pressure on assaad have been met with opposition from china an russia. they vetoed a proposal to establish a syrian-led political transition to a democrat irk, to a democratic political system. despite these vetoes, the general assembly voted to condemn the brutal use of force against civilians. last week, the friends of syria, which included representatives of the syrian national council, secretary clinton, and other leaders came together in the home of the first arab spring uprising to forge a way forward. including a call to end the violence, withdraw forces from cities and towns, and inshore unhindered access.

they also praised the work of the syrian national council to lay the groundwork for a political transition. importantly, they agreed to continue to ratchet up the economic pressure through tough sanctions on the assad family. there was also a robust dialogue about whether there was a feasible way to help those under assault by the assad regime. as the international community continues to search, there are a number of questions we must ask. what is the makeup of the opposition? how unified are they? what a the objectives of the opposition? who was their benefactors? -- who are their benefactors?

can they coordinate the efforts to the opposition groups against the syrian military? have islands extremist elements infiltrated the opposition? -- have a violent extremist the elements infiltrated the opposition? what of the military actions that could be taken? who do they need to be taken by? what are the risks in downsizing? these are a few of the questions we hope to discuss with our witnesses this morning. just as was the case in libya, there is a broad consensus on the preferred outcome in syria. assad must go. there is not a consensus about how this can be achieved. each situation is different, unlike gaddafi. assad and his father before him

build a substantial and professional military with a modern a defense capability, a large stockpile of chemical weapons, and well-trained troops. so far, the establishment has remained cohesive and willing to carry out assad's brutal order to conduct a violent campaign. some observers believe the uprising in syria, led by the suny majority -- suni majority, could aggravate tensions beyond syria's borders. syria is also home to an ethnically and religiously diverse population that includes many different populations. some religious leaders are raising concerns about the situation in syria devolving to

the point where there is little tolerance for religious minorities. a situation that is all too familiar to us. we must also try to understand the impact that syria has on the region. elements of hezbollah call syria home. perhaps, more importantly, it is the ron's sole ally -- is iran's sole ally. they use the writ to carry out its agenda. it is also the home to a russian naval installation. these are but some assets -- aspects of the situation that need to be considered. our witnesses have the responsibility to provide the president options to address these challenges and to provide him their best professional advice.

the committee heard from general dempsey last month. the joint staff has already begun careful planning, including humanitarian airlifts, naval maturing, aerial surveillance, and a real enforcement of safe havens. we look forward to discussing these discussions -- these options and many others. we thank you both for being here this morning. we are grateful for your leadership. we also appreciate your relation with this committee and its members. senator mccain. >> thank you. i join you in welcoming our distinguished witnesses. thank you for convening the hearing on a horrific situation in syria. the urgency of this hearing has only grown more important.

it is estimated that nearly 7500 lives have been lost. many observers think that figure could be low. syria today is a scene of some of the most -- worst state- sponsored violence. what is more astonishing is the violence continues despite the severe international pressure that has been brought against assad. syria is almost completely isolated diplomatically. the regime is facing a punishing array of economic sanctions imposed by the united states and others. this has been an impressive international effort. the administration deserves credit for helping to orchestrate it. unfortunately, the violence continues and worsens. it appears to be escalating. assad seems to be accelerating his fight to the finish. he is doing so with the support

of russia, china and iran. a steady supply of weapons and ammunition is flowing to assad. as the washington post reported, iranian military and intelligence officers -- operatives are working in syria. one general testified yesterday that, "assad is achieving what he wants to achieve. the military campaign is gaining physical momentum." and "assad will continue to employ heavier and heavier weapons." general burgess and the director of national intelligence both told this committee that absent some kind of external intervention, assad would remain

in power for the foreseeable future. the united states has a clear national security interest in stopping the slaughter in syria and forcing assad to leave power. it could sever hezbollah's likeline to iran, bolster love and on's 70, and remove the state sponsorship -- bolster and removeposition, the state sponsorship of terrorism. the biggest to teach it setback for -- biggest to teach it set back. -- strategic setback. the killing in syria must not. the president has commanded us to that goal.

it is the right goal. the killing continues. what they need is relief from assad's tank and artillery sieges. time is running out. on the forces are market. providing military assistance is necessary. at this late hour, that will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives. the only realistic way to do so is with foreign air power. it could break the siege of cities in syria, protect the population centers, and helped the opposition to establish and defend safe havens in syria where they can organize and plan their activities against assad. at the request of the syrian

national council and local coordinating committees, the united states should help lead such a military effort in syria. as i have said, this does not mean we should go it alone. we should not. we should seek the active involvement of key arab partners and willing allies in the entrepreneur and nato, the most important of which is -- in the eu and nato, the most important of which is turkey. military intervention is needed. assad needs to know that he will not win. that is not the case now. to the contrary, he seems convinced he can wipe out the opposition through violence. he is fully committed to do so.

the ideal outcome would be to change this dynamic, to prevent a long and bloody fight to the finish, by compelling assad to give up power without further bloodshed, greeting the opportunity for a peaceful transition to democracy, possibly along the lines proposed by the air believed. there are lynn b --y the arab league. there are concerns about the risks and uncertainties. it is understandable that the administration is reluctant to move beyond diplomacy and sanctions. unfortunately, this policy is increasingly disconnected from the dire conditions on the ground in syria, which has become an a full state of armed conflict. secretary panetta, you were chief of staff during the debate

over bosnia in the 1990's, including the nato bombing campaign. you remember the many painful years when they kept sending convoys to milosevic, leading them to agree with reasonable requests -- pleading them to agree with reasonable requests. you will also remember how the leader used these diplomatic entreaties to buy time to continue the killing. in bosnia and later in kosovo, we heard many arguments against military intervention. it was said there was no international consensus. that the situation was messy and confused. it was not clear who we would be helping on the ground. that our involvement could make matters worse. we heard all of these arguments about bosnia. now we hear them about syria again today.

we overcame them in bosnia, thank god. now we must overcome them in the case of syria. i want to close by reading how president clinton described bosnia in 1995. "nowhere today is the need for american leadership more immediate than in bosnia. for nearly four years a war has torn bosnia apart. there are times and places where our leadership can mean the difference between peace and war, where we can defend our fundamental values as a people, serve our most basic strategic interest. there are still times when america can and should make a difference for peace." those were the words of a democratic president who led

america to do the right thing. i remember working with my republican friends bob dole to support president clinton in that endeavor. the question for another democratic president today is whether we will allow similar mass atrocities to continue in syria and whether we will do what it takes to stop them. i thank you. >> thank you. secretary panetta. >> thank you for the opportunity to be able to discuss the ongoing violence in syria. this tragedy has justifiably of folk the concern and outrage of the united states -- justifiably evoked the concern and outrage of the united states. the president and the

international community have stated that bashar al-assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. he must step aside. he must allow a democratic transition to proceed a immediately. furthermore, through its repeated violations of human rights, any government that indiscriminately kills its own people loses its legitimacy. this regime has lost its legitimacy. and it's right to rule the country. this situation demands an international response. for that reason, the united states has been leading efforts to pressure assad to stop his violence against the syrian people and step aside. unfortunately, this terrible situation has no simple answers.

the result is a great deal of anger and frustration that we all share. there are some members who are concerned about whether we are doing enough. that is understandable. there are others who are concerned about the dangers of involving ourselves in another conflict in that part of the world. that too is understandable. let me try to address these concerns by providing context for what is guiding the administration's views. the turmoil in syria is clearly part of a larger transformation that has been reshaping the arab world for more than a year. the change we have seen has manifested itself in different ways, sometimes, through peaceful protests and negotiations aimed at a more responsible government. in other cases, in violent

uprisings and brutal crackdown from oppressive regimes. many countries have been affected by these changes. although each conflict has its own dynamic, it is part of a broader trend that is fundamentally and irreversibly reshaping the politics of the arab world. although this is a challenging and unpredictable. of time, our goal must be to encourage governments to do more to ensure that their people can live in peace. as a global leader, this administration has been determined to do everything we can to positively shaped the course of events in the middle east. each situation, by virtue of the politics, geography, and history of each country is unique and

demands a unique response. there can be no cookie cutter approach to a region this complex. from the outset, we have made clear that our response has been guided by three principles. we oppose the use of violence and repression by regimes against their own people. we have supported the exercise of universal rights, the right to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, freedom of thought, conscience, religion, a prohibition against discrimination, and the right to vote. we support political and economic reforms that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people. these basic principles have shaped our response to tunisia, egypt, libya, and now syria.

the violence has become increasingly of riches. as secretary clinton has noted, -- increasingly outrageous. as secretary clinton has noted, assad has broken every agreement. the brutality must end. a democratic transition must begin. although china and russia have blocked a consul from taking action, the u.n. assembly has given full support to the transition plan, delivering a clear message that the regime has lost its legitimacy. there are continuing efforts to try and agree on a resolution as we speak. the focus now is on translating

that into a national consensus into action along four tracks. we are working to increase the isolation of the assad regime and encouraging other countries to join the united states and the arab league in imposing sanctions. the sanctions are having a significant impact. second, we are providing emergency humanitarian assistance to the syrian people, with an initial commitment of $10 million. we are working to broaden our efforts. third, we are working with the friends of syria and other groups to help strengthen the opposition to try to encourage these groups to unify and lay the groundwork for a peaceful, orderly transition. a government that recognizes and

respects the rights of all syrians. fourth, we are reviewing all possible additional steps that can be taken with our international partners to support the efforts to protect the people. rs to support the efforts to protect the syrian people. to end the violence, and insure regional stability, including potential military options, if necessary. this approach has succeeded in putting unprecedented pressure on assad, but it is clear that there is no simple or quick solution to this crisis. we believe that the best resolution to this crisis will be a peaceful political democratic transition led by the syrian people. and along t lines suggested by the arab league. we belve there is still an opportunity to try to achieve that goal. although we will not rule out any future course of action.

currently the administration is focusing on diplomatic and political approaches rather than military intervention. guided by our approach from libya and elsewhere, we believe it is important in this instance that we do the following. that we build multi-lateral international cnsensus for any action that is taken. two, that we maintain clear regional support from the arab world. three, that we make substantial u.s. contributions to the international effort, especially where the united states has unique resources that can be brought to bear. four, we need to have a clear, legal basis for any action that we take. and five, keep all option on the table. but recognize that there are

limitations of military forces specially with u.s. boots on the ground. each situation, as i said, is unique and as i've said there is no simple solution here. the reasons for the differences between our approach with libya and the current approach to syria are clear. although there has been widespread support in the security council and the arab league for military intervention in libya, no such consensus currently exists with regard to syria. for us to act unilaterally would be a mistake. it not clear what constitutes the syrian armed opposition. there has been no sing unifying military alternative that can be recognized, appointed or contacted. while the opposition is fighting back, and military defections and desertions are on the rise,

the syrian regime continues to maintain a strong military. and as secretary clinton noted, there is every possibility of a civil war and airect outside intervention in these conditions not only would not prevent that, but could make it worse. even though the current approach is focused on achieving a political solution to this crisis, the assad regime should take no comfort. the pressure is building on the regime every day. make no mistake, one way or another this regime will meet its end. we will continue to evaluate the situation and adjust our approach as necessary. let me close by briefly addressing the united states broader strategic interests in syria and the regn. the stability of syria is vital

to this region, and to turkey and lebanon and iraq and israel. all of these countries and the united states have a strong interest in preventing a humanitarian crisis in syria. but perhaps most notably, syria is a pivotal country for iran. as senator mccain pointed out. syria is iran's only state ally in the region. and is crucial to iran's efforts to support those militants throughout the region who threaten israel and threaten regional stability. unrest in syria has already greatly weakened iran's position in the region. and it is clear that iran only stands to lose further as assad is weaken further. as groups such as hamas distance themselves from the assad regime, iran is quickly becoming

the assad regime's lone backer. this shows the world the hypocracy of tehran. i cannot predict how the volatile situation in syria will unfold. but the united states made clear we are on the side of the syrian people. they must know that the international community has not under estimated either their suffering or impatience. we all wish there was a clear and unambiguous way forward to directly influence the events in syria. that, unfortunately, is not the case. that is not an excuse. that is reality. only our clear path, our only clear path is to keep moving in a resolute manner to find a way to return syria to the syrian

people. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. general dempsey? >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator mccain, distinguished members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today and discuss the evolving situation in syria. it's tragic for the people of syria and the region. real democratic reform should have been the assad regime's response to last year's peaceful protest. instead, the regime responded with brutality. syria's internal convulsions are having consequences for a region already in turmoil. refugees are fleeing, spill over is an increasing concern. we need to be alert to the movement of extremists and others who till actors seeking to exploit the area. biological weapons must stay where they are. with our nations the united states is a mying diplomatic and economic pressure on the regime to compel assad to stop killing

their own. our military's role has been limited to this point to sharing information with our regional partners. but, should we be caed on to help security u.s. interests in other ways we will be ready. we maintain an agile posture, we have solid military relationships with eve country on syria's borders. should we be called our responsibility is clear, provide the secretary of defense and president of the united states with options. all options will be judged in terms of tir suitability, feasibility and accept ability. we have a further responsibility to articulate risk and potential implications for our own global commitments. in close, i want to insure this committee you and the nation that america's armed forces are always ready to answer our nation's call i'm prepared to answer your questions. >> thank you very much, general. let's try a seven minute round.

secretary pa net, take the arab ague proposed a transition plan, has the arab league requested military intervention in syria? >> it has not. >> did they support military intervention in liby >> they did. >> what explains the difference? >> i think they share some of the same concerns that we do with regard to the situation in syria. and just exactly what kind of military action would have the kind of impact that we all desire and because of the divisions within the opposition, because of the situation that is occurring there and volatile and unpredictable, i think that -- those concerns have impacted on their decision making here. >> general dempsey, you made

reference to putting together options for the president should he decide to move in one direction or another. without tellin us what you would recommend, can you give us kind of a menu of military options which might be available? >> yeah, i can actually discuss it in greater detail in closed session if you choose to do that. you mentioned the principle options in your opening statement include humanitarian relief, no-fly zone, maritime interdiction, and limited aerial strikes for example. we've -- we're at what i would describe the commander's estimate level of detail, not detailed planning, have not been brefd to the president, have been discussed with the president's national security staff, and as general mattis testified yesterday, the next step is take whatever options we deem to be feasible in the next level of planning.

>> would the use of air power against their troops be an option and tell us about the air defenses that syria has. >> well, first of all as you know we're extraordinarily capable and can do just about anything we're asked to o. in doing it, we have some -- we considerations we would make in terms of whether we would do it alone or with partners, we generally in fact always provide a better outcome when we work with partners, especially that part of the world. the ability to do a single raid like strike would be accessible to us. the ability to do longer term sustained campaign would be challenging, and would have to be made in the context of other commitments around the globe and you wi

i'll just say this about their air defenses. again i can speak more openly in a closed session about their exact capabilities, but they have approximately five times more air -- sophisticated than libya, covering one fifth of their terrain. th are all on the western border, their population center, so five times the air defense of libya covering one fifth of the terrain and ten times more than we experienced in serbia. >> has nato taken up the issue of some kind of an intervention militarily in sir yar? >> not at this point. >> would it not be useful as either preliminary consideration or as an important signal to the libyan regime that at least nato take up the question? >> i believe that nato ought to take up the question.

