this would meet the standard i which we send people to jail for we are here because of what happened. we are also here, not just because of what happened two weeks ago. we are here because of what happened almost a century ago. in the darkest moments of world horror of gashe warfare, when the majority of the world came together to declare in no uncertain terms that chemical weapons crossed the line of conscious and must be banned. over the years that followed, 184 countries, including iran, iraq, and russia, joined the chemical weapons convention. even countries with whom we agree with on little else, agreed on this. some have tried to suggest that

-- debate where having today we are having today is about this president's red line. let me make it as clear as i can. that is not true. this is about the world's red line, about humanity's red line. anyone with a conscience should draw it. it was drawn almost 100 years ago when the original convention was agreed on. aboutebate is also congress' red line -- red line. they passed the syria accountability act. thatact says clearly

syria's chemical weapons threaten the security of the middle east and the national security interests of the u.s. repeatedly, members of congress have spoken out about the grave on sequences of the use of chemical weapons. it's a policynd the stated that the actions of require us tome respond. the world is watching and wondering, not whether if the assad regime did this, that is beyond question. the world is wondering if the u.s. is going to consent through aside whilestand this kind of brutality is allowed to happen without consequence. in the nearly 100 years since

this commitment against chemical weapons was made, only to tyrants have dared to cross -- only two tyrants have dared to cross the line. assad is the third. history hold nothing but information for those criminals. history also holds very little sympathy for their enablers. that is the gravity of the moment. that is what is at stake in the decision that congress faces. syria, bottom line, is important to us for many reasons. you cannot overlook the danger pose to theeapons middle east and to our allies and our friends. you cannot overlook the threat they face to the u.s. if they

fall into the wrong hands or if they are used with ingenuity. policyresident obama's is that assad must go, it is not inside -- insignificant to degrade his chemical weapons deprives him of a lethal weapon in the ongoing civil war. also, we have important strategical national security interest. to avoid the creation of a safe haven or a base of operations for extremists to use these chemical weapons either against us, or against our friends. forcing aside to change his truck elation to act with impunity contributes to his realization that he cannot gas or shoot his way out of this predicament.

because,also important i cannot say this strongly ,nough, many of you are parents lessons are learned by children. a bully. confronted common sense and human experience and reality tell us that the risk of not acting is greater than the risk of acting. if we do not take a stand today, i. see you we are more likely to face greater risks to our security and a greater likelihood of conflict that demands our actions in the future. why? we -- as confidently as

we know what happened in damascus on august 21, we know that assad will read our silence and unwillingness to act as a signal that he can use is weapons with impunity. after all has been said and done, if we don't now, knowing has already done this at least 11 times that we can prove event, if we order back down, we have sent an unmistakable message of permissiveness. iran is hoping we look the other way. they will interpret america's unwillingness to act against weapons of mass destruction as an unwillingness to act against

weapons of mass destruction. we will fight to make the deterrent against a nuclear weapon without that fight. north korea is hoping from ambivalence from congress. they are listing for our silence. the authorization that president obama seeks is distinctly and clearly in our national interests and our national security interests. syria and send to others the unmistakable message wet when we say never again, do not mean sometimes. we do not mean that somewhere. we mean never again. this is a vote for accountability. the norms and the laws of the civilized world, that is what this vote is for. if we do not answer assad today,

we will erode the standard that has protected our troops for a century. war have been protected by the existence of this prohibition. through world war ii, through , throughrough vietnam both iraq wars, the fact is that we have not seen chemical weapons in the battlefield but for the two occasions we mentioned briefly. our troops are protected. this is a standard we need to enforce to stand up for america's interest in i will say to you that our allies are counting on us. the people of israel, jordan, and turkey, each look next-door and see chemical weapons being used. they are one stiff breeze away

from the potential of those weapons harming them. they actually await our assurance that our word is true. they await the assurance that if -- inildren lined up and damascus, shroud in they want to know that we will keep the world's promise. said, the jackson unavoidable step in avoiding ergodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to the law. despots see's worst that they can flaunt provisions -- prohibitions, then they are rendered as pieces of paper. that is what we mean by accountability.

that is what i say to you that is why we cannot be silent. let me be very clear. when i walked into this room, a person of conscience stood up , and that person said,, do not take us to another work. herehree of us sitting understand that as well as anyone in this country. let me be clear. we are not asking america to go to war. wpsay that sitting next to t individuals-- two who know what war is. they know that what the president is requesting now the -- they know what the president

is requesting now. there will be no boots on the ground. there will be no intention of assuming responsibility or a sod assad's civil war. the president is asking for the u.s. to mean what we say. he is asking for authorization to deter integrated assad to capacity to use them ago weapons. clear for those who fill that more should be that moreo feel should be done or a sod should go, the degradation of his capacity to use those weapons available to them. it will have an impact on the battlefield. before coming in here today, i read an e-mail about a general

who has just defected and is now in turkey. other defections. there will be downstream impacts, but that is not the principal purpose of what the president is asking for. some will understandably ask about the unintended consequences of action. will this drag you in inadvertently? they referred that a retaliation could lead to a larger conflict. sodme say again that if a is arrogant enough -- that if , the is arrogant enough u.s. and our allies have ways to make him regret that decision without going to war. supporters, russia and iran, say publicly that the use

of chemical weapons is unacceptable. itselfan and syria acknowledged that these weapons were used. they just pretend that the other guys who do not have the capacity to do it, somehow did it. the extent oftion our responsibility to act. to them, i say, when someone kills hundreds of children's with a weapon that the world has banned, we all are responsible. that is true because of treaties like the geneva convention and the chemical weapons convention, but also because we share a common sense of decency. time forot the armchair isolates vision -- isolationism.

get is not the time to permission to a dictator to has are ready used these weapons the ability to continue to use them. neither our country, nor our conscience can't afford the cost of silence or inaction. we have spoken of. the president has made his decision. he has decided that we need to do this. in keeping with our constitution, and the full measure of the hopes and articulated aspirations of our founding fathers, the president is coming to the congress of the u.s. the decision that the american people agree with and asking the congress to stand with him and with the administration to stand up for our security, to protect our values, to lead the world with conviction that is clear. that is why we are here. we look forward to having a rigorous discussion with you in

furtherance of that mission. >> thank you. we have been joined by secretary hagel, who before being appointed secretary of defense, served in the u.s. senate from 1996 until 2009. he is the recipient of two purple hearts for his service in vietnam. we been joined by journal .empsey he has served in the u.s. army for over 40 years, and now serves as chairman of the joint chiefs. we go to our secretary of defense, mr. hagel, first. >> thank you. i also dempsey and apologize for being late. the other side of the capital

held us up. we are much better for it. thank you for your understanding. , as we allng days know, congress will debate how to respond to the most recent chemical weapons attack in the -- in syria seri . i welcome this debate. i strongly support president obama's decision to seek congressional authorization for the use of force in syria. knows, committing the country to using military force is the most ethical and important decision america's leaders can make. all of those privileged to serve our nation and have the

responsibility in many ways to serve our country. the primary responsibility is to ask the tough questions before any military commitment is made part -- is made. act according to the national interest. they must define military objectives. also an understanding of the risks and consequences involves. the president and the security beforek those questions we concluded that the u.s. should take military action against syria and ritchie park it's. i want to -- and military targets. i want to ask how we reached this decision. our military objectives and at this not acting critical juncture.

the use of chemical weapons in syria is not only an assault on humanity, it is a serious threat to america's national security interests and those of our allies. their use of chemical weapons poses great risks to our friends and partners along syria's borders. assad is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people, we must assume that terrorist groups supporting israel in could acquire them and use them. this risk of chemical weapons proliferation poses a direct threat to our friends and partners and u.s. personnel in the region. we cannot afford four any terrorist group to strike the u.s., to have incentives to inquire or use these to michael weapons. the regime's actions risk

eroding the international norm against the use of chemical weapons. the norm that is all protect the u.s. forces in our homeland. form couldhis embolden other regimes to acquire or use chemical weapons. for example, north korea maintains a massive stockpile of chemical weapons that threaten our treaty ally south korea. the 20,000 u.s. troops stationed on the border also. i have just returned from asia. i had a series and long conversation with the defense minister of south korea. our allies throughout the world must be assured that the u.s. will for fill its security commitments. given these threats to our national security, the u.s. must

demonstrate through our actions that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. clearesident has make that our military objectives in serious will be to hold the ,ssad regime accountable degrade its ability to carry out these kinds of attacks, and he deter the use of chemical weapons. we positioned u.s. assets throughout the region to successfully execute the mission. we believe we can achieve them with a military action that would be limited in duration and scope. general dempsey and i have assured the president that u.s. forces will be ready to act whenever the president gives the order. we are working with our allies and partners in this effort. arabia,turkey, saudi uae, and other friends in the region have assured us of their strong support for u.s. action.

defining our military objectives, we make clear that we are not seeking to resolve the underlying conflict in syria through direct military force. we are contemplating actions tailored to respond to the use of chemical weapons. a political solution created by the syrian people is the only way to end the violence in syria. secretary kerry is leading efforts to help parties in syria towards negotiation. we are committed to doing more to assist with syrian opposition. held accountable for using these weapons in defiance. having defined america's interests and our military objectives, we must also examine the risks and consequences. in takingalways risks

action. there is also risk within action . , underad regime increasing pressure, could feel empowered to carry out even more chemical weapons attacks. chemical weapons make the distinction between combatants and civilians. they inflict the worst kind of suffering. a refusal to act would undermine the credibility of america's other commitments. the word of the u.s. must mean something. it is vital currency and foreign relations and international commitments and every witness table has at this

served in uniform and fought and i --n a war. we understand that a country faces few decisions as a grave as using military force. where are not unaware of the costs and ravages of war. we also understand that america must protect its people. also its national interest. that is our highest spots ability. all of us who have the responsibility of serving the -- have arican people vigorous debate on how we should respond to syria. everyone on this committee just as seriously as the president and everyone at this table. >> thank you. beforeing statements

today's foreign committee hearing on military action against syria we are going to show you all of that hearing tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. in one hour and 50 minutes, we will open up our phone lines. up next is the senate foreign relations committee. first we go to twitter. steve says -- i would like to know what obama has planned.

