area for congressional involvement. i think the congress should require the administration to of neededstudy enabling capabilities with plans to fill those gaps. this needs to happen before c and this needs to happen before acquisition. the final thing i want to bring up is the full range of ramifications about global strike. one ramification, warhead ambiguity, has attracted all of the attention so far. and never mind you, that is the risk that russia or china could detect the launch of the weapons, misidentified as a nuclear arms, and launch their nuclear stocks. there seems to me one particular problematic case in which that

might arise. have its --ot yet advanced warning capabilities. but if it were to develop them, and if it were to prevent attacks on china, it seems that would be a scenario in which warhead ambiguity would be a particular problem. and a lot of the analysis of warhead ambiguity today it's hard to convince russia that a strike on a third country, like .ran, was not a nuclear strike that is the easy case. a hard case is how you deal with notkes when the strike is on a third country, but the country with the advanced early- warning capability, like russia .r china that being said, there are benefits and risks to prevention

all global strikes -- conventional global strikes. when l.a.n. was an analyst at mdu -- she is now the deputy assistant secretary of defense. unlike a ballistic missile, where it is launching rare is going to land, highly maneuverable boost glide systems, and to an extent, hypersonic cruise missiles, have ambiguity about where they're going to land. countries observing them cannot know where they're going to land. this creates the risk that the u.s. is targeting another , that russia or in the

future, china, thinks it's the victim in the strike. problem, whether or not the observing state correctly identified as the weapon as conventional rather than nuclear. another problem is target ambiguity. which is uncertainty about whether the united states is aiming for a conventional target or a nuclear target. the best example of this is chinese command and control, which has been identified as a possible target for cpgs. china is believed to have a shared command and control system for its conventional ballistic missiles and its nuclear ballistic missiles. if in a deep crisis or war over taiwan, the united states attacks that command and control system for the purpose of

denying china the control of its conventional ballistic missiles, beijing may think that the u.s. is going after its nuclear weapons and is trying to deny china command-and- control over its nuclear arsenal. and that could be highly exculpatory. -- escalating. ruschel --ina or russia or another state believes that the conventional maneuvers could take out their anti satellite weapons, not just nuclear weapons, they would have an incentive to use those weapons first. scale,other end of the there are genuinely persuasive arguments for why a global strike could enhance deterrence. that war with these weapons could be unpredictable and dangerous could raise the cost of word --

war and enhance deterrence. moreover, there's preliminarily persuasive evidence that china and russia i think these weapons would be extremely effective, which may lead them to enhance deterrence. in short, there is a paradox here. conventional prompt global strike me make war less likely -- may make war less likely. should war occurred, it may make escalation much harder to control. house look at the white report that it sent to congress pursuant to the senate's ratification for new start, only one risk was mentioned. warhead ambiguity. i think congress should be asking the administration for a report on the full range of risks. in terms of reducing their risk,

, the obamarisks administration has stressed unilateral risk reduction. in particular, it has made a point about the boost glide systems. as said they do not have ballistic trajectories. and adversary could tell that they were not a ballistic missile. but there are other risks with a boost glide system. one irt discussed is that trajectories and predictable. trajectoryk is that is an observable after the boost phase. -- is not observable after the boost phase. if your china and russia with

satellite early warning capability, you would see the launch of the boost glide weapon is the kind of launch that used to do those is exactly that kind that early warning is optimized to detect. but then what happens is the mucht glide vehicles fly th lower than the missiles. in fact, they fly underneath early-warning radar. weaponu see is not a flying in a non-ballistic trajectories. will you actually see is nothing at all. you detect the launch and then you don't detect the flight of the vehicle, because it is flying underneath early-warning radar. it is not at all clear to me that this is significantly less risky than ballistics on traditional trajectories that

have predictable trajectories and observable trajectories because they fly very high and can be monitored by early- morning -- early-warning radar. global strike technology that is ideal. there is no conventional global strike technology that would have every attribute that you would want it to have. trade-offs' become inevitable. and these have not been adequately explored, in my opinion. i conclude that a much more effective way of reducing the risks over unilateral and confidenceeasures is building. the risks associated with deciding to do strikes on china are very hard to mitigate cooperatively, if at all.

but some risks can be mitigated. let me make three very brief statements about cooperative confidence building. first, russia and china are not primarily worried about warhead ambiguity issues. their primary concern is about the survivability of their forces, and that is probably the most important area for confidence-building. and they are not purely or primarily focused on conventional global strike, but non-prompt capability, such as cruise missiles and gravity bombs. done withlot can be the narrowly focused confidence- building measures. that russia and china can be confident that global striped capabilities do

not have nuclear warheads. date exchanges, a joint studies, declarations, -- a huge amount can be done here. there is a very strong argument for making conventional prompt global strike weapons and accountable in a treaty. the prospects for another arms control treaty are bleak, however, nusoor will not discuss that very much. -- so i will not discuss that very much. would say there are very clear trade-offs between a particular systems. first, congress has expressed concern on the ohio class submarines. carry nuclear weapons and cruise missiles as well in a modified form.

is one huge advantage of putting global strike weapons on the submarines. they're very easy to inspect. strikebase conventional global weapons on surface ships, you have a bigger advantage that they are not co located with nuclear weapons. that theisadvantage navy will be pretty resistant to inspections of virginia class submarines or surface ships. there are very real trade-offs. to very much looking forward having a conversation with you on these questions. let me close with one remark. this is a very difficult have an, whether to global strike and if so, which systems to acquire.

i am generally kind of agnostic about the program. if you're not agnostic, i don't know whether i will change your mind today. that was not michael. my goal was to convince you that the full range of relevant issues are not being adequately discussed at the moment. i hope that is one thing i have been able to persuade you of, that is, this is a bigger and much more multifaceted issue than the one issue of ambiguity that has dominated to date. thank you. i look forward to having a conversation. [applause] >> thanks, james. that was a terrific summary. you should still read the report, but he summarized it very well. you have a question or one to make a comment, raise your hand. our colleagues will bring a microphone to you. then i would ask you to identify

yourself so the colleagues in the audience and james will now you are. will know ou are -- who you are. >> my question is very simple. [indiscernible] >> i did not understand your question. >> chemical weapons. >> chemical weapons? >> yes. talking straight to the problem of chemical weapons if i understood you correctly. >> but the bush and obama administration's have sometimes talked about a counter wmd

role. not just going after a country's nuclear weapons, but after a country's biological or chemical weapons as well. that has not talked about in months, and i don't find that a terribly persuasive role. for exactly the reasons the publicdministration, as as publics success -- discussions suggest, if you can hit those stockpiles, you can disperse them. with conventional prompt global strike, we're talking about a smaller capability. you would be very much less ordinance against the targets ts fewer ordnan

against the target. you would want to use as much explosive as you could, and conventional prompt local strike is not a weapons system to do that. cpgs ot release the weapons having a role to play 10 years from now in another syria- type situation. with the security project -- the american security project here in washington, d.c. my question is related to this lady's question anyway. part of the impetus and rationale for conventional global strike is at least, implicitly, if not always explicitly, to be consistent

with president obama and the administration's desire to reduce the role of nuclear weapons for strategic tasks, not tactical and lesser, but even for nuclear deterrence. in the president's new guidance for the military in which the military is enjoined to pay a lot more attention to conventional strategic operations and also to discard counter value targeting mainly against population centers and to reemphasize counterforce targeting. this is all embedded in its basic orientation of reducing the role of nuclear weapons. does this come up with your own

analysis or conversations with people who are pushing for this particular weapon? >> beav are very deep questions. i certainly will not have a chance to get to all of that. the report discusses the conceptual history of the program and whether the obama administration wants to replace nuclear weapons with conventional weapons. let me offer a couple comments briefly about that. but i encourage you to look at the report for these questions. doctrinal statements are extremely cryptic. i often think that when we are reading chinese doctrine, for instance, the person that analyze the doctrine, it tells us more about them that what the chinese government is beyond any particular issue. the statements that have been made about reducing the role of conventional weapons can be read

in a lot of different ways. my understanding from trying to read those statements holistic lee and trying to speak to general cartwright was commander of strategic command and vice chairman of the much chiefs, he was very in favor of substituting nuclear for conventional weapons. using nuclear weapons to substitute -- or using conventional weapons to a substitute for nuclear. >> he knew what you meant. [laughter] inhe was very interested deeper reductions by conventional substitution. i think he was very much and i saw the boys on that question. act -- anat the obama isolated voice on that question. i think what the obama

administration is interested in today is two things. the first, the scenario that worries that the use of nuclear weapons would not be credible. which is not a scenario that is involving russia. it is iran, north korea, and by satellite weapons. developing nuclear alternatives. the president is presented with a nuclear option and conventional auctioning can choose which one to have. my interpretation is that nuclear weapons cannot complete the substitute for conventional weapons. there would be choices of nuclear or conventional presented to the president, and those would be scenarios in which the use of nuclear weapons might lack credibility. secondly, if the u.s. couldn't -- retains dominant, that it

does not have to have nuclear- weapons as a hedge against inferior r.t.. -- inferiority. not allow the u.s. to drawdown nuclear with numbers very much. that is my interpretation of what all of these doctrines mean. cryptic and can be interpreted in lots of different ways. >> the gentleman in the back. right behind the camera there. >> and thank you very much. could press back a little on your first recommendation on scenarios based analysis for assessments.

the reason why is that it occurred to me as you were speaking that if we had scenarios based assessment of the cruise missile, a generation ago, we might not actually have the cruise missile. many other alternatives were not considered. and there were folks that came to the defense establishment and said about why can't the same thing be done with these capabilities and cheaper or better, and there was quite a debate. explain your logic behind why we should engage in that sort of assessment to my capabilities based assessment, for considering something like the pgs. get into awe could very deep philosophical debate about scenarios based verses

capabilities -- versdus .apabilities based assessments there are two arguments i painted today. systems haveent different weapons associated with them. going after a terrorist in nails of afghanistan has a different requirement than going after janneys anti- satellite capabilities. pgs weapons are different from one another. they have different strengths and weaknesses. those are all taken together implied to me that if you do not look at this in a scenario-based way, there is a hybrid of buying -- there is a high risk of buying very expensive weapons that are just not useful because they are not capable of dealing

with this scenario in which you would want to use them. scenario-basedis assessment too far? of course you can. on theg resources threats you think most likely to arrive and in the most effective of combating those threats is the most strategic way forward. brief shot a very out. another paper that makes this is whatry eloquently denis wrote. he is here today. interestingery aboutn in that paper technologically driven programs verses strategically driven programs. i also give a shout out to that

analysis of this question as well. thank you. this gentleman right here. >> two technical questions. >> please introduce yourself. >> james tank. were introducing yourself. i thought you were saying "james, thanks. >> can you point out of the technical instances of this? and- avoca ma'at eyes -- number two, i assume you cannot use gps? there are different? >> there are different kind of conventional warheads that you can stick with global strike weapons. if you were going after

missiles, you would probably go after what is called flasch heads. these are metal fragments that you put a little bit of explosive in. if the weapon comes into the explosive is -- explodes and disperses the fragments over a wide area. calculationsome that i will publish in a technical paper that will follow optimistica very scenario, you might be able to destroy a mobile missile within 100 meters. but that is optimistic. but of course, your target vacation area, whether you can detect a mobile missile within 100 meters is the question. if you're going after a heart and deeply buried target, and it is a small underground target, you might have one or 2 meters.

the second issue raised is gps denial. all of the candidate gps weapons systems would primarily rely on the gps system for navigation. this is a much bigger issue than just cpgs. what if the signal is jammed? two alternatives. the first is to integrate an international navigation -- and navigation system. and you also need external signals. it is not accurate enough for a strike over thousands of kilometers. it might be enough to take over at the end of the flight. it is hard to assess where that is. the national academies in 2008 was very optimistic about inertia guidance. in 2009 wasreport

much less optimistic about the feasibility of doing that. both had the clearance to know the answer. the other was to use some kind of internal center, like 8 -- like an infrared sensor. that could identify the target. that has a lot of problems. target something called signatures stability, the temporal stability of the target. does how you train the terminal guidance system to recognize the .arget the options out there are very hard to assess with an inertia back up guidance system. >> and this speaks to the enabling that you talked about earlier, all of the background enabling capabilities that would be required to integrate what ever system.

