secretary of the air force that it was -- that the active-duty had taken probably as much as they can so something had to come from the guard. but we got the distinct impression from our meeting with the iowa delegation with regard

to the 152nd fighter wing being removed that the last time they did it, as opposed to how senator wyden described it, being data-driven. we heard from the national guard bureau which fighter wing to cut after the decision had been made to take the cut out of the air national guard. we're looking for the statistical basis, databases, whatever it is, and we are having a hard time getting it, and we would like to get it, not just chuck grassley, uphold delegation. my second point is to read a statement and not have you comment, because i gave you a letter that will have the basis of what i am going to talk about. just so you know, this is

something i give a little concern to. for the last three years, we have come in my office, read each year 120 audits done by the inspector general. you want to remember, we pay about $100 million a year in this area. my letter is about just 16 of the 120 audits of the last year. we have uncovered egregious waste and misconduct. these reports were issued by the office of inspector general last year. i discovered them during the course of my ongoing oversight review of quality, where i am about to issue by third annual report. if i had to use two words to characterize what i found in these 16 reports, these would- be "scandalous" and

"disgraceful." some of the worst i've ever seen. they tell me two things. first, all the wasted money needs to be recovered, and second, responsible persons held accountable. you said you wanted to save $500 billion. the act of inspector general this serving up the savings on a silver platter, close to $1 billion worth. without high-level intervention, i am afraid that all the good audit work and potential savings will be for naught. i feel the ability to recover wasted money is not likely to happen anytime soon. all the information i see tells me that the hard-hitting recommendations contained in these reports are being slowly and quietly ground down to nothing by pentagon bureaucracy. i respectfully ask that you take a moment, read the summaries of those 16 reports that i picked out of the 120, which you will find in my letter, and tell me whether you are discouraged or angered by what you see.

please urge those assigned the task to search for a reasonable path forward on the unresolve the recommendations. for the audits, recommendations or a point of despair. they are bottom line and are about to fall through the cracks. a. i reminded that these audits cost about $100 million. i believe it is in andcumbent on all of us to act on the waste. i will use only one sentence from my letter. one of these reports calls for a review of the actions of officials responsible for approving projects that were not cost effective and take administrative action is needed. this is what the navy's response was to it. in an e-mail of january 17 of this year, it stated, "it is it not necessary to take administrative action against officials responsible for selecting the projects, and considers the recommendations closed."

i will close with this, that i would want to comment on another issue the defense department for reopening the project flickr investigation, which was supposed to examine allegations that government employees, a includingdod personnel, had pursued child pornography and government computers. after the investigation arbitrarily shut down, i wrote to secretary gates on november 5, 2010. i wanted to raise questions about why the investigation was allowed to go dead. i recently but that after your review, cases have been flowing to the courts for prosecution. i hope those pursuing child pornography while on the job

are held accountable. >> senator grassley -- >> you can respond if you want to, but you don't have to. >> i understand. you and i have known each other a hell of a long time going back to our days on the agriculture committee on the house side. i have always respected your work on going after waste in the federal government. i want you to know a couple of things. number one, all those reports, i do not take a slightly. i think they are seriously done. and my direction to my department is that we will implement the recommendations contained in those reports, and i get a report on that and i am happy to share that with you as to what progress we're making

in implementing those recommendations. i require that when they make those recommendations, we don't just put it in a draw work. we have got to implement those recommendations. secondly, our ability to develop our own audit capability, i hope, will give us the ability to get ahead of this game rather than behind it, where we are now. >> i thank you very much, and i know that you are very sincere about it. >> that you, senator. let me put this chart up. you know, secretary panetta, you gave a serious charge to this committee in an earlier testimony saying that we have to be the conscience of the congress in these committees in the house and senate. you certainly were that when you were chairman. i tried. i must say, i don't feel i have had great success in convincing my colleagues to face up to these matters. i was proud to be part of the fiscal commission, i was proud to be part of the group of six.

i think we made serious, responsible suggestions to do things in a balanced way. yes, discretionary spending has to be addressed. yes, we have to reform the titans. yes, we have got to address revenue as well. but as i have listened here this morning, i hope the conclusion is not that there is no additional savings that can be derived from defense. i don't believe it. i've spent a great deal of time looking at places we could save responsibly, and i don't think we're going to, at the end of the day, have an alternative here. if we don't find a way to come together over a comprehensive plan to have additional savings, what is ultimately going to happen is it is going

to be forced on us. it will be forced on us at the worst possible time, when we are in crisis. i can't think of a worse outcome for this country. the problem is none of these things are popular with the american people. reforming entitlements -- over 70% say no, don't touch them. revenue? about 65% say no, don't do that. further savings are program after program that have already had significant savings, looking ahead over the next 10 years -- people say don't do anything more there. the only thing they support on the spending side is cutting foreign aid. you know that is not going to do it. that is less than 1% of the budget. the only thing they support on revenue side is taxing those who have incomes of over $1 million. there is no question in my mind

that we are going to have to ask some of them to do more. when i look at -- here it is. here is the spending in dollar terms. under the president's budget, there is this little dip, but then it goes up over the remainder of the budget period. when people say it is being cut to the bone, really? it is being cut to the bone? there is more spending every year, beyond this next year, than we have had. every year, more spending. i compare it to the sequester. boy, that is harsh. i don't think this is a wise course, certainly not. i absolutely agree with you that this trajectory and its sequester, too sharp a cut, and the means of doing across-the-

board cuts -- by the way, we share your view that that is what has to be done -- really doesn't make sense. the simpson-bowles, the only thing with bipartisan agreement round here, more savings initially, more savings over time than the president's budget, not the kind of abrupt cuts that we see in that sequester. i hope we don't conclude that there is not another time of savings to be derived from defense. i had an analyst briefing that was talking about the way we manage our navy. we keep crews tied to ships. that means that when a ship is deployed, and the crew comes back, the ship comes back. there has been analysis done that if we kept the ship deployed and shared crews, we could derive significant savings.

i don't know if that level of detail is something, mr. secretary, you have looked at, but i would be very interested -- do you believe or have you looked at the notion of having crews share ships so that we would not have to, when a crew returns, return the ship? >> mr. chairman, i am not sure that is the case anymore. there was a concern about what you pointed out. let me get back to you to make sure that that is the case. no, i agree that that is an area that we need to review. >> all right. contacting.

last year, the department's testimony is that we do have a contracting issue. we have to better manage our contracting and derive the savings and there is that still the view of the department, that we have legitimate savings that could be derived? >> yes. >> senator graham has returned.

by have made that clear and of the testimony. the reason and i do that is not -- we have not had a premium adjustment since 1995. secretary panetta, the retirement part of the budget health care costs are competing with guns and weapons system, correct? when correct. if we do not like with you have a adjusted the premiums, i am for means testing and working until your 74 younger workers. i am willing to do the hard

things. when it comes to the department of defense, there is no reason to put dod in such a bind. it has to change. this is a better deal than you would get in the private sector. if we are going to look at $480 billion, whenever the number is, we should put everything on the table. do you think it would be prudent to take another look at our bases? >> you are in the right camp. >> he said sequestration was the dumbest idea you had heard lately? >> that is right. >> and you are competing with a lot of dumb ideas.

i think you have been one heck of a secretary of defense, but the way that you communicate, much to your credit, the new ones would destroy the military. when it comes to budget threats, are the iranians developing a nuclear weapon? >> i think they are developing nuclear capability. intelligence has made it clear that they have not made the decision to develop a nuclear weapon itself. >> do you feel confident that we have the ability, if necessary, in the military to deal with the threat that iran faces? >> yes. >> and you think that we would

be hurt in the ability to the budget were cut? >> yes. >> at the end of the day, you are being asked to take $450 billion out of the military budget. if you did more on top, that would be a no go for you? >> we would have to review the strategy. >> when it comes to afghanistan, secretary, general, is it worth? what is the benefit of winning? what is the cost of losing? can you describe? as briefly as possible? >> the reason that we are there is because of our mission is to dismantle, destroy, and defeat al qaeda and their terrorist allies. the ultimate goal is to be afghanistan the control and secure itself.

