the secretary of state john kerry, secretary of defense chuck hagel and martin dempsey, yesterday may made their case before the senate foreign relations committee. right now they are testifying making the same arguments, the united states must respond militarily to syria's use of chemical weapons against its own people. the arguments we heard yesterday. they're going into a little bit more elaboration today. dana bash is standing by. even as they're arguing on the house side, there seems to be a setback of sorts for the president's call for a resolution of approval on the senate side from john mccain. what's going on? >> reporter: sounds like they're in the prosacess of working it out. there was a meeting that lasted

over three hours today. what john mccain said coming out of this briefing is that he has a very specific addition he wants and that is he wants to put in that part of the u.s. goal is to reverse bashar al-assad's advances on the battlefield. he said it's something the president assured him in his policy inside the white house and he said it's critical for him to have that in there. the top republican was positive about the fact they would get consensus. they will see that committee to reconvene probably first in closed session and afterwards open for the cameras. we'll see them begin to debate

and ultimately vote on some of these issues. we'll see regular order here. it already was changed put a time limit on and make sure there were no boots on the ground. we'll see the process move today. >> the clearly sensitive issues involved. dana bash watches what's going on. gloria, i would be stunned first-degree t if the senate foreign relations committee passed this issue. it's much more problematic there. tell our viewers why.

>> it's more difficult. it's less predictable. even though you've had the house speaker, john boehner come out and his number two, eric cantor come out and support the president. they don't carry a lot of weight on this issue. it's clear boehner would like to help the president in any way that he possibly can. there's not that much he can do. when you look back to the vote on the iraq war, the easy vote on the iraq war at that time was yes supporting the use of fort. in this, the easy vote is no. going against the use of force if you're a liberal democrat or a conservative republican. the country is war weary six out of ten americans don't want to see the use of force at all in syria. the president has to start

changing public opinion because they will react if the public shifts. >> stand by as well. we will get back to the hearing momentarily. have you decided on how you will vote in. >> i am supportive of the united states taking action. this is quite different than iraq. i didn't support the iraq resolution. here we have a clear case of chemical weapons and use of force. the iraq circumstances was tied to 9/11 and that was never established. here we're talking about a limited action and no troops on the ground. here we're talking about a limited time period. 60 days, and in iraq it went on for years. we have a different vote here.

if the united states and the international community dud not act, it makes it much more likely that we're going to see chemical weapons used and other weapons of mass destruction. the international community needs to speak out. >> public opinion so far not with you. the most recent abc news poll asked should the u.s. launch military strikes against the syrian government. only 36% support that decision. 59% oppose it. you've got a lot of work to do to explain to your constituents in the state of maryland why you're making the right decision. >> it's a difficult decision to use force.

we thought we drew that line a hundred years ago. it is important that there be an international response. >> what happens if bashar al-assad reacts in some sort of really destructive way to the u.s. launching tomahawk missiles against his bases, areas where he would use chemical weapons down the road and decides ir rationally or release those weapons to hezbollah? what happens then? does the u.s. just how that to make place. >> we don't know what he'll do. this is not the first time he used it. he killed in greater scale

killing over 1,000 people. we're much more likely to see chemical weapons used not just of the people in syria but against their neighbors, turkey, jordan, israel. it's against international interest to allow chemical weapons to be used unchallenged. >> a will the of people out there heard similar arguments going into the iraq war. the u.s. got dragged into a ten-year conflict. thousands lost trillions plus dollars lost in iraq. they're afraid of these unintended consequences. you go in with narrow goals. once the fighting starts you don't know if the u.s. will get dragged into a much broader war. you're concerned about that as well. >> absolutely. very valid concerns. this is a very difficult

decision to authorize the use of force. it's quite different than iraq. it was open ended. it was troops on the ground. the justification is iraq was involved in the attack on september 11, and they were not. i just got out of a closed briefing on the facts beyond using chemical weapons, it's beyond dispute assad used chemical weapons. we can't sit by. the international community cannot sit by and say that we're going to allow a weapon to be used that can cause mass destruction such as chemical weapons. >> you're going to be voting. we assume that vote will take place in the next hour or two. you have no doubt it will pass the foreign relations committee? >> i believe it will pass. we still have amendments to take

