always do, is reviewing and is continuing to review plans for a variety of possible scenarios should the president determine that further steps are necessary. in the meantime our only clear path is to keep moving diplomatically with the international community in a resolute and deliberate manner to find a way to return syria to the syrian people. if we remain dedicated to that effort i think we ultimately can prevail. thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. general dempsey. >> thank you, mr. chairman, congressman smith, other distinguished members of this committee. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and discuss the evolving situation in syria. the situation is tragic for the people of syria and for the region. real democratic reform should have been the assad regime's response to last year's peaceful

protesting. instead, the regime responded with brutality. syria's internal convulsions are having consequences for a region already in turmoil. refugees are fleeing, spillover into neighboring countries is an increasing concern. and, of course, we also need to be alert to opportune niistic extremists who may seek to exploit the situation. as well as the need to be especially alert to the fate of syria's chemical and biological weapons, they need to stay exactly where they are. with other conscientious nations the united states it applying diplomatic and economic pressure on the regime to compel assad and his accomplices to stop the killing on their own. our military's role to this point has been limited to sharing information with our partners, our regional partners but should we be called on to help secure u.s. interests in other ways we will be ready. we maintain an agile regional and global posture. we have solid military relationships with every country

on syria's border. should we be called our responsibility is clear, provide the secretary of defense and the president with options, and these options will be judged in terms of their suitability, their feasibility and their acceptability. we have a further responsibility to articulate risk and the potential implications to our other global commitments. in closing i want to assure you and the nation that america's armed forces are ready to answer the call wherever that takes us. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. we -- the vote has been called. we're five minutes into the vote. i will ask questions and get as much done as we can before -- and we'll break, those of you who desire to leave earlier to get over there to vote, i would encourage you. i think there are three votes to return as quickly as we can so we can keep this moving forward.

mr. secretary, according to media reports this morning, the french president stated that action should be taken to establish humanitarian corridors. what are your views on this option? have you been aware of that? >> mr. chairman, we've looked at a variety of options as to what could be done including possibility of developing humanitarian corridors, and again, we're prepared to do whatever the international community ultimately agrees ought to be done but clearly we have made plans along those lines. >> general dempsey, you stated that syria's chemical and biological weapons need to stay exactly where they are. what can be done and what is being done to ensure that syria's chemical and biological stockpiles are secured?

>> at this point, chairman, we are as i mentioned in my statement, sharing information and intelligence with our regional partners. in the aggregate we feel like we have a good understanding of the disposition, the current disposition of syria's chemical and biological weapons. >> thank you. ranking member smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. one of my concerns i think there's been said for a long time since this uprising started that mr. assad's days are numbered and he can't long last but i worried about that ever since i was in israel last summer and had some conversations about that. what is the path for that happening? because as i said in my opening remarks the assad regime has sort of decided they don't care what the international community thinks. they are going to kill as many people as they need to kill to stay in power, and regretgly they are getting some sort of support from nations such as russia and china and much more

direct support from iran, and that makes them clearly different than gadhafi in libya. gadhafi had no friends anywhere. he couldn't get that assistance. with that support what are the mechanisms -- the levers we need to pull to make sure the assad regime in fact goes, or might that support not be enough to let them stay, as violently as they need to? >> i think the concerns that you indicated, congressman, are the concerns that we all share. part of the problem here is that assad still seems to maintain the loyalty of the military even though there have been significant defections, that the military seems loyal and they continue to strike back at the libyan people. even as this effort to try to achieve a cease-fire and try to reduce violence there we still

see continuing artillery barrages, violating the whole effort. >> what hope is there to get russia and china to change their stance and be more aggressive pressuring the assad regime? >> i think the fact that -- obviously that was a concern when they initially voted against the security resolution that would have taken action here. but they have come around. they have supported the resolution that was adopted supporting annan and his effort to try to achieve a cease-fire. diplomatic pressure is being brought on both russia and china, prixly russia, that's had a long-standing relationship in that part of the world with syria, to bring pressure other than them to xpersz whatever influence they can to try to ensure that they abide by the annan plan. there is some progress made on that front. the additional steps that are

important is that the international community continues to be very unified in taking action against that regime. there are additional sanctions that can be applied. we have applied some significant sanctions, they are having -- putting great pressure on the regime itself. that pressure needs to continue. the third thing that i would indicate is that this is a broad based insurgency. and i think it's fair to say the intelligence community feels because it is a broad based insurgency, yes, he can strike back. yes, he can try to continue to hold on. but ultimately his days are numbered and ultimately he will be taken down. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. that's all i have. >> the committee will recess now until we're able to return after the votes. thank you very much.

