kerry and defense secretary testify about syria at a hearing on the house armed services committee. .. in addition to that, he's going to address the nation tonight.

he's going to speak directly to the american people about the potential for limited military action in syria. he's going to do that at 9:00 tonight. as i said last night, it's appropriate to allow other conversations to go on. we now have, as a result of some work done by other countries, france, russia, and we understand syria is involved in this, this is aimed at avoiding military action. we'll have to see if this works out. very important to understand that the only way russia is seeking to avoid military, the president obama has made it clear the it's will act if we must. our credible threat of force has made these diplomatic discussions with syria possible. and the united states should withdraw from the direction we're taking as a country. if there's a realistic chance -- and i hope there is -- to secure

syria's chemical weapons to avoid further atrocities of the assad regime, we should not turn our back. but the regime must quickly prove their offer is real, not a ploy to delay military action or act on the part of the united states senate, and must also assure chemical weapons in the hands of syria can be secured. and this can be done in an open process. any agreement must ensure that syria's unable to transfer dangerous chemical weapons into the hands of terrorists in that area. such an attempt would be met with a rapid response and robust from the united states. so i'm pleased the administration is considering this offer. i'm pleased other countries are involved. and in addition to russia, it's

my understanding syria and -- i'm sorry -- it's my understanding france is heavily involved, as of a few hours ago, and i think that's the right direction at this time. we move forward but under the general criteria i've suggested and outlined. the senate should give these discussions time to play out, but not unlimited time. that's why although there's support to move forward and debate this bipartisan issue, reported be senators menendez and corker, who did a terrific job with the committee last week, i didn't -- indicated last night a motion to proceed to this. we don't need to prove how quickly we can do this but how well we can do this. syrian regime should fully understand that the united stateses watching very, very closely. the assad regime should be warned, our country will not

tolerate this breach of human decency, and long-held international consensus against the use of chemical weapons. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent, the energy efficiency legislation, be modified so that the motion to proceed be agreed to at a time to be determined by me, with the concurrence of the republican leader. not consultation with him but with concurrence with him. >> is there ox? without objection, so ordered. >> mr. president, the republican leader. >> mr. president, first i'd like to welcome the president to the capitol today. members on both sides of the aisle are eager to hear from him and share their own thoughts. we look forward to a spirited

and constructive exchange. it is often said that of all the questions we face as lawmakers, none is more serious or indeed more difficult than the question of whether to commit ourselves to military action. that's why it's so important for us to have this debate. to lay out the arguments for and against military action in syria. to let the public know where we stand on this issue and why. but if debates like this are always challenging, in some ways this one has been on more difficult. not because of some political calculus, to the sinnics will always suspect that. no, this debate has been made more difficult because of even those of white house truly want to support the commander-in-chief, have struggled to understand the purpose of the mission. over the past several days, i've spoken with a lot of people, a

lot of kentuckians, and i have to tell you most of them aren't exactly clear about the mission themselves. or shy about saying so. but i told them i understand their concerns, i share them, i also appreciate the war weariness out there. but then i tell them there are other potential concerns we can't ignore here, either. chief among them is the fact that the credibility of the commander-in-chief matters. and related to that is the fact we can't afford as a country to withdraw from the world stage. so no one should be faulted for being skeptical about this proposal, regardless of what party they're in, or for'ing dumb founded, literally dumb founded at the ham-handed manner which the white house announced this. there's absolutely no reason, no reason, to signal to the enemy when and how and for how long

you plan to strike them. none. as i've said before you don't send out a save the date card, to the enemy. and yet there are other important considerations to keep in mind here as well, that go beyond the wisdom or the marketing of the proposal. i've spent a lot of time weighing all of these things. i've thought a lot about america's obligations and the irreplaceable role i've always believed and still believe, america plays in the world. and i've also thought a lot about the context, about this president's vision, and his record, and what it says' whether we should be confident in his ability to bring about a favorable outcome in syria. because how we got to this point says a lot about where we may be

headed. and that's why before announcing my vote i think it's important to look back at some of the president's other decisions on matters of foreign policy and national security, and then turn back to what he is proposing now in syria, because in the end, these things simply can't be separated. now, it's not exactly a state secret i'm no fan of this president's foreign policy. on the deepest level i think it comes down to a fundamentally different view of america's role in the world. unlike the president, i've always been a firm and unapologetic believer in the idea that america isn't just another nation among many. that we are indeed exceptional. as i've said i believe we have a duty, as a super power, without imperialistic gains to maintain

an international balance of power thought we and our allies worked very hard to achieve over the years. the president, on the other hand, has always been a very reluctant commander-in-chief. we saw that in the rhetoric of this famous cairo speech. and in speeches he gave in other foreign capitols in the early days of his administration. the tone, and the policies that followed, were meant to project a humbler, more withdrawn america. and, frankly, i'm hard pressed to see any good that came from any of that. any list would have to start with the arbitrary deadlines for military withdrawal, and the triumphant declaration that guantanamo bay would be closed within a year. without any plan of what to do with its detainees.

executive orders that ended the cia detention and interrogation programs. we all so the so-called reset with russia. and how the president's stated commitment to a world without nuclear weapons led him to sign an arms treaty with russia that did nothing to substantially reduce its nuclear profile or weapons weapon saw the president announce a strategic pivot to the asia-pacific region, without any real plan to fund it and an effort to end the capture of terrorists and return to the old idea that terrorism should be treated as a law enforcement matter. of a decade-long counter-incentury genesis in afghanistan we have seen the president's failure to invest in the moored concernization that is needed to make this post to asia meaningful.

specifically, his failure to make the kind of investments needed to maintain our dominance in the asia pacific theater, and the kind of naval, air, and ma reason corps forces we'll need there in the years ahead could have tragic consequences down the road. his domestic agenda has also obviously had serious implications for or global stapling. why borrowing trims and wasting taxpayer dollars at home, the president imposed austerity at the pentagon that threatens to undermine our stabilizing presence around the globe. and we have seen how eager the president is to declare an tone the war on terror. unfortunately the world just hasn't cooperated. they haven't cooperated with the

president's vision or his hopes. while responding favorably to this gentler approach, it's become more dangerous. he learned the hard way that being nice to our enemies doesn't make them like you or clear a path to peace. i understand that the president ran for office on an antiwar platform. that his rise to political power was marked by a determination to get us out of afghanistan and iraq, and declare an end, an end to the war on terror. i know heed rather focus on his domestic agenda. but the ongoing threat from al i'd and its affiliated and the broader middle east, not to mention the rice of chinese military power, make it clear to me this is not the time for america to shrink from the world stage. the world is a dangerous place. in the wake of the arab spring,

large part office the sinai, libya, syria, are now basically ungoverned. we have seen prison breaks in iraq, pakistan, libya, and release of prisoners in egypt. terrorists escaped from prisons in yemen, a country that is no more ready to main the terrorists in guantanamo now than in 2009. and the flow of foreign fighter into syria promise the war will last for years, whether assad is in power. yes, the president deserves praise for weakening al qaeda, but the a threat from al qaeda affiliates are very real. these terrorists are adaptable, versatile, lethal, resilient, and they aren't going away. pocket office these terrorist

extend from north africa to the persian gulf, and it's time he faced up to it. and it's time to face up to something else as well. international order is not maintained by some global police force. which only exists in a liberal fantasy. international order is maintained its backbone through american military might, which brings me back to syria. for two years now syria has been marred in a ferocious civil war, with more than 100,000 killed, with conventional arms. that's according to u.n. estimates. this tragic situation has promoted many to look to the united states for help. and so one year ago president obama made a declaration. if assad used or started moving chemical weapons, eat do something about it. well, as we all know,

august 21st this year that red line was crossed. the president's delayed response was to call for a show of force for targeted limited strikes against the regime. we have been told that the purpose of these strikes is to deter and degrade assad's regime's ability to use chemical weapons. so let's take a closer look at these aims. first, no one disputes the atrocities in syria in recent weeks are unspeakable. no one disputes that those responsible for these crimes against the independent should be held to account. we were absolutely right, of course to condemn these crimes. but let's be very clear about something. these attacks, monstrous as they are, were not a direct attack against the united states or one of its treaty allies. and just so there's no

confusion, let me assure everyone that if a weapon of mass destruction were used against the u.s. or one of our allies are congress would react immediately with an authorization for the use of force in support of an overwhelming response, i would introduce the resolution myself. so, no leader in north korea or iran or in the other of the united states should take any solace is the u.s. were not to respond with an action against syria. we will never, never, tolerate the use of them kale weapons against the united states or any of its treaty allies. second, in the course of the administration hearings and briefings over the past several days, secretary of state kerry has revealed that assad has used chemical weapons repeatedly. repeatedly over the last year. so there's a further question here about why the administration didn't respond on those occasions.

third. assad, as i've indicated, has killed tens of thousands of people with conventional weapons. is there any reason to believe he won't continue if the president's strikes are as limited as we're told they would be. fourth, what if degrading assad's control of the weapons -- if in doing that you make it easier for other extremists elements, like those associated with al qaeda to actually get ahold of them themselves. or what if by weakening the syrian military you tilt the military balance towards an opposition that is in no position to govern or control anything right now. i think the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey, put the issue best when he recently suggested in a letter to congress that the issue is not about choosing between two sides in syria. it's about choosing one among

many sides. and that in his estimation, even if we were to choose sides, the side we chose wouldn't be in a position to promote their own interests or ours. that's the chairman of the joint chiefs. and then there's the question of how assad himself would react to u.s. action in syria. if assad views an air campaign as preparation for regime change, then he may lose all constraint in the use of his arsenal, chemical or otherwise. and lose any incentive whatsoever to move to the negotiating table. it's very clear that the unintended consequences of this strike could very well be a new cycle of escalation. which then drags us into a larger war than we're all -- that we're all seeking to avoid. some have even suggested the humanitarian crisis serenaing the syrian civil war could be

made worse as a result of even targeted u.s. strikes. in the end, then, the president's proposal seems fundamentally flawed. if it's too narrow it may not deter assad's further use of chemical weapons, but if it's too broad it recollections jeopardizing the security over the same stockpiles, potentially putting them in the hands of extremists and that's why i think we're compelled to apply a more traditional standard to whether to proceed with the use of force. one that asks a simple question. does assad's use of chemical weapons pose a threat to the national security interest of the united states? and the answer to that question is fairly obvious. even the president himself says, it doesn't.

