hello and welcome to al jazeera america. i'm del walters in new york. right now you would normally be watching "consider this." but we are awaiting secretary of state john kerry at this hour. he is set to appear before the senate foreign relations committee. it is app -- anticipated he will update them on a wide range of issues. both sides backing away from prior commitments that were made

when the talks began. israel is refusing to release a group of palestinian prisoners as long as palestine pursues statehood. >> if israel they want continuation of the talks, we say one single thing. release the prisoners. if israelis want serious talks we have time between today and the 29th of april. israel should as i say release the prisoners, and second important issue, freeze all of the settlement activities. >> april 29th was when the u.s. hoped to reach a peace deal. and now that deadline appears to be in jeopardy. and there is unrest and uncertainty brewing at this hour along the border. tempers flaring today in parliament prompting a brawl between opposing factions.

pro-russian activists have now taken over several buildings. >> reporter: adding fuel to the fire. activists calling for autonomy from kiev had been in control of the administration building since sunday. but by tuesday they took control and arrested 70 people. >> translator: last night the donetsk building where the security service was located was cleared of criminals. this morning the regional administration building was completely cleared of separatists. guns and hand grenades were used against police. several policemen were badly injured. 70 criminals were detained.

>> reporter: the raid is height inning dense in donetsk where pro-russian groups remain in control of one building. ukraine's deputy prime minister says police won't storm the building right away, and hopes a deal can be reached. inside the besieged headquarters confusion reigns. different leaders now speak for dishth factions. >> translator: there are private talks and private negotiations between influential people, but no one is negotiating with the people of the republic. >> reporter: but signs of the activists continued calls to join russia still plaster the walls and they said they are prepared. molotov cocktails are at the ready. people here tell us that if authorities from kiev do move in, that they are prepared to use them. so as you can see there will

be a lot on the minds of the senators as they begin to file in to the hearing room. libby casey is also on capitol hill and libby what is the mood in the senate today? >> so many issues at sake here, del. so many things we expect to hear senators ask mr. kerry. the allotment of funds going towards the state department, and you can bet they will use it to talk to secretary kerry to talk about a range of issues. secretary kerry said it's reality check time. he will be meeting with the white house to figure out just what if anything can be done next in the process, senators will also ask about iran. we see the six-party talks resuming in vienna today. and they have concerns of course about what is happening in

ukraine and the u.s. relationship with russia. so after secretary kerry gives his opening remarks, senators will be able to pepper him with their own questions. and the panel itself is very interesting. we see people like bob menendez who is very concerned about issues related to israel, and people like senator rand paul, so they have a variety of ways that they will introduce topics, ask questions, and try to give their perspective and kind out what is on their minds. and there is a measure set forth by ted cruz. he is not one who always raises one of the bipart stan flag, he is seen often to go his own way.

they talked about iran's choice for the ambassador to the united nations. that's where the senate is at. >> we see the secretary entering the hearing room right now. we should point out that these are moments when the members of the senate themselves realize the cameras are watching the secretary, and they can send signals to iran and those involved in the middle east peace process and signals to the ukrainian populous about how they feel each specific senator on those three different topics. >> absolutely. and whether they want to come across as a unified body. and they also, though, care what their constituents back home think. that is big on that minds. we have seen that rise as the issues like syria have some up.

and they say hey, we don't want to involve the u.s. more than we need to. so they are also aware of hot it comes across to folks at home. >> we should point out that each committee member will offer brief statements and then the secretary himself will begin to speak. but the fact that he is appearing before the foreign relations committee and not in any of the locations that are subject to so much controversy now are not a good thing. because he wanted to have that middle east peace process in his pocket when he appeared at this moment. >> that's right. you can see the opening statements just getting started here. secretary kerry would like to be coming before this panel with more of a success story on the middle east peace talks. >> let's listen in a little bit.