the committee will come to order. mr. bartlett. >> thank you.

>> mr. secretary, in your oral testimony you noted that the administration has publicly committed to sending communications equipment to syria and opposition groups and humanitarian organizations. what steps -- oh, i am aware of american companies that can provide the necessary hardware to the syrian opposition groups and humanitarian efforts. what steps is the administration taking to ensure the allocated funding and potential future allegations are dedicated to the procurement of u.s. manufactured equipment? what step, being take ton assure american technology is being reviewed and properly vetted? >> congressman, i think i'll yield to general dempsey on this, as well, but my sense is that most of the communications gear that we're talking about is made in this country and that's primarily the communications gear that we would be

transferring to the opposition leaders. >> yeah. i have nothing further to add to that, congressman. that program is being supervised by the department of state. the state department, other than the office of political, military -- are not actively involved in determining the nature of what equipment should be distributed to syria. it's my understanding they are not actively involved in determining the nature of what equipment should be distributed to syria. seeing as how the department of defense would have more precedent in such a role, what interagency coordination is occurring between the department of state and department of defense? >> congressman, there is ongoing coordination with the department of defense or with the department of state on this issue. we do have liaison that is there

and working with them. but let me give you a more in-depth report as to what the level of that relationship is like. but there is -- there is a military liaison that is working with the state department on this issue. >> i have nothing to add, congressman. >> thank you very much. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. ms. sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you both, both gentlemen, for being here once again and for your service to our country. as you know, russia has not been very cooperative in moving the u.n. closer to authorizing some form of action in syria. and i know a lot of us have been disappointed in trying to move something. some members have suggested that we use some sort of pressure on russia to help convince them to

be more helpful. for example, we could set cooperative reduction funds. do you think that's a good idea? why or why not? >> you know, at this stage, obviously, the state department is the one that's taking the lead in dealing with russia. so i'm not -- you know, i'm not going to kind of prejudge what state should or should not use as leverage with russia. at this point, i have to say that russia has been cooperative with regards to enacting support for annan effort at cease-fire. they seem to be working with the international community in trying to advance that cease-fire and getting it in place. you know, the most important leverage, frankly, for russia is to try to make sure that they understand that, in fact, their interests are served by taking

these steps, because once assad goes, the interest that they have in syria are going to go away unless they participate with the international community. >> general. >> thank you, congresswoman. just if i could broaden the aperture a bit and point out the places where we are cooperating with russia in a very positive way -- >> right. i'm not suggesting that i'm one of those, but i do hear from my colleagues we should be doing this. >> sure. and i guess my point would be we have to understand that in the context of the entire relationship, not this particular issue in isolation, because we have terrific cooperation with them on the northern distribution network out of afghanistan, counterterror -- counterpiracy, counternarcotics. so i think we have to understand the entire thing in context and deal with them as we would other nations with whom we have a variety of relationships. >> gentlemen, some have said

that if we would just -- and i quote this very loosely -- handle syria, that that would help us in what was brewing with respect to iran, that one of the effects of military is that of course assad has one of the largest armies, ground troops in the area, and that that sort of buttresses iran's, you know -- some would call it bullying in the area. what do you say to that, that somehow syria -- that if we would get involved in syria we could help the people there move on to a more democratic or different type of government, that it would help us to bring the threat of iran down in the neighborhood? >> there is absolutely no

