• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

November 17, 2015Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
November 17, 2015

Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT/SECRETARY TRAVEL
RWANDA
SYRIA/REGION
SYRIA/REFUGEES
SYRIA/TURKEY
SYRIA/RUSSIA
SYRIA/REFUGEES
RUSSIA/EGYPT
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
RWANDA
UNITED KINGDOM
SYRIA/REFUGEES
UNITED KINGDOM

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:07 p.m. EST

MR TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome. Collect myself for a moment here. Happy Tuesday.

Obviously, the – as you all know, the Secretary is en route back to the United States from a day of meetings and other events and interviews in Paris. So it will be good to have him back in the building tomorrow.

Just one thing at the top. The United States notes with great concern the Rwandan senate's vote today to proceed with a constitutional referendum that would allow more terms for President Paul Kagame. Around the world, and not just in Africa, the United States has been consistent in its message that leaders should respect term limits and focus on building strong institutions capable of addressing the needs of their people. We expect President Kagame to follow through on the commitments he has made previously to foster a new generation of leaders in Rwanda and to step down at the end of his current term in 2017.

Brad.

QUESTION: Thanks. I wanted to follow up on something that was left hanging yesterday, and that was the timeline for elections in Syria. There was a bit of confusion over when the 18-month timeline would begin. Do you have any clarity on that now?

MR TONER: I do. Well, I don't know if you'll call it clarity or not, but I'll go – here it goes. (Laughter.)

So the 18-month timeframe for free and fair elections would begin once Syrians have established a process pursuant to the new constitution. So as the communique put out on last Saturday, January 1st is the target to begin discussions between Syrian opposition and the government representatives about a political process. Now, that's about the – to begin conversations about a political process. Once that political process is established, then from that day forward it's 18 months. So we don't have a date certain, to be honest.

QUESTION: You said once Syrians establish a process pursuant to the new constitution. Just – "pursuant," is that – so that means they've established a process to create the new constitution? Or --

MR TONER: We've said that before, right, that this would – that part of the political process would obviously be part of a political transition, but also looking at creating a new constitution.

QUESTION: Right. But sorry, so that 18 months starts --

MR TONER: Once that process is set in motion, yeah.

QUESTION: -- once the process to get a constitution is started?

MR TONER: That's right.

QUESTION: So it's --

QUESTION: So it's possible you could have it without a constitution?

MR TONER: I wouldn't necessarily say that, but I think that there – everything – so if I could put it this way is – including the ceasefire, everything is running concurrently. Obviously, we want to end the violence and get a ceasefire in place, but that's going to have – that's going to rely on the fact that we – you have to have the Syrian opposition and the regime on the same page with the political process laying out how a transition is going to take place. So I mean, all of these things have to run concurrently. We put out target dates, but those dates are by no means fixed amounts of time.

QUESTION: And then --

MR TONER: Or fixed dates, I would say.

QUESTION: -- the elections --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- what are those for elections? Are those presidential, parliamentary? Are those local freeholder elections? I mean, what is that?

MR TONER: My understanding is parliamentary and possibly president, but I'm not sure about that.

QUESTION: Parliamentary and possibly president.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: But I still don't understand --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- how you could set a deadline or a target or an objective of 18 months from the start of negotiations on a political process, because in the last four and a half years it's not as if there had been a whole lot of successful negotiations, even among the Syrian opposition representatives, let alone with the government. So I mean, negotiations on a constitution could take months and months and months.

MR TONER: But again, we've talked about everything running concurrently. And to your question, I don't have a – to be honest with you, an answer about whether we would hold elections in the absence of a constitution. But I think the idea is that we want to put out – and we've talked about this before on other issues – but deadlines do – are – do enhance action and drive people towards a common deadline or a common goal. And so we realize these are, in essence, targets. But that said, we want to pursue them, obviously, with a sense of urgency.

QUESTION: One other one on Syria.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yesterday, there was uncertainty about – or you weren't able to publicly say whether or not governors had the legal right to bar refugees from coming to their states. Do you now have an answer on that?

MR TONER: I do. And some of you may have heard very similar language in the backgrounder we did earlier, but we do have a definitive answer.

So once a refugee arrives in the United States, he or she is protected by the Constitution and federal law and is required to apply to adjust status to become a legal permanent resident within one year of arriving in the United States. And he or she is also free to move anywhere in the country, although certain state benefits may be available to the refugees only in the state of resettlement. So pick your state wherever he or she may be resettled in; if they decide to leave that state, it may affect the – some of the funding that they get from that state in terms of job assistance and other types of assistance that is applied through federal aid.

So recognizing state and local governments do have an important consultative role to play in the resettlement of refugees, just to be clear, the resettlement program is administered by the federal government. And the State Department, obviously in consultation with Department of Homeland Security – or Department of Health and Human Services and other entities, coordinates the placement of refugees in the United States. So decisions regarding the admissibility of refugees to the United States are made by the Department of Homeland Security after stringent security checks.

QUESTION: But the refugee --

QUESTION: Just --

QUESTION: Can I keep going on this, because there's like all kinds of things I don't understand here.

MR TONER: Go ahead. Okay, sure. Yeah.

