information. we can tell you beyond any reasonable doubt that our evidence proves the assad regime prepared for this attack, issued instructions to prepare for this attack, warned its own forces to use gas masks. we have physical evidence of where the rockets came from and when. not one rocket landed in regime-controlled territory, not one. all of them landed in opposition-controlled or contested territory. we have a map, physical evidence, showing every geograph geographical point of impact, and that is concrete. within minutes of the attack, 90, i think, to be precise, maybe slightly shorter, the social media exploded with horrific images of the damage that had been caused, men and women, the elderly and children

sprawled on a hospital floor with no wounds, no blood, but all dead. those scenes of human chaos and desperation were not contrived. they were real. no one could contrive such a scene. we are certain that none of the opposition has the weapons or capacity to affect a strike of this scale, particularly from the heart of regime territory. just think about it in logical terms, common sense. with high confidence, our intelligence community tells us that after the strike, the regime issued orders to stop and then fretted openly, we know, about the possibility of u.n. inspectors discovering evidence. so then they began to systemically try to destroy it. contrary to my discussion with their foreign minister, who said

we have nothing to hide. i said, if you have nothing to hide, then let the inspectors in today and let it be unrestricted. it wasn't. they didn't. it took four days of shelling before they finally allowed them in under a constrained, prearranged structure. and we now have learned that the hair and blood samples from first responders in east damascus has tested positive for signatures of sarin. so my colleagues, we know what happened. for all the lawyers, for all the former prosecutors, for all those who have sat on a jury, i can tell you that we know these things beyond the reasonable doubt that is the standard by which we send people to jail for the rest of their lives. so we're here because of what happened two weeks ago. but we're also here because of what happened nearly a century

ago. in the darkest moments of world war i and after the horror of gas warfare when the vast majority of the world came together to declare in no uncertain terms that chemical weapons crossed a line of conscience and they must be banned from use forever. over the years that followed, over 180 countries, including iran, iraq, and russia, agreed and joined the chemical weapons convention. even countries with whom we agree on little agreed on that conviction. now, some have tried to suggest that the debate we're having today is about president obama's red line. i could not more forcefully state that is just plain and simply wrong. this debate is about the world's red line. it's about humanity's red line. and it's a red line that anyone

with a conscience ought to draw. this debate is also about congress' own red line. you, the united states congress, agreed to the chemical weapons convention. you, the united states congress, passed the syria accountability act, which says syria's chemical weapons are, quote, threatening the security of the middle east and national security interests of the united states. you, the congress, have spoken out about grave consequences if assad in particular used chemical weapons. so i say to you, senator corker, that is one of the reasons why syria is important. as we debate and the world watches, as you decide and the world wonders not whether assad regime's executed the world's worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century, that fact, i think, is now beyond question. the world wonders whether the

united states of america will consent through silence to standing aside while this kind of brutality is allowed to happen without consequence. in the nearly 100 years since the first global commitment against chemical weapons, only two tyrants dared to cross the world. now bashar al assad has become the third. i think all of you know that history holds nothing but infamy for those criminals. so the reality is the gravity of this moment. that is the importance of the decision that this congress faces and that the world is waiting to learn about in these next days. now, ranking member corker asked a central question. why should americans care beyond

what i've just said, which ought to be enough in the judgment of the president and this administration. well, it is clear that in addition to what i've just mentioned about the syria accountability act and the threat to the middle east, we cannot overlook the impact of chemical weapons and the danger that they pose to a particularly volatile area of the world in which we've been deeply invested for years because we have great friends there. we have allies there. we have deep interests there. since president obama's policy is that assad must go, it is not insignificant that to deprive him of the capacity to use chemical weapons or to degrade the capacity to use those chemical weapons, actually deprives him of a lethal weapon

