the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 130. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 17 -- 137, senate 130, a bill to require the secretary of the interior to convey certain federal land to the powell recreation district in the state of wyoming. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from the northern mariana islands, mr. sablan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, s. 130 directs the secretary of the interior to convey to the powell recreation district approximately 322 acres of land located in park county, wyoming. the powell recreation district will continue to use the land for public recreational shooting complex as it has since 1980. the bill would have no cost to the taxpayers since the powell recreation district is required to pay for any administrative costs associated with the conveyance. this is a noncontroversial bill, mr. speaker, and i urge its adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from the northern mariana islands is recognized. mr. sablan: i yield myself as

much time as i may consume. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the powell shooting range land conveyance act would transfer 322 acres of bureau of land management lands to the powell, wyoming, recreational district. currently it manages a shooting range on this land. we have no objections to this legislation and if the gentleman has no further speakers, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i have no more requests for time and i'm prepared to yield back if the gentleman will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded back. mr. hastings: he has yielded back? i yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back. the question is wills hoult -- will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 130. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection -- the gentleman from

washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this otion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask -- i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 157. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 139, senate 157, a bill to provide for certain improvements to the denali national park and preserve in the state of alaska and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from the northern mariana islands, mr. sablan, each will control 20 minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, s. 157 would authorize the secretary of interior to issue permits for a natural gas pipeline in a microhydroelectric project within the boundary of the enali national park in alaska. additionally s. 157 authorizes a land exchange between denali national park and a company to facilitate the water project and renames a nearby ranger station in honor of walter harper. 100 years ago, harper became the first man to reach the summit of mount mckinley. congressman donaldson young, our colleague from alaska --

don young, our colleague companion bill, but to allow this bill to become public law more quickly, i urge adoption of this senate bill. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from the northern mariana islands is recognized. mr. sablan: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. thank you, mr. speaker. the denali national park improvement act allows the secretary of the interior to issue permits for specified small hydroelectric park arc facilities within the park -- park facilities within the park boundaries. this allows the park service to exchange approximately 18 acres of park land and finally the bill provides for right of way for a natural gas pipeline and other natural gas distribution infrastructure. we have no objections to this legislation and, mr. speaker, i have no further speakers and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the

bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 157. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 304. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 138, senate 304, a bill to direct the secretary of the interior to convey to the state of mississippi two parcels of surplus land within the boundary of the natchez trace parkway and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from the northern mariana islands, mr. sablan, each will control 0 minutes. the chair recognizes -- 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, s. 304 directs the secretary of the interior to convey 67 acres of natchez -- in natchez, mississippi, to the state of mississippi, and to adjust the boundary of the natchez trace parkway. this property was originally donated to the national park service by the state to construct a parkway. but was ultimately unneeded. rather than lease the property back to mississippi, this would transfer the title back to the original owner. this is a commonsense measure and i urge its adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from the northern mariana islands is recognized. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sablan: thank you, mr.

speaker, the natchez trace parkway land conveyance act of 2013 conveys 67 acres of national park service property to the state of mississippi. we have no objections to this legislation, i have no further speakers and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i urge adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 304. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. hastings: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this otion will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 256. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 256, an act to amend public law 93-435 with respect to the northern mariana islands, providing parity with guam, the virgin islands and american samoa. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from the northern mariana islands, mr. sablan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to add -- include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: i yield my -- i yield myself as much time as i may consume. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, s. 256 would amend the 1974 law to convey certain submerged lands in the

commonwealth of the northern mariana islands. under this bill the territory will have the administrative authority over lands covered by tidal waters out to three astronaut qual miles, give -- nautical miles, giving it parity with guam, the virgin islands and american samoa. comparable control of the seabed has been also granted to coastal states under the submerged lands act. on may 15, the house passed similar legislation by voice vote. s. 256 also contains an amendment to delay the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands, an annual minimum wage increase of 50 cents. under the new formula in this bill, a 50-cent minimum wage bump would still occur in 2014 with annual increases starting in 2016 until the federal minimum wage is reached. the territory has asks for a deferral on this because its economy cannot currently

sustain the minimum wage increases that are current law at this time. i want to thank chairman kline of the committee on education and work force and his able staff for their assistant in -- assistance in scheduling this bill for consideration today as the minimum wage matter is under that committee's jurisdiction. mr. speaker, i urge adoption of the measure and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from the northern mariana islands is recognized. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i rise in support of senate 256. the bill conveys to the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands three miles of voundsing submerged lands, providing -- surrounding submerged lands, providing parity with the other coastal states and territories. s. 256 also provides for a hiatus in 2013 and 2015 of the annual 50-cent increase in minimum wage in the northern marianas. while retaining the mandate to reach the federal level. i want to thank the chairman of the senate energy and natural

resources committee, and ranking member for introducing s. 256 at my request. its companion, h.r. 573, passed the house unanimously in may of this year, as did predecessor bills in the 111th and 112th congress. thanks also to leaders and staff from both sides of the aisle, chairman hastings of the house natural resources committee, and ranking member peter defazio, chairman john fleming of the fisheries, wildlife, oceans subcommittee, and the chairman of the education and work force committee, john kline and ranking member george miller. their assistant reflects a long standing tradition of treating territory issues as essentially nonpartisan. to summarize briefly, the northern mariana islands is the only coastal jurisdiction that does not have ownership of the submerged land off its coast. this corrects that irregularity and provides the same ownership rights over the submerged lands

surrounding the northern marianas as are provided by federal law to guam, the u.s. virgin islands and american so me a -- samoa. additionally it reschedules the rate of increase of the minimum wage in the northern mariana islands. but it retains the mandate to reach the federal minimum wage evel which will occur in 2018. 82 -- the wage has risen 82% since 2007. 16.5% each year. the government accountability office has reported uncertainty over how this rapid change effects the local economy, especially given the negative g.d.p. in most of this year's. congress previously provided for the scheduled 2011 increase to be skilled -- skipped. in light of continuing unpredictability of the impact of increases on an economy where as much as 80% of the hourly paid work force will be affected, similar deferrals of the 2013 and 2015 increases are

visible. i ask for members to -- are advisable. i ask for members to support this. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. harper: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of s. 256 and would like to speak also in support of the bill just considered, s. 304, a bill sponsored by senior senator of mississippi. this legislation authorized the transfer of approximately 67 acres of unused federal land originally envisioned to be part of the natchez trace parkway to the state of mississippi. the city of natchez plans to use 37 acres for recreational purposes that will improve the quality of life for the city's residents. thout this legislation, this area will continue to sit idle.

i want to thank chairman hastings for bringing this to the house floor. i'd also like to thank our senior senator for his tireless leadership for the state of mississippi. there are numerous individuals behind the scenes that have worked tirelessly for the city of natchez to gain access to and the right to utilize this land over the years. s. 304 will show that their hard work will finally have paid off. i urge my colleagues to continue to support this and with that i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from northern marianas islands is recognized. mr. sablan: i'd like to yield to my friend from american samoa as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from american samoa is recognized. mr. faleomavaega: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to extend and revise my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. faleomavaega: i would like to commend the chairman of our natural resources committee, dr. hastings, and for his leadership and for his support of this

piece of legislation. and especially also my good friend, the gentleman representing the northern marianas islands. mr. speaker, iize rise today in support of senate bill 25 , a bill to amend public law 9 -435 with respect to the northern mariana islands, providing parity with guam, the virgin islands, and american samoa. i want to thank chairman widen and murkowski of the committee on energy and natural resources for their work on this bipartisan piece of legislation. i also want to thank the senate for finally taking action on his issue in passing two -- s. 256 under unanimous consent last month. as i said earlier i would be remiss if i did not commend my good friend, congressman sablan, for his tireless efforts on this issue and all other matters affecting the northern mariana islands since he took office in 2009. mr. speaker, this piece of legislation will appropriately

convey the three miles of offshore submerged lands to the northern mariana islands. as you may know, submerged lands qualify as lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waves up to but not above the line of high tide. territories of american samoa, guam, and the virgin islands were granted ownership over our own respective submerged lands when the congress passed the territorial submerged lands act in 1974. this was before c.m.i. became a territory of the united states. senate bill 256 is in response to an unfortunate decision by the ninth circuit court of appeals in 2005 that ruled the submerged lands off the coast of c.m.i. did not belong to the commonwealth but belonged to the federal government. the language guarantees the federal government maintains the same rights over navigation, international affairs, and

commerce. furthermore, it does not circumvent any action that is may have been taken or regulations put forward by u.s. labeled authorities regarding these submerged lands. this issue is not new to us. the house has passed similar legislation since the 111th congress. the citizens and officials of c.m.i. instead of officials residing thousands of miles away should be implementing laws that apply to their population. we should move forward to allow them to utilize these resource that is are rightfully theirs and allow them to engage and promote economic activities in these areas. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i advise my friend i have no more requests for time and i am prepared to yield back if the gentleman is prepared to yield back. mr. sablan: i have no further speakers but i'd like to thank chairman doc hastings for a

wonderful way of managing bills. this is probably the fastest pace and we should do this more off. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for his compliment and urge adoption of the bill and yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass 123459256. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules -- mr. hastings: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen,ed yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this otion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 459. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of

the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 140, senate 459, an act to modify the boundary of the minuteman missile national historic site in the state of south dakota, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from northern mariana islands, mr. sablan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, s. 45 would authorize an agency to agency conveyance of federal lands to allow for the expansion of the minuteman national historical site in south dakota. the u.s. air force administered over 1,000 minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles in sigh lows -- silos

through the states. they played a critical role until deactivated following the end of the cold war. the minuteman national historic site was established by congress in 1999 to recognize the importance of the minuteman icbm program. s. 459 would convey just under 30 acres of the buffalo gap national grass land to allow for the establishment of a visitor facility, administrative site, and parking lot. this is good legislation, mr. speaker, and i urge its adoption. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from northern mariana islands is recognized. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, s. 459 transfers administrative jurisdiction forest service lands in south dakota to the national park service. these lands will be used by the park service to provide a visitor facility and administrative site for the minuteman missile national

historic site in phillip, south dakota. we support s. 459 and urge its passage by the house today. mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. in record time i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i, too, have more speakers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass s. 459. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, -- the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20. further proceedings on this otion will be postponed. pursuant toe clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes.