up. i support the bipartisan resolution, the balance resoluti resolution. we have to see how the amendment process works. i'm hopeful we'll get the votes in committee. >> thanks very much for joining us. we'll stay in touch with you. . >> president said he didn't draw a red line, the international community drew a red line against the use of chemical weapons in syria. we'll play what the president said. we'll have live coverage of the hearing. lots more of our special coverage right after this. [ male announcer ] for diarrhea, you take kaopectate.

but for all these symptoms, you also take kaopectate. new kaopectate caplets -- soothing relief for all those symptoms. kaopectate. one and done. they're testifying before the house foreign fairs committee. it's getting exciting, a bit interesting. let's listen in. >> offering to bear cost and assess the answers profoundly, yes. they have. that offer is on the table. with respects to boots on the ground, profoundly, there will be no boots on the ground. the president has said that again and again. there's nothing in this authorization that should

contemplate it and we reiterate no boots on the grounds. i think i'll let general dempsey speak to the question of targeting which he can't go into in detail but we have absolute confidence that what our military undertakes to do if it's ordered to do so will degrade the capacity of assad to use these weapons and serve as a very strong deterrence. if it doesn't there's possibilities how to reenforce that. >> thank you, mr. secretary. the details on the offer and proposal on the table, what are the figures that we're talking about? >> we don't know what action we're engaged now. they have been very significant. in fact, some of them have said that if the united states is

prepared to do the whole thing they'll carry that cost. obviously, that's not in the cards and nobody's talking about it. they're talking in serious ways about getting this job done. >> in terms of other countries being in the fight with us with these limited strikes, what other -- time is over. thank you. >> time is up. we better go to mr. meeks of new york in order to get through the full panel. mr. chsherman of california. >> the president drew a red line. presidents often dry red lines in order to deter action. usually they deter that action to our benefit and at no cost. when the president drew that red line, i'm not aware of anyone in this room who criticized it or disassociated themselves from that red line.

now, assad has crossed that red line. it is america's red line. if we do not act assad will use chemical weapons many times in the future. they may will successful for him and dictators for decades to come with learn from assad's lesson that chemical weapons on civilians used on a mass scale can be effective and the protocol against their use is a dead letter. in picking targets, you're going to be torn between the germane and the effective. germane would be directly related to chemical weapons, but the fact is we want assad to control store and keep control of his chemical weapons. you'll be seeking out targets related to the creation storage control or delivery of chemical weapons. i think instead you should focus

on punishing and deterring assad by hitting valuable assets that will demonstrate to him it was a military mistake to hit with chemical weapons. we have all learned a lesson from over 4,000 casualties in iraq. we should be aware there's 150 occasions and without objection i'd like to put into the record a crs listing of 150 occasions in the last 40 years when america has deployed its forces into dangerous or hostile situations. in most of those we had limited purpose and deployment. the cost was so limited that we had forgotten the incident

involved. i hope what you're planning is something much more along those lines than iraq. the resolution that was sent to us on august 31 is obviously flawed. i'd like to explore with you what elements a good resolution would have. know this adds to the authority he already has of the resolution. is it accept to confirm what you've already said and that is the resolution does not add to the powers of the put to put boots on the ground in syria. is that an acceptable position? >> absolutely. >> would a time limit of 60 days

indicating that you might have other authorities to act beyond thoeds those 60 days. would that be acceptable? >> we would prefer you have some kind of trigger in there with respect to if he were to come back and use chemical weapons again that there would be a capacity to respond to that. >> you could always come back to congress or have a provision he uses chemical weapons get another 60 days. >> that would be acceptable. >> the second, the first? >> the second. >> would you accept a provision you may want to pursue regime change with other authorities you have including arming the rebels but this resolution is limited to actions to punish and deter the use of chemical