in this ongoing civil war and that has an impact. that can help to stabilize the region ultimately. in addition, we have other important strategic national security interests, not just in the prevention of the proliferation of chemical weapons, but to avoid the creation of a safe haven in syria or a base of operations for extremists to use these weapons against our friends. all of us know that the extremes of both sides are there waiting in the wings, working and pushing and fighting. they'd be desperate to get their hands on these materials. the fact is that if nothing happens to begin to change the equation or the current calculation, that area can become even more so an area of ungoverned space where those extremists threaten even the united states and more immediately if they get their hands on those weapon, allies and friends of ours like jordan

or israel or lebanon or others. forcing assad to change his calculation about his ability to act with impunity can contribute to his realization that he cannot gas or shoot his way out of his predicament. as i think you know, it has been the president's primary goal to achieve a negotiated resolution, but you got to have parties prepared to negotiate to achieve that. syria is also important because quite simply, i can't put this to you more plainly than to just ask each of you to ask yourselves, if you're assad or if you're any one of the other despots in that region and the united states steps back from this moment together with our other allies and friends, what is the message?

the message is he has been granted impunity, the freedom to choose to use the weapons again or force us to go through this cycle again with who knows what outcome after once refusing it. we would have granted him the capacity to use these weapons against more people with greater levels of damage because we would have stood and stepped away. as confidently as we know what happened in damascus, my friends, on august 21st, we know that assad would read our stepping away or our silence as an invitation to use those weapons with impunity. in creating impunity, we will be creating opportunity, the opportunity for other dictators and/or terrorists to pursue their own weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. i will tell you there are some people hoping that the united

states congress doesn't vote for this very limited request the president has put before you. iran is hoping you look the other way. our inaction would surely give them a permission slip for them to at least misinterpret our intention if not to put it to the test. hezbollah is hoping that isolationism will prevail. north korea is hoping that ambivalence carries the day. they are all listening for our silence. if we don't answer assad today, we will erode a standard that has existed for those hundred years. in fact, we will erode a standard that has protected our own troops in war. and we will invite even more dangerous tests down the road. our allies and our partners are also counting on us in this situation. the people of israel, of jordan,

of turkey, each look next door and they see that they're one stiff breeze away from the potential of being hurt, of their civilians being killed as a consequence of choices assad might take in the absence of action. they anxiously await our assurance that our word means something. they await the assurance that if the children lined up in unbloodied burial shrouds were their own children, that we would keep the world's promise. that's what they're hoping. so the authorization that president obama seeks is definitively in our national security interests. we need to send to syria and to the world, to dictators and to terrorists, to allies and civilians alike the unmistakable message that when the united states of america and the world say never again, we don't mean

sometimes, we don't mean somewhere. never means never. so this is a vote for accountability. norms and laws that keep the civilized world civil mean nothing if they're not enforced. as justice jackson said in his opening argument at the nuremberg trials, the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness is to make statesmen responsible to the law. if the world's worst despots see that they can flout with impunity prohibitions against the world's worst weapons, then those prohibitions are just pieces of paper. that is what we mean by accountability, and that is what we mean by we cannot be silent. so let me be clear.

president obama is not asking america to go to war. and i say that sitting next to two men, secretary hagel and chairman dempsey, who know what war is. senator mccain knows what war is. they know the difference between going to war and what president obama is requesting now. we all agree there will be no american boots on the ground. the president has made chrrysta clear we have no intention of assuming responsibility for syria's civil war. he's asking only for the power to make clear, to make certain that the united states means what we say, that the world when we joined together in a multilateral statement mean what we say. he's asking for authorization to degrade and deter bashar al assad's capacity to use chemical weapons. now, some will undoubtedly ask, and i think appropriately, what

about the unintended consequences can of action? some fear a retaliation that leads to a larger conflict. well, let me put it bluntly. if assad is arrogant enough, and i would say foolish enough, to retaliate to the consequences can of his own criminal activity, the united states and our allies have ample ways to make him regret that decision without going to war. even assad supporters, russia and iran, say publicly that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. now, some will also question the extent of our responsibility. to them i say, when someone kills hundreds of children with a weapon the world has banned, we are all responsible. that is true because of treaties like the geneva convention and the chemical weapons convention, and for us, the syria

accountability act. it's also true because we share a common humanity and a common decency. this is not the time for armchair isolationism. this is not the time to be spectators to slaughter. neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence. we have spoken up against unspeakable horror many times in the past. now we must stand up and act. and we must protect our security, protect our values, and lead the world with conviction that is clear about our responsibility. thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. >> we don't want another war! >> please, restore order.