>> do you think that that would be possible? what is the cost of losing? >> that the taliban, without question, would regain control. that they would again come together. >> thank you, mr. senator. i especially thank the witnesses. we are beyond time and i apologize for that. you have been extremely generous with your time. we are delighted, mr. secretary, that you are here. general, thank you. thank you for your testimony and service. >> let me also thank the witnesses for your testimony and your service to your country.

the military has except a larger cut already and are working diligently to achieve those in the most effective way. many of them have been asked to achieve not any cuts, zero. with regards to the chart that you were showing, i think that that is probably -- $1 is probably not adjusted for inflation. i think that if we continued, you would not see growth. if you adjust it for inflation and energy costs go up, material costs go up over the years, the sequester represents a greater threat than we would like to

admit. the way to fix it is not to give up the total number, but to look at the other aspects of the government and see if we can maintain a healthy defense department, making sure that our men and women in uniform know that there have been cuts and reductions, but we have affirmed in them, believed in them, and we are not breaking faith with them. >> i share that view and the summary statement for what we're trying to achieve here. on both sides, we do not think that the sequester should go forward. it is terrible policy for the national defense of our country. let's not have that be the result. at the same time, i know we have

to deal with the deficit and debt threats, difficult as they are. senator, thank you for your questions. they're right on point. >> we will stand in adjournment. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> coming up this afternoon on c-span, officials from the state department testify about the ongoing violence in syria. remarks from president obama, speaking at the apac earlier today. at 6:00 p.m. eastern, "newsmakers," with buck mckeon. and at 6:30, a discussion with

"game changed," co-authors. >> if you had said, in 2006, that the world would be begging for the united states to use force again in the middle east, everyone would have said that you were crazy. >> robert k. in is not only an advisor to the romney campaign, but also serves on the clinton secretary of state of advisory board. >> i have been writing that there is a lot of continuity, and much of the consensus here exists in the foreign policy community. >> more with robert k. and on foreign policy and his latest, tonight at 8:00 eastern on q&a. >> the senate foreign relations committee on thursday

questioned state department officials on the escalating violence in syria, where an estimated 7500 people have been killed since the start of anti- government protests. last week the secretary general put in new reports. >> this hearing will come to order. thank you. i apologize for being late. i was a little delayed their. senator casey will chair this morning. which, i will have to do that. we appreciate everyone's coming here to discuss the ongoing situation in syria. as we all know, serious it's in the heart of the middle east, straddling its ethnic and sectarian a fault lines, and all of the region's important powers have a direct interest in what is happening in syria, as to non-state actors like

hezzbollah and hamas and others. the taliban appears to be trying to take a advantage of the chaos. as many as 9000 civilians have died with tens of thousands more displaced from our homes. in the syrian city of homs, there has been indiscriminate shelling for three weeks now. hundreds have died. the city is running critically low on food and medical supplies. given the indiscriminate killing of its own citizens, and given its back of the hand to the global community as well as the regional powers that have

tried to intervene, it seems the assad regime is ultimately going to fall. the longer the endgame, the messier the aftermath, and obviously, the more complicated the in between. the prospect of a full-fledged sectarian civil war is a stark reminder of a terrible situation that could become still much worse with potentially devastating consequences for neighbors. israel, lebanon, jordan, and adverse duplications for the middle east. the question for congress as well as elsewhere in america and the world is where do we go from here? america at at may have little direct leverage on -- america may have little direct leverage on syria, it is important to galvanize at the international community.

none of us should underestimate the ability of the global community to have an impact on any renegade regime anywhere in the world when the full intention and focus of the global community is properly convened. the last year has shown that when the world acts with one voice, motivated by the cause of freedom, a tyrant's script on power does not seem so fierce. that is why the russian and chinese veto at the united nations security council was so disappointing. because it actually extended to assad a political lifeline. he continued to use violence against his own people. we need to encourage the russians and the chinese and let them know that while we would like their positive involvement in putting a halt to the conflict, we are able to do and prepared to do much more if

they continue to block of progress with the security council. the arab league and gcc have ramped up their economic and political pressure. in turkey, interestingly, a year ago, a close friend and supporter of syria, had broken and done the same. the u.n. and the general assembly in recent weeks voted to condemn the crackdown. two months ago, the senate endorsed unanimously condemnation of the regime and expressing its commendation to the syrian people. there are still serious questions about various oppositional organizations, including especially the syrian national council and the free syrian army. they share the goal of getting rid of assad. they have not yet unified in the way that the libyan transitional national council

did. i believe it is time for us to redouble our efforts to engage with the opposition to shape their thinking, to understand it more fully, to identify more fully their leadership, too strongly encourage them to coalesce into a coherent political force. the friends of syria group is now a multilateral mechanism to support the syrian national council and other groups with technical assistance. is true that many syrians themselves remain on defense, especially members of the minority groups. they are horrified by the regime's atrocities, but they are also part but by the

potential for a broad scale sectarian strife. thus, it is vital that the sec to everything to unify politically, to put national emotions before political ambitions and to ensure all religious and ethnic minorities that they will enjoy full freedoms in a tolerant post- assad society. the international community's political support will a tamale be contingent on their ability to speak with one voice that represents the full diversity of syrian society and embraces the values that will bring the committee to its side. @ debate has started in congress and the region about whether -- a debate has started in congress and the region about whether and how it will start with the syrian army. there are serious questions to be answered about the free syrian army. we can think about how the international community can encourage its restraint. finally, we are all deeply concerned about the disposition

of syria's biological and chemical weapons and its lethal conventional weapons systems. i know the administration has formally engaged with respect to this particular challenge, and are working diligently to ensure there are contingencies to make sure these weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. i would urge my colleagues to be fully supportive of these efforts. to help us sort through the complexities of this situation, i want to emphasize, this is not libya. this is not egypt. this is not tunis. this is of far more difficult and complicated situation.

to help us work through these today, we're joined by two of the most accomplished members of the american diplomatic corps. i am pleased to welcome robert ford and jeffrey feltman. f r jerryeldman knows -- secretary feldman knows the region well and i think he understands the consequences this crisis could have. ambassador, we all want to commend you on your courageous, importance efforts that you made to distinguish between the clientitus that can affect issues of broad. i think we were all impressed by that. robert ford left the country after threats to its own safety, but he returned.

so, we thank you both in advance for providing your insides and look forward to your testimony. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i join you in welcoming the secretary feldman and ambassador ford to this committee. ambassador ford was on the ground in syria and deserves special commendation. the hearing today takes place amid the deadly violence and gross human-rights violations, the degradations of the assad regime continues to inflict on the syrian people. since our last hearing on syria in november, the death toll in this 11-month conflict has risen dramatically.

we're confronted with horrific images. assad it is targeting civilians, journalists, doctors, women and, and children. i went to a meeting last week of the friends of the syrian people that brings together six nations and international organizations. continue to focus on humanitarian needs in syria. the efforts -- the absence of russia and china at the meeting was the neglect of their duties as permanent members of the united nations security council. the outcome and syria will have deep implications for the

internal politics of neighboring countries, ethnic conflicts in the middle east, and broader issues. terrorist groups will take advantage of instability and sectarian violence could spill over syrian borders. in the midst of this up people, we know syria has substantial stockpiles of chemical and conventional weapons that could directly threaten peace and stability throughout the region. our governance is focusing on intelligence and counter- proliferation assets to contain this threat. the development of definable opposition would improve chances. the damage to the syrian people could be contained. some constructive opposition voices are attempting to emerge. at present, the syrian opposition lacks cohesion, and a specifically defined

political agenda. it also lacks the physical space and technical means to mature, to overcome its internal differences and develop a plan for democratic transition. these sectarian divisions from iran and elsewhere and the lack of a democratic political culture weigh heavily against the short-term emergence of unified opposition on which to base the tolerant democracy. this presents the united states with very limited options. syria must support international humanitarian efforts. it should also work with willing states against the spillover affect generated by violence in syria. we should not underestimate our ability to shape events in the country this morning. further attempts by the united states or the west to closely manage the opposition could backfire in an environment where the government blames

outside influences for syria's troubles. while not taking any options of the table, we should be extremely sceptical about efforts to commit the united states to a military intervention in syria. under the constitution, taking up an armed conflict in syria rest with the congress. going forward with our international partners, and encourage you to work closely with congress as plans evolve, particularly as the situation becomes more complex. i look forward to your testimony very much and we are honored that you were with us today at. >> thank you, senator lugar. secretary feldman, if you would lead off? and then ambassador for.

>> thank you but, mr. chairman, senator -- thank you, mr. chairman, senator lugar. thank you for having this meeting. i met here to discuss the crisis in syria. since that time, our european allies have enjoyed it to impede the financial backing of the crackdown. the arab league has suspended syria's membership, with many members downgrading diplomatic relations and freezing syrian bank accounts. the arab league put forward a transition plan for syria. over 137 countries supported the u.n. general assembly resolution condemning the syrian regime and supporting the arab league transition plan.

the friends of the syrian people have been urged to endorsed the transition plan. the syrian opposition in tunis has articulated a clear transition plan and address minority fears convincingly. we now have $10 million in immediate humanitarian assistance with millions more from other countries. the u.n. and the arab league have joined and sent the high- profileenvoy kofi annan. and just this morning, the human-rights council in geneva overwhelmingly passed a resolution describing the situation in syria as a man made humanitarian disaster.