>> the hashed by -- the #cspanchat. the final vote in the committee these afternoon was 10-7. --se in favor include those voting no include --

foreign the senate relations committee. after that, we open up our phone lines to you. >> this meeting of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. thehe last few days, committee has come together in the spirit of partisanship and drafted a resolution to authorize the use of limited military force in syria that i believe can achieve a bipartisan support. process -- anough amendment process, but it is my expectation that we can achieve the goals set out by the resolution. whicheciate the spirit in members have come to the issue.

this is one of the most serious issues a memorable cast a vote on. seriously.o it they committed to getting the facts and coming to their respective conclusions. i want to thank senator corker for being a close partner and making their resolution tailored and focused -- the resolution tailored and focused. i believe the interests of the american people and gives the president the authority he needs to respond to syria's use of chemical weapons against its own people. this is the authority he has asked for. it is also what we have believed that with tailored -- we have tailored. we have developed language to we

leave narrows the scope duration and breadth to meet congressional concerns, and the concerns of the mecca people. i want to thank all of our ,olleagues who have engaged including senator mccain, for helping the committee focus its attention. on a portents of what we're doing. specifiedtailored and authorization to give the president necessary and appropriate authority to use military force, t respond to the use of weapons of weapons of mass destruction by the syrian government, to prick tax -- to protect the american people. it has a requirement for determination of the use of military force necessary that appropriate that one medic and other means to prevent the deployment of chemical weapons by assyria have and use.

the u.s. has a specific military planned to achieve the goal. forces of military consistent with a broader goals of your strategy towards assyria, including achieving a negotiated settlement. it has a limitation that specifies the resolution does not authorize the use of u.s. armed forces on the ground in syria for the purpose of combat operations to ensure that there will be no boots on the ground. the authorization ends after 60 days. the president can request an additional 30 days. it provides for integrated u.s. government strategy for syria. including a conference of review of current and planned u.s. diplomatic and other policies. it requires a report to congress on the status of the military operations.

corker andk senator all members of the committee for working together in the interest of the american people. challenge, to this it is a declaration of our values and sends a message that the world cannot and will not follow -- tolerate the use of chemical weapons anywhere. with that, let me turn to our colleagues, senator corker. >> thank you. thank you for your leadership and patients, especially the briefing we had this morning where things were developed. the line of questioning that took place -- i want to thank all committee to members for the thoughtfulness. in particular, i want to stress my appreciation to senator who was able to grasp the

essence of developing things that will further their markup in a positive way. to be had plenty of time heard. i know we have members that have only a short. -- a short time. what are some i filibuster and as we wait for language to be there are some that are filibustering as we wait for language to be developed. >> thank you. i am sorry. where trained to logistically get to where we are at. entertain amendments that seek to be altered to the

resolution. senator paul? president forhe doing his constitutional duty and bringing before the congress and asking for the authority to go to war. i think it should be made exclusive that this is his duty and we are bound by the constitution and the ideas of that theing fathers executive branch is the branch of government most prone to war. the constitution vested the power to go to war in congress. some will say this is not a war. the sailors and ships are not working we only define war when boots are on the ground. i think that would be a narrow definition of war. awfully one a war, that will not include casualties on our side, but a war.

we should not make a pretense that we are not getting involved in a war. the president said that no president should knit -- unilaterally go to work without the authority of congress. say this. you believe it is true. the president does not have the power under the constitution to authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual imminent threat to the nation. senator mccain? >> first, i would like to applaud senator paul's active participation in this issue that i respect -- in this issue. respect him try to make sure

that the respective authority of congress and the president is preserved. his amendment brings up is something that i hope this committee will work on, that is the war powers act. in contrast to what senator paul's interpretation of the constitution is, is that the war powers act says the president can act, but has to come back to the congress within 60 days. no president has ever agreed that that was constitutional. yet they have observed it. what the amendment brought up is something that the timidity -- the committee will address, that is when the resident can take us to war, what the role of congresses, and how we address

that iportant issue think is a distorted balance between congress and the president. i think senator paul for his and memento even though i may not agree with it. issues bring an important -- it is wrong for a law to be on the books, and every president say that it is not constitutional. everyone thinks it is unconstitutional, they challenge it in court, but they have not. i think senator paul for his amendment. of the things misunderstood about the war powers act is that it does allow the president to take action in three specific cases. one, if war has been declared by congress. two, if there has been statutory approval for the use of force. third, imminent attack. it does not give unlimited power

to the president to authorize military force. we can debate if it is constitutional, that under the war powers act, that is the only three ways you can go. the press, and media and everybody expected to be 60 days, and that is true. that is one part of the war powers act. the initial part says that the president can only go to war under those three stipulations. >> good i just say in response, the third edition is what is not clear. are aboutory act we to -- the statutory act that we are about to engage in. >> are we going to go back and forth? >> this is an important proposal from the senator from kentucky. we should take it fiercely.

-- we should take it seriously. himuld like to suggest to that we take care in the language we use and we use the exact language of the war powers resolution the it will create ambiguity if we put in a new standard. amendment,of your you say that it does not involve " stopping an actual imminent threat." if you consider that -- i think we would be on the same side of the fence. >> i would be happy to. first of all, the senator is

right. this is an important debate, but for another day. -- and aed a minute, minute, but i assumed we do not have it here. i think maybe i can make it simpler. , and goo to page three to the third last line where it says they were constitution. the president has authority under the constitution -- that is where the rub is. whether or not he has authority. i suggest that we take out the word constitution. under they were powers resolution -- under the war -- rs resolution

us where you and i want to be as to where we believe the president's power is. >> alike senator riches point. point.ke senator rich's the debate we have had over the last couple of days illustrates that. senator paul, here is a challenge. i hope you will tell me i am wrong am a but i just read a report about your intentions. it is hard to praise the president for bringing something to congress for a vote and then say you're going to try to get filibustered to deny me the right to vote about it and the senate. >> that is a misinterpretation from the media. >> i am reporting with the ap is reporting. that if the president is going to bring this to congress, we do not use

residual tricks -- procedural tricks. >> thank you. senator corker? to thank the senator for bringing this up and say that senator cain has wanted to address this issue. i think a process might begin with looking at the authorization for the use of military force in general. have one specific to syria right now. we have other activities taking place around the world. there are but discussions about addressing that. dealing with the war powers resolution in general also. not dothat we do anything today, but take away the ability to pass something out of committee. >> let me just say that the

chair appreciates senator paul's commitment and passion on the issue. i think that the issue is so significant to place into question the constitutionality of what the president does or does not have. , ithis particular context is not timely read it deserves -- it is not timely. something the ranking member has been including for a while, a debate -- andnuation continuation. that would be an appropriate debate and a discussion in getting some key witnesses here and moving to action third i cannot support -- moving to

action. i cannot support this resolution to make way the determinations third -- the determinations. -- this timeime frame and his circumstances. >> thank you. that, and i know the issue of whether or not we put it in your is one that is pending and the chairman feels strongly about, but i am proud it hascongress, the way stepped forward and asserted its authority. at last count, we have several hundred members sign a letter that specifically asked the president to not vote -- go forward and bring this to congress. to me, that isn't recognizing a new era in terms of congress.

rather than sitting back, saying that we're going to exercise our right under the constitution. that theitution says power to declare war is with the legislative branch am not the executive branch. legislative branch, not the executive branch. i think it is important to have this in here. i would applaud him, and i hope that we have entered a new era where congress will assert its constitutionhe when we get into situations like this. intimate --ort the the amendment if we get a chance to vote on it. senator rubio has not had an

opportunity. >> this is an important issue regarding the role of congress in setting foreign policy, in particular, the power to make war. ways, itle, in some reflects what is being discussed president reagan decided to launch a limited strike in libya, how does this reconcile president reagan's example in 1986? or and operation of that magnitude? , thisn you look at this does not do anything beyond what the war powers act says. it says.ates what there has been disagreement. some people do not think we are getting ready to commence with syria -- what we are getting ready to commence with syria is war.

the constitution does not differentiate between big and small wars. between afferentiate defensive action and an action that does not have an immediate threat. i don't think either cases mentioned is an immediate threat to the united states. these are open to interpretation. what is not open to interpretation would be an event whether or not congress has to give authorization. >> it is interesting where having this debate -- we are having this debate. senator mccain is correct. this is a subject of the powers of the president and congress as to the use of force. we should have this debate in congress. assert -- a strong

supporter of the war powers act. president should adhere to those powers. here islution we have properly drafted. the president has authority under the constitution. the constitution requires the andrent her the president also his ability to pass out rules passed by congress. there is a specific reference to the war powers in this legislation. toare not going to be able resolve in this congress the long-standing dispute between the executive and legislative and judicial branch is of government as how the exercise of force is authorized and implemented it i would urge us to stick to the issue at hand. is authorized and implemented. i would urge us to stick to the issue at hand.