>> as the situations in the ukraine, syria, and venezuela demonstrate, never has the need for american leadership and engagement in the world been greater. we understand the limitations and constraints that govern the budget tear -- budgetary environment. but in this complex and rapidly changing global environment, we also know our national security interests are priority number one, and they cannot be jeopardized. the $40.3 billion for the department of state, equal to the 2014 enacted level provides solid footing. and the $5.9 billion for oversees contingency operations allow us to continue to address iss

issues in other areas. we also need to make sure our budget is structured so our nation is capable of meeting the new challenges and opportunities of today's world. and we face many realities, most recently the threat by russia to the ukraine. we will continue to stand with the ukrainian people. in addition to authorizing a billion dollars in loan guarantees for ukraine and other areas in the region, we have also given you tools to respond to russia in the form of sanctions and our message to president putin and his cronies must be robust and swift. on syria as we commemorate the third anniversary of though uprising, i'm pleased that the united states is providing assistance. but this leads to a broader

question, that we can demonstrate u.s. leadership on humanitarian assistance, but i would like to hear from you how we are demonstrating and intend to demonstrate leadership on ending this crisis. on afghanistan and pakistan i support the administration's decision. but in this year of transition i was hoping more of that budget should be shifted into the base budget. we also should take special note of the elections held in afghanistan this weekend in the face of intimidation of the taliban, the afghan people demonstrated their desire to shape the history of their own country. now there is a place that i am disappointed in the budget, and that is in the western hemisphere. the 2015 request is a

$358 million or 28% decrease from the '13 budget. i'm incredibly troubled that every other major account on the western hemisphere is being cut, and where these programs are coming to an end there is not a reinvesting in those funds in the region. i had seen year after year after year after year a continuous cut in hemisphere, and i believe those cuts lead us to lack a comprehensive approach. whether in central america where nations are facing crisis, where hon dur -- honduras and el salvador continue to face crime

issues, and other areas -- >> you are listening right now to the chairman of the foreign re -- relations committee. libby casey there are concerns for the ukrainian people but also the oaftures of vladimir putin, and the fact that at this hour he appears not to be able to be stopped. >> it is a huge concern to members of the committee as well as the senate over all. john mccain is on this committees, and he has been a vocal advocate on the u.s. taking a stronger push back towards president putin. there is so much more at stake. we talk about iran, and happens there has an impact. and we're hearing now from senator bob corker.

he is the top republican. he is going to have a very different perspective than bob menendez on these issues. >> and there's an awful lot of talk about how much aid the united states will give to ukraine and other issues. i want to play a small clip of an interview that we did earlier today with the executive board member of the ukrainian congress committee of america. and he was talk about the events unfolding right now in the city of donetsk, where there are concerns that it too will go prorussian. >> donetsk is a ukrainian city, we just had a gallup poll come out records people all ukraine and the percentage of people behind this is not native to ukraine. so it's very mockable. but we know there is violence happening on the ground, people

are being humiliated, forced to talk out of the buildings on their knees, and called dogs. >> who is behind the violence? >> these are people who are trucked in from outside of ukraine. russian speaking doesn't necessarily mean one thing. i'm an english speaker but i speak from america. if you are a russian speaker, you speak a it will differently from you are from ukraine. so we know they are not born in ukraine, they are being moved in. and also these are four major cities in the east. in one area the same thing happened. they tried to storm the government building, but unfortunately they are out of town and they actually stormed

the opera building. >> secretary of state john kerry agreed to meet with top diplomats, the white house going one step further warning of more sanctions against russia, saying, quote, if russia moves in to eastern ukraine this could be a very serious escalation. but will those words fall on deaf ears in moscow? >> what moscow really wants to see is the west hurting. all of these sanctions haven't hurt the west that much. the only time they are going to respect what is happening out of the west if there are sanctions that hurts our financial sector -- >> what about hurting moscow? >> we have seen the ruble tank. it's in the lowest point it has ever been after the fall of the soviet union. however, mr. putin is wealthy

bond all of our comprehension. so what is needed is an escalation beyond what is need sod far. >> so are you saying that vladimir putin doesn't care if the populous suffering as long as the oligarch and he don't suffer? >> we know that's the case in russia. the people on the ground, they don't get anything from the state. there is a whole stretch of people between moscow and st. petersburg that do not get electricity, basic water sometimes, basic internet functions, all they get a slightly higher pension that europe gets, and they get cheap grain alcohol and a lot of them waste their lives away. it's a very sad situation. >> russian foreign minister

