>> today on c-span newsmakers with represent thornberry. then a discussion on home grown terrorisms with former f.b.i. irector. >> this week, mac thornberry, chairman of the intelligence arm ervices committee. >> we have two reporters to help s with that. >> on friday, abc news reported that the state department played a major role in the talking points.

how do you see this playing out? >> i think there are three categories of questions. they include what happened before and after the attack. i think reports you reference give us a lot more fidelity on the change the talking points and you did not want to call this a terrorist incident. hopefully we could understand more about why they would do that. the whole purpose here to me is to make sure that something like this does not happen again. it is very important to learn the lessons about the embassy security and had a time, and mergency response.

>> on friday senator inhofe said the president may get in peace -- impeached over this. do you see a rising to that level? >> i do not see it at this point. it is important. we owe it to the families of those who lost their lives. we owe it to diplomats and security folks who serve our country around the world. we owe it to them to get to the bottom of the matter. it should not have been this hard to get the facts. >> what role do you think hillary clinton played in this? >> i do not know the details. what i do know is some of the communications coming out of the state department, denying a request for increased security that was sent by the diplomats in libya, some of those denials

have your name on it. did she see it or was it a stamped with her name? we do not know those details. we need more detailed e-mails so we can get to the bottom of who did what and why so that we can learn the lessons. >> on the issue of syria, what do you think our next that should be there? what are your chief concerns with a no-fly zone are arming the rebels there? >> the next steps are hard. do not see any answers. among my concerns is it is hard for me to see any way that we would intervene in this situation to make a substantial or decisive difference. what i really fear is that syria will fragment, and you will have

varioumi occupying the country. some of those are closely affiliated with al qaeda. my biggest fear is that terrorists will get their hands and chemical weapons. they will turn and use them against europe and us. the united states has very limited options to prevent that rom happening. you can go down what should we have done in the past, but this thing has continued to deteriorate. i am afraid there are no good options. among the things is as this eteriorates, how do we limit the impact on key brands and allies in the region? >> how do you secure chemical weapons without putting boots on he ground?

>> you do not. t is incredibly serious. some people have the idea that you can just bomb these places with chemical weapons. that is the problem with syria. there are no good options. so i'm afraid we're going to have to be a contained the damage mode but make no mistake, i think it is the most dangerous place on earth right now. >> if you think there's no way to secure the weapons, do you think we will get to the point where that is necessary? >> i do not know. this thing has deteriorated. how far i cannot possibly predict. what we do know is that the

terrorou have grown in strength. as reprehensible as it has been for decided to be murdering his wn people, they think that controls me the most are terrorists using their hands on chemical weapons. there are no good options to preventing that. >> what is the military strategy for containing the damage? >> the military has to have a number of plans on the shelf depending on how events ago. i would say we would all hope and expect that putting huge numbers of troops into syria

would not be something that we ever exercise. it is important for the military to have a variety of plans on the table using all the technology, the best forces we have available. it is up to the president to choose those options depending on the circumstance. >> do you think assad has crossed the red line in using hemical weapons? does this require the united states to act? >> not only the united states government but others have said we are confident that that he has used chemical weapons. it looks like he has done so in very small quantities to make it difficult to establish. i do think the president is in a corner. you do not say this is a red line or a game changer without backing it up with action.

maybe you should not have said it. maybe it is still a mistake to go on a limited evidence to take military action. a key point is the credibility of the united states. if the president is going to say something, he better be ready to back it up for our credibility with people around the world, and friends, allies, adversaries, our credibility goes down. that increases the danger to us ll around the world. >> how confident are you that syria use chemical weapons? >> the announcement made by chuck hagel reflects the view of the united states overnment. it is always hard to prove things 100%.

as i say, that it is not just the united states government. others have said they are confident that chemical weapons have been used on a small scale. >> do you feel the white house has overreached its authority on this issue? >> i feel it has been very difficult for congress to get legal and policy justification from the white house on the actions they are taking. my legislation first says the white house must report to congress on the legal authorities, policy considerations, and the process that is used to determine targets in legal operations and

capture operations outside of afghanistan. you have to promptly report to congress whenever one is carried out. the idea is we would understand a range of options including the legal authority. we will be promptly notified when they occur. it also requires that we have a comprehensive look at all of these operations that could take place all around the world. it is an oversight structure that is before and after that make sure congress fulfills its responsibilities under the constitution to conduct independent oversight. >> these drone strikes have gotten a lot of attention. do you think as the u.s. adjusts its strategy that these operations will take an increased or decreased role?