weapons and not to change the outcome of the civil war? >> the preference of the president is to have this a narrow authorization so that kn nobody gets confused and people aren't asking to vote for two different things. the president wants to capacity to enforce the international norm and make our word respective that meaningful to the region. >> i know your staff will be working with congress to draft a resolution. i hope very much that we're marking up a resolution in this committee. finally, if you could explain. >> afterwards we can introduce the questions for the record. we need to go to mr. smith chairman of the africa

sub-committee. >> thank you. it was said it was alarming that president obama did not long put into place with our allies and partners a plan for international action. it was alarming that we failed to do what ought to have done. i have three specific questions. i would ask that you answer all three to the best of your ability. yesterday, you testified the obama administration wanted to make him, that is assad regret the decision to use chemical weapons as he's done on august 21st. first question, do we have clear proof that assad himself ordered it? second question, in an interview with chris wallace on sunday you should that at the very insignificant the planes were in the air on kosovo, there was a vote in the house of representatives and the vote did

not carry. that is true. the house of representatives voted against it. your word very instant is certainly an elastic term. the vote was a full month later claiming that nato's bombing began on march 24th and the house voted against it on april 28th. there were significant assurances it would be very limited. i know many people thought that it would last a few days. it lasted 78 days. 488 civilian deaths occurred. how do you define limited and

short duration and what mooiigh asaturday do in retaliation and what if he attacks in other areas? finally, i plan to introduce the resolution to authorize the president to establish a court to help hold accountable all those on either side including assad who have slaughtered and raped in syria. i wonder how you might think about that as well, whether or not the administration would support such a court. we have learned lessons from the special court. we have learned lessons from rwandan court and the court in yugoslavia. you said, mr. secretary, you would send them to jail. let's send them to jail but killing people an not targeting

assad himself may be accountability but i think there are other alternatives. i yield. >> congressman, i actually didn't have time yesterday because of our testimony to read the new york times editorial. i'd like to read it. there is a plan in place. the london 11 have been working internationally. last year secretary clinton joined in and convening with the russians a meeting in geneva which set up a process for transition in syria and that is what we're currently pursuing now together with our allies and

friends. in addition to that we have seen the president take steps in response to the initial attacks of chemical weapons to increase lethal aid to the opposition that is now known. >> i'm almost out of time with all due respect. a special tribunal on war crimes with respect to syria. >> perhaps we can have more luck with that. i would certainly welcome an effort to hold people accountable for those kinds of abuses. as you know the international

courts have not fared well with both parties. >> mr. meeks of new york. >> we'll take a quick break. we'll continue our special covera coverage. they're hearing from the house secretaries of state. sometimes you see hands going up behind the secretaries. that he has code pink. they are protesting what the obama administration has in mind, namely military strikes. our coverage will continue after this. #%tia[ thank you orville and wilbur...

...amelia... neil and buzz: for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging to the past. and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it. (car horn...ding, ding) how long have i had my car insurance? i don't know, eight, ten years. i couldn't tell you but things were a lot less expensive back then. if you're 50 or over you should take a new look at your auto insurance. you may be overpaying. actually that makes a lot of sense. old policy. old rates. and thanks to your experience behind the wheel, you might save $350 by switching to the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford. plus, you'll get benefits that reward your driving record.

ke our promise that you won't be dropped. wait, you won't drop me? seriously? that's right, you won't be dropped. and, if you know anyone who's been dropped by their insurance company, you know that's a hassle you don't need. especially these days. plus you'll get recovercare, which helps you pay for everyday needs like housecleaning, lawn care and pet services if you're injured in an accident. so my auto insurance is going to help pay the housecleaning if i'm injured? did you say lawn care? and if i can't walk my dog, they'll help me pay someone to do it for me? call the number on your screen to switch to the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford and be rewarded for your experience behind the wheel. recovercare, auto insurance that helps take care of me. now i've seen it all. you won't drop me, you take care of me as well as my car, and you offer savings to switch. it's unbelievable! if you're 50 or over call now to request your free quote.