now, one could argue, as i have suggested, there's an important national security concern at play, that we have a very strong interest in preserving the credibility of our commander-in-chief, regardless of the party in power, and in giving him the political support that reinforces that credibility. this is an issue i take very seriously. it's the main reason i wanted to take my time in making a final decision. but ultimately, i've concluded that being credible on syria requires presenting a credible response. and having a credible strategy. for all those reasons, i've indicated this proposal just doesn't pass muster. indeed, if through this limited strike the president's credibility is not restored because assad uses chemical weapons again, what then? and new targets aimed at toppling the regime which

jeopardize control of the same chemical weapons stashes, allowing them to fall into the hands of al qaeda and others intent on using them against the united states or our alf allies, where where the cycle of escalation end? now, last neath we learned about a russian diplomatic gambit to forestall military action to procure and eventually destroy the chemical weapons stockpile. this morning there are initial reports that suggest syria is supportive of it. let me remind everyone that even if this is agreed to it's still a long way off to reaching an agreement at the united nations. to syria gaining entry into the chemical weapons convention and eventually securing and destroying the stockpile. as we have seen in my own state of kentucky, where we have been working for 30 years finally

destroy a stockpile of chemical weapons, destroying chemical weapons is extremely challenging. and requires a great deal of attention to detail and safety. nonetheless, this proposal is obviously worth exploring. but more broadly, -- and this is my larger point -- this one punitive strike we're debating could not make up for the president's performance of the last five years. the only way, the only way for him to achieve the credibility he seeks is by embracing the kind of serious, integrated, national security plan that matches strategy to resources, capables to commitments. and which shows our allies around the world that the u.s. is fully engaged and ready to act at a moment's notice in all the major areas of concern around the globe. whether it's the met ter rainan, -- mediterranean,

persian gulf, or south china sea and just as importantly he is willing to invest in the strategy for the long term in syria, a limited strike would not resolve the civil war there. nor will it remove assad from power. there appears to be no broader strategy to train, advise, and assist a vetted opposition group on a meaningful scale. as we did during the cold war. what is needed in syria is what is needed almost everywhere necessary the world from america right now, a clear strategy and a president determined to carry it out. when it comes to syria, our partners in the middle east, countries like turkey, jordan, saudi arabia and israel, all of them face real consequences from instability, refugee flows, and the growth of terrorist networks. responding to this crisis requires a regional strategy and leadership.

what we have gotten instead is an administration that seems more interesting in telling us what the mission is not, more interested in telling us what the mission is not, than what it is. we have gotten the same tentative reluctant leadership i've seen from the president for nearly five years. as i've said this decision was not easy. when the president of the united states asks you to take a question like this seriously, you do so. because just as our credibility in syria is tied up with our credibility in places like iran and north korea, so, too, is the credibility of the commander-in-chief tied up to a large extent with america's credibility in general. there's no doubt about that. so, let me repeat. i'll stand shoulder and shoulder with this president or any other in case our vital national security interests are threatened. our treaty allies are attacked, or we face an imminent threat.

as for israel, very few people, if anyone, expect that syria would test its readiness to respond on its own, which just goes to show you the importance of credibility on the world stage. as prime minister netanyahu put it last week, the enemies of israel have very good reason not to test its might. but the prime minister should know, nonetheless, that america stands with him. i've never been an isolationist and a vote against this resolution shouldn't be confused by anyone as a turn in that direction. but just as those committed isolationists could be convinced of thed in for intervention under the right circumstances when confronted with a threat, so, too, do the internationalists among us believe that all interventions are not created equal. all interventions are not

created equal. and this proposal just does not stand up. so, i'll be voting against this resolution, a vital national security risk is clearly not at play. there are too many unanswered questions about our long-term strategy in syria, including the fact this proposal is us utah early detached from a schrader strategy in the civil war there, and on specific questions of deterring the use of chemical weapons the president's proposal appears to be based on a contradiction. either we will strike target that threaten the stability of the regime, something that the president says he does not intend to do, or execute a strike so narrow that it's a mere demonstration. it's not enough, as general dempsey has noted to simply alter the balance of military power without carefully considering what is needed to preserve a functioning state

after the fact. we cannot ignore the unintended consequences of our actions actd we cannot ignore our broader obligations in the world. i firmly believe that the international system constructed on the ash office world war ii rests upon the stability provided by the american military and by our commitments to our allies. it is a necessary role that only we can continue to fulfill in the decades to come. and especially in times like this, the united states cannot afford to withdraw from the world stage. my record reflects that bailiff life and -- that belief and that commitment no matter which party controls the white house weapon choose to be dominant in the world or resign ourselves oursed our allies to the mercy of our enemies. we either defend our freedoms and civilization or it crumbles. so as we shift our military

focus to the asian pacific, we cannot ignore our commit. s to the middle east to stability in the persian gulf, to an enduring presence in afghanistan, to hunting down the terrorists that would threaten the united states and its people, and when the commander in chief sets his mind to action, the world should think he believes it. when the commander-in-chief sets his mind to an action, the world should think he believes it. frankly, the president didn't exactly inspire confidence when he distanced himself from his own red lines last week. it is long past time for the president to drop the pose of the reluctant warrior and lead. you can't build an effective foreign policy on the vilification of your predecessor alone, but at some point you have to take responsibility for your own actions, and see the world the way it is. not the way you'd like it to be.

if you wish to engage countries that have been hostile so be it. but be a realist. know the limits of rhetoric and prepare for the worst. for too long this president has put his faith in the power of his own rhetoric to change the mind of america's enemies. for too long he has been more interested in showing the world that america is somehow different. now than it has been in the past. it's humbler. he isn't interested in meddle until the affairs of others or shaping events 'but in his eagerness to turn the page he has blinded himself to the trends and developments from damascus and tehran and countless places in between. a year ago this month, four americans were senselessly murdered on sovereign u.s. territory in benghazi, and just last month the president ordered the closing of more than two dozen diplomatic posts from west

africa to the bay of bengal. as i've indicated and as the decision to close these embassies clearly shows, the terrorist threat continues to be real. expression office antiamericannism are rampant in the middle east, even moore so when the president first took office. so the president's new approach has clearly come with a cost. and for the sake of our open security and that of our allies, it's time he recognized it. because if america doesn't meet it international excitements, who will? that's one question that those on the left, who are comfortable with a weakened america-can't answer, because the answer is too frightening. no one will. that's the answer. if this episode has shown us anything, it's that the -- it's time for the president to knowledge there's no substitute

for american mid-michigan. it's time for america to lead again. this time from the front. but we need strategic vision in the middle east and many other places around the world to do it. mr. president, lead the floor. >> thank you, mr. president. this week we have a very difficult set of questions to answer as it relates to sarah -- syria ask the crisis there, but in particular we have a question to answer as it relates to what the united states should do. so i rise this morning to express strong support for this authorization to degrade bashar al-assad's chemical weapon's capability and deter the future use of these horrific weapons. now, i made this determination based upon the evidence and the national security concerns of --

national security interests of the united stating are both national security interests today as well mass the -- as well as in the future. the resolution before the united states senate right now does not allow for the deployment of u.s. combat troops on the ground in syria. i will not support, nor die think there would be much sport in this chamber, but i will not support any measure that would involve u.s. boots on the ground in syria, and this resolution pacifically speaks to this concern, and i am quoting in part the resolution: the authority granted in section 28 does not authorize the use of the united states armed forces on the ground in syria for the purpose of combat operations, unquote. so, it's important that we make that point. as we've all seen-especially in the last few days, the situation in syria is in flux, especially the last 24 hours. the russian government put fortha proposal yesterday which

would have international monitors take control of syria's chemical weapons in order to avert a u.s. military strike. i'm open to this diplomatic discussion. however, not without caution and not without skepticism. diplomatic solutions are always the preferred path and military strikes should always be the last re sort. i think prior to this proposal we were at that point of the last resort. but the only reason that this proposal is on the table is because of the credible threat of force that is being debated here in washington, but even most significantly, debated across the country. the authorization itself should still go forward because it will keep the pressure on the syrian regime for a diplomatic solution. now, i'd like too spend a couple minutes on our own national security interests.

in march of 2011, as reported by the u.s. state department, multiple news sources, including cnn, reported that the syrian government authorizeds had arrested 15 school children -- school children -- for spray-painting antigovernment slogans. these young people were reportedly tortured, while in custody, and authorities resorted to force from their parents and others in the community called for their release. within one week the police had killed 55 demonstrators in connection with the early efforts to provide opposition to the assad regulartime. the regime committed countless atrocities during the next two years of this conflict, culminating in the up speakable use, the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons on

august 21st. mr. president, i would submit nor for the record a report from cnn, dated march 1, 2012, and ask it be included in the record. >> without objection. >> this report is march of 2012 but it looks back in the retrospective fashion on what happened in those early days of the opposition coming together in 2011. and i'll read in pertinent part, part of what cnn said about what happened when these school children were demonstrating against the regime. they talked in this report about the young people, as i mentioned, not just protesting but spray-painting their beliefs against the regime, and at the time, not a lot of people around the world were focused on what

was happening in syria. but let me quote in pertinent part: at one point one of the commentators -- one of the citizens on the street was saying, the anymore dara, quote, didn't want to go against the regime. people thought that this leader, mr. assad, was better than his father. nobody wanted to go face-to-face with him. but then, of course, it was young people -- in this case even school children -- who led the way, who led the way to take him on. so i submit that for the record because this opposition started on the streets of syria, in this case in dara, starting with young people. but of course, continued from there, and we know that the regime itself has the largest

chemical stockpile in the region, one of the large nest the world. we know mr. assad used these weapons against his only people, not only august 21st but multiple occasions friar that in a much more limited way. we also know he has the capacity, the will, and unfortunately the track record to use these weapons against innocent civilians. we also should remember that we have troops in other military and diplomatic personnel in the region in the middle east. even syria's acquisition -- even syria's very acquisition of chemical weapons threatens our national security. in 2003, the congress of the united states -- some people have forgotten about this -- the congress of the united states in 2003 passed the syria accountability and lebanese sovereignty restoration act of that year.

