united nations security council. events in security will impact united states national security and the interest of our close ally, israel. the outcome in syria will have deep implications for the internal politician of neighboring countries, ethnic conflicts in the middle east and broader strategic issues. terrorist groups are likely to attempt to take advantage of political instability and inner sectarian violence could spill overseer yeah's borders as groups settle old scores or defend brethren from attacks. in the midst of this upheaval, we know syria has substantial stockpiles of chemical and conventional weapons that could directly threaten peace and stability throughout the region. our government should be focusing intelligence and counterpro live ration assets on containing this threat. the development of an opposition that speaks for most syrians would improve chances that the damage to the syrian people can be contained. some opposition voices are attempting to emerge. but at present the syrian opposition lax cohesion and a sufficiently defined political agenda. as a practical matter, it also lacks the physical

periods of time has indicated the growing threat of cyberwarfare to the threat to the united states national security. as we engage in this discussion there is an ongoing restructuring of stratcom's headquarters with the new headquarters. general kehler, can you give us some indication why an aging facility would not be an appropriate facility as we take on new responsibilities but particularly as it relates to the high-tech cybersituation? general alexander if you had some thoughts about that, it would be helpful, too. >> sir, the activities that go on at stratcom are unique activities. we perform those activities particularly the command and control that we have of our strategic forces, the planning that we do for our strategic forces, the intelligence support that's required behind our continuing need for strategic level deterrence and being able to command and control forces under high stress. all of those really come together at stratcom headquarters. the demand that today's systems place on that headquarters building have far outpaced the ability of the building to keep up. not only do we have

proportions the electronic privacy information center better known as epic is suing the united states' national security agency to find out the truth behind the alleged partnership.

it is a violation of united states national security policy made by the president of the united stateshat we would prevent massacres. if the united states does not have the military capability with our allies to subdue the syria military we have wasted 700 billion a year. every time a crisis comes up, we hear from this administration reasons why we can't do something and why we can't lead from in front. instead they want to lead from behind. people are massacred as we speak. the president and head of central command said if syria fell it would be the biggest blow to iran in 25 years. but the point is, massacres are taking place. they are taking place in bosnia and kosovo and under president clinton we intervened. these people are fighting for their freedom and slaughtered and being supplied by the russians and iranians and not only iranian weapon but they are on the ground. the united states does have capabilities with the allies in exercising a lot of options and air power is one of them and for us not to do so is in my humble opinion disgraceful and shameful. >> chris: turning to ira

it's a violation of the united states national security policy made by the the president of the united states that we would prevent mass cers wherever they take place. if the united states of america does not have the military capability with our allies to subdue the syrian military, then we have wasted $700 billion a year. every time one of these crisis comes up, we hear from this administration reasons why we can't do something. why we can't lead from in front. instead, they want to lead from behind. people are being massacred as we speak. by the way, general madis, the head of our central command and others have said that if syria fell, it would be the biggest blow to iran in 25 years. but the point is, massacres are taking place, massacres were taking place in bosnia and kosovo and under president clinton, we intervened because that's what america is all about. these people are fighting for their freedom. they're being slaughtered in an unfair fight, being sly supplied by the russians and the iranians, want only weapons, but iranian on the ground. it is not a fair fight. the united

speak and by the way they are going into the slaughter continues is a violation of the united states national securityicy made by the president of the united states that we would prevent massacres wherever they take place. the united states of america does not have the capability for allies to military and we have wasted 700 billion a year. every time one of these crises gives up we have reasons why we can't do something why we can't lead in the front we want to leave from behind. by the way head of the central command have said that if syria fell it would be the biggest blow to iran in 25 years. massacres are taking place. massacres were taking place in bosnia and kosovo. that's what america is all about. these people are slaughtered in an unfair fight being supplied by the russians and iranians not only iranian weapons but iranians on the ground. this is not a fair fight. they have the capability with our allies in exercising a lot of options and air power is one of them. for us not to do so in my humble opinion is disgraceful. it is shameful. >> let's turn to iran. the president seemed to send two