and we all know the identity of the man responsible for that disaster. these are just some of the examples of regional and international resolve, but nevertheless, as both of you have described, we have seen the assad regime has intensified its attacks against the syrian people. this situation is, frankly, terrific. including indiscriminate artillery fire against neighborhoods. and today's report from homs is terrifying. large numbers of syrians are depreefed of basic necessities, including food, clean water and medical supplies. women and children are wounded and dying for lack of treatment. innocent people are detained and tortured and their families left to fear the worst. despite the regime's brutality, the people of syria demonstrate

enormous courage. their determination to continue protesting for their rights, mostly still peaceful protests, is an inspiration and a testimony to the human spirit. i was assistant secretary of state and watching the up heefls in the arab world. i'm humble enough to say that we don't know for sure when the tipping point -- the breaking point will come in syria. but it will come. the demise of the regime is inevitable. it's important that the tipping point for the regime be reached quickly, because the longer the regime assaults the syrian people, the greater the chances of all--out war and a failed state. all of the elements of u.s. policy towards syria are channeled toward accelerating the arrival of that tipping point. as i referred to at the start, to the friends of the syrian

people group, we are translating international consensus into action. we are galvanizing international partners to implement more effective sanctions and to deepen the regime's isolation. we're supporting the arab leagues, and now the u.n. general assembly's call for an immediate transition in syria. we're moving ahead with humanitarian assistance, demanding that access be granted and attacks sees, and we're engaging with them for a serious future, a proud and democratic syria that upholds the rights and responsibilities of all of its citizens, regardless of their religion, their gender or their ethnicity. now, together we're working to persuade frightened communities inside syria that their interests are best served by helping to build that better syria, not by casting their lot with a losing regime, a corrupt and abusive regime, which has

been a malignant blight in the middle east for far too long. the goal of the opposition and the friends of the syrian people alike is as follows -- a syrian-led political transition to democratic government based on the rule of law and the will of the people with protection of minority rights. i would like to close my opening statement by echoing this committee's praise of my fellow witness and friend, ambassador robert ford. ambassador's ford's courageous acts on the ground in syria these pafflet months are a great credit to him, to the foreign service and to the united states. he repeatedly put himself in harm's way to make it clear that the united states stands with the people of syria and their dream of a better future, and i want to thank this committee for its leadership in supporting his confirmation. >> thank you very much. we appreciate that. again, ambassador ford. maybe you shouldn't say

anything, just stop. >> senator, mr. chairman and ranking member lugar, senators casey and corker, thank you very much for this invitation to come and speak to the committee about syria today. i don't want to do a long opening statement, because i'm hoping we can open discussion about syria. but i would just like to say how much i appreciate this committee's support during my time in damascus. several times we got messages from members of the committee staff asking how we were doing, how my team was doing. i would just like to say that the team really appreciated those messages, especially during some of the tenser moments. it meant a great deal. i had a terrific team in damascus, and i really would like just to thank this committee for your support.

>> thank you very much. that does give us an opportunity to give us a good dialogue, and i certainly appreciate it. let me begin by asking both of you if you would share with us your perceptions of the state of the assad regime itself right now. are there any fissures? there have been some defections. not at the highest levels, there have been executions of various figures, maybe some others, as a deterrent to any splots or defection. what is injure understanding of the current fragility, if it is indeed that at all, a family

enterprise that has a lot to lose, obviously. >> a couple of things i would say on that, senator. first, the outside regime is under greater stress than it was even two or three months ago. this is in part because the military is more challenged. there has been a steady stream of desertions. the military has retained their cohesion, but they are under significantly more stress now the first quarter of 2012 than they were, say, even as recently as tee or four months ago. -- three or four months ago. within the ruling circle, if i may call it that, i think there is greater concern. they are aware that the business community, for example, is very unhappy. they have changed several times on a dime some of their

economic policies to try to placate an increasingly changing business community because of the sanctions that we have imposed and now arab countries have imposed. they are, i think, also concerned about their support on the street. so in general, i think they understand that this is the biggest challenge during the 40 years of the assad family's domination of syria. >> secretary, do you want to add anything? you don't have to, don't feel compelled. >> just to refer back to that tipping point, the breaking point that i talked about in my opening statement, because part of the region and the international community's calculation is to appeal to, as you talked about, senator, those people who haven't yet made up their mind to side with

change, but who don't like the way that assad -- don't like the direction in which assad is taking them. so a lot of what you see coming out of meetings are ways to appeal to the broader syrian population, as well as specifically targeting some military and business communities, to try to move them toward change. this is a very important part of get together that tipping point is getting more and more people on the side of change. >> i can't remember whether it was posted in "the times," but there was a picture of a 2008y parliament having a debate and ultimately deciding to condemn the violence. there seems to be a somewhat surprising, unique, if you will, movement in the g.c.c. and among a number of arab countries, who are really taking unprecedented steps

here. could you at the to that and what the potential is within the arab world itself here what, the reactions may be, and therefore what potential there is for that to have an impact on the outcome? >> i think the arab leadership on the issue of syria has been remarkable. as i said in my opening statement, we're backing the arab league's own transition plan. syria sees itself as a major country in the arab league. the syrians call themselves the beating heart of the arab world, and suddenly the arab league has essentially suspended syria's membership in the arab league. this is not a north african country, like libya, that's a little bit out of the arab mainstream. it's significant what the arabs are doing. now, why is this happening? i think in part this is happening because of the arab spring. if you look at opinion poll after opinion poll, assad is at

the bottom of the list of popularity among arab leaders. he has no credibility across the arab world. and i think arab leaders want to show their own populations that they get it, that they understand, that they need to be in tune with arab popular opinion. without question, part of this has to do with the competition with iran. people know that assad has made syria a proxy for iran, a subservient partner to iran. part of this is competition with iran. but i wouldn't underestimate the impact of the arab spring, even on those arab countries that aren't going through transition. i believe that arab leaders recognize that they can't be on the complete opposite side of their public opinion. the kuwaitis, for example, would have seen this debate in the kuwaiti parliament yesterday. >> mr. secretary, based particularly on your experience in lebanon and the region, share with us your perceptions

of the risks of the everyone thno sectarian violence, if there's an implosion or explosion, however you want to phrase it. >> well, without question the minorities in syria look at lebanon or more recently iraq, and they look at that with fear. i think we all understand their fear. i defer to ambassador ford to talk about the calculations inside syria. but i think we all understand that fear. so part of our challenge, and particularly the challenge of the syrian opposition, is to disprove assad's theory. it's his theory that says look at lebanon, look at wirke, that's where we're headed -- iraq, that's where we're headed if you don't back me. the broader opposition groups are trying to show by board and by deed that that's in fact not where they have to go. >> war the dynamics, if you would -- what are the die nam edition between the syrian

national council and the free syrian army and the internal local groups, mr. ambassador? >> mr. chairman, a couple of things i'd say on that. the two organizations are separate. there is not a hierarchy between them. the syrian national council has its own executive body, and then a broader general assembly. the free syrian army, as best we understand, has its own leadership hierarchy. they are not organiccally linked. however, they certainly do talk to each other, and on the ground in syria, local revolution council are being set up now. if you watch, for example, al jazeera television, you'll often see the spokesman for the revolution council talking about the atrocities that are going on there. it's a young man, very brave man, who literally will go through the streets. it was he that broke the news about mary colton's death, for

example. people like him talk to the free syrian army, but he is not free syrian army. so you mentioned in your statement, as did senator lugar about, the syrian opposition, and there are different organizations. it makes it a little more complex. so they talk to each other. sometimes they coordinate, but they are not organically linked. >> senator lugar? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have just want to take up a point that you made, secretary feltman, about the oil exports and the success, apparently, in bottling up a high percentage of the income of the government that way. likewise other sanctions across the country have caused what

seems to be in normal terms an economic depression in the country by most standards. and this is likely to grow further. what isn't clear to me, and i'd like some thoughts, if you have them, what about food supplies are available to the people of the country, how much is produced in syria now. we understand a drought has occurred this year. this was a critical factor clearly in egypt, even people were not eating very well and food subsidies had ceased. so that was a cause of considerable unrest. even if there were these problems in the business community or with the monies for the assad regime, it would appear still, at least from press accounts, to the outside observer, that the alally group estimated at 7% or 10% of the population, as opposed to the

65% who are sunnis, is a group that are the allah wees who have the extension problem. all may not be in favor of assad, but i think there is general fear that their fate is likely to be very, very grim. as a matter of fact, there is not likely to be, as you called for, protection of minority rights. this may be down the trail years in the future, but i was interested in your prediction of more of an accelerated turnover of the regime than most are predicting. most press accounts that i've seen from various scholars indicate that the assad regime might continue really for years of time, not for months, and that the lack of cohesion of the opposition could even grow

greater rather than smaller, as various other forces enter the syrian picture and sort of pluck off segments that may be helpful to their situations. can you comment generally on the critical problems of the present economic depression, maybe food shortages that are dire? on the one hand that leads to general unrest, quite apart from cohesion of the opposition, but on the other, can we reasonably anticipate at any period of the next three to five years, say, that there can conceivably be a transition to something even with vestages of democracy, human rights, respect for authorities? the general redistricts that i see is assad might go, but the chaos that would ensue would be horrible with regard to the killing of people and the general any lay and -- may lay,

and it's not a question then of choosing sides, it's a question of containing the disaster that has been created by the lack of authority. recognizes that is dangers. that's why i said our policy is to accelerate the arrival of that tipping points. i don't know when the tipping point is going to come. i hope i didn't make it sound as if it were coming tomorrow. i wish it were. we don't have any magic bullet to make it tomorrow. the longer this goes on, the higher the risks of long-term sectarian conflict. the higher the risk of extremism. so we want to see this happen earlier. but the risks that you point out are recognized by the opposition. and despite all of the divisions that ambassador ford knows better than i do between the opposition, the leadership of these various groups do seem to have a common goal. they do seem to have a common understanding of the importance of the fabric of syrian society, the importance of

preserving that fabric. i was in tunis with secretary clinton and listened to a very inspiring address by the head of the syrian national council. he appealed directly to the christians in syria. he appealed directly to the people, but to the syrians he said something like many of you have left over the years, felt the need to leave over the years. and when you leave, part of syria dies, and we want a syria where you can all come home. it's not an exact quote, but i'm trying to create -- to convey the sentiment of that. so i think there is something to work with the opposition leadership, which is an understanding that what's special about syria is that rich mosaic of communities, religions, ethnicity. some of the people are scared, you're absolutely right. on the economic side of things, the syrian business community,

