we will be doing another scorecard to see who moves up. host: talking thanks for watching today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> mr. speaker, just a few weeks

ago, this house voted against funding. we decided against contra funding because we decided it is against american tradition to fund a private army that is trying to overthrow a government. against american tradition to sponsor killing civilians. to abandon the strength of our ideas and replace them only with the strength of our arsenal. now, just a few weeks later, we ntra vote. a co why? because daniel ortega went to moscow. about any nation turning to the soviets for help. that does not change the contra issue. contrasident calls the freedom fighters. who are they?

their former some oh some men who never believe -- samosa men who never believed in freedom. it is a perversion of american morality. report -- i have the report here -- i will give you an example. -- she was pregnant killed at a state owned coffee farm by the contras. she was wounded first, her face shattered by a grenade. a deep knife fluid in her side with the unborn fetus for true. -- protruding. ugly, yes. we must face this. sure there was violence on the left, too. left andon the violence on the right must stop.

the way to stop it is not by supporting a private, brutal army who wants to overthrow a government of a country the size of iowa. but by doing what america does best. negotiating a peaceful settlement with the democratic nation taking the lead. the way to stop this violence is to support the following amendments. the hamilton amendment. let us not have the blood of the innocent on our hands and let us not escalate the involvement of american troops in central america. i say, vote against the michael amendment. >> find more highlights on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago. route to you today as a public service. -- brought to you today as a public service. vice president joe biden is

warning russia that the united states will respond to any aggression against nato allies. ukraine is not a nato member. there are growing costs that come with naked aggression. vladimir putin signed a treaty to annex the crimea. the united states is calling it a violation of international law. the un security council is meeting to discuss the situation. at 1:00 eastern, the heritage foundation post a discussion on the federal reserve and monetary policy. janet yellen holds her first meeting today. that is scheduled to begin at 2:30 eastern. discussion ona u.s.-russian relations. we will hear from former national security advisers.

an estimated 150,000 people have died in syria since the start of protests against bashar assad's government. the comments are about an hour and 15 minutes. freedom does not come free of charge. we are facing the most brutal regime in syria. we are facing this regime which is armed to the teeth.

allies are backing him 100% with militiasmoney, even and manpower on the ground. , we are fortunate to have our own people who are ready to sacrifice their lives and to sacrifice the lives of their families and to give all what they can to the success of the revolution. , it is verylies clear to all of you, have limitations of support to us -- so, this support has limits. suppliy limits on the political front. we cannot say that the mistake lies on the allies only, but

also part of the failure was due to us as syrian people. we have been used to this regime for 50 years. we never had democracy in syria. we never had real tries of revolutions before. people went to the street with t heir own lives to put for their freedom. the regime was not hesitant to use extreme violence. this made the journey long and painful. --, we are separating celebrating the third year of the revolution. the people of syria are continuing the struggle to win back their freedom. it is our duty to look back at

the first of the three years and see, where do we make mistakes? what went wrong? how can we improve the situation? pinpoint the problems and say, yes, we have problems, these are the problems, this is what we have to do to solve them. years of the two revolution, we had no political outlook for the revolution itself. on the military side, we had factions, we have people defending their own houses, their own towns, but we did not have any strategic plan. , they wereies dealing with factions, they never dealt with a coalition or with the syrian army as one unit. they help this guy were this guy and so on.

this resulted in weakness of the performance of the revolution itself. since six months ago, we sat down and realized, where did we make mistakes? how can we reorganize? steps to correcting things and putting them in order. started -- many of you saw things as bad things previously, but don't the road, you will see that things will improve. there were many changes on the political field. many changes in the military side, also. some of it you have seen recently. a new military leadership coming to the front to take their position and carry from the previous military leadership. you saw a decision was made for going to geneva.

.hat was not an easy decision we have to discuss and fight for it and convince our friends in the coalition to go along with it. decision of ahe few of our friends within the to resign temporarily. but then down the road, when they saw that we did the right decision, it is their duty to come back and join us to work together. we are doing our best to correct our own path. in the same way, to have a better command and control on the merl terry -- military field. we needed to improve the work and performance of the military and take out excuses from our friends who are not supplying specific arms because they say,

what guarantee do we have? what control? can you guarantee that these weapons will not go to extremist groups? they need to see us being responsible, our friends. after we are being responsible for ourselves, then we can ask and tell them, this is what we need from you. this is the system we have, this is the control which we have. whether they use it as an excuse or not, we will see in the future. these steps, we need them as.'s -- as syrians. basharond question, when will leave? no one knows. it is our duty to maximize our performance on both fields. he will not leave free of charge.

we go to geneva, we sit at the goodbye., it is not like this. we need to create enough political pressure, serious political pressure for manpower -- through manpower and through the backers of the regime, russia and iran. his number one ally is iran. second place comes russia. the second site is military. if he does not feel that there is a real threat, he will not move. you have to create political pressure or enough military pressure or a combination of the both. we can promise to perform to our oh plus capability, be united --

but most capability -- utmost capability, be united. the rest depends on future conditions. regarding a third round for session, in the last there was an agenda proposed for discussion which had four items in it. the first was putting an end to violence and counterterrorism. was about item political power transition. and making be transitional governing body. the third was about the state institution between continuity and change. fourth was about the public

dialogue and national reconciliation. .oth parties agreed there were comments about wording which we worked out. thategime was insisting they wanted to discuss each item separately. which means we started talking about putting an end to violence after weerterrorism, finished completely the subject, they moved to the second item. b.nsition and the tg our argument was that you cannot discuss the first item first by itself. even if you discuss it, you will reach a point where to resolve this, you have to establish the tgb.

for them, they consider us terrorists. we consider them to be using state terrorism. we consider the militias terrorist organizations. they consider them to be allies and fighting for their benefit. there is no way to reach a mutual understanding. clearly, in the security council 2118 and in the invitation letter for the geneva conference, it was stated that the negotiating would start with political transition and the establishment of the tgb. in geneva, if you read the terms, you will find an item talking about violence -- all parties have to cooperate with b to put an end to

violence. it has to be a condition achieved before applying any process to put an end to violence. weis not about the fact that are hungry or we want to replace the regime. it is about practicality and having a successful negotiating strategy and policy. insisted no way to discuss this. we insisted, no we have to discuss this. brahimi made a compromise. he said, we agree. i propose we discussed both of them etc. we have a session today on subject one, next day on the second subject. for us, we have been positive. we agreed on this compromise. the regime refused. brahimi found himself at a dead end.

this,d, i cannot call for for third session. to the security council and i will contact you again. yesterday, they were meeting for thepast two days with security council. mr. brahimi submitted his report. his report was very clear. he was very clear in the meetings. pinpointing that the government delegation is the one refusing to discuss these items and refusing to accept the proposal and also he noted that the opposition delegation has acted positively and productively. they are not serious about the whole issue.