i'm gonna call. i'm calling. i'm calling. i'm calling! call the hartford with the number on your screen to request your free quote. we'll even send you this free calculator. call: why wait? welcome back. the house foreign affairs committee are hearing from the chairman and joint chiefs of staff. i'm wolf blitzer in washington. we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. all this is taking place just after the president has been

meeting with foreign leaders specifically on this date in sweden. officials of congress are trying to come up with some sort of resolution as to what to do as far as authorizing the administration to go ahead with the use of force. the president was speaking out about that issue at a news conference earlier today. he spoke about that so-called red line warning he gave syria a year ago. >> first of all, i didn't set a red line. the world set a red line. the world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world's population said the u.s. of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty preventing their use even when engaged in war. congress set a red line when it

ratified that treaty. congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the syria accountability act that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need be answered for. when i said in a press conference about what's happening in syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something i just made up. i didn't pluck it out of thin air. there's a reason for it. when those videos broke and you saw images of over 400 children

subjected to gas everybody expressed outrage. how can this happen in this modern world? well, it happened because a government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on civilian populations. the question is how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that had to be deserved. how credible is congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons. i do think that we have to act because if we don't, we're effectively saying that even

though we may condemn it an issue resolutions and so forth and so on, somebody that's not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity. >> president obama first used those words, the red line last summer set r for what could bring the u.s. into direct military conflict. it was in the white house news conference that the white house spoke of a red line. >> we've been clear to the assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons being moved around or being utilized. >> the president later said it would be a game changer. he also said he hopes russia's leader vladmir putin will change

his mind and support international action. the russians say that's not necessarily going to happen. they say it's a possibility if they were to see actual, hard proof that syrian proops used chemical weapons against zifrl yans. they incest they have not seen that kind of proof. let's bring back gloria borger. on this sensitive issue of drawing red line, what did you make of what the president had to say today in contrast of what he said a year ago. >> i think he's trying to depersonalize the issue. he's come under a lot of criticism saying this is all about you. you drew that red line. we didn't draw that red line. this is your credibility at stake. this is not our credibility at stake. i think what the president was trying to say was it's not just about me. however, as you played that clip, he did personally draw

that red line. what he did say in this news conference and i don't think we can say this strong enough, he said i do think we have to act. that is a big question here right now. he says he's got act. fp t if the house would go against him, what kind of crisis would that set up? >> i want to go back to the hearing. there's an important moment. >> all those people would wind up being victims of a chemical weapons attack. i think it's vital that we send the message and deteriorate be capacity. we would have given him impunity.

>> the president made the decision to take military action and then things changed and he decided to consult with congress. what made the president change his mind? >> well, you have to ask the president. i don't know completely. >> i assume you discuss this with him. >> we did and what the president said was he felt very strongly it was important for us to be in our strongest posture. that the united states needed to speak with one voice. you all asked for consultations. we began a process. we heard from you. many of you said you think it's important to come to congress. i know mike rogers in one conversation talked about the need to not have the display of your -- you've got a group of people opposed to and fighting the congress and fighting with your allies and fighting with u.n.

try to unify it to the greatest degree you can. i think that was great common sense from chairman rogers and the president decided to put america in the strongest position possible. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here this afternoon. mr. secretary, one of things i read today which disturbed me was by the end of the year we're going to have about three million refugees from the syria conflict. i'm concerned the impact on striking syria and how it would stabilize our friends in the region. jordan is already overburdened. turkey is experiencing a burden. are we making policies to alleviate what is coming, this

avalanche of refugees. that could be a bigger destabilizing factor in that region. >> this brings you squarely into this confrontation of the choice you'll make. there are risks of acting, but believe me it's our judgment collectively and the presidents that the greater risks are not acting. you have 1.6 to two million refugees today without our acting and every prediction is that's going to get worse. i guarantee you that if we don't act and assad is able to rain

gas down on his people, you watch the nurnl of rmber of ref. the greatest capacity to prevent these refugees is frankly to degrade his chemical capacity, help the opposition and get to a point where you have a state of syria that's still intact enough to have a negotiation for the g geneva one implementation of a government. we would have said nobody cares. gas your people. do what you need to do to stay in office. that would be a moment in history that will live in infamy and there are some of those moments. a ship off the coast of florida that was sent back filled with jews who lost their lives to gas because we didn't receive them. there are moments where you have