shouldn't try to deal with the overall issues of authorization which require more discussion. >> any other member? >> i agree with the senator that the president has authority under the world -- war powers authorization. that is what we are responding to. ,e have the word constitution and that is what caused the disagreement among the parties. i would respectfully request to take out the word constitution and accept what everybody agrees is under the war powers resolution. we can move on with the been --f it, this has

there's been no resolution to this point. someonet this in here, will interpret that to be that the power was under the constitution. the clause is beyond just the authorization as included in this bill. the -- where it says , itpresident has authority is not refer to chemical weapons. >> i want to get onto the merits of the thing. you don't even need this clause in there. we don't need to have this fight. of afically about language clause would donate in there. by changing toit

the war powers resolution. amendment paul's is broader than that. i will give you the final word before going to a vote. there never seems to be a good time to debate this. this is a good time to debate it. the nation is looking at us and asking what we believe our role is. if congress wants to stand up thatake back our -- power, -- this is the time to do it. this comes up because the president has been asked point on two or three occasions what would happen if congress votes them down. will they stand by the authority of congress to make a decision? they have hedged. the vote is important because -- you willt

probably get this war. by seeking congressional you should not get it both ways. you should not be allowed to say that i'm going to abide by the authority of congress when i win, but if i lose, i will not. this is a great issue and a perfect time to talk about it. it is a good time to take a stance. if you're in favor of the war powers act, this is the time to stand up and be counted. thank you. is important enough, but not to be done in this context. i assume the senator is asking for a vote. table theto move to amendment. this is an appointed issue that should be held for debate before

the committee. , it is greater than the issue before us. i moved to table. move to table. and i call to vote. [no audio] [indiscernible]

the amendment is taken.

senator mccain? >> i have two amendments. i asked that they be considered since they are related. i would like to describe them. i would like to take the senator can i just make a comment beforehand. session, theng germans ability -- the , and i thankility corker -- thank senator

for the work you have done on this legislation. it may be one of the most important pieces of legislation this committee will consider. i think you for your leadership and your patience. -- i thank you. both of these amendments have to do with the issue of changing the battlefield situation in syria. articulatedt has publicly and to me and to to , three policy measures that he advocates. one is to degrade the chemical ,eapons capabilities of assad and to give greater support to those opposing the army, and those who want to reveal.

also, a change in the battlefield and to switch the toentum, which thanks equipment being thrown in everyday -- a full on in is on thethe momentum side of assad. if we expect them to leave power, it will be because the situation is reversed and he believes he cannot prevail. what these amendments do is quote -- it is the policy of the united states to change the momentum -- syria that leads to and into the conflict.

a cooperative strategy should be part of a core dated international effort. the militaryg capabilities of syrian opposition forces including the army. -- the syrian army. would replace part of the legislation as it as presently written and replace it with the following statement -- whereas on may 20 first 2013, the foreign relations committee passed by a 59 victory vote, the syrian transition support act livingupported assad power and it into the violence. they are prerequisites for a democratic future for syria and regional peace and security. militarychanges to the

balance of power in syria, incentives do not exist for the achievement of such goals. was passed by a by aictory vote in the -- 15-3 vote. .his is important we want to change the military equation on the battlefield. includedver, all of us , would agree that unless assad believes that he was -- he will lose, it will be a possible to negotiate a peaceful settlement and departure from syria. i would like to ask senator mccombs to make remarks. i hope my colleagues will consider this a minute.

thank you. >> thank you. i think this adds an important piece to the overall authorization, which is a clear fixation. nothing about this adds to the scope of the authorization. nothing about this amendment as to the scope of the authorization for the use of force. what it does point the rest of our colleagues to valuable work done on this committee that currently sits waiting for the consideration on the floor. they considered a wide range of factors and concerns in place. i want to draw your attention to the point made here that the overall policy is a negotiated resolution. an international effort to degrade the capabilities of the regime to use weapons of mass destruction, to change the inentum on the battlefield

order to encourage and negotiate a political settlement to the war. that is worth restating and asserting into the authorization but i would be grateful for the support of my colleagues on this. >> any other colleagues who wish to speak to this? senator murphy? >> thank you. thises without saying that alters the nature of the authorization. it combines the authorization resolution we passed several months ago with the underlying legislation we have been debating. it does in a statement of policy that says, for the first time, that congress, by presence of this act, supports the president's efforts. of arming lethal and nonlethal capabilities. i would note that in that authorization passed, which i

did not support, we were careful to attach to that resolution carefully thought out conditions and controls that would go along with the president's authority to our mystery rebels. it is the policy of the u.s. i know this is not the same thing as authorizing legislation because it is a statement of policy, but i do think this is a fairly substantial change. i do think it will take some people by surprise. fact that manye members of this committee have been calling upon the president to do this work for a very long time, this committee has spent an alarmist amount of time talking about this issue -- an talking amount of time

about this issue. i would argue may complicate the discussion on this moving forward. >> senator corker. >> i want to thank senator mccain for being such an advocate for having a coordinated strategy. i do not think there as been anybody on this committee who has spent our time trying to prep that issue. the things that we do, we do in lushes -- that comp that accomplishes in and. -- an end. i think the administration very a furtherrts

affirmation of these policies in integrated way. i look forward to supporting their amendment. >> any other colleague? if not, i will be supportive of senator mccain's amendment and i want to congratulate both of for for coming together and .enator mccain's advocacy the first amendment is part of the whereas clauses. what this committee has already done in the vote of 15-3. , it is a number one restatement of that fact. it isndment number two,

the insertion of a statement of policy, but it is largely a statement of policy that the administration itself has in thezed and ultimately statement of policy, it creates an understanding that this is our ultimate policy, but it does to add to terms of the scope to the authorization in which the authorization, unlike the syrian transition , would be able to pursue. i think it is an important statement and it moves us to a broader theory of bank strategy, which i commend both signatures strategy,oader syria which i commend both senators

for. i would be supportive of both amendments. is there anyone else who wishes to speak? if not, senator mccain? >> [inaudible] if it is agreeable, i would asked for a voice vote. favor?those in all those opposed? it.ayes have both amendments are agreed to. to offer anishes amendment on the democratic side? >> i was going to offer an amendment in regards to the use of ground troops to make it clear that the authorization does not authorize the use of american soldiers in syria. the language here is clear.

it does say the restrictions the limitation and the use of the united states armed forces on the ground for the purposes of combat operations. i was concerned about the language of combat operations. as a result of hearings, i am confident there is no soldiers that are being asked to go into serious as result -- into syria as a result of this authorization. that will be made extremely clear in our committee report. unexpected,ays the but are authorization was clear that there will be no ground troops in syria. >> thank you. i can assure you that the committee report will have language that makes it clear that the language in the

resolution is for its stated purpose. member?r >> i would like to call up this amendment one. it expands on the required elements for inclusion in the syrian strategy report. it will be delivered in congress 30 days after the authorization. it amends section five be and inserts -- 5b and and inserts an additional provision. it adds a section regarding security coordination with allies and regional partners including israel, turkey, and jordan. it has a section on security. asking theection policy address efforts regarding

the ongoing humanitarian challenges presented by refugees in neighboring countries. i was grateful for senator shaheen's leadership. i think this is noncontroversial and we hope for a voice vote. valuableieves it is a addition to the resolution. i plan to support it wholeheartedly. >> the center asked for a voice vote. -- the center asked for a voice vote. the amendment is agreed to. any other senator who wishes to offer an amendment? senator durbin? amendmentirman, this

addresses a very practical consideration. under the proposal before us, the president, if this is enacted into law, after submitting a certification to congress, has 60 days to exercise his authority under this proposal and he can extend that another 30 days with another certification unless congress disapproves. in a hypothetical situation, if if the president implemented it, he would have until november the 15th to use that. time.e -- that period of the question that has been raised from a what happens on the 91st day? what happens if assad decides to use chemical weapons again?

will we return to congress and start the debate again or should something else occurred lester mark we have worked -- or should something else occurred? it does leave open the possibility that we ought to consider. i want to raise that to the committee. i want to asked senator mccain if you will want to make and appoint -- a comment at this point. -- there is a perception problem here that we need to avoid. we will take this vigorous action until the 91st day and then assad is able to resume his atrocities with chemical weapons. obviously, none of us believe that. none of us agree with it, but we are kind of working to try to find a way to give everybody

time ifce that at any he uses chemical weapons again, the united states of america will act. we do not have to go -- we do not want to have to go through the authorization and debate on the floor, etc.. at the same time, the dilemma we face is that we do not want to give an open-ended kind of authority to the president either. solicit the input of all members as to how we can -- how we can preserve the legitimate role of the congress plays in determining these issues. i think my friend from illinois and i hope that all of my colleagues will continue working together. i the time this legislation reaches the floor, we could have some sort of consensus.

>> mr. chairman? offer durbinto amendment number two. >> if i could just comment. thechair appreciates concerns that have been raised. i prepared an amendment in this guard -- in this regard to bring us closer to ensuring that assad understands that he cannot wait the time. out and go back to chemical weapons and face no consequence. we're getting closer and closer to a language that would find both the restraint, but the opportunity. i think it would be worthy of working collectively with everyone who has an interest in this as we move toward a war. my chairman appreciates colleagues as we try to work towards something that meets that challenge.