he asked for the security council to issue a statement or take action in his support. the british representative prepared a press statement. it calls for support of brahimi and calls on the syrian government to accept this proposal. unfortunately, russia blocked issuing the statement. here we are talking about the press statement. no action, just words. russia blocks a press statement. so what can you expect of any type of action of this conflict? -- whereion comes now does brahimi want to go? we had a meeting with him yesterday.

he was straightforward in saying that he is for the continuity of the process. much effortdy put for the success and he cannot continue unless the government agrees on discussing the same thing. is the maint iran power player. he decided to go to iran today and that he will come back on the 19th. with the hope that he would play a positive role. there is no answer until the end of this month. to know if he will be successful or not. we have time for one more question. [indiscernible]

[indiscernible] >> yes, thank you. your question has two parts. first, we don't represent anyone. clearly, you are wrong. geneva,hen we were in they were with us, factions --

the main factions. we did not announce this from the start because we knew the regime may resolve into saying that these guys are terrorists. hidden.ed to keep them we decided to have a committee of leaders of the free syrian representatives of other political forces within our delegation, officially, the official delegation. also, the boards and committees who are preparing and managing the negotiations. becauseu are wrong there is continuous communication and continuous

combination between the higher military council and the leadership of the coalition itself. if you heard in the last months -- two weeks i think -- there were some new changes, orders issued by the higher military council. they changed their leadership. planmade a very promising for restructuring the free syrian army, restructuring the command and operations center. theyou have leaders in syrian army or leaders on the ground. living inside syria. , the head ofhe smc operations for the military is general bashir. he is fighting daily battles

against the regime, who lost his son fighting these battles. he is and ask syrian army ex-syrian army general. he knows about the operations. .e is the first to fight them.guys, we met with we saw their plans. we know they are doing things right and correct and we should support them in order for them to restructure and have organized military operations in syria and not to go back to the way that it was managed, the

chaotic way, unorganized way, on courtney did way. way.coordinated thingould like to add one about the representativeness of the coalition and delegation. it was raised only by the regime and by russia, in particular. -- we think we could say cannot talk about representatives without having elections. as a founding member of the coalition, i could say that it came after a series of attempts to create a body. to fight for the ideals. under the circumstances that we live under, to what extent are we doing that or not? we cannot claim that we represent syria or the ground or all of it. members, we tried

very hard. we included the predecessors to the syrian revolution. the new edition to the groups was creating for local councils. they are present in every town and province in syria. some of them are trying to have elections. in a suburb of damascus, they conducted elections under very difficult circumstances, as you know. the political figures who were wered to leave syria, they active since the immaculate -- damascus declaration days. the largest, widest body you can create from the politically and militarily active groups on the ground. we do not represent everybody on

the ground, but we need to improve that representative nature of the coalition. what is important is that for those of you who are active in for muchution to ask what extent is the coalition doing a good job? i think this is the point. when the delegation went to geneva, they were clear about opposing those ideals. people want a way out, they want to end the violence, they want political transition that leaves no room for assad. those are the people we need. the coalition got international recognition. we need to strengthen that. it will give us some support. there will not be a political solution in syria. like the question of the chemical weapons, it had to be enforced. we have to set the balance militarily on the ground and call for increased support from

around the world. a lot of the work you are doing in the country, you must pressure the white house to stand up to its responsibility and enforcing a humanitarian and political resolution. the coalition will continue to improve its performance, but we will never be representative without democratic and free elections. >> a round of applause. [applause] would like to thank them for coming out and joining us today. there are other members that are here. the d.c. office is here. you know their faces. personallyroach them and continue the conversation off-line. on to going to be moving our next panel. our next panel of experts, mr. oper, dr. heideman,

mr. tabor. i'm going to start the introductions from my left. -- it is an honor to have them here with us. from the policy community and the friends of the syrian people . fromhave been the friends since the beginning of the revolution. [applause] yes. thank you. i first met dr. heideman in berlin. he was involved in the day after project. he served as the vice president and is a political scientist.

onhas a particular focus syria. we also have mr. jim cooper. -- hooper. he is a former u.s. diplomat. he is a former director of the washington office of the international crisis group. engaged on extremely syria and has done work advising the coalition. of the table is mr. andrew table or -- tabler. he says it like it is. at the senior fellow washington institute, where he focuses on syria.

is the cofounder and editor-in-chief of ". today -- "syria today." he has prerevolution experience with syria. he has leveraged his contacts with the syrian opposition to offer a unique vision. thiseason i like engaging panel of experts is because sometimes i feel but assyrian americans we have conversations amongst ourselves and it is hard to see it from the outside. this is a well-informed group and they will share with us how they see it from the inside. we are going to begin with mr. hooper. thank you. could i ask everyone to stand please for a moment of silence? suffering for the that the syrian people are enduring in this terrible war.

thank you very much. on behalf of the three of us, we would all like to thank the coalition for a democratic syria for arranging this and inviting us to speak to you. you have all seen this democratic cause in this movement through some very dark days. respect for what you have gone through, what you are going through, and what you and your relatives and friends in syria will continue to go through until this war is over.

on the basis -- if i could say something -- this was not planned, but it is a result of the questions and answers, if i may. i will make this brief. unpaid announcement, as well, shall we say. i was a geneva. you that yoursure negotiators negotiated with honor, with dignity, with respect for the goals of the revolution and with a toughness and a wisdom that should make you proud. if you were there, they made me proud -- they made you proud. [applause]

no one in the world seriously doubts that russian president hisn will succeed with seizure of ukrainian territory, come what may. thate seriously believes president barack obama will act decisively against president comer al-assad of syria, what may. this is not a non sequitur. , putinukrainian crisis saw an opportunity and he seized it. , when ayrian crisis sought used chemical weapons against his own people, president obama saw his responsibility and flinched. beliefage of putin, the in power, purpose, and resolve is secure and growing. who i age of obama, a man

voted for twice, i should say, the belief in american power and resolve is fragile and ebbing. sides of assad are two the same coin, each presenting a challenge to american leadership and working in parallel to undermine american interests in europe and the middle east. once again, the global is back in play. this presents opportunities for you. very important opportunities. the beginning of policymaking wisdom is to link the crisis in ukraine to the crisis in syria. because the west lacks the means to challenge putin militarily along the russian periphery in ukraine -- it does not mean that the u.s. lacks the means to challenge putin elsewhere. thereby inflicting serious damage on russian interests and sending a firm message about the

price russia will pay for its aggression in europe and support brutalityt --assad's in syria. defeating assad would cast a large shadow over putin. the jewel in russia's middle east crown. it is their strongest ally and their most vulnerable. and syria,g assad the u.s. can and large-scale killing by regime and can drive up the cost in the russian calculus of ukraine. defeating assad will show to the matchthat they were not a for u.s. arms and political will, further undermining moscow's global standing. in a direct repulse for the

