kalev sepp, a former lieutenant with u.s. special forces. that is our program tomorrow. thank you for being a part of the program today. we will see tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. ♪ >> here is a look at our schedule on c-span. next, at his organization's 2013 budget request and the impact of recent tornadoes across the midwest and south. a hearing with comcast and blackberry executives on cyber security for communication networks. later on "the communicators," c- span talks to close of lieberman

and susan collins. >> congratulations to all of this year's winners of bdo documentary competition. a record number of middle and high school students entered on the theme, "the constitution and you." join us morning's in april as we show the top 27 videos on c- span. we will talk with the winners on "washington journal." "road to the white house" continues. >> this weekend, there are two ways to watch detestable of books on book tv.

live on c-span 2 and live online at c-span.org. at 3:00 p.m., panels on forensic science and mexico's drug wars at 6:00 p.m. the great depression at to 30 p.m. on sunday. throughout the weekend, look for coverage streaming live. the tucson festival of books, live this weekend on c-span 2 and booktv.org. ernest hemingway is considered one of the great american writers. his books still influence people today. few people know of his work as a spy during world war ii.

>> german submarines approached fishing boats and said, we will take your cash in your fresh food. hemingway said, i will wait for them to come alongside. we will throw hand grenades down the open hatches. the other members of the crew will machine gun the germans on deck. >> nicholas reynolds on hemingway despite. parts of american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. >> defense secretary leon panetta testifies on the violence and political unrest in syria. he told the armed services committee said -- say the pentagon is reviewing its options. this is 2 1/2 hours.

p captioning performed by vitac

lete try that one again. good morning, everybody. the committee >> we meet today to update the committee on the situation in syria and to discuss the policies of the administration with respect to syria. it was nearly a year ago that demonstrations in syria -- demonstrators peacefully took to the streets to call for an end to the end of the rule of president aside and to demand the opportunity to choose a leader through a fair and democratic process. the world has watched as the syrian people has continued to challenge the regime in to radical ways. peaceful demonstrators have been

killed. the tragedy unfolds daily. according to the united nations, more than 7500 people in syria have been killed and at least 100 more people are being killed each day. the assad regime brutal crackdown has included gross human-rights -- human rights violations, interference with access to medical treatment and other humanitarian dilations. this is a widespread attack of the population and crimes against humanity. president obama's effort to build a national coalition to put massive pressure on president assad have been met with opposition by china and

russia. they vetoed a proposal to establish a syrian-led transition to a democratic political system. the u.n. general assembly voted overwhelmingly to condemn the regime's googled use of force against civilians. last week, the friends of syria, secretary clinton, and leaders from more than 60 other countries came together in the home of the first arab spring uprising to force a way forward in syria, including a call for the regime to end the violence, withdraw its forces from cities and towns, and to assure unhindered access by monitors. the work of the syrian national council was praised and they

laid the groundwork for a political transition. they agreed to continue to ratchet up the pressure on the assad family and its supporters. there was a robust dialogue about whether there is a feasible way -- if the international community continues to search for an avenue, there are a number of questions that we must ask about the nature of the conflict in syria. what is the makeup of the syrian opposition? would they be a force for democracy should they succeed? what are the objectives of the opposition and who are their benefactors. is there a political entity that is capable of uniting small bands of fighters across silver -- across syria and coordinating the efforts against the syrian military.

the violent extremists have infiltrated the opposition movement. what are the military options available? what are the military actions that could be taken and who do they need to be taken by to maximize the chances for success. what are the risks and downsize to each option. these are just a few of the questions we hope to discuss with our witnesses this morning. there is a broad consensus against -- among regional leaders. president assad and his cronies must go there is not agreement on how this goal can be achieved. each situation is different. president assad and his father developed a substantial and professional military with

modern, air defense capabilities a large deadly stockpile of chemical weapons this establishment has remained coty's of and is willing to carry out a sigh's will order to conduct a pilot campaign against the people. 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 lebanon's position, and remove 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. assad's forces are on the 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. including potential military options if necessary. this approach has succeeded in putting unprecedented pressure on a side. there is no simple or quick solution to this -- on president assad. there is no simple or quick solution to this problem. along the lines suggested by the arab league, we believe there is still an opportunity to try to achieve that goal. we will not rule out any future course of action. currently, the administration is focusing on diplomatic and political approaches rather than military intervention.

padded by our approach in libya and elsewhere, we believe is important that we do the following. that we build multilateral international consensus for any action that is taken. that we maintain clear regional support from the arab world. that we make substantial u.s. contributions to the international effort and used unique resources that can be brought to bear. we need to have a clear legal basis for any action that we take. keep all options on the table. recognize that there are limitations of military force, especially with u.s. boots on the ground. 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 forilitary 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 single unifying military alternative that can be cognized, 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 a direct 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 regimehould 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 region. th stability of sia 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 ly 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 weakened 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 th 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 called 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 every country on syria's border 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 their suitability, feasibility and accept ability. we have a further responsibility to artulate 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 league proposed a transition plan, has the arab league

requested military intervention in syria? >> it has not. >> did they support military intervention in libya? >> 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 telling 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 thecommander'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 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 do. in doing it, we have some -- we considerations we would make 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 wod. 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 t 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. they 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 rian regime. general mattis recently indicated to the committee that president assad's rgime is going to fall and he said it's just a matter of when and not if. do y share that assessment and are you as confident that will happen? and do you attachny 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 other. >> general, can you tell us 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 region to 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 youble 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 deribe -- 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 general mattis said the departure from asaid 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 forearmg 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 syris? >> 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. panetta, 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, general -- admiral stavridis and general mattis said there was no contingency planning. will there be contingency 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 aditional 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 fort to try to build an internional 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, what price, and whether or not it will make matter better or worse. those are the considerations that i have to engage in, and obviously, the administration beeves thatvery effort ought

to be made to deal with those concerns in the iernaonal setting to try to build the kind of international csensus that worked in libya and that can work in syria if we can develop that. >> well, l me tellou 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 are not 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 noclear what constitute 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 profesrs from the university of alabama. so, we can find out who they are. we can find out who they are. they are not fightinan 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't 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 secretary panetta and general dempsey. on this question of what to do in ria, i'm of like mind with 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 wewent through in the '9s 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, to 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 ir those that live under syrian pressure, and perhaps thi is unique and different and we 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 think if we seem to be holding back, and incident iall theountries are seeing their strategic interest in this and because their people are demanding it because of the wave of change sweeng 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, and there's a lot of appreciation for it because in their hour of need we werein. 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 interventi in liby 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 i 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 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 statementhat 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 histo 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 thers, and they have suffered through extended civil 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 terrism and we are leading in syria, we are working with those elements to try to bring them together. if the agreement here is that we out not to just simply go in unilaterally, then we have to build a multi-lateral coalition, we have to work at that. it's not that easy to deal wth the conrns 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 na oh, and the other countries. 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 byyou. all i can do is plead with you and other nations that we are reaching out to do move as quickly as posble, people are dieing every day and sttegic opportunities are being lo. the fact is that we have an opportity here. and it's also a responsibility and i think it's critilly 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 usher in 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 ki of momentum, physical mentum 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 that, and leading 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 iefing so we can better understand the things happening. right now, i agree with everything surprisingly that 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 to shift 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 of those 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 wneed to apply thoughtful consideration can of military intervention 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 conceed 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 leadership 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 conte of this, you mow, i very much want to elevate our thinking here about this -- we are talking about out syria, but we are looking at it through a straw, it does not exist as an isoted country, it's in the context of the region and even of actors outside the region. the inside of syria is a far different demograpc, ethnic religious mix than in libya and we need to understand that before we seek to u a

particular pattern to deal with what they face. this iss 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 them to do the right thing. >> and presuming secretary clinton is working and reaching out? >> that's correct.