>> gps is a classic example of an integrated system. jennifer and then over here. >> jennifer maccabees. you mentioned in the beginning that russia was interested in this, but from what matters stand, russia uses missiles and then number of other things as to where they do not want further arms control at the moment. i wonder if you could explain that a little more. >> my point in the beginning appears primarily interested in hypersonic cruise missiles. he has been very vocal and encouraging them to develop these missiles.

and the russian chief of the general staff to the first time i know of gave public mention to the boose guide systems. -- boost glide systems. becauset implying that russia is developing those systems it was an interested in further arms control. i think you're exactly right. to convince them to be interested in arms control right now for a range of issues. the fundamental issue is that u.s.-russia relations are pretty poor at the moment. that is the number one russian issue. no. 2 issue is the strategic capabilities. conventional strategic in the russian terminology incorporates more than just the conventional gloede strike. this will be an issue of arms

control if it starts. i think there will be solutions year. does pursue these systems seriously, would it want to limit it owns -- its own ourem by our own control -- arms control? it would have to agree to limit both systems. control lot about arms now, theace, but right likelihood of another round of arms control between the u.s. and russia is extremely bleak right now. i think will hold off on all of the vacations'. off on all of the implications. >> the greater challenge with

russia will be maintaining chinese concerns and that relationship with china, because in many ways what is envisioned is threatening to china in ways that are not so threatening to russia. exactly, and i find a chinese ingalls much more interesting than the rushing -- russian ngle. missions aressible very china-focused. china's nuclear forces are much smaller and much more for survival. and the chinese are much more serious about developing this technology than the russians are. the chinese anti-ship ballistic -like system.cpgs it is designed to go after u.s.

aircraft carriers and other mobile targets. i know it is not called chinese military power anymore, but the annual report on military security developments involving the people's republic of china, that showed that china is developing medium-range ballistic missiles. for all of those reasons, i think the china ankle, there's a lot more going on there. more opportunity for reciprocal confidence- building with china, which i think is very valuable to pursue. there's also a much greater probability of instability building in a china scenario horey reischea scenario. -- or of russia scenario.

>> i do not understand this scenario under which using these kinds of events to be helpful under non-state terrorists. everyone they can do that channahon has learned under withering glare of drones and special operations that they should not gather in one place and should not -- and should be careful how they communicate. how. cpgs help usoes in any way with counter- terrorism? >> the argument is this. imagine a highly reliable source tells us that the key terrorist will be at such and such a place in half an hour and

only for an hour. we need a weapon capable of getting to where that terrorist is within an hour-and-a-half. this magicyou have nugget of intelligence that needs action immediately. i'm skepticallear of this rationale within the report. historically, acquisition of information on terrace has been slow and gradual. and the fact that the no. 1 terrorist was killed with butz on the ground suggest that you may have strategic warning. on the other hand, you may have made the argument that you cannot know what is going to happen. policy willle that arrive. why don't all of the agency's involved in counterterrorism go

back through their records and find out if there have been any historical occasions on which the united states would have been able to kill a key terrorist if it had fastened of weapons. and there are classified examples of that. and you can go to the president and say, here are three examples in the last 10 years worth we had this capability, we would have been able to get a high-ranking terrorist. that is pretty significant. and if they cannot identify any such examples, that is pretty significant, too. challengesules verifying that. even if this magic nugget of intelligence did arrive, you have to verify the target, do the collateral damage ca assessments. it is a really difficult situation for enabling capabilities, and really difficult for enabling

capability to track down dispersal missiles. next. >> edward levine. retired gadfly. gadfly.a you are retired senator. >> yes. if i understand conventional probable strike correctly, it is an extremely expensive niche system. perhaps a niche system perhaps a niche system precise the because of its expense. i wonder if you have found any education where if we developed one or the other system there might be in a -- a possibility of economies of scale, like the example of the cruise missile,

that would make it something other than a niche system. aalso wonder whether for atble justification least slow development is simply to maintain technology dominance even if you're never work well enough to define it. and i wonder if a comparison could be made to a generation ago when people when peoplefobs. >> what are fobs? >> fractional orbital balance systems. developing economies of scale -- obviously, the

conventional strike capability might be relatively cheap for the following reasons. effuse retired nuclear missiles -- if you use retired nuclear , you have the expensive system alreadygs made. at that point, it just comes down to fabricating the glider, or wherever. you can get to tens of system is relatively cheaper. cons in using and the delivery system that i discussed in the paper. biggerwant to go to a deployment: you have to design and build a new missile. then suddenly, the price jumps significantly. at that point, though, than the economies of scale start to kick in.

100 new weapons if you have to build a new missile will be very expensive. weapons, then you get huge economies of scale relative to the cost of weapons. --e never heard anyone say understanding this technology in case adversaries do it is a good reason to keep doing it. i'm not sure it would be decisive argument in my mind about but it is there in a factor. at somehe cold war glorious time during the late 1960's and early 1970's, when people started getting very worried about the idea of putting nuclear warheads in a

fractional orbit. he would stick it in orbit and it would go part way around the theld be on target in a way that would not covered by radar. were arguablyfobs banned by the outer space treaty. cpgs would not fall under the outer space treaty for two reasons. one, it is not nuclear. it is conventional. and the treaty only deals with

weapons of mass destruction. and secondly, unless these things go very fast, close to 900 meters per second, which is orbital velocity, you can argue they are not in orbit. there are differences -- differences between the fobs systems being considered and the cpgs now. >> another question. >> thank you for raising your hand again. i forgot. mentioned that the interoperability of these things can enhance deterrence.

of this risk is actually created of of how the u.s. targets these weapons? you mentioned command-and- control, and by satellite weapons, and air missile defenses. that would seem there is a larger campaign coming. the festival may look at suppression against systems in the pacific. >> i think that is exactly right. u.s. targeting policy will only ever have a limited -- an on anniversary adversary. russia thinks it is all about russia. frankly, what ever the u.s. says about how it targets these historically it says very little, but even if it was to publish documents, the

assumption would be getting these all made up. that would be the first issue. the second issue, let's imagine system against iran, and russia sees its launch and coming roughly in russia's direction. and because it would be unpredictable and an observable, -- and not observable, russia and italy have the u.s. were about where to go -- russia would only have is u.s.'s word on where it going. it is not risk free. there are risks associated with not doing it. there are risks associated with doing it. my goal with this project is not to make any grand conclusion. break thato analysis of, to highlight all of ,he different areas of risk

associated with both proceeding and not proceeding, and then let other people argue about how we get there together. >> any others? ok, again, let me thank you all to thankg and ask you james for providing the text, which i hope you all read, on this occasion. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> congress is holding its first public hearing this afternoon about plans for u.s. intervention in syria in response to last month alleged sarin gas attack outside damascus. secretary of state carey, defense secretary chuck hagel, and joint chiefs jair dempsey are said to be testifying. live coverage today at 2:30 p.m. eastern. the un secretary general ban ki moon spoke with reporters today on syria. u.s. responsehe to alleged chemical attacks be more problem.

>> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i leave shortly for a summit but i wanted to take just a few minutes with you before my perch -- my departure particular syria, in the chemical weapons investigation. since the horrendous attacks in damascus two weeks ago, the un has been working now to determine the effect with regarding the nature of any use of chemical weapons. as the first of the allegations of the use of weapons of mass destructions of this century, it is in everyone's interest, this investigation.

of theed the members security council on the status of the investigation. this morning to my briefed the council's 10 members. by this morant does this afternoon, ms. angela king will brief other member states. i have called for the mission every opportunity to complete its task. the u.n. investigation is uniquely praised -- placed to independently established fact in an objective manner. conductedill be strictly according to internationally records -- recognize standards. the vision has worked round-the- clock following its return to syria to prepare for analysis.

that it will have arrived at the designated place by tomorrow. i need to stress the importance of not jeopardize thing the scientific timelines required for accurate analysis. as soon as the mission has arrived at findings on the incident, i will promptly report the results to member states and to the security council. return to syria to complete this investigation to prepare its final report. if confirmed, and the use of chemical weapons by anyone under

be aircumstances will serious violation of international law and an outrageous war crime. following the words of the first we attempted to ban these weapons of mass destruction. our interest is to make sure they do not become a tool of war or tear in the 21st century. and the perpetrators must be brought to justice. there should be no impunity. bearing in mind the primal responsibility of the security council, i call on its members to unite and develop an appropriate response, osher the allegations of abuse and prove to be -- should the allegations of abuse prove to be true.

this is a larger issue than the conflict in syria. this is about our collective responsibility to humankind. source, this latest escalation should be a wake-up for the international community. we must put an end to the atrocities the syrian people continue to suffer. the middle east -- demilitarization of the country and revitalize the search for political settlement. urge for arguments to prevent the use of chemical weapons. at the same time, we must consider the impact of any prevent thesure to partnership and the resolution

of political conflict. i appeal for regional and to conveneal actors as soon as possible. the g-20 summit is focused on economic issues, including development goals. i would use opportunity of this for the 4.2rtunity million syrians that have been displaced. it is imperative to end this war. thank you. i will be happy to take one or two questions. >> we only have time for jibao. >> on behalf of the un

correspondence panel, thank you for the briefing and we wish you well on the g-20 meeting. my question is, since you're talking about an end to impunity and you're also talking about the primacy of the charter, which would prohibit any un strike without security council authorization, and with a stalemate in the security council, what are you proposing? what is in the toolbox of the un to avoid that kind of impunity?on of and you think the inspector general's report will be out before the u.s. congress convenes? >> the security council has primary responsibility for international peace and security. in the course of actions future, depending on the outcome theye scientific analysis,

have to be considered by the .ecurity council for any action that is my appeal, that everything should be handled within the framework of the united nations charter. the use of force is lawful only an exercise of self-defense in accordance with article 51 of , and/or when the security council approves such action. that is a founding principle of the un. our mandate to investigate the other allegations of chemical use remain unchanged. that has not changed. when we are ready, we will send

ar mission to syria to get final report. the timing will have to be considerably iran, depending on the situations. have to be considered later on, depending on the situation is. >> and do you mean that based on the position taken by president obama that this strike is illegal? and what did you limit the investigation team to only, as thisut it, the nature of attack? the syrian government insisted -- agreed to the protocol? >> i appreciate president obama's efforts to have his future course of action based on the opinions of american

particularly the congress. we have the report. and as for other positions to live clearly stated my position on this potential chemical weapons use. >> but who put the limits on the mandate? is that the syrian government? the mandate of the regime is not identified. who put such limitations on the mandates? secretariat when a negotiated? was that the syrian government? with the security council? it was a united nations decision. themandate was to determine

use of chemical weapons or to not use chemical weapons is not to determine of home and against whom. we do not have that kind of .andate based on the recognizable standard of the irrational community. we have been working very closely with the opcw and others. thank you provide after rushed to the airport at this time. i hope you understand. >> those remarks earlier today at the un. france is the lone country willing to join the united syria.for striking but the president says he will wait for a decision on -- from the u.s. congress on possible action.

senator tim kaine says he is looking forward to hearing from secretary kerry. thiseneral martin dempsey afternoon. congressman duncan hunter says obama is inviting impeachment if he strikes syria without congress. and congressman richard hannah. to hearing more from the administration the days ahead so i may have the most informed decision possible. house speaker boehner and majority leader eric cantor voiced their support for a military strike this morning. >> as chairman of the senate intelligence committee i am in

full support of these actions. i think it is key and critical. i think it is important to the security of the world and particularly the middle east. this afternoon we have a meeting of the intelligence committee to see that all members are briefed i willresentatives and have a second meeting on thursday. attended,ng we just in my 20 years, was one of the best i have been to. casethe president made the , the secretary of state made the case, i think the discussion was appropriate. my hope is that members left this meeting with a greater sense of purpose. that purpose is to get this past botht this passed in

houses. >> that was probably one of the most effective bipartisan meetings i have been a part of since i have been in congress. democrats and republicans working on an issue that is important not only to the american public but to the world. clearrst issue is it is throughout the world, not only with the united states, that you have the assad regime using chemical weapons to kill his own people, including over 400 children, probably about 1200 people that have been killed because of chemical weapons. the world decided years ago that chemical weapons would never be used. and yet we have a situation now where we have a regime that is using chemical weapons. we have to deal with this am a not only the united states but the world. we have to deal with the humanitarian issue and -- humanitarian issue, to not allow anyone whether it is a saudi, to be able torea,

use chemical weapons without any accountability. we in the united states have resources that other -- that no other country has but we cannot be a sheriff of the whole world. we are a coalition of countries that are coming together and understanding how serious this issue is as far as chemical weapons are concerned. we must do something. if we do nothing now and allow this to go on it sends a message that chemical weapons can then be used. that will affect the world, that will affect people in the region, our allies, and us, the united states of america. if we do not deal with it now it will continue to go on to my not chemical weapons but with weapons of mass destruction. we need to come together and we need to support this issue. now, the issue of congress coming together is important because we need to educate members of congress and we have to educate the american people how important the issue is, how we are acting, and why we are acting and what the consequences are if we do not act.