>> i have two amendments. the use of the word tailored has stuck with me from the start. i hope i am not nitpicking, but i do not think this is the right word. say that wewe would authorizing the limited and specified use of the united states armed forces against syria. i have looked up the word tailored and there is no definition that comes close to what we are trying to do. the word specified describes a we are trying to achieve. that is my amendment number one. >> is there anyone else that wishes to be heard on this matter?

>> all those in favor? >> i have one other amendment. when we rewrote their white itse draft, i think it made grammatically better. there is one section that troubles me. paragraphage four, one. there spelling out authority of the president of the united states to use military force for specified purposes. we are specific in paragraphs two and three. capacity toyria's use such weapons in the first place. says, respond to the use of

weapons of mass destruction by the government of syria and the conflict in syria. is as general and wide-open as you could write it. it belies the rest of this effort in what we are trying to achieve. i am troubled by that reference to respond, which is open-ended. i am also concerned with a nether element that was not included the original white house draft included the following. prevent or deter the use of proliferation. toluding the transfer terrorist groups or other state or nonstate actors of chemical and biological weapons. this is something we are genuinely concerned about. not just that assad might transfer those chemical weapons to some other actors, but at

that moment, that the transfer would be taking place. taking out the generalized response paragraph number the specific language that says, the president is authorized to use military force to revenge the transfer to terrorist groups within syria of any weapons of mass destruction. >> it seems very similar to what i was trying to accomplish with my own amendment.

i would like to asked senator durbin, i think this accomplishes about the same thing. i am not 100% sure. reasons --primary the event and syria pose a national security threat is those chemical weapons stockpiles. i would like to work with you and be assured that what you are doing is the exact same thing is what i was trying to do with my amendment. >> i think we are on the same track. frenchtimony was the have analyzed the situation and believe that assad has 1000 tons of chemical agents and weapons, including several hundred tons rin.arah and -- sara

we do not want him to use those within his own country, but we also do not want him to use those were transfer them to to enemies of the united states. my amendment goes a little bit further. when we limit the authorization ground,of boots on the recognizing-- reality that if the president has to try to secure those weapons, that would require ground troops. >> i think you are into new territory there. >> i think your language implies the same thing. to thank both of you for bringing this issue up. i wonder if we might resolve the

concern that each of you have by paragraphion 2, eight, article one, if we can article- paragraph a, one. use the language senator durbin has drafted. the fourth article down at the bottom. leave out the part including chemical or biological weapons. the fourth add portion that says prevent the transfer to terrorist groups of any weapons of mass destruction. we hit the point that the two of you are trying to dress and we are limiting the response that senator durbin is concerned too broad. >> i asked the senator from intends --hat he

envisions from that phrase. i cano not know if clarify. i know you are trying to -- let's face it, a big portion of our time has been to make this specified. hand,hink on the other the essence of what we are doing what issponse to happening with weapons of mass destruction. i am trying to address both things here. >> everything i have imagined in my mind that we would do with military force could not eat characterized as limited -- that do with military force could not be characterized as limited. i do not want to get lost in the

language. in a limitedent -- and a specified manner against legitimate military targets in only to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the government. grasp, what is it about the language of their -- language there that is

troublesome to you? >> compare the other two paragraphs. degrade their capacity to use such weapons in the future. specified and directly linked to these weapons of mass destruction. respond is so generic and so general, it could include any military action, which would be a response. is not a response limited to the use of or future use of these weapons. >> what if that first paragraph were to be only to deter and degrade the use of weapons of mass destruction? >> that would be competitive, but it would not be inconsistent. that.you could except >> if we can also add the fourth area graph.

>> do you need the entire phrase stated? is it good enough to prevent the ofnsfer to terrorist groups weapons of mass destruction? >> i think that is sufficient because the language goes on to explain it. >> i appreciate the concern that you have, senator durbin. this is the core of the authorization. i want to make sure we get it right. with this signature withholds on this with a commitment from me to work with them in a leadership to deal with this?

at some there will be or a a manager's package replacement of this. i get what you want to do and i am in sympathy, i just want to make sure we do not undermine the core of the authorization we are trying to achieve. >> as an alternative, if we leave paragraph one untouched, where it says respond, with the possibility that we will have a manager's amendment, but add paragraph four? >> that would be something that would be acceptable. we would leave paragraph one as a paragraphuld add or where we would say prevent the transfers of pair -- terrorist groups. >> i accept that.

agree with the compromise, but i would hope that includes looking at the language. this is too broad. the president has been asking for this power -- i would hope what we could look at that language and i am confident the leadership will take a look at it. who committeds -- to working with the senator. i am committed to working with the senator. for now, this would help us to get to a responsible place. senator durbin, your amendment would be amended to say, at a

section 2aour under that would read, prevent the transfer to terrorist groups of any weapons of mass destruction. the amendment as amendment -- >> mr. chairman, this is very similar to my amendment. -- this is ano d,tion -- there would be a making the same point. it is under section 2b. same point.exact it repeats the authorization. i would also note. i've listened to the administration and they have been talking to holding the

assad regime accountable. that is the first goal. you may want to consider that. i think you need -- preventing the transfer into different places. satisfied not to offer my amendment. >> i am sorry, staff was in my ear. i am trying to make sure we get this language straight. could you tell me specifically what you want to add on? >> we are adding a paragraph -- we would use

b5e exact same language under -- d is what we would add. >> mr. chairman, i have no objection to that. >> it would be a restatement. has a military plan to achieve the specific goals of -- >> i will withdraw my amendment if that is the case. >> i think that is acceptable. any other member who wishes to speak question mark >> -- who wishes to speak? to make sure this authorization is narrow and specific. his concerns about a1 were well- founded and the amendment he has offered makes sense.

our ultimate goal is a negotiated resolution. >> i agree. mr. chairman, i think senator johnson would like to cosponsor the durbin amendment. >> we have the durbin amendment as amended by senator durbin to four and further amended by senator johnson as 5d. five stions made to give me a moment.

>> thank you, chairman. number offer amendment one, it is eight pages back in been given that has out to the members. i am proposing to amend section two to clarify that the president does not have a blank check to launch any type of attack. it would only authorize naval and air base strikes outside of syrian territory if the president determines it to be necessary. it will help to dress the concerns i have heard from the mexicans and the american people

that this narrow strike will lead to further involvement. a bombing campaign involving puts u.s.s personnel in harm's way and dramatically increases the risk that this conflict could escalate. this language reflects what the president has asked for. when we have resolutions that they get taken away too far. would offer the amendment and asked for a vote. micromanagement that is not only unnecessary, but we really cannot tell the president of the united states what tactics that he has to employ. we can place limitations on certain broad activities or

efforts on the part of the president, but we really do not have the expertise here to know exactly what kind of attack should be launched or not be launched. i understand the senator from new mexico's caution about this entire enterprise, but if we start down this road, we will be running the campaign from here. as smart as we are, i do not think we are that smart. sympathetic to the view expressed in this amendment by senator udall. --elieve that any amendment i believe it would be a mistake for the senate to tie the president hands by having a stick tape -- dictate the

specific military tactics he can and cannot use to complete the mission. the language already limits the geographic scope of the mission to syria, focuses the mission on addressing the use of chemical weapons. limits the time frame and rules out the use of ground forces for combat operations. i appreciate the senator's concern, but the chair would have to oppose the amendment. thus the senator seek a recorded vote? -- does the senator seek a recorded vote? x yes. >> the clerk will call the roll.

vote]call >> the amendment is not agreed to. are there any other amendments? if not, having all amendments

having been considered, [inaudible] absolutely. theng dispensed with all of amendments, let us proceed to a final vote on the use of force - - >> chairman? amendment. have an i would certainly entertain the senator's request. senator has hung in here with us despite the advent of the jewish holidays. if any other senator wishes to address it, i would urge them to.