later this week, lawmakers expected to take up legislation related to military action in syria. now, though, the house taking a break to attend the congressional gold medal ceremony honoring the 1963 birmingham school bombing victims. eightill be back in about later and a little bit

they will recess for -- and attend that 1963 birmingham school bombings victims gold medal ceremony. we'll have live coverage of the house when members return here on c-span. president obama by the way stating his case tonight for u.s. air strikes against syrian president assad's regime for using chemical weapons last month, killing more than 1,400 civilians. we'll have live coverage at 9:00 eastern tonight. the associated press reporting that the president is agreeing to-on-discussion on russia's proposal for syria's chemical weapons. the president on capitol hill this afternoon talking over the situation with members of the senate. by the way, secretary of state john kerry also on capitol hill this morning discussing the situation in syria and the proposal to have that country hand over its chemical weapons to an international entity for dismantling. here's a part of what he had to say on that issue today. >> yesterday we challenged the regime to turn them over to the secure control of the international community so that they could be destroyed. and that of course would be the

ultimate way to degrade and deter assad's arsenal and is the ideal weapon, ideal way to take this weapon away from them. assad's chief benefactor, the russians, have responded by saying that they would come up with a proposal to do exactly that and we have made it clear to them, i have and several conversations with foreign minister, that this cannot be a process of delay. this cannot be a process of avoidance. there has to be real, has to be measurable, tangible and it is exceedingly difficult, i want everybody here to know, to fulfill those conditions. but we're waiting for that proposal. but we're not waiting for long. president obama will take a hard look at it. but it has to be swift. it has to be real. it has to be verifiable. it cannot be a delaying tactic and if the united nations security council seeks to be the vehicle to make it happen, that

cannot be allowed to simply become a debating society. many countries and many of you in the congress, from those who wanted military action to those who were skeptical of military action, want to see if this idea could become a reality. but make no mistake, make no mistake about why this idea has any potential legs at all. and why it is that the russians have reached out to the syrians and why the syrians have initially suggested they might be interested. a lot of people say that nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging. well, it's the credible threat of force that has been on the table for these last weeks that has for the first time brought this regime to even acknowledge that they have a chemical weapons arsenal. and it is the threat of this

force and our determination to hold assad accountable that has motivated others to even talk about a real and credible international action that might have an impact. so how do you maintain that pressure? we have to continue to show syria, russia and the world that we are not going to fall for stalling tactics. if the challenge we laid down is going to have the potential to become a real proposal, it is only because of the threat of force that we are discussing today. and that threat is more compelling if congress stands with the commander in chief. >> the secretary of state kerry earlier today. you can see his remarks in their entirety at c-span.org. looking now at the unofficial vote count on the syria resolution at its -- it's written. 26 senators are for it or leaning toward voting for it. 26 senators are against or leaning no and 48 senators are

undecided. in the house, 32 members have stated their support for u.s. military strikes on syria or are leaning toward it. 184 members are against it or leaning that way and 125 members are undecided. again, the house will not be taking up the issue today. it is possible later this week, though. today when members gavel back in we expect votes on bills debated today and that should be in 15 minutes or so. live coverage from the house when members return here on c-span. right now, though, a discussion on c.i.a. information gathering from this morning's "washington journal." host: our guest is a former deputy director for the c.i.a.'s national clandestine service. he served that position from 2005 to 2007. and we're here to talk about the topic of intelligence gathering. welcome. guest: pleasure to be here. host: could you give our viewers a sense of how the c.i.a. gathers intelligence?

guest: the c.i.a. serves as the country's national collection lead. of course as you know, there are other intelligence collection efforts. signals intelligence, geospatial intelligence, a number of others. but c.i.a. focuses primarily as the lead for the united states on human intelligence. which means sources, spies, that go out and collect information for the u.s. government and that information then is brought back to c.i.a. headquarters through stations overseas and then it is scrubbed, rescrubbed, put into analytical pieces and then provided to policymakers. host: so we've heard the term scrubbed from secretary kerry, particularly when it came to the intelligence about iraq. what does it mean? guest: in the intelligence community it's referred to as validation of the information. and there are basically three levels and we get that from the analytical side of the house, which uses low coffs, medium

confidence and high confidence. white house, i have not seen classified intelligence, but what i've seen from the white house reporting, it's listed as high confidence which means the information is considered to be particularly strong, vetted and then validated. now, normally when you have to validate information from a source, be it predominantly a human source, but it aploos to others as well, you always try and get collaborating information from preferably an additional source or sources. so, it's very rare that you would take a single piece of intelligence that's been collected and simply categorize that as irrefutable proof. so you like to get as many sources as possible on a specific topic or issue. and if those pieces of information corroborate each other, that give cans you a much higher level of confidence in terms of the value of that

intelligence. host: intelligence when it's being corroborated, is it just from internal sources within the united states or is it cooperated wider than that? host: the -- guest: the sources can be anywhere. the c.i.a. as you know operates all over the world. and it's not just c.i.a. sources. we also, particularly in this instance, collaborate with other intelligence agencies. we have close relationships with other organizations. in this case specifically the british intelligence service. and their information, and again, not having seen it, the classified versions of it, does corroborate the information that the c.i.a. has been collecting. host: when you talk about the gathering of intelligence, that's done by spies, we think cloak and dagger movie-type things. how much of that is real compared to what's done on the day to day effort of gatherings intelligence? guest: it's not as glamorous as it's made to be in the movies. it is risky and the officers, of not just the c.i.a.'s service,

the defense intelligence agency has it as well, the military services in general, each branch of the service has their officers that conduct such activity. and it involves a rather lengthy process in terms of acquiring information. first you have to validate the source, in other words, determine what that individual's motivations are. they all have their own agendas. and motivations vary according to individuals. and then at the end of that process, the information that they collect is dependent upon a number of factors. one, of course, is the access. do they have access to the information that we find of value and that fills intelligence gaps. and, two, are they trustworthy, and there are exercises that the intelligence services go through to help determine these levels of accuracy, accessibility, reliability. host: and that's the trustworthyness of the information or the source? guest: both. and it is not a one-time process. sources that are acquired by any

intelligence service, be it the united states or others, go through a series of validation exercises in essence, so you are always testing your source to ensure that, a, they're reporting accurately what they've heard, and you have to decertain whether or not they have an agenda of their own -- discern whether or not they have an agenda of their own and sometimes that's the case. you have to be able to discern that. it's not as easy or quick as it may be portrayed in the movies. host: our guest with us to talk about c.i.a. intelligence gathering, how it works, how it's used. you can ask him questions on one of three lines this morning. for democrats it's 202-585-3880, 3881. ublicans, 202-585, for independents, 202-585-3882 and if you want to send us a wj. t you can do so @cspan who gets access to the most sensitive type of information

the c.i.a. has? guest: it's usually limited to a select group, obviously. the information that's collected from the clandestine service, human reporting predominantly, although there are technical collection efforts as well, those are put into intelligence reports which are then reviewed and compiled into an analytical report, finished intelligence as we refer to, it by the director of intelligence. they do the analytical work at the agency. those reports then are put into various different formats, the highest one being the president's daily brief. and that goes to a very small and select group of individuals, the president's cabinet in essence. and that is delivered every morning. it is a relatively thin document that has sort of encapsulated the most important sthoose have come up over the last 24 hours. so he gets it every day. in addition to that, there are more finished pieces and the highest one in the u.s. government is a national intelligence estimate. those take a bit more time to compile. it involves the entire

intelligence community. it was previously done under auspices of the c.i.a. but when the d.n.i. was created, the director of national intelligence, that then fell to them. so, they determined who gets access to it. now certainly the intelligence oversight committees in the house and the senate will see all of that. and then they can get, as the congress mentioned in the last segment, that classified information is provided to not just the oversight committee bus to select members of congress who have a need to know and that's done in very controlled circumstances. host: so the one that is delivered to the president, has cabinet, is it hand delivered? guest: hand delivered. i think president obama is more atuned in some of the more technical transmission methods but generally it is a printed document that is hand carried by intelligence community briefers who then sit with the individual, be it the president or other members of his cabinet, and will respond to questions

the president will read it, review it and if there are questions, the intelligence community usually responds within a 24-hour or less time frame. host: once you read it, what's the purpose of gathering this information? what does everybody need to know from it? guest: in essence the president's daily brief, if that's the one we're talking about, that just covers events that have occurred over the past 24 hours. and of course the president or members of his senior staff and cabinet can request follow-up on any of these issues. if it's a more detailed and lengthy finished intelligence piece, an analytical report, then that is basically focused on intelligence gaps. and current issues. so, for instance, if you take syria as an issue. there will be arrange of questions that will come out of the policymakers in terms of what they need to know and of course how soon do they need to know it. that's called taskers and that goes out to the intelligence community, not just c.i.a., but

again when you're looking at human, it will focus there. if it signals intelligence and some of the assessment that was done on the syria's situation was through signals intelligence, other information was acquired through g.o. -- geospatial intelligence. geospatial intelligence, satellites, imagery, signals intelligence is communications, the ability to intercept those ommunications, decrypt it if necessary, and reading the white house statement on the intelligence they have. it focuses on, one, that they had intercepted communications between military leadership and the individuals who actually fired the rockets. they had geospatial or satellite imagery that was able to determine where those roberts originated and then you had human source reporting, and again they could not go into detail for understandable reasons, that said that they had sources in essence on the ground. and you also had open source

information which is a major factor now in intelligence throughout the world. not just in the united states. so you are competing with social media to acquire this information. host: our first call. from west virginia. this is joe. democrats line. you're on the line. go ahead. caller: yes, sir. my question is, in your professional -- yes, my name -- the question that i have is -- host: turn down the radio or go ahead with your statement or comment, please. >> we've leave this discussion to go live to the floor of the u.s. house where members are returning to vote on bills debated early area today. h.r. 2747 by the yeas and nays. s. 130 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from texas, mr.

neugebauer, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1155 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1155, a bill to reform the national association of registered agents and brokers, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas and nays are 396 and the nays are 6. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2747 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2747, a bill to amend title 40, united states code, to transfer certain functions from the government accountability office to the department of labor relating to the processing of claims for the payment of workers who were not paid appropriate wages provisions of such title. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 39 . the nays are 10. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

would all members please take their seats. ill the house come to order. would all members please take their seats. cease conversations. the house will come to order. the chair would ask that all present to rise for the purpose f a moment of silence. the chair asks now that the house now observe a mement of silence in remembrance of our brave men and women in uniform who have given their lives in the service of our nation in

iraq and afghanistan and their families and all who serve in our armed forces and their families. thank you. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, to suspend the rules and pass s. 130 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 137, senate 130, a bill to require the secretary of the interior to convey certain federal lands to the powell recreation district in the state

of wyoming. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 408. the nays are one. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of he chair.

>> the house has recessed so members can attend a congressional gold medal ceremony honoring the 1963 birmingham bombing victims. the leaders of both the house and senate will speak at that ceremony. when members return, more votes on bills debated today. we'll have live coverage of those votes here on c-span. the u.n. security council has scheduled closed consultations this afternoon on a resolution aimed at procuring and destroying syria's chemical stockpiles. russia asked for that meeting. the syrian government has accepted a proposal from russia to give up its chemical weapons stockpile. france has announced that it plans to introduce a security council resolution to ensure international verification of the disarmament. president obama still wants congress to authorize a military strike against syria. white house officials saying the russia proposals simply can't be used as a stalling tactic and it has to be verifiable. the president, meeting with senators from both parties

today, he'll be addressing the american people tonight and we'll have live coverage of that speak starting at 9:00 eastern followed by your reaction, your phone calls, emails and tweets. looking at the unofficial vote count on the syria resolution. 26 senators are for it or leaning toward it. >> now over in the house -- >> again, the house will not be taking up that issue today. when members return, we expect votes on bills debated earlier today. we'll have live coverage when they come back here on c-span. earlier today, members of the house armed services committee heard testimony from secretary of state john kerry, defense secretary chuck hagel and the

general of the joint chiefs, general dempsey, on a possible military strike against syria. today's hearing began with opening statements from committee members. >> this committee will come to order. before we begin the business of the committee, i want to make clear that members of the audience must maintain order and refrain from manifestations of approval or disapproval of the committee proceedings or interfere with the conduct of the committee's business. any comments or disruptions during the hearing from the public will not be tolerated

and if necessary will result in removal from the committee room. i want to state this at the outset so everybody knows the rules. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. the house armed services committee meets to receive testimony on the president's proposed authorization to the use of military force in syria. our witnesses include secretary of state john kerry, secretary of defense chuck hagel and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff martin dempsey. gentlemen, thank you for being with us today. you've had a very, very busy week. we appreciate your time and the effort that you've made to be with us and to inform this committee and the american public of the important work that you're engaged in. this committee is closely monitored. -- has closely monitored the conflict in syria. we have focused on understanding the strategic context, the options, the risks of those options as well as the