>> can you make sure that happens or recommend at least to the president that that be done? >> yes. >> okay. i think that would be important signal to the syrian regime. general mattis recently indicated to the committee that president assad's regime is going to fall and he said it's just a matter of when and not if. do you share that assessment and are you as confident that will happen? and do you attach any conditions to that happening, secretary let me start with you. >> no, i've heard the intelligence and i share the assessment that it isn't a matter of at the will fall but when. >> is that dependent on our actions or other actions against him or is that going to happen even in the -- with the current

momentum and current status quo continuing? >> i think i've asked the same question of our intelligence people and i think their view is that the state of this insurgency is so deep right now and will continue in the future that ultimately he will fall one way or the ther. >> general, can you telus what capabilities there are to get additional weapons to the insurgents or opposition and also tell us what weapons assad is getting in from what source, if you can try to give us as best you can the type of weapons that could be provided to the opposition, and what weapons are actually going in to assad and from where. >> i can't speak in open session

about the source of his weapons, except to say -- i will in closed session, except to say that he has some security arrangements with others both in the region and outside the regiono provide weapons and what we would describe in our situation as a foreign military sales program. he has an existing foreign military sales agreement with at least two nations that i can discuss in closed session. >> are you able to tell us what iran is supplying? >> i can in closed session. >> not here. okay. >> could you give us some idea in open session? in other words, are you able to give us, if not precisely, can you give us just some general estimate or idea as to what is going in from iran? types of weapons, and quantity without being too precise. >> i would describe -- if -- if

iran succeeds in some of their movements of weapons to syria, and they have, then it would be largely smaller caliber, rocket pro pemmed grenade, anti-tank weapons. the other actors who have opened foreign military sales agreements are upper tier stuff including air defense. >> thank you both. senator mccain? >> general dempsey as the reports in the washington report accurate about iranian involvement? we don't need a closed session i don't think for you to say whether "the washington post" is correct or not. >> "the washington post" has parts of their reporting are accurate, yes, senator. >> thank you. serkts geral mattis said the

departure fromsaid would be the biggest strategic set back for iran in 25 years, basicicly you're in agreement? >> i agree with that. >> by the way, the kuwaiti parliament called forearming the opposition, the saudi foreign ministry called for it, other elements in the arab league are calling for it, and clearly it's a matter of time before arab league takes a stronger position on it. general mattis told us, general dempsey, yesterday, that asaid's crackdown is gaining physical momentum, do you agree with general mattis' statement? >> i do, he has increasingly used heavier weapons. >> even though you agree sooner or later assad will fall, at the moment he happens to be, including regaining control of

homs, gaining momentum, that is correct? >> that is correct. >> would you characterize this as a fair fight when he's using a artillery and tanks to kill syrians? >> i would characterize them as brutalizing their own citizens. >> i see, but since sooner or later he will fall, we don't have to act. the president said yesterday he has taken no options off the table, mr. anetta, in the case of syria. you said in your opening statement that includes "potential military options if necessary" you said in your statement. and yet,eneral -- admiral stavridis and general mattis said there was no contingency planning. will there be continncy planning? >> we have looked at a number of

options that could be involved here. we have not done the detailed planning because we are waiting for the direction of the president to do that. >> the president, mr. secretary, president obama issued a presidential directive stating "the prevention of mass atrosities is the core national security interests of the united states" that is the administration's policy. with at least 7500 and possibly more than 10,000 dead, with assad using tanks, gaining momentum according to general mattis, would you agree mass atrosities have occurred and are occurring in syria? >> i don't think there is any question we're experiencing mass atrosities there. >> the president said he is taking no options off the table you said in your opening statement, you said potential mome military options if necessary. can you tell me how much longer

the killing would have to continue, how many additional civilian lives would have to be lost in order to convince you that the military measures of this kind that we are proposing necessary to end the kill and force to leave power, how many more have to die, 10,000 more, 20,000 more? how many more? >> i think the question as you stated yourself, senator, is the effort to try to build an international consensus as to what action we do take. that makes the most sense. what doesn't make sense is to take unilateral action at this point. as secretary of defense, before i recommend that we put our sons and daughters in uniform in harm's way, i've got to make very sure that we know what the mission is, i've got to make very sure that we know whether we can achieve that mission, at price, and whether or not it will make matter better or

worse. the are the considerations that i have to engage in, and obviously, the administration believes that every effort ought to be made to deal with those concerns in the international setting to try to build the kind of international consensus that worked in libya andhat can work in syria if we can develop that. >> well, let me tell you what's wrong with your statement, you don't mention american leadership. americans should lead in this, america should be standing up, america should be building coalitions, we shouldn't have statements like we areot going to intervene no matter what the situation is, such has been up until now the statements by the administration and the president. in past experiences, those that i mentioned before, america has led. yes, it has been multi-lateral and multi-national. that is vital. we're not leading,

mr. secretary. general dempsey, again, i hear the same old refrain that i've heard for many, many years. "it's not clear what constitutes the syrian armed opposition" that was the same argument that administration, the same excuse that was used to not step in in libya. the deputy and prime minister in libya are former universities professors from the university of alabama. so, we can find out who they are. we can find out who they are. they are not fighting and dieing sacrificing their lives because they are muslim extremists. they are fighting because they want the saum freedoms and rights that we guarantee in our constitution. so i reject the argument that we

"don know who they are." we spend a lot of money on defense and intelligence. we should know who these people are and it would be easy enough to find out. the best way to help them organize is help them have a place to organize and equip. we are allowing -- i was interested in your answer, and i'll conclude with this. sooner or later assad will fall. i do not disagree with that. meantime, he is gaining momentum, he has regained homs and the death count went up and the atrocities continue. mass atrociti. s are toing on, i hope that america leads and exercises those actions necessary to stop these actions as has been the history of america in the past.

thank you. >> thank you very much, senator mccain. senator lieberman. >> thank you sretary panetta and general dempsey. on this question of what to do syria, i'm of like mindith senator mccain except on the reference of the brave graduates of yale university, i'll have to talk to him later about that. and perhaps we were of like mind because we went through in the '90s together the similar circumstances in bosnia and kosovo, i would say and in each case, the american entrance i o conflict was late.

in my opinion the argument for the united states to be involved and help lead an international effort, which is military,o stop the slaughter in syria are actually greater than they were in the case of either bosnia or kosovo, there's as great as those were, there's the humantarian crisis, he is slaughtering his people and for all we noelle keep doing and not -- for all we know, he will keep doing it. we agree on this, how positive it would be if assad, who is the only ally of iran, is taken down, and how liberating to those that live under syrian

pressure, and perhaps this is unique and different ande are not giving it enough weight. in our foreign policy, we have done a lot of things over the years inclu sins which youing i years, including in recent years of trying to regain the confidence of the muslim world much we have here a moment where the arab league, the gulf coordinating council, turkey are out this, i know turkey is not the arab world, are out there against what is happening in syria. and i thinkf weeem to be holding back, and incident iall the countries are seeing their strategic interest in this and because their people are demanding it because of the wave of change sweeping the area.

if we can help bring assad down it is a benefit and it can help improve our relations with not just the allies but the called arab street. when i went to libya, as an example, the u.s. and nato, are naturally popular, andhere's a lot of appreciation for it because in their hour of need we were in. and i hope and pray that we can come to do that again with regard to syria. i agree we should not do it alone, but without leadership, and being prepared as you suggested to provide the critical resources, it will not be successful and it will not happen in a timely way. to me, i've kept saying that the

factors that led us into libya with our international coalition, they are here and happening. we worried mostly about a humantarian disaster, you said it why libya is different, and i want to offer a different view. there was widespread support in the security council in the arab be league for military intervention in libya, no such consensus exists for syria, and that is literally true, and that is particularly because of russia and china. within the arab league, there's clearly a lot of interest in a military intervention in syria, same is true of the gulf coordinating council, and the -- i take it that the saudis are beginning to arm the syrian opposition as well, the other thing that i want to say is, that in kosovo, the u.s., with a

coalition of the willing acted without u.n. security council approval because again, there were one or two nations blocking it. the second concern is when you hear it all the time is syrian armed up, their position is we are not sure who they are, they have no single coordinating person at the top or group at the top, but that was true in libya as well. the groups formed in difference parts of the country and in some sense they were hostile toward each other, but when the international community came in, it gave strength, and military assistance, it gave strength to the national council there and they worked together to bring about the change that occurred. and finally, the statement that

military would not prevent civil war but could speed it up, senator clinton said something to that effect, obviously of course there's a civil war going on now. and history shows that foreign military intervention, has been critical, libya most recently, in ending civil wars in those countries in the absence of foreign military intervention in countries like ruwanda, the congo and somalia and others, and they have suffered through extended cvil wars. the clock is running and people are being killed in great numbers every day. i think if we do not get the international community together in a coalition of the willing soon, we will look back and say we did not do the right thing morally from stop innocents from being killed we missed an extraordinary strategic

opportunity to position free people in the middle east. i want to give you an opportunity to responds, if you will, without asking a specific question. >> no, senator, i guess -- i want to make the point that the concerns that senator mccain and you and others have expressed are exactly the concerns of the administration. we are not divided here. and we are not holding back. this administration has led in iraq, we have lead in afghan sfan and in the war of terrorism and we are leading in syria, we areorking with those elements to try to bring them together. if the agreement here is that we out not to just simply gon unilaterally, then we have to build a multi-lateral coalition, we have to work at that. it not that easy to deal with the concerns out there. we are working at it every day.

there are diplomats engaged in the issue, we are trying to engage with nae engage with nate oh, and the othercountries. we are working with them. we are talking with them. and we are looking at every option to try to put that in place. can it happen today? can it happen now? no, it's going to take time and we will do it in a way that will not make the situation worse. >> thank you for the statement. i am engacouraged by you. all i can do is plead with you and other nations that we are reaching out to move as quickly as possible, people are dieing every day and strategic opportunities are being lost. the fact is that we have an

opportunity here. and it's also a responsibility and i think it's critically important that we exercise it and i say finally that, i know some people continue to hope that a way can be found for assad to leave the country and ushern the democratic practice of transformation that we talked about, from everything i hear, everything that i see, he will only do that if he thinks his life, his regime is really in jeopardy. and right now i think he thinks he is dominant and has the kind of momentum, physical momentum that general mattis and general dempsey spoke about today, the sooner we put international military pressure on the assad regime, the sooner we have a chance to end this peacefully. thank you, thanks mr. chair. >> that you, senator lieberman, senator brown?

>> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, you said we are leading in iraq and afghanistan, i do not disagree with tt, and leing in syria? i do not see that yet, and maybe that is because we are not privy to the information we have. maybe we set up a secure briefing so we can better understand the things happening. right now, i agree with everything surprisingly tat senator lieberman said, and that is i think very important, it was well said about, you know, we are missing a potential opportunity. that being said, also, i would like toshift to general dempsey. we know that syria has biological weapons, and the regime will eventually collapse, there's a plan available to address those weapon -- that weaponry and do we have an

elimination plan of any kind set up? >> that is another one ofhose senator, i would very much like though chance to talk about -- like the chance to talk with you about it, but not in this hearing, a hundred times more than we experienced if libya. great -- in libya. >> great, i would like to talk about that. what are the lessons that we learned that we need to apply thoughtful consideration can of military intvention in syria, i recognize that libya, everyone hated gadhafi, they wanted him out. we had the arab league, we had broad coalition, we do have a lot thoughtful concerned partners that want to step up. is there a chance that we move without the u.n. and just with those partners to take advantage

of that ladership role that we should have have. >> my job is to place military options in context, when you asked me about lessons learned that are transfer able sure. but the context of this, you mow, i very much want to elevate our thinking here about this -- we are talking about about syria, but we are looking at it through a straw, it does not exist as an isolated country, it's in the context of the region and even of actors outside the region. the inside of syria is a far different demographic, ethnic religious mix than in libya and we need to understand that before we seek to use a

particular pattern to deal with what they face. this issue has to be dealt with in context and we are looking at it through a straw. >> mr. secretary, who aside from the united states is in the best position right now to exert the most effective pressure on the assad regime? >> there's no question in my mind that russia could play a very significant role in putting pressure on assad. they have a port there. they have influence there, they have dealings there unfortunately the position they have taken in the u.n. was to oppose the resolution and that is a shame. but, there's no question that they and the chinese, if they want though advance the cause of the syrian people they could bring great pressure on th to do the right thing.

>> and esuming secretary clinton is working and reaching out? >> that's correct. >> thank you, i'm all set, mr. chaian, thank you. >> thank you, very much, senator brown. senator reid is not here and senator nelson is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you gentlemen for your service. it's been reported that al qaeda leaders and others extremist have called their members of their groups to support the uprising of syria and general mattis stated that there's evidence that the terrorist network is involved in supporting the opposition. do we have an idea regarding the number of violent extremists that are engaged in the uprising secretary? >> we do, but i would prefer to -- >> no. >> -- discuss that in closed

session. >> so we do have an idea, we have the intel? >> yes. >> do we have an idea of what sort of outside assistance they are getting as well, you do not is have to tell me what it is necessarily. >> that is correct. >> do we have some idea of what iran is providing in the way of outside assiance? >> that's correct. >> to the level of detail that we need to have >> as a former director of the cia, i would like a lot better detail. >> always want more detail. i understand that of course, yeah. and if the decision of -- to arm the syrian opposition forces is predicated in defining the force, how long do you think it would help us to have that definition of the force if a decision is made on a multi-national basis to engage in arming that force internally?

>> again, in open session, i'll say there's approximately 100 groups that we have identified as part of the opposition. rough numbers. >> some of them are monthity necessarily the terrorist are organization. >> no, no. we can go into that more in closed session, we are not suggest issi that part of al qaeda that has made i.ts way to syria aligned with or in bed with the opposition, they are there trying to exploit it. of those groups of hw long would it take us to do something if we chose to, the question is how quickly, not how quickly we can vet them all, but how quickly can we vet them that can find a core. it does not exist right now.

>> could our on its own, but there's concern about getting worse before it gets better, more people dieing in the terim. so time is of thessence in trying to get international interest? this, given the fact that we have two of the largest countries in the world not supporting our efforts. if we made the decision and we have a multi-national force and we have 100 groups to go through, how reasonable do you think it is that you'll get a coalesce essence of those groups? will providing the arms and support if we don't put boots on the ground that that coalescence

ll occur or will they just be desperate and devolve into some sort of civil war? >> senator, i wish we could predict that, but it's dangerous to do that. you know, we faced somewhat the same situation in libya and you know, heads up the intelligence operation was one of the first order of business, was trying to figure out what the opposition was and what kind of coordination there was. but you have triple the problem because there's so many diverse groups that are involved, whether they can find that one lead and that one group to bring them together, there have been efrts to do that but frankly they have not been successful. >> are we in a posion where we

have plans in place in the event that we engage in syria to some extent or another to deal with the potential of the chemical weapons that they currently have. >> i think as general dempsey has pointed out, that is clearly one of our great concerns. and have develope options to try to address those concerns. >> if i could reinforce, if you think it's a concern of ours, you can imagine the concern it is of syria's neighbors on we are in consultation with them about that challenge. >> what are the chances of neighbors in the region working with this, perhaps they are, working with thi to get multi-national interests in this this? >> there are efforts to try to engage the neighbors with regards to the issues in syria.

and the neighbors clearly share the coerns that we all this have with regards to the situation there. two neighbors are being directly impacted by refugee problems, we are engaging with both of them and we are egaging with other s to try to see what we can do to try to build at least a coalition of those countries. to try to engage with regards to some of the issues there. >> and in our efforts to do that, do we think that they are getting sufficiently motivated and sufficiently conditionered to engage in some joint effort with their neighbor, syria? >> i think there's great concern, and they are experiencing directly the concern, not only from the refugees but from the fallout of what is going on in syri and they too are concerned about,

you know, what ultimately happens there when assad is removed steps aside, what are going to be the consequences within syria itself, that could impact them as well. >> thank you both and thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator nelson. senator aot. thank you, chairman, thank you secretary dempsey. i would like to ask the role of on china and russia here. let me say up front, and i'm sure you'll agree, that it's outrageous that china and russia blocked the u.n. resolutions and both of them most recently in february. as i understand it, according to the center for strategic ay natl studies that was issued, the

arms imports to russia and syria, that they have been a leading arms supplier to the assad regimregime, has that bee case, do they continue to provide arms to the assad regime now? >> thes they do. >> so russia is providing arms to the assad regime as they murder their own people? they have a long sanding foreign military sales relationship with then and it continues on unstopped. >> and us does not seem to matter to russia at all that they are using these arms to murder their own people. it's outrageous, and china has provided arm as well to a lesser extent to assad? >> let me get back to you, there are other issues of assistance but i'm not sure about arms.