QUESTION: So decisions about where the refugees go, their placement, are made by the Department of State?

MR TONER: And I also said the Health – Department of Health and Human Services, so in consultation with that.

QUESTION: Okay. So if you decide they go to state X, they go to state X, correct?

MR TONER: No. So let me – and again, we got into the details of this and there'll be a transcript out shortly. But we talked a little bit about the nuts and bolts of how that resettlement works. So there's nine networks around the nation, nationwide networks, and they meet once a week, and they work with the Office of Population, Refugees, and Migration to talk about where to send a particular group of refugees. And as we outlined, there's a lot of different considerations that go into that based on family unification, special needs for these individuals, job placement, et cetera, et cetera. There's an array of issues that come into play. But working with those nine networks that are placed throughout the – that are positioned throughout the nation and are plugged into local communities, that's how we go about the actual physical resettlement of these refugees.

QUESTION: So the --

QUESTION: These networks are NGOs?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: The government – so the governors can't say no, but they could deny benefits?

MR TONER: In essence, yeah.

QUESTION: Wait. But don't the individuals themselves ultimately decide where they will live?

MR TONER: Well, they could – sorry, Arshad. Again, just to clarify that, not deny benefits but not accept benefits for refugees. What's unclear to me is whether they could – because these are federally provided funds is my point.

QUESTION: So they could refuse to accept the federal funds to provide the federally funded benefits to the refugees?

MR TONER: Exactly. That's my understanding.

QUESTION: So it would be a rather inhospitable place for the refugee to go?

MR TONER: They – well, they wouldn't have access to that funding. Correct.

QUESTION: I'm a little confused because --

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- my understanding was – and you said at the beginning – they're protected by the Constitution. Don't they have the choice to resettle wherever they want? I know you talk to them, but you don't send them places. You negotiate – you talk to them about where would be good for them to go, and don't they decide in the end where they go?

MR TONER: Well, fair question.

QUESTION: Or no?

MR TONER: So we do work with these networks. We do work at resettlement. They can ultimately choose wherever they want to go, is, I think, the answer to that.[1]

QUESTION: So they can choose whichever state they want as state of resettlement, correct?

MR TONER: Right. But – right. But working with these local groups or local NGOs throughout the country, we try to, frankly, balance a multitude of factors and how to – where are the best places. And one of those is obviously family unification, clearly.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: But they're not tied to a particular state or location, certainly not.

QUESTION: Right. But if --

MR TONER: They're free to move around, as anyone is in the United States.

QUESTION: But if a family – well, hold up, hold up.

MR TONER: Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: If a family comes – just to make this clear – and says, "I want to move to Massachusetts," and then whatever, you talk to them and then they say, "Well, I'm going to move with my uncle there," Massachusetts cannot prevent them from receiving their benefits under state of resettlement because they are resettling in Massachusetts, correct? They cannot be blocked from, one, visiting, or two, benefitting from being in Massachusetts; is that not correct?

MR TONER: If that is where they are – yes, if that is where they are resettled, they would be allowed to receive that funding. Yes.

QUESTION: So the state bans are essentially meaningless?

MR TONER: Well, but --

QUESTION: No, no, I thought you said that Massachusetts, or state X, could refuse to accept the federal funding, therefore there would not be any --

MR TONER: I mean, that's a hypothetical, but that that would be one way. Because there's federal funding – sorry, just to be very clear, there's kind of two concurrent – so what you're asking is could these individuals be denied that federal funding. I mean, sure, there is a framework or there is a hypothetical where that situation could arise. We hope it never comes to that, but theoretically they could say, "No, we don't accept refugee resettlement funds."

To answer your question, if they go to Massachusetts, yes, they are. And what I was trying to clarify is that they're allowed to move. If they get to Massachusetts and move to Texas – just again, picking a hypothetical --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: Exactly. They might not receive the funding. Yeah.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: Exactly. Sorry.

QUESTION: Mark, can we go back to the timeline? I still --

MR TONER: Yeah. Sure thing.

QUESTION: -- didn't get it.

MR TONER: As if the other thing wasn't confusing enough, let's go to another. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah. The Vienna statement talked about six months to form a new government and to write a draft constitution. If they start on January 1st negotiating the regime and the opposition, they have six month. After the six month, they have 18 month to --

MR TONER: No, no, no, no, no. So the six months is one piece of it, and I agree, it's very confusing. What I had – what I was trying to lay out was – the question is, right, when that 18-month, again, target date timeframe for free and fair elections to be held would begin. We went back and forth on this yesterday, and frankly, I wasn't clear in my own head what that time was. I since checked on that.

My understanding is once – so January 1st is the target date – again, target date – to begin discussions between the Syrian opposition and the regime, government representatives, about a political process. Once that political process is established – and I don't have a date certain for that, no one does – then from that it would be 18 months to hold free and fair elections. Again, target date.

QUESTION: So the six months and the 18 months start on the same day?

MR TONER: Yes, the six months is – yeah, exactly. Yeah. That's my understanding. Yeah.

QUESTION: So you would want these elections by July 1st, 2017 at the latest – 18 months from January 1st?