it's a violation of the united states national security policy made by the the president of the united states that we would prevent mass cers wherever they take place. if the united states of america does not have the military capability with our allies to subdue the syrian military, then we have wasted $700 billion a year. every time one of these crisis comes up, we hear from this administration reasons why we can't do something. why we can't lead from in front. instead, they want to lead from behind. people are being massacred as we speak. by the way, general madis, the head of our central command and others have said that if syria fell, it would be the biggest blow to iran in 25 years. but the point is, massacres are taking place, massacres were taking place in bosnia and kosovo and under president clinton, we intervened because that's what america is all about. these people are fighting for their freedom. they're being slaughtered in an unfair fight, being sly supplied by the russians and the iranians, want only weapons, but iranian on the ground. it is not a fair fight. the united

united states? >> absolutely, senator. >> and would you agree that a major threat to our national security come from outside the united states? specifically, obviously, from unclassified information from china? >> absolutely. >> absolutely. so then what's the logic in providing the overall authority to the department of homeland security? anyone who has been through an airport, as i do regularly, as most of us do, have no confidence in the technological capabilities of the department of homeland security. in fact, as an example, nothing has changed as far as airport security is concerned since probably september 12th, 2011. so the major threat comes from overseas. what would be the logic, then in making the lead organization the department of homeland security? >> senator, i think the issue, if i could, i want to break this out into three areas to make sure my responses -- >> make it brief. i have additional questions. >> yes, sir. i see three major things. we want dhs to take the lead on resilience and working with civilian agencies in critical infrastructure. we want d.o.d. to take the lead on defending the nation under cy

sure that the united states military understandses, and i know you do, that we're not dependent on a nato resolution or u.n. resolution to execute policies consistent with the national security of the united states. now, secretary panetta, in your talk, in your remarks you talk about first we are working -- first we're working to increase diplomatic isolation and encouraging other countries to join european union and arab league imposing sanctions. and then you note that china and russia have repeatedly blocked u.n. security council from taking action. are you saying, and is the president taking the position, he would not act if it s in our interest to do so if the u.n. security councidid not agree? >> senator, when it comes to our national defense, you know, we act based on what unprotecting the security of this country and we don't look for permission from anybody else when it comes to our national defense. when it comes to the kind of military action where we want build a coalition and work with our international partners, obviously we would like to have some kind of legal basis on which to do it as we did in libya. >> now some sort of legal basis. we worry about internat

he has committed the prestige and credibility of our nation to that goal, and it is the right goal. the united states has a clear national security interest in stopping the slaughter in syria and forcing assad to leave power. the end of the assad regime would sever hezbollah's lifeline to iran, eliminate a long-standing threat to israel, bolster lebanon's sovereignty and dependence, and remove a committed terrorism that is engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. it would be a geopolitical success of the first order and a strategic defeat for the iranian regime. however, it is not clear that the present policy will be able to achieve our goals in syria. in recent testimony to this committee, the national -- the director of national intelligence stated that if the status quo persists, assad could hang on for the foreseeable future. and that was before homs fell. with each passing day, the international response to assad's atrocities is being overtaken by events on the ground in syria. what opposition groups in syria need most urgently is relief from assad's tank and artillery sieges in the many cities that are

united states has not requested military plan regarding engagin? >> no, that's not correct. he -- the president of the united states, through the national security staff, has asked us to begin the commander's estimate, the estimate of the situation. >> that's good. so there is movement and process in dod to provide the president some options. is that correct? >> correct. >> okay. now, when it comes to china and russia, do you believe they will ever change their tune at the u.n., that we'll ever get them on board for a u.n. resolution like we had in libya regarding syria? >> you know, i don't think it's totally out of the question. i think both countries -- >> if you were a betting man -- >> both countries have been embarrassed by the stand. >> they can withstand a lot of embarrassment. >> yeah. so if you were a betting man do you believe they will ever come on board? >> i -- you know, if russia wants to maintain its contacts with syria, maintain their port and have some involvement whatever government replaces assad, i think they might be thinking about an approach that would allow them to have some impact on where this goes. i don't rule it out