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

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

military objectives with an understanding of the risks and the consequences involved. the president, along with his entire national security team, ask those tough questions before we concluded that the united states should take military action against syria because of what the assad regime has done. i want to address how we reached this decision by clarifying the u.s. interests at stake. our military objectives and the risk of not acting at this critical juncture. as president obama 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. the syrian regime's use of chemical weapons proses grave risk to our friends and partners along syria's borders, including israel, jordan, turkey, lebanon,

and iraq. if assad is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people, we have to be concerned that terrorist groups it like hezbollah, which has forces in syria supporting the assad regime, would acquire them and use them. that risk of chemical weapons proliferation poses a direct threat to our friends, our partners, and to u.s. personnel in the region. we cannot afford for hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the united states to have incentives to acquire or use chemical weapons. the syrian regime's actions risk eroding the nearly century-old international norm against the use of chemical weapons, which secretary kerry has noted. a norm that has helped protect the united states homeland and american forces operating across the globe from those terrible weapons. weakening this norm could

embolden other regimes to acquire or use chemical weapons. for example, north korea maintains a massive stockpile of chemical weapons that threatens our treaty ally, the republic of korea, and the 28,000 u.s. troops stationed there. i've just returned from asia where i had a very serious and long conversation with south korea's defense minister about the threat, the real threat, that north korea's stockpile of chemical weapons presents to them. our allies throughout the world must be assured that the united states will fulfill its security commitments. 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, 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 this mission. we believe we can achieve them with military action that would be limited in duration and scope. general dempsey and i have assured the president that u.s. forces will be ready to act whenever the president gives the order. we are also working with our allies and our partners in this effort. key partners, including france, turkey, saudi arabia, the united arab emirates and friends in the region have assured us of their strong support of u.s. action. in defining our military objectives, we made clear that we are not seeking to resolve the underlying conflict in syria through direct military force. instead, we are contemplating actions that are tailored to respond to the use of chemical

weapons. a political solution created by the syrian people is the only way to ultimately end the violence in syria. secretary kerry is leading international efforts to help the parties in syria move toward a negotiated transition. a transition that means a free and inclusive syria. we're also committed to doing more to assist the syrian opposition, but assad must be held accountable for using these weapons in defiance of the international community. having defined america's interests and our military objectives, we also must examine the risks and the consequences of action as well as the consequences of inaction. there are always risks in taking action. the assad regime under increasing pressure by the

syrian opposition could feel empowered to carry out even more devastating chemical weapons attacks without a response. chemical weapons make no distinction between combatants and innocent civilians and inflict the worst kind of indiscriminate suffering as we have recently seen. a refusal to act would undermine the credibility of america's other security commitment, including the president's commitment to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. 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 seen its ugly realities up close, as has already been noted, senator mccain. we understand that a country

faces few decisions as grave as using military force. we are not unaware of the cost and ravages of war. but we also understand that america must protect its people and its national interests. that is our highest responsibility. all of us who have 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 this horrific chemical weapons attack in syria. i know everyone on this committee agrees and takes their responsibility of office just as seriously as the president and everyone sitting at this table. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, secretary hagel. i know that general dempsey is available to answer questions from the members of the committee. in that regard, let me start off

by urging members. tomorrow there will be an intelligence briefing for the committee on both the issues at hand as well as potential military action. so in this setting, we are obviously somewhat constrained about what we might discuss with greater suppre eer specificity . mr. secretary, you make and have made a compelling case. i think it's important, and i appreciate you reiterating the high degree of confidence that exists in our intelligence assessments. i think those are conditions precedent to be able to move forward. this weekend i was at a soccer tournament, and i had a group of moms come up to me and say, senator, we saw those pictures. they're horrific. we can't imagine the devastation