costs of military action in syria. today, i hope our witnesses will focus not only on the case for military action that has been made over the last two weeks but also address the justifiable concerns that have been raised by members on a bipartisan basis. this includes understanding more about likely second order effects, how a limited strike will achieve our policy goals and the planning that's been done to respond, should assad miscalculate in terms of both operational and financial planning. what options, short of additional military action do we have to respond to escalation or retaliation. and second hagel, although you've estimated that this operation will cost tens of millions of dollars, in april of this year, you testified, let's start with a question of how do you pay for military action in syria if we do something. yes, i think it's pretty clear that a supplemental would be

required. history tells us that there will likely be second or third order effects that demand further u.s. military action. therefore, it gives me great pause that we have not addressed the devastating cuts to our military due to sequestration. even as we commit our military to another new mission, we've surged troops to afghanistan and cut the military's budget. we've flown missions over libya and cut the military's budget. we're pivot oling to the asia -- pivoting to the asia pacific and cutting the military's budget. these cuts total an outstanding $1.2 trillion. and now we're considering strikes on syria while the military's budget continues to be cut. i share president obama's concern about assad's vicious use of chemical weapons on his people. i'm also deeply concerned about the united states' standing in

the region. when the president drew his red line he put america's cards on the table. a leader either enforces his red lines or he becomes irrelevant. however, i'm equally concerned about the condition of a military that has been chewed up from budget cuts and years of fighting and the lack of certainty this chief and the chiefs that served with him have not had a budget in their term in this office. they do not know really what they have to spend at the end of this month going into next year. it's not a way to run an organization. we cannot keep asking the military to perform dangerous mission after mission with multiple rounds of defense cuts, including sequestration hanging over their heads. through decisiveness, clarity of purpose and leadership, the president has the power to allay many of these concerns. i look forward to many of these

questions and your testimony here today. mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you for this hearing. i thank the witnesses, secretary considery secretary hagel, general dempsey, for being here and for your outstanding leadership on this crisis and on many, many difficult issues we face as a country. i think there is no question at this point that assad used chemical weapons in syria. the evidence, the intelligence case that's been made has been overwhelming in the hearings i have been to on this, of course, is on the heels of a civil war in which assad has killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 of his own civilians which is a series of abhorrent acts in and of itself. the challenge for us on this panel and for the people who are testifying today is how best to respond to all this, how best to hold president assad accountable for all of this. there is no question, and i agree completely, that trying to control the proliferation of chemical weapons is a goal we must have as a nation and must go forward, but can a one-time

limited military strike accomplish that? and i think what our committee wants to hear today is how is that going to happen, how will this one-time strike be enough to hold assad accountable while not creating more chaos and running the risk that these very dangerous weapons would fall frankly into even more dangerous hands given the presence of al qaeda and other groups in syria that would not be friendly to us and would be very dangerous, how do you strike that balance between holding assad accountable and not creating a worse situation? it's very, very difficult. we're going to have some serious questions today as to how that's accomplished, and we look forward to hearing answers from our witnesses to help us better understand this problem. also, we're very interested how serious the russian proposal is. if you think that as a worthy goal in terms of holding assad accountable and eliminating the chemical weapons, is that something that can happen? we definitely want to hear how that -- how you think that plays into our decisions going

forward? lastly, i want to agree with the chairman on sequestration. it is an enormous problem. certainly it adds a layer of complication for every conflict that comes up, including the one in syria, and personally i would end sequestration tomorrow. you know, we can talk about how to get the budget deficit under control long term. revenues and spending and all of that, but the one thing we know is that sequestration is really devastating our military, causing a number of problems in other portions of the budget. it was never meant to be implemented. it was meant to be a forcing mechanism, an intention that has clearly failed. i think we should just eliminate it, and then we can get back to a discussion over how to control the deficit without tore during the budget on a day-to-day basis. if this prompts a more serious discussion of that that will be one tiny little positive on what is otherwise a very, very dangerous situation. i look forward to the testimony, to the questions from our committee and, again, i thank the distinguished panel

for being here today. >> thank you. secretary kerry. >> chairman mckeon, ranking member smith and distinguished members of the committee, it's a privilege to be here this morning with secretary hagel and general deferencey, and we are all of us, all -- dempsey, and we are all of us, all three of us very much looking forward to a conversation with you about this complicated, challenging but critical issue that our country faces. and we don't come to you lightly. i think secretary hagel and i particularly come here with an enormous amount of respect for this process, for what each of you go through at home and the challenges you face with constituents and the complexity of this particular issue. so this is good. it's good that we're here and

we look forward to the conversation. and as we convene at this hearing, it is no exaggeration at all to say to you that the world is watching, and they're watching not just to see what we decide, they're watching to see how we decide it and whether or not we have the ability at this critical time when so much is on the line and so many parts of the world has allenges to governance, at large, it's important that we show the world that we actually do have the ability to hopefully speak with one voice and we believe that can make a difference. needless to say, this is one of the most important decisions that any member of congress makes during the course of their service. and we all want to make sure we leave plenty of time here for

discussion. obviously in is a very large committee, and so we'll try to summarize in these comments and give the opportunity for the q&a. i just want to open with a few comments about questions i'm hearing from many of your colleagues and obviously from the american people and what we read in the news. first, people ask me and they ask you, i know, why we're choosing to have a debate on syria at a time when there's so much that we need to be doing here at home and we all know what that agenda is. let me assure you, the president and the united states didn't wake up one day and just kind of flippantly say, let's go and take military action in syria. he didn't choose this. we didn't choose this. bash here today because

al asad, who has bullets and gas, he made a decision to use the world's most heinous weapons to murder more than -- in one instance, more than 1,400 innocent people, including more than 400 children. he and his regime made a choice , and president obama believes and all of us at this table believe that we have no choice but to respond. to those who doubt whether assad's actions have to have consequences, remember that our inaction absolutely is guaranteed to bring worse consequences. you, every one of you here, we, all of us, america will face is if not today, somewhere

down the line when the permissiveness of not acting now gives assad license to go do what he wants. and threaten israel, threaten jordan, leten lebanon, great greater instability in a region where stability is one of the greatest priorities of our foreign policy and of our national security interest. that brings me to the second question that i've heard lately which is sort of what's really at stake here. you know, does this really affect us? i met earlier today with steve chabot and had a good conversation. i asked him, what are you hearing? i know what you all are hearing. the instant reaction of a lot of americans anywhere in our country, whoa, we don't want to go to war again. we don't want to go to iraq. we don't want to go to afghanistan. we've seen how those turned out. i get it. and i'll speak to that in a minute. but i want to make it clear at

the outset, as each of us at this table want to make it clear, what assad has done directly affects america's security, america's security. we have a huge national interest in containing all weapons of mass destruction and the use of gas is a weapon of mass destruction. allowing those weapons to be used with impunity would be an enormous kink in our armor that we've built up over years against proliferation. think about it. our own troops benefit from that prohibition against chemical weapons. i mentioned yesterday in the briefing -- many of you were there and some of you i notice from declarations, otherwise i know many of you have served in the military, some of you are in the reserves. we know the training.

i went to chemical, nuclear, biological warfare school and i remember going in a room in a gas mask and they make you take it off and see how long you can do it and it ain't for long. those weapons have been outlawed, and our troops, in all of the wars that we fought since world war i have never been subjected to it because we stand up for that prohibition. there's a reason for that. if we don't answer assad today, we will irreparable damage a century-old standard that has protected american troops in war. so to every one of your constituents, if they were to say to you, why did you vote for this even though we said we don't want to go for war? because you want to protect american troops, because you want to protect america's prohibition and the world's prohibition against these weapons. the stability of this region is also in our direct security interest. our allies, our friends in rael, jordan, in turkey, are

all of them just a strong wind away from being injured themselves or potentially from the purposeful attack. failure to act now will make this already volatile neighborhood even more combustible than it almost certainly paved the way for a more serious challenge in the future. and you can just ask our friends in israel or elsewhere. in israel they can't get enough gas masks. and there's a reason that the prime minister has said this matters, this decision matters. it's called iran. iran looms out there with its potential -- with its nuclear program and the challenge we have been facing. and that moment is coming closer in terms of a decision. they're watching what we do here. they're watching what you do and whether or not this means something. if we choose not to act, we

will be sending a message to ran of american apple biff lens, of american weakness. i heard this question, mr. secretary of state, as we meet with people and we are asked about the long-term interests and the future with respect to iran, they've asked me many times, do you really mean what you say? are you really going to do something? they ask whether or not the united states is committed and they ask us also if the president cuts a deal, can congress back it up? can he deliver? this is all integrated. i am -- i have no doubt. i talked to prime minister netanyahu yesterday, israel does not want to be in the middle of this, but we know that their security is at risk and the region is at risk. i also want to remind you, you have already spoken to this. your word is on the line too.

you passed the syria accountability act, and that act clearly states that syria's chemical weapons threaten the security of the middle east. that's in plain writing. it's in the act. you voted for it. we've already decided these chemical weapons are important to the security of our nation. i quote the national security interests of the united states e -- the national security interest of the united states are at risk with the weapons of the chemical weapons of syria. the fourth question i've been asked a lot of times is, why diplomacy, isn't changing this dynamic, isn't there some alternative that could avoid this? and i want to emphasize on behalf of president obama, president obama's first priority throughout this process has been and is diplomacy.

diplomacy is our first resort, and we have brought this issue to the united nations security council on many occasions. we have sent direct messages to syria and we've had syria's allies bring them direct messages. don't do this. don't use these weapons. all to date to no avail. in the last three years, russia and china have vetoed three security council resolutions condemning the regime for inciting violence or resolutiones that promote a political solution to the dialogue, to the conflict. russia has even blocked press releases -- press releases that do nothing more than express humanitarian concern for what is happening in syria or merely condemn the generic use of chemical weapons. not even assigning blame, they have blocked them. we have brought these concerns to the united nations making

the case to the members of the security council that protecting civilians, prohibiting the use of chemical weapons and promoting peace and security are in our shared interests and those general statements have been blocked. that is why the president directed me to work with the russians and the region's players to get a geneva 2 peace negotiation under way. d the end to the conflict in syria, we all emphasize today is a political solution. none of us are coming to you today asking for a long-term military -- some people think we ought to be, but we don't believe there is any military solution to what is happening in syria. but make no mistake, no political solution will ever be achievable as long as assad

believes he can just gas his way out of this predicament. and we are without question building the coalition of support for this now. 31 countries have signed on to the g-20 statement which is a powerful one, endorsing the united states' efforts to hold assad accountable pour what he is do. turkey, saudi arabia, qatar, france, and many others are committed to joining with us in any action. we're now in the double digits with respect to countries that are prepared to actually take action should they be needed were they capable of it. more than 25 -- i mentioned, 31 nations signing on to the g-12 statement. but our diplomatic hand, my former colleagues, our diplomatic hand only becomes stronger if other countries know that america is speaking with a strong voice here, with one voice and if we're stronger

as a united nation around this purpose. we need you, the with that congress. that's what the president did. many of you said, please bring this to congress. the president has done that,d h congress with confidence that the congress will want to join in an effort in order to uphold the word of the united states of america, not just the president, but the united states of america with respect to these weapons of mass destruction. now, i want to be critical clear about something else. some people want to do more in syria. some people are leery about doing anything at all. but one goal we ought to all be able to agree on is that chemical weapons cannot be under the control of a man so craven that he's repeatedly used those chemical weapons against his fellow syrians with the horrific results that all of us have been able to see.