>> thank you, i'm all set, mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you, very much, senator brown. senator re 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 leads and others extremists have called their members of their groups support the uprising of syria and general mattis stated that tre'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 assistance? >> 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 haveidentified 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 issing 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 how 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 occur on its own, but there's concern about getting worse before it gets better,

more people dieing in the interim. so time is of the essence 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 cision 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 will occur or will they just be

desperate and devolve into some sort of cil war? >> senator, i wish we could predict that, but it's dangerous to do that. you know, we faced somewhatthe 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 efforts to do that but frankly they have not been successful. >> are we in a position 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 developed 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 this to get multi-national interests in this this? >> there are efforts to try to engage the neibors with regards to the issues in syria. and the neighbors clear share the concerns that we all this have with regards to the

situation there. two neighbors are being directly impacted by refue problems, we are engaging with both of them and we are engaging with others 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 gettinsufficiently motivated and sufficiently conditionered to engage in some joint effort with their neighbor, syria? >> i think there's grea concern, and they are experiencing directly the concern, not only from the refugees but from the fallout of what is going on in syria 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 syr 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 secrety dempsey. i would like to ask the role of on china andrussia 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? >> theyes they do. >> so rssia is providing arms to the assad regime as they murder their own people? >> they have a long standing 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 with respect to our posture with iran they were of wanting to impose the toughest economic sanctions possible to make sure that iran has no -- has noteveloped 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 wor 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 would 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 derstand that we are very serious about that. and we will in the congress look at actions we can take here, this is wrongnd 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 any impact on stability in iraq? >> interestingly, we -- you know, there s 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 impoant issue. >> thank you, senator ayotte. our planning on a closed session immediately following this, that means that there will be one und here and is or plan to succeed. senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and secretary. all of the 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 spe over syria and given what we know about their defense systems that would presume, i don't know what you can comment on opening, 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 sed 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 balae, 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 ca have air power and

try to stop tank columns and convoys but that would not wk 100%, so is that another challenge you are considering? >> sure, it's a challenge and again, in the context of this, as you note, the 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 what 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. secrety, 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

dominate the region, but others seeing themselves close a lined with the group. there has yet to be i think creation of a truly national and credib 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 think would 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, and were able to organize a consult and had credibility with thepposition, 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 pnts is that we 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 rce assad off, it would be -- we would 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 y 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 boos 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, through 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 want to go into on

closed session, but let me ask, does russia ve a physical presence in syria as part of their arm's sales business? >> they do. >> and what specifically, secretary panetta, is russia's interest in syria? >> they have had long standing economic and military relationships in yria, and as we said, the port there in syria is owned by the russians, it's their port. so they have had a lot of shipping that is going in over there overhe years, they have transferred not only military, aide, but economic assistancas 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

nted to assert you kn, 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 combat jets capable of hitting cilian 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 sanctioned by 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 of defense through an initiative led by the u.s. army isuying dual use m-1 -- excuse me, m-i-17 helicopters from this same company. 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 ended up being the lowest bidder and therefore they could very well have been selected. but i have to confirm that and get back to you, senator. >> i understand that. if in fact this article is correct, this means that instead of creating js 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 demps, you talked about the need to balance the 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 andhat that do to lebanon, what would be the impact that you would hope for in the region? >> well, as general mattis testified yestday, it would certainly diminish iran's influence in the region and t 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 an cautious approach to this problem. and i think many of us are approaching this issue with a high degree of hu millity because of th lack of information and looking for as you brief us in a more secure setting. even with l that care and caution, i'm stck, mr. secretary, by the convicon 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 intruce 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 unitedtates will support the syrian people, but there needs to be 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 prections in that part of the world, what i'm giving you is the best assessment by our intelligce 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

trying 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 being 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 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 thatt would ta to supress the aerial defense, but i take it that issue is not an obstacle to providing these other 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 wld be looking for, or are specific countries volunteering specific contributions in potential military action? >> that again is something that we would prefer to discuss in closed session. but there ha been discussions in other countries about that. >> so that planning 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 have 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 question whether this is helpful. >>e 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 "washinon times" involved pro russia stalls afghanistan helicopters. >> if 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 sourcesnd i hope we would have a response. thank you so much for your service to the country and you are is ve 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 detailn that forth with. mr. graham? >> i asked 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 and 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 thatboots to ground is a good idea good ideas 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 wr criminal, i think that is a good analysis to take. in february there w a report issued, 72 pages but this is the sum and substance of it to me, such violations, talkin 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 ll 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 uld get supporthat 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 relace 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 up 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 replaced 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 would not have a positive impact. now, when it comes to planning, senator bloomen thall 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 president of the united states, through the national security staff, has asked us to begin the commander's estimate, the estimate of the situation. >> that's gd. so there is movement and process in dod to provide the president some options. is that correct? >> correct. >> ok. 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

embarrassment. >> 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, intain 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? >> absotely. >> 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 ofeing led by dictators and are we doing enough to seize that moment in history? >> i can assure 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 tablish we'd libya, but to maintain it

as a continuing influence over what happens elsewhere in that region. >> and my final thought is tt if the slaughter continues, i do believe that the world, includg the united states, has the capability to neutralize the slaughter through air power. and given 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, senator graham. senator shaheen. >> thank you, secretary. general dempsey, thank you both

very much for being here. i want 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 atrategy on for how to prevent or reduce future arm 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 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. '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 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 iside 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, the 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 abouthe 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 ck 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 oer 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 understand 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 apons 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 coerns we have, should aad fall, about the security of those arsenals and what potentl 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 theituation 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. d for tt 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 those countries who are helping? >> there are. i have to 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 embargo 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. thank both of you for your service to the country. i had the opportunity to travel a few weeks ago with senator mccain and graham and bloom bloomenthal 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 the 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. ere's a difference between contingency planning 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 capabilities, or potential enemies, what are the troops we have available, and how much time. so mission, enemy, terrain, troops, and time. that's a commander'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 further? >> no, not at all. i think the assumptions that we've worked through, we have -- you know, we've discussed them with president. we've discussed the with

national security council. we are in the process of developing even further ideas with regards 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 indetermining what action we take. that's the fundamenta 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 here. 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 domilitarily, you say you have t ask the estion whether 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 urse, 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 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 operatio authorized by 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 to execute policies consistent with the national security of the united states. now, sretary panetta, in your talk, in your remarks you talk about first we are working -- first we're working to increase diomatic isolation and encouraging other countries to join european union and arab league imposing sanctions.