>> i would appreciate a follow-up about that, but to some extent they have provided assistance to the assad regime in the past, do we know in they are providing any now of any type? >> i've not been tracking intelligence in china's roll of course iran and russia from the report. economically they have had ties into syria that they still are trying to maintain. >> is it not true also that wth respecto our posture with iran they were of wanting to impose the toughest economic sanctions possible to make sure that iran has no -- has not developed nuclear weapons capability, that russia has an interest in the iranian nuclear program and china relies heavily on iran for

oil exports, is that true? >> yes. >> and they have failed to step up to the plate to impose the tougher sanctions that we would like them to do so the world is together in keeping iran from obtaining nuclear capability, is that correct? >> yes. >> what can we be do to be tougher on russia and china if they are going to take their position in the world as part of the world leadership, i view their behavior in blocking the u.n. resolution as irresponsible and they have not stepped up to the plate to make sure that iran does not nuclear weapons capability, it's damaging for to world. what can we doing to be tougher from them? >> hear this from clinton, my

knowledge is that secretary clinton is doing everything to engage russia in a effort. and china. but russia in particular, because they own a harbor in syria and that is the record that you just described with syria that russia could, if they wanted to accept the responsibility that they should, they could be helpful here in the effort to remove assad. >> i appreciate those efforts and mr. putin just got re-elected and i would hope that he would not want the blood of the syrian people on his hands. i uld hope that russia and china step up and support the resolution, and both the

countries in my view, i don't know why they would not want pursue every possible means to stop what is happening and the bloodshed there, i hope they understand that we are very serious about that. and we will in the congress look at actions we can take here, this is wrong and they are on the wrong side of history both with respect to to syrian regime they are on the wrong side of history, with respect to iran and they will look back at this a as a big mistake by both countries if they do not step up to the plate right now. i also wanted to ask about the assad regime's relationship with some of the groups we labeled terrorists groups, what are their republican with hezbollah? >> -- what is their relationship with hezbollah? >> that is better addressed in a closed session in terms of a

specific relationship, but there has been a long standing relationship between hezbollah and syria. it's diminished of late, hezbollah has stood aside while what is happening -- and has not directly been involved in some of the situation. some of the violence that has taken place in syria. >> thank you. and also with hamas? >> same thing. >> and in fact, as i understand it, based on public reports, hamas is step issing back from the situation yet iran has not stepped back? >> correct. >> they are continuing to push forward? >> that is right. >> let me ask you, does the violence that is happening in syria have a impact on stability in iraq? >> interestingly, we -- you

know, there was a point at which obviously iraq was kind of standing to the side and not engaged and i think as a result of what they have seen happening in syria, that iraq itself has now asked for assad to step down and let me put it this way, they are more engaged than they were in the past. >> do you view this as a positive step? >> yes. >> okay. thank you both, my time is up, i appreciate you being before the committee today on such an important issue. >> thank you, senator ayotte. our planning on a closed session immediately following this, that means that there will be one round here and it is or plan to succeed. senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, a secretary. all ofhe options that are beginning to be contemplated,

the humantarian corridors and aerial strikes and all would presume that we would have complete control of the air space over syria and given what we know about their defense systems that would presume, i don't know what you can comment on ening, that the first step in any type of military operation was a campai-- can yo us how long an operation would be be? >> we have demonstrated the air program, that stays we have that capabilitity. as i mentioned, to conduct an enduring or sustained campaign, we would have to suppress the air defense, and we do is have an estimate based on gaming and modelling of how long it would take to do that given the

density s density of their capabilitity. >> and it will be led by the united states rather than our allies because of our capability? >> yes. >> so from a view alone, the opening stages in any military operation would be an extended exclusive air campaign against syria, supported politic eed poy by the e and everything -- is that a fair judgment. >> it is a fair judgment, we

ali generally, we can only work with military force with the consent of a nation in our national self defense or with an unsker, whatever we did must be part of a coalition, and we have shown that that produces an enduring outcome and we have to balance, it against risk elsewhere in the region. >> in our testimony yesterday, general mattis indicated that unlike iraq, there were no natural save haven areas, the mountains and also i think unlike iraq, there's no well organized forces that can provide a limited self den eed there's a physical and

institutional challenge, who will physically defend them, with we can have air power and try to stop tank columns and convoys but th would not work 100%, so is that another challenge you are considering? >> sure, it's a challenge and again, in the context of this, as you note,he boarder with iraq and jordan, with israel and turkey all have their own unique complexities, so, i think we have to get through there. i want to be clear, we can do anything, the question is -- so it's not about can we do it, it's should we do it and what are the opportunity costs elsewhere and at are the risks. >> and in terms of opportunities of course, there are cost to casualties and air operations, there are cost terms of time to set up the operations and these,

so that the notion that we can sort of in a few hours or days quickly go in and establish superiority, stop the fighting, is not accurate? you obviously have a military background, sir. >> thank you. i show up on time most times. >> senator, if i can just point out, again, we can discuss this in closed session, what we have talked about is that air defense system that is pretty sophisticated but more importantly a lot of it is located in populated area, there would be severe collateral damage going after those areas. >> let me change the subject, mr. secretary, because we have talked on the military aspect and there's a political aspect here, what struck me in my reading is there's a small

alawite clan of is shihia that dominatehe region, but others seeing themselves closely a lined with the group. there has yet to be i think creation of a try national and credible opposition to assad, so it's awful difficult to build this or to get him off when there's nobody to take his place and there's still strong support in communities that you would not necessarily thinkould be supporting him, is that part of the analysis that you have looked at? >> that is correct, and that is part of the problem. it is you know, having worked

closely on the libyan situation, when there were leaders that came to the front, andere able to organize a consult and had credibility with the opposition, that is not the case here, there are outside groups that are trying to organize, but, there's not the relationship with regards to what is happening in the country. and as a result, it's very difficult to have -- to be able to know who we deal with there in trms on of an opposition. i think the only final point i would make is that going back to military capacity in libya and again, i think the first points is thawe have to aassume is seyria is not libya, there seem to be tribal military

organizations, i do not get the same impressions that outside the military there's any counter point and that we would have to unless there was a political solution to on force assad off, it would be -- we woul have to organize a force and that would take many, many months, is that a -- >> that is the -- that's the current state of on our thinking about how we may do this. if you think of two recent experiences, libya we had tribal forces on the east and west collapsing on the center essentially, we had the northern alliance collapsing on the center. there's no geographic density of opposition to collapse anywhere, they are all intermingled and it's 70% sunni and 30% other

groups and those three have been in, you know, the alawites have been in control and protect today the others, on so there's that -- and protected the oth s others. >> you discussed briefly with senator ayotte, russia's role in syri syria, i have a article, the title is russia boosts arms sales to syria despite world pressure, i would and that is made part of the record. >> it is part of the record. i'm grateful to you for that. it suggests that russia is continuing to supply a variety of weapons to syria,hrough an arms exporter by the name of rosoboron export. and could you, i guess, general

dempsey i'm catching myself, because you suggested that some of this you wanto go into on closed session, but let me ask, does russia have a physical presence in syria as part of their arm's sales business? >> they do. >> and what specifically, secretary panetta, is russia's intest in syria? >> they have had long standing economic and military relationships in syria and as we said, the port there in syria is owned by the russians, it's their port. so they have had a lot o shipping that is going in over there over the years, they have transferred not only military, aide, but economic assistance as well. so, they have had a very long standing relationship with syria

that makes them as i said, one of the key players in they wanted to assert you know, the kind of responsibility they should, they would be a key player in bringing pressure on assad. >> let me transition you a bit to the department of defense's business transactions with this same firm i mentioned earlier. rosoboron export, they are engaged in military sales of russian weapons to assad's regime. reportedly, the company has signed a deal with the syrian government to is sell it 36 comb jets capable of hitting civilian ground targets can you confirm that? >> i can't. i would have to look into that. >> i don't mean to blind side

you i'll share with you this article and i would be interested in following up in greater detail. the company was sanctionedy the united states in october 2008 for assisting the nuclear program but those sanctions were lifted by the department of state in 2010. this is what i wanted to get to, it's my understanding that the department odefense through an initiative led by the u.s. army is buying dual use m-1 -- excuse me, m-i-17 helicopters from this samecompany. i would like to know whether either of you can confirm this as that point? >> no. but i can confirm that we are buying m-i-17s for the afghan military but i cannot done firm that is the corporation

providing them. >> thank you. can you explain why we would buy helicopters from the afghan military from this arm's exportser that has been sanctioned by the u.s. govern for its activities with iran and the principal means by which russia is arming assad's regime and killing so many civilians. >> i have to confirm that we are, assuming we are, as the process goes in a competition, if they are not sanctioned and enter the competition, they could very well be that they ded being the lowest bidder and therefe they cou very well have been selected. but i have to confirm that and get back to you, senator. >> i understand that. if in facthis article is correct, this means thatnstead of creating jobs and selling american helicopters to the

afghan military we are working with a russia arm's of courexpo sell these helicopters that makes to sense to me. but, as you said, and as i said, i do not want to blindside you with this information, i would like to get in explanation, if in fact this report is true, that this same arms dealer is arming assad's regime and killing innocent syrians, and also under a contract with the united states department of defense, to provide helicopters to the afghan military, that causes me significant concerns and i'm -- i bet it does you too. and so i would like to get to the bottom of that. if you'll help me do that. general dempsey, you talked about the need to balancethe

risks of intervening in syria with other parts of the region. what would -- what would happen if assad were to fall and force his democracy begins to take roots, what would that do to iran's goals in the region, what would that do to hezbollah, a terrorist organization supported by iran, what would that that do to hamas and what that do to lebanon, what would be the impact that you would hope for in the region? >> well, as general mattis testified yesterday, it would certainly diminish iran's influence in the region and set back their goal of becoming a regional leader dramatically. >> mr. chairman, thank you very

much. thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you very much, senator bloomenthall is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you bother to your forthright and careful and cautious approach to this problem. and i think many of us are approaching this issue with a high degree of hu millity because of the lack of information and looking for as you brief us in a more secure setting. even with all that care and caution, i'm struck, mr. secretary, by the conviction that the regime will fall, you said that they will meet their end. there are few things in life

that are inevitable and right now the assad regime seems to be on the march and seems to have momentum on its side and you described how this opposition is less organized than the libyan and so, i think that is the reason that many of us here feel that we need to do more. that is united states needs to take a more aggressive and pro active role in this fight without, and i should stress, without american troops on the ground. no boots on the ground and that is the reason that senator graham and i are planning to introduce and co-sponsor a resolution that will ask for condemnation assad for the war crimes he is inflicting on his people, the

brutal and bar baric criminal actions about his own people and slaughter and massacre that will seek sending that message that the united states will support the syrian people, but there needs to b more than just words here, let me begin by asking, whether there's currently planning for the deliveryy of medical and other aide to the opposition? >> yes, there is. and let me mention also with regards to your prefacing remarks. look, it's always dangerous to make predictions in that part of the worldwhat i'm giving you is the best assessment by our intelligence community as to the situation there in syria, but i think that you should not take it for granted that somehow we

are going to sit back and allow the status quo to be the case. we are working very hard at tryi to build the international coalition that we need. we are working hard at aide, we are working hard to try to bring additional pressure on syria in order to ensure that assad steps aside. >> is aide beg delivered now? >> we are delivering elements of aide as we speak. >> and how much? can you quantify it? >> $10 million was the case that we had, let me give you in homs alone, we have usg partners that have delivered food 4,000 households and medical supplies, and we a we are working to getting greater access to provide

additional aide. >> how quickly and in what quantities could that aide be increased? >> let me give you a -- i'm going to have to look at that and give you a more direct answer based on what is state department and a.i.d.are doing right now. >> is planning under way to increase the aide? ? yes. >> on communications equipment which seems essential is for them to launch a coordinated defense and offense, what is being done to provide communications equipment? >> i would prefer to discuss that in a closed session, but i can tell you that we are considering an array of n

nonlethal assistance? . >> with respect to other technical assistance, is other technical assistance being provided? >> it -- plans are being made to provide an array of nonlethal assistance including technical assistance. >> and general dempsey has very with well described the time that it would take to supress the aerial defense, but i take it that issue is not an obstacle to providing these oth kinds of assistance? >> that's correct. >> it could be done immediately? >> that's correct. >> and i would appreciate additional information to this

committee as to what can be done within what timeframes short of aerial strikes. is there support among any of the potential allies in military action for the kind of planning that you would be looking for, or are specific countries volunteering specific contributions in potential military action? >> that again is something that we wouldrefer to discuss in closed session. but there have been discussions in other countries about that. >> so that planng is under way, fair to say? >> i don't want to -- i would rather discuss that in closed session. >> i would say it's rising to the willful of -- >> in order to do planning you would ve to engage in that consultation, is that fair to

say? turning to the resolution that senator graham and i have proposed, would that resolution, a sense of the senate that there should be an investigation and prosecution of assad for war crimes have an encouraging and positive effect for the is syrian people to resist the regime? >> i prefer you direct that to the state department, because of the negotiating that they are doing on a broader international front, you need to ask them the queson whether this is helpful. >> we will do that. let me close because my time has expired. but i would to say i share the concerns about the sales of equipment by the same company that is arming the syrians to

the iraqi government helicopters that are being sold to the iraqi government by the same company that is acting on behalf of the russian government to arm the syrians and i share his concern that there appears to be a less than compelling reason to use return an helicopters sold by this company in afghanistan, when we could be selling our own helicopters to them. and i ask also, mr. chairman that an additional article on that subject be made a part of the record, it's a july 24, 2011 article from the "washington times" inlved pro russia stalls afghanista helicopters.

>>f those reports are true, we will share your same concern. >> there's no denial in the reports that it's no true, there's no denial from any official sources and i hope we woulhave a response. thank you so much for your service to the country and you are is very helpful testimony. -- and your very helpful testimony. thank you. >> because we would all be very much concerned with the issue that senator has raised and was just mentioned, we would hope you get us the detail on that forth with. mr. graham? >> i aed that question when i was over in afghanistan a year or two ago and i was told the helicopter in question was a better fit for the afghan military they were of maintenance an capabilitity, so that may not be the case if an american helicopter fits the

need, i'm all for them buying from us. the senator made a good observation, i do not think that any of us believe that boots to ground is a good idea rkgood ids what i would like to do is kind of build on when he ask you, he asked a good question. you basically said, mr. secretary that assad should be viewed as a war criminal, i think that is a good analysis to take. in februaryhere was a report issued, 72 pages but this is the sum and substance of it to me, such violations, talking about the gross human rights violations, originated from paumss and directives issued at the highest levels of the government and armed forces

government. do you agree with that? >> yes. >> the problem is if you go after him, maybe itten trenches him. but i have come to understands that he will do what he will do, but from his point of view, he believes that he is rational and trying to kill as many people as we can, and wait us out and hope we walk away. i think it would be good for the syrian people to know that the international community views what is being done to them is an outrage, and they would get support that we all saw what happened to them is unacceptable. i think it would help them. let's into the situation of what happens after he leaves. do you believe, secretary and general, that the people are

going through the pain and suffering at the end of the day to replace assad with al qaeda? >> no. no nor do i. >> the real concern we have is that there are minorities, the alawites, that would be on the receiving end of reprise alabamalabama -- repriseales if we are not careful. >> that's correct. >> are we guiding a sort of plan or are we involved with them? >> well, obviously, that is -- that is the biggest challenge is to because we are dealing with a pretty desperate group -- >> are we trying to create rdorr out of chaos, somebody will bet on the stock that follows assad and i want to be on the ground floor of this new enterprise. >> that the right. >> i don't want to just show

after it's over. i want to get ready now and try to mold the outcome and you do not have to have boots on the ground to do that. when it comes to what happens next, do you believe that if assad was rlaced by the will of the international community, led by the united states, that that may be -- that may do more good regarding iran's goals for nuclear we nuclear weapons than sanctions that we had the resolve to take their a ally down? >> it would add to the impact of the sanctions to have this happen. in showing that ining that the. >> i cannot help but believe a that if their ally went down, because the united states said enough is enough, and did reasonable things to take him down that that wld not have a positive impact.

now, when it comes to planning, senator bloomen tha asked what we are doing and planning, am i wrong to aassume that from your testimony, the president of the united states has not requested military plan regarding engagin? >> no, that's not correct. he -- the presidentf the united states, through the national security staff, has asked us to begin the commander's estimate, the estimate of the situation. >> that's good. so there is movement and process in dod to provide the present some options. is that correct? >> correct. >> okay. now, when it comes to china and russia, do you believe they will ever change their tune at the u.n., that we'll ever get them on board for a u.n. resolution like we had in libya regarding syria? >> you know, i don't think it's totally out of the question. i think both countries -- >> if you were a betting man --

>> both countries have been embarrassed by the stand. >> they can withstand a lot of barrassment. >> yeah. so if you were a betting man do you believe they will ever come on board? >> i -- you know, if russia wants to maintain its contacts with syria, maintain their port and have some involvement whatever government replaces assad, i think they might be thinking about an approach that would allow them to have some impact on where this goes. i don't rule it out, that they wouldn't -- >> would you say that should not be our only option, that we could come up with a contingency plan in case russia doesn't make up one day and realize they're on the wrong side of history, we have another way of engaging without china and russia. >> absolutely. >> let's talk about the arab league. the arab league has changed

mightily in the last year, haven't they, given their involvement in the mideast? >> they sure have. >> do you believe it's generated by the arab spring, the arab league was in association with dictorial regimes, that now are betting on the right side of history and they see assad as being on the wrong side of history and that's incredibly encouraging? >> absolutely. >> don't you think in our long-term national security interests, we have the window in time here to marry up with the arab league in terms of military, humanitarian, economic, follow them assistance to the countries have people who are saying, i'm tired of being led by dictators and are we doing enough to seize that moment in history? >> i canssure you that secretary clinton and i are working with our arab league partners trying to do everything we can to develop and maintain

the coalition that was establish we'd libya, but to maintain it as a continuing influence over what happens elsewhere in that region. >> and my final thought is that if the slaughter continues, i do believe that the world, including the united states, has the pability to neutralize the slaughter through air power. and give the way the world is and the way syria is, is there a likelihood, even a remote possibility, that if we engaged the artillery forces and the tank drivers who are killing people who basically have ak-47s, that maybe the other people in tanks would get out and quit if we blew up a few of them? >> there's certainly that possibility. >> i think that is high likelihood. thank you both for your service. >> thank you, senat graham.