>> thank you. issue is of concern. the inclusion of the broader issue of u.s. policy and national strategy on syria. this is a concern that i share. i would argue that section five of the resolution on serious strategy does not along in this resolution as it ranges well beyond the issue of deterring and degrading the chemical weapons attacks capacity and their ability to launch a future attack. in addition, since this requirement is directly linked to the presidential determination required under sections, it raises the question

whether the 30 day reports that comes a mechanism for dragging the u.s. further into the middle of this. civil war -- middle of the syrian civil war. it is not something the president talked about in terms of what we need. i just wanted to make that statement. >> i asked unanimous consent to allow committee staff to make technical changes to the text. any objection? so ordered. i moved to vote on passage of the resolution. is there a second? the clerk will call the roll. vote]ll call

>> the clerk will report. >> the resolution is agreed to. that is the vote from 4:00 this afternoon in the senate. the authorization of the use of chemical -- military force against syria. republicans voting in favor. for the next 15 minutes or so, we are going to open up the phone lines and hear from you on facebook and twitter your reaction from what you have seen today. here is how to join the conversation. for democrats, the number is -- for republicans, your number is

-- -- others we are also on facebook and twitter. a possible saturday action even though the senate is not to come back unti. move theort to resolution authorizing the use of force against syria, the senate may technically return on saturday. tom udall said such a move is possible in the event the majority leader harry reid faces a procedural obstacle. a senior aide confirmed a weekend scenario was under discussion. that was from cq. a quick look at twitter.

what do you think? >> i oppose the bombing because you cannot go into other people's airspace. if they did it to us, we would be declaring more. .- declaring war it is a middle east problem. let the middle east figure it out. what happened to the constitution and the declaration the national security. it does not matter what congress does anymore. authority, why are

we going through all of this? it is a rigmarole. x who is your representative? what istunately, it is, his name? he is out of chicago. worthless. >> any idea of how he will vote? >> he does not believe in anything. he is a weak scumbag. >> let's go to georgia. doris on the republican line. if we go over there, which we syria has never signed to take weapons of this nature out of their country. --t we should do

[inaudible] >> here is a comment on the nature of chemical warfare.

this is ivan. arthur says -- here is travis in los angeles on our others line. >> thank you for taking my call. a compelling case has been presented to congress. that any military action should be our last resort. what i find most troubling is the american people have not heard one example of diplomatic efforts taken prior to this consideration.

have we contacted the syrian government through diplomacy? why have the american people not heard about this? state secretary of yesterday today and restating his case that the resolution they are proposing is not a resolution for war. >> let me be very clear. when i walked into this room, a person is of -- a person of conscience stood up behind me and that person said please do not take us to war. i think the three of us sitting here understand that lee as well as any people in this country. let me be clear. we are not asking america to go to war.

i say that sitting next to two individuals who well know what war is. they know the difference between going to war and what the president is requesting now. we all agree there will be no american boots on the ground. the president has made crystal ofar we have no intention assuming responsibility for assad's civil war. that is not in the cards. the president is asking only for the power to make certain that the united states of america means what we say. he is asking for authorization, targeted and limited to deter capacity toassad's use chemical weapons. i will make it clear, for those who feel that more ought to be

, clearly, the degradation of his capacity to use those theons has an impact on weapons available to him. just today, before coming in here, i write an e-mail to me defensee minister of who has just defected and is now in turkey. there are other defections that we are hearing about because of the potential that we might take action. actionsll be downstream -- impacts, though that is not the principal purpose. but here is what is -- here is some of what is being said on facebook.

that is facebook.com/c-span. democrats line. i think bush is the one that discredited any accountability. that is another subject. >> richard, are you there? >> it sounded like you hung up on me. i think obama is doing the right thing. i watched both days.

people trying to make their political points. benghazi, really. they tried to turn it into fox news moment. people really have to historywatch the channel for a little bit. back in world war ii when they decided onur nation this. >> on the issue of benghazi, there are reports the house oversight committee will be holding additional hearings when they return on monday, september 9. helen is on our republican line in new york city. >> i am trying to understand. what aying to understand strike is going to do.

understand how it is going to make a difference. will not talk too long because i get nervous. ok, goodbye. >> roseann on our others line. who gave obama the authority to police another civilization that has been around for over 3000 years? know, we area, you not the rulers of other nations. dragging ourst him nation into war. he better get on his knees and .ray

>> some reaction from the white house on the senate vote. wouldasure approved uphold u.s. national security interest. it would degrade assad's chemical weapons capability and inter future use -- deter future use. sam says -- that is at c-spanchat.

>> i wanted to say that i am totally against us even going into syria. we have our own problems right here in the united states. people not having jobs. we have people starving here. instead of spending money for our military to go into syria, let's put some of that money back into the united states. i am originally from chicago. i was a big obama supporter. i am against what is going on with the whole syria situation. owns take care of our first. >> we appreciate your calls and more of them tomorrow morning on ashington journal. -- more of them tomorrow on "washington journal." hearing went about four hours or so. just a portion that will show

you some of the debate, some of the back-and-forth between members. >> we have covered some of this ground,. you are looking at various groups that are part of the opposition. to have oneoups motive and one objective and that is a free and inclusive --

>> do you trust these people? >> it has to be the business because you are making decisions to put american lives at risk. a simple concept. you either trust or do not trust. if you do not trust, we do not call these people are allies or support. >> every nation, every responsel, every group in their own self-interest. >> with all due respect, i think we are aware. we look at what happened in libya. we look at the muslim brotherhood. we look at al qaeda. we have to take this into consideration. we do not know who the good guys are.

>> our focus is not on good guys and bad guys. our focus is on a narrowly drafted resolution. >> i would not think the good guys would be using the gas. to another, itor believe you are beyond the ,easonable a doubt assertion but this will not stop the butchering and the killing that takes place over there. where is thendgame imminent danger to the united states? >> it will do what it is intended to do.

no one should use chemical weapons under any circumstances. >> we have seen this used in the past. the president made the statements when he was in the statements that we should not do husseinn though saddam gassed his own people what is the difference now today that you and the president are so intent in going into syria because assad has done this. >> the gassing was not the pretext for that operation. thought it -- saddam hussein was held accountable for all of his

other crimes. --e bottom line you are stating that. you are not supporting that in 2002. you are supporting not now. i do not see the difference. my issue is this. who is going to pay for this? what is it going to cost the united states packs pairs -- the united states taxpayers? >> we have looked at the different costs. depending on the decision the president makes, we have given some ranges of this. it would be in the tens of millions of dollars. >> i see my time is running out. -- americanf

military personnel will die. in a bodyoming home bag is not acceptable to me. i will not vote for this intervention. thank you. >> no boots would be on the ground. >> i have heard that before. looks thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr.- chairman. i want to thank all of you for sharing the information that you have thus far with congress and the american public as well as the world. clearly, anyone looking at this evenly,that has been -- making clear the case there were chemical weapons used and the government used to them. i want to congratulate you on

those efforts. we were going down the road i wanted to pursue. you raised concerns in the past about engaging the material he in the syrian conflict. are here today to support limited military action. there are military outcomes in supporting the opposition. that is not what we are doing here. i am concerned that regardless othersstated attempts -- will not sure that same view. , can you expand son what your concerns were we have a better understanding of what they are.

what your views might be on how we mitigate that or navigate around those concerns. i want to separate support for the opposition from acting in a limited focused way to degrade the assad regime from using chemical weapons. the support from the opposition does come with some risk of the slippery slope of not understanding when not support ends and how much it has to grow over time, which is why i am mostly supportive of helping the opposition by their training and equipment, not by becoming their military arm. view, the fact that the assad regime has increased its use of chemicals over time to the point where initially it was a weapon intended to terrorize a

small portion of a particular neighborhood, to send a message to the opposition, to in the most recent they reached a point where assad is using chemical weapons as just another military pool -- military tool in his arsenal. that runs a great risk for syria. it runs a great risk in the region. it runs a great risk for the glow. i am able to, with a lots integrity, i hope, be able to come to you today to make that distinction that we should do something in our national interest based on the use of chemical weapons without committing to supporting the opposition to overthrow the regime. >> is part of that slippery slope, was that partly a concern about how other countries or other factions could be taking our actions question mark even

in a limited sense, we are helping the opposition because we are attacking the assad government. in that respect, is that any concern that you had prior to that question mark how do you mitigate that now? >> we always considered not only whether -- the actions we would have on our partners and even the iraq use, for that matter. with what impact it would have on our potential adversaries. of coarse, that has always been a concern. a concern and a consideration. but when something reaches the level where it has a direct impact on our national security, then the overriding consideration is not what others think but what we think. >> thank you, general. ranking member in europe and eurasia. it was set in 1999 -- there was a precedent set in 1999 were

nato moved without approval. do you think this helped them moving not just individually. -- trying to get nato support as an organization? >> i apologize. i was just reading a note. could you repeat that question mark it was about nato, the 1999 precedent where they moved forward without that security council approval. is there any hope of doing that going forward? >> i doubt it, but i cannot tell you until i have the meeting this weekend and get a better sense of that. i will say to congressman marino, with respect to the body bags, i think we had a 28-day campaign, maybe air t-day campaign in kosovo. there were over 30,000 of our aircraft and so forth. none of which is contemplated here. and there were zero casualties. zero.

>> we should go to jeff duncan at -- of south carolina at this time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i cannot discuss the possibility of the u.s. involvement without talking about benghazi. the administration has a serious credibility issue with the american people. the benghazi attack was almost one year ago. when you factor in the targeting of the irs to conservative groups and nsa spying programs,

the bottom line is that there is a need for accountability and trust-building. to paraphrase, it was said that i am not upset over you not telling me the truth. i am upset because from now on i cannot believe you. the it ministration has a credibility issue. benghazi is germane to the discussions in syria, because as you stated, the world was and is watching for our response. after almost a year of not bringing anyone to justice in benghazi, they are watching our response. your predecessor asked, what watching for our response.

difference does it make now? this is the difference. these issues call into issue he accountability of this administration. the american people need to speak up. if this is about accountability. it sure it is. the american people deserve answers about benghazi before we move forward in syria's civil war. this is a victor. you cannot see it from there, but you might go to see on the screen. this is a picture given to me why his father, a navy seal. this family deserves answers. he was killed in benghazi. america deserves answers before we sent another man and woman into harms way, a specially in another country's civil war when there is no clear indication that there is an imminent threat to the united states. i do not question that chemical weapons were used in syria. i have looked at the classified briefings. i do ask where are the other signatory countries as the u.s. beats the drums of war against this regime and syria? difference does it make now? i have spoken to hundreds of constituents. this represents about 300 e- mails that my office has gotten and not a one member in my district are the e-mails of people who have contacted my office to say, go to syria and fight this regime.

they say, no. it did not go into syria. do not get involved in their civil war. i spoke to eighth graders. about 150 of them get it that we should not be drug into someone else's civil war where there are no good guys. i can only envision an escalation of this conflict. the same administration that was so quick to involve the u.s. in syria now was reluctant to use the same resources at its disposal to attempt a rescue to four brave americans that fought for their lives in benghazi. secretary kerry, you have never been one that has advocated for anything other than caution in past conflicts. the same is true for the president and vice president. is the power of the executive branch so intoxicating that you would abandon past caution in favor of pulling the trigger on a military response so quickly? the reason that i say benghazi is germane is this. secretary kerry, had there been any efforts on the part of the united states directly or indirectly to provide weapons to the syrian rebels, and that would also include facilitating the transfer of weapons from rebels to the syrian rebels. >> have there been efforts to?