> is inevitable that we will see more robotic uses of various ind of military. that is part of our challenge. the constitution gives the congress power and responsibility. it is on our shoulders to make sure it keeps up with changes in the threat as the world evolves. that really is the focus and purpose of this legislation. whatever technology is used congress has got to fulfill its responsibilities in conducting that type of independent oversight. i hope this will give us the tools to do that.

>> the before aspect of it, is this legislation seeking approval from congress before a drone strike is issued? >> no. they have to come to congress and explain their legal authorities, the process is uses or determining it. congress is not going to approve or disapprove any particular strike. he cannot get congress involved in making operational decisions. as far as the policies go and the legal authorities for carry out certain courses of action, congress has to be involved. if you disagree with and pproach there are a variety of

tools available but only if we have the information. i am trying to make sure we have the information in a world that s moving very quickly. >> the president spoke out this week after a new report estimating there were 26,000 assaults in the military last year. what do you think about some of the changes being proposed about shifting commander's ability to verturn guilty verdicts? >> we need to be sure we understand the ramifications of all these proposals. it is indefensible that there would be sexual assaults on this scale anywhere in the military. it is understandable that congress would say we have got to pass this or the other thing o stop it. i agree that we must stop

t. we also need to make sure we understand the consequences of any particular action that is designed to reduce sexual assault but may have other consequences. we better understand what is happening here and the consequences of these various proposals before we pass something just to respond in a knee-jerk sort of reaction. this is very serious. we need to make sure in makes a difference, that it really does go to the heart of the problem and not some sort of band-aid to make congress felt better. >> and looks like this issue of the convening authority is going to be taken up. do you worry that this might have unintended consequences? >> i do think we ought to examine it.

i do not know for sure what the answer is. the military has a separate system of justice from the vilian world. there is something terribly wrong here that we would have sexual assault on such a scale. that is why i think we really need to make sure we're understanding what is down deep here and not just some cosmetic fix that is after the assault happened. i want to understand that before i say yes i am for or against hat. >> in conversations that i have with congressional aides and lobbyists, your name has come up as someone who is in the running to be the chairman of the next congress. if you could choose between

these, which would it be? >> it is not a perfect world. there is way too much jockeying for positions ahead of time. big about the issues we have been talking about. this is what we have got to ocus on. >> in terms of those issues, are you expecting there to be a sequester? >> i hope not. the sequester we have this fiscal year has done san francisco damage to the military. most people do not appreciate how much military spending has already been cut before the sequestered kicks in. now you have sequester on top of the other cuts. t has had a real effect.

there are going to have a summer and fall devoted to all of these ig issues. we cannot have more cuts to defense. when the world is getting even more dangerous and complex around us. think about the various threats from terrorism in syria. even to north korea and the cyber threats in the world. so cutting defense makes no sense. we have got to find another way. only about 18% of the federal budget but it has had to absorb 50% of the cut in sequestration.

>> last year everyone said there is no way the sequester was going to happen. sure enough it happens. do you have any confidence that congress will do something to fix this? there does not seem to be any momentum. >> i do think we have made progress in explaining to people in congress and in the public that 2/3 of the federal budget is entitlements are mandatory spending programs. even if you abolish all of the discretionary part of the budget, you would not have solved all of our issues. we will have to reform them in a way that pretax but exchanges in the future this is what we really need to solve. we have made progress in improving people's understanding.

it is still up to us in the house and senate to begin to take real steps to begin to reform those entitlements. we ought to spend less time on politics and more on problem solving so we can get that going. >> do you feel like you need to convince your tea party colleagues in the house, and lots of them have cheered the sequester, is there an argument to try and convince them that it oes need to be replaced? >> i think most people would not use sequestration as a way to ut spending. it leaves the vast majority of spending untouched. i think most of us believe that spending is the problem. if you are going to get our fiscal house in order you have to deal with the biggest portion of the problem, mandatory

spending. t is true. i think as events of the day remind us and as the real consequences of the prior defense cuts are showing up that we cut defense enough. i think the vast majority of republicans would agree with that. >> the white house has put forward smaller than usual pay raise for service members next year and fee hikes for military health care. are you on board with any of those ideas? >> we can take it one at a time. there is no way that this

congress should or would approve another base closing round. it turns out that the last base closing rounds which passed in 2005 has not yet broken even yet. we are still paying out more money to close those alternative facilities from the 2005 round than any money we are saving. we cannot afford another round because it costs money up front before you get to the savings. i am concerned about pay and benefits. you need to be able to attract and keep top-quality people in the military. i completely agree we need to look at pay and benefits to see if it is meeting the needs today. keep the promises he made to people already. on't go back on those.