as i understand it, they are traders, they've worked for decades, if not centuries, on commerce across the middle east, connections to europe and beyond. this is one of those communities that needs to understand, in our view, that its future is better assured under a different type of system than is there nouflt one of the things that came out of the tunis meeting was a discussion, a commitment by the friends of syria, the working group, to talk about reconstruction of syria afterwards. we're talking practically about the trade relations, the investment relations, the financial connections that syria can have after assad in a better system. right now the sanction that is are being imposed on syria by turkey, by the arab world, by the united states, have cut off humanitarian supplies, including food and medicine. those do not fall in general under any of these sanctions. however, food prices are rising

without question, and with 30% of the population of syria under the poverty line before this started, without question there must be hardship for people inside syria because of the sanctions. but we are doing cut-outs for food and medicine, we are making sure that we have supplies pre-positioned in syria and nearby to reach vulnerable populations. >> thank you very much. you have a comment, ambassador, on that? >> if i might, senator, let me address three issues real quick. first, the economic situation that you asked about. and then i'd like to make two points on the political side. first, wrpt to the economy, it

is in a very charp downward spiral. it's depreciated almost 50% in less than a year, really in a space of about seven months. that has driven prices on the local markets, for example, in damascus, where we monitored prices, food prices went up something like 30% between december and the beginning of february. it was a very sharp rise. what that is doing in syria is literally consumers are contracting their purchases, and so that's just aggravating the spiral that's going down. it's one of the reasons the business community is so upset. in that sense, the sanctions that we have imposed have had a real impact. we have tried as best we can, senator, to target our sanctions so that they don't hurt the syrian people. we have targeted government revenues, for example, in order

to make it harder for the government to pay for its repression, to pay for its military and security forces. but we have never tried to block supplies of, for example, heating oil or cooking gas that would go in to syria. but there are certainly shortages of these things. and when i was there -- especially when i went back after being in the united states last autumn, when i went back in december, the stories i heard from people, the biggest problem they complained about in damascus aside from the fear of the repression and being arrested, but the next thing out of their mouths is there's no cooking gas, there's no heating oil. and damascus is surprisingly cold in the winter. it snows. so the economy is hurting. the food supplies are available, as ambassador feltman said, but people are reducing their consumption generally because of prices. with respect to the political side of this, senator, two points, i think, really must be

made. first, the assad regime in its darkest moments will try to paint this as a fight against sunni arab islamist extremists, and they are trying to frighten minority communities, especially as these minority communities looked at what happened in iran and iraq. they're very afraid. i think it's important for americans to understand that this is not about alawis. lots of them suffered just as much repression, just as much brutality as do their numbers down the road in sunni arab neighborhoods. it's important, for example, that one of the leading activists on the ground inside syria right now -- and she's in hiding. she moves around from place to place and then will pop up at demonstrationings. she is an alawi, a young woman,

movie actress, very well known. and she's very brave. the government has tried to arrest her many times. she circulates around. she's an alawi, and people know that. this is not alawi versus sunnis, this is about a family that happens to be alawi that has dominated the country and stripped it for 40 years. alawis are suffering, too. we have constantly urged, in our discussions with the syrian opposition in, the country and outside the country, to underline to the alawi communities and all of the communities in syria, whether they be christians or business people, it's a very complex social makeup, that all people in syria would be treated equally, that all people's basic human rights would be respected, and that it would be a syria where all different communities would be able to live in harmony.

we underline that message every time we meet the opposition. the opposition, as you've noted, is divided, and i think it's probably a reach to think they're going to unify any time soon into one single organization. i don't think that's going to happen. my question is a little different. can they unite around a vision? and i described and ambassador feltman has described our vision and our suggestions. can they unite around a vision, and can they unit around a transition -- unite around a transition plan? they don't have to unite arrange a single -- around a single party, but we're not writing their transition plan, that's not our role. they need to do it, the syrians need to do it. but they do need toome togeth behind a plan. >> thank you. thank you you very much. i need to ask you, hopefully we can stay, so we have a lot of senators and i want everybody to have a chance to get

questions. so we need to try to watch the time. >> thank you, mr chaman. . secretarycau talk t us about what mre are being ken to encrage the ns and the chise to atmove their objection tot, are, p siinan ncs undxecutive order 13-572 on russian and chinese ept tease selling weapons to assad? because there's a lot of media reports stating that russian state arms dealers are continuing to supply the assad regime with arms. at least four cargo ships have left a russian port for a syrian port since december of this past year carrying ammunition, sniper rifles and a

host of other armaments. can you give us a sense both what's happening at the security council to move them from their present action and are we considering in the face of this weapon flow actions under the executive order? >> senator, thanks for the question. you put your finger on a key element of any way forward in syria, which is what the role of rushia. i have to admit from the outset that i'm not a russia expert. i defer to my bosses and my colleagues in the european bureau to talk about russian motives and things. but i want to assure you that the contact with russia at all levels is continuing. russia has had interest and influence in syria for a long time. and it seems to us that russia is not going to preserve those

interests that russia deems to be important if it basically rides the assad titanic all the way to the bottom of the mediterranean. this is not a very wise move for the russians to preserve their interest. i went out with a colleague, fred hoff, at the request of the secretary to have a deep discussion with the russians about how we see the way forward in syria, how we see the inevitable demise of assad, and i felt that there was a lot of discomfort in russia about where they are. their analysis isn't all that different from ours about how unsustainable the situation is for assad inside syria. but so far we've been disappointed. to use stronger language about russia's action. even today, for example, when the human rights council in

geneva passed a resolution condemning what happened in syria, vote was 39-3. who were those three? china, russia and cuba, who voted against a resolution simply on human rights grounds. we think it's time for the security council to act. we think it's past time for the security council to act. this is the type of situation in syria that deserves security council action. so we're still in discussion with the russians in an attempt to persuade them that they can be part of a solution. they can use their influence inside syria to be part of a solution rather than continue to block. the question that you raise is a deeply disturbing one. why are the russians, who condemn forward interference in syria being the ones, along with the iranians, to continue shipping arms in russia. but we should probably have a discussion with colleagues from other agencies in a different setting.

>> i'm happy to have that. i just want the administration to be thinking about if we can't get our russian and chinese counterparts to understand -- they seem to be doubling down. at least russia seems to be doubling down. you say they seem to be concerned or come to the same analysis that the final result will be that assad would not stand. but however, their flow of armament almost seems to be doubling down as well as during the security council. so at some point that executive order, if it's to have meaning, needs to be enforced. and i certainly hope that at a minimum we would do that, because stopping the flow of armaments to assad, i think, is incredibly important. let me ask you one other question. what is the possibility of this situation devolving into a civil war, and if so, what concerns do you have for the political and economic implications of syrian civil

war on syria's neighbors, specifically on lebanon and jordan, which will undoubtedly receive thousands of syrian refugees? >> there's already been a spillover in the neighboring countries, as syrians fleeing the violence go to neighboring countries to look for refuse uge. you have families in lebanon, jordan, turkey, iraq, that have taken in syrian friends and relatives. there's already an impact. in lebanon there have been people killed across the border by syrian forces firing across the border. violations of sovereignty by syrian forces crossing the lebanese border. so there's already a spillover effect, senator, which is deplorable. and we salute those families and those countries that are hosting syrians outside their borders, and what we're trying to do is to provide assistance to those host families and governments. as ambassador ford said, assad said he wants the world to

believe that if not for him, there's going to be a civil war. so part of this is the assad propaganda machine to frighten people into believing they have no alternative but to stick with him or they end up in civil war. so part of what the region is trying to do, the opposition is trying to do, the international community is trying to do, is to help provide that path to avoid the civil war. all of us do recognize that it is a risk. but as ambassador ford said more articulately than i can say, it's not a question of alawis versus sunnis, it's a question of the assad mafia that has hijacked the entire state of syria for four decades in order to enrich itself and protect itself against the syrian people. that's what's happening right now. >> thank you. >> senator?