the events in syria will and patch the united states national security and the interest of our close ally, israel. the outcome in syria will have deep implications for the internal politics of neighboring countries, ethnic conflicts in the middle east and broadhurst or tg tissues. terrorist groups are likely to attempt to take advantage of political instability and inner sectarian violence could spill over serious porters as groups defend others from attacks. in the midst of this at people, when assyria has substantial start is the chemical and conventional weapons that could directly threaten peace and stability throughout the region. our government should be focusing intelligence and counter proliferation assets on containing the start. the development at the definable operation that speaks for most syrians would improve chances at the damage to the syrian people and risk to regional stability could be contained. some constructive opposition voices are attempting to emerge. but at present, the syrian opposition? cohesion and is officially defined political agenda as a practical mat

in libya, the united states led the united nations to prevent gadhafi from massacring his own people. to end illicit nuclear weapons programs, the united states pushed the security council to impose the toughest sanctions ever on iran and north korea. as the president has made clear, we will prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. and as long as iran fails to meet its international obligations, the pressure will build. the united nations played a critical role in supporting the creation of a newly independent south sudan. in cote d'ivoire, the u.n. stopped a strong man from stealing an election and ensures the democratically elected president took office, thus preventing a return to civil war. these are just a few examples of how u.s. leadership at the u.p. u.n. is producing tangible results for the american people. but despite important progress, much remains to be done. that is why is we're championing greater budget discipline and comprehensive management reforms that will make the united nations more efficient and cost effective. in december, we led a successful effort to cut by 5% the size of the united nations' regular budget. the first reduction in

national security interest." unquote. he has made it the objective of the united states that the killing in syria must stop, that assad must go. he has committed the prestige and credibility of our nation to that goal, and it is the right goal. however, it is not clear that the present policy can succeed. if assad manages to cling to power or even if he manages to sustain his slaughter for months to come, with all the human and geopolitical costs that entails, it would be a strategic and moral defeat for the united states. we cannot, we must not allow this to happen. for this reason, the time has come for a new policy. as we continue to isolate assad dip diplomatically and economically, we should work with our closest friends and allies to support opposition groups inside syria, both political and military, to help them organize themselves into a more cohesive and effective force that can put an end to the bloodshed and force assad and his loyalists to leave power. rather than closing off the prospects for some kind of negotiated transition that is acceptable to the syrian opposition, foreign military intervention is now t

national intelligence, told the committee recently absent some kind of external intervention, asaid would likely remain in power for the foreseeable future. the united states has a clear national security interest in stopping the slaughter in syria and forcing assad to leave power. the end of the assad regime could sever hezbollah's life line to iran. eliminate a threat to israel. bolster lebanon sovereignty and independence and remove a committed state sponsor of terrorism that is engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. it would be a geo-political success of the first order and as general madis told the committee yesterday and i quote, "the biggest strategic set back for iran in 25 years." the president made the objective of the united states that the killing in syria must stop, and assad must go. the president has committed our prestige and credibility to that goal and it is the right goal, but the killing continues. what opposition groups in syria need mostomassad's tank and art sieges in cities that are contested. but time is running out. assad's forcesarch. providing military assistance to the free syrian army and other opposition groups is necessary but at th

sure that the united states military understandses, and i know you do, that we're not dependent on a nato resolution or u.n. resolution to execute policies consistent with the national security of the united states. now, secretary panetta, in your talk, in your remarks you talk about first we are working -- first we're working to increase diplomatic isolation and encouraging other countries to join european union and arab league imposing sanctions. and then you note that china and russia have repeatedly blocked u.n. security council from taking action. are you saying, and is the president taking the position, he would not act if it was in our interest to do so if the u.n. security council did not agree? >> senator, when it comes to our national defense, you know, we act based on what unprotecting the security of this country and we don't look for permission from anybody else when it comes to our national defense. when it comes to the kind of military action where we want to build a coalition and work with our international partners, obviously we would like to have some kind of legal basis on which to do it as we did in libya. >> now some sort of legal basis. we worry about i

united states? >> absolutely, senator. >> and would you agree that a major threat to our national security come from outside the united states? specifically, obviously, from unclassified information from china? >> absolutely. >> absolutely. so then what's the logic in providing the overall authority to the department of homeland security? anyone who has been through an airport, as i do regularly, as most of us do, have no confidence in the technological capabilities of the department of homeland security. in fact, as an example, nothing has changed as far as airport security is concerned since probably september 12th, 2011. so the major threat comes from overseas. what would be the logic, then in making the lead organization the department of homeland security? >> senator, i think the issue, if i could, i want to break this out into three areas to make sure my responses -- >> make it brief. i have additional questions. >> yes, sir. i see three major things. we want dhs to take the lead on resilience and working with civilian agencies in critical infrastructure. we want d.o.d. to take the lead on defending the nation under cy