question that if the assad regime comes down, that the one country in that part of the world that's going to be even further isolated is iran. and iran knows that, and that's the reason they continue to provide some assistance to assad, is because they know that their interests are in maintaining the assad regime, not in seeing it go down. >> the only thing i think i'd add, congresswoman, is the fall of the assad regime would be a serious blow to iran. i think the general has testified before this body to that effect. but saying that it is the key would be analogous to saying you're going to solve a rubik's cube puzzle by lining up one side and neglecting the other flee. three. as was said, there are no silver bullets out there. >> secretary, is there any circumstances under which the united states would get involved

militarily? for example, what if turkey invokes article 5 of our nato charter? >> i think it's clear that the only way that the united states would get involved militarily is if there's a consensus in the international community to try to do something along those lines and then obviously ensure that the international community is able to get the authorities required in order to make that happen. the one area with regards to article 5 and turkey, you know, article 5 has only been enacted once after 9/11, as i recall. but they would have to make clear that what is happening there really does truly represent a direct threat to

turkey. and i think at this point that's probably a stretch. >> thank you, and thank you, mr. chairman, for the time. >> thank you. mr. jones. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. secretary-general dempsey, thank you for being here today. mr. secretary, if the situation changes and you believe the use of force in syria becomes necessary, will this administration seek authorization from congress before taking action? >> we will -- we will clearly work with congress if it comes to the issue of the use of force. i think this administration wants to work within the war powers provision to ensure that we work together, not separately. >> mr. secretary, as a former member of congress, i have the biggest concern, and this has not pointed at this administration, it could be at

any administration that they seem to want to take the authority to decide whether or not they need to go into a country that's not been a threat. it might have evil dictators. it might have problems in those countries. but i have been very concerned. i actually went to the federal courts with dennis kucinich and two other republicans and two other democrats. we went to the courts because of the decision and how it was made -- i realize you were not there at the time -- about libya. i contend that the american people seem to agree that we in congress have not exerted our constitutional responsibilities when it comes to war. and i hope that if there is a decision, including iran as well as syria, if the decision is made to commit american forces,

that the president would feel an obligation to the american people, not to congress, necessarily, but the american people to explain and justify why we would take that kind of action. and, again, i'm talking about a situation where we're not being attacked. we just see things happening in other countries that we don't approve of. and i would hope -- and i think you did give me this answer, but if you would reaffirm -- that if we have to use military force, and if we're going to initiate that force, is it going to be our initiation that causes that force that the president, any president, would come to congress and the american people and justify the need to attack? >> congressman, as you understand, this president, as other presidents, will operate pursuant to the constitution. the constitution makes clear

that the commander in chief should act when the vital believes that if that in fact is the case, he would do that in partnership with the congress in terms of taking any action. >> well, back to the statement. i remember my good friend randy forbes from virginia asked secretary gates when we went in and it seemed like the administration they called the leadership of the house and senate it must be one call each house, each senate. mr. forbes asked mr. gates if the missiles were fired in new york city would that be an act of war? i have to say my friend from virginia is a very articulate gentleman, that he never got a straight answer. so i hope that you will prevail

upon the administration not to take those kind of actions as they did in libya whether it was justified or not. i won't get into that debate. in my opinion, that was really kind of a snub of congress and the potentiality of congress based on the constitution. >> congress, what i can assure you of is as long as i am secretary, we won't take any action without proper legal authority. >> mr. speaker, thank you very much. with that, mr. chairman, i'll yield back by 39 seconds. >> thank you, mr. andrews. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker, and chairman. your service is both an inspiration to us and a blessing to our country. we thank you very, very much for you. i want to congratulate the administration on your success with russia and china moving them to a very different place on this issue as to compared to where they were just a few weeks

ago. mr. secretary, the data you gave us about the exchange rate are a reflection of the effectiveness of that coalition. but you also note that we do not yet have the level of consensus in the arab world that existed for the libyan problem. what do you see as the principal obstacles to achieving that kind of con sen with us with respect to the syrian regime? >> i think the arab world is struggling with the same issues that the whole international community is struggling with. which is in order to take additional actions what in fact does make sense. who is the opposition. who you do we best assist the operation. how do we best assist the help that the syrian people need in order to overcome the situation. what kind of pressures would