and then you note that china and russia have repeatedly blocked u.n. security council from taking action. are you saying, and is the president taking the position, he would not act if it was 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 permission 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 coalition 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 bunody worries

about the fundamental constitution legal basis that this congress has over war. we were not asked, stunningly and direct violationf 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 abou the u.n., arab league, nato, and too little time, in my opinion, worried about the elected representatives of the united 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 th 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 come to the congress and inform you and determine how best to proach this whether or not we would want to get permission from the congress, i think those are issues we would have to discuss ase decide 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 might 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 breataking 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 le 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 developed an international coalition beyond nato, then obviously some kind of u.n. security resolution. >> aoalition of -- so you're saying nato would give you a legal basis and an a ad hoc

coalition of legal basis? we were able to put together a coalition and were able t 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 basi on which to act. >> who are you asking sfort legfor the legal basis from? >> obviously if the u.n. passed a u.n. security resolution from libya, we would do that. if nato came together as they did in bosa, we would rely on that. we have options here. if we want to build t 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 being correct. 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 more aggressivy to nato and allies, seeking every ally that wean get. 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 i understand it, saying 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 youaid a legal basis in international law would help you achieve an international coalition. >> that's correc >> 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 up too much of my own clock onthis. >> 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 difference 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 the situation in syria. there's a difference between that and the president 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 preces that we have otherwise used. like a treaty if you're talking about nato, ordefending 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 leadership, we need to understand, we need to have a sense ofistory here.

leadership is not always taking preciptent action when the emotions is going. 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 sor of matters. i think the principals that you've laid down are -- we should all support this type of logic. to for an international conse consens consensus. 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 anyovernment -- i think this is a direct quote. i'm an old journalist here. i can write fast. any governme that indiscriminately kills its own people loses its legitimacy. would you say that is a statement of policy of the united states?

>>i would. >> would you believe that with the circumstances in t 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 mighhave. 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 exchange 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

policy matrix that you are 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 her comment 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 who are

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 we 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 allies in the region? >> well, 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. '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 denable, 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 then 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, these -- once you provide these arms, there are no bundaries as to where they can wind up. we saw that happen in libya, and we are seeing evidence 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 wod then e those weapons for other purposes. >> i think that's an extmely difficult issue as we look at whetheor 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 theibyan 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 western 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, cawe expect military and humanitarian 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 a milary 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 assistance of one kind or another. but the arab league itself

doesn't, you know,t doesn't have the capability that nato has to be able to engage militarily if necessary. >> i wasn turkey recently, and obviously turkey historically had good relationships with syria but the prime 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 tury? >> yes, there are. and turkey is actually exercised, you know, very responsible 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 biologal sites that are located there. and we're continuing to consult with them th regards to refugees as well. but answer toour 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. >>hank 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 down. that's on the political sect. on the issue of iranian 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 offloading 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 you both. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you, senator collins. we're now going to move directly to room 217 for our closed session. thank you both. we stand adjourned.

"road to the white house" continues. mitt romney pick up delegates in guam. there will be caucuses in high

-- hawaii and american samoa. >> fire j. edgar hoover? i do not think the president could have gotten away with it. >> the fbi's 100 year hidden history and j. edgar hoover's fight against terrorists and subversives. >> he is like the washington monument. he stands alone like a statue encased in grime. he is among the most powerful men who had ever served in washington. from woodrow wilson to richard nixon. there is no one like him. a great deal of what we think we know about j. edgar hoover is myth. >> a history of the fbi, sunday

night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q & a." >> here is a look at what congress is up to next week. they will return to washington on monday, march 19 with votes after 6:30 p.m. live coverage here on c-span. the senate is in town next week. they will have general speeches before returning to work on the surface transportation bill. no votes on monday, but several amendment votes are expected on tuesday. follow the senate live on c-span 2. next, the fema director testifies on the budget for his agency, requesting $10 billion in discretionary spending.

he talks about the impact of recent tornadoes in the south and midwest. this is 2 1/2 hours. after the discussion, we will convene an additional panel. i will make a brief opening statement to allow more time for members to ask questions and to proceed with our second panel. administrator, thank you for the work you do with hundreds of fema personnel who were deployed in my home state of

alabama. devastating tornadoes impacted us and we appreciate all of the work that fema and your agency has done. as recently as this past weekend, we saw the devastation that was brought by severe weather. we look to fema to assist our state and local responders as it is needed. we thank thee dedicated folks on the ground. i will touch briefly on several issues we will discuss at length later in the hearing. we want to know will be disaster relief fund be solvent for the remainder of this year and the next and wealthy enough complete all recovery projects for disasters that happened -- and will fema complete all recovery projects for disasters that happened last year?

will you provide funding for high risk urban areas as you have in the past or will it be provided to states for distribution. upon a state's threat and risk assessment, will you provide guidance on the process that you announced over a year ago. these questions must be answered as your proposal is considered. as you continue to engage congress on this matter, i encourage you to reach out to the states who will be impacted. these are some issues for which -- with which you are familiar. you have seen these issues from the local, state, and federal level. i look forward to your thoughts on these issues and what progress you have made in the last year as well as the challenges that remain. your written testimony will be placed in the record.

i would like to take five minutes to summarize it for the committee. i will call on the ranking member mr. prize for his opening comments. >> when your ride that fema, the country was at a low confidence point. there has been universal acclaim that fema has received in the wake of hurricane irene. the images americans left stranded in the wake of hurricane katrina could not be

more contrast it. -- contrasted. your agency is facing significant financial and challenges. hopefully, we will have more long-term stability to fund critical disaster relief needs. we are here today to discuss your 2013 budget. the request for a theme is $10.20 billion. $6.10 billion is for the disaster relief fund. the request is 5% last -- less than 2012.

within your budget request, there are significant increases for democrats against a base that has been significantly reduced in the last two years. this finding is tied to a significant reorganization. your national preparedness grant proposal has raised many questions while bolstering security and business to buy down risks. i hope you will be able to provide more clarity on how you envision this block grant to work if approved. your request substantially reduces funding for the emergency shelter program when state funding remains on shaky footing.