yesterday, we challenged the regime to turn them over to the secure control of the international community so that he can be destroyed. and that, of course, would be the ultimate way to degrade and deter assad's arsenal and it is the ideal weapon, ideal way to take this weapon away from him. assad's chief benefactor, the russians, have responded by saying that they would come up with a proposal to do exactly that and we have made it clear to them, i have in several conversations with the foreign minister that this cannot be a process of delay, this cannot be a process of avoidance, it has to be real, has to be measurable, tangible and it is exceedingly difficult. i want everybody here to know to full full those conditions. but we are -- fulfill those conditions. but we're waiting that proposal, but we're not waiting for long. president obama will take a

hard look at it, but it has to be swift, it has to be real, it has to be verifiable. it cannot be a delaying tactic, and if the united nations security council seeks to be the vehicle to make it happen, that cannot be allowed to simply become a debating society. many countries and many of you in the congress, from those who wanted military action to those who were skeptical of military action, want to see if this idea could become a reality. but make no mistake, make no mistake about why this idea has any potential legs at all and why it is that the russians have reached out to the syrians and why the syrians have initially suggested they might be interested. a lot of people say that nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging. well, it's the credible threat

of force that has been on the table for these last weeks that has for the first time brought this regime to even acknowledge that they have a chemical weapons arsenal, and it is the threat of this force and our determination to hold assad accountable that has motivated others to even talk about a real and credible international action that might have an impact. so how do you maintain that pressure? we have to continue to show syria, russia and the world that we are not going to fall for stalling tactics. if the challenge we lay down is going to have the potential to become a real proposal, it is only because of the threat of force that we are discussing today, and that threat is more compelling if congress stands with the commander in chief. finally, let me just correct a common misperception. in our conversation with steve chabot earlier today, he

mentioned this, i've heard it, i've talked with many of you, you told me you hear it. the instant reaction of a lot of americans -- and i am completely sympathetic to it, i understand it, i know where it comes from. i only stopped sitting where you sit a few months ago. i know exactly what the feelings are. people don't want another iraq. none of us do. we don't want afghanistan. but mr. chairman, with all due respect, we can't make this decision based solely on the budget. we can't make this decision on solely on our wishes, our feeling that we know we've been through the wringer for a while. we're the united states of america, and people look to us. they look to us for the meaning of our word and they look to us for our values. in fact, being followed up by the imprint of action where that is necessary.

we are not talking about america going to war. president obama is not asking for a declaration of war. we are not going to war. there will be no american boots on the ground. let me repeat, no american boots will be on the ground. what we're talking about is a targeted, limited but consequential action that will reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons. and general dempsey and secretary hagel will tell you how we can achieve that, and their confidence in our ability to achieve that. we're talking about an action that will degrade assad's capacity to use these weapons and to ensure that they do not proliferate. and with this authorization, the president is asking for the power to make sure that the united states of america means

what we say. mr. chairman, mr. ranking member and members of this committee, i can say to you ith absolute confidence, the risk of not acting is much greater than the risk of acting. if we fail to act, assad will believe that he has license to gas his own people again, and that license will turn prohibited weapons into tactical weapons. general dempsey can tell you about this. it would make -- it would take an exception, a purposeful exception that has been enforced since 1925 and make it the rule today. it would undermine our standing, degrade america's security and our credibility to strengthen the world. in a wofrled terrorists and extremists, we would choose to ignore those risks at our

peril. we cannot afford to vr chemical weapons transform -- we cannot afford to have chemical weapons transform into the i.e.d., the car bomb, the weapon of everyday use in this world. neither our country nor our conscience can bear the costs of inaction, and that's why we've come before you at the instruction of the president to k you to join us in this effort. >> secretary hagel. >> mr. chairman, ranking member smith and members of the committee, the department of defense has a responsibility to protect the national security interests of the united states, and general dempsey and i take that responsibility very seriously. that's why i strongly support president obama's decision to respond to the assad regime's chemical weapons attack on its own people. a large scale and heinous south american gas assault on

innocent civilians, including women and children. i also wholeheartedly sport the president seeking congressional action with the use of force in syria, and i believe secretary kerry outlined those clearly. the president has made it clear that it is in our country's national security interest to degrade assad's chemical weapons capabilities and deter him from using them again. as secretary kerry mentioned, yesterday we outlined a way to accomplish this objective and avert military action. it would require the assad regime to swiftly turn its chemical weapons arsenal over to international control so it , as destroyed forever president obama noted in a vary firblee -- in a verifiable manner. this option might be a real solution to this crisis.

yet, we must be very clear-eyed and ensure that it is not a stalling tactic by syrian and russian and for this to have a chance of succeeding, the threat of a u.s. military action, the credible, real threat of u.s. military action must continue as we are talking today and will continue to talk and discuss throughout the week. it was the p.m.'s determination to hold assad accountable, and the fact that he put miller action on the table to maybe gain some momentum and credibility, the support of congress for holding assad accountable will give even more energy and more urgency to these efforts. so congress has a responsibility to continue this important debate on authorizing the use of force against the syrian regime.

as each of us knows, committing our country using military force is the most difficult decision leaders will make. all of us who are privileged to serve our nation have the responsibility to ask the tough questions before that commitment is made. we must be able to assure the american people that their leaders are acting according to u.s. national interests, with well-defined military objectives, and with an understanding of the risks and the consequences involved. the president asked those difficult questions before we concluded that the united states should take military action against the syrian regime targets. i want to address briefly how we reached this decision by clarifying the u.s. interests at stake here today and in the future. our military objectives and the

risks of not acting at this critical juncture. as president obama has said, 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 closest allies. he syrian regime's actions a norm that has helped protect the united states homeland and american forces operating across the globe from these terrible weapons. the weakening of this norm has grave consequences for our troops, our country's future security and for global stability. these weapons are profoundly destabilizing and have rightfully been rejected by the international community. syria's use of chemical weapons also threatens our friends and partners along its borders. including israel and jordan, turkey, lebanon and iraq. it increases the risks that

terrorist groups like hezbollah, which has forces in syria supporting the assad regime, could acquire chemical weapons and use them against our interests and our people. we must do all we can to prevent hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the united states from acquiring chemical weapons. and we cannot allow terrorist groups and authoritarian regimes to mistakenly believe that they can use chemical weapons against u.s. troops or america's friends and partners in regions without severe consequences. our allies throughout the world must be assured that the united states will stand by its security commitments and stand by its word. our adversaries must not believe that they can develop and use weapons of mass destruction without consequence. a world where these adversaries are emboldinned instead of deterred is not the world that we want to live in, as

president obama said last week. for example, north korea, with its massive stockpile of chemical weapons, threatens our treaty ally, the republic of korea. directly threatens the 28,000 u.s. troops stationed there on the d.m.z.. during my recent trip to asia, i had a very serious and long conversation with the south korean defense minister about this real threat that north korea's chemical weapons presents to them. and to our troops. given these threats to our national security, the united states must demonstrate through our actions that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. the president has made clear that our military objectives in syria would be to hold the assad regime accountable for its chemical weapons attack, degrade its ability to carry out these kinds of attacks and

deter the regime from further use of chemical weapons. the department of defense has developed military options to achieve these objectives and we have positioned u.s. assets throughout the region to successfully execute the mission. we believe we can achieve them, we can achieve them with the military action that would be targeted, consequential and limited. 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 to build broad international support for this effort, as secretary kerry has noted. last week at the g-20, the leaders of a number of countries condemned this atrocity and called for a strong international response. in the days since, a number of other nations have also signed onto this statement. as secretary kerry has also noted. in defining our military objectives, week of made clear that we are not seeking to

resolve the underlying conflict in syria through direct military force. we will not send america's sons and daughters to fight another country's civil war. we are not contemplating any kind of open-ended intervention. or an operation involving american ground troops. a political solution created by the syrian people is the only way to ultimately end the violence in syria and secretary kerry is helping lead that international effort to help the parties in syria move toward a negotiated transition. we've also expanded our assistance to the moderate syrian opposition. the military action we are contemplating will reinforce the larger strategy, strengthening diplomatic efforts and making clear to assad that he cannot achieve victory through further violence. having defined america's interests, our military objectives, we also must

examine closely the risks and consequences. there are always risks in taking action. but there are also significant risks with inaction. the assad regime under increasing pressure from the syrian opposition, and with a massive arsenal of chemical weapons, could feel empowered to carry out even more devastating chemical weapons attacks. this would deepen the refugee crisis faced by syria's natives -- neighbors and further destabilize the region. a refusal to act would undermine the credibility of the united states, including the credibility of the president's commitment to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. the word of the united states must mean something. it is vital currency in foreign relations and international and allied commitments. every witness here today, secretary kerry, general dempsey and myself, have served in uniform, fought in war and

we've seen its ugly realities up close. like many of you. we understand that a country faces few decisions as grave as using military force. we are not unaware of the costs and ravages of war. but we also understand that america must protect its people and we must protect our national interests. not just for the immediate but for the future. that is our highest responsibility. all of us who had the privilege and responsibility of serving this great nation owe the american people and especially those wearing the uniform of our country a vigorous debate on how america should respond to the horrific chemical weapons attack in syria. i know everyone on this committee agrees and takes the responsibility of office just as seriously as the president and everyone at this table does. mr. chairman, thank you.

>> thank you, general dempsey. chairman mckeon, ranking member smith, members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to share my perspective on the use of force in syria and let me also thank you for your service on this committee and the great support you provide to america's armed forces. the president has made the determination that it is in our national interest to respond to assad's use of chemical weapons with limited military force. we've reached the point at which assad views chemical weapons as just another military tool in his arsenal. a tool he's willing to use indiscriminately and that's what makes this so dangerous. dangerous for syria, dangerous for the region and dangerous for the world. my role is to provide the president options about how we could employ minimumtary force. he has directed me to plan for a militarily significant strike that would do the following. deter the assad regime's further use of chemical weapons and degrade the regime's military capability to employ

chemical weapons in the future. we've assembled target packages in line with those objectives. we have both an initial target set and subsequent target sets should they become necessary. the planned strikes will disrupt those parts of assad's forces directly related to the chemical attack of 21 august, degrade his means of chemical weapons delivery, and finally degrade the assets that assad uses to threaten his neighbors and to defend his regime. collectively such strikes will send assad a deterrent message. demonstrating our ability to hold at risk the capabilities he values most and to strike again if necessary. the united states military has forces ready to carry out the orders of the commander in chief. the limited nature of these strikes seeks to mitigate the potential for miscalculation and escalation. as well as minimize collateral damage. however, we are postured to address a range of contingencies and we're prepared to support our friends in the region should assad choose to retaliate.

i don't have to tell you this, but the men and women of america's armed forces are exceptionally well trained and they are prepared. i'm honored to represent them. they've called to execute your military will respond and i stand ready to ex -- answer your questions. >> thank you very much. secretary kerry, last week before the senate relation -- foreign relations committee in the house foreign affairs committee, you testified that congress had to act, had the vote in support of the authorization for the use of military force, your testimony today no longer explicitly stated that. given russia's proposal to put chemical weapons under international control and assad's agreement to this proposal, has the administration's position on the aumf changed? is the aumf necessary and will the president still seek a ongressional vote on the aumf?