this act explicitly states that congress found, the united states congress made a finding, quote, that syria's acquisition -- i'm underlining that word, acquisition -- of weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the middle east and the national security interests of the united states. unquote. so this congress, ten years ago, made a determination that the acquisition of chemical weapons was a threat to our national security. we are in a different world now. syria not only acquired them but has now used them multiple times on their own people. the most recent the scenes we all saw on the videos now part of the public record. so there is clear and convincing evidence of the direct involvement of the assad regime, the forces of the assad regime, and senior officials in the planning, execution, and

aftermath and attempts to cover up the august 21st attack. this is graphically evident in the 13 awe then tech indicated videos released by the senate intelligence committee compiled by the open source center, showing the results of chemical weapons use in the damascus suburbs on august 21st. these videos were shown to the intel committee on thursday and played on cnn on saturday. so many americans have seen them and if you would like more information about them, you can go to my web site and i'm sure many others as well. so it's clear the regime violated international law as it relates to chemical weapons. we know that the regime committed a barrage of terror across the country with the sole aim of remaining in power. and so we have to ask yourselves, when a dictator, or a terrorist organization, uses chemical weapons in violation of international law, that regime

or terrorist organization muss pay a price or not. i would argue they must pay a price. we simply can't condemn this crime against humanity. it is in the national security interests of the united states for the administration to have the authorization to act. the regime in iran and the terrorist organization hezbollah and the regime in north korea are watching very closely, and it's imperative that we take steps to address this threat. let me talk for a couple minutes about the regime in iran and hezbollah. what happens in syria is of great consequence to our security interests as it relates that regime and hezbollah. that regime meaning the iranian regime. their support for hezbollah through syria has resulted in constant plotting against the united states and its allies. the assad regime in syria is the conduit of this relationship between hezbollah and the

iranian regime itself. i support this authorization of targeted and strategic military action to hold the syrian regime accountable and because it will diminish the ability of iran and hezbollah to conduct acts of terror and to protect american lives if we hold them accountable, and of course, the syrian people. indeed, other than al qaeda, other than al qaeda, hezbollah's killed more americans than any other terrorist organization in the world, including 241 marines in 1983. hezbollah has consistently partnered with iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps to bolster assad's regime. the regime in iran has provided funds, weapons, logistical support, tactical advice and fighters to the sirrian government forces.

this year iran's support to assad has increased with reported daily resupply flights to syria. the syrian regime possesses a stockpile of chemical weapons that we cannot allow to fall into the hands of terrorist. iran and hezbollah are already -- i think some people in washington missed this -- they're not on the sidelines. they're already on the battle field and i argue iran and hezbollah are on two battlefields. certainly in syria itself, and also the daily battlefield of terrorist acts, plotting against the united states, and plotting against other countries as well. failure to bring action and failure to hold syria accountable after such a horrific crime will only serve to embolden the iranian regime and hezbollah and others to expand terror across the world. iran's stats tuesday as the world's leading state sponsor of

terrorism is well-established and it's proxy have perpetuated attacks against the united states, israel, and our allies, embolden by iran support, hezbollah has conducted terrorist attacks since the early 1980s, including western targets. hezbollah has become more aggressive in the last few years, and has executed attacks in the mideast and on two other continents, asia, south asia and europe. two years ago a plot was uncovered to blow up a restaurant in georgetown, right here in washington, dc, to kill the saudi ambassador to the u.s. as well as u.s. officials and average citizens. when the iranian-backed attacker was questioned he referred to the potential killing of americans as, quote no big deal. unquote. i'll submit the statement of the department of justice official report on the plot for the record, and i'd ask consent that

the -- this report by the department of justice entitled, two men charged an alleged plot to assist senate saudi arabian ambassador to the united states. i i'd submit that to the record. >> without objection. >> so the list goes on. we know nat in june of 1996, the bombing of the towers in saudi arabia where 19 u.s. air force personnel were killed, another example of iran-backed terrorist activity. it goes back as far as to 1983, and the 241 marines killed in a truck bombing in beirut. also new reports on evidence that strongly suggests an iran-backed plot was underway to kill the u.s. ambassador in 2011. ...

>> every member of congress will have to wait a consequence for the use of chemical weapons and contemplate what it will mean for the iranian regime and hezbollah. after receiving several intelligence briefings, i am

confident that even before. that we have insignificant national security imperative to authorize the president to act as it relates to the country of syria. i have no doubt that bashar al-assad used the weapons on his people and cost more than one redline. so i support this use of force. by the way, this authorization would be probably the most limited authorization in recent american history. and so i believe that congress can stand united on this issue and we have to make sure that we not only hold the regime, but we are doing everything possible. one of the rationales for the reason we are taking the steps i

hope we take was that ford in an op-ed this weekend. it is entitled pulling the curtain back on syria. i would ask that this op-ed be submitted for the record. >> without objection. >> mr. kristof says while there are many injustices around the world from dark for two eastern parts, it is the principle of human suffering. there are feud journalists and americans would have more credibility on the issue of what is happening to children and to vulnerable populations around the world. for him to say that the world capital of suffering is in

syria, but the world capital of human suffering is a syria coming up, that's a powerful and compelling statement and it brings me back to the regime against mr. bashar al-assad. the people who let the wayward children or young people, making the case against his regime. one of the haraway and very disturbing elements of this crisis is the impact that it has had on children. i received a report today they came from children personnel around the ground in syria. and i would note for the record a document entitled that the

children crisis in syria, and asked that to be included in the record as well. >> without objection. >> that document, in great detail is the human suffering of children. and maybe the most graphic and disturbing example was the footage that many americans have had the opportunity to view. the hundreds of children that were killed instantly in this horrific chemical weapons attack , by one estimate, maybe as many as 426 children killed. so when we confront this, we cannot say that this is just another horrific situation around the world. when you consider what this regime did schoolchildren, by many accounts arresting and torturing them at the beginning of this opposition, all the way through to the attack on august

august 21. we are summoned by our conscience consider what happened to the children and what will continue to happen to children in syria and in places around the world. we hope to remove this terrible threat from syria. by giving total and complete control of chemical weapons or international force. but the burden of proof is on syria in the russian federation. and they have to deliver very specifically in a timeframe to do so, especially they expect us to agree with us.

we have the security of the united states, which is overwhelming and compelling in this instance red with that, mr. president, i yield back. >> i would like to use this opportunity to say a few words about the issue that is on everyone's minds. and to tell you that approximately 95% of the thousands of e-mails and phone calls that we have received is against u.s. military intervention in the bloody and chaotic civil war in syria there

is probably no state in this country where this bloody civil war in syria is being supported. it is an interesting phenomenon that we have a very divided nation politically. but on this issue it appears that the vast majority of democrats and republicans and independents, the vast majority of progressives and conservatives, they have all come together to express deep concern about the united states being involved.

clearly has much to do with the fact that the united states has already been at war for 12 years. there are kids in this country who are halfway through primary school who have never been at war. what the american people also understand is that these wars have been enormous in many ways as chairman of the veterans

committee, i can tell you that today we have tens of thousands of veterans from iraq and afghanistan, many are dealing with posttraumatic stress disorder, problems that they will carry with them for the rest of their lives. the cost of these wars has been enormous. the human cost has been enormous. it is not only the human cost, but the financial cost as well. there are thousands of little kids who desperately need education or head start. we should be expanding head start. but because of sequestration, we

are throwing him off of head start. we are denying nutrition programs, the meals on wheels program that goes to some of the most horrible people in this country. we have massive cuts through furloughs with tens of thousands of federal employees, including many members of the vermont national guard. by the time we take care of the last servicemember who served in iraq and afghanistan, those wars will have cost us at least $3 trillion. but it's not only does the troubles the american people. it is not only the financial cost of trouble the american

people. it is a deep sense that exists across the political spectrum that foreign policy in going to war is a lot more complicated than what we first believed. in 2001 the united states invaded afghanistan and they had no army against these forces. twelve years later we are still in afghanistan.

well, it didn't turn out quite the way we had planned. thousands of deaths waited for american service members. tens of thousands of deaths for the people of iraq and peace and democracy in our country have not yet been achieved. it's a lot more complicated than people thought it would be. what are the long-term implications and what are the unforeseen consequences of the united states being involved in a horrendous and bloody and complicated war in syria. all of us know that aside bashar al-assad exploits his people terribly and uses chemical weapons against them.

some 20 to 25% turnout to be islamic and some of them are affiliated with al qaeda. what are the long-term implications and unintended consequences of being involved in a war in that area? the president has been clear and once you break the edge, once you get involved, we have to bear and will bear a certain amount of responsibility for what happens during the war and even after the war if bashar al-assad is overthrown. that is why the american people are extremely concerned about

going into syria without the support of the international community without the support of the united nations there is another reason as to why there is so much opposition and that is, i think, that has everything to do with the fact that the favorability ratings of the united states congress is today somewhere between eight and 15%. and the vast majority of the american people don't know, they don't care who controls the

senate, whether it's the democrats, they don't know who controls the house order if it's the republicans. by-and-by, the american people have given up, the reason that the united states congress which are very serious at this moment or if we are incapable of responding to what the american people are saying and they are saying it very loudly. is that we have a congress and the white house which continues. the middle-class and working family and what we are saying is that yes, we agree with you. what bashar al-assad is doing in syria is unspeakable. he is gassing his own people and that is beyond belief.

we want the international community to address that. but they're also saying is that members of congress think about our children, the kids in west virginia, california, detroit, and what kind of future are they going to do when they let the middle-class disappear and remain at the all-time high over the last 60 years. today, mr. president, real unemployment in this country is not 7.4%, real unemployment is close to 14%. this is a real tragedy. kids are graduating high school looking for jobs, they want to

get a sense of independence and there are no jobs for them. it is close to 20%. for minorities, the number is considerably higher. the kids are graduating from high school and there are no jobs available to them they were shooting up heroin in vermont, not to mention the rest of the country, and they don't see much of a future. parents are worried that their kids will graduate from college, often deeply in debt. in either they can't find a job

where the jobs they do obtain often do not really require a college degree. the fact of the matter is that most of the jobs created in this country are either part-time jobs with minimal benefits and they are often low-wage jobs. but the department of labor is telling us is that most of the new jobs that we see are not really require a college degree. and the people are saying yes, we are concerned about syria. but we are also concerned about los angeles and detroit and st. john's, vermont, and please, mr. president, create jobs for the working family of this country. and what they are begging the congress to do is address the

needs of our people. and i think this has a lot to do with why there was so much opposition to getting involved in this war in syria. as they understand right now that the congress has virtually done nothing to improve the economy for working families, and they worry very much at all of our time and energy and resources are devoted to syria, that we will never address the serious problems facing working families of this country. mr. president, tens of millions of our fellow americans today are working longer hours and lower wages and many of them are earning wages that are simply too low to support a family.