flooding is the most frequent and costly disaster in the united states. i hope we can work together to address these problems as we develop our 2013 funding recommendations. the administrator, i want to thank you for your service to our country. i look forward to working together to rebuild and -- to build a more resilient nation. thank you. >> mr. fugate, we look forward to your comments. this is the fourth time i have presented a budget. based upon the work that was

done in the budget stabilization act, we are requesting the binding based on what we estimate our total cost to be, including previous catastrophic disasters and the activity we expect in 2013. the overall budget request is a reduction. part of that is reflected in what we have looked at as the reduced cost of the 2013 response. many of the costs have been expended and our expenses we expect will be paid out in this year. there will be further reductions. we are prorating this out based on what we expect -- expect parliament work to continue in these catastrophic disasters and the responses we expect. the caveat is that in future

catastrophic disasters, there may be requirements for additional funds. those are significant milestones in that area. we have had to make decisions about programs to reduce or eliminate. rather than taking percentage cuts across all programs, we look at programs that would be eliminated entirely or significantly reduced while keeping other programs. this will result in some people saying their programs got cut. in the pre-disaster mitigation, which we have recommended not to fund, we have a bad luck --

backlog of a hundred $70 million. that does not count the dollars out there -- $170 million. we felt we had the need to make reductions given that most of the activities are moving toward on the backlog. as far as the consolidation of grants, i would not spend enough time on that. we are recommending consolidating those grants and looking at more flexibility. we are trying to move a program that was put into various identifying areas of finding that did not always court in a well. or look at what were the needs of the nation.

the president issued a presidential decision directives of national preparedness in establishing a goal. we are looking at how do you find and build capability to serve the nation. how do we build capability that is a shared responsibility for all levels of government to respond to catastrophic incidents? much of the response this year was contributed to by previous investments in homeland security. teams were available closer to their neighbors that could respond to regional 8, communication vehicles, incident management teams, that previously had to come from the federal government or further away. our strategy is to change the dialogue from finding east jurisdiction -- each

jurisdiction. how does that contribute to national capability? we could look at scenarios that would overwhelm the best prepare state or city. are we making investment strategy started toward national preparedness goals? those are capabilities we see as necessary to be in a position to prevent war in the event something happens and to rapidly stabilized at events. by putting more emphasis on the outcomes and using direct based and hazard days recommendations to look at what capabilities we have and where gaps occur and the best strategy to fund that, it does not lend itself to each jurisdiction. we need to look at how we build that capability among our shared resources and utilize the tools state governments have, which is

the emergency management systems compact between states and state mutual aid. this change is really starting the dialogue of how we build against a national picture reverses jurisdiction by jurisdiction and by consolidating the grants and putting more emphasis on the outcomes and the measures to support those investment strategies. that would be more directed by national preparedness go. with that, i will stop. >> your 2013 budget includes $3 billion for the cost of disasters that have already occurred, such as the tornadoes that struck my home state of

alabama in april. little did we know one year ago when you were before this subcommittee that we would be in store for such a difficult year, especially for many members on this subcommittee and the devastation that would occur i did not know i would see quite as much after that hearing. we saw each other a good bit and talked on the phone many times. before we turn to 2013, are you sufficiently funded for 2012 to complete the air without implementing funding restrictions that limit funding to meet needs? >> because the act will always be a future disasters. our plans recoveries is $1.20 billion and what we estimate will be extended in the previous disasters. we are projecting to end the

fiscal year at approximately $200 million. we have to still continue to be aggressive and close down all disasters. we had a lot of open disasters and we were not closing them out we did about $4.70 billion in recoveries from open disasters. we are projecting $1.20 billion in disasters. if we could find more, we will do that. we are driving down the cost of response. we are finding that using such techniques like not establishing physical presence and working closely with the states, we are driving down the costs of the administration of the disaster all these pressures are on the grant itself. we are holding ourselves accountable and reducing the cost of administering disasters and finding ways we can perform

the same level of performance with our state and local performers without the overhead we may have incurred previously. >> also included is an estimate for inches -- anticipated costs for catastrophic events, which allows you to anticipate no additional costs beyond the end of 2013. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> wealthy must have recovery efforts in alabama -- will fema have recovered at first close out in the midwest? >> we will work toward that. as soon as we have the projects and are obligated -- we have the projects defined period where we may not make that market is if

we have issues about insurance and had to reconcile that or get into environmental-historical reviews and need time to get those projects moving. we look at the obligations when we sign off in the states. it may not mean the work has been done, but the funding has been obligated. knowing that some of the more complicated -- may be more complex, we have the appeals process when we disagree. our goal is to get these projects written as quickly as we can to begin the work. we would have the bulk of them done. experience tells me there may be projects because of the technicality of its bad appeals may not be written. our goal -- technicality of the appeals and they may not be written. i put an emphasis on speed. the quicker we get construction

back, it reduces our overall costs and recovery disaster we get committees back on their feet. there are outliers that would take longer to get done. >> moving on to debris removal costs, part of the cost in the responding to disasters is the cost of cleaning up debris. sima -- fema provides two that this of cleanup. a local authority can arm -- farm out the process. we included in the 2012 conference report directions that a report be submitted that requires thema -- thema -- fema to explain the disparity between debris removal. what is the status of that

report? >> it is in process. i will tell you my personal observations. when we have organizations that have their contracts and follow the steps required, it is faster and lower costs. the corps provides a significant advantage in the communities that do not have that capability or if the debt is bigger than their capability, -- or if the events is bigger than their capability, we bring in the capabilities. in many cases, we support local jurisdictions. it is more cost-effective. we put money back into the timing. it is faster. there will be events when the corps provides the service when it exceeds that capability or it was not in place prior to the disaster. >> my time has expired. >> administrator, i would like

to focus on the national preparedness proposal. let me lay out just a few questions that i hope you can address. a feature of your budget is the streamlining of 16 prepared this grant programs into a single newly titled national preparedness program. this excludes the emergency management performance grants. you have 16 programs that are consolidated. you also laid down a couple of criteria, which will govern your grant making. one is the utilization of a comparative risk model for making funding decisions. also requiring grantees to develop capabilities. you are consolidating programs that have had somewhat different

rationales and different criteria for funding decisions. 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 could indicate how much money would go toward those two basic programs? how are some of the current guidelines likely to apply? you are still going to provide a minimum level of funding to it states. are you going to follow the current guidelines? how is that going to work. after you have allocated funding, what is your next priority? how do these two objectives:

this? finally, when we are looking at some of the other programs, how are you going to graft onto this the use of a competitive risk based model that has applied to programs like the transit and poured grants. for example, how would thema -- fema compare a port project to a transit project in an urban area? >> the shortest answer is to caveat that we will respond in writing because they are more questions than i could cover in the time allotted. >> we have a process underway this year. you could answer on the basis of how that pattern would continue.