senator shaheen. >> thank you, secretary. general dempsey, thank you both very much for being here. i nt to follow up on the issues that have been raised about arms shipments from russia and china. reports are that 30% of syrian arms come from china and north korea. and you talked a little bit about the russian perspective, but i'm not clear whether we think there's any way to engage the chinese on this issue. and is the -- is this something the international community has developed a strategy on for how to prevent or reduce future a shipments from russia and china. >> the international community is concerned about what you just discussed. and i think the international community led by the united states is trying to engage both russia and china to try to see

if we can change their approach to syria. >> senator, if i could, we said here this morning that it's very clear and documented that russia has an arm sale agreement with syria. we've also said we need to get back to on whether china is. i don't know the answer to that question. >> that comes from published reports. i appreciate ed what you both had to say about our efforts around humanitarian aid. i think most of using looking at the pictures, the reports on the news, the pictures in the newspapers of the slaughter that's going on inside syria are very concerned about the cost in human lives, particularly for civilians, the women and children who have been killed. and obviously as the result, there have been a lot of thousands of refugees who are going over the borders.

first of all, is there more they should be doing to address those refugees who are fleeing as well as the humanitarian efforts on the ground in syria that you talked about? and then can you also address concerns that we might have about the disstabilizing effect that refugees might have particularly in lebanon? >> we are doing everything we can to expand the humanitarian effort. there is more that can be done and that needs to be done. indeed, one of the options we're looking at is whether or not to establish these humanitarian zones, to try to assist the refugees in a more effective way. the refugee flows, if they continue it at the rate that we see, are clearly going to have an impact on the neighboring

countries. we've already seen that happen. >> and can i add, senator, one other thing, having liftd over there for more than five years, refugees, because of family and tribal relationships, they -- they're hard to pin down, actually, how many and where they are because they blend in. >> sure. >> so during the iraq war there were many iraqi/sunni refugees who flow into syria. many of them are flowing back now. we think maybe 15,000 from syria into jordan, maybe 10,000 into lebanon, 10,000 into turkey. it's not as though they set up camp someplace. the way you first learn about it is when they put demands on the host nation medical system and some other things. to a t. answer to the question is, yes, of course there's more we can do and should. we've got to do it through the host nations because they really undersnd this in a way that we can't. >> how engaged are the arab

league and the european community in supporting these kinds of humanitarian efforts? >> they're very engaged. and we are working with the international community and the arab league in addressing the humanitarian issue. >> thank you. >> to go on to syria's weapons arsenal, i know that there have been reports that they have the biggest chemical weapon arsenal in the world. i had a chance to ask general mattis about this yesterday, about what concerns we have, should assad fall, about the security of those arsenals and what potential threat to the rest of the region they might present. can you all address that? >> i can address it in great detail in closed session. >> okay.

well, i appreciate that. senator collins and gillibrand and i sent letters expressing this. >> senator, look, there's no question that it got huge stockpiles and that if it got into the wrong hands it would -- it would really be a threat to the security not only in the regional countries but to the united states. >> can you -- recognize that you don't want to address this in an open session, but can you compare it to the situation that we found in libya last year? i know we -- 20,000 man pads disappeared in libya so how do we compare with that situation? >> it's 100 times worse than what we dealt in with libya. and for that reason that's why it's raised even greater concerns about our ability to address how we can secure those

sights. >> thank you. and are there other new sanctions that the operation and congress could enact that would further dissuade other countries who might be assisting syria either directly or inadvertently to try and continue to isolate syria and thosecountries who are helping? >> tre are. i haveo tell you, i mean, one of the things that has really come together are the sanctions that had been put in place. they target senior leadership and assets, hampering foreign transactions. there's been a gdp decline from minus 2 to minus 8%. the gdp has taken a hit from sanctions. 30% loss of revenue due to the oil emrgo that's taking place. that's continuing to have an

impact. there's been almost a 20% currency depreciation. >> do we think there's a possibility that assad is just going to run out of money if this continues indefinitely? >> you know, they'll always struggle to find ways around this. this is squeezing them badly. and they are -- at least in the process of running out of money. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator shaheen. senator sessions. >> thank you. ank both of you for your service to the countr i had the opportunity to travel a few weeks ago with senator mccain and graham and bloom oomenthal and others to the middle east. i think there is a sense, and senator mccain's vast experience in this region that the united states' position clearly spoken does impact people. revolutions and people are standing up against oppressive

regimes are encouraged and emboldened if they sense the united states clearly. >> reporter: tiarticulates the justice of their cause. i think we've been a bit week on that in iran, when we had the revolution there, the protests there. that was a window of opportunity. i am really, really disappointed we didn't somehow participate more positively in. and so i don't know. i believe he said -- secretary panetta or general dempsey. there's a difference between contingency planni and a commander's estimate? what is the difference? >> the commander's estimate process looks at what are the potential missions, what is the enemy order of battle, what are the enemy's apabilities, or potential enemies, what are the troops we have available, and how much time. so mission, enemy, terrain,

troops, and time. that's a ommander's estimate. >> so you are looking at that? >> yes. >> have you completed that? >> yes. >> and you said secretary panetta, that you're waiting on the president before doing continengency planning. what would be the contingency planning? >> the next level of detail would be for us to take actual units and apply against taking them someplace else and applying that against a template in order to come up with operational concepts, how would we do it? >> if you were another nation that was potentially interested in helping in this situation, wouldn' wouldn't you be more impressed if we went further in detail and does it not suggest that we're really not interested in taking action if we've not gone furtr? >> no, not at all. i think the assumptions that

we've worked through,e have -- you know, we've discussed them with preside. we've discussed them with national security council. we are in the process of developing even further ideas with rards to some of those options. and ultimately obviously when the president makes this decision as to what course he wants to take in line obviously with our international partners, you know, we will be ready to go. >> well, you said that we'll take our time earlier. you know, when we do it, we'll be well prepared. but i have to say, senator bloomenthal and others have raised the question whether or not this window is already closing. i mean, dictators have successfully crushed revolutions, many times in history. how confident are you that this -- i know you have an estimate but i don't see how an estimate that this country is -- that assad's about to be toppled

can be justified based on what we're seeing just publicly on the ground. >> senator, i think the fundamental issues before us is whether or not the united states will go ahead and act unilaterally in that part of the world and engage in another war in the muslim world unilaterally or whether or not we will work with others in determining what action we take. that's the fundamental decision that needs to be made. >> well, isn't there a window and isn't it -- can you say with certainty that even in a matter of a few weeks that assad may have re-established his control in the country and there would be no likelihood of his regime toppling? >> i think according to the intelligence evidence that i've seen this insurgency is not only

continuing but it's growing wider and when that happens, it's -- it's going to continue to put a tremendous amount of pressure on assad. >> well, i hope that's true. i hope that we have -- we don't miss an opportunity her i know senator kerry and senator mccain said use a no-fly zone over libya. a long time went by before that was done. i think senator mccain believe, i believe, had they been listened to earlier, there might have been fewer casualties and the regime might have collapsed sooner. i just would say i value your opinion on this because you know more detail than i do. general dempsey, you -- in one of your criteria for determining what we might do militarily, you say you have to ask the question

ether the action is worth the cost and is consistent with law. what law does united states military look to? >> if i could, i would like address both because they are related. cause resources risk incurred elsewhere by the use of force one other place. this is a zero sum game. take them someplace and use them. that's the issue of cost. and, of course, in blood and treasure. the cost of legal basis is important though. we, again, we act with the authorized use of military force either at the consent of a government, so we're invited in, or out of national self-defense, and it's a very -- there's a very clear tie yearia for that. and the last one is with some kind of international legal basis. >> wait a minute. let's talk about an international legal basis.

you answer under the constitution to the united states government, do you not? and you don't need any international support before you carry out a military operation authorizedy the commander in chief of the united states -- >> no. >> i just want to know that because there's a lot of references in here to international matters before we make a decision. i want to make sure that the united states military understandses, and i know you do, that we're not dependent on a nato resolution or u.n. resolution toxecute policies consistent with the national security of the united states. now, secretary panetta, in your talk, in your remarks you talk about first we are working -- first we're working to increase diplomatic isolation and encouraging other countries to

join european union and arab league imposing sanctions. and then you note that china and russia have repeedly blocked u.n. security council from taking action. are you ying, and is the president taking the position, he would not act if iwas in our interest to do so if the u.n. security council did not agree? >> senator, when it comes to our national defense, you know, we act based on what unprotecting the security of this country and we don't look for permsion from anybody else when it comes to our national defense. when it comes to the kind of military action where we want to build a clition and work with our international partners, obviously we would like to have some kind of legal basis on which to do it as we did in libya. >> now some sort of legal basis.

we worry about international legal basis but nobody worries about the fundamental constitution legal basis that this congress has over war. we were not asked, stunningly and direct violation of the war powers act, whether or not you believe it's constitution. it certainly didn't comply with it biological weapon spent our time workrying about the u.n., arab league, nato, and too little time, in my opinion, worried about the elected representatives of thenited states. as you go forward, will you consult with the united states congress and can we be assured that we will have more c consultation and more participation and legal authority from the dooley elected representatives -- >> believe me, we will. you know, we don't have a corner on the market with regards to, you know, issues involving our defense. we want to consult with the congress. we want to get your best advice and your guidance. and when we take action, we want

to do it together. >> and do you think that you can act without congress and initiate a no-fly zone in syria? without congressional approval. >> you know, again, our goal would be to seek international permission and we would ce to the congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this whether or not we would want to get permission from the congress, i think those are issues we would have to discuss as wdecide what to do here. >> well, i'm almost breathless about that because what i heard you say is we're going to seek international approval and then come and tell the congress what we might do and we mit seek congressional approval. i want to just say to you, that's a big -- when you agree, you served in the congress. wouldn't you agree that that's -- would be pretty breathtaking to the afternoon american, so would you like to

clarify that? >> i do. but i -- you know, i've always served with republican presidents and democratic presidents who always reserve the right to defend this country if necessary. >> before we do this you would seek permission of the international authorities? >> if we're working with an international coalition and we're working with nato, we would want to be able to get appropriate permissions in order to be able to do that. that's something that, you know, all of these countries would want to have some kind of legal basis on which to act. >> what legal basis are you looking for? what entity? >> well, obviously if nato made the decision to go in, that would be one. if we develop an international coalition beyond nato, then obvisly some kind of u.n. security resolution. >> a coalition of -- so you're

saying nato would give you a legal basis and an a ad hoc alition of legal basis? >> we were able to put together a coalition and were able to move together, then obviously we would seek whatever legal basis we would need in order to make that justified. i mean, you know, we can't just pull them all together in a combat operation without getting the legal basis on which to act. >> who are you asking sfort legfor the legal basis from? >> obviously if the u. passed a u.n. security resolution from libya, we would do that. if nato came together as ty did in bosnia, we would rely on that. we have options here. if we want to build the kind of international approach to dealing with the situation. >> i'm all for having an international support, but i --

i'm really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the united states military to be deployed in combat. i don't believe it's close to beincorrect. they provide no legal authority. the only legal authority that's required to deploy the united states military is the congress and the president and the law and the constitution. >> let me just for the record be clear again, senator, so there's no misunderstanding. when it comes to the national defense of the country, the president of the united states has the authority under the constitution to act to defend this country. and we will. if it comes to an operation where we're trying to build a coalition of nations to work together to go in and operate as we did in libya or bosnia, for that matter afghanistan, we want to do it with permissions either

by nato or by the international community. >> well, i'm troubled by that. i think that it does weaken the ability of the united states to lead. if we believe something ought to be done i would think we would be going me aggressively to nato and allies, seeking every ally that we can g. but i do think ultimately you need the legal authority from the united states of america, not from any other extra territorial group that might assemble. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator webb, if you would yield to me for just one moment. >> certainly. >> i would just like to clarify the last point because you used the word permission at times as being helpful to achieving an international coalition. you don't need any authority from anybody else, any permission from anybody else, if we're going act alone, you made that clear. you said it three times. ic that's essential. but as understand it, sang

is that if you're seeking international coalition, it would help if there's a legal basis internationally in order to help obtain that legal coalition. i don't think the word permission is appropriate even in that context, by the way what i think you really corrected it when you said a legal basis in international law would help you achieve an international coalition. >> that's correct. >> and if you're seeking international coalition, having that kind of international legal basis will help. i think that's what you're trying to say and i hope that is what you're trying to say. >> that's what i'm trying to say. >> okay. >> thank you. >> senator westbound? thank you, senator sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if i may -- senator sessions is raising an important point. >> senator sessions is. i don't want to eat u too much of my own clock on this. >> you have the time that's allotted. >> i would like to clarify a point that has been a concern to

me on this very same issue. and that was the dference between the united states acting unilaterally if we decide it's within our national interests and it's something that you raised in terms of th suation in syria. there's a differenceetween that and theresident deciding to act unilaterally in an area that arguably has not been defined as a national security interest. i made floor remarks on this. i have a great deal of concern. when you look at the libya model where basic justification has been humanitarian assistance, which is very vague and it's not under the historical precepts that we have otherwise used. like a treaty if you're talking about nato, or defending americans who have been captured in grenada or retaliating as a certain act as we did in libya in 1996 when i was at the pentagon.

i think senator session has raised a point of concern and i would just like to put a per rehn thesis around that, but hold the thought. i think there definitely is room for some very serious discussion here in the congress on the way that the president, any president, can decide unilaterally to use military action and this rather vague concept of humanitarian assistance. but to set that aside, what i really would like to talk about today is my thoughts about your testimony and i would like to say very specifically that i found both of your testimony with respect to the situation in syria very resay -- reassuring. it was careful and forthright.

the approach that you take on this. i think when people talk about the need for leaderip, we need to understand, we need to have a sense of history here. leadership is not alwaytaking preciptent action when the emotions is oing. it's the achieving results when bringing about long-term objectives and probably the greatest strategic victory in our lifetime was the cold war. that was conscious decades long, application of strategy with the right signals, with respect to our national security apparatus, there's no one in the world that will doubt the ability of the united states to put lee thatity on the battlefield if we decide to do it but that's not really always the question when we're developing these kinds of policies. at least not the first question. i thought your testimony was very clear on that. from both of you. secretary panetta, your comment

about each situation is unique and general dempsey, i think your example of the danger of looking at this through a straw is probably the best way to put it. we have to look at all of the ramifications on these sorts of matters. i ink the principals that you've laid down are -- we should all support this type of logic. to for an international conse consens consens. translate them into acts. and at least express our hope that this change can be brought about through a peaceful, political transition. i was taking notes as you made your testimony, secretary panetta. i want to ask you about one thing that you said because i think that we all need to think about it. you said any government -- i think this is a dire quote. i'm an old journalist here. i can write fast. any government that

indiscriminately kills its own people loses its legitimacy. would you say that is a statement of policy of the united states? >> i wou. >> would you believe that with the circumstances in the square in 1989 when the they turned their own tanks loose and killed more 1,000 people, would you say that fits into this statement? >> let me put this on a personal deal. my personal view would be that that was the case there. >> i think it also illustrates your comment that in policy terms each situation is unique and that we have to try to use the best building blocks we can

in order to best address these types of situations depending on where they happen and what other capabilities any one of these governments might have. it's just something i actually held a hearing on this, formulations committee, talking about what might be viewed as a situational ethics in terms of american foreign policy. but it clearly demonstrates that you can't -- there's no one template here when we're tempting to resolve differences in philosophy and in policies with the different countries. so i would say that other than -- i do believe that your exchan with senator session may have been lost in translation because it went back and forth so much. but i do believe senator session has a very valid point in terms of presidential authority. but i strongly support the

analytical matrix, the the licy matrix that youre putting into place with respect to syria. thank you for your testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator webb. senator collins? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i think that this hearing and discussion this morning as well as yesterday demonstrates how difficult the challenge is that is posed by syria. as appalled as we all are by the slaughter of the innocent civilians in syria. one of the options that i would like to return to, which has been discussed today is whether

or not we should try to arm elements of the syrian opposition. and i think this, too, is a difficult issue, although, mr. secretary and general dempsey, you both responded to a question from senator graham that you don't think al qaeda is the ultimate viktoctor, if you will when the regime falls. when secretary clinton testified at a house hearing last week she raised the question of the we arm, who are we arming? and she specifically noted that zawahiri of al qaeda is backing the syrian opposition. and hecomment recalled to me the situation in afghanistan where some of the groups that we

armed in the 1980s are now some of the same people whore attacking american soldiers today, perhaps using some of those same arms. so if the united states or another country or even the international coalition chose to arm opposition groups in syria, what's your assessment of the risk that might be taking that we could end up arming terrorist groups or other enemies that are hostile to the united states or to israel or to other aies in the region? >> wl, if you sense any reluctance on my part at this point, it's because i can't get my intellect around that risk. i just can't understand it yet.