MR TONER: No, I – no, Brad. Sorry. Sorry, I don't mean to be confusing. What I'm saying is January 1st is the target to begin discussions about a political process. So once that political process is established – and I – there's no date specific for that, but once it start – then it would be 18 months from that date.

QUESTION: But what about the six month?

MR TONER: The six months is for a constitutional review and --

QUESTION: Exactly.

MR TONER: Yeah. That's – my understanding is that's begun immediately.

QUESTION: And why this ambiguity or --

MR TONER: Again, these are all target dates. None of these are specific deadlines. They're target dates given to add some sort of structure to the process going forward. There's reasons for that. One is to move people towards a goal.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) if no one understands them. That's the whole --

MR TONER: Well, I'm just saying they're target dates. But you're – the whole idea that – and I agree that there's not a clear date for this – it's 18 months from the establishment of a political process going forward. So that needs to – first, we need to – they need to establish an agreed-upon political process, the Syrian opposition and the government representatives. And then from that date, then it's 18 months.

QUESTION: And one more on Syria.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry has said today that the U.S. is starting an operation with Turkey to finish securing the northern Syrian border. And he said that the entire border of northern Syria, 75 percent of it has now been shut off and we are entering an operation with the Turks to shut off the other remaining 98 kilometers. Do you have any details about this operation, what's going on and what could happen?

MR TONER: I mean, no specific operational details. We talked a lot about that very fact, that we've almost shut off that border Turkey shares of the ISIL-controlled territory. It's a matter of great concern to the Turks, obviously. It's a threat to their border security. We're in discussions with – about how to clear that last stretch. But I don't have any more details to provide as to --

QUESTION: By sending U.S. troops?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) operation, has the operation begun or has it not begun?

MR TONER: I don't have any more specifics about whether it's begun or not.

QUESTION: There was a --

MR TONER: Again, I think – sorry, I just --

QUESTION: Sorry, sorry.

MR TONER: Yeah. It's okay.

QUESTION: Is it a military operation?

MR TONER: Again, we're in discussions with the Turks about how to clear that last – and secure that last stretch of border. I just don't have any more details. Those discussions are ongoing. There's not – I don't think it's – there's necessarily an operation that's begun yet, but we're looking at that closely.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: Please, sir.

QUESTION: Steven Warren said, I guess, the 12th of November that Turkey and United States with the Syrian rebels on the ground attacked ISIS positions around Mara, and Turkish and American Air Force provided some cover for them. So maybe is that part of this already begun operation or already --

MR TONER: Well, again, I think we've – from – for the last couple of months, frankly, we've been looking at how to – I mean, we've driven ISIL out of a lot of territory that it's held in northern Syria. There's still that small section that's left where they do control the border. We're always applying pressure on them there – airstrikes, et cetera, supporting local forces. We've talked a lot about that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) cooperation with the Syrian rebels?

MR TONER: Yeah, I don't know specifically the operation you're referring to. I'd refer you to Steve to talk more about that, Steve Warren.

QUESTION: So I saw that the --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: -- that – first of all, the Syrian opposition, political opposition, is supposed to be meeting in Saudi Arabia over the next month or so to discuss who their representatives are going to be at these talks with the Syrian Government. And I'm – and I know that al-Nusrah Front is listed as one of the terrorist organizations that is not supposed to be a part of this process. But the – a lot of the opposition factions on the ground are – kind of depend in some way on al-Nusrah for muscle. And I'm wondering if they're going to – somebody – one of the analysts I was talking to was saying that they'll probably have some kind of representative at these talks in Saudi Arabia. And I'm trying to figure out, how do they figure into this diplomacy that's being put together to – who's going to be represented – who's going to be representing the Syrian opposition?

MR TONER: Well, I think that's – I mean, you're correct in identifying the fact that al-Nusrah is an FTO for us, a designated terrorist organization, and therefore we strongly believe, just like ISIL, they can't be part of any talks, nor can they represent the Syrian opposition.

But more broadly to your question about how that all is settled going forward, our understanding is that, frankly, that it's Jordan – I'm not aware of their talks you're referring to, but – in Saudi Arabia, although there may well be those talks – but that Jordan is going to spearhead that process of working with the Syrian opposition, the known opposition. And we've talked a lot about this before. There's – many of them are ex-patriots or living abroad. Some of them are obviously still in Syria and coming – pulling together a viable Syrian opposition from the various groups, moderate groups that can then represent the Syrian opposition going forward in any political process.

QUESTION: So will any group that has contacts with al-Nusrah or is representing their interests be excluded from these talks?

MR TONER: I don't want to prejudge the process. You talked about al-Nusrah providing the muscle, and certainly the fact that Assad has barrel bombed and carried out horrendous and continuous attacks against some of these moderate groups – they've been forced to seek alliances on the ground with some unsavory characters like al-Nusrah. Going forward, I think the goal here is to find those elements that can represent the moderate Syrian opposition in any kind of political process.

QUESTION: I just had one more --

MR TONER: Sure thing. Yeah.

QUESTION: -- on terrorists --

MR TONER: Please, let him finish.

QUESTION: Is the United States pushing for Hizballah to be included among the terrorist groups currently acting in Syria that should be jointly opposed?