>> let's talk about in in looking request, we are not looking at and in urban areas, but are we getting this energy of are the investment matching up to what the overall needs are and also recognizing but in these 16 areas of these different funds, which we are putting into one grant, the question we are trying to get to is when we look at the jurisdiction by it jurisdiction, what are the overlaps? if you start breaking down and you think what are the things are you actually doing? people like to start with the money, but what are you actually doing? arlene hanson bomb squads? are we building fusion centers in maintaining them.

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 competitive grants, and as we 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? >> we wish to express our reservations on the preparedness grant program. it was started 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 grant programs have contributed to were complete level of preparedness. >> he expected to be erected a process that we get the information. we made a decision with local officials that our priority to reach it would be to get individual assistance turned on and then we will do a count for

public assistance because many of those individuals are responding. trying to find out about insurance and get the cost -- we are working with the state to get back into public assistance and iridescent as we have those numbers, we will process the request, as well. we are putting a premium on the individuals because we know it will be an issue about housing. since we work with the state to -- this is the good news. this goes back to the homeland security dollars. there are a lot more capabilities than we have had before. i was sitting on friday afternoon as the tornados were hitting and we knew what was going on peoria we were in contact with stakes and said the we were standing by. we pointed out the resiliency that the states do have these days. they did not reach it we got what we need. we need recovery, but we do not have any assistance for the

response. that was our testament to the local officials and the national guard. we focus on individual systems come on the federal coordinating officer tyab and as we get the public assistance and, we will work to get that quickly so we can identify a. that may be where we will turn on some counties but we maybe have some we are counting in. we have seen the threshold. we will turn on what we have and keep counting until we have all the damages identified. >> good. i cannot say any -- anything but praise so far on the efforts that fema has done. this is a difficult situation because there's no communication the storms took out the power and communications. telephones in the internet. -- and internet.

it is difficult to contact the county executive or the mayors. besides that, the roads are so clouded with debris and damage, it has been a remarkable thing that we have come this far this quickly. i really appreciate your commitment. and your rapid decision making because that is all important giving the time of year it is down there. devastation that is widespread -- the human factor is altogether important. these people are hurting. i appreciate the rapid response that fema has devoted to this end i look forward to working with you further as we go on down. >> yes sir. yes, sir. >> thank you. i want to join my colleagues

think you for your service in your important contributions. before i get on to another topic, i must tell you -- you are talking about a block grant with a continuing focus and that does not make any sense. i am very concerned at efforts such as including use under a larger grant could result in a decrease in federal funds of the risk of terry been still remain high and i do not understand. maybe we can have a continuing discussion another time. this is was to go to the area's most at risk. are there other -- everybody needs this, but putting it all in a block grant sends a message to decrease the emphasis. let me turn to the point. i am also troubled by reports that the environmental protection agency, the nuclear regulatory commission and the

federal emergency management agency have been gauged in ongoing discussions to determine which agency and with what funds would be irresponsible for a large scale event at a nuclear power plant. i have to tell you, that sounds like a cartoon, which is too serious to be real. while things are going on and everything is exploding, all of these agencies are still deciding about who is in charge. as you may know, the energy center is a nearly 40-year-old nuclear reactor located within 30 miles of times square. evacuate people is impossible. a government response should be planned, practiced, and ready for implementation. who would be irresponsible? -- our discussions are being

discussed between fema and other agencies. >> the evacuation would be state and local supported by the federal government. that is the direction of the authority. we support that. >> the reports that the epa and the fema are incorrect? that they are talking about who would be responsible? >> i have not seen those reports. the discussions i have been involved in were looking at some of the issues in a post he then of what would happen to materials to be cleaned up and the fact that there are different standards out there for what would determine what is permanently cleaned up. you have regulations for epa. you have protective criteria that was issued for protection.

we were working on what would be the level of cleanup required before people could resume normal and permanent activities. we were also looking at what levels would be set for those that may have to go back and work in critical facilities if the cleanup had not been completed. in the exercise, we had determined that because different programs have different standards for clean up, we wanted to have a continuous -- a consistent approach. there's also an undergoing review by the nuclear regulatory commission based upon the reviews of what happened in japan, but also facilities here to look at what additional actions or protective measures may be required. not having seen the reports, i do know that those were discussions we have engaged in. we want to make sure that superfunds are applied to clean

up. how would we -- we have been thinking about how to do that so we would have similar standards. >> well, i thank you for the thoughtful response. i hope we do not have to face the decision but how long is this evaluation and decision making process going on? >> we have been working on this -- this is prior to what happened in japan. taking the criteria we were going to use across the agencies, and that is close to the concurrent process where agencies are signing off on it. i would have to defer to the nrc to ask where they are in the review process. but was incidental -- that was instituted after the events. we have to look at other threats we face. our role as fema is the area outside the power plant, working

with governments of protective measures, the evacuation, exercise programs based upon the criteria developed by the nuclear regulatory commission . >> let me just follow up with two -- riz my time up? sorry. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. administrator. u.s. for what you do for a lot of people. -- thank you for what you do for a lot of people. how about of these disasters happen. one happened last summer in the missouri river in iowa. for months and months, people were subjected to index. i usually think of a flood as a onetime thing, but this went on for months. folks are very concerned about your submission to eliminate the pre disaster mitigation program.

their statement notes that the most costly natural disaster is flooding, and you are a guide to maximize the use of your club grips -- flood grants to assist. take you clarify, translates -- could you clarify, translate this into a way that tells my constituents what does this actually mean? the risk managing initiative. how will this unfold? >> in a flood insurance program, we still have the buyout program for lost properties, which is one of the things used to address the essential issues after repeated flooding. it is often times better to buy out rather than repair. we also have in that program -- elevation funding, as well as a continuous map and update.

the specific pieces to that are actually targeted towards homeowners in either mitigating their risk by buying out or in the case of floods, elevating. in addition, those that were infected by the floods additional -- the state has additional funds. they get additional mitigation dollars to look at these types of risk in the state, as well. the decision to cut predecessor mitigation was not easy. it was reflected across all our programs and looking where we had other programs addressing similar issues. the fact we still have about $174 million in backlog profits to be spent and again, everybody wants to protect their part of the budget. my responsibility was to provide recommendations on what we can do with our budget to achieve the goals we had. we'll look at 3 disaster mitigation and said, this is a

good program, but at the cost, can weaken a new -- can we continue it and looked at other programs, as well? >> it seems to me that in every disaster mitigation is cheaper than paying the damages after worse. there is a school of thought and a lot of very knowledgeable disaster management officials that believe the pre-disaster mitigation programs are on the chopping block because this has been in effectively administered and there is a lot of money left laying around. the funds are not expended because of a lack of good projects. i do not know what you would say to those people, but it is more of a management problem then it is a program problem. it is very difficult to qualify.