but i will tell you that the president's been very direct with the intelligence community. but that's what's got to happen. we've got to be able to understand the opposition to the extent we can, we should help it coalesce into something that's understandable and definable, coherent enough. and then if we ever do reach a decision to arm the opposition, it just can't simply be arming them without any command and control, without any communications because tn it becomes a roving band of rebels. and i think we can do better than that. but we're not there right now. >> secretary panetta? >> yeah, senator, one thing we found in this region of the world is that, you know, thes-- once you provide these arms, there are no boundaries as to where they can wind up. we saw that happen in libya, and we are seeinevidence of some of the weapons used there

popping up in the sinai and elsewhere. and if we provide arms in syria we have to have some sense that they aren't just automatically going to wind up going to hezbollah, going to hamas, going to al qaeda, going to other groups that would then use those weapons for other purposes. >> i think that's an extremely difficult issue as we look at whether or not to encourage the provision of arms to provide arms ourselves. senator shaheen and i have been working on the man pad issue with libya. we've been very concerned about that, as you know. and as you say, the situation in syria makes the libyan situation pale by comparison, plus syria has, as i understand it, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons as well.

so it's a very difficult issue. i want to get your answer. he said nato would not get involved in syria because weern assistance would be insufficient to solve the crisis. he said, and i quote, that nato could not bring about a sustainable solution to the problem and instead he advocating for an arab league effort to the crisis. first, i would ask what your general reaction to the secretary general's statement was, mr. secretary, and, second, can we expect military and humatarian assistance from the

har rab league? >> first of all, you know, i think -- i mean, i understand his concerns about the situation in syria from ailitary perspective because we share some of the same concerns. at the same time, i think that nato in the very least ought to take a look at the situation there and determine whether or not they could play an important role there. the fact is when you look at libya even though nato was there, we had partners in the arab community that joined that coalition that were very helpful to the operation there. and it's that kind of coalition that i think can work very effectively. turning to the arab league, the arab league obviously is working to try to develop an approach here, individual nations are

looking at different ways to try to provide assistanceof one kind or another. but the arab league itself doesn't, you know, it doesn't have the capability that nato has to be able to engage militarily if necessary. >> i was in turkey recently, and obviously turkey historically had good relationships with syria but the pri minister has been very strong in calling for assad to step aside and, indeed, has provided sanctuary for the free syrian army within its borders. what advice are we getting from the turks on what approach we should be taking towards syria? are there conversations ongoing with turkey? >> y, there are. and turkey is actually

exercised, you know, very responble leadership with response to the issue. obviously they have a direct concern because it is a border country but they have called for assad to step down. we have engaged with them on consultations with regards to the concern over the chemical and biological sites that are cated there. and we're continuing to consult with them with regards to refugees as well. but answer to your question is that turkey is playing a very responsible role in dealing with this issue. >> thank you. mr. chairman, would you allow me one very quick final question? >> please. >> thank you. general dempsey, is iraq playing a positive role in actual lly interdicting the supplies and weapons? it's really straddling the

communications and transportation lines between the two countries. >> iraq has done two things that i view as quite positive. one as the secretary mentioned, the statement that they too, now advocate assad stepping dow that's on the political sect. on the issue of irania shipments crossing through their airspace, they have, in fact, demarshed their e eed iran from. remember now, they don't have the ability to control their airspace. they can't interdict anyone crassing it. they have on more than one occasion say they would land to be inspected and at their insistence once that occurred the flights were delayed and in some cases we believe to allow the offlding of the shipments. so that it wasn't identified when it landed in iraq. so they are. they're trying but again, they don't have much capability to do

anything beyond diplomatic engagement. >> thank y both. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator collins. we're now going to move directly to room 217 for our closed session. thank u both. we stand adjourned.

>> they are fighting because they want the rights guaranteed

in our constitution. >> of we do not get it together soon, we are going to look back and say, we did not do the right thing morally, but we missed an extraordinary opportunity. good >> i want to make it clear the concerns said you and others have expressed our exactly the concerns of the administration. we are not divided, and we are not holding our. as the administration has led in iraq. we have a lead in afghanistan, and we are leaving in syria. we are working with those elements to try to bring them together. if the agreement is that we ought to not just go in unilaterally, we have to bring a coalition. it is not that easy. hearingsthis week's and news conferences whenever

you want online at the seas and new video library. over a quarter of a century of foreign affairs on your computer. >> coming up next, the fema experts testified about his agency's annual budget request, and then leon panetta testifies about violence in stereo, and president obama visit the north carolina truck plant to talk about vehicle fuel efficiency. tomorrow morning we will discuss the relief program with jackie's year from california. -- check easie -- jackie

sperier. then we look at what risk hackers may pose to national security. >> i believe it is possible we will come to admire this country not simply because we were born here but because of the kind of great and good land you and i wanted to being -- wanted to be and we have made it. that is my hope and reason for seeking the presidency of the united states. >> we look back of 14 men who run for office and lost. go to our website to see videos of contenders who have a lasting impact on politics. >> the leadership has a clear and immediate challenge to go to

work immediately to restore a proper respect for law and order in this land and not just prior to election day. the fema director testified about the president's 2013 budget request before a hearing of the subcommittee for social security. we will hear about the impact of recent tornadoes in the south. this is two and a half hours. >> good morning. today we welcome the chairman of

cmo. we will have an additional panel of stakeholder organization. i am going to make a brief opening statement for people to ask questions and to proceed. thank you for the work you do and for the hundreds of personnel deployed, and after the devastating tornadoes that impacted us. they are hoping to pick up the pieces today, and we appreciate the work your agency has done during good we saw the devastation -- your agency has done. we saw the devastation of severe weather. we thank you for all the folks on the ground and all their hard work. i want to talk about several

issues. we want to know, will the disaster relief fund fees solvent for the remainder of this year and the next, and will fema complete all recovery that happened last year. we want to know how will grant reform work, and how will fema alidade funding death -- allocate funding? will it be given solely to stay for distribution. will you provide guidance on the process could you announced over a year ago during your -- over a year ago.

these are some issues you are very familiar with. i look forward to your thoughts on these issues and what progress you have made this last year as well as what challenges remain. as your testimony will be placed on record, i asked to take five minutes, but i would like to call upon the ranking member for his opening comments. >> i am glad to welcome you back to our subcommittee. work of the agency does is critical to helping us mitigates disasters. when you are arrived, the agency

was trying to recover from lost capacity. the heart breaking images of americans left stranded in the wake of hurricane katrina it could not be more striking. i commend you for these efforts. of the same time, fema was spread thinly, and your agency was and is facing significant financial challenges. your chief financial officer should receive compensation to keep the disaster relief fund in the black throughout the end of fiscal 2011. this was touch and go.

we will have more long-term funding. we are there to discuss this budget. the request is 5% less than 2012, reflecting a $1 billion reduction based on your needs for 2013. i am pleased to note it is significantly reduced for the last few years. this is tied to a significant reorganization a. your grant proposal has raised many questions as to how you will award funds nationwide while also bolstering security investments to buy down risk.

i hope you will be able to provide more clarity on how you envision this would work. it worries me that you would reduce funding. if adopted it would cut funding by 60% in two years when we all know that flooding is the most costly hazard. it reduces funding for mitigation efforts, even when this program receives far more requests for funding than has been appropriated, so i hope we can work together to address these problems as we address our 2013 funding recommendations, and i want to thank you for your service to our country.

i look forward to continuing to work together to build a more resilience and nation. thank you. >> thank you. we look forward to your comments, and thank you for being here. >> thank you. first, this year i think is the fourth time i have presented a budget from fema, and we are requesting funding based upon what we estimates are cost would be as well the activity we would expect in 2013. the overall request is a reduction. part of that is reflected in the reduced cost in the response.

many of those we expect will be paid on this year, and there will be further reductions, so we are operating the space on what we expect further work to continue -- we are prorating this based on what we would expect. and this is based upon the known universe of open disasters as well as the expected workload we would see in a typical year, so those are rather significant milestones. the other part of show reductions, including in our base budget, which is partially reflected in the efficiencies we have been trying to achieve. we had to make decisions about programs to reduce or eliminate.

we looked up the programs that would either be eliminated or reduced while keeping other programs funded to accomplish their mission, and this will result in some people saying their programs got cut. we currently have a backlog of $174 million in projects that are yet to be completed. but does not count the dollars out there on disasters, which is also very significant, so it was not an easy choice to make, but looking at those areas we felt we had the need to make reductions, given that much of the activities are still moving forward on that backlog, we made that recommendation. as far as the consolidation of france, i am not going to spend

a lot of time here. we are recommending an increase from last year, but we are looking at more flexibility. i think we are trying to move for a program but often was put into various identified areas of funding but did not necessarily coordinate well or look that designation, and the president issuing a directive. we are looking at how do you und and build capability that is a shared responsibility to respond to catastrophic incidents? much of the response was contributed to by previous investments that meant the teams were available closer to their

neighbors that could respond. search and rescue, communications, management said previously had to come from the federal government or further away, beating top -- speeding up the response, so our strategy is to change the dialogue from funding based on threats and recognize that but how does it contribute to national capability, because we can look of scenarios that will overwhelm the best prepared state or city. where is it going to come from? those areas we see as necessary to prevent or in the event something happens, relatively stabilize it, so by combining the grants and putting more emphasis on the outcomes and

using recommendations to look out what capabilities we have and where gaps occur, it does not lend itself to eats jurisdiction. we need to look at it and how we build capability among our resources and utilizes it as well as in state mutual aid, so this change is really how we build against the national picture verses jurisdiction by jurisdiction and by consolidating the grants, but more emphasis to support investment strategies that would be more directed by a national preparedness ogoal.

i want to make sure you have the time, as requested. >> i will start out telling you a little bit about the disaster relief fund. your 2013 budget includes over $3 billion for those that have already occurred, such as a tornado is the struck my home state of alabama this past april. you were before this subcommittee, and given your presentation, who would know we were in store for such a difficult year? i did not know i would see quite as much after the hearing, but we saw each other a good fit and talk on the phone many times.

are you sufficiently funded to complete figure without implementing funding restrictions that limit funding to immediate needs? >> days on what we know now -- based on what we know now and what we estimate will be expended in previous disasters, we are projecting to end the fiscal year of approximately $200 million. now this means that we have to still continue to be aggressive, which when i got here in 2009 it was impressed upon me that we have a lot of disasters. since i have been here we have done $4.7 billion in recoveries. if we can find more, we will do that.

the other thing is driving down the cost of and response. and we are finding it is using virtual presence and working closely with the states. we are driving down the cost of administration, and all of these are pressures on the grant itself, so we are holding ourselves accountable and reducing the cost of administering disasters and finding ways to get the same level of performance without the overhead we may have incurred previously. >> also included is an estimate for anticipated costs, which allows you to anticipate additional calls beyond 2013. is that correct? >> yes. >> will fema have funded the

recovery efforts in alabama and misery and the midwest due to flooding and the northeast due to hurricane irene by the end of to stop teen -- at the end of 2013? >> as soon as we have to the projects and are obligated, that is a milestone. the work now will not necessarily be done, but it has been defined. it may take time to get those projects moving. we look at the obligated funds. it may not mean the work has been done, but it means the funds have been obligated. we are still working. our goal is to get the projects

written as quickly as we can, so i would say we have the bulk of them done, en taiex may be of appeals -- but maybe the appeals will be written. i really put an emphasis on speed, because i feel the quicker we get construction back, the better communities are. it reduces our cost in recovery, so my goal is to get it written, but there are some outsiders. good >> moving on, part of the cost of responding to disasters is cleaning up debris. communicated and -- communities can accept a contractor, or they

can dig it out. there have been concerns that it is for compared with other options triggered we included in our report to explain the disparity. i wanted to check and see what the status of that report is. >> we are working on that. i will tell you what my personal observations are in oregon when we have jurisdictions to have the capability -- what my personal observations are. when we have jurisdictions, it is lower costs. when those that do not have the capability or the event is bigger than their capabilities, they provide resources across the nation, so i think you are going to see in many cases we would support local

jurisdictions the have the capability because it is more cost-effective. it is faster, but we recognize there are going to be a events where it exceeds that capability. >> mr. price. >> i want to focus on the new national preparedness grant proposal. let me look at just a few questions i hope in the course of walking us through this you can address. a feature of your budget is the streamlining of the grant programs. this excludes a emergency preparedness grounds but not much else. you have 16 programs. you also lay down a couple of

criteria, which will govern your breadmaking. one is the utilization of a competitive risk-based model, but also requiring grantees to develop and maintain capabilities, and those raise certain issues because you are consolidating programs that have had different rationale for funding decisions. as the two largest are the state's program and the urban initiatives. these are different programs. one is intended to build capacity across the country. the other is intended to protect the most at risk areas of the country. i wonder if you can indicate how much money will go towards those basic programs, and how are some of the current guidelines likely

to apply, given that you are still going to provide a minimum level of funding to each state. after you have allocated, what is your next priority? i presume it is increasing capabilities in times areas, but how do these objectives coexist, and finally, when we are looking at some of the other programs, how are you going to grasp onto the is the use of the competitive risk-base model that has applied to programs like transit? how would seem a compare of port project to a transit projects. these previously would have been

considered separately which a targeted her clothes. >> the shortest answer is to say we will respond in writing, because there are a lot more questions than i can cover. >> we have a process under way this year. you can perhaps answer to the extent of which stocks will continue. >> let's talk about the homeland security rams. other than how they are being designated, the activities are not that different, and what we found was we are not looking to say we are not going to fund urban security areas, but in funding for urban security areas, are we getting the investments to match up with what the overall needs are and also recognizing in these areas of these different funds, which

we are putting into one grant, the question we are trying to get to is when we look bad jurisdiction by jurisdiction, program by program, what are the overlaps? what are the things you are doing? as are we building urban search and rescue teams? are we enhancing bomb squad? are we building fusion centers? you find this money is coming into a lot of these areas to achieve that, so would it make more sense to put them together with those criteria fnn administer them. they can take money from here to here, so as we started that process, we were looking jurisdiction by jurisdiction, a

metropolitan response team and as a decision ground. if we are looking at national preparedness and we identify gaps, how we get them to address those if we are so bifurcated in how the money is spent in different programs. often local jurisdictions and state jurisdictions are working together to address these issues, so as we look about, we are still finding the urban security grounds enduring , and as we grosants looked at the combine to routes, we would see some process within the structure, but it would identify priorities for the urban areas, the priority as a national priority but not necessarily identify separate

funding streams and give more flexibility to the states and their partners for how they would find those in those restrictions. >> i will pick this up in the next round. >> i would like to recognize the chairman. >> i got this one. can you hear me ok hamas thank you for giving me this time -- can you hear me ok? thank you for giving me this time i want to be here to plead for a firm commitment to help my district and my status during our most recent net few days this last weekend.

as you know, a kentucky was devastated by storms last weekend. twins, flooding, multiple tornadoes, including one that left a 90 mile trail of destruction, a really rare for the hills and mountains to have a tornado out on an -- have a tornado at all. it has left many areas particularly to ravaged. every building was destroyed. other counties are still counting damaged during good -- counting the damage. some families have lost everything, cars, fixtures,

family bible, it is gone, and on top of that, my people are really hurting, and as you can see from photographs, the homes have been demolished, businesses torn apart, families displaced across the countryside with no electricity. the governor said it looked like a bomb went off. while the response of firefighters, police groups, church groups, they have been timely and soluble. -- they have been valuable.

we are trying. i have heard countless reports from all over, coordinated, driving hours to remove debris. work is now being done. good i want to thank you at the outset. the numbers are staggering. 23 people lost their lives, including 18 in my district, and it is not over yet. 222 are in the hospital with injuries. 48 counties were affected by the storms. 1500 as are still without power

, 260 without any water service. i have been deployed to hit the areas hardest hit. nearly every building has been destroyed or damaged during good -- or damage. there is no police department. the people are resilience, but they are clearly in need and overwhelmed. on monday i requested the president to approve a request by our governor for a federal emergency. it seems fema is working diligently.

the president said he would provide individual assistance, but there are a number of counties which remain in dire need of both individual assistance and public assistance because the devastation has torn up roads, schools, houses. can you give us any indication on when a decision might be made of the remaining counties in designated>> as soon as the t declared, and i have done this in several states, rather than waiting till we have all the information, as soon as we saw we had sufficient damages in the county's we were in, we read able to get it. the president will be able to add all the counties without

going back to the president. as soon as we can see there is damage, the coordinating all this there will -- officer will be able to do that within a day or so as to get the information support it. we made a decision with local officials that our party would be to get individual assistance turned on first. it many of those individuals are still responding. to try to find out about insurance for that's we are working with the state on getting back into public assistance. as soon as we have the numbers to a process as well. we put a premium on the individuals. thereof be an issue about housing. this is a good news story. he goes back to some of the investment strategies. there is a lot more there.

we were in contact with the states. we are standing by. they pointed out the resiliency that states do have a. we got what we need. we will need recovery. we did not have any assistance for their response. that is a testament to the volunteers of the national guard. we add on the counties where we have damages. as and give the public assistance, we will process that. that may also be where we will turn on the county's we are still counting and. the rtc the threshold. we will turn on what we have and we'll keep counting until we get all the damages identified.