wrote that russia is doing all it can to promote early stabilization in ukraine. your reaction? >> that's a farce. everything he has said has been beyond the pail of truth. at times he doesn't even get to communicate with mr. putin, because he is running this very closely in his inner circle. >> what do you say about the people in donetsk who want to be part of russia? >> it's a very small percentage. people in those regions are very happy with going in a more modern movement. one person on the ground interviewed yesterday saying we don't trust kiev because that government is run by gays and jews. it's a disgusting anti-ethnic mindset that is going on there, and that's not what ukraine is about. they are a multi-cultural

country, we can get along with our friends. this russian-first mentality is not a part of the present or the future. >> secretary of state is now speaking before the foreign relations committee let's hear what he has to say. >> i also want to thank everybody on the committee for working so hard to move the nominations, which obviously is critical. i think our -- it's not the fault of the committee, but -- the combination of the vetting process and the slow down on the floor of the senate, i think we're averaging something like 220 something days, and some over 365 days. so i have literally only in the last month gotten my top team in place one year in.

and i'm very grateful to the committee, mr. chairman you have worked very hard to make that happen. and i want to thank you all for that. a lot of questions senator corker that you raised and i really look forward to answering all of them. because there is a cohesive approach. we're living in an extremely complicated word unlike anything most of us have grown up with. and we can talk about that. because it is critical to how we deal in our own politics here, and in the choices we make. obviously senator corker just brought it up, the intense focus on ukraine continues, and everything that we have seen in the last 48 hours from russian provocateurs and age engineers operating in eastern ukraine tells us that they have been

sent there determined to create chaos. and that is absolutely unacceptable. these efforts are as ham handed as they are transparent, frankly. and quite simply what we see from russia is an illegal and illegitimate effort to create a contrived crisis with paid operatives across an international boundary engaged in this initiative. russia's clear and unmistakable involvement in destabilizing and engaging in separatist activities in the east of ukraine is more than deeply disturbing. no one should be fooled and believe me no one is fooled by what could potentially be a contrived pretext for military intervention just as we saw in crimea. it is clear that russian special forces and agents have been the catalyst behind the chaos in the

last 24 hours. some have even been arrested and exposed and equally as clear must be the reality that the united states and our allies will not hesitate to use 21st century tools to hold russia accountable for 19th century behavior. we have stated again and again that our preference is deescalation and a diplomatic solution, but russia should not for a single solitary second mistake the expression of that pre -- at nate toe last week and in all of my conversations of the past weeks it is clear that the united states and our closest partners are united in this effort despite the costs and willing to put in effect tough new sanctions on those

orchestrating this action and on key sectors of the russian economy. on energy, banking, mining, they are all on the table. and president obama has signed an executive order to implement these actions if russia does not end its pressure and aggression on ukraine. now let me make an equally important statement. it doesn't have to be this way, but it will be this way if russia continues down this provacative path. in my conversation yesterday, with foreign minister lavrov we agreed to meet soon in europe, next week, with ukraine and our european partners to discuss deescalation, demobilization, inclusivity, support for elections and constitutional reform, and it is not in our judgment a small matter that russia has agreed to sit in this

four-party status with ukraine at the table in an effort to try to forge a road ahead. between now and then, we have plead it clear that russia needs to take concrete steps to disavow separatist actions in eastern ukraine, pull back its forces outside of the country, which they say they have begun to do with the movement of one battalian, and demonstrate they are prepared to come to these discussions. so russia has a choice to work with the international community to help build an independent ukraine that could be a bridge between east and west, not the object of a tug of war that could meet the hopes and aspirations of all ukrainians, or they could face greater isolation and pay the cost for their failure to see that the world is not a zero sum game. ukraine and so many other

ongoing simultaneous challenges globally, reinforce what i said a moment ago to all of you, i think the members of this committee have long appreciated it, that is that this is not the bipolar straightforward choice of the cold war. we're living in an incredibly challenging time where some of the things that the east-west order took for granted most of my life are suddenly finding a world in which american engagement is more critical and in many ways it's more complicated because of nations interests, balance of power, and issues on the table. you all travel, and you see what i see in every place that i travel as secretary. on issue after issue, people

depend on american leadership to make a difference, that has been reinforced to me than perhaps any other single thing that i have been privileged to be secretary. whether it's south sudan, now a nation struggling to survive, or venezuela, where leaders are making dangerous choices at the expense of the people, or in afghanistan where this weekend millions defied the taliban and went to the polls to choose a new president. or on the korean peninsula where we are working with our partners to make sure we can meet any threat and move forward. i think i have had five meetings with the president this year, and five trips to asia already, in furtherance of ur effort to