seizure of the black sea port of sevastopol in crimea, ending rushing -- russian influence would remove the russians from their sole mediterranean port. the downfall of assad would strike at the centerpiece of the russian-syrian, iranian -hezbollah alliance. allies leftll has among the syrian opposition and it could have many more. it is yet possible for the u.s. to embark on a policy of armen strike. strike.rm and ground,groups on the

while the u.s. levels the playing field by striking syrian military targets from the air, rather than sending in ground troops. no one is advocating a u.s. inlay of a rock -- iraq syria. this will not happen while the u.s. still views the syrian opposition as a distraction and nuisance in the region. the u.s. should negotiate a strategic understanding with the opposition. setting back putin by defeating assad is less difficult than skeptics might assume. syria is bordered by three close allies. turkey, jordan, israel. the mediterranean is an american lake controlled by the sixth fleet.

i knowledge that less difficult than assumed is not the same as easy. the lives of our countrymen and women in the military will be on the line. retaliation is to be expect it, in ways not entirely predictable. there will be financial and other costs. putin might not sit on hands watching his ally go down to defeat. the mantle of leadership is not easily earned by an american president. [applause] but that is also the point. if restoring the belief in american leadership, firmness, and continents he is an intended product, u.s. leaders must demonstrate the capacity to map

strategic and tactical problems that come their way. democraticliberal resident said in 1962 about a softer projection of american power, we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. that is what americans do. it is with the syrian people have already undertaken against assad. it is late, but not too late to act resolutely in syria. the rationale for doing so, which is been there since assad declared warfare against his countrymen, is even more compelling for geostrategic theons -- reasons since seizure of crimea. putin will be put on notice that if he contemplates for the regression, the west has a range of damaging options to a ploy --

employed. and the syrian people will be rid of assad. thank you. [applause] >> we will have a question and answer at the end. thank you. >> thank you. my thanks as well to all of the sponsors of this meeting for giving me the opportunity to talk with you this afternoon. i want to echo one of the observations that jim made at the start of his comments. the sacrifice and commitment of the syrian people over the past three years has been nothing short of exceptional. it truly is an honor for us to have a chance to meet with you this afternoon and give you some sense, from our distinctive hymns, about some of the elements of u.s. policy --

perspectives, about some of the elements of u.s. policy. we appreciate the opportunity. thank you. [applause] i am going to focus on the policy of the obama administration towards syria. good question. the question was, do they have one? i suspect that within this room, there are some of you who are little bit frustrated with how the white house has handled syria. [laughter] have ay that syrians hard time reaching agreement. [laughter] i suspect there are some of you who may be upset, angry about how the obama administration has handled its policy toward syria. i want to confess to you that i do not know if this offers you much consolation, but you are not alone. for those of us who follow the syria crisis closely, for those of us who watch how the obama administration is managing its

,andling of the syria crisis one of the most extraordinary puzzles and challenges that we deal with concerns the incredible risk aversion of the obama administration with respect to its engagement with syria and it's incredible reluctance to change course, even after it has pursued, for three years, a policy that has failed. that it'shouse knows syria policy has failed. the president himself has said that his syria policy has failed. in fact, more than that, the white house acknowledges that their policies have not been able to prevent every single outcome that they hoped would not occur from happening.

every single one of them has happened. radicalization. the transformation of syria into a home for extremist, islamist terrorist groups. regional instability and spillover of conflict into everyone of syria's neighboring states. syriassibility that could, if the conflict continues, produce the balkanization of syria. it has led to the most devastating humanitarian crisis that the world has seen since nda in 1994. rwa that, given this failure come of the white house might be prepared to entertain the possibility that it needs to

make a shift in its policies. this is not happening. the question is, why has it not happened? whether,r question is in fact, there are additional steps that the white house can give it amight stronger possibility of achieving some of the objectives it has set for itself in syria? how does the administration explain its unwillingness to change course? we hear about the risks associated with military intervention. jim mentioned some of those. that issue is presented in a way that is very disingenuous. ambassador,ama, the the national secretary have all used the phrase boots on the ground. we know that boots on the ground have never been under discussion. they are distorting the debate. it emphasizes the risks attached.

we hear that there are not any good options. we hear that the obama administration might not be able to do very much that would have a positive impact on the course of the syrian conflict. , several months ago, made an extraordinary statement about the limits of u.s. policy -- he said, the u.s. does not have the tools to deal with the kind of complex crises like syria. the u.s. does not have the tools. is that true? is that really the case? that the u.s. does not have the tools? why not? this is an administration that has been in power for a number of years. say have had some time to that they do not have tools is quite extraordinary. what i would like to suggest is

that even if we concede to the white house that military options are risky, even if we concede to the white house that americans do not want direct military intervention in syria, even if we concede that the military has an impulse control that even providing small amounts of aid would inevitably lead to a cascade of intervention that might spin out of control, even if we concede all of these points, i would like to suggest that there is a broader range of options available to the white house wisheduld deploy if it to do so. i would like to suggest that it is time for the white house to card, theovereignty sovereignty card. i would like to say a bit about what i mean about that and then say why i think it could make an important difference. as you know, the white house says that the regime is

illegitimate, that he is illegitimate, that he must go. the u.s.is that continues to recognize the sovereignty of the assad regime. , as a redline, the idea that it might withdraw its recognition of the sovereignty of the assad regime. but thenot be aware, activities of the u.s. state department in syria are constrained with respect to engaging with military actors. why? because legal advisers in the white house have concluded that it is against american law for the u.s. to support anyone who advocates the armed overthrow of the assad regime. this is the extent to which the u.s. continues to recognize the sovereignty of the assad regime. their concern, about playing the sovereignty card, withdrawing its recognition of sovereignty,

partly reflects some of the issues that were discussed here a moment ago. uncertainty about the credibility of the opposition. more than that, it reflects concern that if they were to withdraw their recognition of the sovereignty of the assad regime, it would set a terrible precedent. to telld we be able which insurgencies deserve that kind of support from the u.s. and which ones did not? ist i would like to suggest that this concern about a precedent is unrealistic and exaggerated. challenging the regime's sovereignty is not only feasible, but could have a significant, positive impact on the confidence of the, shaking their confidence, and shaking the confidence of its russian allies in a way that would affect the strategic calculus of the assad regime and bring us