is that missing in this debate about the united states and mitt romney rattling sabers that he does not even know exist -- what is the compelling national security interest of the united states that he sees? what is the last resort before going to military power? what is the popular support for it? what are the consequences? what is the exit strategy? romney is making a terrible political mistake. obama is a flawed president, but the strength he has his national security and foreign policy. >> you have a response, charles? >> i understand you are obsessed with the elections today, but long after the names "romney," "santorum" and "obama" are forgotten, if iran has the bomb able why on every child. what is the american national interest in the iranian bomb? all the arabs on our side are terrified and there will be hegemony over them. in the end, it would be a threat to the united states did not imminent, not the way it is too and israeli -- to an israeli. but they are lined with terrorists. we could lose a city, we could lose it in an hour, if iran decides to use it or do it in a way that could be untraceable. it would have us always on the damoc

. >> the united states has a clear national security interest in stopping the slaughter in syria and forcing assad to leave power. >> before i recommend that we put our sons and daughters in uniform in harm's way i've got to make very sure that we know what the mission is. i've got to make very sure that we know whether we can achieve that mission, at what price. and whether or not it will make matters better or worse. >> that is the debate in a nutshell, folks. well, the administration has been trying to use sanctions as well as international diplomatic isolation to of course pressure president assad to step down. >>> an absolutely horrifying car crash in salt lake city. a 13-year-old girl was killed in a rollover accident. left the car she was riding in, dangling from that concrete barrier. witnesses say, look at that, the car began fishtailing, flipping over, then hit a power transformer before coming to a rest in that bizarre position. the victim's brother was driving. he was injured but is expected to survive. >>> students at the university of texas have voted to remove those po

freedom of information is over we will only know what the state wants us to know it's supposed to be a power to protect in the national security united states that is not the way that you're listening to street will you are we will be as being something that is a message to them be careful you talk to me careful whom you write me what you write because you could be next in i think a number of reporters are going to say i'm not risking critics say the obama administration's unprecedented war on whistleblowers could ultimately deliver i death sentence to freedom of the press if people or publishers could be criminally convicted and jailed for exposing the truth more and more journalists may prefer to abandon first amendment privileges and reserve the right to remain silent marina we're not party the. other was topless represent a lifeline for a true democracy so says social sciences expert professor marcelo foote i don't know the interview in full is just about fifteen minutes but here's a preview. of disclosure is made by weakening aim to reveal the secrets that truly belong to the people we should have elected pl so for it is we star

freedom of information is over we will only know what the state wants us to know the supposed to be about protecting the national security the united states but that is not the journalism industry will you would they will be i was being something that is a message to be handy careful you talk to be careful when you write because of what you write because you could be next and i think a number of reporters are going to say i'm not risking critics say the obama administration's unprecedented war on whistleblowers that alternately deliver i death sentence to freedom of the press if people or publishers could be criminally convicted and jailed for exposing the truth more and more journalists may prefer to abandon first amendment privileges and reserve the right to remain silent or enough work on our party. by doing the science and other whistle blows could become a powerful tool for genuine democracy that's according to social sciences expert professor threw out a ninety. the disclosure is made by a weakening aimed to reveal the secrets that the truly belong to the people which have elected also for it is which are abusing power by not

united states. we have a very close cooperation of nations for security in the fight against terrorists. of course, also, we enjoy very good trade and economic these. >> what is cypruses relationship with turkey? >> turkey does not recognize the republic of cyprus as a state since 1974. since the summer of 1974, there are no diplomatic or political relations between the republic of cyprus and turkey. as a result of this policy of turkey, a of nonrecognition and republic of cyprus, turkey has imposed an embargo on ships and aircraft that are related to the tropics of cyprus from its ports and airports, which also makes contact and make commercial links more difficult. the only relation is one with turkey. turkey illegally occupies a third of the republic of cyprus. >> how did that happen? why did it happen? >> this happened in july 1974. using as a pretext the coup d'etat that seems to have been organized by the military regime in athens, the legitimate leader of snipers -- turkey, using -- the legend and leader of cyprus -- turkey, using the pretext invited and occupied ever since anothe