further our goal there. u.s. presence and leadership does matter. and that's why your rebalance in the asia-pacific has been welcomed by people throughout the region. we also have great allies, great partners, but the fact refrains that no other nation can give people the confidence to come together and confront some of the most difficult challenges in the same way as we are privileged to do. i say that without arrogance. i say it as a matter of privilege. we have this ability, and i hear it from leaders from all over the world. i particularly hear it about the middle east peace process. i read some who question why the secretary of state is as engaged as he might be or why the united states should be doing this if the parties don't want to be doing it? well, the truth is the parties do want to continue these talks.

but i have one certainty in my mind, i have yet to meet any leader anywhere in the world who argues to me that its is going to be easier next week, or easier next month or next year or easier in the next five years to achieve a long sought-after goal if the united states is not engaged now. there is no foreign minister i have met with, no leader -- when i visited recently at the vat tan with the secretary of state cardinal parline this is first and foremost in the minds of people all over the world, they ask you do we have a chance of making peace in the middle east? because where every it is a concern and has an impact. and the fact is that everybody volunteers gratitude for the fact that the united states is

involved in that effort. i have heard from minister after minister just how much the global community is invested in this effort. japan just committed several hundred million dollars to the palestinians for assistance. the audis, the qatarese have each committed to assist the palestinians going forward. so this has an impact on everybody and has an impact on life in the united states too. so we will continue to the degree that the parties want to. it's up to them. they have to make decisions, not us. they have to come to the conclusion that it's worth it. the same is true on iran where every country understands the danger that a nuclear armed iran would pose to our security.

and that's we have been so focused on forging an unprecedented coalition to impose the sanctions. to achieve this goal we have been clear that we will use all of the elements of our national power, including direct negotiations with iran, the very kind that we are engaged in as i speak. we are approaching these talks seriously and with our eyes wide open, that's why we continue to enforce sanctions on iran not effected by the joint plan of action. not just inincidently over its nuclear activities but also because of its support for terrorism. and we will press the case on human rights wherever we can. and we will continue to urge iran to release our american it

is -- citizens. all three should be home with their families and that is consistently raised by us with any iranian official when we engage. these are just some of the biggest issues that we're focused on each and every daisy mull contain nowsly, my colleagues. senators corker and mccain you have both been to the syrian refugee camps on the border, you have seen the horrors firsthand as i have. and this committee has focused on syria, and i'm particularly grateful for the fact that you vod the way you did, the one body in the congress that took that vote, and it was a courageous and important vote. we are focused on this every single day, and currently routing increased assistance to the moderate opposition. i know we'll talk about this in the cocourse of this hearing. we're wrestling with these tough

challenges even as we are moving the state department head in our business -- in our -- to help our businesses success in a world where foreign policy is economic policy. one of the things i want to emphasize when i become the nominee, i said to everybody on the committee that foreign policy is economic pollty, economic policy is foreign policy in today's world. so we have set ourselves up in the state department to be increasingly geared towards helping american businesses and creating new partnerships. we're focused on jobs diplomacy, and shared prosperity. that's why embassy wellington just helped land a contract in new jersey. and our console late has been

engaged. wrestling with the challenges and opportunities that come at us faster than ever before. it's a challenge balanced also against security in a dangerous world, which is why this budget implements the recommendations of the review board and makes additional investments. so i want to thank you for everything you have done for the security of our missions and i want to thank you for the way this committee stands up for an active internationalist american foreign policy that is in our interests. i spent enough time here in this room as well as in the senate to know that you don't call anything that costs billions of dollars a bargain. but when you consider that the american people pay just one penny of every tax dollar for

the $46.2 billion in this request, i think it's safe and if you add oco it's the 50.1, i think it's safe to say in the grand scheme of the federal government, taxpayers are getting an extrordanaire return on their investment. so i thank you for your partnership and look forward to our discussion today. thank you. >> thank you for that comprehensive review of both our challenges and the opportunities and daily mission of the men and women of the state department. i want to go to iran. i read an article yesterday that is entitled in the wall street journal, obama administration shows optimism on iran nuclear talks and despite significant political hurdles and vastly different stated positions with reference to teheran's nuclear