>> as i said in my testimony, the president believes we need to keep this threat, this reality absolutely on the table. he wants the congress to act. but i think that the senate has made it a decision to hold off, to see whether there are any legs in this russian proposal. so, we want you to act, we want there is no daylight with respect to the administration's commitment to keep moving with the congress in the direction of securing this authorization because we need to know that if this can't be performed or this is a delay or this is a game or this is unreal that we're speaking with one voice and we're going to

hold the assad regime accountable. so the answer is that the use of force absolutely should not be off the table. we're not asking congress not may be that if we see that the russians make the proposal, that's up to the president to decide. nothing has changed with respect to our request for the congress to take action with respect to this. as to when and how, that's something the president may want to chat with the leadership about. >> thank you. general dempsey, you heard the concerns that i raised in my opening statement about committing our military to another mission. in this case, a combat mission. without addressing the issue of sequestration and the associated readiness crisis. would you agree that it's not possible to anticipate all of the second and third order effects of military action?

and therefore it's not possible to determine the final cost of a strike against syria in terms of impacts to our combat readiness and the cost? >> thanks, chairman. as you know, america's unmatched in our ability to employ military power. this is conceived as a limited operation and therefore well within our capability to conduct it. i share your concern and have expressed it in this hearing room and elsewhere about the possibility that due to sequestration, the force that sits behind the force won't be ready. so i am concerned not about this operation, but in general that unforeseen contingencies will be impacted in the future of sequestration continues. >> i think the admiral pointed out last week that even having the destroyers there in the

region and the cost of having the aircraft carrier task force, you know, we're talking maybe $30 million a week. these numbers add up. the money has to be found somewhere. generally what's happening is it's coming out of readiness and o&m. >> could i just for the entire committee's -- just so you know, i share your concern completely with sequestration. i hope i've been clear about that. but we are talking about something here that we've articulated as international interest and my assumption, and i hope you would agree, is that if something's in our national interest, that we choose to act on it, that we can find the money to pay for it. >> i have no question that you'll find the money, general. it's just where you find it and does it deplete our readiness for other areas? we still have at war in afghanistan, we still have

troupes over there that we need to see are adequately trained. those who are being deployed. i have one other question. this talk of russia and an international community coming in and taking charge and destroying the chemical weapons , i have heard in the past from our military leaders that this is a very expensive operation. that it would take troops on the ground, whether they be -- whoever provides them, united nations or whoever provides them, there would have to be troops on the ground, securing these weapons. d knowledgeable people and the expense of destroying this and i've heard if whoever takes it over owns it, is there any discussion who's going to pay for that? generally when the international community does

something, we're the ones that end up paying for it. and i just -- i feel i have to keep bringing these issues up because i think, as i go out and see and talk to bases and see the training that's going on and hear that, you know we can't afford to cut the lawn or we can't afford to fire our weapons as many times as we did last year in training, all of these things have an impact and i know we've gone over this many hearings and you've testified, general, of what impact this is having. and we need to remind people of the $487 billion cuts before we even got to sequestration. so, it's not going away and i think we need to be aware that that has to be a part of a consideration, as important as things are, that we also have to consider how we're going to pay for it and what other ramifications it has on our

military. mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary kerry, i think in your opening remarks you talk about war weariness. i think that misses the mark slightly in terms of what our concerns are. it's not so much the wariness of those wars, though certainly we are, it's the lessons that we should have learned or did learn from those wars. and the lesson is about the limitation of american military power to fix problems in the world. i mean, undeniably saud was a problem in the middle east. gosh, we had two no-fly zones, we had sanctions and all kinds of controversy in dealing with him. and you could easily imagine a better situation in iraq than the one that saddam hussein presented. but i think we learned that the ability of the u.s. military to simply come in there and create a better situation was limited. particularly if there's a lack of international support. so i think the concern is not so much that we're wary of war but what is the u.s. military response going to do to truly fix the situation in syria?

can we pretty much unilaterally, yes, some other countries have expressed broad support, virtually nobody at this point is stepping up, i think nobody actually is stepping up at this point to pony up any money or any resources or to put their -- put their military on the line in this. so we're pretty much on our own. and i would just like you to talk a little bit about, do we understand the limitations of that? one of the things as a policymaker that i was hoping we would get to under president obama is a more realistic explanation to the rest of the world of what we in the u.s. can and cannot fix. because the expectations out there in the world are off the charts. i was just in jordan, in afghanistan, in the u.a.e. and i think there's this feeling that if anything happens in the world it has to be the u.s.'s fault because we are powerful enough to fix it and that's just not true. i would sort of like to downsize those expectations. it's that limitation on military power that we're concerned about here. that brings me to the second part of the question. if a leader uses chemical

weapons, the obvious way to hold him accountable, first of all, would be -- it would be nice to build international support, but second of all, remove him from power. if you don't remove him from power, are you really holding him accountable? i think that's the other thing we're wrestling with. you've articulated it fairly well, that we're trying to have a consequential but limited strike. but does that truly hold him -- if he's still in power and he's still running the country, is he held accountable? how do we truly do that? and then lastly, we are rightly concerned about removing assad from power because of the presence of al qaeda, because of the chaos that exists even now in syria. assad does not control the entire country. how long will he control all of his chemical weapons dumps? and as bad as it is to have assad in charge of them, i think you would agree it would be worse to have them scattered to whoever gets there first. it's balancing all of that and the feeling that i think some of us have is we're kind of like, we're taking a stick and

hitting a hornet's nest with no intention whatsoever of killing the hornets. we want to try to i guess teach them a lesson. but going forward, what comes next? are we in a position to hold assad accountable with an -- within all of the limitations that we talked about. >> those are very good questions. let me answer them in the whole. this is not a piecemeal operation. it's not a piecemeal approach by the administration. where one part is separate and being dealt with over here and another part over here, although we are trying to separate the nature of the response, to the degree that it is possible. now, let me be very specific about what i'm saying. with respect to the limits of american power, obviously there have always been limits and we haven't always heeded those lessons.

well before some of our most recent excursions. , that less-hass particularly informed president obama's decision and approach here. the president is specifically not asking the congress to empower him to go in and take over syria's civil war. precisely because of those lessons. what the president is doing is making an informed decision about what the military can achieve and what we as a country need to achieve here which is enforce a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. now, he has directed the military to come up with a set of options as to how you can degrade his ability to deliver those weapons and send a

sufficient message, don't do it again. now, we believe and general dempsey can testify to this that he has arrived at a targeting concept that can achieve that. >> if i could, i'm sorry, this is something that we tried to get to before. they launched these chemical weapons with artillery in many instances. and were not going after the chemical weapons stockpiles themselves because that carries a whole lot of risk with it. so how exactly, general, are we going to degrade his ability -- >> i want the general to speak to that but i also want to answer the other part of your question. it's important to understand it in the context here, because you asked a question about, isn't the leader going to be left in power? well, while it is not the rimary objective of the strike , there clearly will be a downstream impact on his military capacity. and as everybody here knows,

the president and the congress have made a decision to support the opposition in certain ways and that support is growing and its impact is growing and so there is a separate track whereby pressure will continue to be put on the assad regime in order to do what? to bring him to the negotiating table to implement geneva 1. some people have said, there's no strategy here. there is a strategy. there's been a strategy in place for a long time. and that is to try and implement geneva 1 which was arrived at last year in june of 12 where russia signed on to a proposal that has a transition governing entity that would be created by mutual consent of the parties with full executive authority that will then set up the structure for the new syria to be decided on by the syrian people. so that's the strategy. now, how do you get there?

i'm telling everybody here, if assad can gas his people with impunity, you will never get to geneva. you will never have a negotiation. if we don't stand up and take that weapon away, and this strike is calculated to send in the message you cannot use these chemical weapons without enormous cost. >> i'm sorry, mr. secretary, i don't mean to be overbearing but what if he can kill his people with impugn think? whether he's using chemical weapons or not. >> obviously, i mean, look, is there a difference between 100,000 people being killed by artillery and scuds and napalm and other -- >> that's not the question i'm asking here. i'm asking if the goal is to force him to negotiate, stop him from using chemical weapons is an important piece. >> it's not the goal. the collateral impact of this is he can't use his chemical weapons over time with the opposition, his status

deteriorates and he comes to believe he has to negotiate. but this strike is not calculated to remove him, it is not calculated to be the game-changer with respect to the whole field. it is calculated to stop him from using weapons that we decided in 1925 should not be used in war and represent a war crime. and i think i should let the general speak as to how this is specifically targeted to do that. but because i don't want you to have -- i don't want any confusion that you're being asked to do something that is specifically geared toward getting involved in or taking over syria's civil war. that's not the purpose of this strike. the purpose of this strike is limited and targeted. some people want it to be more, but the president has decided that's inappropriate, he believes it ought to be targeted to prevent the hemical weapons. >> i'll see if this answers

your question. we can't prevent him from using chemical weapons again. that's not possible under the current construct and i'm not sure it's possible short of him giving them up or someone seizing control of them. we can deter and we can degrade. deter is changing his calculus about the cost of using them again, and degrade is literally taking away some of the capabilities but not all that he would use to deliver them. these particular weapons were delivered not with artillery actually but by improvised short range rockets. so there are target packages that address the command and control, the decision making apparatus, not -- important to mention, not to degrade syrians' control to guard the weapons, safeguard their security, but rather the command and control of those who chose to use them. the means of delivery. and some of the other resources that the regime uses to protect itself. so we've got a full range of

options. but i will also say importantly, the president has not yet given me the final decision on those target packages. we've got a range of options. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we're now going to open it up for members' questions. i will enforce the five-minute limit. we have just about the full committee here and everybody has important questions to ask. so will you please respect the time for everybody equally? mr. jones. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i would like to start my questioning by reminding this committee and the american people that on october 23 of 1983 241 marines were blown apart at the barracks in lebanon and the reason i want to start with this is because i want to read one paragraph from president reagan after the bombing. it is in a book called the "the

american life: auto biography of ronald reagan." i believe the last thing we should do is turn tail and leave. yet the irrationality of middle eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy. if there had been some rethinking of policy before our men died, we would be a lot better off. if that policy had changed toward more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today. i thank mr. reagan for having the courage to look at the situation and to understand that the middle east can be a jungle. that brings me to this point in my question. i represent the third district of north carolina, 60,000 retired military in the district. camp la unjune -- camp lejeune marine base. and in five days we received over 415 telephone calls, we

also received over 1,000 emails in that same period of time. 97% said no to this action in syria. i had even marines to call. from camp lejeune, did not identify themselves or their ranks, to say, please register me as a no in going into syria. so my question to all three of you, how will we determine that these strikes are successful? what contingency plans are in place if other countries take aggressive action as a result of our strikes? do we really believe that hezbollah, iran, russia will simply stand by and watch? those last two questions are very important to me as a representative, but it's also very important to the thousands of people in the third district

of north carolina. let me repeat two of them very quickly. what contingency plans are in place if other countries take aggressive action as a result of our strikes? do we believe that hezbollah, iran, russia will simply stand by and watch? if could you answer those two questions, and i have other questions, mr. chairman, i would like to submit in writing for the record with a response back in writing. i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> if you gentlemen could answer those two questions, i would be greatly appreciative. >> i can talk about the risk -- you're asking about the risk of retaliation. and we -- specifically are asking about russia and iran. and we assess that the risk of retaliation, because of the limited nature of in the strike, is low. i can't drive it to zero. i can tell you that we are

postured in the region in order to deal with any miscalculation or retaliation. >> general, very quickly, innocent people will be killed. i mean, that's a given in war, i would believe. innocent people in syria will be killed. is that the assumption that i can assume would be correct? >> you can make that assumption because war is an imperfect science, to be sure. but you can also be sure that part of the targeting criteria i've been given by the president is to achieve a collateral damage estimate of low. which is -- i could talk to you in a classified setting of what that means. >> mr. secretary of defense, would you answer the two questions and then i'd like the secretary of state if possible. > congressman, first on your comments concerning your constituents, as well as general dempsey and mine, the marines, please don't let them send me to syria, i believe was

the paraphrase. first, i just want to remind everybody that's not the objective. that's not what is in the resolution of authorization. that is not why the president came to congress. it is not about sending marines to syria. regarding your questions, as i said in my statement, congressman, there are always risks and consequences to action. but i also said there are risks and consequences to no action. i believe, i believe as firmly as i'm sitting here this morning, and i think i have some justification for believing this, that if no response from the international community occurs, to what assad has most recently done on august 21, and other actions he's taken prior to that, he will do it again. we will be back here revisiting this issue at some point.