MR TONER: We – well, we obviously recognize that they are active in Syria on the ground. We've recognized that before, Iran's support for the Assad regime. I think we would consider them to be part of those groups that we consider that could not be a part of any moderate Syrian opposition.

QUESTION: My understanding is that --

MR TONER: But I'm not aware – I haven't, frankly, even seen them kind of brought up in that framework, frankly.

QUESTION: It hasn't been brought up?

MR TONER: Not that I'm aware of.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the opposition (inaudible) the regime.

QUESTION: Well, but --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: But the point was that you are trying to identify which groups in Syria --

MR TONER: Fair enough. No, fair enough. Yeah.

QUESTION: -- are terrorists. The Islamic State is not among the opposition movement --

MR TONER: Fair, enough. Fair enough.

QUESTION: -- that you talk to, at least. So do you want Hizballah as a group that's determined to be a terrorist group that should be jointly opposed?

MR TONER: Again, I don't have a – I mean, I – they're a terrorist organization, so I'll let that be my answer. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, they're – but are they going to be a terrorist organization for the purposes of the United States except not in Syria? Are they given a free pass in Syria?

MR TONER: No. I mean, no one's going to give – and we've been very clear about this. I mean, no one is going to give Hizballah or Iran a free pass in terms of their ongoing support for Assad's brutal – brutality that he's carried out against his own people. We have brought Iran into this stakeholder process because we recognize their interest in Iran, and we – or in Syria, and recognize the fact, as we've talked about many times before, that there are many disparate stakeholders, and it's important that we bring them all together into the same room and find a way forward on this. But Hizballah is not part of that equation.

QUESTION: But you do foresee an international strategy as a part of this peace push that would be a focus on combating the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, but that doesn't include Hizballah, correct?

MR TONER: Correct. Again, I mean, if Hizballah – you're – Hizballah in Syria is what you're referring to?

QUESTION: Exactly.

MR TONER: I don't know what the status of that is. I mean, we consider them to be a terrorist organization. That's where I'll stay.

QUESTION: Yes, please. Something related to this --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Are you on Syria too or are you a different --

QUESTION: On something else.

MR TONER: Okay, great.

QUESTION: It's --

MR TONER: We'll get to you.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

QUESTION: I'm just trying to figure out, do you have a say about the composition of the participants from both sides or not?

MR TONER: Well, again, as I just said, Jordan is really spearheading – at least among the Syrian opposition – I think we're looking to, frankly, Russia and others with those ties to the Assad regime to – or to the Syrian Government on the composition of the – from the Syrian Government. We've been very clear about saying that this needs to be – these need to be groups that are acceptable to both sides so that we can have a functional process set up, at least, to a political resolution.

So we have our strong views on Assad, on other groups. Ultimately – and we've been very clear about that and very transparent about how we feel about that – but ultimately, it's up to the Syrian people and the Syrian Government – Syrian opposition and Syrian Government to come together to work out a political process that leads to a transition.

QUESTION: So – but the reason that I'm asking this question --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- even in your answer, you say both sides, and as a matter of fact, there are 19 sides or 20 sides.

MR TONER: I agree that there is a variety of voices on the Syrian opposition.

QUESTION: So they have a say about the composition of this group or that group, or that's not the --

MR TONER: Well, I think that's the – again, that's part of the hard work, to be honest, that needs to get done in the run-up to establishing a process – a political process for free and fair elections is that we need to identify who the representatives are, acceptable to, as you said, all the various groups and entities within the opposition that can represent it.

QUESTION: The other question I have about the refugee process --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- I mean, one of the – I mean, most of the criticism was done related not just to accept or not accept; they were criticizing this – most of the politicians, they are discussing the issue of the process is expedite or – so you are missing some of the steps that usually is done with all the people. Is it true, that?

MR TONER: Not 100 percent sure. So you're saying --

QUESTION: I mean, it's like --

MR TONER: -- we're expediting it so we're going to not do as stringent a security check?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: No, that's absolutely false, and thank you for --

QUESTION: Because it was said this way.

MR TONER: Yeah. No, I mean, that's – I mean, we've been very clear that we've got this new target for at least 10,000 additional – for this coming fiscal year. We've been very clear that we feel we can meet that target while not – sorry, while not lessening the intensity or the – of the security clearance process.

QUESTION: So what was done for others, it's going to be done for the Syrians, you mean?

MR TONER: What's that?

QUESTION: You mean what was done for the others, it's going to be done for the Syrians?

MR TONER: Correct, yes, and has been – yeah.

QUESTION: One follow-up --

MR TONER: And there's – in fact, there's additional --

QUESTION: Additional --

MR TONER: In terms of Syrians, there's, frankly, an additional layer of clearances or security that they need to pass in order to be accepted.

Sir.

QUESTION: They didn't get to my question on the call this morning, so --

MR TONER: Sorry, go ahead, man. That's okay.

QUESTION: How many of the Syrians that you've been screening as refugees have failed the process, and what reasons would cause them to fail the process?

MR TONER: Again, I think what they talked about this morning was about 50 percent accepted and 50 percent who were --

QUESTION: But 50 percent of which number?