we're not going to have another iraq or afghanistan, that is not the intent. it is to deal with the issue and hold assad accountable for using chemical weapons to kill women and children. >> [indiscernible] >> i think the focus right now is to deter chemical weapons. what will happen when this occurs, if it does occur, is it will hurt assad it right now, it will hurt his regime, it will make him weaker because of the focus we will have, us and other countries, in dealing and holding him accountable for using chemical weapons. let me say very strongly that i think it is important that we support the president, i think it is important that it is bipartisan, i think we have heavy votes in both the house and senate. as my colleagues have mentioned, we are talking about weapons of mass destruction. this is a war crime to turn weapons of mass instruction on your own pop elation, it is the

most despicable thing anyone can do. -- your own population. it is the most despicable thing anyone can do. if we do not respond in kind we would send a message to every terrorist group that you can commit crimes and bring your own citizens with impunity and nothing is going to happen. -- iran, hee law zbollah, and other groups are watching. iran is watching this very carefully to see how we respond to syria as a test to how we will respond if and when they create a nuclear weapon. i think american credibility is on the line, i think it is certainly in the best interest of the united states. we have the capacity to do this. i grew up learning and still believe that the united states of america stands for something. we stand for human rights. we stand for what should be done. since world war i we have said

very carefully to the entire world that weapons of mass destruction cannot be allowed to be used. i support the president and i think we should also be degrading assad's military. think that just have a strike is fine to send the message. we have to be careful. as long as that man is in charge of syria there is always going to be a problem and ultimately we want to get everyone to a conference where we can talk about a post-assad syria. mainly humanitarian but it is also in the u.s. national interests, we need to do with the president is asking us to do. >> are you confident that the president is interested or open to a strike that would degrade the assad regime's capabilities, not the limited taylor strike he is talking about? >> he made it clear to us he is not talking about a pinpoint strike. he is talking about a strike that sends the message that

weapons of mass destruction, guessing your own people, is unacceptable. but also a message that tells assad we are not just going to let him stay where he is and continue to wreak havoc and rank -- wreak havoc and terror on his people. >> what is the u.s. prepared to do -- >> we think this message will not be ignored. we think the message will be loud and clear and we are taking the first steps paid i think we first steps. we -- we are confident it is going to work. can you complain when he came to that conclusion when he did? >> we did not going to the details of it. i know the president says that he feels that this should be something where the president and congress -- the president and congress doesn't together. it is stronger if we can speak

with one voice, stronger if both executive branch of legislative branches -- both the executive and legislative branches say the same thing. there are still a lot of people who are questioning this. we have more work to do. i think we have to convince the american people, we have to convince the congress that this is morally right to do. i think we will. >> is anyone in that meeting questioning military action? >> i think the president and the secretary and vice president made a compelling case on a humanitarian basis that this is something that the united states is uniquely positioned to do. i think it was a very compelling case when talking about the slaughter of men, women, and children. i will always remember those pictures of those poor children foaming at the mouth and dying. i think we are in a position to help and i think the president

was very compelling today. >> [indiscernible] >> i cannot talk to every single leader but i think the general consensus is very strongly in support of the president. it came with both parties. the leadership in both parties in that meeting will support the president in doing this. >> did he say how he will approach his trip to russia? >> the president did say he will be speaking at that speaking with world leaders on that trip. will be speaking with world leaders on that trip. forink congress will vote it once people understand what the stake is. it is humanitarian, we cannot allow this to going to check in and go unchecked. -- allow this to go unchecked. terrorist groups are watching to see what we are doing. we absolutely have a stake and

it is not just syria itself. it is the syrian aspect of it. -- the humanitarian aspect of it. i think he will make its to individual members, i think we will make it, and i think the vote will be positive. i think it is likely it will be revised. i think it is likely it will be revised so people can feel more calm to go with it. we do not want boots on the ground. we do not want this to be a prolonged attack or war or anything like that. there is no case for it from the president or congress. i think that the revolution, as a result, will be narrowed to give the president what he needs to have in order to effectively carry out the strike. strike and out the give people the sense and the feeling that this is not going to be an ongoing and. america is war weary and so am i. doma.

-- thank you. i think there is a compelling case to be made, the president has made, i support him. i think when people hear the case they will support him too. there is no doubt in my mind, after seeing the evidence, that chemical weapons were used and used thed's people weapons. there is all kinds of evidence to show it from things we intercepted to where the gas was used, there is no doubt in my mind. that is something people are questioning when the facts come out. i think they will understand. the president made his case to us and now we have to make it to the american people. thank you. >> as you heard mention, the foreign relations committee is holding the first meeting today on the authorized use of military force in syria. you have that for you at 2:30 eastern. secretary of state kerry, then

secretary chuck hagel, and joint chiefs of staff chair mark dempsey will resent the case why a u.s. response to syrian use of chemical weapons as needed. senator kerry served as the committee's chair from 2009 until february this year. starting at the bottom of the hour here on c- span. remarks now from the foreign relations committee member bob corker at the u.s. capitol. >> the meeting at the white house broke up a minute ago. the speaker seems to be on board, the democratic leader of the house. does that help? >> yes. is -- today ielps

expressed strongly in the meeting that we just had we do not just focus on what has happened with chemical weapons but that a strong case is made regarding the importance of doing with we are the opposition. and i amt in the area just dismayed at the slow progress we are making in arming, equipping, and training the opposition. that needs to be discussed today. action takestary us down the road toward a vetted, of having a moderate opposition that is successful within the country, leading to a transition, a negotiating transition. menendez and i met privately with the president. that we strong sense

will be able to come to terms fairly quickly. staffs had a very good meeting last night. based on a conversation we had in the oval office i think we are in agreement as to what the authorization needs to address. while i know that secretary hagel -- secretary kerry and the chemicaldress warfare, i think it is important for them to address the other aspects. i am looking forward to a very good hearing. i have been in most of these meetings with additional discussions regarding military strategy. i think it was a very productive

meeting. i think there is a push to have hastily, but have a markup very soon so that members can have the opportunity to see it before they come back. depending on progress you could well see something this evening or early in the morning. theects their will be hearing today and a formal markup later in the week? >> there is discussions as to when the markup should occur. i know that getting something out there for people to deal -- atdigest, and look at the same time not doing that quickly is an important piece. i know our staff has been working toward that for some time. even before the president made the announcement.

i have a sense that there is a really good chance that menendez's staff and our staff will come to terms. the committee itself needs to have a markup and i'm sure there will be a tremendous amount of influence of something this serious. i think we all understand with humility the importance of what we have been asked to do. i think we all know that we need to do this in a very thoughtful way. >> has the president made it clear and compelling case for military action against syria and how much will republicans look for a resolution? >> i do not think i can predict. there are a lot of questions. i do think people understand. i think they understand the importance, the consequences in the region of having said that this is a red line and not taking action. i think people understand the

planetary and impact of the regime like assad using chemical weapons. i think it is very very important for the administration to make the case for syria at large and why this is important to our national interests. to knowing this responses in response to , how thisarfare response will aid us in a strategy towards serious -- -- ids syria -- i barely very strongly made that argument today. important toward building the case and getting the kind of support that will be necessary for you to -- necessary. the senate could act first. work ordering of into the authorization.

of time we spent a lot talking about the case relative to chemical warfare. i see no holes in that. convinced, as one person, beyond a shadow of a doubt this has occurred. aside and set that the american people who summit is war weary try -- who are war weary, i think the american to understand beyond the chemical warfare aspect of this. they have to understand the importance of taking action in syria, the importance of supporting that it opposition,

the longer of our strategy there. we have to understand how this military authorization and the action will follow -- i think the witnesses today, especially based on the conversations we just had, will try to make that case strongly. collects is anything other than a stalemate -- >> could anything other than a stalemate between vacuum? the syrian army is something a lot of people supported there's no indication they are ready to lead the country. you get us right in the authorization. let us make it public and let -- committee itself away in committee itself away in -- weigh in.

i spent a lot of time with general edros two and a half weeks ago. he is a military person. type oft the patton- commanding general. he is a little bit more of a bureaucrat. but he is a person worth coalescing around. he has no desire to run the country, i think that would be a problem. capacity lot of building bennies to occur with him and around him. that needs to occur in an appropriate way. i am disappointed in what we have done thus far to help that modern opposition. i know we have to make it decisions soon as to whether we are going to support something of industrial-strength or continue to do it through covert actions. that is important for this

administration to decide. when the civilian leadership one acairo -- i met with couple of weeks ago -- no, i don't see any civilian leadership there yet. from a military standpoint, we are coalescing around the mid riff. he is a likable and decent enough person. i know there's going to be a lot of -- there will have to be a lot of international support for him to be about to do the kind of things he needs to do both on a command and control basis and also just pulling together opposition which is faced up -- which is made of former leaders.

there is a lot that has to happen there. as you brought up, some significant amount of activity has to occur to actually have that civilian leadership on the ground. that is why i think with quick -- that is why i think -- >> do you think your onversation -- >> i think pretty soon you're going to see a product that answers those questions. i will tell you this for, -- this, for what it's worth, after the meeting we spent a deal of time with the president and the two of us -- there was nothing said in that meeting that call to believe that we cannot come to an authorization that will be acceptable. it will be acceptable at least as a beginning point.

>> does the senate talk about having the senate go forward, the idea that if the senate went first we could get some coverage? >> there is no discussion of that. >> [indiscernible] >> i think we got to navigate the issue. not many americans want to see any boots on the ground. i know i don't. no americans want to see a strong into a long civil war. hand we have to have an authorization that keeps that from occurring. on the other side we have have enough resolution that allows us to deal with any kind for territory efforts. there is limited time.

i think we will figure out a way to navigate that create with that, thank you for your questions. -- to navigate that. with that, thank you for your questions. >> i think today they will do a good job. [inaudible] a live picture from capitol hill, where in just a few moments the senate foreign relations committee will convene to hold the first hearing on the authorization of the use of military force against syria. senator bob corker will be there. he is the ranking member on the foreign relations committee. he will hear testimony from secretary of state john kerry, the fence secretary chuck hagel, and chief joints of staff martin

dempsey. we will have live coverage when it gets underway. looking at some comments from members of congress who are tweeting on this issue -- we're sharing remarks from senator jim risch, he serves on the foreign relations committee. >> we have an intelligence committee meeting at 1:00, formulations at 2:30 -- foreign

relations on 2:30. i am extremely reluctant on this issue but i want to hear with it ministration has to say and all of the intelligence at up, which we are getting in now. at the end of the day i would be happy to talk with you. is a whole list of things, not least of which is once you open this can, what is going to come out? i want to hear what not what day one looks like, i want to hear with day two, day three, day four is going to look like. what is the reaction going to be from syria's allies around the world? i want to know where we are going with this. what is the objective. i still keep hearing that the to doive is, we have something. that is not good enough for me at this point.

[inaudible] >> some of them are opposed to this. majority isst simply posed. >> what does the president need to do yucca >> i couldn't answer that question. i have another meeting i have to go to. >> what is the best case scenario? >> i don't want to comment on that. >> thank you. what you live in the was again, from the building on capitol hill, waiting for the start of the senate foreign relations committee hearing on the auto raise asian -- on the authorization of the use of force on syria. we are asking how you would like your congressman and senator to vote on the authorization of military force in syria. michael says --

"they don't want the site -- to fight beside our enemies." the majority of the people in the usa say "no." "we voted them in the office to stand on the people of this country." also, "they should vote a resounding no,no,no." you can go to facebook.com/cspan and offer your comments.

>> as we wait for the start of the senate foreign relations committee hearing on the use of

military force in syria, the associated press has this, president obama's military push -- push for military strike in syria is leaning momentum. -- is gaining momentum. the president met today with more than one dozen lawmakers and the white house capital room . what he said would be limited strikes. this is from the hill. mitch mcconnell today do not offer support for military strike against syria and a stark contrast with the gop leaders of the house. he voiced skepticism and said the president needed to explain more congress and the public. he wouldner said support president obama's call for military strike against syria. said he would support a

military strike. action would not be excepted. to wind be up to obama votes, according to a spokesperson for boehner.

>> say no to war in syria. we cannot afford to have another war. educate your country. no more war in syria.