united states security experts testified before this congress that water problems will contribute to the instability in states important to the united states' national security interests. with all the problems the world faces, congress needs to prioritize programs that deliver the highest return on investment with substantial multiply effects. when it comes to foreign assistance, increasing access to clean water is the most effective use of taxpayer dollars. the world health organization estimates that up to $34 is saved for every dollar invested , saved from health care costs and resulting in increased economic productivity. indeed, it affects other efforts of our aid. we're trying to eradicate diseases like hiv-aids and tuberculosis, but taking the medicine with dirty water compounds the problems in terms of diarrheal diseases that results from that dirty water. madam speaker, since we passed the water for the world legislation seven years ago where chairman of the foreign relations committee, henry hyde, senator reid and senator frist were my partners, we've increased our leadership globally. we owe a debt of gratitude to secretary clinton who ha

united states? >> absolutely, senator. >> and would you agree that a major threat to our national security come from outside the united states? specifically, obviously, from unclassified information from china? >> absolutely. >> absolutely. so then what's the logic in providing the overall authority to the department of homeland security? anyone who has been through an airport, as i do regularly, as most of us do, have no confidence in the technological capabilities of the department of homeland security. in fact, as an example, nothing has changed as far as airport security is concerned since probably september 12th, 2011. so the major threat comes from overseas. what would be the logic, then in making the lead organization the department of homeland security? >> senator, i think the issue, if i could, i want to break this out into three areas to make sure my responses -- >> make it brief. i have additional questions. >> yes, sir. i see three major things. we want dhs to take the lead on resilience and working with civilian agencies in critical infrastructure. we want d.o.d. to take the lead on defending the nation under cy

pipeline would create thousands of private-sector jobs and would help protect united states national security interests. it comes at no taxpayer expense. it will strengthen vital ties with our ally, canada. i urge my colleagues to support the hoeven-lugar-vitter keystone x.l. pipeline amendment. madam president, i ask unanimous consent to include my full statement in the record, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: thank you, madam president. i rise to speak against three republican amendments that pose grave threats to our health, our children, and our environment. the first seeks to delay and weaken new e.p.a. standards that would reduce the pollution produced by industrial boilers. these boilers emit dozens of toxins, including lead, which reduces children's intelligence levels and dioxins, which can cause birth defects. boilers also release mercury, which is brain poison for children. and i ask my colleagues here: just think for a moment how lucky you are if all

state wants us to know supposed to be. protecting the national security the united states but that is not the journalism industry will if you were there would be i was being something that is a message that we have to be careful who you talk to be careful whom you write because of what you write because you could be and you know i think a number of reporters are going to say i'm not risking critics say the obama administration's unprecedented war on whistleblowers could ultimately deliver i death sentence to freedom of the press if people or publishers would be criminally convicted and jailed for exposing the truth more and more journalists may prefer to abandon first amendment privileges and reserve the right to remain silent for a number of niall r.t. the. killing aside and other whistleblowers represent a lifeline for true democracy so says social sciences expert professor mark self at all that know their interview in full is in the next hour but here's a preview now. the disclosure is made by a weakening. reveal the secrets that truly belong to people we have a little three piece which are abusive but we're not going to

sure that the united states military understandses, and i know you do, that we're not dependent on a nato resolution or u.n. resolution to execute policies consistent with the national securityf the united states. now, sretary panetta, in your talk, in your remarks you talk about first we are working -- first we're working to increase diomatic isolation and encouraging other countries to join european union and arab league imposing sanctions. and then you note that china and russia have repeatedly blocked u.n. security council from taking action. are you saying, and is the president taking the position, he would not act if it was in our interest to do so if the u.n. security council did not agree? >> senator, when it comes to our national defense, you know, we act based on what unprotecting the security of this country and we don't look for permission from anybody else when it comes to our national defense. when it comes to the kind of military action where we want to build a coalition and work with our international partners, obviously we would like to have some kind of legal basis on which to do it as we did in libya. >> now some sort of legal basis. we worry about interna