to make a decision. i think this is one of those moments. >> are we making any new policies? >> the world needs to step up on this refugee issue. the united states proudly is providing more than anybody else. this is unsustainable. there are other discussions taking place. i think there are options vablg to us but i don't want to get ahead of ourselves. sg gener >> general, i assume we're coordinating with our friends in the region? >> we are. >> do you anticipate them going along, if it increases the need

for them to participate? >> we're reaching out to them and some will support us directly and some indirectly with basing and overflight. >> thank you. >> thank you. we're going to go to mr. joe wilson of south carolina. >> thank you. thank you for being here today. we're here to learn more about a serious issue. a united states strike on syria. as a member of this committee and chairman of the house armed services, military subcommittee, as a 31 year veteran of the south carolina national guard and army reserve but as the grateful father of four sons serving in the united states military i'm concerned about what we're hearing today. i have many questions concerning the president's proposed strike and the risk to our military,

american families and our allies. particularly, neighboring israel, jordan, turkey and iraq. secretary hagel, some have characterized this strike as a pinprick that will not present president assad from resuming his use of chemical weapons. how do you intend to degrade his capabilities? where did these chemical weapons come from? >> thank you for your service and your sons' service. i can assure you on the first point you made, i can speak for general dempsey and all of our military leaders that there's no higher purpose that we all have nor more significant responsibility than the protection of our men and women who serve in uniform. they are our highest priority.

as to your other questions, the president has said he stated it again yesterday in a meeting in the cabinet room with the leaders of congress and i think congressm congressman engel was there. this would not be a pinprick. those were his words. this would be a significant strike that would degrade his capability. i think the three of us noted, you have noted and are much aware that any action carries with it risk. any action carries with it consequence but also does inaction. i can assure you that the department of defense, our leaders have spent days and days going over every option, every contingency, everything you

talked about and more. security of our forces, security of our embassies, consulates, working with the state department. em everything that we needed to factor in, the president insisted on that. he wanted to see those plans. we think the options that we have given him first would be effective. >> i don't mean to be rude but time is flying. where did the chemical weapons come from? >> there's no secret that the assad regime has had significant stockpiles. >> from a particular country? >> the russians supply them and others are supplying them with those chemical weapons. they make some themselves. >> secretary kerry, on april 25th, the white house legislative director rodriguez

wrote quote, our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the syrian regime has used chemical weapons. end of quote. with the president's red line why was there no call for military response in april? was a was it delayed to reflect attention from the tragedy of the white house sequestration or the upcoming debt limit vote? why was there no call for military response four months ago when the president's red line was crossed? >> well, the reason is simple. the president made a decision to change his policy but he didn't believe that the evidence was so overwhelming. it was significant. it was clear that it happened but a scale that he felt merited the increase of assistance and the announcements that he made

with respect to the type of aid that he would provide the opposition. he did respond. this is so egregious and builds on the conclusion of our intel community as to the numbers of times but such a clear case, so compelling and urgent with respect to the flagrancy of the abuse that the president thinks it's a matter of policy the best route to proceed is through military action. >> in april it was very clear. chemical weapons are chemical weapons. syria was identified. action should have been taken then. >> the president didn't believe it was compelling enough case to win the support of the american people as well as the world. this is. the president did respond. he upgrade ed what we were doin significantly. he came to congress. we have to struggle to get a congress to agree to let him do the things he wanted to do to

upgrade that effort. >> chemically -- >> your time is expired. we need to go to mr. jerry connelyly connely of virginia. >> thank you. mr. chairman, late last night we delivered to all members of congress and i did a bit of that today of an alternative resolution very narrowly drawn that codifies what the president said he wishes to accomplish and codifies no boots on the ground to try to make sure that we stay focused on the issue and a response to that issue and possibly provide the white house with a path to authorization here in the congress. i commend it to both secretaries and urge you to look at it. mr. chairman, i hope we will be able to mark it up. when i looked at this issue, i