those parents must feel about their children. but why us? why us? and so i ask you, would you tell them that we would be more secure or less secure by the actions that are being considered for which the president has asked for the authorization for the use of force. >> senator, i would say unequivocally that the president's actions will make us more secure, less likely that assad can use his weapons or chooses to use his weapons, and the absence of taking the action the president has asked for will, in fact, be far more threatening and dangerous and potentially ultimately cost lives. >> and do you consider the consequences of inaction greater than the consequences of action? >> i do. >> general dempsey, what do we envision in broad terms this

potential military campaign to be in terms of its effect? what do we expect at the end of any authorized action to see the results look like? what is our expectation? >> yes, thank you, chairman. the task i've been given is to develop military options to deter. that is to say, change the regime's calculous use of chemical weapons and potentially the means of employing them. anything further than that, i would prefer to speak about in a classified setting. >> i understand that. let me ask you this. in the process of achieving those two goals you just outlined, would there not be a collateral consequence to the regime of further degrading its

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

imploded, for instance, or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of somebody else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies and all of us, the british, the french, and others, to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements, i don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the united states to secure our country. so that was the only kind of example. that's the only thing i can think of that would immediately leap to mind to say, you know -- >> well, if we said there would be no troops on the ground for combat purposes, that clearly would assume -- >> well, assuming in going to

protect those weapons, whether or not they had to answer a shot in order to be secure, i don't want to speak to that. bottom line is this. can i give your the bottom line? >> we're going to have to work -- >> i'm absolutely confident, many chairman, that it is easy, not that complicated, to work out language that will satisfy the congress and the american people that there's no door open here through which someone can march in ways that the congress doesn't want it to while still protecting the national security interests of the country. i'm confident that can be worked out. the bottom line is, the president has no intention and will not and we do not want to put american troops on the ground to fight this or be involved in the fighting of this civil war, period. >> i appreciate that. i appreciate the response about chemical weapons and the possibility of securing them in our national security interests as well as our allies, but i do

think we're going to have to work on language that makes it clear that this is an overriding issue that i think members as well as the american people want to know. let me ask you, what -- you mentioned it in your remarks. what do you think is the calculous of iran, north korea if we fail to act, and what is the calculous of our allies if we fail to act? >> well, if we fail to act, we're going to have fewer allies. i mean, we're going to have fewer people to count on us, certainly in the region. we have huge doubts right now. i hear them. i have the privilege of talking with many of the leaders of these countries with respect to what they may or may not be inclined to do. i've heard their warnings very clearly about what is at stake, not just for them but for us in

the region, and i think that it's fair to say that our interests would be seriously set back in many respects if we are viewed as not capable or willing, most important, to follow through on the things we say matter to us. as i said earlier in my testimony, this really is not president obama's red line. the president drew a line that anyone should draw with respect to this convention that we have signed up to and which has been in place since the horrors of world war i and the truth is that through all of world war ii, through vietnam, through korea, through both gulf wars, through afghanistan, through iraq, the combatants in those efforts have never resorted to

this use. so i think that it's clear with those two prior usages that i referred to that we would be opening pandora's box with respect to a whole set of dangerous consequences as a result of the united states not keeping its word. and it would make our life very, very difficult with respect to north korea and iran. there's no question in my mind that those countries are watch ing what we are doing now with great interest. that's why even the quality of this debate and the nature of this debate are very important. >> thank you. senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, thank you for your testimony. i want to first thank you for bringing this to congress. i think our foreign policy through the years has been far too focused on the administration.