>> thank you. ambassador ford, first of all, i thank you for your service and i applaud your statement of what our policy is and your conveying that to the opposition and what they need to do and how they think about this. having said that, in looking at what's happening on the ground over there, your statement about it being a complex society, i think, is an understatement. i understand. i mean, you have the druse and the curds and the sunnis and a dozen other smaller groups. the difficulty i have is how -- i understand what you're telling them they need to do, where everybody's welcome, everybody is going to be equal and what have you. they don't have much of a history of that. and our culture has trouble thinking along those lines, because they are so segregated. i mean, they're not like we are, where we amal ga mate into

one society. they are very, very segregated. they marry within their groups, they stay within their groups. they socialize and do business within their groups. so saying that, well, when assad goes -- and i believe he will go, that we're all -- they're all going to get together and do this. particularly looking at their organization right now, i'm pretty pessimistic about that. i hear what you're saying and i think it's a good position to say, but from a purely pragmatic standpoint, could you maybe analyze your own analysis of it from that standpoint? >> senator risch, it is a very fair question, it is a very fair question. it's a sad truth that in many countries in that region there is no history of rule of law and respect for human rights. i mean, that's just the historical reality. what i would say is just a

couple of things on this. one of the things that i have learned from the arab spring, which is really unprecedented in my 30 years working in the region going back to when i was a peace corps volunteer, what we've seen is unprecedented. one of the things that i have learned is there's a new generation coming up. and this generation is very plugged into the internet and satellite television. they know much more about how to upload different kinds of videos -- i mean, i never watched youtube until i went out as ambassador to syria. now i watch it every day. >> don't want to know what you watch. >> we won't go there, senator. [laughter] but what i would say is there is no history, but the people there that are leading the protest movement, they have a vision -- they have a vision.

and i heard this very strongly when i wept to hama and the rest of the suburbs around damascus. i heard this very strongly. they want a country where people are treated with dignity -- everybody treated with dignity and that's the key word, senator, dignity. and they have a vision of a country ruled by law. my own experience, having served in iraq for 4 1/2 years, is this is a very hard thing to do. and it takes time. we saw the same thing in algeria as well when i served there. but there is change coming and values and norms are changing because they are more plugged in to the rest of the planet than they used to be. and syrians are actually surprisingly plugged in to the

mediterranean, for example. that was one of the things i learned when i went out there. >> that's an interesting observation, and the question i would have is, does that spill over to their cultural hard-wiring that they have, if you would? obviously they were raised by parents in a society that protected them from the other minorities, or other sects in the country. is that breaking down at all? do you see that at all? are they intermarrying? that would be probably the most telltale sign of that. >> in damascus there are many mixed marriages, many, many, and in other parts of the country as well. in fact, one of the things, if we had syrians sitting at this table instead of me, they would say to you, senator, but we've always lived together peacefully and we've never had these problems. we're not like iraq, we're different. i think one of the things that the political opposition needs

to do, and we've told them this repeatedly, is they need to address the fears directly and not simply fall back on the argument that syrians historically have lived together peacefully between communities, and, therefore, there is no problem. there is a problem, there is a problem, and they need to address it. i think the younger people do understand that fear. in the demonstrations every friday, where they have the big ones, the really big ones, there frequently are banners. this is watching it on youtube, that says the syrian people are one. and what they are trying to express there is no sectarian divisions. don't let the assad regime play one community off against the other, which is very much what the regime ultimately is trying to do. there are signs all over damascus that the government put up saying beware of

sectarian strife. well, the opposition is saying the people are unified against you. it's the government that's even raising the issue in the first place. >> thank you, ambassador ford. i appreciate your optimism on this subject. i hope you're right. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator cardin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, ambassador ford, thank you very much for your heroic service. we watched what you were doing in syria, and i know the international community was also, and it was a bright moment, i think, for united states leadership. so we thank you very much for that. secretary feltman, i think we all agree that there will be a tipping point that the assad regime will not survive. the challenge, though, is that until that happens, the humanitarian disasters will only get worse. so how many people are going to lose their lives or their lives will be changed forever until that tipping point is reached is a matter of grave interest

to all of us. you point out that there's a growing unity in the region, in the arab world, which works i think, points out that our options may be stronger than we think. we may have more opportunities to try to save lives. i'm very mindful of senator lugar's cautionary notes, and we all share that. but i guess my point is, what can we do? what can the united states do in leadership to minimize the sufferings that are taking place and will take place until the assad regime is removed? what can we do working with our international partners to provide the best opportunity for the safety of the civilian population in syria during this period of time? >> senator, thank you. this is a question we're talking about all the time.

it's what can we do either ourselves as americans, but more importantly, what can we do together with our partners in the region and beyond? and what we can do together, that's the most important question, because our influence in syria is much less than the influence of some of our neighbors. our economic ties with syria before all this started were extremely limited, compared to the economic ties between syria and europe, syria and turkey, syria and the arab world. and there is an international consensus that came out of tunis that we all need to be doing more on the humanitarian side, working with partners who have history of working in conflict areas that can get things into vulnerable populations inside syria, there's a consensus from the region and from the world. that's an important short-term goal is getting things in, making sure warehouses are

stocked, supplies are pre-positioned. there's an international consensus as well for increasing the pressure on assad through a variety of means. we talked a lot about the sanctions already. but there's always more sanctions that can be done, particularly from those countries, as i said, that have stronger economic ties, in order to deprive the regime of its income. there's a consensus that we all need to be working with the syrian opposition in all of its forms. in tunis there was a recognition that the syrian national council is a legitimate representative of the voices of the syrian opposition and we're working with that. but i think that your question actually hints at something even beyond that, and i think for more aggressive action we would need to have a larger international consensus than currently exists. one thing that we are

definitely working on, going back to senator menendez's question, is to see what role the security council can play. we think it's high time, it's past time for the scoups to be playing a role. and that, too, was a consensus that came out of tunis, is that people in countries and institutions represented there want to see an end to the blockage by russia and china of the security council taking action. >> you're right. i was trying to probe as to what more we could do. i agree with you, you need international unity, and the security council is where we normally start that. it's not the exclusive area and it's not the determinative area, but it's certainly one in which would give us a stronger footing, having the arab league is clearly important. so i would hope that we would work together exploring options to be more aggressive where we can effectively in unity with the international community. you mentioned another point that i found very interesting,

and that is the popularity of the assad regime being at the low point. and i would expect that hamas recognized that when they pulled out of damascus, which is presenting a real change for us, a terrorist organization that we clearly are very concerned about their influence in that region. it looks like they're taking further steps to become more popular among the arab population and countries. can either one of you give us an update on hamas and its movement and what we -- how we are going to counter some of their issues in its relationship not just with syria, but also with iran and with other countries in that region? >> i think it says something when you have a terrorist organization that has been coddled for years, decades, by the assad regime basically pulling out, saying that they

can't even stand what the assad regime is doing. i think you're exactly right, it gets at the popularity question. if you look at zogby polls, zogby has a long and credible history of doing polls in the arab world. a couple of years ago there was a question posed to arabs. who is the most popular arab leader outside of your own country's leader? everyone would have to say my own leader. at least a couple of years ago they would have said that. the most popular leader outside of whatever the home country is. if you look at the same polls today, the same questions in the same places, he's at the bottom of the list. and, you know, that's not lost on even terrorist organizations like hamas. but this doesn't change our calculus on hamas. our demands on hamas are the demands on hamas. hamas, to be accepted as a

respectable player needs to accept a recognition of israel, renounce yation of violence and adherence to all the agreements that have been signed between the p.l.o. and israel. so it's interesting and telling that even hamas can't stomach what assad is doing to his people. but interest doesn't change our calculation. >> thank you. >> senator rubio. >> thank you. thank you both for being here today, ambassador ford, thank you for your service i'm one thing to sit here and talk about these things and it's another to be there and be the target of some pretty vicious stuff. thank you for your service to our country and for this cause. a quick question before i get to the bigger one. this is probably for you, secretary feltman, and i don't expect you to know the answer. i read in bloomberg business this week that the head of the venezuelan national oil company said that the company isn't prohibited from shipping oil to syria under current sanctions. i don't know if that's correct or not. we'll follow up with you and see if that's the case or not

under the current system. >> it is technically correct, that they're not prohibited from shipping oil to syria. it's still morally wrong to be providing diesel that can be used in military machines that slaughter innocent syrians. so it's morally wrong, but it's not legally wrong. but it's not -- but it also isn't the same of what they had before november, the ability to export its own oil, earn its own revenues to put in the pocket of assad to do whatever he wants. >> one of the things we can talk about is how we can introduce third parties for the assad regime. what i want to focus on is more of the u.s. national interest. what i want to do is posit a view of it to you and see what you both think about it. we look at something in a country that for many, many years has been kind of a transit points and haven for terrorists, especially damascus. it's been the hub of all that. in addition, a state sponsor of terrorist themselves and a key ally of our biggest problem in

the region, not for us, but the people of iran. now they want to get rid of the guy that runs the place. we talked about the complexities of all of that. but in the midst of all this, it seems to me that as much as anything else, included is about regime change and a change of direction for the country. from our strategic point of view, it's also a competition for future influence, and that is who is going to influence the direction that syria goes in the future. islamists, al qaeda and others see that -- they see this chaos and they say, we can go in there and take advantage of this chaos and to our advantage, create an even better place for us to operate in. and on the other hand, nations like ours see this as an opportunity to go in and influence the syrian people to embrace what you think is their widespread sentiment, which is rule of law, a functioning democracy, a country that decides they want security, that they don't want to be a hinche for terrorism. they want to be normal people living in a normal country with everyday aspirations. as much as anything else, our involvement, i think, is about

what influence our view of the world, which we think is better for the syrian people, could ultimately play in that country. and my guess is, having only been on this committee for a year, having traveled to libya in the aftermath of what happened to libya -- and i know there's big differences between libya and syria, as the secretary pointed out. but one of the things i was struck by as you drove through the streets of libya is pro-american groo feety on the walls. people walking up to us on the steet and thanking us for the role america played. and my point is, i think it's going to be really hard five years from now -- not impossible. anything is possible and i'm not an expert on the culture. but i think it's going to be hard for an islamist to go to one of these young guys who was thanking us, who thought america was on their side and convince them about an american jihad. they're really angry at the chinese, at some of the countries that turned their back on them. i think that's happening here, too, i hope, that people of syria clearly know that the american people, that this

senate, the people of the united states, are on the side of their aspirations. we can't decide who wins and who's in charge and how they balance all these internal conflicts that they have. but we clearly want them to be able to pursue their peaceful aspirationings and have them have a country that prospers. it's critical that future generations say america was on our side. we don't have a problem with the american people and we want no part of these strange movements that would have us join some anti-american sentiment. we hope that one day they won't be so anti-israeli. that's what our national interest is here in the big picture. i took longer than i wanted to to explain that. i wonder if you'd agree with that or criticize it or share your thoughts in that regard. >> i'll make a couple of comments and i'll let robert talk bin side syria. i can't believe that any of these countries -- anyone is looking to trade one kind of tyranny for another type of tyranny. we don't know how these trangs ises are going to turn out.