used a filter with five aspects and commended to my colleagues if they find it helpful. the first was is the evidence strongly compelling and convincing? secondly, if so, what action is thereby warranted. thirdly, what is if efficacy of the action and what are the risks? four, what is the efficacy and risks of doing nothing. finally, if the latter outweigh the former how can congress provide an authorization that's narrowly drawn to ensure no wider involvement but does two things. it enforces international law with respect to the ban on chemical weapons and it deters future use of such weapons. all of this is a matter of judgment. everything i've heard from my colleagues on both sides of the

aisle this week has been sincere and heartfelt and i pray that we proceed on a nonpartisan basis to try to tackle this issue with respecting everybody's ultimate judgment because it is a difficult issue and does not lend itself to basal answers. i've come to the conclusion that the evidence is compelling. i also believe the overhanging of iraq has many of us chained. iraq was based on faulty and shoddy intelligence that was misused to to justify in a commitment to invade another country, that's not the case here. we're not dealing with the president who is hungering to invade another country or put boots on the ground. obviously, his reluctance to do that is why we're here.

we're also not dealing with prospective surmise about whether such weapons exist and whether or not he might use them. there's no doubt the weapons exist and there's no doubt he used them. the question for us is what do we do about it. mr. secretary, let me ask one question. if we do nothing and mr. secretary hagel, i viet you to answer as well. if we do something, what is the likelihood in your judgment that bashar al-assad would use weapons as a routine weapon to turn the tide of this civil war? >> i think the likelihood is very high he would use them again. >> mr. secretary. >> i agree completely.

i might even put it at 100%. i'd say probably we will see these weapons use routinely in this civil war to turn the tide if we do nothing. what is the probability that such weapons will also then get in the hands of hezbollah and other elements supporting the assad regime and thus perhaps proliferate the region against friend and foe alike? >> i can't give you that probability. i just don't know what it is. i do know this. that there are three principle supporters of assad and the rest of the world is in horror of what is happening. the three principle supporters are iran, hezbollah and russia. and if iran and hezbollah are allowed to both see him stay in

power as well as do so with the use of chemical weapons, that is extraordinarily dangerous for jordan, israel, lebanon and our interests. >> we need to go to the chairman of the homeland security committee. >> i thank the chairman and secretaries for being here and general dempsey, thank you for being here as well. next week we commemorate the 12th anniversary of 9/11. it was al qaeda that hit the world trade center and al qaeda hit the pentagon down the street from here. before 9/11, al qaeda was the enemy. as chairman of homeland security committee, i want to make sure that never happens again and i know you share that as well. i think what gives congress great pause and the american people great pause is there's no good outcome here. they don't see a good side versus bad side. they see assad as a bad actor

who used chemical weapons. there's no question about that. but then who's the other side? who are the rebel forces? i ask that in my briefing all the time. every time i ask this, it gets worse and worse because majority of the rebel forces are radical islamists pouring in from all over the world to come to syria for the fight. my concern is any strike against this regime as bad as it is will empower these radical islamists and these extremists. we've seen this movie before. we've seen afghanistan and we've seen what happened in egypt. we saw what happened in libya. we saw what the arab springs brought us. it's not good. they fill the vacuum. they have filled a vacuum. my greatest concern when we look at syria is who is going to fill the vacuum when the assad regime

falls which we know it will. who is going to fill that vacuum? are the rebel forces the extremists, going to take over not only the government but these weapons because they are the ones most likely to use these weapons against americans and the united states. those images of children in damascus are horrific. i do not want to see those images in the united states. that is my grave concern and this is a very dangerous step that we are taking and i believe that we have to be very careful in how we proceed. and so with all due respect, this is well intentioned, i had concerns and i want to hear from both secretaries and the general as to whether you share these concerns and what you are doing to stop that outcome because that is the absolute worst scenario, worst outcome that could happen.