all over this country the new jobs are being created are not paying what the jobs in this country used to pay. we have millions of people working for disgracefully low minimum wage of $7, 25 cents per hour. members of congress are worried about syria, but when you work to make sure that every person has a job in this country can earn a wage, which enables him or her to take care of their families. and the people also understands.

congress doesn't pay a lot of attention to, but the american people understand that it's not only high unemployment, but something else is going on in this country. they know that while the middle class is disappearing at 46 million americans are living in poverty, they understand that the people whose lobbyists surround this institution, those who make huge campaign contributions to the political party, they are doing very well. they are doing extraordinarily well. well, guess what, they are making record-breaking profits. richard doing all. corporate america is doing well. they're making campaign contributions in the and the american people are looking

around and saying, what are you doing. what are you doing to protect the children of this country and to make sure that the united states have health care is a right. there is so much lack of support for this war, and the american people feel that it is high time for us to pay attention to their needs. mr. president, we have recently heard in the news is being updated almost momentarily that russia, for what ever reason,

has decided finally to play a positive role in the crisis, and they are urging syria to allow the international community to take possession of their chemical weapons. and we believe that france is prepared to go to the security council with a resolution similar to what the russians are talking about. i cannot tell you how honest the russians are being in this effort. what they're all teary or plans may be. but i do think that now is the opportunity to work with russia and to work with china and the security council and the united nations. and it will be an extraordinary victory in my view for the people of syria who are going through quarter after quarter

and for the future of the world come if we could take that chemical -- the chemical weapons out of the hands of the sherman act, we need to do that. i'm sure the secretary of state will be working with the international community to make that happen. we are at a momentous moment in history. that is that the people are coming together. to say that we have an enormous response ability and our country that if we don't get our act together, but we don't see the decline in this great nation, and for the first time we will see our children having a lower standard of living than we do.

i would hope that lesson that we learn of this episode is that the american people do not want us unilaterally getting involved in another war in the middle east. and this country faces enormous crisis is economically, health care, education, income and wealth, inequality, and they want us to start addressing those needs. so i hope, mr. president, out of this very difficult moment, that the silver lining is that we learn something and that we begin to do what they say. >> coming up on c-span2, more about syria with secretary of

state john kerry and chuck hagel, they testify before the house armed services committee. the house oversight committee pulled a hearing of white house documents and e-mails, and the director of the centers for disease control talk about the cdc's public-health efforts. >> on the next "washington journal", reaction to president obama's address on the u.s. strike in syria. then congressman mark meadows. and with congress cochair. our spotlight features james bennett on the assassination of president john f. kennedy. "washington journal" is live every morning, starting at seven eastern on c-span.

>> is different than earlier presidential rounds. they did not try to be self-sufficient. what edith wanted at sagamore was the expense of living there. green so they can feed their horses and reduce the cost of having horses there. they did have a lovely garden, everything from corn to strawberries was produced. they had an arbor that had strawberry and blueberry fields and the idea was to reduce the cost of maintaining a property like this. >> watcher program of edith roosevelt at her website, c-span.org/first ladies. or see it friday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. we continue our series as we look at first lady helen taft.

>> cabinet officials were back on capitol hill today to argue against the assad regime. defense secretary chuck cagle and martin dempsey testified house on services committee. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. the house armed services committee needs to receive testimony on the proposed authorization to the use of military forces in syria. our witnesses include secretary of state john kerry, secretary of defense chuck hagel and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, martin dempsey. thank you for being with us. you have had a very busy week and we appreciate the time the efforts we have made to be with us and inform the committee.

this committee is closely monitored and we have focused on understanding the strategic context ,-com,-com ma the options come the risk of the options, as well as the cost of military actions in syria. i hope that our witnesses will focus not only on the case for military action, that has been made of the last two weeks, but also addressing what has been raised by members on a bipartisan basis. this includes understanding more about second order effects and how a limited strike will achieve our policy goals and the planning that has been done to miscalculate in terms of operational and financial planning. what options, short of military action do we have to respond to the escalation for retaliation.

secretary haeckel, although you have estimated that this will cost tens of millions of dollars, in april of this year, you testified that we should start with the question of how do you pay for military action if we do something. yes, i think it is pretty clear that a supplemental would be required. history tells us that there will likely be second or third order effects with military action and therefore gives me great cause that we have not addressed the devastating cuts for military duty sequestration. even as we commit our military to another new mission. we have cut the military's budget informed missions over libya and cut the military's budget. we are pivoting to the asia pacific and cutting the military budget. these cuts total $1.2 trillion. we are now considering strikes

on syria while the military budget continues to be cut. i share president obama's concern about the use of chemical weapons. i am also deeply concerned about the united states standing in the region. the president put america's cards on the table. i am equally concerned about the conditions of the military in years of fighting and the lack of certainty. we have not had a budget and determine this office. they do not know really what they have to spend at the end of this month going into next year. it is not a way to run an organization. we cannot keep asking the military to perform dangerous mission after mission, including

sequestration hanging over their heads. through miss clarity of purpose and leadership, the president has power to lay many of these concerns, and i look forward to answer these questions with your testimony here today. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think the witnesses and secretary kerry and general dempsey for being here as well. we face these issues as a country and there is no question that bashar al-assad has used chemical weapons in syria and it has been overwhelming, the hearings that i have been to in which there are a series of acts in and of themselves. so how best to respond all of us

and how do we hold him accountable for all of us? there is no question as we try to control the proliferation of chemical weapons and if the goal we must have as a nation we must go forward. i think what her committee wants to hear today is how is that going to happen and how this one-time strike be enough to hold bashar al-assad accountable, while not creating more chaos and running the risk these very dangerous weapons which follow an even more dangerous hands. given the presence of al qaeda and other groups that would not be friendly to us and would be very dangerous. how do you strike that balance between holding bashar al-assad accountable and not creating a difficult situation. we are going to have some serious questions as to how that is accomplished, and we look forward to hearing from the witnesses to help us better understand this problem. also, we are very interested in how serious the russian proposal

is. if you think of that as a worthy goal in terms of holding assad accountable, that is something we definitely want to hear about, how you think that that plays into our decisions going forward. and i would like to agree with the chair. it is an enormous problem, certainly it adds a layer of complication for every conflict that comes up, including the one in syria. i would and sequestration tomorrow. we can talk about how to get the budget deficit under control long-term, revenues, spending, all of that, and sequestration is really devastating our military, causing a number of problems and it was never meant to be implemented. it is an intention that has clearly failed and i think that we should just eliminate it. we are talking about how to control the deficit without torturing the budget on a day in

and day out basis. so it pumps a more serious discussion of bad and i will be one tiny positive as to what is otherwise a very dangerous situation. i look forward to your testimony on the questions from our committee. again, i think everyone for being here today. >> thank you, secretary john kerry. distinguished members of the committee and ranking member smith, it is a privilege to be here with secretary haeckel and general dempsey, and we are all of us come all three of us very much looking forward to a conversation with you about this complicated and challenging, but critical issue that our country faces. we do not come to you lightly. secretary haeckel and i particularly come here with an enormous amount of respect for

this process and what each of you go through at home and the challenges that you face with constituents and the complexity of this particular issue. so this is good that we are here. we look forward to the conversation. as we convene at this hearing, it is no exaggeration at all to say that the world is watching. they are watching not just to see what we decided how we decide. whether or not we have the ability at this critical time when so much is on the line and so many parts of the world have challenges to governance. it is important that we show the world that we actually do have the ability to hopefully speak with one voice, and we believe

that that can make a difference. needless to say, this is one of the most important decisions at any member of congress makes during the course of their service. we all want to make sure that we leave plenty of time for discussion and this is honestly a very large committee. as we will try to summarize in these comments and give you the opportunity for a q&a. i would like to open with two comments about the questions i'm hearing from many of your colleagues, and honestly from the american people and what we read in the news. people ask me and you, i know, why we are choosing to have a debate on syria at a time when there is so much that we need to be doing here at home, and we all know what that is. let me assure you that the president of the united states did not wake up one day and just

flippantly say let us take military action in syria. he did not choose this. we did not choose this. we are here today because bashar al-assad has chosen to meet with bullets and bombs and napalm and gas, because he made the decision to use the world's most heinous weapons to murder more than 1400 innocent people, including more than 400 children. he and his regime made a choice and president obama believes in all of us at this table believe that we have no choice but to respond. to those who doubt whether his actions will bring worse

consequences. everyone of us knows that this is the case. america will face this, if not today, somewhere down the line when not acting now gives us our licensed go do what he wants. and threaten israel and jordan and lebanon and create greater instability in a region already racked by instability were instability is one of the greatest priorities of our foreign policy and national security interests. that brings me to the second question i have heard lately, which is what is really at stake here. you know, does this really affect us? i asked steve what you are

hearing. i know what he's hearing. the reaction is we don't want to go to iraq and afghanistan, we have seen how this turns out. i get it, and i will speak to that in a minute. i want to make it clear that each of us want to make it clear that what assad has done affects america's security. we have a huge national interest in containing all weapons of mass destruction. the use of gas is a weapon of mass destruction, allowing those weapons to be used would be an enormous change in our armor that we have built up over the years. especially against proliferation. our own troops benefit against chemical weapons.