programs in public comments, there's this sense of progress and optimism, and i'm trying to glean where that's from. and i'm worried when i read this and other articles where it says, quote, some officials who have worked on developing the obama administration negotiationing position tweers tehran have acknowledged that major concessions are needed by both side for a deal to be reached. initial demands of the west are no longer achievable. the west is unlikely to get a completely accounting of the secret work the west believes it has conducted in the past. so -- and it goes on to say that the suggestion that the p5-plus-1 should instead focus on the time it would take for

iran to break out and produce nuclear weapons to between six and 12 months. now i don't think that we did everything that we have done to only get a six or 12 month's lead time because a deal that would ultimately unravel the entire sanctions regime is not far from where we are today, and with no sanctions regime in place, and understanding that every sanctions that we have pursued have needed at least a six month's lead time to become enforceable, and then a greater amount of time to actually enforce that the only option left to the united states to this or any other president and to the west would be either to accept a nuclear armed iran or to have a military option. so i -- i want to hear from you, mr. secretary, whether that is where we believe success lies,

or is the success as outlined by a better by 83 members of the senate to the president where we say that we believe that we need to dismantle iran's nuclear weapons program and preventing it from having either a uranium or plutonium path to a nuclear bomb, where we must get evidence of what happened -- i'm trying to get a sense of these parameters, because part of it is going to have to be based on having an understanding of what is the parameters and i would assume, and i ask you this question specifically, does the administration ultimately believe that it needs to come back to the congress for the approval of such a deal in terms

of the elements of the law that exist today that would have to be repealed? >> well, mr. chairman, good questions all, and entirely appreciate for us to try to dig in to that a little bit. let me begin by saying first of all, i'm not expressing optimism on one side or the other, i remain agnostic and questioning even as we are just about halfway through. i talked with our team on the ground in vienna yesterday. they are having serious expert, in-depth, detailed conversations about what it takes to achieve our goal. i mean of proving that this is a peaceful program. i think it's fair to say that i

think it's public knowledge today that we're operating with a time period for a so-called breakout of about two months. that has been in the public domain. so six to 12 months i'm not saying that is what we would settle for, but even that is significantly more. remember, breakout means that they make a decision to race -- to sort of move out of the regime that has been put in place and overtly move to create enough material for one weapon. that's what breakout means. it doesn't mean they have gotten to a -- a war head or two or delivery system or test capacity or anything else. it's just having one bomb's worth conceivably of material but without any necessary capacity to put it in anything,

to deliver it, to have a mechanism to do so, or otherwise. and we have amazing capacity that is being built into this system to understand what they are doing. during just the jpoa implementation, we are expecting, we have never been in there before, we are occasionally -- once or twice a month inspecting in the iraq facility. they cannot move anything into the iraq facility to complete its commissioning. we are inspecting their storage of centrifuges. we are inspecting their mining and milling. we have a huge track of what they are doing. so the greater likelihood is at the end of this, we hope to come to you with an agreement that has the most extensive,

comprehensive, and accountable verification process that can be achieved. and if you know -- if they make a decision to break out, sanctions aren't going to be what make the difference. if they are overtly breaking out and breaking an agreement and starting to enrich and pursue it, they have made a huge consequential decision. and the greater likelihood is we're going to pursuit it -- >> i gather what we're doing. but if the end result is a six or 12-month decision -- and it's true if they decide to break out, but if the only question is the reason they are at the table is because of the sanctions

regime, the reason why they will calculate to make that decision is concerns for their economy, and if six to 12 months is where we end up with -- >> as i said -- >> i know you haven't said that, but since you said that would still be more significant than two months. the bottom line is, it is not, i would hope where we end up with, because with their research and development capacity still moving forward, which closes the window for them even more quickly with their missile development as well, these are all -- it is far different from where we started off and what we were told to where i believe we are heading, and this is why so

many members joined us. does the administration intend to come back to the congress if you have a final deal for -- for ultimately lifting some of the elements that would be needed to be lifted under law. >> of course, we would be obligated to under the law, mr. chairman. we would absolutely have to. and so clearly, what we do will have to pass muster with congress. we well understand that. but let me just say quickly. all of the things that you just raised are very much contemplated. the research, what kind of research. warheads particularly. there has to be a huge level of transparency. you mentioned the iraq reactor. there is no legitimacy to a heavy water reactor none