>> again, -- >> have you ever heard those complaints before? >> i have heard a lot of concerns about pre-disaster mitigation and how the funds are allocated. and, if that was the only reason, i would not have supported that. we looked across a program and said we are going to have to make cuts. do we did everything a percentage or do we -- >> programs and cut them -- keep other things funded at the level they need? we looked at what we do. we looked at the remaining balance is in the pre-disaster mitigation program. we love it the amount of money out there in section 404. i am not saying that mitigation is not important. but he was an area that we had other programs doing similar work and so we had -- we made the decision this would be a

program where we are cutting a lot of different things and we would zero out. this is not a popular decision or one that i would like to say was something i wanted to do. it is something that based on being pragmatic about my budget and making investment decisions, do we cut everything a certain percentage or make decisions about programs to eliminate or other programs provide some or if not all of the capabilities we are looking at and support the over all programs. >> is there any way to determine what you save avoiding a future disaster? is there a cost benefit analysis? >> i have heard people use -- say $7 for every dollar invested. there is not enough money and will never be enough money in pre-disaster mitigation to reduce the nation's risk. you have a better chance of getting the building codes enforced that would really save money verse is a project by project strategy that for the

project does good, but nationally, you are not moving the needle. you cannot mitigate building by building. you have to look more systemically. this program did a lot to get people interested in mitigation. it got a lot of people to look at things they could do in their committees for disaster. there is not -- you look at what we're finding. good intentions. what is the bottom line? unless that structure is hit, you will not see the savings. you are not doing enough projects for all of them to add up. you may get one rte up here. you want to make big changes, we need to look at how we reduce our risk, not through paying for it, but building better an appropriately so we reduced the cost on the front end. >> thank you. >> first of all, let me compliment 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 the man in the field of emergency management. i think we did with fema in the field of emergency management. i think you are setting a positive example. recognizing the budget and everything you have said in response to some of the other questions, i want to raise my concerns about the national security grant program. particularly as it pertains to the ports. already, ports -- securities lending is down by 57% in this current fiscal year. without it dedicated stream, as has been stated, they would have to compete for standing -- funding with city-state's and there is a possibility they would not get the attention that

they need. and, study after study has shown that any kind of a terror attack on the ports would be disastrous, not only to los angeles, but to the entire country. for example, a steady called risk analysis that was done in 2007 says that even if the harbor, referring to l.a. long beach, were closed for only 15 days, cost to the porch with spiral to $115 million wall above economic -- while the economic front says it rejects consequences would be in the billions. this is something that we may not want to leave to chance and to state and local governments. having served in local government, this belief -- id

could be argued that maritime security is a federal issue, not a local or state issue. the focus is always to deal with local jurisdiction. there is also the concern that state governments lack the personnel and the expertise to evaluate maritime risk or determine how ports should be determined to. any event, given a worst-case scenario, that it plays out and that courts do not receive -- ports do not receive the attention they need and to not get the money, given the important in securing the port, what would be the backup plan to make sure that they are

protected against a terrorist attack? >> welcome i will make myself popular when i say this. i keep hearing that we cannot trust the state and local government can ports to work as a team. that is exactly what is going to have to happen. we cannot trust them to work is a team to come up with a funding strategy. the secretary is going to make ports part of this funding. it is part of our global strategy on trade. coming from the state of florida, we look at the ports of is one of the most key transportation assets. if we allocate the money based upon each one of these groups, are we building national preparedness or we doing things in a singular fashion that do not add up to national preparedness? again, i have seen a lot of arguments back-and-forth and a lot of money spent. i'm not sure the strategies have always led to national preparedness. i am also not sure that this is

going towards these things is going to. i am not producing a lot ne. -- i am not going to single out an area. i have to deal with this. is this a national investment strategy? my question is, if we do not trust state and local governments and ports entrances and citizen court and everything else to work together, in a disaster, that failure will be exploited by a terrorist. if giving the funding and individually is what has to happen because we cannot work together, then i am concerned that by -- if we do work in a more leveraged fashion by bringing people together to work these together, are we really building national prepared this or have we merely funded a grant program?

>> people do not trust each other. but and a disaster, if we are all getting the grant separately and we are all running our program separately, yet we are all dependent upon each other to be successful, can we try that to a grand process to make people work is a team? and make those prioritization? i have been on the other side and i know the powerful arguments. i know people are looking to protect their interests and i am not saying that there may not be a better way, but i am very concerned when the first thing that comes out is, we may not be a priority with the state. we may not get the attention we need -- the attention we need. we may not be able to do what we were doing it the funding goes together because we may not be able to compete or get a shot across. yet, if that disaster occurs and the port is damaged, who will respond?

all the folks that got separate pots of money that were planning separately, trying to build a national capability. so, anderson and the concerns and -- i understand the concerns and i know this is not something that goes over well. you guys pay me to tell you what i think, not what people want to hear. i have looked at this and looked at this and then on the bottom of this process. i keep coming back to we do not trust each other so we have to have our own separate pots of money. we cannot depend upon us to prioritize in a way that says these are the strategies as a nation. we have to have a separate money. in a disaster, we suspect all of this will come together magically. mr. chairman -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. administrator, welcome. a lot of the things that you say about hard decisions i agree

with. i have a question -- the dhs was it seems to reform fema grants structure. -- wants to reform but the met grant structure. -- the fema grant structure. this concerns me because it negates the investment congress has are the made it in the national domestic prepared this consortium. it seems to me this is the direction that would create duplicative programs rather than bolstering existing programs. i have been told current backlog against first responder training for the existing program is over $20,000. i have been reading your request for -- your request for $60 million to address this backlog -- how does this better meet the demands of the first responders? considering this and awarding the new funds there'll be time

investments to set up the new program. will this create a leg in the programs we have right now? >> i will ask my staff to give you the report in writing. here is that as as a -- philosophical question -- how many can we afford -- and are the programs going back to national prepared this? are they interchangeable with other programs? part of this was coming back and saying, we find a lot of centers of excellence. there are so many i am not sure what excellence is any more. i am not berating anybody. i am saying, how do we make sure that we are investing institutions, providing necessary training in a way that we get the return on the investment, it is based on what we see as a nation we need, and that we have the ability to measure what each one of these institutions do in comparison with others. this was our time to come back and say, we recognize congress's

authority to specifically say these are things we want to do. we came back and said there has been a lot of growth here. how do we sustain it, make it more competitive, and put more emphasis on this providing what we have identified across the enterprise as the training we need for the various disciplines. >> i get your argument. >> i know the details, server. >> as you make that identification, you have to evaluate -- is somebody making the evaluations of how the centers are meeting the criteria? if i understand this program, the $60 million is for the creation of new centers of excellence in. how do you call up the good ones when you are creating the bad ones? how do you know the new guys will do better than the people are failing -- than the people who are failing?

i have been doing this before fema came there. clowe would like the evaluation to be looked at. -- i would like the evaluation to be looked at. >> i think the aggies have done well. they have been a leader in the storm shelter program. there of those programs that are such prestige and established programs that this is not going to be as dramatic as they think. we do need to look at whether we are targeting the right types of training we need, based upon with the skill sets are? i will give you an example. there are about folks my age in my profession that are going to be leaving. " do we have the capability to train the new people? think about all of the training we have done in the last 10 years. we have to make sure we have the institutions and the higher

level and discipline to continue to trend. this is not an attempt to take those facilities and institutions that have done a great job, but it is coming back and going, all care we identifying the priorities? are we investing in training? are we identifying needs? with its cyber security. there may be areas we need to develop. >> -- >> we have to invest in giving the return. that is looking at what are the needs as the next generations, and we look at our national repair in his goals. -- national prepared his goals. are we getting the funding? >> i agree with that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. [unintelligible] >> could you turn your microphone up?