meaningful negotiations. for the russians in particular, sovereignty is the most important justification they use for their support for the assad regime. it is seen as legalizing and legitimating almost any action that the assad regime takes and the continued recognition by the u.s. and the west is seen as thatling very clearly whatever the stated objectives of the white house might be with end of to syria, at the the day, it is simply unwilling to take steps that would fundamentally challenge the position of the assad regime. i would argue that there is a great deal to be gained by making it clear to the assad regime and its supporters that sovereignty is not a blank check. it does not automatically confer legality and legitimacy on any action undertaken by a head of

state, in particular when those crimes against humanity and in violations of international human rights laws. i would argue that playing the sovereignty card does not require immediate and complete recognition of the legitimacy or sovereignty of the opposition. it is entirely possible for the u.s. administration to extend conditional and partial recognition to the interim government, in particular. a move that would boost the credibility of the interim government and give it access to international resources and support that are essential to me basic concerns about governance and the areas outside of regime control. there is no overriding authority, at the moment. i also happen to think that is the u.s. continues in the wake of the failure of geneva to

struggle for ways to find leverage over the assad regime, to affect its confidence, it strategic calculus, two creates a meaningful incentives for the regime to negotiate, that playing the sovereignty card could have significant positive effects. a clear signal that the u.s. is prepared to withdraw the sovereign status could be a powerful tool. i would like to add one last note. the moment to be pushing this point for all of you, as you hold your meeting and policymakers in washington over the coming few days. our colleagues and friends and incredible advocates on behalf achieved they have extraordinary success. [applause] on friday, two very influential

congressman, congressman ed royce and congressman eliot engel, put forward a house , which called upon in the obama administration to withdraw the recognition of the assad regime's sovereignty. [applause] we have an opportunity now, all of us, to use this as a means for pushing back against the argument that there are no good options. for pushing back against the argument that the only options are military options. for putting pressure on the white house to take a step that could have a very significant

positive impact on the trajectory of the syrian conflict. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. last but not least. last,is great to go especially with two really well accomplished people. i have come to know them over the course of the conflict. i know steve going back and number of years. it has been about six years since i had to leave syria, 5.5, something like that. i had to leave syria -- i used to work for a charity in syria. al-assad and much more his wife. is reason i had to leave

that the magazine we helped found began to write about the opposition in syria. it was a very sensitive subject. i had been writing on it behind the scenes. to me very interesting how sensitive the regime really was about any kind of dissent. it is now all very clear to us what ends the assad regime will go to to enforce their role over syria. i think there should be no mistake about that. the absolutely brutal violence which has led to a horrific ,eath toll, millions displaced the largest humanitarian catastrophe in a generation. it is hard to stomach. it is something i dream about. it is something that bothers me very deeply. i know it bothers those up here on the panel as well. steve'such as i think

criticism of president obama's policy is merited on a number of levels and it is not the first time you will be hearing from me, many in government support your cause and you should know that. you work with many of them and there are many other parts of the bureaucracy. it is very important to note that there have been some pretty strong rejections, even of the messages that are coming out of government. veryple of weeks ago, a senior official was on "meet the press." they said what is going on in syria is not a genocide. herb and comments issued by the holocaust museum in there have been comments issued by the holocaust museum in washington dc. increasing voices have recognized the increasing destruction, the human destruction, in syria.

the accomplishments of the coalition at geneva i have described as a tactical, diplomatic victory. i think they did a very admirable job. i think the united states government worked very closely with the coalition as part of that process. sidetunately, on the other , from the assad regime side, the attended the talks but did not give way on a transitional governing body inside the country. we have already discussed that in-depth. what president assad has in mind is what i have described in some of my more recent writings as a forced solution. for president assad, a transition in syria is his third reelection as president of the country. for someone who has personally witnessed a number of elections in syria, i cannot point out to

you my level of disgust at this approach. let me assure you, it is one that he is trying to sell. it told successfully sell the international community in the coming period. i want to make no mistake about it. 96%last election he won by of the vote. almost orwellian. i had never really seen a forced poll to that degree. i remember visiting a polling station. there were some lebanese voting. they had lebanese accents. was runningman who the polling station encouraged me to vote as well. i said, i am not syrian, i am american. she said, you can vote. she said, i will show you how.

she pricked her thumb with blood and voted. i have pictures of this. i was stunned. something that really sits with me. it was also my birthday. it was not the first time i thought, i have got to get out of syria. it certainly showed me that all of the hopes we have for real change in syria are not going to happen under bashar assad. that is why the forced solution -- and you have seen the comments -- will not lead to a transition in syria. this is where i totally agree with brahimi -- it will perpetuate the conflict to another years and it will lead to a de facto partition of the country. , i runstion is for you out of recommendations for the u.s. government because i have made so many of them over the

last three years i don't know what else to say. it has been exhausting to watch. what i can only offer to you honestly at this point is to give you a little bit of advice, as syrians, because a lot of this is now up to you and all of your friends that you gained here in washington and elsewhere, not only in the west, but also in the middle east, as well. to bit of advice to you strengthen your position would be for you to consolidate. i realize this is a very general, and. -- general comment. -- it is easy to sit up here and say that you should come together. but i really mean that. i expect a large swaths of the syrian opposition to come together. to come together in the face of the horrible bloodshed. that has not happened.

there have been some attempts. certain groups have come together. it largely has not happened. we have to be honest about that. the view from the field of -- the view from the field of battle often brings people together. there is another thing that often brings people together, that is the specter of defeat. solution, these days in syria it is not clear, the forces will be running all over the country again or his forces will be departing damascus anytime soon. unfortunately, it is going to look like a long-term partition of your homeland. into different areas. and i don't really know what to say about insurances, -- assurances, i don't think that is immediately in the cards. i see a lot of people in the region, have an interest in this going on. with the last dead serious.

i don't want to see that. there is a negotiated solution and the efforts that we have started that will possibly not end there. it is important to note at this point, but other good advice, is to point out to you something that americans learned long ago. success, ofasis of the revolution although i'm not comparing this, i don't think the two are the same. nobody gives you power, you have to take it. no one will come to your rescue, you have to come and rescue yourself and your perfectly capable of doing so. that starts with consolidating a leads but it does not end there. doing thisnd that in

working with the force solution, i think you have the chance to be victorious in syria and get -- bring about that solution that we all need. in the medium term, the obvious is the truth, it is to fight .side -- assad fighting him militarily and diplomatically is the way we make choices. nobody makes these changes unless they have to. this is part of battling extremism in all its forms. there is a very active effort to do that that is underway in the region, and in the western countries. this issue is not going to go away anytime soon. i understand that assad regime worked with organizations -- but we have to realize they are part

of the opposition as well and we need to isolate and eliminate this overtime. they don't have your best interests at heart, they are not a serious organization, these extremists. [applause] and i think that you know that from the level of a pot -- a clause that we just received. so enough on that. in terms of change, with president obama -- and steve and jim set this up as well. i don't think anyone changes unless they have to. the question with the white house in particular on this is to think, very closely, what will make this happen, what will --e president assad and his and president obama -- change with the clinical considerations. they were pretty heavy international considerations, but domestically as well, you're