i don't think congress has played the role that it should play in foreign policy. i want to thank you for bringing it here and giving us the opportunity to have this debate in advance. i want to focus a little bit on our strategy with the vetted opposition. i don't know how anybody -- as a matter of fact, i know of no one who's been to the area and spent time with opposition that isn't incredibly dismayed at the lack of progress that is occurring there. i know there's a lot of capacity that has to be built. i know there are interagency discussions about whether we should move to industrial-strength training, move away from the kind of activities that are taking place now to build capacity more quickly. i just would like for whichever one of you wants to respond to talk with us, those of us who have been to it the region, who do believe that syria's important, who are watching what

is happening in iraq as this sectarian issue moves over to there. it's moving into lebanon. it's certainly destabilizing jordan. why have we been so slow, so inept in so many ways at helping build capacity of this opposition that we have said publicly that we support? >> well, senator, it's a worthy and important question. i've had a number of different meetings with the opposition over the course of the months now since i came in, in february, beginning with a meeting in rome and subsequently in istanbul and in jordan. the opposition -- one has to remember that as little as a year ago there was no great clarity to the structure of that

opposition or to who they were, and they certainly had no experience in this kind of endeavor. over the course of that year, they have e involved, i would say, significantly. are they where they need to be? not completely, but they have changed markedly over the course of the last few months. at our insistence -- and when i say our insistence, insistence of all of their supporters, the so-called london 11 -- they reached out and expanded significantly their base within syria. they elected new leadership. they brought in a much broader base of syrian representation, including women, including minorities, christians, others. so they've built up a much more competent leadership -- >> if i could, i've only got a few minutes. i am very aware of all those things. what i'm unaware of is why it is so slow in actually helping them

with lethal support. why has that been so slow? >> i think, senator, we need to have that discussion tomorrow for classified session. we can talk about some components of that. suffice it to say, i want general dempsey to speak to this, maybe secretary hagel. that's increasing significantly. it has increased in its competency. i think it's made leaps and bounds over the course of the last few months. secretary hagel, do you -- or general? >> i would only add that it was june of this year that the president made the decision to support lethal assistance to the opposition, as you all know. we have been very supportive with hundreds of millions of dollars of nonlethal assistance. the vetting process, as secretary kerry noted, has been significant. i'll ask general dempsey if he wants to add anything, but we, the department of defense, have

not been directly involved in this. this is, as you know, a covert action. as second caretary kerry noted, probably to go into much more detail would require a closed or classified hearing. >> as he's answering that, and if you could be fairly brief, is there anything about the authorization that you're asking that in any way takes away from our stated strategy of empowering the vetted opposition to have the capacity over time to join in with a transition government as we have stated from the beginning. is there anything about this authorization that in any way supplements that? >> to your question about the opposition, the path to the resolution of the syrian conflict is through a developed, capable, moderate opposition. we know how to do that. secondly, there's nothing in this resolution that would limit

what we're doing now, but we're very focused on the response to the chemical weapons. i think that subsequent to that we would probably return to have a discus about what we might do with the moderate opposition in a more overt way. >> so, you know, i'm very sympathetic to the issue of chemical warfare and very sympathetic to what this means to u.s. credibility, and i'm very sympathetic to the fact that people are watching in the region and this will have an impact. but i want to say i am not sympathetic regarding the lack of effort that is taking place, in my opinion, on the ground as it relates to the vetted opposition. i hope the end state that you imagine here is something that while will be proportional and surgical is something that enhances the strategy that we've already laid in place, and i hope you'll answer that yes or no at this time.

>> the answer to whether i support additional support for the moderate opposition is yes. >> and this authorization will support those activities in addition to responding to the weapons of mass destruction. i don't know how the resolution will resolve. >> what is it you're seeking? >> i can't answer that, what we're seeking. >> the action, if it is authorized, the answer is, as i said in my opening comments, that a consequence of degrading his chemical capacity inevitably will also have downstream impact on his military capacity. >> and this authorization is only about weapons of mass destruction? >> that's correct. this authorization is a limited, targeted effort to focus on deterring and degrading the chemical weapons capacity of the