whatsoever in any scheme they have articulated for private sector use. so that has to be dealt with -- >> i agree, but originally we were told that is going to be dismantled, now we are told we are going to find a different purpose for it -- >> well -- >> let me ask one more question -- >> there's no -- actually let me just clarify mr. chairman, first of all it is written in the joint -- >> nothing is agreed -- >> right, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. this is a mosaic that has to be put together, and i can assure you, we are going to strive to get the longest period that we can get in terms of breakout and there are a number of different options, but the important thing is it's not a heavy plutonium reactor. >> one more question. the russians -- we have seen

consi consistent it rations of a barter deal. my question is number one if such a deal actually comes into fruition, is it the administrations intention to sanction those actions. and i look at this in our engagement with russia and we meet with russia to broker a deal in syria, and a worsening deal on the delay in chemical reactions. we meet with iron and there is an oil for goods deal with iron that sources say could be worth 20 billion. i'm beginning to wonder, you know, what -- what it is that -- at what point in this relationship with russia, particularly vis-a-vis iran but even beyond, is it going to be clear that there are consequences -- i understand that russia is an entity that

we're going to have to deal with, but by the same token, right now they seem to act in ways that are contrary to just about all of our interests. >> mr. chairman the hard reality is that the relationship with russia produces both moments of consternation and conflict as well as cooperation and effect. we did in the course of the last years the stark treaty. in the course of the last years we have cooperated on afghanistan, on syria, on p5-plus-1 on the syrian chemical weapons. i talked to foreign minister lavrov yesterday, and also the director of general of the opcw. currently 54% of the chemical

weapons are out of syria. and we have major shipments that are planned at two sites near damascus. they should take place in the next days, but there's a general sense that we are concerned about the slowdown, but we still believe we could be close to schedule -- on schedule or close to schedule, and we're pushing for that. and the russians have indicated they are prepared to continue to push and try to achieve that. they have an interest in trying to achieve it. so there are pluses and yes, there are minuses obviously. we don't have the luxury as a country of being you know -- you have got to deal at this point at one time or not. reagan dealt with go gore bah chov, it's the reality of the

world -- >> i understand that. but such a deal would clearly violate the regime of the -- that has been set up, and i assume we need to make it very clear to the iranians and the russians that such a deal would be sanctionable -- >> we have made it clear to both sides our deep concerns about the reported oil for goods deal. it would raise serious concerns as you have said. it would be inconsistent with the terms of the p5-plus-1 joint plan of action, and yes, it could trigger u.s. sanctions against the entities or individuals that are involved in the deal. >> you are listening to secretary of state john kerry appearing before the senate foreign relations committee talking on a number of topics in the middle east peace process. we're going to take a break. we'll be right back.

>> i'm del walters in new york. you are watching secretary of state john kerry appearing before the senate foreign relations committee. the topic right now is syria. bob corker asking the secretary what the u.s. policy is with regards to syria. >> would you be willing to tell us about that? >> not in an open session -- >> would you commit right now to tell us every detail of our syrian -- >> i have always felt as the chairman knows in my years as chairman of this committee, i thought one of the great an o y onlily -- anomalies is access -- >> so you won't commit to sharing -- >> no, i will. to the degree i am allowed to, i

will do that. but i want people to understand what we're doing. i came in to this role in february -- february 1st of last year. we immediately had a meeting with the foreign ministers of the so-called london 11 support group. we met in rome and began to coordinate our efforts with the opposition. then in april -- i think it was april -- i went to russia met with vt putin and foreign minister lavrov and made the argument that we needed to work towards a political solution. at that point in time, president assad was not faring so well, and there was a great sense of insecurity in syria. the russians agreed we needed to try to negotiate this.

subsequently after agreeing to the con accept of the geneva 2 meeting, they began to have infighting. and then large numbers of jihadists began to be attracted -- >> all of which everyone said was going to happen on the front end. >> yeah, well what was the plan to not have that happen senator? i didn't know congress racing to the barriers saying we're going to do something -- >> do you agree with the president's comments on cbs just recently that the authorization or force that you asked for; that had we done that it would have had no effect in syria? do you agree with those comments? that it would have had no effect?