>> i cannot say anything but praise on the effort the man has done. it is a difficult situation. there's no communication. the storm took up the powers for communications. it is difficult even to contact the county executive or the mayors. the roads are so clobbered with trees and limbs in damages. it is remarkable that we came this far this quickly. i appreciate your commitments into a rapid decision making. it is all important. the devastation is widespread.

the the human factor is altogether important. appreciate the rapid response team that has devoted to this. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you. i want to join this, thank you for your service and contributions. i must tell you you are talking about the continuing focus on this. it does not make any sense. it could result in a decrease in federal funds what they still remain high. i do not understand. maybe we can have a continuing

discussion. it is supposed to go to the area's most at risk. these are other areas. everybody need it. let me turn to this. i am also troubled by reports that the environmental protection agency and the federal agency have been engaged in ongoing discussions to determine which agency would be responsible for a large scale event as a nuclear power plant. that sounds like a cartoon that is too serious to be real. they are all deciding hit is in charge. this is a nearly 40 year old nuclear reactor located within

30 miles of times square. they are evacuating people within 50 miles. the government's response to a possible event. it should be practiced and ready for implementation. who would be irresponsible tax got forbid it happens you're not still debating it. -- who would be responsible if god forbid it happens. hopefully, you're not still debating it. are incorrect?

>> we have done some specifications. we're looking at what would happen to materials to be cleaned up and the fact that there are different standards out there for what would be permanently cleaned up. you have regulations. you have protected criteria that is issued for an evacuation position. we look for the level of cleanup before people could resume activities. we look at what may be said for those who have to go back again. different programs at different standards for cleanup. they wanted to have a approach.

there's also an undergoing review based upon the reviews of what happened to japan and facilities here to look at what additional actions may be required. not seeing the reports, those discussions we have engaged in to make sure it was also applied to nuclear fabric plants. that way we would not have different standards. >> i hope we do not have to face that decision. how long is this decision making process going on? >> this is what happened in japan in picking the criteria we

are going to use. that is action pretty close to the process. out have to refer where they are in their review process. we're also looking at other threats we face. our role is the area outside the power plant working on protecting the measures in exercise programs based on the criteria. >> let me just follow up with two other quick ones. is my time up? >> sorry. >> thank you very much. welcome.

usually flood is a onetime events. this went on and on for months. folks are very concerned about your submission. in a statement said the most common ones had flooding. could you clarify in translate this into a statement that tells my residence of the state t? what does this mean?

house is going to unfold in? what does it mean to them? >> this is one of the things that is oftentimes used to address a presidential issues after repeated flooding. it is often better to buy out president repair. we also have the ability to fund for elevation as well as the mapping and update their. these are targeted toward homeowners. those that work impacted by the floods. they get additional mitigation to look at these types of risks and the state as well. this is not an easy decision. it was reflected across all our

programs and the thinglooking ae ones we have. we have projects to be spent. everybody wants to protect their part of the budget. my responsibility was to provide recommendations on what we could do to our budget to achieve the goals we had. we've looked at pre disaster mitigation. it is a good program. can we continue to afford that and looking at providing funding for other programs that ? >> the program is on the chopping block.

there's a lot of money left lying around. it is not because they lack a good projects. there is a process that is very cumbersome and. i do not know what you would say to those people that it is more of a management. >> have you ever heard those complaint? >> i've heard a lot of concerns about pre disaster mitigation. they often administer the program. if that is the only reason, i would not have supported it. we said we're going to have to make cuts. douai cut everything are to take hold programs and keep other things funded at the level they need to operate? will look at other programs of

the flood insurance. we looked at the amount of money out there on section 4 04. not saying that mitigation is not important. when made the decision that this of a program that is cutting a lot of things you cut out. this is not a popular decision. this is something that based upon being pragmatic about my budget, do it that everything a certain percentage? doing make decisions to eliminate or others provide some if not all the capabilities we are looking at? >> is there any way to determine what he save avoiding

a future disaster? >> the problem is there's not enough money and whenever be enough money. it is better than the project by project strategy. nationally you're not giving the needle. you cannot mitigate building by building. you have to look more systemically. this program did a lot to get people interested. it got a lot of people to look at things they could do for disasters. when you look at what we're finding, very good intentions. unless it is set, i do not get the savings. you may get one or two here. if you want to make big changes,

you have to look at how we reduce the risk and not paying for it by building better and more appropriately. >> thank you. >> let me begin by complimenting you on your leadership and establishing a new partnership with the hispanic association of colleges and universities to develop coursework for latino students to promote educational opportunities with fema. you are setting a very positive example. recognizing the budget constraints and everything that was said in response to some of the other questions, i want to raise my concerns about the national security grant as it

contains too the ports. it is down by 50%. there is a possibility there when i get the attention. it shows that any kind of attack on support would be disastrous not only to los angeles but to the entire country. a steady called risk analysis in 2007 says even if the harbor were closed for only 15 days,

and the office concluded that cost would spiral to $150 million a while the wider economic consequences would be in the billions. this is an area that we may not want to lead to chance. having served in local governments, there is this belief that maritime security is a federal issue and not a local or state issue. the focus has always been to deal with local jurisdiction. also the concern that state governments lack the expertise to evaluate maritime rest or determine how port should be prioritized against other priorities.

in the event that it plays out and ports do not receive the attention that they need through these grants, given the importance of securing what would be it the back a plan to make sure that they are protected against a terrorist attack? >> i will make myself popular when i say this. i keep hearing that we cannot trust it and local governments and force them to work at a team. given the disaster, that is what is plan to happen. with not just them to come up with funding strategies. i am sure secretary of paul lozano is going to make port a key part of this.

-- secretary of napolitano is going to make ports a key part of this. if we allocate the money based on the groups, are rebuilding national preparedness or are we building things in a singular fashion that not add up? i have seen a lot of argument back and forth and a lot of money spent. i am not sure it is always going toward the things we say it is going towards. use all the articles. i have to deal with it. we are buying ice machines. is that a national and vestas strategy? we do not trust state and local governments but in a disaster that failure will be exploited,

and then i m concerns that if we do work in a more essential fashion by bringing people together, are we really building a national preparedness? it is troubling to me. i understand the pressure from everybody. they do not trust each other. they do not trust local officials. if we are all getting are grant separately, we are all running separately. i have been on the other side. i know people are looking to protect their interests.

i'm not saying that there may not be a better way. i am concerned when the first thing that comes out is we may not be a priority with a state. we may not get the attention we need. we may not be able to do what we are doing it the funding that goes together. we may not be able to get the issue across. if it occurs and it is damaged, who will respond to? all the folks got a separate pot of money try to build a national capability. i understand the concerns. i know this is not something that goes over well. the public pays me to tell you what i think. i have looked at this and looked at this. i keep coming back to that we do not trust each other.

we cannot prioritize and the way that says these are the priorities. in a disaster we expect all of this will come together magically and we will work together. >> mr. carter? >> welcome. a lot of things you have to say about decisions. i have a question i'm trying to figure out the answer. i strongly support the procurement process. in the gays the significant -- if negate this significant investment they have made. it would trade duplicative programs. i have been told the current backlog to the existing program

is over 20,000. how does this seek to address this backlog? how does it be the demands of our first responders? participants will have to go through curriculum approval as well as significant entitlement investment. one this create a like in the available opportunities we have? >> i will have to give you this in writing. how many common security institute can we afford? are these programs going back to the national preparedness? are the interchangeable? we fund a lot of centers of excellence.

i am not sure where excellence is any more. how do we make sure that we are investing in institutions providing necessary training in a way we get the return on the investment based on what we see? we have the ability to measure what they do. this is our intent to come back. there has been a lot of growth here. how do we sustain it and put more emphasis on is this providing what we have identified across the enterprise at the trading we need for the various disciplines? >> i know the details. >> is someone making the evaluations of how they are meeting?

the 60 million allows others to create new centers of excellence e. how do you call out the bad ones? had you know the new guys will do better than the people who are failing in their mission? we were doing this before fema came there. we are doing it since. i would like the valuations to be a but at. >> when the thing the aggies did was they were a leader in our storm shelter program. i think there are some programs that have such prestige. this will not be as dramatic as

they think. are we targeting the right types of training we need based upon the skill sets? the above folks in my profession that will be leaving these professions and. are we training the new folks? we might have the disciplines to continue. this is not an attempt to take those institutions that had done a great job. are we identifying what the priorities are? we need to make sure what we are being invested in. we look at our national prepared this goal. we're doing pretty good.

we still have lots of need. are we getting back funding? >> i agree with that concept. i think my time is up. >> could you turn your mike up? >> as i mentioned, they send a description to the president as required by the policy director. they describe the various components. they interact to deliver the abilities to achieve a national prepared this goal. it describes how the components help us understand risk and a

current future. some of these components exist and some will have to be developed. what are some of the ones that will be done? >> the most significant one which is what they had was prepared and we are rolling out the national recovery for a more. the action moved them in and roll them out. we also have the response framework which is undergoing a review iand from work. they build it as part of that. we have been working very hard to our partners. we placed several of these

documents for review. our partners can interact and provide comments that we can adjudicate. we are on target to meet the goals. it is another product that i know congress going forward. these are moving. they are building upon the national framework. but they're building three additional frameworks. >> how d.c. this in forming your budget? -- how do you see this forming your budget? >> let's take search and rescue. this could be bomb blasts and

tornadoes that respond to this. how long does it take to get a team there? what is the outcome we're trying to change. we start with this. across the nation, we but at the urban areas. we also look at travel time. do you have enough teams? until you know how many teams and what area you are covering, we do not know if you have enough. how the maintain that? once we're able to do the reduction, this should be their response time. it this is the current capability. we may say we are pretty good.

until you know what that number is, you say this is what we need. this will define not just how we're going to go by how much capacity is needed. are just not going to respond? we are looking at very large size events. they're very basic things that have to be done to be successful. how much of that have we built? , is more do we need to build? a lot of times it is looking at the private sector and volunteers.

they can support this. what are we planning against? what is our target? where should be investing? >> what will have to change between the federal government and state and local government? >> they start looking as one team. the public could care less. we sometimes focus so much of what a federal government is going to do, we ought to step all over it. all these disasters -- this is

not given the first responders? we have bill so much capacity that we have shifted the capabilities. the whole of the community is not the government stopping to break pieces. it is not a government private sector. we look at it as something that you will deal with later. >> how do you incorporate private sectors? >> make them part of the team. we do not have a contractual relationship. when a get a hard wors

store open. if he tried to duplicate that, would not help anybody. a chance to ask a second round. let me go back. one of the main questions after meeting with my constituents in april 27, and what happened with the contract with the removal and the core. out come back to you and ask are you concerned with the cost the taxpayers of cleanup when you mentioned the sign of the core?

how can you justify the disparity cause between the report accost charge by the corps of engineers and a lower cost the communities have incurred in their own contracts. have you provided written criteria and checklists that they know what they are receiving what they can show to other contractors that they choose to do a private option? >> and alabama we did something we have never done previously. that was we looked at the commission as a housing mission. we would normally not go and take calls sell off. we're not going to do business but in the homes. since this was relatively new, we looked to the court to help manage that. previously, management roles. -- rules. it would have been almost a case

by case basis. we were looking at one thing. we knew that housing would be our biggest issue. the fastest we got debris the quicker we could rebuild. it was a new approach. it had not been done before. we use it to help manage that. did it cost more? yes. have we bernd? yes. ari looking at how to reduce it? absolutely. our primary concern was we had so many homes destroyed that we did not think the way we have traditionally do it would be fast enough. >> there are numerous reimbursements. are there ways to simplify the process while still allowing for oversight? if you could briefly answer

that. if there's anything else you'd like to add? >> it is always case by case. we're trying to move this as fast as we can. i will go back. if your staff a pass on specifics, i will go back and say where are we at on that? we are looking at what steps we take to maintain accountability but increased the speed of recovery. >> thank you. we will be happy to work with you on that. mr. price? >> i want to return to your national preparedness a grant proposal. i'd like to make very clear that i share your point of view for a more risk-based way of making these grants available,

of allocating these funds. in the state program, we do have an allocation formula which aims at a certain minimum level of preparedness among these jurisdictions. you are suggesting that a fair amount the special fleeting pleating might be going on. there are objectives we need to make sure are going to be addressed. i want to ask you how you proceed here. you can elaborate this for the record. in terms of these two major pots of money, will there be an initial determination of how much goes to each and then to the usual formula is applied? let me add one other quick question to the mix. you are trying to deal with some

backlog and with the difficulty of getting some of this money out the door. your way of doing that is you are going to require grantees to complete projects within a shorter degree of performance. what is going to be the practical effect? by shortening this time frame, are you going to be eliminating certain capital projects such as tunnel pardoning? you might want to give this a more detailed answer. i want to see how your agency will proceed to take these four men made desperate streams and to administer them as one. >> it does not been drawn down in disaster. it is not some shortening as we're saying we will not agree

more extensions. part of it is the authority to grant the extension. we also recognize that in giving them the mission to get those moneys drawn down is that we look at what was eligible for funding and where we had a consistent series and we're able to go back so they're able to get them drawn down. we're doing two things there. one has been working really hard to make sure people knew where they were at what their time lines where. this is based upon their request for more flexibility. we read able to go back. the author writes as to provide the flexibility so they have more ability to get the grants drawn down. there are no extensions.