hey are updating our compensation system may make sense. similar things with health care, we need to update that but as you go, there are promises made to prior generations we should not go back on. >> what things would you cut as an alternative to across the board cuts? >> there are a host of things to look at. among them is acquisition eform. we regularly in congress pass some sort of reform measure. if you look at it as a whole, we're spending an incredible amount of money to have checkers to check of the checkers to check the checkers. the redundancy is amazing.

one of the obama officials that left the pentagon has talked about the growth in the office of the secretary of defense. looking at the pentagon bureaucracy and the way that we buy goods and services is really essential so we get the most out of the money we spend. i am for finding more ways to get the money out here that has to be a partnership of the congress and the pentagon. it may take a couple of years but many of us on capitol hill are ready to embark on that. >> on cyber security, what are the top needs to protect this ountry from cyber threats? >> one is to facilitate information sharing.

it increases your situation awareness on what is happening. this occurs at the speed of more ready. light. cyber command is setting up teams to help defend the country. one of the things we're watching carefully is how these teams are being set up. this is one of the areas of the budget were spending is growing. i think it should. it is a clear threat to the country that is growing. this requires a response. >> what is more of a threat, the chinese government or this

anonymous group? >> we have a variety of threats. in the admission by the pentagon recently that the chinese government has been stealing military secrets, and of course not military secrets at the same time which means jobs, and that is very disturbing. we do know where the chinese live. some of these anonymous groups, it is harder to pinpoint a location. geography matters less. it happened at the speed of light. this is another key area where it is up to congress to make sure our oversights and the authorities we provide me the needs. we have been trying to do that. > thank you very much.

>> let me turn to our quick reporters for a quick wrap up of what you heard there. let me begin with syria. this is the vice chairman of the house armed services committee. he is hesitant of putting boots on the ground. >> if we do take this step of rming the rebels, it is one to as the late. this is something that no one is endorsing.

last year he was more with the administration saying we needed to wait and be cautious. i found it very interesting when he said it would be hard impossible to secure chemical weapons with of putting boots on the ground. that is a problem for both sides of the aisle. it shows how difficult this problem really is. >> explain damage containment. >> i do not know that it would be a military strategy. it is the hesitancy of putting boots on the ground. we just went through a decade of war. it is very complicated when you have issues like chemical weapons.

the biggest problem said this week he is not worried about it right now. he is worried about what happens the day after assad falls, because it is unknown. we do not know what will happen. we do not know who will take over. >> what is the pentagon doing ight now on syria? >> right now the u.s. government is trying to give aid to the rebels. the containment strategy that he was talking about would probably intel in a lot of covert operations and involve the cia doing things like intelligence, much during the types of chemical weapons in syria and the types of the extremist groups. time to keep them from spreading utside of syria's borders. >> you said there does not seem

to be momentum to undo this for 2014. what are you hearing on hat? >> republicans are trying to put forward a positive face. they want to get rid of sequester and so do most democrats. this is larger than the pentagon. the defense has not been able to move it. that is still the case. it is an issue about taxes, entitlements, and defense is in the middle, stuck. nothing the lawmakers have done has been able to move the needle. >> have people been able to convince their colleagues? >> they're having a hard time right now. certain elements have embraced sequester as a way to bring down government spending. if they do not come to a longer

deal, the big question is whether they can do that in a strategic manner, whether they can prioritize and cut specific things. or whether they have to do it through the across the board sequester that everyone on both sides of the aisle agrees that it is not a smart way to bring down costs. >> you ask them about possibly taking over as the chairman of the armed services committee. what are you hearing on that? >> i am hearing from people who orked in congress there. he is among a few people that are in the running to take over the house armed services committee. the current chairman, he is 74 years old. there has been some chatter that he might be considering retirement. his staff, of course, denies that. it is looking like the spot