>> this hearing of the committee will come to order. i knowfirst say that that actions of approval or disapproval of the audience -- we welcome you to be here but we welcome you to be observers of this important occasion. tolerate will not actions that are in violation of the committee rules. let me welcome secretary kerry

back to the committee that he chaired, secretary care on the committee he served on, and the -- secretary hagel on the committee he served on, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. we are asked to make one of the most ethical decisions, the authorization of the use of military power. this time to respond to the horrific to michael attack of august 21 that took the lives of 1429 syrians, including at least 426 children. the images of that day are sickening. in my view the world cannot ignore the inhumanity and horror of this act. i do not take our responsibility to ought to rise military force lightly or make such decisions easily. i voted against the war in iraq

and strongly have supported a withdrawal of u.s. troops from afghanistan. i support the president's decision to use military force in the face of this horrific crime against humanity. yes there are risks to action. but the consequences of inaction are greater and greater still reedit further humanitarian disaster in syria, regional instability to my the loss of american -- regional instability, the loss of american credibility, and the disintegration of international law. be one of thewill most difficult any of us will be asked to make. it is our role as representatives of the american people to make it. to put aside political differences and personal ideologies, to forget partisanship and free conceptions, to forget the polls, politics, and even personal consequences. it is a moment for a profile

encourage to do what one knows is right. -- a profile in courage to do what one knows is right. at the end of the day, each of us with the site -- will decide whether to vote for or against military action based on our assessment of the facts and the conscience. the decision rests with us. it is not political. it is a policy decision that must be based, i believe, on what we believe is the national security interests of the united states. the authorization we ultimately seek is for a focused action with a clear understanding that american troops will not be on the ground in combat and the language before us is a starting point. the president has decided to ask congress for our support. now the eyes of the world are on

us. the decision we make, the resolution we present to the senate, and the votes we take will reverberate around the world. our friends and allies away our decisions -- and allies will weigh our decisions. face of a in the chemical attack by the assad regime against innocent civilians will send a signal to the world that such weapons in violation of international law cannot be used with impunity. the question is, will be sent a message that the united states will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world by anyone for any reason? will we, in the name of all that is human and decent, authorize the use of military power against the inexcusable, and discriminate, and immoral use of chemical weapons? or will be standdown? what message do we stand -- do

we send the world when such crimes go unpunished? will they use these weapons again? will they use them more widely and kill more children? will they use them against our allies, against our troops, against our embassies, or will they give in -- give them to terrorists who will use them against us here at home? are we willing to watch a slaughter just because the patrons of that slaughter are willing to use their veto at the united nations to allow it to happen so that their beneficiary can stay in power? and are we so tired of war that we are willing to silence our conscience and accept the consequences that will inevitably flow from the silence to our national interest? we will hear the arguments and the options presented to us today and we will look at the facts as we know them, according to the declassified assessment released last friday that secretary kerry has so passionately presented to the nation. according to that assessment, we know with high confidence that

the syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the damascus suburbs on august 21. we know the assad regime has stockpiled chemical agents, including mustard, sarin, and other gases and has thousands of munitions capable of delivering. we know that personal involvement in the program are carefully vetted to ensure loyalty to the regime and security to the program. evidence chemical weapons have been used on a smaller scale against the opposition on several other locations in the past year, including in the damascus suburbs. the sarin gas has been used on some of those occasions and it was not the opposition that used it. we know that chemical weapons personnel from the syrian scientific studies and research center, subordinate to the regime's ministry of defense, while operating in the damascus suburb from sunday, august 18 until earning the morning august

21, near an area the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including serendipity and -- including sarin. spatial intelligence have shown preparations of chemical weapons prior to the attack, including the distribution of gas masks. satellite collaboration -- instruct areas where the chemical attack reportedly occurred. clearly tying the pieces together. that is what we know in terms of who deploy these weapons. more evidence is available and we will be looking at all of the classified information in a closed session of the committee tomorrow that more clearly establishes the use of chemical weapons by the regime, the military responses available to us, and the results we expect from those responses. there is, in my view,

a preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that targetedorces civilians with chemical weapons grade having said that, at the end of the data chemical weapons attack against innocent civilians in syria is an indirect attack on america's security with broader applications for the region and the world. if chemical weapons can be used with impunity in violation of a geneva protocol crafted by the league of nations and signed by the united states in 1925, in fact signed by syria itself in be used without fear of reprisal anywhere by anyone. in my view, such heinous and immoral violations of decency demand a clear and unambiguous response. we are at a crossroads. a precedent will be sent -- will be set. be set for thel deterrence of use of weapons with the use of military force

that sends a message that the world will not stand down. we will either send a message to anda, iran, north korea, any other nonstate actors that the world will not tolerate the senseless use of chemical weapons by anyone. or we will choose to stand silent in the face of horrific human suffering. we need to consider the consequences of not acting. our silence would be a message to the ayatollah but the america -- that america will not stop syria in the acquiring of chemical weapons. our silence would embolden kim jong-un, who has a large chemical weapons cachet and would send a message that we are not serious about protecting south korea from the use of chemical weapons. and it would double terrorist efforts to acquire chemical weapons. clearly, at the end of the day our national security is at stake. -- want to thank the

witnesses to present the facts as they know them. at the end of the day we will decide whether to send a message to the world -- there are lines we cannot cross a civilized human beings or stand silence in the face of threats. i will turn it to senator corker for his opening statement. the president is asking for the operational use of limited force. it is not his intention or ours to involve ourselves fully in syria's civil war. ,hat is before us is a request "to prevent or deter the use or proliferation of chemical biological weapons to protect the united states and its allies and partners against a threat posed by such weapons ergo this is an -- by such weapons ergo -- by such weapons,: this is not a declaration of war. we know the facts, we will hear

the arguments, we will have the debate, and then it will be up to each of us to search our conscience and make a decision on behalf of the american people. i trust that we can achieve that in a bipartisan way. i have been working with senator corker as we move towards a resolution. i hope we will get bogged -- get broad but partisan support freedom i just want to acknowledge the president -- bipartisan support. -- it want to acknowledge think you for being here with us. senator corker? >> i thank you for your comments . i want to thank our witnesses for being here, not only for their service to our country in their current capacity but in their service in every way for many years. i thank you for being here.

today your beginning the formal request of tasking each of us to make the most important incision many of us will make during our tenure in the united states senate. i know everybody here on the dais and those that are not take that decision very seriously. i have noticed a distinct sense of humility as we have gone about the various questions, conference calls, and earlier meetings we have had today and previously this week. i know that every member here knows that whether they decide to support an authorized nation for the use of military force force or not,ary they are making a decision about our country's national interest. i know everybody is going to be taking that decision very very seriously. one of the issues that many members will have is the fact is that should be supports an authorization for the use of -- everyone knows

i am generally inclined to do so and working closely with senator menendez for something that will be a starting point for this committee's discussion. i know each member will have its input and have its imprint on what it is that we end up deciding to vote upon. one of the problems that members have, and i think this hearing and tomorrow's hearing is important to answer, while we make policy, you implement. the implementation of this is very important. i think there have been mixed signals about what the implementation actually is going to mean and the effect it is going to have on the country that we are involved in. i want to say that i was just in the region, as i know many people have been. dismayed atotally we arek of support

giving to be vetted moderate opposition. we publicly's dated what that support is going to be -- buckley stated what that support is going to be, even though it is going to be carried out in a covert way. -- we publicly stated what that support is going to be, even though it is going to be carried out in a covert way. our policy is we are going to train, equip, if humanitarian aid to the vested opposition and yet when you sit down with the people who are coalescing around , very little of that has occurred. i know today's focus is going to be largely on the issue of chemical warfare. case has to be made and i know that each of us have had the opportunity to hear intelligence,see to understand on what basis these claims have been made great my guess is that most everyone here fully believes that chemical weapons has been used on civilians to a large

degree. i know that case is going to be made to the american people today as you're making it to us. it is my hope that a big part of what you're going to do here today, and i know we talked about this earlier this morning at the white house, but it is to make a case as to why syria is important to our national interests, why syria matters to the region, why it is important thiss to carry out strategy and how we are going to continue to carry out that stated strategy. one of the things i do not want to see in this authorization is, after it is authorized and force takes place, i want to see us continue to carry out the strategy that has been stated, and that is building the capacity of the vetted moderate opposition. i would like to have you address that.

i would like to have you today the use ofs how military force supports that strategy, how it is going to affect the region and the aftermath. i thank you for being here today. i know a big part of what we're discerning today and what we are making decisions upon is the credibility of the united states of america. i know the people in the region are watching. i know that we have been hesitant to move on with many of the activities that we have stated we are going to the carrying out. today i hope that each of you will bring clarity to this. i know we are going to talk about chemical warfare. i hope you will give us even more clarity about our opposition, strengthening, and how this will affect us overall. i hope we will all leave here today with a clear understanding of how the strategy is going to be carried out. i thank you and i look forward to your testimony. >> secretary kerry?

collects members of the committee, ranking member corker, thank you very much for having us here today. we look forward to this opportunity to be able to share with you president obama's vision with respect to not just this action, but as senator corker has a choir -- has inquired appropriate lee about syria itself and in the course of action in the middle east -- inquired appropriately, about , and the course of action in the middle east. debate --ene for this it is not an exaggeration to say to all of you, my former colleagues, that the world is watching not just to see what we decide, but it is watching to see how we make this decision,

whether in a dangerous world we can still make our government speak with one voice. they want to know if america will rise to this moment and make a difference. question of whether to authorize military action is come as you have said -- is, as you have said, this is obviously one of the most important decisions and responsibilities of this committee or any senator in the course of their career. the president and the appreciates that you have returned quickly to the nation's capital to address it and that your appropriately beginning a process of focusing great care in great position, which is the only way to approach the potential use of military power.

ranking member corker, i know you wanted to discuss, as you have said, why syria matters to our national security and our strategic interests. i look forward, with secretary hegel and general dempsey, to laying that out here this afternoon. first, it is important to explain to the american people why we are here. it is important for people who may not have caught every component of the news over the course of labor day weekend to join us, all of us, in focusing in on what is at stake here. that is why the president of the united states made a decision as he did, contrary to what many people thought he would do, of asking the congress to join on this decision. we are stronger as a nation when we do that. we are here because against multiple warnings by the

president of the united states, from the congress, from our wrens and allies around the world, and even from russia and iran, the assad regime and only deniable he -- only undeniably the assad regime unleashed an outrageous chemical attack against its own citizens. we are secure because a dictator and his family's personal enterprise, in their lust to hold onto power, were willing to affect -- to infect the air of damascus that -- the air of damascus with a poison that killed mothers and fathers and children'. amazingly have questioned the evidence of this assault on conscience. i repeat again today that only the most willful desire to avoid

reality can assert that this did or thatr as described the regime did not do it. it it happen. and the assad regime did it. . remember iraq secretary hegel remembers iraq. general dempsey especially remembers iraq. secretary hegel and i and you on the day us remember iraq and a special way because we were here for that vote. we voted. we are especially sensitive, chuck and i, to never again asking any member to take a vote on all t intelligence. -- on faulty intelligence. that is why our intelligence committee has scrubbed and re- scrub the evidence. we have declassified unprecedented amount of information and we ask the american people and the rest of the world to judge that information.

we can tell you beyond any reasonable doubt that our evidence proves the assad regime prepared for this attack, issued instructions to prepare for this we have physical evidence of where the rockets came from and when. not one that rocket landed in regime-controlled territory. not one. all of them landed in opposition control or contested territory. map, physical evidence showing every geographical impact, and that is concrete. attack, 90tes of the to be precise, maybe slightly shorter, social media exploded with her rick davids -- pictures

of damage. men and women sprawled on a hospital for with new wounds, no blood, but all dead. those scenes of human chaos and desperation were not contrived. they were real. we're certain that none of the opposition has the weapons or capacity to make a strike of this scale, particularly from the heart of regime that territory. think about it is logical terms, common sense. with high confidence our intelligence community tells us that after the strike the regime issued orders to stop, and then fretted openly about the possibility of u.n. inspectors discovering evidence, so then they began to systematically destroy it. contrary to my discussion with

their foreign minister who said we are nothing to hide. i said if you have nothing to hide, let the inspectors in today and let it be unrestricted. it was not, and they did not. it took four days of shelling before they finally allowed the men under prearranged structure. now where the hair and blood samples from first east damascus have tested positive for sarin. i can tell you we know things beyond a reasonable doubt for the standard we send people to jail for lives. we're here because of what happened two weeks ago, but also we're here because of what happened nearly a century ago.

in the darkest moments of world when the vast majority of the world came together to declare that no uncertain terms that chemical weapons crossed the lines and must be the end for use from ever. over the years that followed, over 180 countries, including agreed andand russia joined the chemical weapons convention. even countries with whom we agreed on that, conviction. some have tried to suggest the debate we're having today is about president obama is red line. i could not more forcefully state that is just plain and simply wrong. about the world redlined, humanities red line.

anyone with a conscious ought to drop. this is about congress up red line. you agreed to the chemical weapons convention. you the congress have spoken out about grave consequences if assad use chemical weapons. i said to you, that is one of the reasons why a assyria is important. as we debate and the world watches and you decide in the world wonders, not whether the regime executed the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century, that fact i think is now beyond question. whether unitedrs

states of america will consent through silence to standing aside will this -- while this kind of brutality is allowed to happen without consequence. in the nearly 100 years since the first global commitment against chemical weapons, only to tyrants there to cross the world's brightest minds. now he has become the third. i think all of you know that history holds nothing but empty for those criminals. history reserves all so very little sympathy for the enablers. ofthe reality is the gravity this moment. that is the importance of the decision that this congress bases and the world is waiting to learn about in these next days. a ranking member corker the central question, why should

americans care, beyond what i just said, which ought to be enough in the judgment of the president and this administration? it is clear that in addition to what i have just mentioned about the syria accountability act and threats to the middle east, we cannot overlook the impact of chemical weapons and the danger they pose to a particularly volatile area of the world in which we have been deeply invested four years. because we have great friends here yet we of allies. deep interest there. since president obama's policy must go, if it's not insignificant that the -- to deprive him of the capacity to use chemical weapons or to degrade the capacity to use chemical weapons actually deprived him of a lethal weapon

in this ongoing civil war, and that has an impact. that can help to speed -- stabilize the region alternately. in addition, we have strategic national security interests. of thed the creation safe haven in syria or the base of operation for extremists to use the weapons against our friends. all of us know the extremes of both sides are there waiting in the wings, poking -- pushing and fighting. they would be desperate to get their hands on these materials. the fact is if nothing happens to begin to change the current calculation, that area can become even more so an area of uncovered those extremists threaten either the united or morer in war --

immediately, allies and friends of ours like jordan, israel, lebanon on or others. forcing him to change the calculation about the ability to act with impunity can contribute to his realization that he cannot gas or shoot his way out of his predicament. it has been the president's to achieve a negotiated resolution, but you have to have party is prepared to negotiate to achieve that. syria is important because quite simply, i cannot put this to you more plainly, then to just ask each of you to ask yourself, if or any one of the other desperate in the region and the united states steps back from this moment together with our other allies and friends, what is the message?