MR TONER: Either in train --

QUESTION: Of the ones you've begun vetting?

MR TONER: Yes, that's correct. That's correct.

QUESTION: And what reasons would the others be refused, then? Is it just a propensity for violence, or would ideological or cultural views feed into that?

MR TONER: Good question. I think a variety of criteria, among which is – and we – and again, this was discussed on the background call earlier and refer you to that transcript once we release it – but one of the things that was talked about was just the veracity of their stories, their documents, their documentation – where they came from, where they say they – where their family is from, all that kind of stuff that adds into a story that tells their background, why they ended up where they are. And I think --

QUESTION: So if they seem a bit dodgy, you turn them down?

MR TONER: I mean, I think's part of the --

QUESTION: Are any of them turned down because --

MR TONER: That's part of the screening process, of course.

QUESTION: -- you thought they were ISIS infiltrators?

MR TONER: Well, I think that's certainly – if there's any inclination that any of these pose a security risk. But let's just, again, take a step back and be very clear that the vast majority of these refugees – and we can't underscore this enough, I think, especially given the events of the last few days and some of the debate and discussion that's been going on domestically here in the United States – the vast majority of these refugees are victims of the very same violence that we saw in Paris and, frankly, have been living and dealing with a level of violence, a level of brutality, of suffering and sacrifice that's incomprehensible to us, and they are seeking refuge. And their families – many of them – again, talked about the head of family has been killed or whatever. These are vulnerable people and they're seeking refuge. That's what this process is all about.

QUESTION: You can be a victim of horrific persecution and still have radical views.

MR TONER: I understand that, and that is – and again, there is a stringent process in place to look at all of these factors and to interview these individuals and to make sure – and it's part of the reason why it takes so darn long. I mean, it's 18 to 24 months to clear these individuals, and that's – and we talked about this – it's an interagency, multi-agency, layered interview process for these guys to – for these individuals to get clearance.

Sorry, Brad.

QUESTION: Mark, have you ever rejected anyone as part of this process for terrorist sympathies, intentions, links?

MR TONER: I don't know the answer to that. I mean, I don't --

QUESTION: So you don't --

MR TONER: I mean, I can't say yes or no. I think that what goes into the review process is looking at do these people – do any of these individuals pose a security risk to the United States of America, and that's always been first and foremost in our --

QUESTION: I understand that, but if you --

MR TONER: I just don't have a --

QUESTION: If you can't even say that you found one person to be a risk, you can see why people are at least saying, well, I question whether it's sufficient or the best tools or whatever.

MR TONER: Well – yeah.

QUESTION: I'm not saying they're right, but if you can't say you found one person --

MR TONER: And Brad, that's --

QUESTION: -- in all the people you looked at --

MR TONER: -- that may be, and I may be able to get you those numbers. I just don't have them in front of me.

QUESTION: Yes sir, just to check something, please.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Sorry to --

MR TONER: No, no worries.

QUESTION: Is it – it was mentioned that 70 percent of those people are women and children. Is it true, or it's just like a assumption?

MR TONER: Seventy percent --

QUESTION: Of the --

MR TONER: Yes, I think that's right. No, I – no, that's actually accurate. Those are hard numbers. And I think actually there was one correcting, and it'll be corrected in our transcript – I think we said – it was given that 25 percent are over 60. That's actually 2.5 percent, so slightly modified. Apologize for that.

QUESTION: Which is --

MR TONER: Getting a lot of grimaces around the room. Sorry.

QUESTION: Yeah, we've already written that up.

MR TONER: Sorry.

QUESTION: Mark, so 70 percent --

MR TONER: It's the beauty of the worldwide web. You can correct.

QUESTION: So 70 percent women and children?

MR TONER: I believe that's right. Is that right? Do you guys have that? We'll get it for you. I don't have it in front of me. I just don't have it.

QUESTION: Okay, just --

MR TONER: Sorry.

QUESTION: Mark --

QUESTION: Can we finish Syria?

QUESTION: What do you say to people --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure, let's finish Syria.

QUESTION: What do you say to people who – some people are saying that – why do they have to come here? I mean, you mentioned the suffering that they've been through, but people ask why the United States, so far away.

MR TONER: Sure. Well, a couple of thoughts about that. First off, Syrian refugees are only a small part of the number – overall number of refugees that we accept every year, and this has been an ongoing process since I think 1975, where we've accepted – I'm not sure of the hard number, I forget it, but millions of refugees into the United States successfully from war-torn places around the world. And as I said, they've been, frankly, an asset for this country that is a nation of – largely of immigrants. And so it's not just about – I mean, I understand that Syria is going through a tremendous conflict; there's lots of suffering, lots of displacement – talked a lot about that. And we need to do our part in terms of accepting these and finding a home for these individuals, these families that have been uprooted because of the war there.

And, frankly, it speaks to who we are – and the President spoke eloquently about this yesterday, but who we are as Americans and the importance of accepting and sheltering those from other lands, other countries who have been, as I said, uprooted by war, uprooted by other natural or manmade crises and need refuge. And these people have all been vetted through the UNHCR.[2]

Please.