assad regime. >> is that against any other enemies other than the assad regime? >> no, senator. >> is it to be utilized in any other country except inside syria? >> no, senator. >> i will say that in response to your answer to senator menendez, i didn't find that a very appropriate response regarding boots on the ground. i do want to say that that's an important element to me. i hope that as we together work through this, we work through something that's much clearer than the answer that you gave. i don't think while we're all -- we all feel the actions by the assad regime are reprehensible, i don't think there are any of us here willing to support the possibility of having combat boots on ground. i do hope as we move through this, the administration can be very clear in that regard. >> let me be very clear now. i don't want anything coming out of this hearing that leaves any

door open to any possibility. so let's shut that door now as tight as we can. all i did was raise a hypothetical question about some possibility, and i'm thinking outloud about how to protect america's interests. if you want to know whether there's any -- the answer is whatever prohibition clarifies it to congress and the american people, there will not be american boots on the ground with respect to the civil war. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator boxer. >> mr. chairman and senator corker, thank you so much for holding this hearing on a vote of conscience. i asked unanimous consent that my full statement be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> i'm going to make a brief statement. a lot of people have been asking me on how i view this and then i will ask some questions about the intel , if i can. mr. chairman, thank you for showing us those images of children because even though it's really hard to look at, we

have to look at it. children gasping for air, young bodies lined up in a row should shock the world. the failure to act, i think, gives license to the syrian president to use these weapons again. and it sends a terrible signal to other brutal regimes like north korea -- and can i thank you, secretary hagel, for bringing are up the issue of north korea in your opening statements, and secretary kerry for your bringing it up. how many of us have been there to the line where we see thousands of our troops standing there just a stone's throw away from north korea? we need to think about it. maybe because i'm from california i tend to look at asia, but this is very serious. we've seen that danger up close when we go to that line. now, since i came to the senate, i voted against the iraq war, but i did vote for the use of

force against osama bin laden. i voted to support air strikes against serbia, but i vocally opposed the military surge in afghanistan. so i approach this syria issue in the same way i approach those, with a very heavy heart and a very independent mind. i've heard some of my colleagues compare president obama's position on syria to the decision to invade iraq in 2003. i thank secretary kerry for discussing this because i believe it's a totally false comparison. i know it's been mentioned before. you drew that line again. in iraq, the bush administration prepared to invade and occupy a country with well over 100,000 troops. in this case, the president's been clear. no ground invasion, no occupation. we'll have that in our resolution. so why should we take any targeted action against syria?

not only is it important to keep north korea in mind, but also allowing the continued use of chemical weapons to go unanswered makes it much more likely that we'll see it used again in syria and we'll see it used maybe elsewhere and terrorists could obtain those and use them on america or our allies or our troops, use them, for example, against israel and other friends. it makes it more likely. and this is key. that iran will view us as a paper tiger when it comes to their nuclear program. and that is dangerous, not only for us and our friends, but for the world. now, in 1997, the senate supported a ban on chemical weapons by a vote of 74-26. shouldn't an overwhelming vote like that mean something? shouldn't the senate stand behind its words and actions?

and then in '03, we passed the syria accountability act by a vote of 89-4. i wrote that bill with senator santorum. we had a huge vote in favor of it. this is what it says. acquisitions of weapons of mass destruction threaten the security of the middle east and the national security of the united states. shouldn't an overwhelming vote like that mean something? shouldn't the senate stand behind its words and its actions? so i believe, as secretary kerry said, so i'll reiterate it, that not only has our president drawn a line a red line, on the use of chemical weapons, and not only has the world done so, but we in the senate, we did so. now, i know there's tremendous reluctance to get involved in another military effort and sometimes the easiest thing to

do is to walk away. well, i believe we cannot close our eyes to this clear violation of long-standing international norms. i believe america's morality, america's reputation, and america's credibility are on the line. i applaud this administration and our president for coming to congress. i applaud those who asked him to come to congress. it's the right thing to do. and i will support a targeted effort, but not a blank check, to respond to syria's unspeakable deeds to gas its own people to death. now, my question involves the intel here. i don't know how much you can give us, so i'm going to try to make this pretty broad so you can answer it and whoever feels most comfortable. a lot of people are fearful because of what happened in iraq that there might be some

disagreement between the intel agencies. we have a lot of intelligence agencies, 17 in all, all over the place. i don't know how many were involved in this, whether it was four or six or eight. i don't know whether you can disclose that. but my question is, was there any argument about this fact that they agree that there's high confidence that these weapons were used by the assad regime? was there any debate -- i mean, there was debate. was there any dissension between the various agencies? >> the intelligence community represented by dni clapper has released a public document unclassified available for all to see in which they make their judgment with high confidence that the facts are as they have set forth.