the message is he has been granted impunity. the freedom to choose the weapons again or force us to go through the cycle again with who knows what outcome after once refusing it. we would grant him the capacity to use the weapons against more people with greater levels of damage because we would have stood and stepped away. know whatntly as we happened in damascus on august stepping awayat is using it with impunity. opportunity for dictators to pursue their own weapons of mass destruction, including weapons of mass destruction. i will tell you there are some

people hoping the united states congress is hoping to not vote for this proposal. everyone is looking to look the other way. looking for us to look the other way. is open isolationism will prevail. north korea is hoping ambivalence carries the day. they are all listening for our silence. if we do not answer him today, we will erode a standard that has existed for those 100 years. in fact, we will erode the standard that has protected our own troops in war, and we will invite even more dangerous tests down the road. our allies and partners are also counting on us in the situation. the people of israel, jordan,

inkey, each look next door see they are one stiff breeze away from the potential of being hurt, of the civilians being killed as the consequences of take in thed might absence of action. they anxiously await our assurance that our word means something. that ifit the assurance children live up in shrouds were their own children would keep the world promise. that is what they're hoping. the authorization that president obama seeks is definitively in the national security interest. message to the a dictators, allies, civilians alike, the unmistakable message that when the united states of america and the world say never again, we do not mean sometimes.

we do not mean the somewhere. never means never. so this is a vote for accountability. norms in loss keep the civilized world civil mean nothing if they're not enforced. said at theackson nuremberg trial, the ultimate step and avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international law was this, is to make states men responsible to the law. desperateld's worst sees they can flaunt against the world's best weapons, then those prohibitions are just pieces of paper. that is what we mean by accountability. that is what we mean by we cannot be silent. , presidentlear

obama is not asking america to go to war. i say that sitting next to two men who know what war is. senator mccain and knows what war is. they know the difference between going to war, and what president obama is requesting now. be no agree there will american boots on the ground. the president has made crystal clear we have no intention of assuming responsibility for serious civil war. asking only for the power to make clear, to make certain the united states means what we say, that the world, when we join together in a multilateral statement means what we say. asking for authorization to degrade and the terror the capacity to use chemical weapons. some will undoubtedly ask, and i

think appropriately, what about the unintended consequences. some feared retaliation that leads to a larger conflict. let me put it bluntly. if he is arrogant enough, and i foolish enough to retaliate to the consequences of his own camp -- criminal activity, the united states and allies have ample ways to make him regret the decision without going to war. supporters say publicly that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. some will also questioned the extent of our responsibility. to them i say, when someone kills hundreds of children with a weapon the world has banned, we are all responsible. because of the geneva convention and chemical weapons convention. for us, the syria accountability

act. it is also true because we share a common humanity and common decency. this is not the time for armed terror isolationism. this is not the time to be spectators slaughtered. we have spoken up against unspeakable horror many times in the past. now we must and up and act and protect our security, protect our values, and lead the world that is clearn about our responsibility. thank you. >> [inaudible] >> the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. please restore order.

>> nobody supports launching cruise missiles. the american people do not want this. >> secretary hagel. >> the first time i testified before this committee when i was 27-years-old, i have feelings very similar to that protester. i would say that is exactly why it is so important we are all here having this debate, talking about these things before the country, and that the congress itself will act representing the american people. i think we all could respect those who have a different point of view, and we do. mr. chairman, thank you. german mendez, senator corker, and members of the committee, as we all know in the coming days, congress will debate how to

respond to the most recent chemical weapons attack in syria. warwick scale gas attacks perpetrated by the syrian government against its own people. as a former senator and a member of this committee, i welcome this debate, and i strongly support president obama's decision to seek congressional authorization for the use of force in syria. as each of us knows, committing the country to using military force is the most difficult decision america's leaders can make. noted.ing member cooker all of us that our privilege to serve the nation have the responsibility to ask tough questions before the commitment is made. the american people must be assured leaders are acting according to u.s. national interest with well-defined

military objectives. with an understanding of the risks of the consequences and rolled. along with the entire national security team ask those questions before we concluded that the united states iould take military action want to express how we reach this discussion -- decision by clarifying the military objectives and risk of not acting at this critical juncture. as president obama said, the use of chemical weapons is syria is not only an assault on humanity, a serious threat to america's national security interests and those of our closest allies. the syrian regime use of chemical weapons poses a grave risk to friends and partners along at serious border, including israel, jordan,

turkey, lebanon, and iraq. to used is prepared chemical weapons against his own people, we have to be concerned that terrorist groups that have forces in syria would acquire them. and would use them. that risk of chemical weapons proliferation poses a direct threat to our friends, partners and the u.s. personnel in the region. we cannot afford for his law or any terrorist group determined to strike the united states to have a sentence to acquire or use chemical weapons. the regime actions risk eroding the century old international norm against the use of chemical weapons that secretary kerry has noted. protect that has helped the united states on land. weakening this norm would impose

other nations to acquire or use chemical weapons. for example, north korea maintained a mass of stockpile entrant -- threatens the treaty ally, the republic of korea, and the 28,000 u.s. troops stationed there. i have just returned from asia. we are at -- we had a very serious and long cover station with the defense minister about the threat, the real threat of the stockpile of chemical weapons. our allies throughout the world must be assured the united states will fulfill commitments. the united states must demonstrate through actions that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. the president has made it clear that our military objectives in syria would be to hold the regime accountable, to greed and the ability to carry out these kinds of attacks, and deter the

regime from further use of chemical weapons. the department of defense has developed military options to achieve these objectives and we have assets to successfully execute this measure. we believe we can achieve them. general dempsey and i have assured the president that u.s. forces will be ready to act whenever the president gives the order. in defining our military objectives, we made clear that we are not seeking to resolve the underlying conflict through direct military force. instead, we are contemplating

actions that are tailored to respond to the use of chemical weapons. a political solution created by the syrian people is the only way to ultimately end the violence in syria. is as secretary carry leading international efforts to help syria move towards a negotiated transition. the transition that means a free and inclusive syria. we are also committed to doing more to assist the syrian opposition. we also must examine the risk in consequence of action, as well as the consequences of inaction. there are always risks in taking action.

could feel empowered to carry out even more devastating chemical weapons attack without a response. chemical weapons make no distinction between combatants and innocent civilians and inflict the worst kind of indiscriminate suffering as we have recently seen. the refusal to act would undermine the credibility of america's other security commitments, including the president's commitment to acquiring a from nuclear weapon. the word of the united states must mean something. every witness here today. cox we are not aware of the cost

and ravages of war. that is the highest responsibility. all of us who have had the privilege and responsibility of serving this great nation owes the american people, and especially those wearing the uniform of our country, a vigorous debate on how america should respond to this horrific chemical weapons attack in syria. know everyone of this committee agrees and takes the responsibility of office just as seriously as the president as everyone sitting at the table. thank you. >> thank you. i know general dempsey is available to answer questions from the members of the

committee. in that regard, let me start off by urging members, tomorrow there will be an intelligence briefing for the committee about the issues at hand a potential military action. in this setting we are obviously somewhat constrained about what we might discuss with greater specificity tomorrow. you make and have made a compelling case, and i think it is important, and i appreciate you reiterating with a high degree of confidence that exists in our intelligence assessments. i think those are conditions that are needed to move forward. this weekend i was at a soccer tournament. moms a group of imams -- come up to me and say we saw those pictures, they are

horrific. cannot imagine the devastation those parents must feel about to their children, but why us? i asked you, would you tell them that we would be more secure or less secure by the actions that are being considered for which the president has asked for the authorization for the use of force? >> i would say unequivocally that the president's actions will make us more secure, less he canthat that -- that use weapons, and the absence of taking the action the president has asked for will be far more threatening and dangerous and potentially a ultimately cost lives. do you consider the consequences of an action > the consequences of action? >> i do. >> general dempsey, what do we envision in broad terms this

potential military campaign to be in terms of the effect? what do we expect at the end of any authorized action to see the results look like? what is the expectation? >> thank you, chairman. the task i have been given is to develop military options to deter the regime's calculus about the use of chemical weapons and degrade the ability to do so. that is to say the activities directly related to chemical weapons themselves and the means used to employing them. would there not be collateral -- collateral consequence to the regime of further degrading

overall capabilities? weeper -- we received a proposed resolution for the authorization of force. would you tell us whether you believe that a prohibition for having american boots on the ground, is that something the american -- the administration would accept as part of a resolution? >> it would be preferable not to, not because there is any plan or desire whatsoever to habits of the ground, i think the president will give you every assurance in the world, as am i, secretary of defense and the chairman, but in the event

syria at imploded, for instance, a in the event there was threat of a chemical weapons ofhe falling into the hands someone else, then it was clearly in the interest of our allies. i do not have to take off the table an option that might be available to our country. >> if we said there would be no troops on the ground for combat --poses, that

>> whether or not they had to answer in order to appease --cure, >> we are absolutely confident that it is easy to work out language that will satisfy the congress and the american nople that there is more -- door open here to which someone can march in ways the congress does not want it to while still protecting the national security interest of the country. confident that can be worked out. the bottom line is the president has no intention and will not and do not want to put american troops on the ground to fight this or be involved in the fighting of the civil war. >> i support securing them.

i do think we will have to work on language that makes it clear that this is an overriding issue. what do think is the calculus of iran and north korea if we fail to act in what is the calculus of the allies if we fail to act. we fail to act, we will have fewer allies. we have used -- we have huge that's right now. i have heard their warnings very clearly about what is at stake

in the region. i think it is fair to say that our interest would be seriously set back in many respects if we are viewed as not capable, or willing, to follow through on the things we say matter to us. as i said earlier in my testimony, this really is not president obama is red line. the president drew a line if that's anyone that should draw with respect to this convention that we have signed up to, and has been in place since the horrors of world war one. the truth is through all of , vietnam, both golf course, afghanistan and inq, but the combatants

those efforts have never resorted to this -- to this use. clear with thes prior year's usages that i beerred to that we would opening pandora's box with respect to a whole set of dangerous consequences as a result of the united states not keeping its word and would make our life very difficult with respect to north korea and iran. mind is no question in my that those countries are watching. wereare watching what we -- what we're doing with great interest. that is why even the quality of the debate in nature of the debate are very important. >> thank you, and thank you for your testimony. i want to first thank you for bringing this to congress. i think our foreign policy through the years has been to focus on the of ministration.

i want to thank you for bringing this year and giving an opportunity to have the debate in advance. i want to focus on the strategy with the bedded opposition. i do not know how anybody -- i know of no one who has been to the area and spend time with opposition that is not incredibly dismayed at the lack of progress that is occurring there. a lot ofere is capacity that has to be billed. i know there are interagency discussions about whether we should move to industrial strength training, moving away from the kind of activities taking place to build capacity more quickly. i would like for whichever one of you to respond to talk to us for those of you that have been to the region, who are watching

-- watching what is happening with iraq. why have we been so slow. at have we been so inept helping build capacity of the opposition we have said publicly that we support? well, as a worthy and important question. i have had a number of meetings since i came in and of the word. beginning with the meeting in rome, and subsequently and in stumble and jordan. instanbul. as little as a year ago, no great clarity to the structure were inition or to the

certainly have no experience in this kind of endeavor -- endeavor. over the course of the year they evolves significantly. are there where they need to be? not completely, but they have changed over the course of the past few months. at our insistence, the insistence of all the supporters, the so-called london 11, they reached out and expanded significantly the base within that syria. they elected new leadership. they brought and minorities, christians, others. they've built up a much more competent leadership. -- i only have a few minutes. why it is sore of

slow in helping them with lethal support. why has that been so slow? have that we need to discussion tomorrow in classified session. that isit to say, increasing significantly. it has increased incompetency. i think it has made leaps and bounds. >> i would add that it was june of this year the president made the decision to support legal assistance to the opposition. we have been very supportive with hundreds of millions of dollars of non-lethal assistance. the vetting process has been significant. defense has not been

directly involved in this. this is a covert action. as secretary kerry noted, probably to go into much more detail would require a close your classified hearing. aboutthere anything authorization you are asking that in any way takes away from our stated strategy of haveering opposition to the capacity over time to join in with the transition government as we have stated from the beginning? is there anything about this that in any way supplements that? >> to your question about opposition, the past to the resolution of the syrian conflict is through a developed capable opposition. we know how to do that. secondly, nothing in this

resolution that would limit what we're doing now. we are very focused on the response to chemical weapons. subsequent to that we would probably return to have a discussion about what we might do with the moderate opposition in a more overt way. i am very sympathetic to the issue of chemical warfare and what this means to u.s. credibility and what this means to the fact that people are watching in the region and this will have an impact, but i want to say i am not sympathetic regarding the lack of effort that is taking place on the ground as it relates to the opposition. i hope the end this day that you imagine is something that enhances the strategy we have already laid in place, and i hope you will answer that yes or