QUESTION: Syria.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: That piece of the border between Turkey and Syria that Secretary talk about – my question is: Does the U.S. Government believe that there needs to be some kind of ground forces to clear that zone? And if you do, who do you think is going to take care of that?

MR TONER: Well, I'd refer you to – the President spoke a little bit about this yesterday in terms of boots on the ground in Syria, the possibility of boots on the ground, safe zones, all of that stuff. We've looked at a lot of these options. As the President has said very clearly, they involve tremendous logistics. I'm talking now about some kind of safe zone on the ground to maintain those kinds of places or those kinds of areas. In terms of boots on the ground, we have put Special Forces units to help, as we said, augment and accelerate our airstrikes against ISIL on the ground.

And we're constantly looking at ways we can improve what we're already doing and really look at where we're succeeding and amplifying or accelerating those efforts. And we've tried to do that – again, we moved away from the train and equip of moderate Syrian opposition. That was, frankly, not meeting what we – our expectations, and we've put it now into assisting those forces on the ground who are having success. That's the formula that we feel is working; that's the formula we're going to continue to invest in. We're going to work closely with Turkey at all of these things and continue to have a dialogue with them.

QUESTION: So that formula work with the Syrian Kurds mostly, and Turkey --

MR TONER: And Arabs.

QUESTION: And Arabs.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Turkey is a clear redline that the Syrian Kurds should not go over Jarabulus, the piece – we are talking piece of land. And the Turkish foreign minister just yesterday right after the G20 summit said that Turkish troops will not be used in that area. So my question is: U.S. is not coming, PYD is barred by Turkey, and Turkish ground forces not going there, yet the Secretary Kerry talk about some kind of operation are going to start? You are – that's the question here.

MR TONER: Yeah, and I'm just not going to get into specifics about any operations that we may or may not be about to embark on with Turkey except to say what I've already said, which is we're well aware of Turkey's concerns – excuse me. We're well aware of Turkey's concerns. We're in an ongoing dialogue with them about those concerns. We're always looking at ways we can leverage our joint strengths, and we're also keenly aware of Turkey's desire to secure its own borders.

QUESTION: Do you think Syrian Kurds can do the job there?

MR TONER: Syrian Turks?

QUESTION: Syrian Kurds can do the job there?

MR TONER: Kurds, I'm sorry. They've been very successful against ISIL. But as you said, Turkey has very – has concerns. We've conveyed those concerns.

Yeah, let's go, Michel.

QUESTION: Yeah, Mark. Virginia Senator Richard Black has sent a letter to President Assad. He expressed his disappointment because the Administration opposed the Russian help to the Syrian regime by providing TOW missiles to the terrorists, as he said. Do you have any reaction or any comment on this?

MR TONER: So who's this? I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Richard Black. It's from the --

MR TONER: And he sent a letter to --

QUESTION: President Assad.

QUESTION: It must be a state senator.

MR TONER: -- President Assad. Yeah, I'm not aware of him. But he's entitled to his views, I guess.

QUESTION: The Russians --

MR TONER: Please, sir.

QUESTION: So the State Department was – has been criticizing Russia for its air campaign up till – I guess up till a couple days ago, saying that they're not attacking ISIL enough. And now the Russians are attacking ISIL, but they're sending these long-range bombers and dropping bombs from very high altitude. And I guess we're wondering whether there's a concern, first of all, about coordinating with Russia and also whether there's a concern about now that they're getting more involved against ISIL, about the way that they're doing it, the methods that they're using, and whether that – this working together with the Russians somehow --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- hurts U.S. interests there.

MR TONER: So there were Russian cruise missile strikes I think last night in Syria. We did get and were provided with notice prior to the launch of these strikes, and that came via the Coalition Combined Air Operations Center in Qatar, and this was accordance – in accordance with the safety protocols that we agreed to with Russia in just – in October. So we weren't surprised by these activities.

Again, this is why this mechanism was put in place – in order to obviously ensure that our airmen and women are protected. Again, the coalition was aware of Russia's intention to use cruise missiles as well as their point of origin, so we were able to track the missiles to ensure the safe separation of airspace. And again, that's – DOD can speak to this much better than I can, but that's been part of this process of de-conflicting that we've been – we tried to set up in October.

QUESTION: What about these – the long-range bombers and high-altitude bombing that they're doing? That's not very – apparently not very --

MR TONER: Effective?

QUESTION: Well --

MR TONER: What – or --

QUESTION: Not very precise.

MR TONER: Precise.

QUESTION: Not very precise, yeah.

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, we've – I can't specifically address an operation or an airstrike, but in general agree that we want to see any actions, any airstrikes taken by Russian assets in Syria (a) to be directed at ISIL, and (b) to take into consideration possible civilian casualties.

QUESTION: Now that there is more coordination with Russia, did you mean?

MR TONER: Again, I think, as I just stated, it was simply an example of that that we have, that this de-confliction – however we want to refer to it – but this coordination in terms of knowing what they're about to do, their operations and vice versa, so that we are able to avoid any mishaps.

QUESTION: Another question?

QUESTION: And are there concerns, though, that these Russian strikes that are – that actually – I mean, there's – people are posting pictures of a lot of civilians getting injured in these strikes. Is there concerns that that hurts the U.S. position in – the U.S. interests in those – in that area?