best be placed on aside in order to assist that regime downward. all of that same difficult complex issues that the whole international community is dealing with, the arab community is confronting as well. in libya that all came together. in syria it's still a challenge to put those pieces together. >> do you suppose the factor in the libyan situation was the fact that gadhafi had completely lost the support of his own people and no one wanted to be associated with a regime that was illegitimate in that sense. do you think that assad has simply not reached that point with his own people yet or is there some other factor that is diverting us from that consensus? >> i think it's the factors that i pointed out in my testimony make this different from libya. the fact that number one he does still enjoy as i said the

loyalty of a good chunk of the army and the military. and that makes it more challenging in terms of, you know, trying to undermine the regime. secondly the opposition is dispersed. there are a lot of groups that represent the opposition. in libya there were some different tribal groups that made up the opposition. they were holding territory. we mu who they were. we could define what the opposition was that needed assistance. this is much more difficult. there isn't geographic areas that are being held by the opposition. it's much more of an insurgency kind of opposition. >> mr. secretary, if i may taking off on that, you mentioned the phrase vital national interest a few minutes ago. do you agree with the proposition it is a vital national interest of the united states to discourage regimes

which could seven as an incubator for asimm etric warfare against the united states? >> i think that would have to be debated on the issue does it directly impact our vital interest. i guess an argument could be made along those lines. i would think in this case it's really important for the international community. if we are going to continue to work with the international community, if we are going to be a partner with them in deciding what additional actions ought to be taking place, that it ought to be within the international context that decisions for asbestos ought to be taken. >> how would you characterize the public record of the relationship between syria and hezbollah? >> the public record more importantly the intelligence record that we have is that there's always been a close relationship between syria and hezbollah.

and that hezbollah has always had some -- some level of protection. >> do you agree the weaker hezbollah is the better the united states is? >> hezbollah in our book is a terrorist organization. they have spread terror in that region and elsewhere. anything done to weaken a terrorist group is in our interest. >> thank you, mr. secretary, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. forbes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here and general dempsey thank you for your service. you've both served your country well. we know that you have a tremendous challenge and the risk to the country out there are huge today. when we talk about vital national interest, probably there's no greater vital national interest that we have than the rule of law. sometimes we have to ferret that

out and see what that is. as i understand what you have indicated to this committee, mr. secretary, and correct me if i'm wrong, you believe that before we would take military action against syria that it would be a requirement to have a consensus of permission with the international community before that happened. is that a fair statement in if not, would you tell me what the proper -- >> i think that's a fair statement. >> if that's fair, then i'd like to come back to the question mr. jones asked joust so we know. i know you would never do anything that you didn't think was legally proper. and you said that the administration would have proper legal authority before they would take any military action. so my question is what is proper legal authority and i come back to as mr. jones pointed out in the war powers act, it's unlikely we'd have a declaration of war, but that would be one of

the things. certainly we know if there's a national attack that would be one of them. the second thing of course and the joint -- the war powers act would be specific statutory authorization. do you feel that it would be a requirement to have proper legal authority if you did not have a declaration of war of an attack on the united states that you would have to have specific statutory authority, in other words, the permission of congress before you take military action against syria? >> we would not take action without proper legal authority. that's -- >> i understand. in all due respect i don't want to put you in interrogation, we're trying to find out what kpagly proper legal authority is because that's what we have to act under. and we don't have the president here to chat with him or have a cup of coffee and ask him. you're the closest we get. we're asking from your understanding and as secretary

of defense what is proper legal authority? >> again, let me put it on this basis. this administration intends to operate pursuant to the war powers act. and whatever the war powers act would require in order for us to engage we would abide by. >> and again, mr. secretary, thank you for putting up with me as i just try to stumble through this and understand it. as i read the war powers act it has those three requirements. are there any other requirements in there that you're familiar with that i'm leaving out or not reading? if that's the case, then, again, i just come back to if there's no declaration of war, no attack upon the united states and if we're going to comply with the war powers