>> thank you. as the man has moved along with their modernization efforts, there have been some complaints. i am sure you are well aware of the cost of the localities to try to meet those standards. this is a big deal with flooding. can you tell us what said the complaints are? can you tell me any suggestions you have or you have discussed within the agency about ways to improve the accreditation process? some are being asked to do studies that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. it the get a town of two and a people they did not have the money.

currently we would only recognize a levee that was certified by the standards to the u.s. army's. we would not recognize anything else. only did our mapping we would zero out anything that was there if it was not accredited. in many cases we know they may not be accredited but still serves the committee's against floods. we never gave them any value. we are at the request of many folks here on the hill in the rulemaking process to adjust our roles to incorporate levies as built versus those that are accredited. we have received thousands of commons. it is our goal that we recognize them as built even if it is not optimal in mapping out the communities. you do raise one. .

point. it is every levy. it goes back to managing risk. it determines the rest in where we find the improvements. part of this will address the levies as built. we would get a better idea of matching them as they are there. we will see what the problem looks like. in a guest a better idea of where we need to invest. >> they do not have the money to do the studies. >> you'll take it as it is. to then you can map and look at what the rest is. and some cases it may be because of design. all of us would be factored in.

we would actually look at the risk and then perce is bringing it up to an accredited level. -- than verse is bringing it up to an accredited level. >> los angeles is one the most vulnerable cities for an earthquake. in a 2010 report, is 7.2 magnitude earthquake were to strike and many people would need to be sheltered. 2.5 million we need food and water. you were talking earlier about working with local jurisdictions to respond. can you tell me what kind of progress has been made to that report? working with jim father-son who is the manager for the city, we

work with the state of california. if l.a. has this earthquake, they will have not enough shelters. are these shelters even survivable? we know we will have the non impacted communities. we work here with the mercy management agency. the plan is always about life safety first. this is a very good example of why only looking at what the city of angeles gets funded. they could not shelter if they end up with that many people that are homeless looking for a place to stay. we're not going to be able to shelter them with that impact. we will have to bring a lot of resources from outside that area. this goes back to national

preparedness. there are scenarios that are so big that it is impossible for the scenario. you have to look at how to leverage the thing across state lines. the you work is looking at that type of catastrophic planning and focusing on how we get to folks in looking at shelter needs and the fact that we will have to use a lot of capability outside the immediate area and what it would take to even set the stage for getting people back in and depopulating. it is a very complex events. that is why we go into these three works. this is not about our day to day emergency. >> thank you. >> thank you. i have a letter here.

they were expressing concern about the air force to move the national guard's currently located to the state of montana. it is the only domestic emergency capability of the gulf region. they have flown 423 ice storm response swords. they have emergency supplies. the texas governor can mobilize these in a matter of hours. it is my understanding that this can take days due to federal bureaucracy.

how does this relocation of four or texas to montana affect the ability to provide to provide relief. should this happen, what is the plan to ensure appropriate resources are dedicated to ensure the disaster response? >> i think secretary panetta has a position at how he is trying to make the budget decisions. there several avenues we have worked. this is not something specific. they have 10 governors representing this and working with secretary panetta.

this is an issue as a drawdown, what are the impacts and how do we respond? congress recognizes that the national guard is able to have dual status command. it also brings up the reserves not requiring the mobilization disaster. i would refer to the folks like this. these are the issues being discussed with secretary panetta. >> this is like to cost money to move into montana. it will have to move up. it will house the 130. it is not part of the drawdown that we're trying to do.

it is a confusing decision to be made. is there any reporting as what these decisions will be? >> they report back to the national governors' association. they work with the secretary defense and national guard issues. it is from the standpoint of domestic response abillity and the ongoing care the states have. i would defer to that. there is the ability to do that. also the work is being done to support states that do require federal systems. >> thank you. before we and this first panel session, i have one quick question to follow up on the conversation that you and i have.

that is the guidance. we have very concerns with the inclusion of additional agencies that will be developed. do we have your commitment to address this issue? >> it is not our intention to have expanded that. it is more to create a more uniform language. it is what the consequences predicted is not what the consequences said. -- it is not what the consequences said. this committee has had questions about your agency. it touches everyone on this committee. to before we turned our second panel, i do want to recognize the cfo for fema.

we will truly miss working with him. we do thank you for his service. we do wish you the best as you move a over for your new job. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] as i mentioned earlier, we are having a panel of six other organizations to discuss the grants and related issues. i would like to introduce the panel.

the is the fusion center association. he is president of the texas professional firefighters association. jim mullen is the current president of the national emergency managers association in the director for the emergency management. last but not least, the director and general manager of the port authority corp. representing the american public association. thank you for being here.

we look forward to hearing from each of you as you give us your thoughts and opinions on the reform that has been introduced. this is how the grants have been set up. we recognize there are challenges. begin, let me recognize a surprise. >> thank you. we're working on this new proposal. we have discussed this with the

administrator. we want to discuss it with you. the chairman has introduced each of our panelists. i will welcome you and say we better get on with the testimony. >> we will start with you. did you could talk. we will go from my left right down. >> the morning. thank you for the opportunity to testify. i serve as an operator in houston texas. i and the current president of the firefighters' association. i am pleased to appear on behalf of this.

the most fundamental purpose of government is protect public safety. the federal government cannot afford to cut spending to save local governments. as the first line of defense of protecting our homeland, the federal government has their responsibility to ensure they can effectively protect the public. among the most effective programs, the recently found that fire department capabilities have improved. there have been set of again increases in the numbers of fire departments better able to provide their firefighters with vital equipment. morse today are able to change their firefighters and emergency

medical care. they found similar improvements in staff. i know firsthand the value of these programs. the houston department received a $2 million firebrand to funds innovative survivability program that provided training. although they have done this comment because a reduction in funding. for fiscal 2012, it is reduced to six and a $75 million. the date further reduce funding to $670 million. reversing cuts will help answer that committees have the

resources they need to protect the homelands. there recommend they provide $800 million or $10 million to help. in addition, it is crucial to our nation's common security. it comprises 20 national forces consisting of equips emergency response personnel capable of responding to natural and man- made disasters. the state of texas is a proud sponsor. congress has provided modest increases. unfortunately, at the administration's budget reverses this trend and cuts the funding by $13.7 million. the average cost to maintain this exceeds $2 million.

many localities facing budget shortfalls struggle to afford some of the get restraining task force capabilities. for a minor investment congress can enhance its to respond appropriately. we encourage them to increase the funding. we wish to expellers our reservations regarding the administration's proposal -- express our reservations on the preparedness grant program. it was stabbed to serve a specific public safety need. it could cause such parties to go and serve. as a major metropolitan area and

replete with hazardous industry, houston faces significant risk from large-scale disaster. these large scale gantt -- grant programs have contributed to were complete level of preparedness. we are concerned that the national preparedness grant would be administered solely by the states without adequate input from local emergency managers and first responders who often have the best knowledge of homeland security threats and needs. we asked to to seek the input of all stakeholder, especially state and local government representatives. i would like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify here today and i am happy to answer any of your questions. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

i am captain john holmes from the port of los angeles. my testimony focuses on the experience of the port of los angeles. i written testimony has been submitted for the record. i will summarize it briefly before i answer any questions. in the decade since 9/11, a key component of our effort to tighten the security of seaports -- under the sake court act, the security grant program has authorized four hundred million. in the last few years, the funding for this program has decreased dramatically. there were other adverse changes to the fy12 brands as well prefers, the terms of performance has changed from three years to two years. although we appreciate the need to execute projects, we are concerned that such a move will shift the focus to buying stuff rather than developing solutions. it was difficult to execute

these solutions. the current period could make it nearly impossible. i appreciate that it is effective for grantee to have skin in the game but is often overlooked that this in the ports provided the ongoing operations and maintenance costs of the grant fund or systems. this is true technology solutions where the annual operating costs can be as high as 10% of the project's cost. another hurdle is the environmental and historic preservation review. while other fema programs must go through these reviews, there is not the threat of a loss of funds because there is no timetable associated with these programs. while some of the reviews have been streamlined, there is a major reason why many of the grant process of required extension. the fy 201212 renna announcement includes improvements to the program like expanding the use of funds are maintenance and

allowing unlimited use of press for personnel. we are pleased to see that despite the funding cuts, all ports continue to be eligible. restricting funding to the highest risk ports with liza -- would leave a soft underbelly of unprotected ports for terrorist exploit. repression the willingness of dhs to work with the ports on grant issues. positive changes have been made and we hope these changes will continue. we feel that over time the pylon effect of new requirement has had a significant negative impact on the program. for fiscal year 2013 and beyond, we strongly urge the committee to restore port security funding, keep the funding separate, maintain federal control, provide a uniform because share waiver, and establish a joint dhs corp. group to streamline the process. in order to continue to be effective, the grant process must evolve in conjunction with port needs and vulnerabilities.

working with dhs, efforts have been made to keep pace with this evolution. we threw that if ports are lumped into the larger homeland security equation, efforts to date will be marginalized and focused on ports will be lost. thank you. >> on behalf of the national pugin center association, thank you for inviting me. a lot has changed since i was here last. the administration's intent to streamline the grant programs, allocate funding based on risk and major the impact is exactly the right way to go given funding reductions that have occurred. there are a lot of unanswered questions. absent reauthorization of their preparedness grant programs, the president's proposal should be considered under the current construct a wall. we would do a disservice to the project -- of progress made by creating a patchwork per gram without authorization. congress should reauthorize as soon as possible or make it more

clear to the permit that the current construct a wall should be followed. congress should also continue to ensure that dhs measures the effect these programs have on preparedness. it assesses all impacts of investment we cannot determine if a 100 new border patrol agents or more funding provides the best return on investment. the fiscal year 2012 rain does continue to head in the right direction. the subcommittee should continue to support the secretary's effort to focus funding of programs that support the analysis and sharing of homeland security threat information. queues and centers have helped transform the way federal, slate, it is stake, and local governments share information to protect the whole land, just as envisioned by the 9/11 commission and the terror prevention act of 2004.

the past beth -- state and local information to federal partners and the intelligence community and disseminate information to state and local decisionmakers while protecting privacy and civil liberties. fusion centers are operated in budgeted at the state level. what works in boston might not work in my hometown of montgomery. 40 percent came from the state general fund 60% from dhs preparedness grants. north carolina budget, 77% came from preparedness grants and 23% from doj grants. simply put, the decentralized network of mutual -- fusion centers is the same as a shared responsibility among all levels of government. there is no other mechanism for

leveraging in every corner of the country to protect homeland. let me conclude with a story that shows the value of the national network. a local police officer and alabama recently made a traffic stop. the officer asked to see the contents of a duffel bag in the back seat. inside the dufflebag were four police uniforms and badges. each of the occupants stated they were headed to a location in colorado and they were allowed on their way. what happens next shows how far we have come in taking proactive measures to protect homeland. the officer completed a report and it immediately went to the alabama fusion center which analyze the information and contacted the colorado fusion center. the fbi has a presence in both those centers. the matter is still being considered. whether the situation has to do with terrorism or some other criminal activity, the key point is that within hours, federal,

state, and local officials can act to prevent criminal activity if we are aware of the situation. it goes far beyond information sharing. it is the collaboration that makes our country safer. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you so much for the opportunity to provide some brief comments this morning on our submitted state of for the record. we were pleased to see the progress made in the 2013 budget proposal. since june of last year, we have worked on developing a new, comprehensive preparedness -- creating too many opportunities for uncoordinated efforts. as many on this committee have stated before, the fiscal situation of this nation requires us to invest every dollar more wisely than ever. we appreciate your continued

support. we remain committed to demonstrating the return on your investment in this program and recently released our second annual report pickwicknema believes we can gain -- changes must be made to the structure under which we operate. a skilled cadres necessary to effectively complete the threat risk assessment " wrote -- outlined in our proposal. allowing a state and local focus on preventing terrorist acts to continue. once it is completed, comprehensive planning process is required. current planning effort seem driven more by funding levels than the capabilities we need to confront threats and hazards. we recommended turning the process upside down and allocate funding based on development of capabilities to build

performance measurement into each project. we like aspects of the proposed national press as grant program but suggested the project based. applications should be evaluated by multidisciplinary committee prior to review by the state administrative agency. local government should be encouraged to band together and apply directly when they share a common thread or hazard. this opportunity for combinations of local governments specifically addresses the question. tier one city should continue to be directly funded. those remaining can continue participating in the process and received funding without the annual fear of falling off the list. overall the process is about building and sustaining capabilities across the country, encouraging innovation and regionalization where local

decisionmakers wish to do so, in power and local governments to decide which projects they want to fund, providing visibility to all levels of government and removing politics from preparedness decisions. most importantly, flexibility with accountability. president eisenhower said our nation deserve security, but we also deserves solvency. we remain committed to working with you in achieving both of these goals. through the process, we wanted to initiate a dialogue with all stakeholders and we thank you for this forum to do just that. i appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing and look forward to any questions you may have. >> good morning, chairman and ranking member and members of the subcommittee. i thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony. i am the director and general

and manager of a subsidiary of the port authority of new york and new jersey. today i am testifying as chairman of the security affairs during committee or the american public transportation association. according to the transportation institute, since 1970, more than 2000 separate attacks have occurred worldwide on surface transportation, crossing over 6000 deaths and approximately 19,000 injuries. the government accountability office along with various government agencies have reported on or testified to congress that public transportation in america remains vulnerable to terrorist attacks and that al qaeda remains interested in targeting the trend that sector, and that more needs to be done to prevent and prepare for such a potential tax. we have been very fortunate to date in not having a direct terrorist attack carried out in our transit systems. we have indeed foiled plots

interested individuals who intended to attack our systems. let me especially note the past has experienced the devastation of a terrorist attack as a result of the attacks on the world trade center in 1993 and 2001. i feel strongly that the funding commitment to ford fire systems months match the recognize risks and threats. there was a tremendous need for security grants to secure and fortify our transit systems across the country. in 2010, a survey of members found security investment needs in excess of $6.40 million nationwide. this neat contrast with recent trends in cuts to trim the secured a grant programs, including the 2012 allocation of $87 million in transit security. i urge congress to restore appropriations for the transit

security grant program and this and subsequent appropriation bills. while there is good policy represent in the 2012 grant guidance and 2013 national prepared as grant program, we do have some thoughts about elements of both. specifically, we are concerned with the new 24-month grant period for performance on all projects, a reduction from the previous allowable expenditures. since assets are included on the top trent that atlas -- list, i would welcome this risk based funding approach, an approach that we agree with. speaking on behalf of a larger industry, including thousands of assets not listed, i recognize that narrow funding approach could preclude other important security improvements from receiving funding consideration

under such limited transit security dollars available. we are also concerned with the elimination of the tsgd and we called for the target grant program of public transportation security conditions in the 9/11 commission act. finally, we support the approach that congress has consistently endorsed in legislation that allows grants to be provided directly to the transit agencies, as opposed to requiring applications be made through state administrative agency. before closing, i want to inject a personal note on behalf of the port authority executive director, who along with myself and other senior port authority staff, are honored to be hosting the ranking member price and committee members next week at the world trade center site. we are looking forward to

showing how the port authority has utilized and can continue to utilize federal homeland security dollars to support our on investments and security initiatives at the site of national historic significance that continues to be one of the highest risk targets in our nation. thank you for a opportunity to testify on these critical security issues, and i welcome any questions you may have. thank you. >> the fy 13 representative proposal from the department builds on reforms that this committee implemented back in fy12. i would like to hear from each of you briefly to address the proposed fy12 guidance and the fy13 budget proposal. >> we made some recommendations in the written testimony that

was submitted and i did as well in the oral. the needs assessment is included in the written testimony talks about some of the benefits we have seen. the amounts with our request and that we increase to our relative to the effect we have seen of the grant over the last several years. can you hear me? i am not sure how specific you want me to go on the answer. it is included in the written testimony. there is a lot of at in their that points to very specifically to the positive effect, and it is important that

we keep making progress. when you look at the new assessment, one of the things that absolutely points out is that there are still staffing shortages across the fire service and improving on that shortages something i think we should build on. >> thank you. >> i will be very brief. because the system of fundamentally working through the grant system has been so difficult, and people seem to perceive that as a difficulty with the ports and really not take a hard look at a system that has become very cumbersome and has produced a pylon effect with both state and federal requirements and from historical stake people and historical federal people. in our world, it has made very

difficult to execute money. as a result i think there is money that appears like it is not needed because it has not been executed, but realistically, the grant funding is still needed. my principal recommendation would be to restore the funding to the levels. it has been dramatically cut, about 75% over the last three or four fiscal years. in addition to that, really take a look at the grant system and try to fix that, and then you will be able to sort of execute all the funding. as we go and try to do our day- to-day business, and we are very large port with a big staff, it is extremely difficult for us to deal with the grant process, and i cannot even imagine how smaller port can deal with the

grant funding process. there is not a week that goes by at the port of los angeles were somebody doesn't just say this is so difficult, why don't we just not ask for money anymore. fundamentally, you have to work with dhs and fix the system because it is very repetitive. if you are a port that is also associated with the city, we have federal requirements, procurement, environmental, historical, we have state requirements, we have city requirements that we have to deal with, and if you are making it so difficult to execute that it has to be fixed. when you fix that, people will be spending the money as it is given to you and you will not have this lag. it seems like there is a big pot of money left over that people don't need. it is not that they don't need it, it is just very difficult to

use it. >> the question going between 12 and 13, is very commendable what congress did this year in fy12 budget, to allocate the bunning based upon which programs met the best national need. that is commendable, and the department went about that caught in a professional and organized way. the 2013 proposal, as i mentioned in my brief oral statement, had some concerns hit it, if it is not -- if congress does not act to reauthorize. it creates a patchwork program. between now and october, it is unrealistic. either reauthorize the program or after five years, deal with the program under the current

constructs of law. i think the president's budget as proposed could still be implemented using the implementing recommendations of the 9/11 act, unless congress would like to open up the reauthorization issue. thank you. >> we think the layout is a good transition from where we have been towards a new system. the flexibility is improved. we believe it is a good move to improve accountability and in our proposal that they are still absolutely included. we just recommend they are required to operate within the overall preparedness system and we are moving in that direction to help them so we can understand each other's issues. in case we run out of time, very few problems occur within the boundaries of a port authority. our economy is involved either

way. we are interested in working closely with those organizations, port and transit, and make certain that we are attending to their needs in this new system. i don't believe we will shrink from trying to assist them in every way and be sensitive and respectful of their concerns. it gives them an opportunity to collaborate with us also. for 2013, there are many similarities between the proposal we developed at the end of last year with the president's grant structure. there are some concerns, though. the definition of regionalization need some work. when you talk about peer review process. it appears to be little more than an additional bureaucratic layer. i don't think we need to have a federal review of every project when the local and state are collaborating closely on devising and deciding what would be the best use of limited funds.