but the request for dignity means people will guard against going from one tyrant to another type of tyranny. we've also seen that while al qaeda has tried to exploit unrest across the region, that al qaeda ideology does not have any appeal for young protesters that are looking for dignity and opportunity. in terms of the syrian people, i will defer to my colleague, ambassador ford. but i'll give you one example of libia. when ambassador ford went to hama and they were being encircled by tanks, the people there tossed flowers on to his limousine. he got back to damascus and the regime staged an attack against our abby. the people of syria know exactly where robert ford stood in terms of their rights and aspirations, and robert ford

represented us very ably in showing that's where the american people stood. >> senator, i think it's very telling that in the demonstrations every week in syria, they burn russian flags, they burn chinese flags, they burn hezbollah flags. that tells you what they think. frankly from our strategic interests, that's a good thing, i think, in the sense that we want syria in the future to not be the malignant actor that it has been supporting terrorist groups and being the cause of a great deal of regional instability. so i think there's huge potential strategic gain for us as a country with the changes going on in syria. but that's not why the syrians are doing it. that's not why the street

protests are doing that. they're doing it because they want dignity. i think it is very important for us, as we go forward, to keep in mind that the most important thing we can do is keep stressing over and over our support for universal human rights being respected in syria, like other countries. freedom of speech, freedom to march peacefully, the right to form political parties and to have life under a rule of law, a dignified life. that's what i tried very hard constantly to underline during my time there, just those basic values. the syrians can work out their politics, and as senator risch said, it's going to be really hard. but if we stay on the track of respect for their human rights, we will ultimately be on the side that wins here. >> thank you very much. i'm next in line and i'll try

not to use all of my time. but assistant secretary feltman, thanks for being here today and for your ongoing public service. ambassador ford, you've heard it before, but it bears repeating. we're grateful for your service in so many assignments, but especially under the horrific circumstances you've had to face and we're grateful you're with us today. i guess some of us, not being on the ground like you were, have difficulty in imagining or even articulating the scale and the gravity of this violence. it's just hard to even comprehend, even though we see the television images all the time. i just can't even imagine what it's like. a number of us have been, frankly, impatient with what

washington has done or not done , and i'll say both the senate and other institutions. so we're impatient and we're also frustrated. this hearing today is one way to advance the -- advance the development of a body of work that can undergird another resolution. i know we just had a resolution dash frankly, i thought it was very weak. i did support it but it wasn't nearly enough. so i'm glad we're having this hearing to advance the ball. i wrote down two words here when working with damian and khloe on our staff about the formulation of questions, and they're two words that i think make sense for what we're trying to do. at least what i hope we could do. one is solidarity and one is commitment. that we need to figure out a

way to not just express outrage and not just talk about solidarity, but figure out ways to in fact bring about a policy or a strategy that will demonstrate, that will prove, in a sense, our solidarity with the syrian people. that's one priority. and the other is commitment to a number of things, number of priorities, but commitment especially to humanitarian and medical assistance. if we're going to say, which i think it is the consensus position, that this should not be a military engagement on our part, if we say that, we better get the other parts right. and the other parts are humanitarian and medical assistance. so my first question is for mr. feltman. i know the friends of syria meeting took place and that was

very positive, an i know we have a commitment of $10 million to the refugees and the i.d.p.'s. but i want to get a better sense of what was agreed to at tunis, specifically as it relates to humanitarian assistance and what the smates can do to address -- the united states can do to address this horror. so if you can just walk through what's definite in terms of an agreement and what will actually lead to action. >> senator casey, thanks. in tunis, the discussion on humanitarian issues fell into two categories. first, how do we help those countries around syria that are hosting syrians who have fled their country. and that's, frankly, an easier topic. first of all, the countries and the families in those countries have been generous and there's a question of helping host.

there aren't large-scale refugee camps. for the most part people have gone to stay with friend and relatives outside of syria. so it's getting assistance to what camps there are and that's relatively straight ford. the migration bureau is working those areas. but the second question is harder, and it comes up internally inside the united states government, which is access inside syria. how do you reach the vulnerable populations inside syria? that's a much, much harder issue. and right now the problem of humanitarian deliveries in syria is not supplies, it's not related to money. the international community has sufficient resources, has sufficient commitments. it's a question of access. just yesterday you had valerie amos, who is the u.n. undersecretary to humanitarian coordinator, who had been waiting in beirut for days for syrian visa to go into syria.

she finally left because it was clear she wasn't going to get a visa. that tells you something, that not only is assad butchering an killing his people, but he's also trying to prevent the international community from having the right to response. it doesn't mean we aren't responding. unfortunately in today's world, there are a lot of conflict situations around the world. there are a lot of partners with whom we've worked in conflict situations around the world already, so you can work with groups, w.f.p., others, you know, a.i.d.'s, office of foreign disaster assistance has a history of being able to work inside conflict areas through trusted partners, to make sure that our assistance is going to where it's directed. but it's not easy. so the big question is access, and it goes back to senator menendez's question about the russians, because this is one area where the russians have expressed a lot of concern as well about the humanitarian situation. and we would like to see that russian concern to be translated into the type of

pressure on the assad regime that helps ease these questions of access. >> thank you. ambassador ford, >> i like the words solidarity and commitment, and i think right now, when people in these cities are under siege, i think holding this hearing is terrific and the concerns expressed by bodies like that united states senate are especially important. i would never want to think syrians to think that because we have closed the embassy that we are no longer interested in their methods there to create a new series that treats people with dignity. with respect to the commitment jeff was talking about, we do

need to get access so that we have supplies. if the russians would translate their expressed policies into actions in terms of pressure, we would hope they would do that now. >> thank you. i am glad we are having this hearing and i hope we will have multiple hearings on iran. fields we're moving into a position where military conflict is going to be weighed and i cannot imagine why we're not having a hearing on iran every single week. i certainly hope we can urge that i hoped -- thank you for your testimony and service to our country.

we had a classified briefing yesterday that could not have been more different than the one we are having today. it is really fascinating. when we talk about the opposition groups, you ask what these guys are fighting for. the word democracy never comes up. you have a minority with dominion over a city population and what they are fighting for is dominion over the minority population. we heard no words about anything other than this being a conflict between one group of people being oppressed by another group of people and their desire to change that. i do hope -- if you could educate us because this is a night and day presentation from

a we had with the intelligence community yesterday. >> the opposition is divided. no question about that. it is a fractious and of their are competing visions within the opposition. there is an islamist the love -- element as contrasted with these secular element and that is why i spoke about the need for the opposition to unify around division and the need to unify around a transition plan which would in fact be the way to attract people who have been sitting on the fence to join the protest movement. i don't know what you heard in the briefing yesterday. but from direct, firsthand experience, i have talked to

people who organize the demonstrations and i have had team members from my embassy talk to them repeatedly. we got a very clear message from them that the people who organized this, they have a vision of a state that abides by rule of law and is not targeting them, however it is a complex society and the longer the violence goes on and the government is driving the violence, perhaps intentionally, the greater their risk the sectarian conflict we have seen, but not to such a degree in other cities, it would spread and metastasized into other cities in syria.

but let me give you some very concrete examples -- there are communities in southern syria that are more and more saying they should stop supporting the regime and begin to support the protest movement. there have been calls for them to stop serving in the syrian military and joined the protest movement. there have been calls from a religious figures to stop supporting this regime. the expression that they used was it would be the ruin of us. >> i appreciate the background, but i think what you are saying is there is no central vision. there are lots of differing

visions. we have diplomatic relations with syria, is that correct? >> yes. >> you went there to put reforms in place and there was a controversy over you being there. i very much supported you doing that. but we have diplomatic relations and we are working on reforms and they have done some terrible things and they are not the kind of government we want to see around the world. but this is not a democracy movement right now. there are some people espousing that, but the people fighting, but for but i understand, are fighting for power in government, not in the manner of democracy.