>> i apologize for interrupting. i'm very concerned about the foundation of your question. the premise of it. a woman by the name of elizabeth bagley, just wrote an article and works with the institute of war. she's fluent in arabic and spent an enormous amount of time studying the opposition and studying syria. she just published this the other day. very interesting article which i commend you. the fact is sitting behind me is ambassador robert ford. he is our ambassador to syria. he has spent an enormous amount of time with the opposition working with them and helping us to understand this dynamic. i just don't agree that a majority of al qaeda and the bad guys. that's not true. there are about 70,000 to 100,000 oppositionists. somewhere 15% to 25% may be in one group or another who are

what we would deem to be bad guys. there are many different groups. there are different entities and sometimes they are fighting each other even now. the general belief, there is a real moderate opposition that exists. the general is running the military arm of that. our allies in this effort, our friends from the saudis to others are now in a disciplined way funneling assistance through the moderate opposition get stronger as a result of that. >> i got 40 seconds. there are moderates there. the briefings i've received unless i have different ones or inaccurate briefings is 50% and rising. the fighters coming globally are not coming in as moderates. they are coming in as jihadists. that's my concern. >> there are jihadistists. >> i want to hear from the secretary and the general as well. >> well, i agree with secretary

kerry's analysis. let me just remind us you will and you know this very well, congressman, especially with your responsibilities as chairman of the homeland security committee. this is an imperfect situation. there are no good options here. this is complicated. there's no clarity. every point you made, the complications of various terrorists groups which we noted are there. they are in play. this is a specifically difficult part of us trying to sort out who we would support and how we would support them. so i don't question that. i do think that secretary kerry's points are correct. we do see movement on the inside in the right direction. >> mr. chairman, ranking member, rang e rangel, thank you for calling

this hearing. i believe we stand at a pivotal moment where congress is going to uphold the duty to protect our national security or we will not. i believe our vote on ultimately what will be a narrowly drawn resolution will be whether congress stands up to human rights or puts us on a dangerous path. whether we allow our power to dramatically shrink. i stand behind the president's request for limited and targeted strikes without u.s. troops on the ground against a regime guilty of heinous chemical weapons attacks on its own people. i know this is a difficult division. i know that some of my colleagues wish we had done a lot more before now. i know that my colleagues, other colleagues, wish to do nothing now. i acknowledge the difficulty of being unable to predict assad's next move. secretary hagel, you spoke to

that. this is a hard choice. i don't think any of us relish making it. no use of force can ever be taken lightly but inaction here, i believe, will dramatically harm our national security by emboldening the vial syrian regime, its terrorist proxy and iranian patron. it's essential that the united states in an unequivocal message to assad and other brutal regimes around the world, especially iran, when the united states congress, when theemic destruction, then we mean it. i believe america's credibility is on the line in syria. we images of children, women, of families lying dead cruelly murdered by assad. this strike, if it is to occur, is about preventing atrocities now and in the future and continued use of chemical weapons in syria and preventing

those weapons from being used by terrorists groups that threaten our allies and our citizens. american credibility is also on the line in iran. much like the red line set in syria, the president has and this committee has in strongly bipartisan fashion set a clear red line that we will not allow iran to obtain nuclear weapons capability. if congress votes down a limited declaration than the red line on nuclear weapons is meaningless. the sanctions that we passed unanimously out of this committee and 400 members supported on the house floor will be rendered largely worthless because they're not backed up by a credible threat of force. secretary kerry, i believe if we want to do everything in our power to solve the iranian nuclear issue without military action, then we must support this authorization. by authorizing the use of force against syria, america will make abundantly clear to the world including iran that using chemical weapons or defying

international law in pursuit of nuclear weapons will not be tolerated by this nation. make no it is mamistake. it's about syria and holding the regime accountable but also likely or less likely that iran will obtain nuclear weapons. i don't want to be in this position. none of us do. we didn't put ourselves in this position. the president didn't put us in this position. bashar al assad put us in this position when he chose to gas his own people. secretary kerry, a lot of people have come up tomy and say they're disgusted by what they say but the question they ask is why does america need to be the world's policemen. i ask you. why should the u.s. lead this effort? and will we learn which are the 34 nations and organizations