yesterday in the briefing, many of you were there and some of you, i noticed, many of you have served in the military, some of you are still in the reserves, and we know the trainings that we used to go through when you are learning. and i went to chemical biological warfare school and they make you take it off, and if you wanted to do it and it is not for long. those weapons have been outlawed in our troops and all over the world that we have fought in any wars and we have never subducted anyone to a because we stand up for that prohibition. there is a reason for that. we will irreparably damaged century-old standard that has protected american troops in war. so to everyone every one of your constituents, if they were to say to you, we don't want to go

to war because you want to protect american troops and the world's prohibition against these weapons. the stability of this region is also in our direct security interests and our allies and friends are israel, jordan, and turkey, all of them are a strong wind away from being injured themselves or potentially from the purposeful attack. it will make this already volatile neighborhood even more combustible and almost certainly paves the way for his more serious challenge in the future. there's a there is a reason that the prime minister had said this matters in this decision matters. iran looms out there with its

nuclear program and the challenge we have been facing. that moment is coming closer in terms of the decision. they are watching what we do here, they are watching what you do. if we choose not to act, we will be sending a message of american ambivalence or weakness are you really going to do something they ask is also the president cut a deal and it congress will back it up i have no doubt that

israel does not want to be in the middle of this, but we know that their security is at risk in the region is at risk, and i also want to remind you that we have already spoken to this, your word is online trend line as well. he passed the accountability act and act clearly states that this threatens the security of the middle east and that is in plain writing. reverted decided that this that this is important to the stringer security of donation and i quote that the national security interests of the united states is at risk with weapons of syria. in the fourth question i have

been asked and and i want to emphasize on behalf of president obama, the first priority throughout this process, has been and is diplomacy. and on many occasions we have sent direct message to syria and had their allies do this, don't use these weapons and in last three years, russia and china had vetoed three security council resolutions or resolutions that promote a political solution to the dialogue and conflict. russia has brought press

releases that do nothing more than express humanitarian concern for what is happening in syria were condemned the generic use of chemical weapons, not even assigning blame. they have blocked them. we have brought these concerns, making the case to protect civilians prohibiting the use of chemical weapons in promoting peace and security and these are in our shared interests, and those general statements have been applied. that is why the president directed me to work with the russians to get a to peace negotiations under way. in the end to the conflict in syria, we have all emphasize today that this is a political solution. and none of us are coming here today asking for long-term -- some people think that we ought

to be, but we do not believe that there is any military solution to what is happening in syria. but make no mistake that no political solution will ever be achievable as long as assad believes that he can gas is way out of this predicament. we are without question building the coalition to support this now. thirty-one countries have signed on with the g20 statement, which is a powerful one holding assad accountable for what he is doing now we are in the double digits and we are prepared to actually take action should they be needed, were they capable of it. more than 31 nations signing on.

utter diplomatic hand only becomes stronger if other countries know that america is speaking with a strong voice here, one voice. and we are stronger as a united nation around this purpose. in order to speak about boys, we need you, the congress. that is what the president did. many of you said, please bring us to congress and bring this to the congress and the president has done that. we are confident that the congress will join in the effort in order to uphold the united states of america and it would respect these weapons of mass destruction. i want to be crystal clear about something else. some people want to do more in syria, some are leery about

doing anything at all, but one thing that we all better be able to agree on is that chemical weapons cannot be under the control of a man so craven that he has repeatedly used those chemical weapons against his fellow syrians with a horrific result that all of us have been able to see it. yesterday we challenged the regime to turn them over to the secure control of the international community so that they can be destroyed. that would be the ultimate way and is the ideal weapon in a way to take this weapon away from them. the russians have responded by saying that they would come up with proposals to do exactly that and we have made it clear to them, i haven't several conversations that this cannot be a process of delay or avoid ends, it has to be real and

measurable and tangible, and it is exceedingly difficult and i want everyone to know how to fulfill those conditions. but we are waiting for that proposal. we are not waiting for long. president obama will take a hard look at it. it has to be swift and real and verifiable and it cannot be a delaying factor, and if the security council seeks to be the vehicle to make it happen, that cannot be allowed to determine the debating society. there are many of you who wanted military action to those who were skeptical of military action. wondering if this idea could become a reality. make no mistake. make no mistake about why this idea has any potential legs at all. and why it is that the russians have reached out and why the

syrians had have suggested initially that they might be interested. a lot of people say that nothing focuses the mind like this prospect. it is the credible threat that has been here but for the first time has brought this regime to even acknowledge that they have a chemical weapons arsenal, and that is the threat of this for us and our determination to hold us accountable and it has motivated others to even talk about a real and credible international action. how do you maintain that pressure? we have to continue to show syria and russia and the world that we are not going to be involved in stalling tactics, is the challenge we lay down has the potential to become a real proposal, it's only because it

is the threat of force we are discussing today and that is more compelling if congress sends with the commander in chief. finally, let me just correct a common misconception, earlier today it is mentioned, and i have heard it, have talked with many of you, you have told me that you hear it. the instant reaction of a lot of americans, and i am completely sympathetic to it, i understand that and i know where it comes from. i know exactly what the feelings are. no one wants another iraq and afghanistan. but mr. chairman, with all due respect we cannot make this decision based solely on the budget. we cannot make this based solely on our wishes. were on our feeling that we know

and have been through the ringer for a while. we are the united states of america and people look to us for the meaning of her word and our guidance of being followed up her that is necessary. we are not talking about america going to war. president obama is not asking for a declaration of war. we are not going to war. there will be no american boots on the ground. no american boots will be on the ground. what we are talking about is a targeted and limited but consequential action that will reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons. as secretary hagel will tell you how we can achieve that, they have a confidence to achieve that. we are talking about an action

that will degrade the capacity to use these weapons and to ensure that they do not proliferate. what does the president is asking for the power to make sure that the united states of america means what we say. mr. chairman, mr. ranking member, members of this committee, i can say to you with absolute confidence that the risk of not acting is much greater than the risk of acting. if we fail to act, bashar al-assad will believe that he has licensed the ability to gas people again, and that license will turn into tactical weapons. general dempsey will tell you about this. it will take an exception, one that has been in force since 1925 and make it the rule today

raided it would undermine understandings and degrade america's security and the road our strength in the world. in a world where terrorists and extremists, we would choose to ignore those risks at our peril. we cannot afford to have chemical weapons transform into the new and convenient weapons, the weapon of everyday use in this world. we cannot bear the cost of inaction, and that is why we come before you at the instruction of the president to ask you to join us in this effort. >> mr. chairman, ranking member smith, and members of the committee, the department of defense has a responsibility to protect the national security interests of the united states. general dempsey and i take that responsibility very seriously.

that is why i strongly support the president obama's decision to respond to the assad attack on the people. the heinous gas assault on innocent civilians including women and children. i wholeheartedly support the president's decision to seek congressional authorization for the use of force in syria. and i believe secretary kerry outlined the grievances very clearly. the president has made clear that it is in our country's national security interest to degrade his chemical weapons capabilities and deter him from using them again. as secretary john kerry mentioned, yesterday we outline a way to accomplish this objective and avert military action, which would require the bashar al-assad regime to turn this over to international

control so it can be destroyed forever as president obama noted in a verifiable manner. all of us are hopeful that this option could be a real solution to this crisis. yes, we must be clear and ensure that it is not installed by syria and its russian patriots. the threat of a u.s. military action is credible and a real threat of u.s. military action. as we are talking today and will continue to talk throughout the week. it was the president's determination to hold him accountable in fact he put this on the table enable this new diplomatic track to gain some momentum and credibility.

the support for holding them accountable will give even more energy and more urgency to these efforts. congress has a responsibility to continue this debate and that each of us know, using military force is the most difficult decision that leaders will make. all of those who are privileged to serve our nation have a responsibility to ask the tough questions before that commitment is made. it must be able to assure the american people that their leaders are acting according to u.s. national interests with well-defined military objectives , and with an understanding of the risks and consequences involved. the president has a national security team to ask those questions before we have concluded that the united states should take military action against syrian regime.

i want to address briefly how we reached this decision by clarifying the u.s. interest at stake here today and in the future. our military objectives in the risks of not acting at this critical juncture. as president obama has said, use of chemical weapons is not only a assault on humanity, but it is a serious threat to america's national security interests and those of our closest allies. the regime's actions are against the use of chemical weapons. it helps protect the united states homeland and american forces, operating across the globe with these terrible weapons. a weakening of the storm has grave consequences for our troops and our country's future security and for global stability. these weapons are profoundly

destabilized and have rightfully been rejected by the international community. it also threatens our friends and partners along this border, including israel and jordan and turkey and lebanon. it increases the risks of terrorist groups like hezbollah which has forces in syria of supporting the regime and could acquire chemical weapons and use them against our interests and our people. we must do all we can to prevent hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the united states requiring chemical weapons and we cannot allow terrorist groups to mistakingly believe they can use chemical weapons against u.s. troops or american troops in regions without consequence. he will stand by these commitments and stand by our

word. our adversaries must not believe that they can develop and use weapons of mass destruction without consequence. a world where these adversaries are emboldened instead of deterred is not the world that we want to live in, as president obama said last week. for example, north korea with its massive stockpile threatens our treaty allied republican careers. directly threatens the 28,000 u.s. troops stationed there. during my recent trip to asia, had a very serious and long conversation with the south korean defense minister about this real threat that north korea's chemical weapons present to them and to our troops. given these threats for national security, the united states must demonstrate her actions that the use of chemical weapons

unacceptable. the president has made clear that our military objectives in syria would be to hold the assad regime accountable for its chemical weapon attacks. degrading its ability to carry out these kinds of jobs and deter the regime from further use of chemical weapons. the department of defense has developed military actions to achieve these objectives. we have positioned u.s. assets successfully execute the mission. we believe that we can achieve them and we can achieve them with a military action that is targeted and consequential and limited. the general and i have assure that u.s. forces will be ready to act whenever we are ordered. we are working to build broad international support as the secretary kerry has noted.

classwork leaders condemned this atrocity and called for a strong international response. the number of other nations have also signed on to the state. as the secretary has also noted. defining our military objectives, we have made clear that we are not resolve the underlying conflict to direct military force. we will not send america's sons and daughters to another civil war. we are not contemplating any kind of open-ended intervention or an operation involving american ground troops. a political solution created by the syrian people is the only way to end the violence in syria and secretary kerry is helping to lead that effort to help the parties move towards a negotiating transition. and we have also expanded this to the moderate syrian opposition and what we are contemplating will reinforce

larger strategy in making clear to assad that he cannot further violence. defining america's interests, we also must examine closely the risks and consequences. there are always risks of taking action. but there are significant risks within that. with massive arsenal of chemical weapons, they could feel compelled to carry out more devastating including the names and further. a refusal to act will undermine the credibility of the united states, including the credibility of a rant from providing nuclear weapons.