and the next time we revisit this, it may well be about direct american casualties and the potential security of this country. we have planned for in every possible way months of planning on the contingencies that you talked about. what ifs, what ifs, where are our assets deployed, are we prepared? what are we anticipating? from the state department security offices we spent days with secretary kerry's people anticipating hits on our embassy, our cons late, our american interests around the world. there is no operation perfect. i can't guarantee anything. but i would leave it at that, congressman. >> the gentleman's time has expired. ms. sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've written my questions down because i've really thought a lot about every single word in these and these two questions are a set of questions i'm

going to ask are for secretary kerry. in articulating the basis for military action against syria, the president and many in the administration have placed great emphasis on the moral and the legal dimensions of the issue. i believe you called the attack on civilians a moral obscenity and one of the principle justification has been the alleged violations of the laws of war for use by chemical weapons. so i have two questions. would you please define the circumstances in which you believe deliberate targeting of civilians will lead to an american intervention, why not in every case, why not in homs where thousands of civilians died and we did nothing, is the u.s. or the obama administration committing itself to military action in every case in the future where civilians are deliberately targeted in internal conflict or only when chemical weapons are used as the first one? and secondly, do you agree enforcement of the chemical weapons ban and other

violations of international law of war must comply with the fundamental framework of the u.n. charter for use of military force between nations? because that charter, which is a duly ratified treaty by the united states, prohibits use of armed force against other nations except with a u.n. security council resolution or where eminent national self-defense warrants military action and self-defense, that basis must be eminent. and two permanent members are opposed, russia and the u.k., to this force. no one in the administration has argued that the united states is under eminent threat. in fact, last night the president seemed to say that we didn't have to worry about assad and his capabilities. so, can military action be legally justified under the u.n. charlter and is enforcement of international law our responsibility? even when we are not threatened

? and when the u.n. refuses to authorize force, even when it goes against our own law? and do you support vigilante action for other nations to enforce international law? or just us? >> terrific questions. i'll do my best to try to address them. with respect to the deliberate targeting of civilians and so forth, i wish it were clear. i really do. as you all know, president clinton wrote in his memoirs that his greatest regret in his presidency was not responding to the slaughter that took place in rwanda. but we did respond in kosovo and bosnia and we responded without a u.n. resolution. as you know, there has been a developing theory that some

people attach. we have not adopted it as a nation, or as an administration with respect to the right to protect under certain circumstances. but nato did make a decision outside of the u.n., with the u.n., the u.n. actually did pass a resolution with respect to the situation, the civilians in benghazi and the threat they faced from gaddafi, and the united states acted at that point in time. i think that there is no hard and fast rule but there are legal justifications under certain circumstances with respect to international treaties such as the international convention on weapons of mass destruction. and -- >> you believe -- >> the president is not making an argument -- >> that the u.n. charter takes

more into account than a chemical weapons international law? >> no, not always, unfortunately, regret that the circumstances we find ourselves in are such that the three principle mechanisms for u.n. justification don't ideally fit the situation. it's just the reality. the president has acknowledged that. the president has nevertheless tried very hard to make the u.n. a primary focus of his efforts. >> has the president gone to the u.n. for a resolution on force? >> yes. he has gone. >> a resolution on force on this issue? >> at the very beginning after this event took place, on the 28th, i believe it was around the 28th, there was a resolution that our ambassador and the u.n. attempted to table but we found that the russians opposed it and the chinese opposed it and we couldn't move forward. then the first one was just a

general condemnation. then we tried to get all means necessary. that was objected to. so that's when the president started to look elsewhere. it was a result of those resolutions being refused at the u.n. >> mr. secretary, the gentlelady's time has expired. could you please take the answer for the record. >> sure. >> mr. forbes. >> sometimes this business comes down to making tough choices. thank you for helping us make those tough choices. secretary kerry, you assured us that we were not going to war but i think most of us sitting on this committee realize that if tomorrow a foreign country launches a barrage of tomahawk missiles on washington, d.c., no matter what they've called that, they've just gone to war with the united states of america. i'm afraid that some individuals in syria may have a hard time discerning whether those missiles launched to them might constitute war as well. but i do agree with you when you say we can't base our decisions solely on the budget.

so i want to take sequestration off the table. and not even deal with sequestration. secretary hagel, i want to ask you this. which do you feel is more detrimental to the national defense of the united states of america, and i want to give you two choices. choice one, failure to respond with an unbelievably small military response against syria for using chemical weapons against its own people, or, choice number two, cutting $587 billion from our national defense, planning to cut two to three carrier strike groups, redeucing our f-22 fleet to 187 fighters when the air force says we need 250, destroying seven of our navy cruisers which have twice the fire power of the entire british navy, creating a training crisis for our air force and a maintenance short fall for our navy ship, and doing away with the joint forces command without any predecision analysis? if you had to pick between those two as to which is more detrimental to national defense, would you pick choice

number one or choice number two? >> congressman, i hope those won't be the choices. >> if they were the choices because choice number two is what the administration did outside of sequestration. and so i just need to you give me a little perspective. if you had to pick one or the other, which would it be more detrimental to the national defense of the country? >> again, i'll answer your question but let me make one comment. i hope the congress and the president will resolve the choice number two -- >> that is not relating to equestration, mr. secretary. 587 billion. >> that wasn't just the president, that was the congress as well. >> but the president proposed it, he started with his efficiency. you only have five minutes. i only have five minuteses tell me which one is more -- >> for the long-term interest of our country, to completely decimate the internal dynamics of our military structure and

capability is obviously the longer term -- >> so choice number two. >> yes, but that's not the issue at hand. >> talk about sending a greater message of national weakness. which do you believe sends a greater message of national weakness? failure to respond with an unbelievably small military response against syria for using chemical weapons against its own people or cutting $587 billion out of our national defense, planning to cut two to three carrier strike groups, reducing our f-22 fleet and destroying seven navy cruisers which have twice the fire power of the british navy, which one sends the stronger message of national weakness? >> those aren't the choices on the table. >> that's not my question. >> well, that's relevant to what we're doing here, congressman. we're trying to figure out whether or not we're going to proceed forward with a resolution -- your budget question -- this is not a budget hearing. >> mr. secretary, let me take that back then because you're not going to answer my

question. i'll let you respond in writing. secretary dempsey said if we need the money, we'll find the money. if it's of interest. my point is, we have been waiting, mr. secretary, i've been waiting for you to come back and pound your fist on table just as strong as you're talking about advocating for this military strike to say, why haven't we put that $587 billion -- which didn't impact sequestration, why are we even talking about cutting two to three carrier strike groups, why have we reduced our f-22's down? i haven't heard that same kind of passion. mr. secretary kerry, the reason that's relevant is because i'm hearing from veterans groups, defense industry, ordinary citizens who do think that's a valid question for us to have been asking and it comes down to this. this administration loves to use the military, use it in syria, libya, resource to asia, to balance that pivot, the afghanistan search, you just don't want to pay the price it

takes to have a strong military. my final question, you can answer after that, are you officially withdrawing your request for us to take action on a military response immediately and do you want us to delay that response? >> i'm not officially asking you to withdraw it, no, and i'm not asking a delay but i've been informed that the president of the united states, while we've been sitting here, which i knew was going to take place this morning, has completed a conversation with president alan and prime minister cameron. i had an earlier conversation this morning with foreign minister fabias and we talked about where we are with respect to the russian proposal and they agreed to work closely together in consultation with russia and china to explore the viability of the russian oposal and to put all of the syrian c.w. under the control

of very nirblee mechanism and efforts are going to begin today to do that. now, i don't know if that effects it but i'm not here to ask you no. i think we need to, as i said in my opening statement as forcefully as i can, what's brought us to this discussion at the u.n. now is the potential of this force and we don't want to take it off the table. it would be dangerous to do that. it would be sucked into something that may not have any capacity to be able to be affected. with respect to the budget, mr. chairman, point of personal privilege here, please. we're all concerned. i'm concerned, i'm not in politics now. i'm out of politics. but i spent 28 years up here and i know what's going on. we're all concerned about the readiness of our military. and i hear it in different places. but everybody knows that this nation is wealthy enough and has the capacity if congress will make its decision on the budget as broad basis to fund what we need to fund. >> mr. secretary, you voted to

cut that $587 billion. with that i yield back. >> no, i voted to put in place a reasonable mechanism that would actually wind up with us solving our budget and deficit problems. and it was never put in place. that's what i voted for. >> ok. i'm going to go back to what i said. i'm going to enforce the five minutes. so if you want a question answered, leave enough time for the answer. if you just want to make a point, make the point. that's fine. take the whole five minutes. but i will cut it off at five minutes for the next person. mr. andrews. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary kerry, we also received in the last 10 minutes the news you just made reference to, that efforts, according to the president, will begin today at the u.n. and include discussions with potential security council resolution on this international disarmament

proposal. i think there's broad support to try to make that happen. i agree with your assessment that absent a credible threat, it would not have happened. i think that's a very good observation. you said earlier in your testimony that this proposal has to be real and verifiable. what criteria are we going to use to evaluate whether this proposal is real and verifiable? >> we're just getting to that process. we've been discussing this actually for the last several days. our experts are working on exkity -- exactly what would be required. it's the judgment of the intelligence community, most of he weapons of mass destruction /chemical weapons are in the control of the regime, obviously. they have about 1,000 metric tons of numerous chemical

agents, including finished sulfur, mustard, components for ce rimbings, -- certificate inand d.x. -- cerin and d.x. they also possess munitions and other things that we can't go into here. we're going to have to be able to know that it can all be accounted for and actually moved under the circumstances that exist in syria, to place where they can be taken out and destroyed. >> could any of the three of you describe the practical issues involving the safety of the personnel who would be performing the tasks that secretaryier just talked about. >> that's a huge issue. >> how do we -- what's necessary to take place among the warring factions in syria for that to be a viable and practical option? >> the one benefit of the fact that they've been trying to deny that they control -- that the regime controls most of these weapons and as the war

has progressed and opposition has taken over one particular territory or another, we know they have moved these munitions into their more safely controlled area. that's a virtue of the way they've tried to manage their weapons program. so, that is now in regime-controlled territory. therefore it's our belief, and this is all initial, i don't want to go into a lot of detail, because it's so initial, that the vast majority is in the area controlled by assad forces and therefore if they're going to make good on this that he ought to be able to make good on the protection of the process itself. these are things that are all going to have to be worked out and negotiated in very short order because the president appropriately is not going to allow some nickel and diming long process to draw this out while he continues to -- >> i think it's also posh to put this -- important to put

this in context. this is not a proposal that just sort of spontaneously con busted. i know that you and your predecessor have tried for 2 1/2 years to enter into good-faith negotiations with the syrians both directly, through their allies and through international organizations. and could you just briefly summarize that 2 1/2-year effort that's brought to us this point? >> the assad regime has until now denied that they even have the weapons. so there's been no discussion fundamentally about how would you do it. though it's been suggested and talked about to some degree and as i said, i had some conversations about this with my counterpart from russia last week. the president putin raised the issue with president obama at st. petersburg. president obama directed us to try to continue to talk and see if it is possible. so it is not something that,

you know, suddenly emerged though it did publicly. but it cannot be allowed to be a delay. and the only reason it is on the table today, the own reason the assad regime has even publicly apparently consented to the russians that they'd be willing to do something, having never admitted they had these weapons, is because this threat of force is in front of them. >> i think we all wish you great success in achieving a successful resolution in this effort and i yield back. >> mr. miller. >> secretary kery, you just said again there should be no delay. is that correct? >> there has to be a reasonable period to try to work this out. obviously. you've got to see whether or not this has any meat to it. if it does have meat, i think that's important. >> so, again, following up on -- >> the senate has already delayed. because they -- >> because they don't have the votes, mr. secretary. he has why they've delayed.