>> that is not what the president said. what the president said it would not have had the effect of changing the course of the war. it would have had an effect on precisely what he was asking for it for, which was to sent a message to assad about the use of chemical weapons -- >> so it was jt to degrade his capabilities -- >> of stopping the use of chemical weapons. let me finish the thought. everybody up here was saying we don't want to go to war -- >> this committee voted to go to war. >> they voted to have a limited strike for the soul purpose of degrading his capacity of having chemical weapons and guess what -- >> and did you not share with us that that degrading would have a definite effect on his ability to carry out against the opposition. >> i think it would have had

some effect. but it wasn't going to last that long. it took 30,000 [ inaudible ] and 30 days in bosnia to have an impact is. here we were going to have one or two days to degrade and send a message. and guess what, we came up with a better solution, to get all of them out. and we have an agreement which is now working out with 54% removed. so would you rather drop a few bombs, send a message and then with him still with the capacity to deliver the weapons -- >> let me ask you this question, y'all tend to instead of meeting with us, i noticed that the administration is really good at leaking things to newspapers. the chairman alluded to that a few weeks ago, but let me just ask you, apparently there's some

debate occurring relative to military action or not. wall street journal reports you are for it. we got a letter yesterday from julia, sitting right behind you, it was undated, but it said we do not belief there is a mill stair solution to the syrian crisis. do you think there is or isn't? is there a debate occurring right now about military action or not? clear it up. i would like to know if ann patterson was making something up -- >> let me do that. but i also want to finish the notion. if there's no military solution and everybody at the pentagon will tell you there is no military solution -- >> but apparently you think there is? >> no, i think there's the capacity to change assad's calculation and so was the president -- >> which is what we discussed --

>> and we will discuss in a classified session that those are. but the reality is if you are going to have a negotiated solution, you have to have a ripeness to the ability to come. last may there was more ripeness. today assad feels fairly secure in damascus, and in some of the corridors going north to the ports. and that has been his strategy. but in the south, east, and north there is not that kind of security. in fact the opposition has made some gains recently. so the key is how do you get the parties to a place where they both understand that there isn't going to be a military solution, but ultimately could be negotiated. there has to be a recognition by both of the ripeness of that moment.

it's not now. so can you do something to create that? and that's a legitimate question for the congress and the administration, and we talked about that. but there is no difference in our policy. i support the decision the president has made, we need to have a classified briefing, and i look forward to having that hearing. >> you are listening to secretary of state john kerry, he has been talking now for approximately 45 minutes on a number of topics concerning the crisis in ukraine. he accused the russian government of putting paid operatives on the ground, saying, quote, no one is being fooled. and russia is behind the chaos of the last 48 hours of eastern ukraine. concerning the middle east peace process, he said they are still talking. he also said with regards to the situation in iran that our eyes are wide open, concerning iran

and its nuclear ambitions. and in syria there was the question of whether or not is there would be boots on the ground. the secretary telling the committee they are still looking at all options. i'm del walters in new york. we are following several stories for you as well today. all of the day's news straight ahead. >> this is my country, and we have to protect it. al jazeera america presents a breakthrough television event. borderland a first hand look at the crisis on the border. >> i'm trying to finish this journey for her. >> six strangers with different points of view, take a closer look at the ongoing conflict. kishana, a fashion blogger who doesn't believe in immigration, joins activist lizmarie, the daughter of legal immigrants. >> people didn't come here because we think this country pretty, people come here out of necessity... >> we didn't tell you to come here... >> they re-live the fatal quest of claudette, who died at just 21 years old.

>> claudette's decision was heartbreaking... she was a young beautiful girl. >> how will they face the challenges? >> these are my people, this could be my family right now... >> experience illegal immigration up close... and personal... >> the only way to find out... is to see it yourselves. on... borderland only on al jazeera america >> this takes guts... >> al jazeera's investigative unit has tonight's exclusive report. >> stories that have impact...

that make a difference... that open your world... >> this is what we do... >> america tonight weeknights 9et / 6pt only on al jazeera america welcome to al jazeera america. i'm del walters. these are the stories we're following for you. secretary of state john kerry being questioned on everything from iran to ukraine. offering up another warning today to russia. the president moving to require equal pay for equal work. and these residents of florida saying hands off the everglades. ♪ at this hour, secretary of state john kerry