>> to put weapons in the hands of syrian rebels and also transfer weapons from libya to syria. >> let me begin, congressman, by challenging your proposition that i have never done anything except advocate caution because i volunteered to fight for my country and that was not a conscious thing to do when i did it. i'm going to finish, congressman. i am going to finish. and i was in the united states senate, i supported military action on any number of occasions, including her innate in panama. i could run a list of them. i'm not going to sit here and be told by you that i don't have a set of -- a sense of what the judgment is. we are talking about people being killed by gas and you want

to go talk about benghazi and fast and furious. >> absolutely. americans lost their lives. i do think there should be a worldwide response, but we should act cautiously. >> we are acting cautiously. we are acting so cautiously that the president of the united states was accused of not acting because he wanted to have sufficient evidence and he wanted to build the case properly. >> it has been 15 days. >> point of privilege, here. this is important. i think this is important. it is important whether or not we are going into syria in a way that the congressman describes, which i think most people in america do not want us to do. would you not want to do that. that is why the president has said no boots on the ground. this is not about getting into syria's civil war. this is about enforcing the principle that people should not be allowed to gas their citizens with impunity.

if we do not vote to do this, a sod will interpret from you that interpretill from you that he is free to do this any day he wants to. that is what this is about. not getting involved in syria's civil war. let's draw the proper distinction here, congressman. we don't deserve to drag us into another benghazi discussion when the real issue here is whether or not the congress is going to stand up for international norms with respect to dictators that have only been broken twice until assad. hitler, and saddam hussein. if we give license to somebody to continue that, shame on us. >> we go to mr. davis of rhode island.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by thanking our three witnesses not only by being here today, but for extraordinary service to our country. i went to a knowledge the president for his consultation. i've had the opportunity to participate. i was on the telephone monday with secretary kerry, hegel, and ambassador rice. i think the president for his ongoing consultation and sharing of information. this is a difficult question. secretary hegel said there is no good answers with the use of chemical weapons. it is our ethic. i think the assad regime is responsible and should be held accountable. my question really is, as i talk to constituents in my district who reacted the same way with war weariness and a recognition of all of the enormous risks associated with the military intervention, both in propping up the wrong opposition and being deeply engaged in a civil war, they all wonder, is there a set of actions we could take which would evidence strong condemnation, isolate assad, and also vindicate our deep commitment to a set of international institutions.

things like making china and russia act on the security council on a public stage to veto a public resolution. seek an indictment of assad for war crimes. isolate syria through sanctions and other kinds of international actions where we might build a broad coalition, strongly condemned the use of chemical weapons, isolate syria, and build the international voice and do it in a way, frankly, that would be more consistent with our values. with the idea of working together and using international organizations. i would like to know, was there a discussion about a set of options that might be effective without the risks that are associated with military

actions? was it considered and rejected or is it something we could put together that would be a strong force and set of actions that would hurt assad, the turk the use of chemical weapons again, but without the dangers? second question, quickly, mr. secretary, you mentioned america and her allies have ample ways to make assad regret that decision without going to war. i would love more -- i would love to hear more about what those things are is i think many of our concerns are what happens after. i am interested in the discussion from all of you as to whether we might think hard about the ways to do this. >> congressman, a very good question. believe me, we wish that the international institution that is there for this response would respond. that is the u.n. and un security council. our representative attempted with other allies to put a resolution before the security council that would have simply condemned the event, not

assigning blame at all. the russians said no. they blocked it. that is what has set us into this path that has an effect of deterring assad from these weapons. even if you had some sanction, if it isn't meaningful in a way that is going to deter the action and no one has yet contrived of some piece of paper or terminology with respect to what he is fighting for. the judgment has been made that the only way to have an impact and hold him accountable is to make it clear to him that this will, in fact, detract from his ability to abuse his people. >> i think what the secretary said is exactly right. i would add two things. there are a number of tracks we

are on right now to accomplish what you're are talking about. secretary kerry's diplomatic track which has been ongoing and intense. reaching out to our allies all over the world. i was in asia last week with 15 defense ministers from all over asia discussing this. meeting with leaders. our nato allies. all three of us have been talking to our counterparts from countries all over the world. what did the white house is doing. what the president is doing. we are still involved with the united nations. those tracks are being run in addition to what we are talking about here. one exact point on the purpose of this hearing. general dempsey said this

morning at the senate armed services committee, when asked about the violation of the chemical weapons norm come a a 100 year old norm, -- norm, a 100 year old norm, one of the points that general dancey made which is exactly right and we start here, this is a threat to our interest, to our forces, to our country, allowing a tyrant to get away with the use of chemical weapons. that is the real threat. >> kissinger of illinois. i know you have had a couple of

long weeks. i'm about to support this, but i want to say at the beginning my disapproval of the president's policies in the middle east. i believe part of the reason we are having difficulty rallying a coalition is they do not see the united states is having lead on this until recently. that said, as a veteran of the military, as a current serving military pilot in the national guard, i also am war weary. but i want to remind americans what one of my favorite presidents ronald reagan said. he said, if we want to avoid work, or begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap. that is the situation we find ourselves in in. it has been amazing to me that we are seeming to paralyze

ourselves into inaction, running every potential scenario that he said, if we want to avoid work, or begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap. that is the situation we find ourselves in in. it has been amazing to me that we are seeming to paralyze could occur in this. it makes me wonder, god help us if we become a country that cannot do the right and because we paralyze ourselves into inaction. here's a picture i think everybody needs to see. this is a picture of syrian children, many of which the secretary said earlier, about 400 died in just this one chemical gas attack. if we don't do anything about this, you can ensure that maybe the kids in this picture are definitely other kids will die from the same attack. i want to quickly read you the effects of syrian -- sarin gas. the mild effects is running -- blurred vision, sweating, chest tightness, diarrhea, not sitting, increased urination, slow or fast hi rick, low or high blood pressure. exposure to large doses like we saw in ceric, loss of consciousness, emotions, paralysis, respiratory failure which is a polite way of saying you suffocate to death while you are aware you are suffocating to

death. what we are talking about is a discussion of what the international community and united states of america in the goodness of our heart has determined is the right thing we can affect. can we ban artillery shells? we cannot. can we ban all war? we can't. if we can stand up and say chemical weapons have no place in this world and do something about it, god help us if we do not. i will remind folks and ask you all to comment on this eventually. from 1991 to 2000 two or 2003, we maintained two no-fly zones because of our disdain for chemical weapons. most people would have agreed

that what we did was the right thing to do because saddam hussein gassed his own residence. this is not the first time america has put down a red line on chemical weapons. i have heard people say that this is the president red line, not a red light at united states of america. you just have to look at history to know that it is. i am also reminded of what president clinton said when he was asked what his one regret was. he said his one regret was inaction in rwanda. i wonder in 2010, 50 years, what are we going to say if we did nothing about the gases of people in syria. i have heard people say, in its has really bothered me -- they

say that if we go in and strike assad and make him pay for the use of chemical weapons more than any benefit he gains, that we are acting as, al qaeda's air force. i believe that is a cheap line by some people to garner headlines and not a serious discussion about what is going on. we are acting as, al qaeda's air secretary kerry, if you will start, what is your hot on the comment -- what is your thought

on the comment of the cheap line about qaeda and punishing an evil man with evil weapons? >> congressman, your comments have been very eloquent and i think very important to this discussion. i am confident i joined the general and the secretary hegel in thanking you for your service, willing to serve both in the guard as well as pilot, but also here. the intent of the president could not be more clear. the impact, if congress will pass this and we can carry out this action, the impact will be not to help al qaeda. in fact, it will not help al qaeda. it will further expose al qaeda. it will hold a dictator accountable to this critical standard. you just reiterated it and i think very important to this discussion. i am confident i joined the general and the secretary hegel in thanking you for your service, willing to serve both in the guard as well as pilot, but also here. the intent of the president could not be more clear. the impact, if congress will pass this and we can carry out this action, the impact will be not to help al qaeda. in fact, it will not help al qaeda. it will further expose al qaeda. it will hold a dictator accountable to this critical standard. said in my opening testimony, this is not just about folks in syria, my friends. american troops benefit from this standard being upheld. and through all of our wars since 1925, we have managed to see it upheld when we have been involved. the fact is, the absence of our willingness to uphold this standard will do several things that are directly against our interests. number one, completely undermine america's validity, credibility in the region and elsewhere. it will embolden north korea and iran with respect to activities that will directly threaten the united states and our allies. it will, importantly, increase the number of terrorists that we are already concerned about because it will force people who

want to take on assad to go to the least common denominator of the efficiency and expediency, and that will be to arm the worst people who will try to get the charm -- try to get the job in the region and elsewhere. done. alice's urge everybody to listen carefully to the congressman and evaluating's on a basis of common sense and human behavior. in the absence of doing this, there will be impunity to bashar al-assad for the use of these weapons. >> alan grayson from florida. >> do syria and hezbollah have the means to launch a counter attack to the u.s. embassies? >> our maritime assets are positioned such that there are

no capabilities that can threaten them. embassies, of course, are a fixed resource and always subject to terrorist attack. that remains true today as it has for the last 10 years. we have taken steps to mitigate that risk. >> and israel? >> israel, you may be aware, is actually anticipating some action. gone to a state of high alert. called reserves. taken a lot of measures. we partner with israel very closely on the defense of israel. >> would you say a counter attack is more likely than not? >> i do not think i could say that. without signaling the syrian regime in some way, i would not say that.