you know that. >> actually, no, i don't. >> i do. >> well, i'm glad you know something. i think this is not -- this should not be a political discussion. >> i'm not being political, mr. secretary. it's the truth. they don't have the votes. read any newspaper in this country and you will find that out. >> as i said to you, i don't know that. >> should the house delay or should the house move forward? >> i believe that the senate has made -- >> this is the house of representatives. >> i understand that. look, if you want to play politics here or get a policy in place? the policy that can be put in place is to try to get this particular option of getting control of chemical weapons in place. if you want to undermine that, then play the politics. if you want it to work, then i'm asking you -- >> reclaiming my time.

mr. chairman, would you please ask the witnesses to limit their answers to the questions that are asked. >> mr. secretary, would you please explain what an incredibly small strike is. >> it's not iraq, it's not iran, it's not a year's war. what i was doing was trying to point out to people that we are engaged in a strike which we have again and again, and if you want to take my comments in their entirety, i have said this will be meaningful, it will be serious, the assad regime will feel it because it will degrade their military capacity. but compared to iraq, kosovo, libya, it's small. it is not any of those things. that doesn't mean that it would be anything less than what i've suggested previously and the military has scugget suggested that assad -- we don't do pinpricks. the president has said that and we've said that. we will degrade and i believe

we will deter but it is not iraq, afghanistan and compared to them, it is small. >> has assad directly threatened the united states of america? >> chemical weapons directly threaten the united states of america. the instability of the middle east -- >> mr. secretary, are we going to strike north korea? >> not -- >> they have a larger stockpile than syria has. >> i beg your pardon. >> do they not have a larger stockpile than syria? >> they have one of the largest stockpiles in the world and we are currently engaged in a very serious effort which i think you're aware of, working with the chinese. i went at the president's direction -- >> i appreciate that. >> but you don't really want answers, do you? >> i'm trying to -- my time's limited on my time.

this is not the senate. we do not filibuster here. >> i'm trying to give you an answer. >> general, has assad attacked any of our allies? >> not to my knowledge. >> to anybody at this desk, whose side are we on? >> with respect to -- >> syria, mr. secretary. >> we are supporting the opposition. >> which opposition? >> we're supporting the moderate opposition of the s.m.c. and the syrian opposition. >> and i believe you just referred to the fact that this congress supported doing things with the syrian opposition, is that correct? >> we are helping the syrian opposition and the president has -- >> you said this congress voted to support that, is that correct? >> i said congress has authorized us to do some things -- >> let me make the rort perfectly clear. i voted no.

i had a vote. nd i voted no. thank you, i yield back. >> mrs. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to all of you for being here. i know you've made several attempts at this. but i'm wondering, because the american people are interested in watching, could you articulate further and is there anything that you haven't said that would better suggest why merican interests are at stake ? what else can you tell the american people that perhaps you feel you haven't had time to do. >> i think in my opening statement i laid out, so i'm very grateful for the time to have been able to do, that and i appreciate the indulgence of the committee, i don't want to, you know, repeat all of it. but there is no question in our mind that if the united states of america cannot sfand up and

make real -- stand up and make real what we have said with respect to the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians, that we then open pan dora's box for its use not only by assad in the days ahead, but others who will begin to use it as general dempsey has said, as an everyday tool. that will have been an enormous breach of nearly 100 years of the belief these weapons shouldn't be used in that form or in any form ever. and it's because of their indiscriminantness, artillery is targeted, it kills, yes. but gas has the ability in much greater numbers to kill many more people and be much more dangerous and we have to stand against it. we also know that our friends in israel, jordan and lebanon, in curky, in iraq, are all deeply affected by the potential of this weapon gaining graduate -- gaining

greater usage and the instability that will be bred by the unwillingness of the united states to stand up against this will have repercussions as to who some people choose to support in this fight in syria and could in fact significantly increase the amount of support going to the terrorists, to the worst elements, because they will be viewed then as the ones most committed to getting rid of assad. >> mr. secretary, of course there have been times when we have not acted in that way. people have wondered whether, had the president not mentioned or spoke to a red line, which he -- would we still be in this place today? >> thank you for the question. there's been a lot that's been tried to be made politically of the president calling it a red line. but the president didn't create this red line. this is a red line that a republican or democrat president would or should

enforce and through years of effort republican and democrat administrations alike, without regard to politics, have helped to advance the effort to get the world rid of weapons of mass destruction. chemical, biological and nuclear. and this is one of those three great weapons that the world has decided stand apart from other weapons. not that we don't want to work in other ways to reduce the number of civilians killed, but this particular weapon has a special meaning in the context of war and the threats we face today. >> thank you. i wanted to just follow up quickly because i think everybody here is very concerned and we want to move forward with what we've heard possibly are progress in the discussions coming up, certainly as it relates to russia and other interested parties in this conflict. i'm wondering if, short of

backing off of this, is there a resolution that you think could be entertained that would enumerate the what ifs, if in fact we are not able to move forward and get that kind of resolution? is there anything, any way that we ought to be speaking out on the options that we have if that does not occur? and i would include cyber within that discussion as well. what would it look like if the congress were to have a resolution that would basically say, in the absence of thgs where we go at this point in time. i know the senate is looking at that. >> congresswoman, i have no question, having great faith in the ability of congress to come together around the wordsmithing, necessary to come up with a resolution, yes, my answer would be, of course there's an ability to be able to mold a resolution that has contingencies or places an

appropriate approach to this and that's within the purview of the congress. and we're prepared to work with congress very closely to do that. i might just answer the congressman earlier, the question about north korea. you know, the real difference here is that syria has used these weapons and they've done so after being repeatedly warned not to. so that's again what makes this even more compelling. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. wilson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman mckeon for your leadership, promoting peace through strength. i appreciate the panel being here today. i am a 31-year veteran of the army national guard, reserves. but i'm particularly grateful to be the dad of four sons currently serving in the military of the united states. that's why i'm so concerned about the confusioned policies of this administration. the ever-changing policies, the am bive lens, the uncertain red lines. the administration i think is giving a projection of weakness that puts the american people at risk.

additionally the white house claims chemical warfare by syria on april 25. not august, april 25. but failed to act. secretary hagel, will a military strike by the united states against syria cause a dramatic increase of refugees seeking asylum in jordan? could a sudden increase in the number of refugees threaten the government of jordan? do we have plans to help jordan absorb the refugees? >> congressman, thank you for your service and obviously your sons' service, which we've had that discussion previously. first, there are now more than two million refugees that have fled syria. . that's a real issue now half a million in jordan now. turkey, iraq. so we've got a huge problem

now. as to your specific question, ould a limited defined scope attack on assad's chemical weapons capabilities produce more refugees? we've looked at the different contingencies, reactions, possibilities of the kind of strikes that we are talking about, the options that we've given to the president. i think it's very unlikely that you would see any increase in refugees because of the nature of the kinds of very precise strikes that we're talking about. >> again, the stability of jordan is crucial to our allies. and i certainly hope planning is in place. additionaly, i understand the president has said that the objective is not regime change. but he's also said no boots on the ground. however, there are always unforeseen circumstances such as if assad would ch were to lose power, wouldn't it be

necessary to place troops there to secure the chemical weapons? >> well, that's another contingency that we've obviously spent a lot of time looking at. that's one of the reasons that it was noted here earlier this morning, that in that group of tions, the strike of a chemical weapons munitions facility would be off limits for obvious reasons. as to your question, what would happen if assad government goes down, in the eventuality of loss of control of those chemical weapons facilities, we are working and have been working, coordinated very closely with all of syria's neighbors on this particular issue. turkey, jordan, iraq, israel, saudi arabia. yes, we're always looking at

those options as to how we would respond, what we would do >> secondly, there will be no boots on the ground in this operation. there should be no confusion. so if something occurs down the road. >> the president would have to come back to you. >> with so many different competing groups, and we know al qaeda is soon involved, i don't see how it can be guaranteed that there wouldn't be a real potential for terrorists, international terrorists to achieve chemical weapons. another concern i have, the limited strike, wouldn't russia be able to immediately resupply the syrian regime? and additionally, we now know in the russian fleet mediterranean is the largest since the soviet disillusion.

is there a potential of conflict with the russian federation?

looking at it on our side. the russians are supposed to make a proposal to us. labrov e talking to after i leave here and we're talking about it at the state department and the white house to determine exactly what will produce the result we want. what guarantees that you've got the weapons, got all the weapons, that they're accountable, that they're out, and that you can manage this? under the circumstances that exist there. those are all the things that have to be gamed an vetted in full and i don't want to make any predeterminations about that that, you know, could falsely raise expectations or leave something out that ought to be in there. i think we need to let this fill out a little bit and it needs a little time.

>> my point is it gets beyond the actual weapons themselves because it was apparently today that syria -- >> we're talking about the more than just -- >> just a moment. i'm talking about production capability and perhaps command and control, desegregating that organization there. for general dempsey, mr. willson talked to humanitarian refugee cries -- crisis, how that might be added to from a strike but can you talk a little about your assessment, to the extent you can here, planning with the guards retaliation or response from iran or hezbollah as a result of strikes? >> without being specific, as you know, we've got -- we have mutual defense agreements with turkey through nato work jordan directly and of course with and l and we've got forces personnel who at times like

this establish crisis coordination mechanisms. we've got personnel in those three countries doing exactly that. we've also both because of the current tension with syria but also the fact that the 9/11 anniversary will be here tomorrow, we've also got forces at heightened states of alert and readiness throughout the re-- throughout the re. >> i want to -- that's good enough for me for now. thanks. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have one question for secretary hagel, two for secretary kerry. secretary hagel, in my congressional district is wright patterson air force base where as a result of sequestration, which i opposed, over 12,000 people were furloughed. i've met with some of those people, they've had difficulty making house payments, support for their chirp, car payments,

they were concerned about their finances. with the sequestration, they were told the department of defense didn't have enough money to pay them. yet now the department of defense is telling the american public it has enough money to take us into this conflict in syria. how do you explain that to those people who lost wages and are facing the pross peck of losing wages again in 2014 due to the president's sequestration? >> well, first, i have made my position known very clearly on sequestration and i've restated it here so i don't think i need to address that again, it's irresponsible, it produces exactly what happened on furloughs and the decisions we're having to make now and will have to continue to make if sequestration continues as it is the law of the land because the congress and the president agreed to that as a mechanism. that said, to your specific point, you also know that we took five of those previously

announced furlough days back focusing on eally, where we could find the money to essentially improve our operations. we took that money out of -- >> but you understand that they don't understand how it is that you would not have enough money to pay them yet you have enough money to take us into a conflict with syria. >> if you allow me to get to the second part of the answer, it's important everybody understand that issue about furlough. we took five of those furlough days back because through a lot of very astute management and robbing from our future readiness, by the way, to get that. now your question, if in fact there is a strike, in syria, it is now the middle of september, we go into another fiscal year in about two weeks.