the world of the united states must mean something. it is a vital currency and an international and allied commitment. secretary kerry, general dempsey, and myself have served in uniform, and we have seen its realities, like many of you. we understand that a country faces few decisions and we are not unaware of the costs and ravages. but we also understand that america must protect the people and its national interests. not just for the media, but for the future. that is our highest responsibility. all of us are serving this great nation, and especially those wearing the uniform of our country, a vigorous debate on how americans will respond in

syria. i know everyone on this committee agrees and take their responsibility just as seriously as everyone at this table that is. >> mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you, general dempsey to breaking member smith, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective on the use of force with syria and i also thank you for your committee and the great support you provide. the president has made the determination that it is in our national interest to respond to the assad use of chemical weapons with limited military force. we have reached the point at which we have just another military tool in his arsenal that he is using, one that he is using indiscriminately, that is what makes this so dangerous for the region and the world. my role is to provide the

president options and he has directed me to plan for a significant strategy and further use and degrade the military capability to employ chemical weapons in the future. we have assembled packages in line with those objectives and we have an initial target set and subsequent targets that, should they become necessary. the strikes will disrupt the force is directly related to chemical attack of august 21, and finally degrade what he uses to threaten his neighbors and defend his regime. collectively, it should send him a deterrent message, demonstrating our ability to hold at risk the capabilities he values most in strike again if necessary. the united states military is ready to carry out the orders of the commander in chief.

the limited nature of these strikes seeks to mitigate the potential for miscalculation and escalation. as well as minimizing collateral damage. however, we are posture to address should he choose to retaliate. i don't have to tell you this, but the men and women of america's armed forces are exceptionally well-trained and report in turn prepared and i'm honored to represent them. i stand ready to answer your questions. >> thank you very much, sir. secretary, last week before and the senate relations committee, you testified to congress had to vote in support of the authorization for the use of military force and today it no longer explicitly states that. given russia's proposal to put chemical weapons with a sod's

agreement to this proposal, as the administration's has changes this necessary and will the president still take the congressional vote? >> as i said in my testimony, the president believes that we need to keep this thread and this reality at the table. he wants the congress to act. and i think that the senate has made a decision to hold off and see where they're there any legs and his russian russian proposal. so we want you to act and we want you -- there is no daylight with respect to the administration's commitment to keep moving with the congress in

the direction of securing this authorization. because we need to know that if this cannot be performed or if this is a delay or a team, or if this is unreal, we are speaking with one voice and we will hold the regime accountable. the answer is that the use of force absolutely should not be off the table. we are not asking congress not to vote. but it may be given what the senate leader has decided, that we see the russians make a proposal in the next hour or not. that's up to the president to decide. nothing has changed with respect to our requests and the congress to take action with respect to this is to when and how. that is something that the president they want to talk about. >> thank you. general, you have heard the

combat mission without addressing the issue of sequestration and associated readiness crisis. would you agree that it is not possible to anticipate all of the second and third order effects of military action? and therefore it is not possible to determine the final cost in terms of the cost. >> thank you,. this is conceived as well within our capability to conduct it. i share your concern here and elsewhere. the force will not be will ready and i am concerned not about this operation, but in general,

the unforeseen contingency will be impacted as sequestration continues. >> even having the destroyers their including the aircraft carrier force, we are talking maybe $30 million a week and these numbers add up. money has to be found somewhere. >> just for the entire committees, just so you know, i share your concern completely with sequestration and hopefully i am clear about that. but we are talking about you agreeing with this, that we

could find the money to pay for things. >> i have no question. it is just where you find a and we still have troops over there that we need to see that are adequately trained. yeah i have one other question. this talk of russia and the international community and destroying the chemical weapons, i have heard in the past that this is a very extensive operation that would take troops on the ground, whether it's the united nations or others who provide them the security of these weapons, and knowledgeable

people in the extent of this. whoever takes it over owns it. is there any discussion on who will pay for that? when the international community does this, we are the ones who end up usually paying for it. and i just -- i feel that i have to keep bringing these issues because i think that as i fill out and talk to people and to the training that is afforded to fire our weapons as we did last year in training, all of these things have an impact, and i know that we have gone over this many hearings and you testified what impact this is having.

..

particularly if there's a lack of international support, so i think the concern is not so much war, but that u.s. military sponsor ability did truly fix the situation in syria. yes, other countries have expressed broad support. virtually nobody at this one is stepping up. no one is stepping up to pony up any money or any resources or to put their -- put their military on a line in this bill really are pretty much on our own. i would just like you to talk a little bit about if we understand the limitations of that. one of the things that i was hoping that we would get to is a more realistic explanation to the rest of the world of what we in the u.s. can and cannot do because the expectations out there in the world of the charts. i was just in jordan, afghanistan and the uae in there was a feeling that if anything happens to make has to be the fault of the u.s. because we are

powerful enough to fix it. and would like to sort of downsize those expectations set a limitation on military power we are concerned about which brings me to the second part of the question. if the leader uses chemical weapons, the obvious way to hold them accountable first of all would be, it would be nice to build some international support. second of all, removing from power. if you don't remove him from power are you really holding him accountable? that is the other thing we're wrestling with. you articulate it fairly well that we're trying to have a consequential but limited strike if he is still in power in running the country is he held accountable? how do we truly do that? and then lastly we are rightly concerned about removing assad from power because of the problems of al qaeda and the problems that exist even now in syria. the assad does not control the entire country.

how long will the control of chemical weapon stocks. as bad as it is to have assad in charge of them, it would be were stabbed and scattered to whoever gets there first. it is balancing all of that and the feeling that some of us have we are taking a stake in hitting a hornet's nest with no intention whatsoever of killing the hornet's. we want to try to teach him a lesson. going forward comes next. are we in a position to hold assad accountable within all the limitations of we've talked about. i guess that is a we're concerned about. >> very good questions. let me answer them in the whole. this is not a piecemeal operation. it is not a piecemeal approach by the administration per one park is set birth and being dealt with over here and another part over here, although we're trying to separate the nature of the response.

with respect to the limits of american power, obviously there have always been limits and we have not always heeded those lessons well before some of our most recent excursions. but i would say this, that lesson as particularly informed president obama's decision and approach here. the president is specifically not asking the congress to empower him to go in and take over serious civil war precisely because of those lessons. what the president is doing is making an informed decision about what the military can achieve and what we come as a country, need to achieve here, which is in force a prohibition

on the use of chemical weapons. now, he has directed the military to come up with a set of options as to how you can degrade his ability to deliver those weapons and send a sufficient message, don't do it again. now, we believe and general did see can testify that he has arrived at a targeting concept that can achieve that. >> i'm sorry. this is something that we tried to do before. a launch of these cut the weapons with artillery, we are not going after the chemical weapons stockpile themselves because that carries a whole lot of risk. how exactly are we going to degrade -- >> i want the general to speak to that. it is important to understand in the context. you have to question about is and the leader going to be left in power. well, while it is not the

primary objective of the strike there clearly will be a downstream impact in the military capacity. and as everybody here knows the president and the congress had made a decision to support the opposition in certain ways, and that support is going and its impact is growing. there's a separate track whereby pressure will pete continue to be put on the assad regime in order to do what, to bring him to the negotiating table to implement geneva one. some people have said there is no strategy. there is a strategy. there has been one for a long time. that is to try to implement the geneva one which was arrived at last year in june of 2012 where russia signed on to there proposal that has a transition government entity that would be

created by mutual consent of the parties with full executive authority that will then set up a structure for the new syria to be decided by the syrian people. that is the strategy. how'd you get there? and telling everybody here if assad can guess is people with impunity you will never get to geneva. you will never have a negotiation. if we do not stand up and take that weapon away, and this strike is calculated to send him the message, you cannot use these chemical weapons without enormous cost -- >> i'm sorry. i don't mean -- what if he can kill his people with impunity? what if he's using chemical weapons are not. >> obviously. i mean, look, is there a difference between a hundred thousand people being killed by artillery and skeds and napalm and other means? >> that is not the question

unmasking. the goal is to force him into negotiations, it's an important piece. >> collateral impact of this is the can that uses chemical weapons to overtime. is dennis, it deteriorates and it comes to believe he has to negotiate. this strike is not calculated to remove from. it is not calculated to be the game changes with respect to the whole field. is ducking and to stop him from using weapons that we decided in 1925 should not be used in more and represents a war crime. i think-let the general speak as to how this is specifically targeted to do that. i don't want you to have -- any confusion that you are being asked to do something that is specifically geared toward getting involved in or taking over serious civil war. that is not the purpose of this strike. the purpose of the strike is limited and targeted.

some people wanted to be more, with the president has decided that is inappropriate. he believes it ought to be targeted to prevent the chemical weapons. >> i'll see if this answers your question. you know, we cannot prevent him from using chemical weapons again. that is not possible under the current contract command and not sure it is possible short of them giving them up or someone seizing control. we can deter and degrade. deter is changing his calculus about the cost of using them again. the grade is literally taking away some of the capabilities, but not all, that he would use to deliver them. these particular weapons were delivered now with a killer reaction but by improvise not to degrade the ability to control in the card the weapons.

we have a full range of options. the president has not yet given me the final decision on those target packages. we have a range of options. >> thank you. they cue, as chairman. >> thank you. we are now going to open it up for members' questions, and i when forced a five minute limit that we have just about the full committee here. i have important questions to ask. will you please respect the time for everybody equally. mr. jones. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i would like to start my questioning by reminding this committee and the american people that on october the 203rd of 198-3241 marines were

blown apart at the barracks in lebanon. the reason i want to start with this because i want to read one paragraph from president reagan after the bombing. it is in the book called the american life, a biography of ronald reagan did in the weeks immediately after the bombing the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave. the rationality of middle eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy. if there had been rethinking a policy before our men died we would be a lot better off if that policy changed toward more of a neutral position come a neutrality combustion hundred 41 marines would be alive today. i think mr. reagan for having the courage to look at the situation and to understand that the middle east can be a jumble. that brings me to this point in my question.

i represent the third district of north carolina. 60,000 retired military in the district. and in five days we received over 415 telephone calls. a thousand e-mails in that same amount of time. 97 percent said no to this action and syria. i had even marines to call. they did not identify themselves or they're ranks to say please rescue me. how will we determine that these strikes are successful. other countries take aggressive action as a result of our strikes. to we really believe that has

the law, iran, and russia will simply stand by and watch? those last two questions are very important to me as unrepresentative, but it is also important to the thousands of people in the third district of carolina. let me repeat. what contingency plans in place of other companies take aggressive action as a result of our strikes? do we believe that there will simply stand by and watch? and ask unanimous consent. >> if you jamaican answer those two questions i would be greatly appreciative. >> second talk about -- you're asking about the risk of retaliation.

and we specifically are asking about russia. we assess that the risk of retaliation, because of the limited nature of the strike as well, i cannot drive it to zero, and i can tell you that we are postured in the region in order to deal with any miscalculation of retaliation. >> general, very quickly, innocent people will be killed. that is a given. innocent people will be killed. is that an assumption that i can assume would be correct? >> you can make that assumption because war is an imperfect science, to be sure. you could also be sure that part of the targeting criteria as given by the president is to achieve a collateral damage testament which is i can talk to you about in classified settings . >> would you answer the questions? >> congressman, as first on your

comments concerning your constituents as well as general dempsey in the marines. please don't let them send me to syria, i believe, was the paraphrases. first, i just want to remind everybody, that is not the objective. that is not was in the resolution of authorization. that is not what the president in the congress. it is not a bus in the marines to syria. regarding your question, as i said in my statements there are always risks and consequences to action. melson said there are risks and consequences and no action. i believe as firmly as i am sitting here this morning, and i think-some justification for believing this, if no response from the international community

occurs other actions he is taken prior to that, he will do again. we will be back here revisiting this issue of some point. the next time we revisit this it may well be about direct american casualties and the potential security of this country. we have planned for in every possible way months of planning on the contingencies the talk about. what if. where our assets are deployed, are we prepared. what are we anticipating. from the state department security offices, we spend days anticipating hits on our embassy american interests around the world. there is no operation perfect. i cannot guarantee anything, but i would leave it at that.