i would not come to that conclusion. >> secretary kerry, have members of the syrian opposition called for such an attack and if so, whom question mark -- whom? >> not specifically that i know of. they support it, apparently they have not advocated to me. i've had conversations and there was no urging to do this. >> haven't members of the syrian opposition said they do not want an attack? >> no, i have not heard that. >> you have not seen public reports to that effect? >> no. >> secretary kerry, there are 189 signers of the chemical weapons convention. serious not happen to be one of them. how many of those signatories

have pledged to participate in the military intervention in syria and what exactly is each one pledging to do? >> there are at least 10 countries that have pledged to participate. we have actually not sought more for participation. we have sought people for support. there are many more, obviously, that support. i think i should let the general speak to the question. i said earlier, there really is a limit for this kind of and opposition -- for this kind of an operation as to how many you want to participate. you want support, but just physically, the management, the technical capacity and other issues, are critical. you want to say something? >> i apologize. i was writing down your first question. what was your first question about partners? >> of the 189 signatories to the chemical weapons convention, how

many of them have pledged to participate in a military attack on syria and would have a pledged to do? >> i just have the final answer to that. -- i do not have the final answer to that. we have agreements in many different ways, some of which would not be appropriate to speak about in an unclassified setting. >> will the military action in syria, if it does take place, require supplement appropriation? and if you do not, would you commit to that now? >> it depends on the option that the president would select. i have said that we will work with the congress on whatever the cost of that is. >> thank you. >> secretary hegel, there has been a report in the media that the administration has mischaracterized post-attack a military communications and that these communications expressed surprise about the attack. this is a very serious charge.

can you please release the original transcripts to the american people can make their own judgment about that important issue? >> what transcripts are you referring to? >> the transcripts that room ported -- that reportedly took place after the attack and that the government suggested they confirmed the existence of an attack, but actually it was reported that syrian commanders expressed surprise about the attack taking place, not confirmed it. >> that is probably classified. i would have to go back and review exactly what you are referring to. >> you will agree it is important that the administration not mislead the public in any way, won't you? >> of course. i'm not aware of the administration misleading the american public on this or any other issue. >> would you agree the only way to put that to rest is to

release the reports in some redacted form? >> i will not agree to anything until i see what it is, but most likely it is classified. >> i am asking will you declassify it for this purpose. >> i just gave you my answer. i have no idea what exactly you are talking about. i would have to look at it and confer with others, our intelligence community, i would have to see it. >> thank you for your time. most importantly, your service and time in uniform. general dempsey as a young man. i have grown weary for several months. not weary of war, because i know as each of you know that war is sometimes the price that a free society must pay to defend our freedom and to protect our interests abroad. i have grown weary of the president's war weariness. i have grown weary for several months, not weary of war. i know, as each of you know, war is sometimes the price a free society must pay to defend our freedom and protect our interests abroad. i have grown weary of the president's war weariness. i have called for action in syria. action should have taken years ago. i am deeply worried our national security interest are at stake in syria. you said the president does not bluff. i fear our enemies and our allies do not believe that statement. for sometimes we have let iran violate numerous resolutions. in syria, we have not acted on usage of chemical weapons. i believe the world is watching.

the day the united states does not act is not just the day bashar al-assad knows it's open season but also the date kim jong on knows that and that the ayatollah spins his centrifuges into overdrive which starts the clock ticking when those nuclear warheads could hit our constituency in the united states. i agree with what my colleague as said, we have a vital interest in maintaining the international taboo against chemical weapons. all of you have been in training, where you have been exposed to gas and you know no one benefits from that more and then american troops. i am also worried our inaction is destabilizing the middle east. our allies in israel and jordan as well as turkey and emboldening iran, one of our most implacable enemies as they send thousands of troops to fight in syria, along with hezbollah from lebanon. that is why miracle of miracles, i am in support of the call for action in syria.

i am urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this action as well. however, the president's stated policy was not just a red line against chemical weapons, which occurred without any objection from members of congress and occurred before he was reelected by the american people. it was also a stated policy of regime change. i would like to ask you, what is the president planning that could lead not just to punishment but also in ultimate victory in syria, so they will not use chemical weapons again and so that a pro-western native syrian government can take its place? >> thank you for the very clear and compelling statement and

thank you for the support for the president's initiative for the interest of the country. with respect to the long-term, you are correct. i want to separate. in terms of what the president is asking the congress for. yes, his policy is assad must go and there should be a regime change. the president is committed to additional efforts in support of the opposition, together with friends and allies, in a coordinated way to achieve that with the understanding that the ultimate transition will come and can come through a

negotiated settlement, he does not believe, we do not believe there is a military solution. but this action, nobody should be confused, americans should not be confused. this is not an effort to take over the civil war. it is an effort to uphold the standard and the action the president is asking the congress to improve -- approve is a singular military action to uphold that standard with respect to chemical weapons. on a separate track is the political track which the president is seeking support through appropriate channels in congress, which is in effect to help the opposition in order to see assad leave. we don't want to confuse the two. is there a downstream,

collateral benefit to what will happen in terms of the enforcement of chemical weapons effort? the answer is yes. it will degrade his military capacity. it will have downstream impact. that is not the primary calculation of what brings us here. what i would like to do, congressman, in a classified session, we should have the discussion about the other things the president would like to see us do. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would like to say i have the greatest respect for all of you and. i think secretary kerry, i first heard of you back in 1985 when i was in the jesuits. he had great respect for you

because of your activities after vietnam and i know, secretary hagel, you are so reluctant to go to war you were not -- almost not approved by the senate. i know you're not anxiously running to war in the president ran on not getting us into war. i am someone reluctant to get into a war like this. on saturday i had the opportunity to speak to a small group of veterans in san diego before i flew here on sunday. they asked a question, i told them i would ask, they convinced me it was a good question. one of them has a son in the military today. he believes last time we went running off to work the facts that were given were lies and were misleading. what he wanted was one thing.

i told him all that i have read leads me to believe chemical weapons were used and that children were gassed and because of that we have to act. he wanted you to promise the fact you have given us our true to the best of your ability. you are not lying. you're not old anything back. what we have seen, and what i have read, i want to make sure you promise us you are telling the truth. >> congressman, i am proud and perfectly willing to tell you everything i have said is the truth and based on the information as it has been presented to me. and based on my own experience in war, which i resolved to do if i was in a position to make any choices, fully vetted. i am comfortable with it. i would not make this recommendation if i were not. i believe we have vetted this. we have asked the intel people.

we have even had a separate team created that had independence from the original team to totally vet, check all of the analysis. find out if it could have been the opposition. in every case i would say there is a comfort level with this that is rare in this kind of situation. i would not have said you could prove this case if i did not believe it. >> apologize for the insulting question. >> i think it is an important question.

we should ask more questions like that. i don't know how i would improve on my former senate colleague's question and answer back to you. i feel exactly the same way. i know the three of us would not be sitting here today saying the things we are saying if we did not leave it. -- believe it. he have been through too much. >> i have a lot of time left but that was my only question. thank you. >> we are going to go to mr. george holding of south carolina. >> north carolina, mr. chairman.

that's all right. we still like south carolina. general dempsey, thank you for your service. i appreciate the fact we have a chairman of the joints chief of staff that also has a masters degree in literature. irish literature at that. the objectives of this military action that have been stated, the great ability, and deter future actions. and the associated targeting of those objectives.

would this action constitute war? >> as you know, congressman, the decision on whether something rises to the level of war that is -- is made to in the congress of the united states. i think militarily it would be hard for me to say this is other than an act of war but the problem is that war has this image of being a campaign over an extended time until somebody plants a flag or surrenders. that is not what we're talking about. we are talking about something limited to address the specific specific issue of the use of chemical weapons.