MR TONER: Well, we've been very clear that we – and the U.S. military certainly takes every precaution to avoid civilian casualties, and we've been very clear about asking that Russian forces do the same.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: In regard to Syrian Arab coalition, would you confirm United States provided second shipment of ammunition to Syrian Arab coalition last weekend? Because --

MR TONER: I think that's correct. I don't have it in my book anymore, but I believe that's correct. There was a second shipment. I'd refer you to Department of Defense, though, to confirm that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Mark?

MR TONER: Yes. Hey, Nike. Yes.

QUESTION: I have one more on Syria.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR TONER: Sorry, Nike.

QUESTION: Just it's a pet peeve of mine when anonymous officials --

MR TONER: You have a pet peeve?

QUESTION: -- dispense erroneous statistics. Can we get the other percentages they said confirmed? I think they said 50 percent of the Syrian refugees who have been accepted are children, 2 percent were men of combat age, and that's it's been a roughly – think they said slightly more men than women in general, but male --

MR TONER: So --

QUESTION: You said men of combat age – I think there's husbands --

QUESTION: Yeah, single men of --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: Two percent were single men of combat age, and roughly even male-female breakdown.

MR TONER: So that – I believe that – yes, I believe that – and of course, it'll all be corrected in the transcript, but all of the other numbers were correct. The only erroneous number – and we are all human, Brad --

QUESTION: Yes, I know.

MR TONER: -- but the only erroneous number was that --

QUESTION: That's why I wanted to go on the record.

MR TONER: -- was that 25 percent over 60. That's actually 2.5 percent. Again, apologies for that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: Yes. Sorry, Nike.

QUESTION: On Russia, I have a different question. Do you have --

MR TONER: Russia. Did you say Russia?

QUESTION: Yeah, Russia. Russia.

MR TONER: Okay, great. Yeah.

QUESTION: I would like to get your comment on – today, the Russian coming out and officially announced the Sinai was indeed by a homemade bomb. Do you have – do you share the same conclusion?

MR TONER: We are aware of those reports that Russia has made – Russian Government has made about the cause of the crash of Metrojet flight 9268. In our view, this is an Egyptian-led investigation, and we have not made our own determination about the cause of this incident, nor do I believe has the Egyptian Government. However, we cannot rule out – and we've said this before – we cannot rule out at this stage, and must consider the possibility that this crash could have been caused by terrorism and by an explosion onboard. And we've said that for a matter of weeks now, but we still have not made a final determination. And again, this is an Egyptian-led investigation into this crash.

QUESTION: Is that a thing you do – make a separate determination, or will you just accept or not accept the Egyptian verdict?

MR TONER: Good question. I think we'll either accept or not accept the Egyptian verdict, but we may weigh in, as we have periodically, on this.

QUESTION: In your estimation --

MR TONER: We have our own intelligence that we're – and information about this that we've periodically discussed.

Yes.

QUESTION: In your estimation, what is the reason that – I understand the U.S. have offered to help with the investigation, but they did not take the offer. What is the reason, you think?

MR TONER: You'll have to ask them. I mean, honestly, I don't have an easy answer for you on that. We certainly, as we do in a lot of these cases, Nike, we offer assistance, we offer any kind of help we can provide. Certainly, this was a tragic incident, and there's always a search for answers but also a need for support. We're always quick to try to offer that support, but it's up to the governments in question to really determine what their needs are.

Yeah, please.

QUESTION: I've got two things. One, we have a story out saying that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has approved the marketing of land for the construction of 454 homes in two settlements in East Jerusalem. One of them – that is the one where there would be 436 of the housing units – is in the settlement of Ramat Shlomo, which you will recall was the subject of fairly harsh criticism from the Administration and from Vice President Biden in particular when the plans were first put forward. And then the other one is 18 units in Ramot.

Do you have any comment on this? I know it's not an initial thing --

MR TONER: I do.

QUESTION: Good. Yeah, please.

MR TONER: So no, I'm aware – obviously, we are aware of these new tenders that have been offered. Our longstanding position on such actions in East Jerusalem as well as in the West Bank is very clear. We view this kind of activity as illegitimate and counterproductive to the cause of peace. We remain deeply concerned about Israel's current policy on settlements, including construction, planning, and retroactive legalizations, and we remain unequivocally opposed to these kinds of unilateral steps that, frankly, seek to prejudge the outcome of any negotiations.

QUESTION: And one other thing.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: And beyond that – well, actually just to follow up on that.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Beyond making that statement, is the Administration going to do anything about this?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, what we --

QUESTION: Are you going to say it, or are you going to --

MR TONER: Sure. I mean, what we always do is convey these concerns to the Israeli Government. We have frank and candid exchanges with them on these issues every day. I'm not sure at what level we may convey this, but certainly, we will convey our – as I said, our disagreement on this – these actions.

QUESTION: And then --

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead, please.

QUESTION: And the second thing, going back to the beginning of the briefing and Rwanda --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. Government considering taking any action such as suspending or reducing foreign assistance to the government if it proceeds with this plan to allow President Kagame to stay in office longer?