there are issues about the urban area that still need to be addressed creek we tried to address that in our paper. could have addressed most of the issues that, but on paper. i will stop there. >> i agree with captain homes. the idea of separating the funding for ports and security, by combining the programs, there is no guarantee that any money at all will go to transit security grants. as far as the 2012 transit secured a grant program, there is only $87 million in that program. that is down from the previous year of 2011 where there was $200 million, and that was down from previous years. the amount funding needs to

increase. in 2013, the elimination or reduction of the time to finish performance projects goes to 2 years. congressman prices mentioned you would not be allowed to do a project like that. essentially what will happen is that you will be eliminating any major kapor projects at all. it will all be just robert -- just for operating expenses. we believe that going through the states for funding just as another step to the process and it is not necessary. there is no need to just add additional and attrition to the program. -- additional administration to the program. >> thank you for some useful testimony that we will consider

as we proceed to mark up this bill. let me just ask a couple of specific questions. as you are well aware, for the past few years in light of the severe economic downturn, congress has included language in the appropriations bill that permits granted funds to be used to retain firefighters to avoid layoffs, as well as to hire new firefighters as is the usual requirements under the program. as this minute difference in houston and other situations that you would like us to look at? do you think this waiver is necessary again in 2013? >> it has made a difference less so in houston as opposed to other municipalities. there is some concern about temporary waivers that seem to be permanent because we are coming back and saying we need

those waivers again. first we have to look at its in the light of why those waivers were initially put in place and what they are there for. initially, when this happened, it was 2002 and nobody realized the economic situation we would be an over the last few years. nobody could predict the great recession. there were safeguards put in place in these grants that would protect the process of supplementing and not supplanting municipalities responsibility to staff their departments. to go forward, yes, we need to keep the waivers in place. the way the bills are written right now would require the jigsaw of give you some specific examples -- under this a course

that replaced, a municipality was required if they hired a firefighter, to keep that fire fighters to provide funding for least five years into the future. the department would not be able to reduce their budget at all. i cannot think of one fire department, including houston, that has not had to reduce their budget after the recession. in the municipality that is looking at applying for a grant where they are required to help future funding for an employee for up to five years would really have to give that a hard look about whether or not that is a grant they could comply four and a rigid apply for -- a grant they could apply for. there is a lease one bill to reform this legislation.

we have to keep the waivers in place so is a workable alternative to bring firefighters back to work and keep some folks on the job. >> a workable alternative under conditions of economic pressure and an arrest. you have both in your testimony referred to the shortened time frame that is proposed by the department for getting funds out the door. you both have suggested that this might eliminate certain kinds of large-scale projects. i mentioned with mr. fugate to a few moments ago a possible example. i wonder if you would elaborate exactly based on your experience on the project you

have asked for and have anticipated going forward, what would be the effect of that kind of shortened time frame, and i guess this applies to the transit side, and what will make up in some way for this funding to pay for what you need to do? >> you mentioned tunnel heartening. a project like that requires a great deal of that project of advance planning, engineering design, procurement of equipment and materials necessary, and then implementation of the project. in a tunnel that operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it is impossible to do that in two years. even less complicated project to require a great deal of planning, engineering, and design. that is compounded by the fact that the moneys are not released on time, the clock starts

ticking later. it just complicates the issue. in effect, in my opinion, i believe that the reducing the time to two years, you will eliminate any significant capital projects at all. >> i would echo that, and is very similar in the port environment. when i said you move from people seeking solutions to people buying stuff, that is what happens. they decide we are going to buy this because it is fast. our projects are very similar. we have a multimillion-dollar camera system we built that we had to get an extension on the system. it was 300 cameras, $27 million. we are doing directional drilling to lay fiber-optic cable. they are solutions, systems, and have to be designed. sometimes they take a year or more to design, and then you

have a contract in process and you have to go through all the steps. moving from three years to two years, i would have to say -- and would have to agree you are eliminating any sophisticated projects. what you are going back to is people getting the money and saying what can i buy quickly? let me by 10 cars or two boats. you will not move forward in this problem is -- in this process. you will backslide significantly. >> let me welcome all the panelists. each of you play a critical role in protecting our national security. but i do want to specifically thank mr. holmes for being here, flying across the country to testify. as i mentioned earlier, the

ports play such an important role in our national economy. understanding the difficult budgetary decisions that mr. fugate has to make, the fact remains that a terror attack on the port of long beach complex would have a devastating impact on our national economy. you heard mr. fugate comments. i believe you are here during his testimony. could you comment on his response regarding the proposed grant program and his hope that everybody can work together to properly prioritize the needs, and if time allows, can you also provide us with some suggestions on how you think the port security grant

requirements and guidance could be improved and simplified? if you could offer some should destines. >> and restart by saying -- if you could offer some suggestions. >> the first point i would make is, there is a difference between coordination and control. it is easy to make it sound like we don't work with the states, but we work very closely with the state of california, doing risk assessments and identifying port needs. what we would not be so keen on is allowing them to have control of the funding. there is a big difference between coordinating with the states and controlling and letting them control your funding. the port is fundamentally a business. we coordinate with a lot of people, but we don't let everybody handle our money. that is not a good decision. the second thing i would say is, i am not sure what kind of time constraints that would add to a

system that as you heard from myself and my colleague at the table, already is a cumbersome and time sensitive system. by adding another step in the process, i am not sure i can identify what the value added is. with respect to comments that all the grants should be together, i cannot speak for all the grants, but ports historically in this country as a maritime nation are largely federal control. our biggest partner is the u.s. coast guard. one of the things that has been done well in this system is the coast guard system of having the area maritime securities committee review grant proposals and try to determine where the vulnerability is and needs are. if you are looking at the relationship between the city and a state and a port and a state, they are very, very different. ports are federally focused. port facilities are federally

regulated facilities. there's a very good reason why the port funding should be separate from the other funding. with respect to suggestions, as i said first of all, the funding has been woefully decreased. it is authorized at $400 million. a 75% decrease over a few years. the second thing is, as i also said in my testimony, it needs to be separate. port funding was separated from the other funding because prior to 9/11, there is very little requirement for security at ports and had to start from zero and work our way up. it was very important to separate and focus on the ports. bundling them together, the state is being made at ports are not as important anymore. i do not agree, because 93% of

all the cargo coming into the country comes in by water. the last thing i would say is, we go back and forth about cost tears. it is important for the poor or organization to have skin and the game, but people seem to not appreciate the fact that if the gentleman down at this end of the table or the fire department its equipment, we have to maintain this forever. we more than meet our requirements of having skin in the game. if we do -- archemorus is the main this is a million dollars a year, so i have significant skin in the game. i am not sure what a 25% cocksure proves. some years there is a cost share in some years there is not. i think there should not be a cost share. one of the most important things we can do immediately, there needs to be a joint dhs tempore

user group to take a look at the system and see ways where perhaps we can expect a state environmental or historical preservation clearance as good for the federal government. we keep repeating these things on several levels. we have to be willing to say, if we have to trust the states, let's trust the states. if they do an environmental clearance and a historical clearance, that should be good for the federal government as well. the current system is not. it is repetitive and making it difficult for us to execute grants. >> does anybody else want to comment on any of those comments? >> i agree as well. the difference between ports and transit, the needs are very much different and it needs to be separated. we carry over 250,000 passengers

a day. we are a wide open system, and there is a tremendous threat and risk, but it is a different type of risk. we need to be able to compare projects accurately and be able to prioritize them. and to do so across different modes of industries makes it more difficult and complex. >> this idea of lumping grants together presumes that there is some overarching methodology that exists that i can determine whether a suicide bomber at the mall of america or in one of my colleagues transit facilities is more or less risky than something happening in the port. up to this point, i don't think that overarching methodology exists. if you are trying to put everything together and divvy it up, you have the presumption there is some methodology you are going to use to do that.

i am not sure right now that that exists. >> one other comment. the key point is, visibility of what is being spent and committed, and i think we get that for the development that will be released in the next couple of weeks, and then we evolve towards a common planning process. it would be desirable for every part of the committee to plan and do that together, participate together. the dollars are not going up. they are going down. we all have to decide what is the best way so that i will understand your issues calotte better. we can look at what his risks and threats are and make some intelligent judgments about how to support those things. >> thank you. let me address one question to

you. nema has been very outspoken about the need to show the impact of investment to our programs. particularly in the tight fiscal times suggested day. one of the few grant programs has significant cost share so it is not just federal funds that are invested but also state and local funds. doesnema measure performance -- how does nema measure performance? >> one of them better measures is what the federal government does not have to do because of the capabilities at lake -- state and local governments. i was just looking at the report is submitted to the committee digester but -- just yesterday. there were 250 state events that did not rise to a level of a disaster, largely because of the

ability of the states to control, manage, and preparing a dance and coordinate a response. there are thousands of other events that local governments manage the require very little or no intervention by the state. they are professional staff at the local level or is skipped -- pickwick and skilled and talented enough to address the problem and keep it from getting out of proportion. in addition to that that we are allocated $350 million, that is a minimum of $700 million with our match requirement and the additional moneys that most jurisdictions match at the local level. we have tried to report clearly how empg is saving money by allowing the responsive at the personal level as needed. when there is a big event, that

is the time that federal assistance can be valuable. as mr. fugate acknowledged, even that is more oriented toward recovery because of the skill sets of the people that have been developed on the ground using this combination of dollars that is provided. >> we have a lot of questions we could ask each of you, but our time is running out. one of the challenges that we face, especially in nanking tightening budgets, is to make sure that taxpayer funds are used wisely. let me ask you about this. how would this be accomplished with the funds that we grant to the fire department? >> i mentioned earlier, and everyone has a copy of the needs assessments that the prior administration did.

for us, one of the major shortfalls in our profession is staffing. we have seen some progress in staffing because of safer and we are asking obviously to do what we need to continue that progress. i guess that is the most immediate, measurable way that we can look at the success of these grants, the effect we have seen on staffing so far. it is difficult for folks to get their arms around what it means to have appropriate staffing. because it is a profession that is so specialized. we get the question all the time about why deep reunion for people when other municipalities have three, -- why do we need for people.

the best quick example i can give is, we can go to the airport and get on a plane and their only needs to be one person flying it. you would not go down to an airline and get on a plane and they say we are short staffed today, and usually we only need one pilot, so you will be fine. in the grants we are talking about here, the most measurable valuation of success is what we have seen improvement in staffing since we had safer in place. that is a quantifiable example i think we can look at. we would like to see that progress continue. >> one thing i want to ask about the fusion centers. could you tell the subcommittee a little about what these centers provide for the federal government that is not provided

normally by the state and local public safety? >> it is a national network. having this network where alabama can pick up the phone and talk to north carolina, it is also the notion of the -- before the fusion centers were in place, there was no mechanism to communicate critical national security information down to the state and local decisionmakers. it did not exist. that mechanism is now in place. it put that local and state labor on the informational and makes it relative to them. the other is the pushing of information back up to the national intelligence community. that partnership allows that information to get to the national intelligence community to be able to prevent acts of terrorism. this committee mentioned a report a number of years ago

with the research triangle institute. basically, the report stated that in 80% of the cases of any terrorist threats since 9/11, either actual or thwarted, the initial piece of information that came from that was either derived from the public and or state and local law enforcement officials. if you look at where the department is going, with the nationwide suspicious activity reporting and the support and requirements for investment justification infusion centers, we see that as moving in the right direction and investing in those areas that provide those capabilities that are critical for making sure that we don't have an event in the transit system. we cannot afford for the event to happen in the first place. >> thank you. mr. price. >> let me just follow up with you immediately about the kind of funding that the fusion

centers require. most of this understand is from state grants, most of your funding. what is your federal grant funding total overall, and do you see this proposal for grant consolidation as in any way putting your funding at risk? >> i probably am one of the few people at the table and that basically, i don't think that cooks are funding it rest. secretary has made it clear that vision centers our national priority. we don't view that as a problem. can give an example for we are without funding -- about finding it hard much budget where the money actually goes. we have information back from 43 of the fusion centers at this point of the 77 now recognize fusion centers. in 2011, the budget was

approximately $110 million. $74 million was state and or local funding. 33% of that was from federal investments. i asked earlier for staff to keep the record open. coe would like to submit state by state, urban area by urban area, the funding, but the total budget of the centers and where the funding is coming from. >> let me ask another question related to this consolidation proposal. i think you were fairly outspoken last year about the undesirable t of limiting the number of eligible cities during our debate.

given our current fiscal environment, chris money is hard to come by these days. knowing their original intent of the program, do you still believe it should not be targeted to the highest risk urban areas? >> from the national fusions and associations, we don't take an opinion on where the funding ought to go. we had urban areas centers and state centers. it gets down to what can we afford at that point. we believe in eligibility for the urban areas. given fiscal constraint, fiscal logical to figure that we will have to reduce funding. the department has moved in a way to try to look at the same capabilities where we have -- we cannot afford to continue to build new capabilities. let's focus on what we have. we still hold by the attack of

have an urban areas still eligible, even in a reduced fiscal environment. >> i want to return to the? that the chairman race, the very last question he raised with administrator fugate. -- that the chairman ray east. maybe it is a major change in empg guidance that is included in the budget. that is the expanded use of the dollar or the potentially expanded use of the dollar's. forbidding grant funds to be sub brandon, and non-government stakeholder entities such as hospitals. it is not mandated, but the possibility is open up. how do you regard this change?

q. you think his collage duty make a significant difference? as you well know, calotte of the people in the emergency management community have raised concerns about this or ask a lot of questions about it. how do you assess this proposal and what kind of position has reorganization taken on it? >> we have not taken a position on that specific guidance at this time, but a couple of things need to be considered. with the funding levels remain static, the needs that are currently being funded are going to be prioritized at a local and state level, which might not leave as much room as we would hope for those programs. stock -- some states actually do fund those programs as part of their overall effort. it may not make that much difference in the short term, but we will look it that and get

back to you with a more thorough position on that. we have not had a chance to meet and take a specific position, but some states already provide that and some do not. >> thanks to all of you. thank you all for being here this morning and this afternoon. we talked about some very important issues here this afternoon. we appreciate each of you for taking your time to come here and testify before the committee. we look forward to getting your written testimony for the record. with nothing else, the meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> attorney general eric holder

testifies tomorrow on capitol hill about the justice department's $27 million budget proposal. live coverage of the senate appropriations subcommittee hearing begins at 10 am eastern. at 2:15 p.m. eastern, the senate indian affairs committee holds a hearing. we will have live coverage on c- span3 and "the communicators at this project and -- and c- span.org. mr. panetta is joined by joint chiefs chairman general martin dempsey at this hearing looking into political unrest and violence in syria. this is 2.5 hours.

>> let me try that one again. good morning, everybody. the committee meets today to hear from secretary of defense leon panetta and secretary of the joint chiefs general martin dempsey to update the committee on the situation in syria and discuss the policies in the administration with respect to syria. it was nearly a year ago that demonstrations in syria peacefully -- demonstrators peacefully took to the streets to call for an end to the rule of president assad. the man and opportunity to choose a leader through free and fair democratic process. since those first days of the uprising, the world has watched and the syrian people have continued to challenge the assad regime's tyrannical ways. as the weeks and months have passed, the peaceful demonstrators have been killed. the tragedy unfolds daily.

according to the united nation'' most recent estimates, more than 75 and people in syria have been killed and at least 100 more people are being killed each day. the assad regime's brutal crackdown has included gross human rights violations, torture, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary executions, sexual violence and interference with access to medical treatment and other humanitarian assistance. these acts, committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against civilian populations, as is the case in syria, to crimes against humanity, in my view. president obama's efforts to build a broad international coalition to put massive pressure on assad have been met with opposition from china and russia. they vetoed a proposal brought to