>> if we take these actions, trying to achieve the objectives you stated, and the syrians punch back. specific issue of the use of that escalation. ability to punch back. i am sure you have planned for that contingency. .there is always the chance they can punch back and it can hurt. i think about the british in the falkland. they had overpowering strength and all of a sudden they found that there were some weaknesses. they lost a capital ship. that could happen to us. if they punch back and are successful, would that be closer to a definition of war? >> i am not sure their action to our reaction gets into a cycle. again, it is not the chairman of the joint chiefs that defines or declares war. if you are asking are we prepared for retaliation, we are as well as we possibly could be. >> certainly we are prepared for any retaliation. if there was retaliation, we would have to answer i am sure we can degrade their immediately. >> i would not make that conclusion. i think there is no automaticity

to anything in conflict. i think we would certainly have the ability to control our response on our terms. i would not conclude this resolution starts than process that you lose control of. >> is russia still a superpower? >> i think the answer to that question, when you look at the instruments of power, look at ourselves. it's a combination of economic power that defines us as a superpower. i think russia possesses elements that would qualify them to join the club of superpower, they still have an arsenal. but conventionally, i would not put him into that class. i think there are parts of that apparatus that rise to that level. >> obviously, we know that syria and russia are allies. syria has the only russian military base outside of russia. if russia decided to strike at us, in that theater, what are the top three options they would have to strike us in retaliation

for us shrugging their closest ally? -- striking their closest ally? >> it would not be helpful in this setting to have a discussion about that kind of hypothetical. i have some views i could share in a classified environment. >> we can say russia would have options to strike us. in retaliation for us striking. >> the have capabilities from asymmetric all the way through strategic nuclear weapons. it would not be helpful to speculate about that.

>> brad snyder of illinois. >> thank you, first to the service to our country in the time you have spent with us today as well as the time he spent earlier in the year. this is the biggest decision, one of the biggest decisions we could possibly make and when we take very seriously. it is why i came for a classified briefing. i have read the report. i listened in on the teleconference on monday and i'm grateful to have time with you here. i also recognized the angst of my constituents. there is a worry and a legitimate concern. secretary kerry, you said if we do nothing the likelihood of assad using chemical weapons again is approaching 100%. is that fair? i want to turn to general dempsey. you said you can't get -- the risk of escalation down to zero. i wonder if there is a risk if we do nothing. >> there is absolutely a risk of

escalation in the use of chemical weapons if we do nothing. >> if that approaches 100%, is there a likelihood we are back at the same question again a month or six months from now at a high level with a greater risk? >> i believe so. i think so. >> as i evaluate the decision we have to make, the first thing i want to do is beyond any reasonable doubt, the assad regime has land, perpetrated, and even covered up this use of chemical weapons. one of my questions, general dempsey you have said without a doubt, this is a threat to our national interest. is that fair as we go through

the decision process? >> it is because of establishing, it is an overused phrase, but a new norm. i have not lived in a world where emma: weapons were routinely used. i don't want to live in that world. >> from an international standpoint, if we have the interest, the authority, i reviewed the chemical weapons convention. the united nations is the authority. six kerry carey, you said they are not available to us. if it was, would we be on a different strategy? >> if the russians were to join in and be willing to pass this with the chinese, i guarantee

you the president would want to see it passed. could i also, congressman holding left a question on the table and i want to make sure it is not hanging out there. the foreign minister of russia has made it clear "russia does not intend to fight a war over syria." i have had personal conversations with president putin and the foreign minister that have indicated syria does not rise to that level of conflict. their ships are staying out of the way. they are not threatening that. i do not think that would happen here. >> thank you. if the u.n. is not available, the international community is rising up and i want to thank you for bringing in the coalition. if we don't to lead, there anyone else who will? to hold to the regime accountable? >> it is conceivable that french might decide. we are not putting that to the

test because we don't believe that is appropriate. >> as we look forward, the other options on the table, you have a value weighted, you have seen where we are, this is one of the biggest decisions we are going to make. can you state the strategy laid out your considering will achieve the goals we have to deter and diminish the ability of the assad regime to use chemical weapons? >> militarily i can state we can achieve the goal of deterring and degrading. i did not say we can prevent. that is the challenge. we are trying to change the calculus of the regime. >> i understand. for us to prevent would require isolating and putting boots on

the ground, which uniformly we stand against. i yield back. >> mr. rainey weber of texas. >> general dempsey, these are for you. and your remarks, there were five options, training, assisting, conducting limited standoff strikes, establishing a no-fly zone and controlling chemical weapons. i have been through that. i have studied it. $500 million annually. risks that extremists would gain access to additional capabilities. you remember that? perfect. you also said risk for retaliatory attacks and insider attacks. turning their guns on us and killing our troops. you said conduct a limited standoff strikes. your cost was in the billions, depending on the duration. you also said "the regime could withstand limited strikes by dispersing its assets." as if we gave them a two-week notic.

-- notice. it would impact civilians and foreigners. you stand established a no-fly zone. your estimate cost 500 million dollars initially and averaged as much as a billion dollars a month. you said there was a risk of using a u.s. aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces. boots on the ground. he also said it may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum because the regime relies on surface fired mortars, artillery, and missiles. it is not a very good option. you said establish buffer zones. you estimated one billion dollars a month. you said control chemical weapons. american men and women, $1 billion a month. i understand that is not advocated. i have a simple question, everything i read from your summary indicated there is no

guarantee of a lasting peace in syria or in the region nor that they are american friendly, after we have a gargantuan outlay of american money, resources, and maybe american blood and lives if they retaliate. no guarantee. is that a fair statement? >> i would remind you the answer to the letter i sent was related to the question i received, what would it take to tip the balance in favor of the opposition and delete to -- lead to the overthrow of the regime. i want to make sure that is separate from today. >> i got that. whiz on a fair statement, no guarantee on the other and? -- end? peace in syria, and whoever comes out on the other side will be our friends. no guarantee.

>> that is not the stated objective. >> that was not my question. would you guarantee after trying to establish the objective you are seeking to establish we do not have a guaranteed of a stable syria and whoever comes out would be our friend. >> i would not guarantee anything. this is unpredictable. it is complicated. it is dangerous. what we are thinking through, diplomatically, international coalition, all of the factors we talked about today -- >> i am running out of time. >> that is a diplomatic settlement. >> secretary kerry, your response. >> i can't give you a guarantee about the outcome that i can give you guarantee the united states of america can make it clear to a side it is going

going to cost them to use chemical weapons and we can have an impact on deterring his capacity. that guarantee is what i can give you. that is the president is seeking seeking to do. >> at what price. >> not of the price you described. absolutely not. >> if american credibility is at stake, if anybody were to attack us, this congress would respond with the full force and fury of the military. >> congressman, not everything comes down in terms of threat or potential threats to our country to somebody attacking us. a lot of things we do in preparation, we also do it in the context on occasion, as we did in bosnia, to have a settlement. to save lives. that is what we have achieved. we have achieved that previously and i believe it is vital to the united states to assert this principle and to begin to move this troubled part of the world in a different direction. that is what we are working on. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

obviously this has been a long day. it is of critical importance we are having this discussion. i applaud the president for including congress in this debate. i agree we have to show resolve and we have to show we are committed to our allies. we still need to be convinced. not that atrocities have occurred. we are unanimous in our condemnation of what assad has done.

we need to know exactly what our goals are and our object to its. this is increasingly a complex situation. secretary hegel, when i was home in sacramento county, people were stopping me in the grocery

stores. my neighbors were pulling me aside on the street. all of my colleagues have been inundated with phone calls, e- mails, and almost unanimously people don't want us to strike syria. they are fatigued. these are the people i represent. my question is, what can i tell them about why these strikes are in our national security interest? why it matters to these people who are struggling every day? how do i communicate what our

plan is? >> i understand your question clearly. i understand the responsibility you have to give those you represent a clear answer. that is partly why the president wanted to bring this before the congress of the american people would have an opportunity to hear all of the questions. my answer to you is, for you to give to your constituents, it is clearly in the interest of our country because, as we have noted today, the use of chemical weapons, if it becomes a standard, if it becomes an art of war, a method of war, that it is accepted by the world, which it has not been, it jeopardizes our country, homeland, troops, people all over the world. you look at the nations that have stockpiles, one nation we are talking about, has used those. north korea has them. what about a ran?

this is in the interest of the united states -- about iran? this is in the interest of the united states. >> listening to those concerns and why it is in the national security interest, again listening to my constituents, they understand the importance of maintaining our credibility and our standing as a nation. it seems so far away for them. these issues seem very far away. as we discussed, we are sending a message to assad but we are not securing these chemical stockpiles. i think general dempsey, you, in your testimony indicated how difficult it would be to secure chemical stockpiles to make sure they do not fall into the hands of terrorists. if that is not our stated goal, to make sure he we are securing our homeland, we are making sure our neighborhoods are safe, it's a very difficult goal to articulate to my constituents. >> let me remind you of

something that has been noted earlier. next week we are going to celebrate, not celebrate, we are going to remember what happened in this country on that september day in 2001. we all recall where we were. how many of my constituents during those days in nebraska ever thought about or knew where

afghanistan was? or had ever even heard of this organization called al qaeda? there is a clear, living example of how we are not insulated from the rest of the world. how things can happen to the united states in this country if we are not diligent and think through these things and stay ahead of these things and take action to prevent them from occurring. maybe something would not happen in this country for a couple of years. i don't know. the next residents, the next chairman, the next group of members may have to deal with this in a bigger way if we are not paying attention now. 9/11 anniversary, a very clear example you could use with your constituents. >> scott perry, pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to start with some corrections for the record since it has been a topic of discussion. i have the quote from the president.

>> a headline in the washington times. politico, quoting nancy pelosi, maybe weeks of debate on syria. the headline in the national journal, syria strike opponents seek the foreign coalition of the unwilling. if you want more information about the house hearings on syria, you can go to c-span.org. there, also read white house documents on the scope of the chemical weapons attack. up next, we show you the senate foreign relations committee today where members approved a serial resolution with a vote of 10-7. some lawmakers on the house side of the capital her