>> in november, coffee must amend the national prepared a system description to the president as required by -- fee must submit the national preparedness system description to the president as required. he described how these deliver core capabilities in order to become per my -- come prose the gold. these in for make current budget and resource allocation plans and nagin understand the progress of the nation. some of these components will have to develop. what are the existing programs that will be incorporated into the national preparedness system? >> whom the most of miss -- the most significant one which cameras had to develop a

framework for catastrophic disasters ahead -- we are rolling out the national recovery from work, which with the abolition of the presidential directive to develop the framers, we were able to move it in and control it as one of the remarks of that. we also have the mass response remark which is undergoing review. then we have prepared this mitigation and prevention from works to build as part of that. we have been working very hard to develop our in our agency and our partners. on our website, we just but several of these documents for review. for our partners see how to interact and provide us comments that we can adjudicate. we are targeted to meet the goals the president has laid out for us, including the national prepared this report which is in concurrence with congress. these are moving and they are

going upon the national response remark. at the national discovery from work and then building and three additional frameworks to support the national prepared as planned. >> how do you see this system informing your budget decisions? >> it is best to give an example because we try to talk about generalities and you end up saying, we are going to do this. urban search and rescue teams would be building collapses, bomb blasts, it is, and other things that response is key. how long does it take to get someone there? just having a team responded does not get an outcome. what is the outcome we are trying to change? injured people do not have time so we start with this idea that looking at where communities are in concentrations of population, the urban areas, that is where everybody is that. we look at travel times.

should we make this a priority in funding for more teams, sustaining teams, or training of those teams. until you know how many teams and what areas you are covering and what response times are, you do not know if you had enough. how do you maintain that? what we are able to do our threat and hazard reduction, they should be the response time across the country and these are how many times the -- teams required -- we can say these things. we might say, you know what, we are good in search and rescue. maybe we should do more on the prevention side or the support side. and tell you know what that number is. -- until you know what this number is, you're not really able to see where you're at. when example -- one example of these remarks -- how much capacity is necessary?

once you get the cal fire -- outlier, are we does not going to respond? we're looking at huge revenge and saying that their recordings that need to be done in the vote for 72 hours, weeks, months to be successful. and then going back and saying, how much of the bill? how much more do we need to build? we are not necessarily looking to spend our way out of this. this is looking at the private sector, volunteers, military provisions, and the fact that congress give us the authority to call it back reserves. we will commander officers -- we have to a commander officers to help. what is our target? where should we be investing to get to that? >> that is a very comprehensive answer. thank you. also, and went to focus the all

nation approach to disaster preparedness. what specifically will have to change to ferlito vella integration between federal government and state and local -- what will have to happen to influence integration between federal government and state and local governments? >> work as a team. the public does not care who we are as long as somebody shows up. sometimes we focus on what the federal government will do, we step all over our partners in the state and local levels. and all of these disasters in the last year and a half, the of miss -- it is mostly neighbor helping neighbor. we were able to exclusively focused on recover because we have built some much capacity the we have shifted the capabilities, not in the federal government, but to the local government. they are working better and they are easier to maintain.

as we look at this, the whole of the community is not just government stopping to break ourselves into little pieces. who feeds as every day? not government, the private sector. we look at the private sector as something that you will do with later instead of saying, why can we now are together and not a book he will we are doing? >> how do you appreciate -- incorporate private sector? >> make them part of the team. we do not have to congratulate relationship. you can get a grocery store opened, you can get a drug store opened, they can meet needs. we focus where they're not. if we try to duplicate that, we do not help anybody. >> thank you your >> thank you. i would like to do an abbreviated no more than three minutes so everyone can have a chance to it is the second round before the second panel comes up. let me go back, administrator,

to the debris removal we have talked about. one of the main questions that after meeting with a lot of my constituents come after april 27 tornadoes, and after what happened with a contract with debris removal, i ask for you concerned with the cost of the taxpayers when u.s. and the tax -- the test to the court? how can you justify the disparity in cost between the costs charged by the core of the engineers and the lower costs that communities have incurred? have you provided written criteria and checklist to works that mayors know what they are receiving from the core of what they did show if they choose to do a private auction encourage

rework hough option? -- to a private option? >> we looked at the debris mission as a housing mission. we normally would not go in and take a brief wholesale off of private property. we were not willing to businesses, but homes. since this was new to us, we looked to the court to help manage that. previously, under most of the debris management roles, local jurisdictions would have not been able to go on private property and removing but the debris. that would have been almost a case by case basis. we were looking at one thing -- we knew that housing was going to be our biggest issue. the best we got debris off the lots, the quicker people could rebuild. it was a new approach, it had not be done before. we have the authority under the stafford act and we've used the court to help manage said. that cost more. have we learned from it? yes. are we looking on reducing the cost? absolutely.

we put a premium on sergey because our primary concern was that we had so many homes destroyed and that we did not think the way we have done debris would have been fast enough so we wanted to do something faster. that was new and revitalize a court to help us. >> of their numerous alabama community is waiting for reimbursement. if -- there are numerous alabama community is waiting for their reimbursement. if you could briefly answered that question and add anything else for the record. >> and one to get money in the community and get things going. if your staff could pass on specifics of where we're getting hung up so i can go back and say, where are we at and why is this? we are looking at what steps we

can take to streamline the process to maintain accountability, but increase the speed of recovery. thank you. >> we will be happy to work with you to get that information for you. >> administrator, i want to return to your national preparedness grant proposal. i want to make sure that -- make clear that i share your desire for a more efficient, more targeted our 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 across these jurisdictions. that too is a legitimate objective. you are suggesting that a fair amount of bleeding might be going on here. some special pleading might have a good warrant and others may not.