so, you know, i think that speaks for itself. >> well, i'm going to press just a little bit harder here, john, mr. secretary, if i can. out of all the different agencies -- because i remember in iraq, sure, eventually the word came down, everyone agreed. then we found out there was disagreement. to your knowledge, did they all come to the same conclusion, the various intelligence agencies? >> to my knowledge, i have no knowledge of any agency that was a dissenter or anybody who had, you know, an alternative theory. i do know, i think it's safe to say that they had a whole team that ran a scenario to try to test their theory to see if there was any possibility they could come up with as an alternative view. the answer was they could not. >> okay. last question on intel and russia. i read, and i don't know if this is true or false, but i read in one of the publications today that members of the russian

parliament were going to come here to lobby colleagues here to tell colleagues here that there is no such intelligence, that there is no proof. i, myself, met with russian ambassador several times on this matter. i knew right away, a long time ago, they were going to do nothing to help us. but what are they clinging to here? how could they make that case given what you've said? >> i -- honestly, i don't know. i mean, there's no way for me to hang my hat on what it is. i think that i've had personal everything cans with the foreign minister. they make an argument to some effect that we don't have evidence. and that the opposition did it. no matter what you show, that's the argument they take. now, as to why they do that or what the rationale is, i'm not going to speculate.

the president, as you know, is leaving this evening to go to st. petersburg for the summit. he will have ample opportunity to hear firsthand from president putin. i'm confident they'll have a discussion about it. >> thank you. >> senator risch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to add though, our russian, you know, the russians -- i think it's important for us not to get into unnecessary struggle over some of this with the russians for a lot of reasons. the russians are working with us and cooperating on this effort to try to make a negotiated process work. and i think they're serious about trying to find the way forward with that, number one. number two, on major issues like start, north korea, iran, the russians are cooperating. so i think you know, we have to sort of deal with this thoughtfully and let's hope that

the summit might produce some change of heart as the president makes the evidence available to president putin. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, first of all, let me say that i've seen the pictures of what happened and i've been seeing pictures for 14 months or more. two years i guess of what's going on over there. you can't have an ounce of compassion in you and not be moved tremendously by what's happening there. it's all of. it's horrendous. there's been almost 100,000 people killed there. we all know i guess in an unclassified setting we can say that these people have used gas on multiple occasions. but the deaths have only been in the hundreds and not in the thousands. but all of this is moving. and there's no question about it. i do -- nonetheless, i am reluctant. if this was an attack against

any american or american interest, this would be a no-brainer for me. part of it stems from where this is going to go as to the limit we're going to put on it. secretary kerry, you said you've met with the -- your counterpart from russia. and first of all, you say they're cooperating with us on all major issues. i view this as a major issue. and i don't view them as cooperating with us. they're printing their currency. they're providing them with information. they're providing them with technology. they provided them with a tremendous amount of military power. and so the question i have is, what's your counterpart telling you as to what they're going to do when and if america pulls the trigger? >> senator, look, i understand anybody's reluctance about this, but again, i'd ask you to confront the greater reality of what happens if you don't.