>> children, your time has expired. ms. sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. everett my question is down because i thought a lot about every single one of these. these are a set of questions i will ask. in articulating the basis for military action against syria, the president and many in the administration have placed great emphasis on the moral and legal dimensions of the issue. one of the principal has been the alleged violations of a loss referring to chemical weapons which please define the circumstances were not where thousands of civilians died and we did nothing deliberately

targeted an internal conflicts or only one chemical weapons used. thus the first of. you agree enforcement of the chemical weapons ban must comply? that charter which is a duly ratify a treaty by the estate's per have is the use of armed force against other nations except with the u.n. security council resolution over imminent national self-defense warrants military action in self-defense, that basis must be imminent. two permanent members are opposed, russia and the u.k., to this force. no one in the administration has argued that the united states is under imminent threat. westpac is seen to say that did

not have to worry. in military action beleaguer justified under the un charter. when the u.n. refuses to authorize force even when it goes against our own mall and support the vigilante action. >> terrific questions. with respect to the deliberate targeting of civilians and so forth, which were clear. his greatest regret was not responding the slavic to place in rwanda.

we did respond in kosovo and bosnia. responded with the un resolution . as you know, there has been a developing theory that some people attach. we have not adopted it as a nation or as an administration with respect the right to protect under certain circumstances. nader did make a decision outside of the u.n. the un actually did pass resolutions with respect to the situation, the civilians in benghazi in a tent that they faced from cuffe and the united states act at that point in time . that think that there is no hard and fast rule, but there are legal justifications under certain circumstances with respect to international treaties such as the

international convention on weapons of mass destruction. the president is now making an argument. >> we believe that the u.n. charter takes more into account? >> i regret that the circumstances we find ourselves in a sense of the three principal mechanisms for you in just a vacation don't i believe fit the situation. the president is nevertheless tried hard to make there you an apparent focus of his efforts. at the very beginning after incident took place on a 28,

believe it was around 28 it was a resolution that our ambassador and the u.n. attempt to to table, but we found that the russians oppose it and the chinese oppose it and we could not move forward. the first one was a general condemnation. in the trendy all means necessary. that was objected. that is when the president started to look elsewhere. a result of those resolutions being refused. >> the time has expired. the me to state the answer for the record. >> sometimes his business comes down to making tough choices. thank you for helping us make those tough choices. you assured us that we were not going to war, but i think most of us sitting in this committee realize that if tomorrow foreign country launches a brush of tomahawk missiles in the washington d.c. and i what they call the day just on the war

with the united states of america. i'm afraid some individuals and syria may emma hart time discerning whether those missiles launched might constitute war as well. i do agree with you when you say we cannot base our decision solely on the budgets. want to take sick -- sequestration of the table. i want to ask you this. which do you feel is more detrimental to the national defense of the united states of america to mecca want to give you two choices. failure to respond with an unbelievably small military response in syria freeze in canada weapons against its own people or tourist number two, $587 billion from our national defense, the cut to the three carriers try groups, reducing f-22 fleet to 187 fighters and the airforce as many to wonder and 50, destroying seven of our navy cruisers which have pressed the firepower of the entire british navy, greeting a train

braces for air force and the maintenance shortfall for navy ships and doing away with the joint forces command without pre decision on dallas's. if you add to the pick which is more detrimental, which depict worse the more one our tour's number two? >> well, i hope those will be the choices. >> their work. choice number two is what the administration did outside of sequestration. need you give me a little perspective. if you had to pick one of the other which would it be? >> i will answer your question, let me make one comment. i held the congress and the president will resolve the choice number. >> that is not relating to sequestration. >> you can tell that to 487 -- >> 597 billion. >> that was of the president. that was the congress. >> he proposed to be started

with his decisions. >> i only have five minutes. tell me which is more detrimental. >> burro long-term interest of our country to completely decimate the internal dynamics of our military structure and the ability is obviously a long return. >> trust number two. you talk to the sending a grim message of national weakness. it's to you believe sends a greater message of national weakness? cutting $587 billion of national defence, reducing their f-22 fleet and destroying seven navy cruisers. which one's chances congress message of national weakness.

>> this relevant to what we're doing. your budget question, this is not a budget hearing. >> let me take that back. if we need the money we will find the money if he is of interest. my point is we have been waiting for you to come back in pound your fist on the table just as strong as you are talking about advocating is military strike. why have we put that 597 billion. sequestration. while even talking about cutting the to the three airstrike groups to require every reduced f-22 is down. have not heard that same kind of passion. the reason that is relevant is because i'm hearing from veterans groups, defense industry, or near citizens who do think there is a valid question for us to have been asking.

comes down to this administration loves to use the military, using one accuses syria, libya, resources to asia, balance that pet it. the afghanistan search 3-d just not want to pay the price that it takes to have a strong military. if you can answer after at. >> i am not officially asking you. there have been informed the president of the united states, while sitting here, which i knew was going to take place this morning has concluded a conversation with prime minister cameron. i have no air cover session this morning with a foreign minister and we talked about where we are with respect to the russian proposal.

they agreed to work closely a in consultation with russia and china to explore the viability of the russian proposal and to put all of the syrian c.w. under the control of the verifiable destruction enforcement mechanism i don't know if that affects it, i am not here. think we need to what brought us to this discussion of the u.n. now is the potential of this course it will be dangerous. second is something of a man in any capacity to be able to be affected. with its but to the budget, point of personal privilege your please. they are all concerned. i am concerned. i am not in politics. and not politics. i spent 28 years here, and i know what's going on. they are all concerned about the readiness of our military command here in different

places. everyone knows that this nation is both the enough and as the capacity of congress, make its decision in the budget as a broad basis and find will we need to find. >> you voted to cut back 597 billion. >> it was never put in place. >> i'm going to enforce the five minutes. if you want a question answered, leave enough time for the answer if you want to make a point, make the point. i will cut it off a five minutes for the next person.

efforts will begin today at the u.n. and include discussion with potential security council resolution. this international disarmament proposal. agree with your assessment that absent a credible threat it would not have happened. i think it is a very good observation. you said earlier your testimony that this proposal must be real and verifiable. what criteria are we going to use to evaluate whether this proposal is real and verifiable. >> we are just getting to that process. we have been discussing this the last several. our experts are working on exactly what would be required. is the judgment of the entire --

intelligence community, most of the weapons of mass destruction such as chemical weapons are in the control of the regime obviously, thousand metric tons of numerous cancellations included finish sulfur, mustard, binary components, most of that is in the fall of on next primary components probably stored mostly in tanks they enforce things and we cannot go into here. they're going to be have to they can be accounted for and actually moved under the circumstances that exist in syria to a place where they can be taken out. >> any of the three of you describe the practical issues involving the safety of the personnel who would be performing the task just talked about the international. what is necessary to take place

among the warring factions for that to be a viable and practice the option? >> the one benefit of the fact they have been trying to deny that they control, that the regime controls most of this weapons as the war has progressed in a position is taken over the wall we know they have moved these munitions into their more safely controlled area. that is now in regime controlled territory. it's so initial. an area controlled by a forces protection and the process of cell. these are the modalities. it will all have to be worked

out, negotiated. the president is not trying to allow some nickel-and-diming long process to draw this challenge continues to process. >> this is not a proposal that is contains the combusting. you and your predecessor of traffic to and at years to enter into good-faith negotiations with the syrians directly through their allies and international organizations. could you just briefly summarize that effort that has brought us to respond? >> they have denied that the even of the weapons. there's been no discussion. it has been suggested and talked about. meehan some conversations about this with my counterparts from

russia. been directed us to try to continue talk and see if it is possible. not something that cannot be allowed. the only reason it is on the table today, the only reason they've even publicly apparently consented to the russians that there would be willing to do something of a never admitted they have these weapons is because this threat before us is in front of them. >> real wish you great success in achieving a successful coalition. i yield back. >> mr. miller. >> secretary kerry, you just said again and should be no delay. >> there has to be a reasonable time to try to work this out. obviously you have to see

whether or not this has any need to it. i think that's important. >> again following up. >> the senate has already delayed. >> because they don't have the votes. that is why. you know that. >> actually, no, i don't. >> i do. >> and let you know something. at the -- this should not be a political discussion. >> i'm not being political. it's the truth. they don't have the votes. you will find that out. >> to douse the lemon for? >> i believe that the senate -- >> this is the house of representatives. to you want to play politics or get a policy in place? the policy that can be put in place is to try to get this particular option of getting

control of chemical weapons in place. if you want to undermine that then play the politics. >> incredibly small strike. >> is not a year's war. what i was doing was trying to point up to people the we are engaged in a strike which we having gays in again and again. >> it is not the reader does not

mean that it would be anything have suggested previously of the military has suggested. >> not to tell anyone that it is not it is small. >> has assad directly threatened the united states of america? >> chemical weapons. >> mr. secretary, recalling destroyed more career? >> to the not have a large stock pot? >> they have one of the larger stockpiles and the world america currently engaged in an effort which are things your or are

working with the chinese. of wind at the president's direction -- >> i appreciate. >> but you don't -- when -- >> and tried to give you an answer. >> this is not the senate. we do not filibuster. >> i'm trying to give you an answer. >> general, has assad attack any of our allies? >> not to my knowledge. >> to anybody at this desk, his son of william? >> with a respect to syria. >> we're supporting the opposition the syrian opposition >> and i believe you just referred to the fact that this congress supported doing things with the syrian opposition.