going to have to look at what causes change. hard,k real change is real change is the culmination of a very strong -- small thing. abouton't get concerned the mystic affairs. let's be fair. he is a domestically oriented president. we have to accept him for who he is. he has major problems on health care, and he also has growing problems with the international whelm -- a realm as well. everyone may be -- may not be voting based on the syrian crisis, this is the culmination of many things including the syrian crisis and what is going on in the ukraine i can tip the balance. in the midterm we have the elections in congress and the democratic party is very worried about losing the senate. i would urge you to look at the political landscape and think about how you could become more active in terms of your own representative, in terms of lobbying, and to watch as more and more groups, like the holocaust museum and others say,

what is going on in syria is a genocide and it is shameful that children have to eat grass and bark and so many people are slaughtered. and in that you can assess real change. even those who think that things on the ground are not going the way that you would like them to. share your concerns with other groups, domestically. even people you perceive to be your adversary's. and you can find allies in the strangest of -- strangest of places, particularly in the middle east. as someone who spent 15 years there, they are there and they are watching. they are very closely watching what is going on next door. you might find people who help you and your community not because they love you or because they are syrian but because they benefit from working with you in the long and short term. very lofty recommendations i am going to close out my comments. i would like to thank all the organizers for this political event.

i would like to salute all of you and all of those in the syrian opposition. my heart and my prayers are with you and if you ever would like this in more depth, reach out to me at any time. thank you very much. [applause] >> we will now open the floor for questions. two or three questions and then, the expert panel can address them. [inaudible] thank you. question, i am willing to believe that the has limitedstration time to take an active action ad and the embargo that they are placing -- this puts immigration on the same

side, blocking the syrian people from their freedom. [inaudible] >> thank you. go ahead and -- >> thank you very much. syria,a question about is this crisis making the off,nment better or worse is this a small complication or a complication -- competition between united states and russia, or it may be part of the package for syria. and the other parts of this embargo, it made a bad wrong. that is the embargo, a betray of support for obama, i would advise him to blcock this. and my comment, the final one, is about the opposition -- they

don't work together, saudi arabia -- it is not the opposition. they drove assad from doha. it looks like the opposition is in a worse position. d this initnesseed thi geneva and have seen the military council and the government and -- there is none of this leadership in the middle east. --we arabia and turkey are paying a heavy price for that. >> thank you. >> just as quickly? i would have been disappointed if you had not turned three questions into one. i would the dress only the issue

-- what is the concern about weapons? know enough about the roles of individuals and decision-making and the white house to comment on that. i believe that our panel will be followed by some government officials, who will be completely candid and transparent about the internal workings of policy within the u.s. government. [applause] know, there has been a justifications, for why it would be inappropriate for the u.s. to provide to the opposition. in it seems to me that expressing these objections, with initially -- initially focused on late 2011 and 2012

with the interest in preserving the nature of the opposition, the u.s. opposed militarization after it had become the dominant trend within the revolution. it would put the opposition squarely onto the territory of assad regime. i am not sure that this is wrong and iny are underway -- order to express their resistance to that trend, the u.s. preferred to avoid a decision to arm what were at the time quite moderate rebel groups. as it was consolidated -- there began to be growing concerns about what could happen to the weapons. there was growing concern about whether introducing new weapons would escalate conflict. there were concerns about whether or not the u.s. could provide weapons on a scale that would provide a positive difference.

my own feeling, is that we have has that the failure to act resulted in the outcomes the administration was hoping to avoid. the warnings we heard in 2012 about the army moderate opposition groups, the radicalization of the opposition -- those productions have come true and it seems to me that this is policy, this policy has turned out to have a wide range consequences, both with respect to u.s. influence and credibility but also with respect to the trajectory of a vince on the ground. me, the question is, is this too late, is it too late to make a difference if the u.s. were to inome more actively engaged the opposition. i want to stress that this is my own personal view.

i don't think it is too late. i continue to believe that there are possibilities to have a positive impact, by increasing the support that we provide to the opposition. not the least -- it is the only oppositionthe armed today involved in counterterrorism efforts in northern syria. nobody else is doing this. there is a report that the extremist groups have increased over the last couple of years. of --ave the last couple with the opposition to give them what they need to fight. the loyalty of many of the participants is not to be a logical. it is instrumental. and if support was provided to the more moderate groups, it would be possible to shift the tide on the ground, among the levels of support, between these

different groups and to do so in directions that we would find more appropriate for the u.s. policy perspective. 2012, i do this not to call attention to something i did but i published a piece in , i posted thisom in 2012, 2 years ago, that talked about developing a strategy to provide weapons for the armed opposition that would bolster the credibility of the opposition -- that would prevent weapons from falling into the the opposition and bolster moderates and here we are, two years later, and we are still having the same arguments, and the absence of an effective policy. i don't think it is too late. i would like to think that we could continue to push for a shift in policy. thank you. there is a precedent for what

is happening, unfortunately, for those of you who look at the history of bosnia, when bosnia went for the independence in the serbia attacked and followed -- surrounded them and the united states imposed an arms embargo. of providing no shortage of weapons is and services, but i'm not here to refight that war. what you are seeing now, many of the arguments you're hearing now our arguments that i heard what i was in the department working on these issues and i worked with two secretaries of state and every senior official in the department of state to try to change the policy. and my efforts completely failed, by the way. i learned that almost all of them privately hated the policy. but again, this was -- and there

were three or four foreign service officers, in the bosnia situation, this was seen as such a serious breach of the moral core of american policy. that 4 foreign service officers resigned as a result of this. and there was real turbulence in the foreign service department. and as they after week after wash after year, sarajevo shelled and leveled by the surrounding troops. and i see the arms embargo imposed, with constant leaks and promises, with what is to come and so forth, and it has not happened. , aleppo,, they have been destroyed in the

fight continues. i have seen this before. many arguments the united states government uses now, to prove -- to avoid providing opposition -- support of the opposition government was given by first president george bush and that crisis with bill clinton, that they use to avoid providing arms to armed muslims. this only changed with both the ministrations -- their policy was to keep this issue off the front pages and off of the evening news. that was their sole focus. they went on to bury the issue. the media was very good. and i must say that the killing went on but people got more angry and angry in the united states. ultimately, what turned the tide is that there was -- there were finally enough votes in the senate to override the administration costs the toe. but it was not -- veto administration's --

administration's veto. the clinton administration knew that if they did not act, they would have to provide arms. and they had this agreement, and so forth. in the ukraine, what i was trying to say about the ukraine, think about this geostrategically. it is possible in this crisis, for a moment will come when all that you have done, no matter what you do, it will be something out of your control. it will change the course of history. and it will change the course of what happens in syria. my guess is that this is coming and it will be driven by the ukraine. moment, what the ukraine has done is allow the it to allow theto -- administration to bury an issue.