>> i'm going to have to respectfully disagree. the public statements from a senior figures in the army speak about supporting a democratic state. we do not know what they would do were they in power. >> who would be in power? if he was gone, who would be leading the country? who is it we are supporting, morally at least? >> we're supporting a transition which the syrian national council has laid out in connection with a road map set out by the arab league. at that would be a process by

which a leadership would be chosen. i cannot give you a name. this is an important point. the people who are doing the fighting say they are fighting to defend the protest movement. there is a link, even if you cannot say the fighters themselves claim -- >> and do you think it is in our national interest to be involved and military operations to join in with al qaeda and others and the folks on the ground to overthrow the government? >> we have been supporting a plan developed by the arab state

for a political transition. the secretary spoke of some of the discussions we have had about how complicated this is in terms of thinking about harming the opposition and how complicated it is in terms of knowing who you are giving the arms to and what does it represents this gets into your question of what are they fighting for? what good would it do when they are facing tanks and heavy artillery? these are extremely complex questions and we are not yet at a point where we could discuss at in this form. >> i appreciate you letting out the complexities, competing forces and the lack of knowledge of what this is all about. hopefully over time, we will

understand more fully and you will play a part in that. >> thank you for both of you being here today. i appreciate the opportunity to listen to you on a number of areas. i would like to pick up a little bit on this notion of afterwards, which you have mentioned several times today. what is the afterwards? what would it potentially be and what would it potentially not be? you can look back in fairly recent history and there are a couple of realities we ought to be looking at as starting points. one is that repressive regimes sometimes to survive. probably the best example of that is the chinese government itself. when it turned its armies and

tanks on its own people 22 or 23 years ago and killed more than a thousand of its own people. it is still in power. it is more than still in power as we all know. another reality is particularly in this part of the world and both of you have an enormous repository of experience, of the outcomes from these types of unrest are rarely quick. there are rarely clean and they are rarely fully predictable. i have an engineering degree and i look at what has been happening over the last year through the eyes of the chaos theory. the chaos theory is a scientific theory. it is a political term, but one degree, one assumption of, you end up with a compilation of

results that are far away from where you thought it might be and perhaps the best example of that is what the non looking back to the 80s and beyond. but we have to say openly that we don't know what is going to come out of the last year. we don't know how the arab spring is going to play out. it is going to take years for to manifest itself and some sort of political apparatus. there are two questions and i'm going to ask them both together in the interest of time. there are actors in this region but they might not say it

openly, but they might be for the complete removal of the current regime. they believe they weakened the regime might be more palatable in terms of regional stability and security than what would result from capitulation. i think your answer shows how difficult the building blocks would be to put together a replacement regime. second, we have talked a lot about russia but i would like your thoughts as to why china has declined to be more forthcoming. >> thank you. you are absolutely right that we don't know how these transitions are going to turn out. our interests in how they turn out our great, but we have to be modest about how much influence

we can play in helping to determine those outcomes. you have put your finger on a big issue given the transitions going on in the arab world, but in the united states, it is not in our interest to see this regime survive. we ever talked a lot about the ethical questions, but we have also talked on the strategic questions. this regime exported terror into iraq. >> i am not advocating that. the question was that there are countries in the region that would be making that point, belatedly if not openly. >> if you look at the arab league transition plan, it was designed with that fear of chaos and civil war in mind. it was designed in a way in

which parts of the current system and the opposition movement to gather work on a practical plan that preserves the state's unity's and it's one of the themes we get repeatedly from their neighbors and opposition. the army and security services need to be preserved and that people are working on a transition plan with the idea that you can preserve the state but one that is no longer a malignant actor but can't be a positive actor. >> a vote was called and out of respect for my colleagues, i appreciate that observation but could you give me a quick thought on the situation with china? >> neither one of us are great experts on china. having served our careers in the middle east -- china intends to

follow russia and many of these cases is what my colleagues tell me. china has certain trading interests inside syria, but china has interest elsewhere in the arab world. that is where the dialog needs to focus on, which is what china has to lose by losing credibility elsewhere in the world. >> thank you. >> we have a vote go off, so this is a 15-minute vote but i just have a few questions and i think we will be able to finish and adjourned the hearing unless we have other senators coming in. there are reports that saudi arabia and qatar may have begun

to arm the rebels and syria. support for arming the rebels has increased. what's the position of 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 and could that lead to the empowerment of the moss and al qaeda? i was in the chair presiding over the senate and some of this may be ground to have gone over, but if you could answer that, that would be great >> we have been very hesitant about pouring fuel on to a conflagration that has been set and we are cautious about this whole area of questioning. that is why we have worked with the international consensus on

economic track, to get to the tipping point we are talking about. there is self-defense going on in syria right now. we cannot defend -- we cannot -- we would like to use the political tools at our disposal, including the security council, to advance the tipping point because it is not clear to us that army and people right now well either save lives or lead to the demise of the regime. there are a lot of complicated questions. right now, the regime is using tanks against entire neighborhoods. i don't think when you hear about the army of the opposition, they're talking by getting tanks into the opposition. it is a serious question, but

there are a lot of complications one needs to consider. >> i agree. we understand the earnest desire and need for people under siege in this place, when their homes are being attacked by thugs and people want to take up arms, we understand that. it is human. we cannot criticize that. however, he spoke about the need to work with regional states to find a durable solution. that is our thinking and that is why we have been so strongly in

support of the arab league and the transition process that is laid out. if i may add one other comment, we have noticed the increase in support from religious figures in some arab countries for taking up arms against the government. we have seen statements by various religious figures across the arab world and we have cautioned the opposition that if they declare some kind of big g hyde, -- some kind of big jihad, they will make finding a durable solution to this more difficult. we do not want to see syria go

toward civil war. we want to see the violence stop immediately and to see syria began a political transition. >> thank you. the other issue -- it may have been touched on a bit, the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction and what is happening in syria. are we making plans regarding how to account for the weapons and make sure they don't fall into the hands of terrorist organizations like al qaeda? is this something being discussed in the region? >> yet put your finger on an extremely important point. this topic is being discussed half of -- actively with our neighbors and allies. syria is not a signatory of the

chemical convention. this is a reminder of the destabilizing role they have played, the fact the stockpiles even exist. we have no indication the stockpiles have fallen out of control of the government, but it is one of the reasons they managed transition is so important rather than a chaotic transition. we are watching this carefully and some of this discussion is a discussion we have to have a different situation than today. >> i would underline it is a subject of great concern and we are looking at what needs to be done, but let me assure you that we have a lot of people working on it. >> i know you do and when i get home to mexico, you realize there's a lot of concern about

the brutal massacre of the syrian people by its government when it really started out as a peaceful protest and evolved into what we are seeing today. all of us appreciate you holding the hearing and we appreciate you being here and we are 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, but thank you very much for your service. we would adjourn the hearing with no additional questions. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> president obama address the error -- the american is really commission. he said his policy toward iran is not containment, but preventing the nation from developing nuclear weapons. he also defended his policies toward israel and defended america is the ability to reach a

>> thank you. everyone have a seat. the morning, everyone. thank you for your kind words. i've never seen rosy on the basketball court. i bet it would be a treat. [laughter] you have been a dear friend of mine for a long time and the tireless advocate for the unbreakable bonds between israel and that united states. i salute your leadership and that bet. i want to thank the board of directors. i am glad to see my longtime friend in the chicago

delegation. i want to thank the members of congress here with us today of congress here with us today and will be speaking to you over the next few days. you have worked hard to maintain the partnership between the united states and israel. i especially want to thank my close friend and leader of the democratic national committee, debbie wasserman shultz. [applause] i'm glad that my outstanding young ambassador to israel is in the house, dan shapiro. [applause] i understand dan is perfecting his hebrew on his new assignment and i appreciate the constant outreach to the people of israel. i'm pleased that we're joined by so many officials including michael horn.

tomorrow, i'm looking forward to welcoming prime minister netanyahu and his delegation back to the white house. [applause] every time i come to aipac, i'm especially impressed to see so many young people here. you do not yet get the front seat, so i understand. you have to earn that. but students from all of the country who are making their voices heard and engaging deeply in our democratic space. you carry with you an extraordinary legacy of more than six decades of friendship between the united states and israel. you have the opportunity, and a responsibility, to make your own mark on the world.

for inspiration, you can look to the man who preceded me on this stage, who is being honored at this conference my friend, president shimon peres. [applause] shimon was born a world away from here. in what was then poland. but few years after world war i. his heart was always in israel, the historic homeland of the jewish people. when he was just a boy, he made his journey across land and sea towards home. in his life, he has bought for israel's independence, fought

for peace and security. as a minister of defense and foreign affairs, as a prime minister, and as president, shimon helped build a nation that drives today, the jewish state of israel. [applause] but beyond these extraordinary achievements, he has also been a powerful moral voice that reminds us that right makes might. not the other way around. [applause] shimon once describedthe story of the jewish people by saying that it proved that arrows in gas chambers can annihilate man but they cannot kill dignity and freedom.

he has lived those values. he has taught us to ask more of ourselves and to empathize more with our fellow human beings. i am grateful for his life's work and his moral example. i'm proud to announce that later this spring i will invite shimon peres to the white house to present him with the presidential medal of freedom. [applause] [applause] in many ways, this award is a

symbol of the ties that bind our nation's. the united states and israel share interests, but we also share those human values shimon spoke about. a commitment to human dignity, a believe that freedom is a right that is given to all god's children, an experience that shows us that democracy is the one and only form of government that can truly respond to the aspirations of citizens. fatherss founding understood this truth just as israel's founding generation did. president truman put it well, describing his decision to formally recognize israel only minutes after declared independence. he said, "i had faith in israel before it was established. but i believe and has a

glorious future before it, as not just another sovereign nation, but as the embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization." for over six decades, the american people have kept that faith. yes, we are bound to israel because of the interests we share in security for our communities, prosperity for our people, the new frontiers of science to light the world, but ultimately it is our common ideals that provide the true foundation for our relationship. that is why america's commitment to israel has endured under democratic and republican presidents and congressional leaders of both parties. [applause] in the united states, our

support for israel is bipartisan and that is how it should stay. [applause] aipac's work continually nurtures this bond. you can expect that over the next several days you will hear many fine words from elected officials describing their commitment to the u.s.-israel relationship. as you examine my commitment, you do not just have to count on my words. you can look at my deeds.