no at this time. >> the answer to whether i support additional support is yes. willis authorization support those activities in addition to responding to the weapons of mass destruction? >> i do not know how the resolution will evolves -- >> i cannot answer what we're seeking. >> the action, if it is authorized, but that the consequences of degrading chemical capacity inevitably impactso have downstream on military capacity. >> this authorization is only about weapons of mass destruction? to go that is correct. this authorization is a limited, targeted effort to focus on deterring and degrading the chemical weapons capacity of the

regime. >> against any other enemy other then the assad regime? >> no, senator. >> is it to be utilized in any other country except inside syria? take good note. can response to your answer to senator menendez, i did not find that a very proper response regarding boots on the ground. i do not think we all feel the actions by the regime's are reprehensible, i did not think there are any of us that are willing to support the responsibility of having combat groups -- troops on the ground. >> let me be very clear now, because i do not want anything coming out of the hearing that

leaves any door open to any possibility. let's shut the door now as tight as we can. all i did was raise a hypothetical question about some possibility, and i am thinking out loud on how to protect america's interests, but if you want to know if there is any -- the answer is what ever prohibition clarifies it to congress, there will not be american boots on the ground with respect to the civil war. >> thank you. i ask unanimous consent of my statement be entered into the full record. i will answer some think a lot of people have been asking me. i will answer questions about the intel if i can. forchairman, thank you showing as the images of children, because even though it

is really hard to look at, we have to look at it. children gasping for air, young bodies lined up in a row should shock the world. thinkilure to act, i gives license to use the weapons again and sends a terrible signal to other brutal regimes like north korea. fori think you -- thank you bringing north korea? how many of us have been there before we see thousands of our troops standing there a stone's throw away from north korea? we need to think about it. maybe because i am california, i tend to look at asia, but this is very serious. we see that danger up close when we go to that line. since i came to the senate i voted against the iraq war, but

did vote for the use of force against osama bin laden. strikesto oppose air against -- voted for air strikes against serbia. i approached this serious issue in the same way i approach those, with a very heavy hearts and very independent mind. of my heard some colleagues compare his decision on syria with the decision to invade i rack in 2003. -- iraq in 2003. i believe it is a totally false comparison. you drew that line again. the bush administration prepared to invade and occupy a country with well over 100,000 troops. in this case the president has been clear no ground invasion, occupation will have that in the resolution. why should we take any targeted action against syria?

is important to keep north korea and mind, but also, allowing the continued use of chemical weapons to go unanswered makes it much more likely that we will see it again in syria and we will see it used to may be elsewhere, and terrorists that attain those and use them -- use them on america on allies and troops, use them against israel and other friends. it makes it more likely. this is key. we will be viewed as a paper tiger when it comes to the nuclear program, and that is dangerous, not only for us and friends, but for the world. a 1997 the senate supported ban on chemical weapons. should an overwhelming boats like that to mean something? as should the senate stand

behind its word and action? in 2003 we passed the syria accountability act by a vote of 89-4. i wrote that bill with senator santorum. huge votes in favor of it. it said acquisitions of weapons of mass destruction threaten the security of the middle east and the national security of the united states. shouldn't an overwhelming vote like that mean something? shouldn't the senate stand behind words and actions? secretary scary -- kerry said in will reiterate that not only has the president on a line on the use of chemical weapons, and not only has the world done so, but we in the senate did so. i know there is tremendous reluctance to get involved in another military effort, and

sometimes the easiest thing to do is to walk away, but i believe we cannot close our eyes to this clear violation of long- standing international norms. i believe in america's morality, reputation and credibility are on the line. i applaud the administration and president for coming to congress. thing to do.ht i will support the targeted effort, but not a blank check to respond to syria unspeakable deeds to gas its own people to death. my question involves the intel. i do not know how much you can give us, so i will try to make this party brought to you can answer it. fearful people are because of what happened in the

aq.k -- in ir manynot know how intelligence agencies were involved in this. i do not know whether you can disclose that, but my question is, was there any argument about thereack that they agree is high confidence that these weapons were used by the regime? debate, dissension between the various agencies? to gut the intelligence hasunity represented released a public document, unclassified, available for all to see in which they make the judgment with high confidence that the facts are as they have set forth.

speaks for itself. >> i will press just a little bit harder here if i can. out of all the different agencies, because i remember in iraq, essentially the word came down everyone agreed, but that we found out there was disagreement. to your knowledge did they all come to the same conclusion? >> i have no knowledge of any agency that was a dissenter or any agency that had an alternative theory. i do know, i think it is safe to they had a whole team to free the scenario to test the theory to see if they could come up with an alternative you to see who could have done it. >> last question on intel and russia. in the publication today

that members of the russian parliament will come here to lobby colleagues, to tell colleagues there is no such intelligence, that there is no proof. i met with the russian ambassador several times on this matter. i knew right away they were going to do nothing to help us. how could they make that case, given what they said? honestly i do not know. i have had personal conversations with the foreign minister. no matter what you show, that is the argument you -- they take. as to why they do that, i will not speculate.

the president is leaving this evening to go to st. petersburg for the summer. he will have ample opportunity to hear firsthand from the russian president and i am confident it will have a discussion about it. >> thank you. >> i want to add. not to it is important get into unnecessary struggle over this for a lot of reasons. there are a lot of people cooperating on this effort to make a negotiated process work. think they are serious about trying to make the way forward. the red shoess are cooperating. we have to deal with this

thought fully and hope the summit might perverse -- that the president might have a change of heart. all, let me say that's -- that i have seen the pictures of what happened and have been seeing pictures for two years of what has been going on over there. you cannot have an ounce of compassion and not be moved tremendously by what has been happening there. is horrendous. there has been 100,000 people killed. we all know that these people have used gas on multiple occasions, but the deaths have only been in the hundreds and not the thousands. all of this is moving, no doubt about it. nonetheless, i am reluctant.

i am reluctant at this point. part of this stems from where this is going to go as to the limit we're going to put on it. you said you met with the counterpart in russia. first of all, you say they are .ooperating on all major issues i did not view them as corporate in. they're printing them currency, providing them with information, technology, a tremendous amount of military power. the question i have is, what is your counterpart telling you as to what they are going to do when and if america pulls the trigger? , i understand reluctance about this. i asked you to confront a greater reality if we do not do

something. if you think it is bad today, think about what happens if they confirm the suspicion that the united states is not going to do anything. one of the reasons he has been using the materials is because made thatup until now the west at large will not do anything about it. impunity is already working to kill a lot of people and make things more did -- make things more dangerous. that is in the assessment. if we make it worse by not doing that, our worse than interests will be set back. israel will be a greater risk. jordan will be a greater risk.

the longer this goes on, the more you will see the humanitarian crisis grow. we are ready the largest contributor because of the generosity of american people. we are already the largest contributor to refugee camps on the borders. many of you have been to them. you want to see them grow? you want to see jordan -- >> of course night -- not. >> i believe the best way to curb that and reduce the threat is by acting. >> i do not disagree with anything you have said, but let's take that and expand on it. going to give them credibility if we go in with a limited strike in the day after our week after and the month after he crawls out of the rat hole in says i stood up to the strongest power on the face of

the earth and i won? so now it is business as usual. he may say i will not use chemical weapons anymore but will continue to use conventional weapons, and we will go on with business as usual and thousands will be killed and allies will say what is the matter with the united states, you said you would do something about this. you did a limited strike, but did not finish him off. the problem is just as bad as it was. what does that do to the credibility? that concerns me. >> let me speak to that. a good question. >> first of all, i think general dempsey will be able to tell you he may be helpful -- he may be able to crawl out of the whole and say i survived but no way with reality and other assessments he will be able to say he is better off. that he andquestion

the military effort will not be better off. opposition will know that and people in syria will know that. already today just with a threat that action may be taken, the factions have gone up, and people in syria are reconsidering whether it is a long-term debt. moreover, general dempsey has made it clear and the president has made it clear, that there will be additional support to the opposition that is only now in the third month of perceiving the over -- receiving or about -- that they are about to receive that the process will increase. >> my time is almost up. i really want to get a handle on

this. reassured on this. the other thing that really troubles me is what happens if this gets away from us? since the last four, has blocked -- his law has really beefed up. what will the response be? war, hezbollahst has really beefed that up. >> i have been on the phone today and appeal confident it will be able to do was a miscalculation. the rest of the community, ,urks, jordanians, saudis united states, france and others all have a capacity. statement, you

have to make the calculations. if he is foolish enough to respond to the world enforcement's against criminal he will, if he does, invite something far worse and something i believe absolutely unsustainable. there are plenty of options here. russia does not have an ideological commitment here. this is a geopolitical transactional commitment. our indications are in many regards that is the way they view it. bute may be more weapons will not elicit some kind of dangerous confrontation. confirmed the use of chemical weapons. the russians have.

the iranians have. as the proof of the use becomes even more clear, i think it will andmore difficult for iran russia to decide against the evidence that there is something worth defending. this is the kind of calculation you have to make. if we do noton respond. if we do not respond, we will because somebody miscalculated as result of believing the united states is not good for what it says. that will invite much greater danger to the american people, much greater risk for armed forces, and conceivably much greater chances of a genuine kind of conflagration that we don't want to see. >> time is up, thank you.

>> let me thank all of you for being here but also thank you very much for your service. thank you very much for arranging this hearing. it is clear that the type of conduct that president assad has done in syria, the pattern of his actions creating and now the crisis, use of chemical weapons. the evidence has been presented. it is clear we have to respond, that a military response is justified. . support your efforts mr. secretary, the way you have described it is what i think we we need to have it focused on that mission. it's got to be done in a way that protects civilians the best that we can. and it is going to be of very limited duration.

i just want to come back to the point the chairman raised in your own comments when you say we should shut that door is tightly as possible when dealing with put our troops on the ground in syria. i've read the resolution you presented to us. i think it is broader than what you have stated to the president's intentions on the mission, and i understand the president's strong desire to keep the mission very tight. it certainly does not close the door on the introduction of ground troops. i have also heard your comments about the unexpected, something could happen. i would just point out that the president as commander-in-chief has the authority, the inherent authority, to act in urgent situations when time requires that action. i would suggest as you come to congress for this authorization, if circumstances change, you will have the opportunity to

come back to congress and seek our participation. ofare a separate branch government, as you recall. i just want to urge you in the strongest possible terms to work with our leadership to draft a resolution that is as tight as , so that we can go back and tell the american people that we in congress are supporting your action but are not leaving open the door for the introduction of american troops into syria. i want to talk a little bit about the pacific military operations and i will leave most of this for tomorrow in our discussion, but i just want general dempsey and secretary whether theerstand mission is to degrade the weapons and deter the use of chemical weapons. have you put into that occasion

-- into that equation the fact that obviously syria is aware that we are contemplating military action, and therefore may try to change the equation during this. of time and make it more difficult for us to carry out that mission. has that been brought into your planning stages? >> yes, senator, it has. works both ways. you recall about a week and half ago there was a significant leak of military planning that caused the regime to react. so time works both ways. some pretty significant intelligence capabilities and we continue to refine our targets. >> both of you have indicated your concern about american military involvement in syria, that it could draw us in in a way that we do not want to be drawn into it, and internal conflict. are you also putting into your plans ways to prevent that type of drawing in of america into

the internal conflict in syria? >> senator, we are. as i noted in my opening statement, we have taken great in looking attime but the the options contingencies that may be a consequence of the president selecting one of those options, including what you have just noted. said, andrfect, as i i think everyone recognizes. there is always risk. we have tried to minimize that risk in every way we can, every presentation we have made to the present. the president has insisted on that. so yes, we have taken a lot of time to focus exactly on your point. >> secretary kerry, you point out that if we don't act, we are liable to lose some friends.

we have a direct interest here. we not only have a humanitarian reason to respond to the use of chemical weapons, we have a direct american interest in the region, we have americans in ift region who are at risk chemical weapons or use. i feel a direct connection to u.s. interest. you say we might lose some friends if we don't act. why don't we have more participation in the u.s. military response in addition to just support? it seems to me that this appears we understand america being in the lead, but it does not seem like we have a growing list of countries that are actively joining us in the military operation. all, there is of no definitive list at this point in time, because the president has not made the decision as to specifically which set of

choices he is going to operate on. secondly, as many countries as we could conceivably need to be able to be helpful in a limited operation have volunteered to be helpful, and they stand ready to take part in any specific operation, and we are very comfortable with that. but the bottom line in many ways remains that we are talking specific kinds of capacities that in some cases, only the united states of america possesses. and so that remains open. it is a process that will evolve as this debate evolves, as the president makes his decisions and the joint chiefs of staff of the military present him with the verizon since, and those will probably evolve as you we will make adjustments in syria and i can syrians that general

dempsey and his people will make adjustments as time goes on. >> i would hope we would have stronger international participation. is there consideration of a role for nato to play here, considering that turkey is on the direct front line here on the use of chemical weapons? is that being considered? >> as you say, is it being considered, everything is being considered, and all obese things are being evaluated. discussions have taken place. i will be meeting on saturday with european ministers and i know this topic will come up. are of them are all of them members of nato. we will have discussions when we are there. at the moment, this is a limited operation with the scope of support that the president makes the judgment that we ought to have. we will have very broad -- we have already very broad -- we

ore had some 53 nations countries and organizations have acknowledged that chemical weapons were used here and have condemned it publicly. 31 nations and stated publicly that the a side regime is responsible, and i think -- the assad regime is responsible, and 34 countries have indicated that the allegations are true and they would support some form of action against syria. there's a broad coalition growing up people that think we ought to take action against syria, but but the question is whether or not it makes sense for whatever number to be part of it is a decision that our military and the president have to make as we go along here. >> i will reserve the rest of the questions for the closed session. senator rubio.