not from the front page to the back pages, and out of the televised news. they push the newspapers and i give credit to nbc nightly news and the today show, what they have shown in syria. this has been a very moving experience and i think that this has helped to move the needle a bit. other media has not done that. but you may find that this may be, you just have to be ready. tohink that this is going happen on the ukraine. they have only begun to help out and there is much more to come. i think that what will happen is the administration will be forced by the events in europe to take a fresh look at syria, and act in a way that they would not do for syrian reasons and middle east reasons alone. geostrategic for reasons. >> i think that the ukraine

-- i would completely agree with what james said. it has pushed syria out of the headlines, in terms of media bandwidth, so to speak, but this is part of a larger problem. and the white house's overall approach to foreign policy is the lack of service. the reason that you can explain this in such a loose terms is now it will become a political issue. i think that jim was totally right. the white house would totally change and we would know that, in the face of action by the hill. said that thed sanctions that were placed there, why should they go to place in -- why should they go into play in july of 2011? because the senate already had a bill that was ready to go and they knew that it would pass and they wanted to get out ahead of it. of as a little bit different political landscape

than the 1990's, it concerns the role of isolationism in the united states. i don't think that ambassador ford is the reason the syrian army was not armed. but i will let him speak for himself. he will be speaking shortly. that in terms of qatar and saudi arabia, they talk about the positions inside of your group. nobody messes with you unless you let them. right? so this is much -- this is very easy for me to say. [applause] be fair, it is very easy for me to say that when all the syrians in the country are facing this and the emissaries from the gulf show up and say, you have to do the following will he will give you any arms or food.

i recognize that but talk with your allies in the gulf and the been present in the region and it will always be there, you have to deal with it. last but not least, very regime is welld over 2.5 months behind schedule on the timetable. and until recently, they have not agreed to destroy the 12 sites and now it is unclear if they have decided to or not. convention, and a negotiated process, and the chemical weapons destruction are inside of the same resolution. 21-18. they are coupled together for a reason. if one of them goes bad the other one will go bad and there will be a lot of pressure on the obama administration to do more, on the event that president assad brings out the chemical weapons and uses that to hold onto power. i would urge for you to press on that.

have time for questions, i would like to thank the panel so much. it was an honor to have you and i respect your presence and your time. >> attorney general eric holder reported a $1.2 billion supplement with toyota. he said the japanese automaker will admit that they misled u.s. consumers by making deceptive statements about 2 safety issues affecting its vehicles. this settlement follows a four-year investigation focused on whether toyota was forthright in reporting problems related to unintended acceleration that led to massive recalls. taking a look at the live coverage today on c-span. 1:00, a heritage foundation discussion on the federal reserve and monetary policy. new federal reserve chairman janet yellen will hold her hearing today, after that meeting she will talk to

reporters, beginning at 2:30 eastern. and a discussion on u.s. and russian relations. we will hear from 2 national security advisers. one who served under president carter, and one who served under president ford and the first president bush. about 9 million people have been displaced since the start of the syrian conflict three years ago. the state department's eight inrt later spoke at an event washington dc for a democratic syria. also speaking is representative eliot engel. this portion is about 35 minutes. >> so i just wanted to say, i go back and forth -- to the border in turkey, the southern border with syria and come back and i have often seen this gentleman both here in washington, and on the ground doing tireless work,

in terms of trying to push for as much assistance as possible for the syrian people directly on the inside. there are different sorts of frustrations in the things that you do, there are many people in the united states government and state department who are pushing the envelope in the right direction. mr. mark ward, the senior adviser to syria one of these guys. he spent most of his time the last 16 months -- working in southern turkey, with a team of 25 people who work day and night, to facilitate all types of aid and essential aid at that, to reach across the border to our brothers and sisters in syria. without further ado, i would like to introduce mr. mark ward, who will come and give us some opening remarks. [applause] >> thank you very much.

it is nice to be in washington for a few days. inwas right, i spend my time southeastern turkey for the most part. and other countries. other countries around syria. very soon the third anniversary of the syrian revolution, and nobody knows better than you, bashar al-assad has refused to heed the call of the syrian people to step aside. he makes war against his own people. that is something i work on a lot -- creating the worst humanitarian catastrophe of the century for his own ends. and then exacerbating sectarian conflict in -- and rob brutality against his own people. he has invited and -- an influx of foreign fighters, many of them violent extremists who now threaten syrian communities we are trying to help, by imposing

divisive ideology. we, the united states government and the state department that i work for, and my team, working around the borders of syria, honor the courage of the people inside. who stood up three years ago, against the regime hospitality, and continue to stand up. as best they can. and we are reminded this week how much more there is to do, to end this devastating conflict. now look at me. i have been in the foreign service, working on disasters and conflicts for about 120 years. and it shows. i can tell you with great sincerity, it is truly been an honor -- it has truly been an honor to work with the syrian people. day in and day out on your

borders. [applause] i was happy to extend my stay today, to talk to all of you, i am itching to return tomorrow. you are notsome of 100% in agreement, with our policies on syria. we picked up some of that in the last presentation. what weo tell you about are doing to provide assistance, syria, andle inside the refugees outside of syria. i think you might actually be kind of proud of what we are doing. you can hear the numbers, because we talk about them a lot. $2 billion in assistance for syria. thei will describe for you three lines of effort that make

up that $2 billion. one of the three lines of effort is supporting the free syrian army. i will talk about that. the reason i want to go into this and a little bit of detail is because we don't talk about it very much. there is a reason we don't talk about it very much. it goes back to that brutal regime. there are very brave international and syrian workers, right now, delivering aid inside syria. who really don't want us to talk about what they are doing. because they are afraid of being targeted by a regime that has certainly targeted medical personnel, and medical facilities. but it is important for you, the community, in north america that is supporting us back there to have a better idea of what we are doing. and i'm going to give you that overview right now.