MR TONER: Not at this time. But we expect President Kagame to follow through on his word and end – and step down at the end of his current term. And if he does not, if he decides to remain in office, then that could impact U.S.-Rwanda relations going forward.

QUESTION: Including aid?

MR TONER: Well, again, I don't want to be too specific here, and I don't have any announcements to make, clearly, because we're not at that juncture yet.

Please, in the back.

QUESTION: Can I ask about a different group of refugees, the Chagossian people who were exiled as part of the creation of the U.S. military base on Diego Garcia?

MR TONER: Oh right, exactly.

QUESTION: So this year, the British Government published a study showing that it was feasible for the Chagossians to go back to their homeland, to go back to Diego Garcia and the surrounding islands, which they've been demanding for now more than 40 years. I'm wondering if the U.S. Government is opposed to their returning.

MR TONER: Sure. Well, first of all, just to clarify, I mean, the U.S. is essentially a tenant in Diego Garcia of the UK, of Great Britain, and we use our facility there. And U.S. courts have found no legal basis – legal responsibility, rather, for these kinds of resettlement issues. And I'd just have to refer you to the UK for the – for your follow-on questions about whether this is valid or not.

QUESTION: But if the UK is not opposed, would the U.S. Government support a return?

MR TONER: Well, that would be, I think – and again, that's a hypothetical. But that's a – that would be a topic, I think, for discussion – further discussion based on the UK's intent or what they decide to do. But that's really – again, that rests with them to make that decision.

QUESTION: I believe there are negotiations about the lease for – effective lease for the base on Diego Garcia going on right now. It's about to come up for renewal in – next year. And wondering if the resettlement of the Chagossians is part of the conversation, part of those negotiations?

MR TONER: Not that I'm aware. But again, I'm not privy to the – these negotiations. Look, I mean, we recognize the United Kingdom's sovereignty over Diego Garcia. Any decision for resettlement is, frankly, a decision for the UK, consistent with bilateral agreements governing Diego Garcia – or governing, rather, the U.S. presence on Diego Garcia. And as I said before, U.S. courts have found that the United States doesn't – or have any legal – does not have any legal responsibility for resettlement. So I'd refer you to the United Kingdom.

QUESTION: Are the negotiations on the lease Pentagon or State?

MR TONER: Good question. I don't know. I can ask that and get back to you.

Let's get – no, I'll get back to you. I promise.

QUESTION: Aside from speaking from the podium, going back to the Syrian refugee issue --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- what exactly is State going to be doing to address the concerns raised by state governors or --

MR TONER: Good question. I mean, we're doing a lot. Obviously, they spoke – these senior administration officials spoke a little bit about some of our efforts and, frankly, praised and lauded the work of these local communities in resettling many of these refugees and how vital they are in the success of this program. I mean, this is – without overhyping it, this is – in many ways, the resettlement of refugees – I'm not just talking about the Syrians, but certainly they're a component of this – is a really good news story that speaks to our nation as accepting of immigrants as a nation of immigrants.

But I would note, in terms of what your specific question, which is – and it's something I touched on yesterday, which is outreach. And we talked about this a little bit yesterday, talking to governors, talking to mayors, talking to these communities, hearing their concerns, and trying to address some of their concerns in light of some of the recent news out of Europe that – I can confirm that later today there will be a call with governors as part of our ongoing outreach and communications to state and local officials. And in this call, they'll share and try to answer questions about the Syrian refugee admission policy and security screening measures.

QUESTION: Can we expect a readout of that call?

MR TONER: No. That would be internal – or not internal, but only to the governors themselves.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: Just one thing. Is it correct that refugees receive the most stringent screening of any non-U.S. citizens admitted to this country?

MR TONER: So what I have is refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States.

QUESTION: Okay. Second --

MR TONER: So anybody coming off a plane with – anybody, yes, they are.

QUESTION: Okay. Then second question: Is it true that Syrian refugees receive the highest level of security screening of all refugees?

MR TONER: I know they receive an extra layer or an additional layer of security screening. I don't know, for example, in comparison to, say – I'm just picking – Afghanistan or Iraq, whether it's a notch or two higher or it's the most stringent security screening. But I know it is an extra layer of security screening.

QUESTION: Could you check that one?

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Oh, one more and then – yeah.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, you seem to be suggesting that the U.S. Government has no responsibility for the Chagossians. The U.S. Government paid $14 million to --

MR TONER: It's just – again, I'm not – by no means am I speaking lightly of their plight or the situation. It's just we are a tenant there and it's really up to the UK Government to speak to possibilities for resettlement or all these issues involving the Chagossians.

QUESTION: But a tenant that paid for their removal, that paid the British Government to remove them.

MR TONER: Again, I'd just have to refer you to the UK Government. I apologize. Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:58 p.m.)

[1] The Department of State works with nine American nonprofit resettlement agencies to determine where a refugee will be resettled in the United States. He or she is then free to move anywhere in the country, although certain state benefits may be available to the refugee only in the state of resettlement.

[2] The U.S. Government has the sole authority to screen and to decide which and how many refugees are admitted to the United States. Neither the United Nations nor any entity outside of the US Government has any authority to screen refugees or to decide which refugees are admitted to the United States.