there are objectives we need to make sure are going to be addressed i want to ask you how you proceed and of course, you can elaborate for the record. just in terms of these two major pots of money, it will there be an initial determination of how much goes to each? to the formula supply, especially in the state grant case? let me add one other quick question to the mix. you're trying to deal with the backlog and with the difficulty of getting this money out the door. your way of doing that is that you are going to require grantees to predict -- complete project in a shorter time. what is meant to be the effect of that? by shortening this, will you be any effect eliminating certain have a 0 -- a certain longer-

term projects. he might want to give us more detail. -- you might want to give us more detail. my concern is to get an idea of how this is going to work. how you will proceed to take these formally desperate funding streams and to administer them as one. >> let me work backwards. i am not so much shortening the same we are not granting more extensions. the authority to grant those extensions -- as much as people he deadlines, it get stuff done. we recognize in giving them the mission to get the money struck down on project. getting it trodden down -- where we had inconsistencies, we were able to provide additional

eligibility so they can get the funds drawn down based upon expanding was eligible in the scope of work. we are doing two things there. one has been working really hard to make sure people knew where they were at. with their time and were on the grants and also -- this is based on their request for more capability. we were able to go back and the secretary authorize us to provide flexibility so they have more ability to get the grants drawn down quicker. no extensions. >> to elect, mr. chairman. -- thank you, mr. chairman. as fema is moving on with the flood map modernization, there have been complaints. i am sure you are all aware of the cost of the localities in to try to meet those standards, especially for the levees. this is a big deal with the flooding on the missouri. can you tell us what some of the

complaints are and the accreditation? the cost part of it? tell me any suggestions you have for you and discussed within the agency about ways to improve the lead accreditation process and an ally in the financial burden for these small communities. some of these are being asked to do studies that cost hundreds of the thousands of dollars. if you get a town of 200 people, they do not have the money. how do you address that? >> currently, under our rules, we would only recognize a levee that will certify -- was certified by the u.s. in the -- army corps of engineers. when we did the mapping, we would zero out anything that was there if it was not an accredited levy. in many cases, those levees may not be accredited, but still serve to defend against flooding.

we are at the direction-request of many people here on the hill in rulemaking process to adjust our roles to a corporate levies as guilt versus those that are accredited. we have received thousands of comments in that process and we are adjudicating that. it is our goal -- even if this is not optimal in mapping of the communities, we will recognize the goals. we are communities -- where committees are having to develop that they are certified, that is not a new problem. this is a huge problem that goes back to former challenges with determining the risk and where to put the improvements. part of this will address -- will get a better idea of mapping the levees as they are there. not necessarily being accredited levees and see what the problem looks like and that they give us

a better idea of where we need to invest. this may be a significant difference and that would be more targeted where they need to invest. >> they have to do the study to find out. they do not have the money to the studies. >> that is why it as weak -- if we go with it as built, we take it as it is and then you can look at what the risk is. in some cases because it may not have enough elevation or because of design, but all of those will be factored in and we'll look at the risk then versus then having to look at bringing it up to an accredited of level -- and accredited level. >> as you know, l.a. is one of the most volatile cities for an earthquake. in a 2010 red cross reports, they said that 7.2 magnitude earthquake were to strike kelly,

564,000 people would need to be sheltered the. in additional 2.5 million will require food and water. unfortunately, the l.a. metro area has only 341 shelter facilities with only 84,000 beds. you were talking earlier about working with local jurisdictions to respond. can you tell me what kind of progress has been made since the 2010 report? >> yes, ma'am. i have been working with the emergency manager for the city we work with the state of california. you mentioned that if l.a. has this earthquake, they will not have enough shelters. are they even survivable in the earthquake? we know that we will have to depend on non-impacted committees to help shelter. we work closely with the emergency management agency on their plans and our ability to support having to get people outside of the area versus what

we can bring in to provide temporary shelters. the plan is about life safety first and then looking at the temporary housing. this is a very good example of why only looking at what the city of l.a. gets for funding does not really tell the story because they could not shelter if they end up that -- a little bit that many people, they cannot shelter all those people in that area. we will have to bring a lot of resources in to support the response. this goes back to national preparedness. there are some areas that are so big to be prepared for. you have to look at the leverage of the capabilities across the state lines and in some cases, nationally. the workfare -- the work there is looking at catastrophic planning to focus on how to get the folks like safety, looking at shelter needs, and the fact we will have to use a lot of

capability outside the immediate area and then looking at what it will take to stabilize and step the stage for getting people back in and recalculating. this is very complex. this is part of why we going to the free market to really build that type of capability. this is not responding to our day to day emergencies. this is about responding to disasters. >> thank you. >> mr. carder. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a letter here i would like to be made part of the record. five states expressed great concern about the decisions of the u.s. air force to move the texas air national guard's 136 era weighing -- air wing to montana. this fleet is the only domestic

emergency airlift capability in the gulf area. according to this letter, the national guard's 130's have flown 423 store responses -- stom responses. they have delivered 939 tons of emergency supplies. under current arrangement, the governor can mobilize these airplanes in a matter of hours. it is my understanding that these emergencies can take days due to federal bureaucracy. how does -- have been does this relocation of these airplanes from fort worth, texas to montana affect the abilities to provide disaster relief to the gulf area in times of emergency. it -- ? was the one part of this decision making process to move these? should this move have been -- have been -- happen?

>> again, i think secretary panetta has an teymoor position -- has a better position on this. there were several avenues we have worked on this. this is not something specifically, we are participating with the secretary, and security on the council governors, which actually has 10 governors. 10 governors representing the national governors' association. as well as their attempt generals. this is an issue as we drive down -- water the impacts and how we look at the response is? i think part of this has been congress recognizing that the national guard is now able to have dual status command for the top 10 and the state guard. as well as bringing up their reserves under the secretary's call up and not requiring a presidential vote for the mobilization. i refer to secretary panetta for

this. also, i stay to the council governors, which i am honored to be part of that these are the issues being discussed with secretary panetta and on behalf of the generals of what the attacks are to domestic response. >> this is not a dry down. this is going to cost money to move into montana. that will have to build up the capacity to house the airplanes in montana because they are and f-15 base right now. this is not what we're doing to save money. this is a very confusing decision that has been made. is there a report as to which these governors decisions are to be as they talked to panetta? >> they report back to the national governors association. congress directed the president to appoint these and work with the secretary of defense and national guard issues, particularly. both from the standpoint of

domestic response, but also the ongoing care and needs of state s. i deferred the body. i do know that this issue -- affects the work being done to support states if we do require federal systems. >> thank you. >> before we and the first panel session, i have one quick question. the empg fy12 batons. we are to install -- we are concerned with what is eligible. my question is, do we have your commitment to address the issue? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir -- thank you. >> this is to create more uniform language and was not the intended consequences to open up

two brand new applicants for funds under the prepared as grants. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> we appreciate your attendance this morning and for answering some of the questions that i know this committee has had questions about. your agency touches everyone on this piano, on this committee. as well as every member of congress. before we turn our second panel over, i want to recognize the cfo of fema. he is leaving to go to omg and we will miss him reachingomb -- when he is leaving to go to omb and we will miss him. and we wish you the best as you move to your new job vaca -- at omb. fenty again for being here. -- thank you again for being here. here.