the largestwith line of efforts by far, that is the humanitarian effort. be theted states might largest contributor of humanitarian assistance, because turkey is doing a tremendous amount of -- on their side of the border with what they call their guests in the camp, and outside. [applause] i made the comment to a journalist a couple of weeks ago, and again, i referred to my 120 years in the foreign service, working on complex. i will say that enough times that by the end of my remarks you will believe me. and i said that in my career, i wish that more international disasters had occurred next to turkey. fromupport that we get that government, and from those people, is truly remarkable and

we could not see as much as we have without them. let me give you a couple of examples. of the successes that we have had in the humanitarian aid. things you may not have heard about. olio. polio, the polio campaign to any news children under five, in provinces in syria. in the middle of this conflict. it sounds impossible. how can you handle the logistics, how can you deal with the conflicts, how will you deal with the violence and the access -- there is so much for the polio immunization. --h a lot of help from the from their assistance coordination units, the leading attack force is working with you in agencies, international ngo's ,nd working on the under fives

we finished around two and though you cannot be 100% sure what position -- what the number of the target children we have reached, we're pretty sure that this is around 90%. in the middle of the conflict this is something to be very proud of. [applause] took of theime flower and the power to the bakeries around aleppo, we stepped in. who areional ngos concerned about their safety and security working inside, they are providing enough power -- flour on a weekly, daily, around aleppo to

feed 300,000 people regularly now. from the south, are you in agencies are also providing tremendous amounts of food, probably feeding more than 2 million people. winter may be ending. but we were very active in winter. and we think that we reach with simple things, but very important things like blankets and space heaters and mattresses. over -- we reached hobley something like 3.5 million people inside syria this past winter. area that wethe can feel particularly proud of, that i had the opportunity to witness firsthand, a couple of times around the world, is the work that we are doing to provide acute medical care. now you know how the regime targeted medical personnel.

and medical facilities. it is hard to fathom, but this is a fact, yes, very brave. maybe even daring. the unitedd by states and others are providing surgeries to rebel soldiers, to families that are caught in the crossfire, families injured by basementsin picture in damaged buildings, where we have established hospitals. mobile hospitals, because they have to move around when the regime finds out where they are. and in these facilities, in these very dangerous buildings that have been bombed, they have performed so far, i had the number here. 253,000 surgeries.

so far. in the middle of a war zone. are the brave humanitarian ngos that are in there with our funding and funding from others, and finally, the help that we are giving to what we call the refugees. the church calls them their guests. but not just in turkey in the countries surrounding -- syria. you know, as many of you know and as many of you have seen, turkey has established 22 camps on its border, and they are terrific camps. influx, because of things like the bombing and aleppo, is driving more and more people north to the turkish border. and we now probably have two or three times as many syrians living in urban communities, and

not in the camps. imagine what that would be like in your community. if hundreds of thousands of people were to arrive. strain on the municipal services that the government of turkey and its cities can offer. so we, the united states and other donor countries are trying to step in, to help the turkish city cope, particularly with health care, and with schools. and school, i see a lot of parents in the room. school is incredibly important. when children have been out of school as long as they have, obviously you care about their education, but it is more than that in the middle of a crisis. they have been uprooted from their homes, they have had to live with violence at home, and they have made that trip to the border, and they have set up a home in a strange environment where they speak another language. routinehildren some

back in their lives, with school, is very important. there are a lot of syrian teachers that have also come, and we are trying and other donor countries and the turkish government are trying to set up as many schools as we can in turkish cities, with syrian teachers and syrian textbooks so that the children can get back to school, and can have some routine in their lives. from lpg andd the importance of the political transition that is underway. and of course, the united states thatry much supportive of -- of the political solution to the crisis. we also support a second line of effort, leaving the humanitarian and talking a little bit about

what the united states is doing to support not just the delegation from geneva, but they mightthe -- agree with me, maybe more important, supporting the local councils inside syria, who are trying to keep the lights on, trying to keep the garbage picked up and trying to keep the clinics open, and trying to keep the schools open. [applause] councils are brave, for standing up to the regime and standing up to the extremist's and we are going to help them. let me give you a couple of quick examples of how we are. aleppo, we all know about the terrible destruction. we are working very hard to provide aleppo with the best a civil defense equipment and training that we possibly can. training, andh civil defense equipment, and now, ladies and gentlemen, we

are providing fire trucks, big trucks that can carry away rubble, and soon we will be sending in trucks with big brains on them. this is a priority for us. and the fire trucks have just arrived within the last 10 days. [applause] >> let me give you a few examples, there are too many, but how we are helping the particular councils. it is very difficult to get bordernt across the because of the violence inside, will because the turkish authorities have closed the border already. the united states government does not like to give cash, because it is hard to account for it, and it could be spent on the wrong things. but we realize, very often that

that is the best solution in a conflict. and we are trusting local councils inside syria to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each for these kinds of projects. the city council -- and they went out and bought basic food items in the midst of the siege, with the cash we provided. the revolutionary council in homs used the cash that we gave them to provide bread to their community. counsel, the city local restored telephone service by hiring some experts to reconnect connections with the cash that we provided, and electrical lines. schoolsst a couple more -- they are very important. we are providing -- the cash that we provided to these local councils have enabled them to reopen.

the latest count, over 90 schools getting 30,000 children back to school. we are doing that to support the local counsel, and this is just getting started but it has a lot of promise. that is supporting the local police. security in these communities is terribly important. for the police, equipment for the police, even police cars and salaries for the police, is also something that the united states is supporting today, starting in aleppo, and soon -- [applause] and then -- and i have to mention the brave, brave work of syrian journalists, particularly in tv and radio were broadcasting inside, with help from us. [applause] and not just broadcasting the bad news of the regime possibly

this brutality. -- the regime's latest brutality. around theruns bottom of the screen to tell mothers and fathers in aleppo where the snipers are at today. what clinic is open today. what roads to avoid. where is the food today. priceless information for a family that is trying to survive in aleppo, thanks to these journalists. who we are very proud to have. finally, let me tell you about the work my team has done to support the free syrian army. a lot, and more to come. so far we have provided the over half of the smc a million meals, that we provide to our own soldiers.

we call them him re:'s -- we call them mre's. tenths, dozens of trucks, buses, communication equipment equipment, routers and laptops and there is more to come. we are looking at the native countries around syria to put together food baskets. the soldiers inside have the staples they need to sustain themselves on the battlefield. smc ispute within the causing us to slow down a little bit, but we will keep going because we know which commanders we have worked with in the past, and we can continue to trust. we will deliver to them -- and in fact, we have deliveries planned for this coming week. conclude, by asking you for three things.

i am not in a position to ask you for anything, but you have been nice enough to give me the floor so i will go-ahead. number one, please, ladies and gentlemen, keep an your taxes. taxes. paying your two, i said at the outset that we don't tell the story as well because we are concerned about the safety of the brave ngo's, we have syria and the people who are working for them, we don't want them to be targeted by the regime. if you have learned anything today, and given you -- and if i have given you the sense that we are doing things inside, go back to your community and say -- use the political process to change the policy you don't like but

also tell your communities what we are doing. because we really need your continued support because there is a lot more to be done. three, and this is what i always say when i look out at the audience and see the demographics of the audience. our policies,ike young people in the room, raise your hand if you are under 30 and are not loving your current job. you are a little bit discontent. come on. -- those of you, some of the older ones, maybe, two. those of us in the foreign , some of us need to retire. the foreign service is a great opportunity for young americans like many of you. change the and

policies you don't like, or help moree like me get assistance across the border in the face of terrible odds. really, i encourage young people to think about public service to think about the foreign service, coming into the state department, coming into usaid and helping us. thank you very much. [applause] >> we are running very short on time. as a matter of fact, he was very keen about wanting to answer many questions, but because we are we will allow one question. that is it. you can pick. i love you all, but he came all the way from syria. so you will get the question. >> it had better be good. [inaudible]