freedom of information is over we will only know what the state wants us to know it's supposed to be about protecting the national security the united states but that is not the journalism industry rule while you were there will be yours as being something that is a message to him be careful who you talk to be careful whom you write what you write because you could be next in i think the number of reporters are going to say i'm not risking critics say the obama administration's unprecedented war on whistleblowers that alternately deliver i death sentence to freedom of the press if people or publisher could be criminally convicted and jailed for exposing the truth more and more journalists may prefer to abandon first amendment privileges and reserve the right to remain silent bring up work not artsy. julian assange to go to whistleblowers represent a lifeline for true democracy so says social sciences expert for first marcelo thought out of knowledge in his interview coming up in full well bit later on this channel twenty one g.m.t. is a preview. of the the spinor surest made by weakening game two. reveal the secrets that truly belon

freedom of information is over we will only know what the state wants us to know it's supposed to be about protecting the national security the united states but that is not the journalism industry if you were there would be i was being something that is a message to be one be careful who you talk to and careful whom you write what you write because you could be you know i think a number of reporters are going to say i'm not risking critics say the obama administration's unprecedented war on whistleblowers could ultimately deliver i death sentence to freedom of the press if people or publishers could be criminally convicted and jailed for exposing the truth more and more journalists may prefer to abandon first amendment privileges and reserve the right to remain silent arena for nile r.t. the. mainstream media has been largely neglecting the occupy wall street movement since it spilled onto american streets in september and has internet activists a great who believes the situation has seen her emerge as the protesters main p.r. . when you look at adbusters first putting out the call for this protest in wall street there wasn't much

national security interests and the protection of the united states, our personnel and our allies. >> you said in the past, the trust between the u.s. forces there and the afghan forces. is there concern at all that this could further impact the skepticism between the u.s. and afghanistan? >> well, i would probably suggest that the best people to answer that question are the defense department or in afghanistan both military and civilians. this is a challenging time, there is no question. the focus of our policy is designed to hand over greater authority to and responsibility to afghan security forces and the afghan government. i think that demonstrates that our interest is in -- is not in staying any longer than we have to. it is a strategy that fully respects the sovereignty of the avenue can nation and the afghan people. and, we will continue to focus on the implementation of that strategy, to continue to focus on taking the fight to al qaeda. there is a reconciliation process, afghan-led, that is an important element as we move forward, and all of these aspects will continue. >> f

united states can continue. >> thank you. your enormous help and the help of the fbi with respect to national security. people located around the united states essentially doing intelligence work. so that transition has been effectively uller at our worldwide threat hearing indicated to us in the past year there have beenunited states of people in this country planning or participating in attempted terrorist attacks, and as you mentioned in your reasons testimony, um mar faroukd to life in prison. now, i also want to say that even though its specific activities are classified, in yorogation group, or the h.i.g. as we call it. i n say that we've seen the ence, the h.i.g. is producing, and earlier this week, also four principle members were charged with groups anonymous and a fifth member i think we have to begin to look we now have a counterterrorism center, we now have homeland security with intelligence, and we also now have the fbi, and so i hope you will take a look at that, because the dollars are precious, and we're already experiencing cuts in the intelligence budget. so here's my question. what a

of this debatete about the united statates and mitt romney rattling sabers he does not know even exist, what is the compelling national security interest of the united states that he sees? what is the last resort for going to military power? what is the popular support for it? what i is the consequences of our acting? what is the exit strategy? romney is making a terrible political mistake. obama is a flawed president with the political weakness. the streth he has is national serity and foreign policy. [ male announcer ] this was how my day began. a little bird told me about a band... ♪ ♪ an old man shared some fish stories... ♪ ♪ oooh, my turn. ♪ ♪ she was in paris but we talked for hours... everyone else buzzed about the band. there's a wireless mind inside all of us. so where to next? ♪ ♪ >> what we need is a serious sustained, all of theve the strategy for american-de energy american efficiency, american innovion, american fuel-efficient trucks, american fuel-efficient cars. we m not get there in one term. >> four more years. >> ok, "fo more years" they are chanting. does he have are real plan, ninar is this just campaigngn rhetoric? >> since he ran r