over the last three years as president of united states, i have kept my commitment to the state of israel. at every crucial juncture and at every port in the road, we have been there for israel every single time. [applause] as the book for you and i said israel's security is sacrosanct. it is non-negotiable. my administration's commitment to israeli security has never been closer. our joint exercises and training has never been more robust.

this has increased every single year. we are investing in new capabilities. we are providing israel with more technology, products, and systems that only goes to our closest friends and allies. we will do what it takes to preserve israel's military edge because israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat. [applause] this is not just about numbers on a balance sheet. as a senator, i would speak to israel's troops on the lebanon border.

i have been to visit the families to have known the terror of rocket fire. that is why as president i have provided critical funding for the system that has intercepted rockets that may have hit homes, schools, and hospitals in those towns and in others. [applause] now our assistance is expanding israel's capability so that more people can live free from the fear of rockets and ballistic missiles. the family, no citizen, should live in fear. just as we have been there with our security assistance, we have been there through our diplomacy. when they unfairly singled out israel for criticism, we challenge them. when israel was isolated in the aftermath of the flotilla incident, we had their backs.

we would always reject the notion that zionism is racism. [applause] when one-sided resolutions has brought us to the human rights council, we oppose them. when diplomats feared for their lives in cairo, we intervened to save them. when the efforts to boycott or the best from israel, we will stand against them. whenever an effort is made to delegitimize the state of israel, my administration has opposed them. there should not be a shred of doubt by now that when the

chips are down, i have israel's back. [applause] which is why it is during this political season you hear some questions regarding my administration's support for israel. remember that this is not backed up by the facts. remember that the u.s.-israel relationship is simply too important to be distorted by partisan politics. america's national security is important. israel's security is too important. [applause] of course, there are those who

question not my security and diplomatic commitments but rather my administration's ongoing pursuit of peace between israel and palestine. let me say this. i make no apologies for pursuing peace. israel's own leaders understand the necessity of peace. prime minister netanyahu, the defense minister, president peres, each of them have called for two states, and secure israel living side by side with an independent palestinian state. i believe that peace is profoundly in israel's security interests. [applause] the reality that israel faces, shifting demographics, emerging technologies, to an extremely difficult international environment come and resolution of this issue, i believe that

peace with palestine is consistent with israel's founding values. because of our shared belief in self-determination, because israel's place as a jewish and democratic state must be protected. [applause] of course, peace is hard to achieve. there is a reason why it has remained elusive for six decades. the upheaval and uncertain in israel's neighborhood makes it that much harder, from the horrific violence raging in syria to the transition in egypt. the division within the palestinian leadership makes it harder still. most notably, with hamas's continuing israel have has no right to exist. we should not and cannot to give in to more despair.

the changes taking place in the region make peace more important, not less. i've made it clear that there will be no lasting peace unless it israel's security concerns are met. [applause] that is why we continue to press arab leaders to reject israel. that is why we will continue to support the peace treaty with egypt. that is why, just as we encourage israel to be resolute in the concerns of peace, we insist that any palestinian partner must recognize israel's right to exist. [applause] that is why my administration has consistently rejected any efforts to shortcut negotiations or impose an agreement on parties.

as well as you noted, last year is the before you and pledged that the united states would stand up against the kurds to single israel out of the united nations. as you know, that pledge has been kept. [applause] last september, i stood before the u.n. general assembly and reaffirmed that any lasting peace must acknowledge the fundamental legitimacy of israel and its security concerns. i said that america's concern and commitment to israel's security is unwavering. israel must be recognized. no american president has made such a clear statement about our support for israel at the men in such a difficult time. people usually give those speeches in instances like this one, not before the general assembly. [applause]

i must say that there was not a lot of applause. but it was the right thing to do. as a result, today there's no doubt anywhere in the world that the united states will insist upon israel's security and legitimacy. [applause] that will be true as we continue our efforts to pursue peace, and it will be true when it comes to the issue that is such a focus for all of us today, iran's nuclear program. let's begin with a basic truth

that you all understand. no israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the holocaust, threatens to wipe israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to israel's destruction. [applause] so i understand the profound historical obligation that weighs on the soldiers of benjamin netanyahu, ehud barak, and all of the political leaders. a nuclear-armed iran is counter to israel's security interests. it is also counter to the national security interests of the united states. [applause]

indeed, the entire world has an interest in preventing iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. and nuclear-armed iran would certainly undermine the nonproliferation regime we have done it so much to build. there are risks that an iranian nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of a terrorist organization. it is almost certain that others in the region would feel compelled to get their own nuclear weapon, triggering an arms raised in one of the world's most local regions. it will involve the regime that has been was its own people and embolden by iran's prophets who have carried out terrorist attacks.

when i took office, the efforts to apply pressure on iran were in tatters. iran had gone from zero central future spending to thousands without push back from the world. the reason was that iran was a symbol increasingly extending its reach. the iranian leadership was united and on the move. from my very first months in

office, we put forward a very clear choice to the iranian regime. a path that would allow them to rejoin the community of nations if they meet their international obligations or a path that leads to an escalating series of consequences if they do not. in fact, our policy of engagement quickly rebuffed by the iranian regime allowed us to rally the international community as never before, to expose iran. because of our efforts, iran is under greater pressure than ever before. some of you will recall the people predicted that russia and china would not push to move toward pressure. they did. in 2010, the un security council overwhelmingly supported a comprehensive sanctions effort. few thought that sanctions could have an immediate bite on

the iranian regime. they have. many thought we could hold the coalition together. but our friends in europe and asia and elsewhere are joining us. in 2012, the iranian government faces the prospect of even more crippling sanctions. that is where we are today. because of our work. iran is isolated, its leadership divided and under pressure and, by the way, the arab spring has only increased the use trends as the hypocrisy of the regime is explode. as a result, the assad regime is crumbling.

so long as iran fails to meet its obligations, this problem remains unresolved. the effective implementation of our policy is not enough. we must accomplish our objectives. and in that effort -- [applause] i firmly believe that an opportunity still remains for diplomacy backed by pressure to succeed. the united states and israel both assessed that iran does not have yet a nuclear weapon and we are exceedingly vigilant in monitoring their program. now the international community has a responsibility to use the time and space that exists. sanctions are continuing to increase. this july, a european ban on iran in oil imports will take place. [applause]

faced with these increasingly dire consequences, i ran's leaders still have the opportunity to make the right decision. they can choose a path that brings them back into the community of nations or they can continue down a dead-end. given their history, there are of course no guarantees that the iranian regime will make the right choice. both israel and the united states have an interest in seeing this challenge resolved diplomatically. after all, the only way to truly solve this problem is for the iranian government to make a decision to forsake nuclear weapons. that is what history tells us. moreover, as president and commander in chief, i have a deeply held preference for peace over war.

[applause] i have sent men and women into harm's way. i have seen the consequences of those decisions in the eyes of those i me to come back gravely wounded and the absence of those who do not make it home. long after i leave this office, i will remember those moments as the most searing of my presidency. for this reason, as part of my solemn promise to the american people, i will use force when the time and circumstances demand it. and i know that israeli leaders also know all too well because the consequences of war. even as the recognize their obligation to defend their country. so we all prefer resolving this issue diplomatically. leadersaid that, iran's should have no doubt about the result of united states.

[applause] just as they should not doubt israel's sovereign right to make its own decisions about its own security needs. [applause] i have said that when it comes to iran to obtain nuclear weapon, i will take no auctions off the table. and i mean what i say. -- i will take no options off the table. and i mean what i say. [applause] that includes all efforts of american power.

an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency. [applause] iran's leaders should understand that i do not have a policy of containment. i have a policy to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. [applause] and as i have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, i will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the united states and its interests. [applause]

moving forward, i would ask that we all remember the weightiness of these issues, the stakes involved for israel, for america, and the world. already, there's too much loose talk of war. over the last few weeks, such talks have only benefited the iranian government by driving up the price of oil which they depend on to fund their nuclear program. for the sake of israel's security, america's security, and the peace and security of the world, knows all the time for bluster. now is the time for letting pressure sinking in. now's the time to heed the timeless and vice of teddy roosevelt's. speak softly, carry a big stick.

[applause] and as we do, rest assured that the iranian government will know our resolve, that our coordination with israel will continue. these are challenging times. we have been through challenging times before. the united states and israel will get through them. we have both benefited from the bonds the bring us together. i am proud to be one of those people. in the past, i have shared in this for just why those bonds are so personal for me. the stories of a great uncle who helped liberate buchenwald to my memory is returning there with elie wiesel, sharing books

and experiences with my friends on the campaign trail and in what has been to my friends in this room and the concept that has enriched and guided my life. [applause] israel's story is one of hope. we may not agree on every single issue. no two nations do. our democracies contain a vibrant diversity of views. but we agree on the big things. the things that matter. and together, we are working to build a better world, one where people can live free from fear,

one where peace is founded upon justice, one where our children can know a future that is more hopeful than the present. there is no shortage of speeches on this friendship between the united states and israel. but i'm also mindful of the proverb that man is judged by his deeds, not his words. so if you want to know where my heart lies, look no further than what i have done. [applause] thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. god bless the people of israel. god bless the united states of america. ♪

. .