if we don't do something. i mean, if you think it's bad today what they're doing, just think about what happens if they confirm their suspicion that the united states isn't going to do anything. one of the reasons assad has been using these materials is because they have up until now made the calculation that the west at large and the united states particularly are not going to do anything about it. impunity is already working to kill a lot of people. and to make things more dangerous. now, i guarantee you that is in their assessment. so if we make it worse by not being willing to do something, those terrible images you see are going to be -- but worse than that, our interests will be set back. israel will be at greater risk. jordan will be at greater risk. the longer that this conflict goes on and particularly with assad's ability to use chemical

weapons, the more you will see the humanitarian crisis grow. we are already the largest contributor, thanks to the generosity of the american people and the willingness of congress to move. we're already the largest contributory refugee camps and the borders. many of you have been to them. you want to see them grow? you want to see jordan, which is already fragile? of course, not, senator. >> many of you have met with the king. you know king abdullah's judgment he's at risk because of what is happening. so i believe the best way to reduce the threat is by acting. >> i don't disagree with anything you've said. but let's take that and try to expand on that. we need the credibility. there is no question about it. but are we really going to be giving them credibility if we go in with a limited strike and the day after or the week after or the month after assad crawls ot of his rat hole and says look, i stood up to the strongest power on the face of this earth.

and i won. and so now it's business as usual here. and he may say, and by the way, i'm not going to use chemical weapons anymore because i don't like what just happened but i'm going to continue to use conventional weapons and we're going to go on with business as usual and the refugees will continue and the thousands will be killed. and our allies are going to say, what's the matter with the you, united states? you said you'd do something about this. you did a limited strike. but you didn't finish assad off. and the problem is just as bad as it was. what does that do to our credibility? that concerns me. >> well, senator, let me speak to that. that's a good question. first of all, i think general dempsey will tell you, assad may be able to crawl out of the hole and say look, i survived. but there's no way that with reality and other assessments he's going to be able to say he's better off. there is no question that whatever choices are made by the

president, that he and his military effort will not be better off, number one. and the opposition will know that. and the people in syria will know that. already today, just with the threat that action may be taken, defections have gone up. and people in syria are reconsidering weather assad is a long-term bet. moreover, general dempsey has made it clear and secretary hagel has made it clear and the president's made it clear that there will be additional support to the opposition which is only now in its third month of receiving the overt support or about to receive in fairness to senator mccain and others know there are things that haven't gotten there yet, but that process is in place and that will increase. so i believe. >> my time's almost up. i really want to get a handle on this. i think all of us feel strongly

about this. i need to be reassured on this. the other thing that really troubles me about this is what happens if this thing gets away from us? i mean, what happens? you've been on the border between israel and lebanon as i have. and since the last war, i mean, they have -- hezbollah has really beefed that up. what happens if they get into it with israel? what's our response to that going to be? >> well, i talked with the prime minister netanyahu just yesterday and he made it pretty clear to me that israel feels very confident about israel's ability to be able to deal as they have previously with a miscalculation by as sad. and the rest of the community, the turks, the jordanians, the emirates is, saudis, qataris, united states, france others all have a capacity. so as i said in my, in, my statement, you all have to make a kind of calculation here.

just as sad does. if he's foolish enough to respond to the world's enforcement against his criminal activity, if he does, he will invite something far worse and i believe something absolutely unsustainable for him. now, that doesn't mean the united states of america is going to war. as i said in my comments, there are plenty of options here. let me finish one other comment because it's important to the earlier question. russia does not have an ideological commitment here. this is a geopolitical transactional commitment. and our indications are in many regards that that's the way they view it. there may be more weapons to sell as a result of weapons sold, but it's not going to elicit some kind of major confrontation. now, let me go further. they have condemned the use of chemical weapons. the russians have. the iranians have.

and as the proof of the use becomes even more clear in the course of this debate, i think it is going to be very difficult for iran and or russia to decide against all of that evidence that there's something worth defending here. so this is the kind of calculation you have to make, but i'd measure that against the calculation of what happens if we don't respond. if we don't respond, we're going to be back here asking you to respond to some greater confrontation with greater potential for damage and danger because somebody miscalculated as a result of believing the united states isn't good for what it says. and that will invite much greater danger for the american people, much greater risk for our armed forces, and conceivably, much greaterence chas of a genuine kind of conflagration that we don't want to see. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my