so a significant amount of the cost of that strike, obviously anything that goes beyond october 1, would be in f.y. 2014. which currently does -- >> does not -- which current sli subject to sequestration. >> everything subject to sequestration. but you asked a specific question. >> you said you'll take it out of next year. but to say to people who are not getting paid, having their pay reduced, they're looking at sequestration stopping in 2014 because the president has no proposal on the table. >> that's not true, he does have a proposal on the table, i introduced it but if you want to get into the budget debate about that we can. he zruzz a propezal on the table. i would also answer your question this year, the national security interests probably trump budgets. that's up to the congress to decide that. i think that's important. no one anticipated this. we were trying to plan as west we could to take down another $32 billion in the fiscal year

we're still new york anticipating taking another $52 billion next year. >> secretary hagel, thank you, i don't think anybody quite understands your answer but i appreciate it. >> i'd be glad to write it out for you. >> i would appreciate that. secretary comment, you keep an act in 2003, it was about syria occupying lebanese territory, it was about iraq and support for terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. it was a sanctions bill. it wasn't authorization for military action. but interestingly enough it included a provision requiring that the state department notify congress every year about where syria is on the weapons of mass destruction. here's the report the state department delivered july 9. it includes this statement. our intelligence community has assessed with varying degrees of confidence that syria has

in syria. weapons we know allegedly saddam hussein used chemical weapons on the kurds, you said there's a centuries old standard, we must take action or there will be rampant use of chemical weapons. clearly there have been times when they were used yet no military action occur. why is this different? >> it's very different. that's a good question. it's different because first of all the president was not racing to try to use military action but he -- >> mr. speaker, would you please answer that for the record. his time has expired. >> absolutely, mr. chairman. >> ms. boar tallow. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. thank you secretary kerry, secretary hagel and general dempsey, for your continued efforts to inform congress on the current situation in sir ark we do appreciate it.

i am supportive of limited military intervention against syria. i'm deeply concerned that a lack of a u.s. response has profound impacts not only to countries in the he's but also to our allies in other regions of the world. secretary kerry if congress fail to act on authorizing some level of military force, what impact do you see with our allies in other region os they have world and in particular i'm concerned about the asia-pacific area. >> well, i know for a fact, congresswoman, thank you, and thank you very much for the support for the president's proposal, we're very, very concerned that -- with respect to our current efforts to deal with iran, the president has ade it clear that while he doesn't ever want -- his first preference is a diplomatic solution but if he can't get a diplomatic solution, we cannot

stop the march toward nuclear weapons. the president made it clear he's prepared to do what's nest necessary to stop them. that word, that promise, which is critical, would be at risk. if this promise is put at risk because the congress doesn't support it. now as i said earlier, this is not the president's sole statement. this is something that people have adopted over a period of time but yo uno, this isn't anything different, frankly, colleagues, from the way things work in congress. when i was here, your word was everything. if you gave your word to someone that you'd be with them, that's the way you operated. if somebody broke that, you'd never trust them again. you wouldn't use them as your co-sponsor or work with them on the bill. that's critical. and that is just the same in international relations. our friends in the region, the l, the junior danian

lebanese and others who are all at risk for what is happening there, are looking to see whether or not we will stand behind them, our values, our interests, and the words we have pronounced with respect to all of the -- those three. and that's what's at stake here. >> thank you. i also, you know, i'm heartened to see developments in working out a possible solution with russia that would entail removing chemical weapons from syria. if it depends on honesty, i'm not sure this proposal would ever materialize. and i do realize, mr. speaker, and -- mr. secretary and general dempsey, that we certainly, the effect, if we don't go through with something here, is going to be devastating to our country and our nation, our image

throughout the world will -- i can just imagine how they're looking at us already as we're debating this issue. so again, i just want to say that i am standing behind the president's solution to this matter, whatever comes out, whether it's the russian proposal or if we go ahead with the obama proposal. and i thank you very much. mr. kerry: thank you very much, congresswoman. >> thank you, congresswoman. >> mr. scott. >> secretary hagel i was going to ask if you thought the sequester cuts and other cut were degrading our military strength but i think you gave that answer, that it's decimating the internal structure of our military. is that correct? >> i have said that many time, you can't have the kind of deep, abankrupt cuts we are experiencing and continue to have those with the uncertain i have to planning without having

an effect on our readiness and our future capabilities, yes. >> i agree with you. and therefore it's a threat to our national security. >> yes, it is. >> thank you. i've listened and general dempsey, i know you indicated that the threat to our national security was essentially that if we don't stop him, he will do it again and other mace follow suit. is that what you believe the throat our national security is? >> generally speaking. to the congressman, what's different this time? it's the scope, the scale, really, of the use, the use of toyota clear a neighborhood, which indicates that it's gone from being a small scale use that was used to terrorize, to a large scale use that's now indiscriminate. if that becomes a global norm, i think we're at great risk. >> i guess in -- i respectfully disagree with that assessment, that it's a threat to national security. if he has a thousand metric tons and secretary kerry,

that's the number you just said a minute ago, that would be 2.2 million pounds, is that correct? >> well, i'm actually an english major but i'll take your word for that. >> it's 2.2 million pounds. and he -- if he had delivered 500 pounds 20 times, and he's not delivered that much that would be 10,000 pounds of 2.2 million potential pounds of chemical weapons. some of us have legitimate concern, i mean, only a small fraction of what he has has is, i d and my concern hear about a limited military strike, i go back to when the president said assaad must go, we've heard them talk about imneeding to move him out. these comments have been made in the past prior that august. i guess my concern now is that we're sitting here, talking about going to war, some would

say it's not a wark i believe it is. most of the time when a leader decides to go to war, they use a doctrine and follow certain principles on whether or not it is or is not justified. colin powell's doctrine had seven principles, clear and attainable objectives, have risks and costs been fully analyzed, have all other means been exhausted is there a plausible exit strategy have the consequences been fully considered is the action supported by the american people, do we have broad international support. secretary kerry, my question for you as a representative of the administration is would you list for thinks principle os the -- principle -- principles of the doctrine president obama uses in making a decision whether or not to go to war? >> well, how much time do sniff >> one minute and 35 seconds. >> ok.

i think the president has great respect for colin powell and he and -- and so do i. i was always impressed by the principle he is laid out. but i fout not every single situation, unfortunately, always lends itself to that. there are occasions where the president has to make a decision that may or may not have broad support or may not have exhausted all the remedies simply because of the time frame. i don't think that's the situation the president -- that's the situation. the president is going through the process of the u.n., he's trying to build international support. >> mr. speaker -- mr. secretary, i'm down to about 45 seconds but i'd like to know the principles. >> you know what i'll do, i'll submit to you within 24 hours in writing so you have a chance to weigh that properly. i don't want to do it in 30 seconds. >> that would be perfect. i would just appreciate the

principles under which the president uses with the decision to go or not to go to war. with that, mr. speaker, i yield the remainder of my time. thank you for being here. >> thank you very much. mr. kourtney. >> thank you. secretary hagel. just quickly for the record, the budget submitted back in february by the white house for fiscal year 2014 incorporated a turnoff of sequester, isn't that correct? it proposed again turning off sequester for 2014 by finding other ways to recuse -- to reduce the deficit. >> they was president's budget for 2014 that did not include sequestration. >> i just wanned -- wanted to get that out clearly in the record. >> yes, thank you. >> chairman mckeon has over the last year and a half had a number of hearings on syria. general dempsey you've attended a number of those, as well as your colleagues from central

command and in every instance, you have been very, i think, candid about the downside risk of almost every option that was posited in terms of a military response to syria. and when secretary kerry was sort of laying out his concerns about the -- you know, whether or not a u.n. mechanism to take control of the chemical weapons was really, you know, got a lot of practical issues, you've been also very clear about the practical concerns about military force in terms of control of the chemical stockpiles. you wrote a let own july 19, ust a couple of months ago, to senator levin you laid out the different options for military force in syria in terms of control of chemical weapons and even in the context of a limited strike. you -- and i'm quoting from your letter here, on the

efficacy of a limited strike. over time the impact would be the significant degradation of capabilities and an increase in regime desertions. again a lot of us read this stuff. i'm sure -- in the public sometime there's skepticism but your warnings, for a lot of us, have been taken to heart. what i think a lot of us struggle with is how can a policy rely on the assaad military to secure chemical stockpiles at the same time we're bombing that army? and again you addressed this in the past and a lot of us are trying to figure out what changed here to give us that confidence level that we can count on on the assaad regime to continue to control these stockpiles. >> well, without getting into the targeting as i tried to articulate earlier, we would in our targeting we would -- related to chemical weapons, we'd make sure we didn't create a chemical hazard ourselves and

second we wouldn't degrade the ability of the regime to secure. rather we would seek to degrade the regime's ability to use it. as far as the removal of chemical weapons, our assumption would be in this new proposal it would be a permissive environment in the sense that the regime would be willing to do that. so we wouldn't have to fundamentally fight our way in to seize control of chemical weapons. >> in my opinion that's much more practical guarantee than again in the context of military force being applied. looking at your let for the july regarding the option of controlling chemical weapons, you know you stated, our inability to fully control syria's storage and delivery systems could allow extremists to gain better access. these are spread out over different sites, dozens from what we've been able to sort of hear in an unclassified setting. how do we have any confidence vel about desertions or that

groups will overwhelm some installation with a lieutenant or a captain? again, that's where i think, in my district, which has the largest military installation in new england, as senator kerry knows, in southeastern connecticut, the wall of september kism is focused on these practical issues about the dunside risk of trying to control these stockpiles in a kinetic military environment. i think a u.n.-sponsored mechanism is something that is going to raise people's people's comfort level infinitely compared to use of military force. >> just in response, the mission i've been given, the targets i've been asked to prepare, and the scope of the operation would not tip the balance in favor of the opposition and therefore create some of the uncertainty you're describing. it would be much more limited than that. which by the way, some have

criticized. but the mission i've been given is limited, focused and significant, not symbolic, but wouldn't be intened to tip the balance here and therefore the risk of loss of control of the stockpile as well. >> mr. bishop. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for being here. i appreciate this very much. i realize, constitutionally, we have as congress the power to declare war but not to make war. last specific difference in the use of those two infinitives and why they happen to be there. let me ask you a question i think may have been asked earlier when i was not here to hear the answer, if if you'd redo that in 30 seconds, i'd appreciate you redoing that answer. we talk about the of chemical weapons but the norm is it has been repeatedly violated an chemical weapons has been used

in conflicts in which the united states has not been involved throughout history. i'm an old history teacher. i would like you to say in 30 seconds or les how this is different than any other time in which the chemical weapons have been used an the united states did not respond, perhaps also saying because you said chemical weapons were used earlier in syria, how this particular event is different than other areas. let me do that quickly and if you can do that in 30 seconds or less, somebody, i would be appreciative. >> i think it's different because of the strategic interests of the united states in the region because of our allies in the region, because of the threat to jordan, the stability of the region, to our national security interests and i think it is different because of the fact that warnings have been given repeatedly and not been heeded. i think that changes the equation. >> i don't know if i buy that

but i'll accept it as a decent answer to a question. let me try another one. this country bombed libya without congressional approval. why do you want -- now you're seeking congressional approval to bomb sir yasm what's the difference for us domestically for doing it then and not now? >> there's a big difference. in that situation, the gulf states had made statements, the arab league, nato had made statements and there was an urgency, an absolute urgency to moving tpwhifes threat of ka draw tee -- kaddu fee that he would butch -- gada fee that he hfi that her -- qadda he would butcher like dogs those against him. in this instance, there's a pattern of repeated warnings,

escalated use and clarity of the fact that we have strategic interests. >> now, i don't want to be rude but i want other people to ask questions. you're telling me, domestically there may not be a difference -- >> you can see part of this hearing on 8:00 eastern tonight to the -span, leading president's speech to the nation on syria at 9:00. back to the house live now. pore pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following orders. s. 304 by the yeas and nays. s. 256 by yeas and nays. s. 459 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, to suspend the rules and pass s. 306 on which the

yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 138, senate 304, a bill to direct the secretary of the interior to convey to the state of mississippi two parcels of surplus land within the boundary of the natchez trace parkway. and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 416 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 419, the nays are one. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, to suspend the rules and pass s. 256 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 256, an act o amend public law 93-435 with with respect to the northern mariana islands, providing parity with guam, the virgin islands and american samoa. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]