[indiscernible] [indiscernible] [indiscernible] [indiscernible] [indiscernible] >> who is paying the bill? we are. [indiscernible]

[indiscernible] >> the whole thing should are to be covered -- covered -- ready be [indiscernible] [indiscernible] [applause] >> let me just respond to the last point. there is aimportant, lot of confusion about where the

u.n. is and isn't. maybe they are on your program and they can speak to this. but the agencies are bound by their rules, to deal with the regime. are working with damascus -- wmt is working with damascus. it is a fact and the united states, there are people in the regime-controlled areas that need help. people in the regime area that needs help. not as many as in the liberated areas. so what are we doing? knowing that we are not working in the liberated areas, we are finding ngo's to do what we would do so when i talk about the bakeries in and around aleppo, those who provide flour and fuel by our ngo's. you may hear from your friends in aleppo. .e don't see any american flour

you don't from all of the reasons i talked about, not everyone knows -- nobody knows that this is us. but we are providing to 11 bakeries around aleppo. this is not wmt. the u.n. security resolution will be the key that we have been looking for so u.n. agencies can work across border. i think i have to go. anyway, thank you, everybody. [applause] [chanting] we have to go on with the program -- we are going to be extending the session for a little bit. we have some activists that are going to share their stories, but first, before we do that, if

we could sort of get everyone's attention. i introduced to you one half of mnm, while the political leaders here in bc, they are going to be introducing and giving the award to congressman eliot engel. >> please join us in recognizing congressman eliot engel. [applause] [applause] >> congressman eliot engel needs no introduction. he has a long and storied record of commitment to human rights, and democracy. the congressman was the leader in developing -- and asking the west to end the ethnic cleansing

in kosovo. he worked to end child labor throughout west asia. and he has supported democratic aspirations of the people of the middle east. congressman engel has also been committed to standing up to assad regime. 2003, when not many here in washington were talking about the assad regime or syria, the congressman, congressman engel offered accountability and the lebanese restoration act which impose penalties and restrictions on the assad at forcingaimed their withdrawal from lebanon. over the last three years of conflict, he has never shied away from taking the responsibility of the united states to protect the people of syria. called upon the president to do more every time.

he introduced the free syria act at the house of representatives. this would substantially increase the united states and the work of the humanitarian and military of the syrian people. that this thrilled week, eliot engel, the ranking number of the house foreign affairs committee, made clear that -- they will be introducing new legislation to address the humanitarian needs of the syrian people and hold assad regime accountable. -- hold assad regime accountable. the assad regime accountable. for syrian people and people around the world -- the coalition for a democratic syria would like to present him with a token of gratitude. we are very honored that congressman engel is with us tonight, with constituents from

the syrian-american community in california. onase join me in welcoming behalf of the syrian people, congressman eliot engel. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, thank you. well, thank you, thank you very much for that. that is a really nice welcome, and a good afternoon to all of you. and one day, we are going to meet together in a free and independent syria. [applause] just yesterday, congressman royce, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, and i, the ranking member of the foreign affairs committee, he is a republican and i'm a democrat but we are together for a free and independent syria. we introduced this bill. [applause]

i want to review the title of the bill. the bill says, a resolution calling for the end to attacks on syrian civilians and expanded humanitarian access. and we hope to get strong bipartisan support for it. 2003, we were looking at the assad regime, when the father ruled syria -- and finally he was gone, then his son came in. many of us thought that maybe things would change a little bit for the better. all, he was western-educated and people thought he was not as autocratic or would not be as autocratic as his father. unfortunately, it has turned out he is worse than his father, he cannot stand on his own two feet. he has those all around him backing him up, he can't seem to

make the decision and he certainly never makes the right decision. the truth of the matter is he thed not be the ruler of area today if it was not for the russians and the iranians, who back him, and all of these outside forces who are coming into syria, to thwart the will of the syrian people. i am here to tell you that that will not stand. [applause] now, in 2003-2004, when i wrote this act, i said right then and there, that the united states congress and the united states government would have to take a strong stand, and people said to me, you could never pass the bill. you are democrat and we have a republican president, george bush at the time, and a republican majority in congress and the senate. you will never be able to get that bill passed. it took me two years and i went

from person to person and by the time we were ready to vote on the bill we had more than half of the senate, half of the house of representatives on the bill. we passed the bill and it was signed into effect. that was the basis for the sanctions that the united states has slapped on assad regime -- on the assad regime. freei thought that the syrian army was floundering and could not get the help that they deserved, i offered a bill to call on the united states to arm the free syrian army. [applause] i really believed that if we had passed that bill, which we did not, things would be different in syria now. we would have the free syrian army much stronger, and we would establish what they need. after all, they were acting in

continued to act as patriots for their country. continued, they want a change of government in syria. not to be in place by government that is just as bad or even worse, but be replaced by democracy so that the syrian people can decide for themselves what kind of leaders that they should have. this should be something for the syrian leaders to decide, not ssad, or anyoneside who wants to cross the syrian people. this must be done by the syrian people, freely and fairly. [applause] so i want to just make a pledge to you, that i'm going to continue to be a very strong voice, on the foreign affairs committee, in congress, to talk about the syrian people. i had the honor about three weeks ago, i was sitting down with the king of jordan who talk to me about the terrible

humanity -- you military and crisis right now in jordan. and it only gets worse and worse, and mr. ward, he is a hero. heroes -- ourour arees -- are heroes and we feeding a lot of people, more than anyone realizes, but it is more important than just giving you military and aid, but that is important because we have to keep people alive. what is as important as taking the next step, the next step so that syria can truly be independent and free. it will absolutely come because oppression will not and should not be allowed to stand. [applause] so i just want to make a pledge to you this afternoon, to tell you that there are many people like myself, who will not abandon the syrian people, who

will continue to speak out, and act out, and talk about it. you know, when you change a regime that uses starvation as a tool of war, that uses barrel kinds of people get nails and all kinds of things in them, as a tool of war, that starts children, as a tool of war, that is all kinds of things to people who are just innocent, caught in the middle, they are not political people. just people going to live their everyday lives as decent human beings, the way we all want to live our lives, raising our children in safety. abandonot going to those people. [applause] thank you.

>> [indiscernible] [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> let me just finish because these people yelling "no-fly for" -- i am