>> order. the gentleman will sit down or i will have the officer remove you. make sure the committee is in order. [indiscernible] >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me begin by answering a question i get asked a lot as we discussed this very important issue, that is why we even care about what is happening in syria. i think my belief reflects the belief of most of this committee. what happens in syria is of vital national interest to our national security. the syrian relationship with it -- with iran is significant. to brag that theory gives them a border with israel.

of hamas, haster hezboll has ball a -- ah. it is also ventures because of the instability that is allowing portions of syria to quickly become kind of what afghanistan was before nine/11. now, added to that, there is the chemical attack, which undermines the post world war ii world order, which basically said these things are on acceptable. allies look at the united states and our capability of living up to our security promises is now at risk as a result of all this. this is why what is happening in syria matters to our national interest, why do so clearly tied to it critical national security interest in the united states.

not all of this was true two years ago when i joined other voices on this committee. , they became the predominant rebel force in syria and not others, but that did not happen. the choice was made to lead from behind, to watch as this thing unfolded. others advocated that we should just mind our own business. we are sitting here now as proof that we can ignore them, but eventually they grow until they come to visit us at our doorstep. a moment ago you said that one of the calculations that assad used in deciding to use chemical weapons was that the u.s. would not do anything about it. yes, this is a horrible incident where a thousand people died, look but before this incident, 100,000 people died, including snipers that we used to pick off women that were

raped, they would go into villages and carry this out, and nothing happened. this is a reminder of what happens when we ignore the world, when we look inward and ignore these problems. they only get worse and more difficult to solve. that is the fact we have here right now. we are left with options, all of which are less than ideal. i want to ask specifically about the one the president is considering. the first option is to help syrians remove aside and replace it with a more moderate government. today the rebel forces on the ground are not just the moderate rebels. jihadist now control major parts creating a real prospect that at the -- after new civilf assad, a war could be triggered. he comes with a long set of complications. option advocated is

doing nothing. that would embolden assad and iran. portions of the country will still be uncovered and it will send a message to the world that there is no red line they should fear crossing. north korea can act crazier, if that is even possible. our allies in south korea and japan may start to doubt their security arrangements with us. bombn will move toward the -- iran will move toward the bomb. the action the president is asking us to consider, what he calls a shot across the bow. a military strike of limited duration and hope that has three goals as i understand it that have been outlined here today. sadl number one is to hold asa accountable and to grade his

accountability for attacks in the future. a limited strike would accomplish these things. skeptical that what the president is asking for will provide the support needed to achieve these objectives. and that these objectives are even realistic at this point. i will ask this of general empty. the reason why he is using these chemical weapons is he is afraid if he doesn't, he could lose this war, be overthrown and killed. that is the calculation he has made. he wants to beat the rebels. my question is this. thatestructure and attack tips that calculation were basically he will decide that he would rather risk been overrun by rebels then risk a limited attack from the u.s. if he uses chemical weapons. how are you going to

unbalanced that and lead him to calculate that he is better off risking losing to the rebels? it may be even more insidious than that. he has reached the point where he now thinks of chemical weapons is just another weapon in his arsenal. that is the part that makes this so very dangerous. i certainly want to degrade his capabilities coming out of this. i want to come out of it stronger than we go into it. >> that leads me to my second question. that weident are you can, in fact, put in place a military plan that is limited in scope and duration that can effectively degrade his capability to carry out future chemical attacks e >> i am confident of the capabilities we can bring to bear to deter and a grade. we will have not only an initial target said but subsequent

targets set, should they become necessary. >> this question is for secretary kerry. one of the concerns i have and i have heard others express is take five oruld six days of strikes and emerge from that saying i have faced down the u.s. and held onto power and survived him and that -- at that point be further emboldened domestically and perhaps even abroad. i understand the argument that inaction would be worse. have you taken into account what the invocations would be as to what it could mean for the long- term prospects of the conflict yucca >> yes, we absolutely we have. -- of the conflict? >> yes, we absolutely have. the president is asking for a limited authority to degrade his

current capacity and to deter him from using it again. he is not asking for permission from the congress to go destroy he the entire regime are due a much more extensive kind of thing. that is not what he is asking. so he will be able to stand up, and no doubt he will try to claim that somehow this is something positive for him. i think general dempsey has made it clear, and i think we believe deeply, as do others who are knowledgeable about this in the region, that there is no way that it will in fact be beneficial for him, it will not translate for him on the ground, that the defections that are taking place now and other things that will happen will further degrade his capacity to prosecute this going forward. i want to emphasize something, to come back to it. i don't want anybody misinterpreting this from earlier. this authorization does not

contemplate and should not have any allowance for any troop on the ground. i just want to make that absolutely clear. i was hypothesizing about a potential that might occur at some point in time, but not in this authorization, in no way, be crystal clear there is no problem in our having the language that has zero capacity for american troops on the ground within the authorization the president is asking for. i don't want anybody in the media or elsewhere to misinterpret that coming out of fear. i said it earlier and are at -- i repeat it again now. that is important. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your testimony. i agree that we should not turn our backs on such a blatant violation of international norms with respect to the use of chemical weapons.

by that if we stand quietly while a tyrant like assad uses chemical weapons on his own people, that we will be giving carte blanche to any dictator anywhere in the world to develop and use chemical weapons. , hownk the question now is do we respond specifically? how to we best send a message that it is completely unacceptable to develop, much less use, these types of weapons , and how do we do that without inadvertently spreading the conflict beyond the borders of syria? that israel is a question that we have today. we have heard that we want to deter the future use of chemical weapons, but according to the and to your testimony

today, we don't want to tip the scales on the ground. so how do we ensure that we can do that without spreading the conflict throughout the region, targetsdo we set aside so that we deter the future use of chemical weapons and don't affect the conflict on the ground? the language about not using american military power to tip the scale would be our direct action. the resolution is not asking for permission for the president to be able to use the united states armed forces to overthrow the regime. i want to go back to the earlier questions about developing a modern machine that has capabilities to be a stabilizing force inside of syria.

our military is focused on the chemical weapons but will have the added benefit of degrading and also supporting the diplomatic track. >> the president has made it very clear that the policy of this administration -- and sometimes people get so upset and question resizing what it is . i will tell you precisely what it is. the president is asking for the steps that will degradeally deter and assad's capacity to use chemical weapons. he is not asking the congress for authorization to become whole hog involved in syria possible war, to try to change the regime through military action.

this is an action to deal with the problem of chemical weapons. but there is a separate track which the president has already committed the administration and the country to come which is that assad must go, that he has lost all moral authority or capacity to ever govern syria, and the president is pursuing that tracked by helping the opposition, by now having made the decision to legally arm that opposition by upgrading the efforts of the opposition to be able to fight the fight -- not the united states, the opposition -- and to be able to come to a negotiated settlement because the president is convinced, as i think everybody is, that there is no military solution, that ultimately you want to get to geneva, you want to negotiate a settlement, but under the terms of geneva one, there is an agreement which the

russians signed onto which calls for a transition government to be created with a mutual consent of the current regime and the opposition, and that transition government will establish the rules of the road for the syrian people to choose their new government. there is no way possible that by mutual consent assad is going to be part of that future. the russians have agreed that that is in fact geneva i and the purpose of the geneva ii meeting is to implement geneva i. the president is convinced that as the support for the opposition increases, there is much greater likelihood that you will wind up ultimately with a negotiated settlement. the alternative is that you stand back and do nothing and syria implodes, becomes an in qaeda,they, i'll

hezbollah and others become more of a threat and it becomes much more of a sectarian conflagration. secretary hegel in general didn't see, you have made a number of statements throughout the spring cautioning against intervention in the conflict in syria. why do you feel at this point that it is appropriate for us to take action? what has changed? >> i will let general dempsey respond for himself. well, first, very clear intelligence and evidence that the assad regime used chemical weapons on its own people. so we are dealing with a new set of realities. based on facts. i think it is at least my

opinion that that needs to be addressed, that needs to be dealt with. public and also addressed in my statement, and kerry and general dempsey have said, that is the most specific reason. the dynamics have changed. one additional point in regard to your question on this, as to your previous question. president isthe given the authorization from congress to go forward, as he has already said he believes he has within his constitutional power as commander-in-chief to act as well, and he has given his reasons, which we all support him why he came to the congress. there are parallel actions that would work along with whatever

.ction the president would take opposition strength, which secretary kerry has noted. second, defections within the ,yrian government and military as secretary kerry has noted. other intelligence, other consequences, and this is about getting to an end game. the endgame is a diplomatic settlement. it is driving this toward what we believe the government views as the only way out of this. we do not want to see the country of syria disintegrate, resulted in ungoverned space, which i think the consequences would be devastating for our partners, our allies, and the entire middle east. then we would all have to respond in some way. i would just add that on to

answering your last question. >> in response to your question year, over the past year, we have provided a full range of options, based on my assessment of their linkage to our national security interest. on this issue, that is the use of chemical weapons, i find a clear link to our national security interest, and we will find a way to make our use of force effective. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm trying to reconcile the two tracks of goals we have going here, military action and then negotiated settlement. said we aregel, you to resolve the underlying conflict in syria. why aren't we trying to resolve that? >> i was referring in my

statement to the authorization to use military force. that specifically is not why we or theme to the congress president asked for the congress's support. as he is said, the authorization is for a specific and focused military action. >> but our stated goal really is to remove aside and moved to a negotiated settlement. why would we not use this opportunity to move toward that goal? >> that is one option. those options would range from ofinvasion -- or a lot military options on the table. what the president has said, what this authorization is about, is a limited authorization for a limited exercise. the goal of removing assad from office is still the policy of this administration. >> general dempsey, how come you

, find torate, taylor military action that does not have spillover effects? the task was to do that, to deter and degrade and to be limited in scope and duration. that is the test. >> how can you calibrate that? >> we can calibrate it on our side. there is always the risk of escalation on the other, but they have significantly limited capabilities to do so, and most of the intelligence informs us -- we can talk about that in closed session. >> what plan is being undertaken right now in case this does spin out of control? i am glad to hear you are bringing into the equation what i feel is our number-one national security interest, and that is those chemical weapons falling in the hands of al qaeda

or possibly even has a law -- hezbollah? that we willw prevent that from happening? is this moment in time, and as the president said, he is asking for a limited military thatnse, recognizing neither he nor most of america want to be dragged in to a civil war in syria. >> but our goal is to get rid of assad. >> you have to look overall. the president and all of us agree -- can you imagine assad running syria? can you imagine this man -- >> i'm trying to reconcile why if we are going to go in there

militarily, if we are going to strike, why not try to do some kind of knockout punch? is it because we have no faith that there is nobody on the ground, the military rebels -- is it not ready to change, is that the problem? >> the reason is the president is listening to the american people and has made a policy that is nott something the united states of america needs to engage in or ought to engage in. is the congress of the united states ready to pay for 30 days or 30,000 airstrikes, and is there a legal justification for doing that? you can run through a whole series of different questions here that are very serious about what you are talking about. about the we know opposition here? haven't been tracking them for the last two years?

it seems like initially the opposition was more western leaning, more moderate, more democratic, and as time has gone by it has become degraded and .ore infiltrated by al qaeda >> that is basically not true. that is basically incorrect. the opposition has become increasingly more defined by its membership and by its adherents to a democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority protecting constitution which will be broad-based and secular with respect to the future of syria. one other point about the opposition. it is my understanding, because i talked to the president of the opposition yesterday. he is in germany now, meeting with the german parliament. britainming to great and will be meeting with the parliament in great britain. he is prepared to come here as soon as those meetings are over

in order to meet with you, and you can have an opportunity to talk to him and meet with the opposition and have a much better sense of who they are. >> secretary hegel, do you have a feel for the number of members of the opposition? ?ow large is there force. g >> i don't know the numbers, the intelligence community has those numbers, but as the secretary said, the momentum has shifted with those who are close to the situation. >> i am a numbers guy. do you know the four strength of the rebel forces tackle >> i don't have them committed to memory -- do you know the force strength of the rebel forces? how many would be considered moderate versus elements of al qaeda? had a we know that hezbollah

doesn't already have access to chemical weapons? do you have any feel for that at all? >> i think we need to talk about that in our classified session. but let me just say to you that in terms of the opposition see ranges up to 100,000 in total opposition. you see ranges -- i don't want to go into all the numbers, but in the tens of houses in terms of opportunities, active ofbatants -- in terms operative, active combatants. i've seen some recent data on the numbers of extremist, actually lower than former expectations. syria historically has been secular, and the vast majority of syrians, i believe, want to remain secular. , and the judgment judgment of our good friends who

actually know a lot of those in many ways better than we do, because it is their region, -- i'meighborhood talking about the saudi's, the jordanians, they will be interested in having a fairly rapid transition to secular -- the secular component of syria will reemerge. argue for as to more robust response. you said this is the world's red line, and i agree. do we know how many additional countries will be supportive of this action? what do we have right now, and what is your goal? >> our goal is to have a strong coalition in support as much as possible, and we are working that right now. but the military and the president are going to have to decide how many they want to actually have take part in the action. as i said, we already have more partners ready to do something feelsc than the military

under this particular operation we need to effect that. obviously we want them to participate because we want it to be a broad coalition, but the final numbers will have to be decided by the president and by the specific operation that he designs together with you in the authorization. >> i look forward to tomorrow's briefing. thanks. >> i would like to thank andetary kerry and hegel chairman dempsey for your service to our nation and for your testimony in front of us today. i think the authorization of use of force is a commitment of american military strength is one of the most important issues we will ever debate in this congress, and i'm grateful to have the opportunity to have this conversation today. hodges what we decide, but how we decide it, will send a very important message around the world that this congress can still function in a nonpartisan way in the interest of the

people of the united states. listened to delaware in sin recent days, i think they reflect the views of a nation that is -- i have listened to .elawareans i have heard specific and pointed concerns that we not rush into action based on uneven or inaccurate intelligence, that we not be drawn into a civil war we don't fully understand or where we cannot quite discern the good guys from the bad guys, and more than anything that we not lead to an open-ended participation, direct military invasion and occupation of a country in a part of the world that is often on founding and is full of competing priorities. having reviewed the intelligence this morning in classified briefing, having participated in a number of briefings from you and folks leading in your agency's department, i am persuaded that this is not that circumstance, that the intelligence is sort -- is solid.