is that correct? >> we're helping the syrian opposition. >> he said this congress voted to support that. >> as it congress has authorized . >> the me make the record perfectly clear. >> have the record be made clear. >> yelled back. >> mysterious. >> thank you mr. chairman. i know you have been several attempts of this, but i am wondering because the american people are interested in watching, could you articulate for the? is there an it area and said. >> will you have in a time to do it. well, in my opening statement and laid it out.

and appreciate the indulgence. there is no question in our mind that if the united states of america cannot stand up and make real will we have said with respect to the prohibition on the use of current weapons against innocent civilians the lead in the open pandora's box for its use the roman by assad in the days ahead, but other soon will begin as in every day. >> mission be used in the form or in any form be much more

dangerous. it's all affected by the potential of this weapons giving greater usage and the instability that will be bred some people choose to support in this fight and could, in fact, significantly increase the amount of support going to a terrorist, to the worst elements because they will be viewed in his the ones most committed. >> there have been times when when we acted in that way people are wondering in the president not mention the book to a red line when the. >> under chairman, thank you.

calling it a red line. this is a red line and a republican and democratic presidents would or should enforce republican and democratic ministration. advance the effort. chemical, biological, nuclear. this is one of those three great weapons that the world has decided stand apart from other weapons cannot and we don't want to work in other ways to reduce the number of civilians killed, but this particular weapon has a special meaning in the context of war and the threats we face today. >> i want to just follow quickly i think everyone is very concerned command who want to move forward with what we have

heard possibly. certainly as it relates to russia and other interested parties in this complex. i am wondering if short of backing off of this command is their resolution that you think could be entertained and would in a marine with in that discussion. what would it look like if the congress were to have our resolution that would basically say in the absence of this is where we held at this point in time. and of the senate is looking at that. >> i have no questions, having

great faith in the ability of congress to come together around the words nothing, necessary, but the resolution. my answer would become of course the ability the mall the resolution. an appropriate approach that is within the purview of the congress and we ever dared to work with congress. in answer to the congressman and there. the real difference is that syria has used these weapons and they have done so after being repeatedly warned not to. that is, again, what makes this even more compelling. >> the general ladies time has expired. mr. wilson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. promoting peace through strength i appreciate the panel being here today. my 31 year veteran of the army national guard reserves. am particularly grateful to be the data for sons currently serving in the military the united states.

so concerned about the confused policies of the seven lustration , the ever-changing policies, the ambivalence, the answer read tom. the administration is giving a projection of weakness that puts the american people of risk. additionally has plans chemical warfare by syria on april 25th to not august, april 25. fail to act. the military track but the best it's in syria cause a dramatic increase of refugees seeking asylum in jordan? could a sudden increase in the number of refugees threaten the government of jordan? to be a plans to help jordan? >> thank you for your service. obviously we have had that discussion previously. first there are now more than 2 million refugees that have fled syria.

that is a real issue. after a million injured, turkey, iraq. we have a huge problem now. as to your specific question would of limited to find scope attack on the chemical weapons capabilities produce more refugees. we looked at the different contingencies, reactions, possibilities of the kind of strikes that we are talking about the kinds of very precise stripes the rear talk about. >> crucial.

the president said the objective is not regime change. however there are always unforeseen circumstances would not be necessary the place troops their is a trickle of this? >> of is spent a lot of time. the strike of a chemical weapons and munitions facility would be off-limits for obvious reasons. as your question, what would happen the government goes down and in the eventuality and a loss of control of those chemical weapons facilities, we

are working and have been working very closely with all of the serious neighbors on this particular issue. turkey, jordan, israel, saudi arabia. yes, we are always looking at those options as to how we would respond, what we would do, what we would have to do. >> can i just add that this is specifically geared not to raise the risk of losing control over those. secondly, there will be no boots on the ground in this operation. there should be no confusion. some bankers. >> have to come back to you. >> so many different competing groups. we know there are involved. i don't see how it could be guaranteed that there would be a potential. the limited strike.

wind rush to be able to meet me resupply? additionally with them of a russian fleet is the largest since the soviet the solution. the potential of conflict with the russian federation. >> in the time remaining, there is always the possibility that syria's allies would seek to replenish. it would take longer than they assess at this point. in terms of the fleet in the eastern, they have been building and up even before this respect. mostly amphibious and propose ships. >> thank you, general. welcome to the house of representatives.

we don't filibuster, but we do have a different name for a. i will try to be quick here. it was actually trawls dudley warner not marked by news of that everyone talks about the weather, but no one does and about it. we're in a position to announce and the scent of willing to do much of anything about it a try to exploit the do about it. what i want to hear from secretary perry is the we're going to do about this russian initiative. is it going to focus, opposition going to focus on the chemical weapons only in getting those under control and leading production capabilities, command-and-control, or are we

going to try to broaden this a little bit more than just focus on chemical weapons. >> there going to do something about it. that's why i'm very careful to mansard that i don't over height were present when as possible from the because we don't know yet. we need to explore this. we're looking at it. the russians are supposed to make a proposal. i will be talking after and the fear. and we are talking about it at the state department and the white house to determine exactly what will produce the results of want. what guarantees the you have the weapons, they are accountable, how to, and that you can manage this under the circumstances that exist. those are all of the things that have to be gained in vetted, and i don't want to make any pre

determination about that that could foster raise expectations or leave something out and out to be in there. think we need to let this fallout. >> my point is it gets beyond the actual weapons themselves because it is apparently today. >> we are currently talking about -- >> just a moment. production capability. general dempsey. humanitarian refugee crisis, how that might be added to it. can you talk a little bit about what your assessment or to the extent that you can, planning with regards to retaliation response. >> without being specific, as

you know, we have mutual defense agreements with turkey to grenada. we have forces and personnel to a times like disestablish crisis coordination mechanisms. personnel in those three countries doing exactly that. we have also both because of the current tension with syria but also the fact that the 911 anniversary will be a tomorrow, we have also got forces at heightened states of the look and readiness throughout the region. >> and just want to -- you know what, that is good enough for me for now. thanks. yelled back. >> thank you. >> thank you. i have one question. in my congressional district is

wright-patterson air force base. over 12,000 people were furloughed. i met with some of those people. in difficulty making house payments, support for the children, car payments, concerned about finances. with the president's sequestration there were told of the department of defense did not have enough money to pay them. now the department of defense's turn the american public that has enough money to take us into this conflict and syria. how did you explain that to those people in lost wages and i facing the prospect of losing wages again in 2014 due to the president's sequestration? >> first, i have made my position known very clearly on sequestration, and i restated here. i will -- i don't think i need to address that again. it is irresponsible and produces exactly what happened on furloughs and the decisions we're having to make now and will have to continue to make of

sequestration continues. the congress and the president agree to that as a mechanism. that said, to your specific point, you also note that we took five of those previously announced furlough days back because of really focusing on where we could find the money to essentially improve our operations. we took that money. >> you understand that they don't understand how it is that you would not have enough money to pay them but you have enough money to take us into a conflict >> i'm going to it -- if you will allow me to get to the second part of the answer. it is important everyone understand that issue. we took five of those furloughed is back. through a lot of very astute management and robbing from our future readiness of wedding get that next question, if in fact

they're is a strike, syria, it is now the middle of september. we go into another fiscal year in about two weeks. so a significant amount of the cost of the strike, obviously and that goes beyond a october october 1st would be in fiscal year 2014. >> which currently is subject to sequestration. >> everything is. but you ask a specific question. >> again, to those people who are not getting paid, they are looking in sequestration because the president has no proposal on the table. >> that is not true. i introduced it. if you want to get into the budget debate we can. he does have open rules on the table. i would answer your question this way, the national security

interest probably trump's budgets. that is up to the congress to decide. no one anticipated this. you were trying to plan as best we could to take down another $32 billion in the fiscal year that we are still in anticipating taking another 52 billion next fiscal year. >> thank you. i don't think anyone quite understand your answer, but i appreciate. >> i'd be glad to write it out for you. >> that i would appreciate. you keep citing this lebanese sovereignty restoration act. the president's proposal for military action. most of the people in this room were not in congress in 2003. this act was about syria occupied lebanese territory. the support for terrorism. it was a sanctions bill. it was an authorization for military. included provision requiring the state department notified congress every year about where

syria is. here is the report that the state department delivered it includes this statement. our intelligence community is assessed with varying degrees of confidence that the syrian regime has used these weapons. the chemical agent sarin. in july, so this must have been june. we know that allegedly saddam hussein used a chemical weapons previously. he said that the century old standard, we must take military action where there will be rampant use of chemical weapons. there have been chemical weapons that have been used during the century old standard. no military action occurred. why is this different? >> it is very different, and that's a good question. it is different because the president was not racing to try to use military action. >> would you please answer that for the record? his time has expired.

>> president obama made a televised statement at the white house laying of the case for air strikes in syria. before his address to the country former secretary of state hillary clinton said the use of chemical weapons deserves a strong response from the international community led by the u.s. she made her remarks during a ceremony in philadelphia. the national constitution center where she was awarded the liberty medal. >> as you know the president will address the nation shortly about the assad regime him the use of lethal chemicals against men, women, and children. that violates a universal more at the heart of our global order and demands a strong response from the international community led by the united states. this debate is good for our democracy. as our founders knew, urban

arguments are the lifeblood of self-government. how could ever published last if citizens have no opinions about the issues of the day? over -- or were too intimidated to express them. the delegates at the constitutional convention debated passionately about how to balance the need to provide for a common defense with their fears of excessive executive power. these were men who had thrown off packings tyranny and were weary of standing national armies, yet they have also seen how the articles of confederation fail to provide a unified foreign policy putting their aspirations for unity and sovereignty of risk. as benjamin franklin famously said at the signing of the declaration of independence, we must, indeed, all hang together