violationve a clear of a long-standing, global red line against the use of chemical weapons. as you stated, something embedded in america's statutes and are treaty, something that is a global tender. as i watched the images that were presented at the beginning of this hearing and as i have spoken to family and friends and neighbors at home is that we take a real risk here if we do not act. this is an instance where one of the world's worst dictators has steadily ratcheted up and as sending crescendo of death in his own nation. police andth the military taking on peaceful demonstrators, graduated to snipers killing innocent civilians, has used helicopters and jet fighters against his own people, has a ploy to luster bombs and scud missiles over the last two years. air is no doubt that bashar al- assad and his regime is willing

to go to any lengths to stay in power. the challenge now for those of us who seek an appropriate path forward, is to make sure that would craft an authorization for the use of military force that responds to america's legitimate concerns him a but still allows the administration to act in a decisive and timely way to both deter and punish the assad regime for what they have done. i have a few questions for you, if i might. the first two general dempsey. i think it is worth repeating, how do we strike the right balance between military action that is too insignificant to actually effectively deter or degrade assad's capabilities, and one that is decisive and overwhelming that it reaches beyond the scope of an authorization and actually becomes a regime change authorization e pre-k's i will not recommend an option that will not effectively deter and

degrade. that is the task i have been given. not just based on intelligence but based on the resolution comes out of this committee. quick and could you accomplish that mission with an authorization that is limited in scope and terms of time duration and in the scope as has been discussed with secretary kerry in terms of not introducing u.s. troops on the ground ? the less limiting, the better off i will be in crafting a set completely but i different to the secretary of state to give me what i need to do that. here is to not pass or even consider an authorization that seems so narrow that it prevents any effective message to be sent here, as i think you said in a compelling way in your opening statement. our actions here are not just meant to deter assad but to send

a strong message to actors around the world who might use chemical weapons or who might keep nuclear weapons. how do we craft an authorization , had a we take action that is effective in deterring other countries that are watching our decisiveness and our action? >> i think the language that the administration submitted with respect to military action necessary to degrade and deter and prevent the use of chemical weapons specifically is very as i have said several times now, and will repeat again, i know the administration has zero intention of putting troops on theground, and within confines of this authorization, i'm confident we would have zero problem including some kind of prohibition there if that makes you comfortable. i would not urge and excessively , congressionally

mandated set of targets. i think in the course of the classified briefings, the intelligence community and the military community will make it very clear to you why that is not advisable. have -- the have to general need some latitude here to be able to be sure he can accomplish his task. i think the broad confines and constraints of this particular operation are not hard for us to arrive at in agreement. i am confident we will do it very quickly. >> one of my other concerns, mr. secretary, is the flood refugees and their impact on the region. in a visit in january in jordan thes moved both by humanitarian situation are facing and by the very real impact this is having on our regional allies, on jordan, turkey, the destabilizing impact on lebanon, and of course the real impact it is potentially going to have on our close ally, israel. i was encouraged to hear there

was a successful missile defense test earlier today, secretary hegel. what steps are we taking to ensure that our allies in the immediate area are able to defend themselves from a potential response by the assad regime? in jordan, you know we have patriot missile defense batteries in jordan. we are working closely with the israelis. they have a very sophisticated iron dome missile defense system and we are in constant coronation with all the allies in the region. as you may know, general density was just in jordan for a commander's meeting which included all the senior military from the neighboring countries and our partners. we are closely connected with and assisting our allies on this and other issues.

last question, i'm interested in are having a follow on about how this specific strike and this specific authorization can also lead to a broader strategy for supporting engagement with the opposition that will lead to the diplomatic resolution of the syrian civil war that you have spoken out repeatedly. i don't think these are mutually exclusive. i do think it is possible for us to take action that reinforces the global red line against chemical weapons use but to still continue to strengthen and broaden our engagement with the opposition in a way that moves toward a post-assad future that is sustainable and secure, and i look forward to your info with us in our next hearing on that topic are equipped absolutely, senator. i look forward to it, too.

we can have that discussion in the confines of that committee and i think that might be helpful. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you all for your testimony. the statethank department for making information available with regard to on classifying certain information and also for the classified hearings that have taken place with regard to the chemical attack. i think that what happened suspends disbelief, to assume that the regime was not in charge of this. your initialry, in testimony, you asked us to ask ourselves what assad's calculation would be if we fail to act. i think that is an appropriate question. i think it is appropriate for us to ask you, or the administration, what is the calculation of assad right now

when rather than after we have proof that he did engage in what he engaged in, that we are waiting for a congressional authorization. i think one would have to suspend disbelief to assume that we would not be better off attacking those targets right than waiting ago three weeks for congress to take action. just wrong some parallel to the conflict -- drawing some parallel to the conflict in libya. i think the president statement was before we went ahead and engage in combat there, or along with nato, the president said i refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass rape to take action. did so without congressional authorization under the war powers resolution. we had some dispute when he came back, but initially we went ahead.

here, we have evidence that michael weapons were used. how can we assure our tell our constituents that this is not political, when the administration comes to congress to ask for authorization to take action that the president clearly has said he has authority to take? , it is somewhat surprising to me that a member of congress, particularly one on the foreign relations committee, is going to question the fulfilling the vision of the founding fathers when they wrote the constitution and divided power and foreign policy, to have the president come here and on her their original intent of the founding fathers in ways that do not do

anything to detract from the mission itself. general dempsey will tell you that he advised the president of the united states that not only was there not a deterioration in this mission by waiting, there might even be some advantages. so in fact, we are not losing anything by waiting. i personally believe there are advantages, because we have time to work with our friends in the international community, because we have time to make the case for the american people and share with them the evidence that we have shared with you in the last days, because we have an opportunity to be able to build greater support, and as the general has said, we can adjust to any changes or shifts that they make in that time. this does not in any way deteriorate the fundamental mission of the grading and

deterring the use of chemical weapons. theegrading and deterring use of chemical weapons. if at any moment assad were foolish enough to believe that this time of waiting is somehow an invitation to do more of this criminal activity, i can assure you that the president of the united states -- and i think you all would probably speed up your process and hope the president would respond immediately. this is working. there are defections taking place. there is great uncertainty in syria. we are building support and greater understanding, and i would far rather be playing our hand at -- then he is at this point in time. i don't think we are losing anything. i think the president made a courageous decision to take the time to build the strength that makes america stronger, by acting in unity with the united states congress.

>> if i may, i can surly therstand that that is secondary goal, or the primary that in the intervening time, and causes our allies to get with us, and causes russia to maybe put the pressure on to the assad regime, something like that is great, but purely in terms of military strategy -- i don't have a military background , but i would have to suspend disbelief, and i think all of us would, to assume we are better off in a couple of we doing what we are planning to do and what we will authorize the administration to do. general density, is there evidence that the assad regime is right now moving some of the dempsey,- general surrounding targets with civilians or others to make it more difficult to give effect to our strategy? clarity,e interest of what i actually said to the president is the following. the military resources we have

in place can remain in place, and when you ask us to strike, we will make those strikes effective. in other sessions in the principals committee, not with talked about -- we some targets becoming more accessible than before. there is evidence of course that the regime is reacting not only to the delay, but they were reacting before that to a very unfortunate week of military planning, so this is a dynamic situation. >> secretary hegel, you seem eager to jump in. >> i was just going to add something that you added, and that is the international community. in addition to what the president has already noted, a nation is always stronger when , when he gets the congress and the american people with him. also, the international community, many of the members

of the international community are with us on this. i think the president feels strongly that would be an important part of whatever decision he might make. it doesn't end with whatever military option the president decides to go with, as we have all heard. that is all the more important that we would want the international community with us. what willry kerry, happen if the congress says no and does not authorize this strike, this use of force? what will the president do? >> i cannot take you what the president is going to do, because he hasn't told me. retains theident authority, always had the authority to strike before coming to congress, and that doesn't change. but i tell you what will happen, , in pyongyang,s

, folksan, in damascus will stand up and celebrate, and in a lot of other capitals in parts of the world people will and signheir heads condolence for america's willingness to stand up and make itself felt where it makes a difference to the world. i think it would be and you norma said back to america's setback -- an enormous to america's capacity in the role of leadership that we play. durbin.or >> on saturday i was standing with a group of friends watching the television screen with the announcement that any minute the president would make a statement. , i'lled to him and said

bet the missiles were launched and we will hear about it now. to my surprise, of course, the president came forward and said i have that authority, i have made that decision, but i am going to respect our constitutional democracy and the congress, that is american people through congress, a voice in this decision. iom where i was standing, thought it was good news. as long as i've been in congress, the house and senate, i have argued about that congressional responsibility. some presidents have respected it, some have not. most of the time congress, in writing or in speeches, insists on being given this authority and then starts shaking when it is given, because it calls on us to be part of the story, life- and-death decisions. it is one of the toughest calls we will ever make as member's of congress, but i salute the

president for respecting the constitution and giving us that responsibility. , onink the turnout today short notice, in the midst of a break, of this committee is an indication we are taking this seriously and solemnly. kerry --te to senator secretary kerry and secretary hegel, we all serve together some 12 years ago and faced similar awesome, historic decisions related to iraq and afghanistan. we sell those differently in some respects, but i voted against the iraqi resolution and going to war in that country, and felt that the events that transpired afterwards gave me some justification for my vote. but i voted for the war in afghanistan, leaving that it was to 9/11.esponse we were going after those responsible for killing 3000 innocent americans, and we were going to make them pay the

price. i still think that was the right thing to do. but i did not know at the time that i voted for that authorization for the use of military force, that i was going for the longest war in the history of the united eights in the authority to several presidents to do things that no one ever could have envisioned at that moment in history. so i take this very seriously. i understand this president and his values, but i take every seriously that the languages as precise as possible when it comes to this whole question of expanding this mission into something much larger, something that would engage us in a new level of warfare or a new authority for this president or a future president. so hope we can have your word of assurance that we can work together in bipartisan fashion to craft this in a way that carefully achieves our goal, but does not expand authority anywhere beyond what is

necessary. senator, thank you, very important statement, and you not only have my word that it will not do that, but we will work with you very, very closely, with the white house in shaping this resolution. there is no hidden agenda. there is no subterfuge. there is one objective, and that objective is to make sure we live up to our obligations about holding the norm with respect to international behavior on the use of chemical weapons, and that is what the president is seeking in this authorization. >> let me speak to the issue of chemical weapons. the french have done an assessment of what they believe the syrians have in terms of

their chemical weapons arsenal. general dempsey, are you familiar with this? >> i'm not familiar with the french assessment. >> we have a copy of it here, and it has been published. we have talked a lot about sarin gas and other nerve agents. ,hat we hear from this report and i will ask you if it is close to what your assessment is, the syrians have more than and tons of chemical agents the precursor to chemicals, several hundred tons of sarin, representing the bulk of their arsenal. it has also been speculated that they have a missile capability of delivering these chemical portions ofsrael, turkey, jordan, iraq, and beyond. what is your assessment of their potential when it comes to the delivery and capacity when it comes to the amount of chemical agents they have amount of chemt they have available?

our assessment very closely matches the french assessment. >> my circuit -- my question to you secretary kerry is in light of the vulnerability of these countries, what has been the response of the arab and muslim world to this? you have listed four or five who stepped forward to say they support our efforts. it would seem that if this danger in the region is so profound that we would have even greater support. >> senator, i think this is something i would be happier discussing in greater detail with you in a closed session. there are obviously some countries for whom public statements are more complicated than others. i think we should talk about that in the other session. dempsey,nough. general we saw these photographs earlier. it was heartbreaking. page three of "the washington post," a group supporting the