I rise today to speak on the syria. The real issue is that they gassed more than 426 children and their parents. Those who perished died a horrific, unnecessary deaths. We must come together and docked with the president to create a credible threat of force and thereby deter the future use of chemical weapons. Thatsomewhat optimistic syria is willing to place its chemical weapons under International Control and the solution could possibly bring a peaceful resolution but we must remember that a ron is also watching. Iran is also watching. Will they really stand up against the plan to build Nuclear Weapons . We need to send a message to the world that we mean what we say. We will not allow aside to keep gassing his own people and we will not allow iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Click cspan, we bring Public Affairs events to washington directly to you putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, conferences offering gavelte dabble to coverage of the u. S. House as a Public Service of private industry. Cspan, created by the Public Television industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or Television Satellite provider. House onart of todays the Services Committee hearing on syria. At 9 00 p. M. Eastern, president obama will address the nation on the cerium situation. After then, we will take your calls and comments. Now, secretary of state john kerry on the proposal from russia to secure chemical weapons testifying at the house armed Services Committee with defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chief of staff chairman martin dempsey. We will watch this hourlong portion while we wait for president obamas remarks on syria. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] good morning. We meet to receive testimony on the proposed authorization for the use of military force in syria. Our witnesses include secretary of state john kerry, secretary of defense chuck hagel was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff martin dempsey. Gentlemen, thank you for being with us today. Busyave had a very, very week and we appreciate your time and the efforts you have made to be with us and to inform this committee and the American Public of the important work you are engaged in. Closelyidity is monitored the conflict in syria and we have focused on understanding the strategic options, the risks, as well as the costs of military action in syria. 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 raised by members on a bipartisan basis. This includes understanding more about likely secondorder effects, how a limited strike will achieve policy goals, and the planning that has been done to respond should assad of bothlate in terms operational and both financial planning. What options short of additional military action, do we have to respond to escalation or retaliation . Hagel, youve estimated this will cost tens of millions of dollars. You testified that we should start with the question of how we play for action and serious we do something. It 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 cut the military budget. We have flown militaries over libya and cut the military budget. Are pivoting to the Asian Pacific we cut the military budget. Totalld, the cuts now 1. 2 trillion. We are considering strikes on cereal while the military budget continues to be cut. I share president obamas concerns about the use of chemical weapons on his people are deeply concerned about the theed statess standing in region. When the president drew his redline, he put the cards on the table. A leader either in forces his line or he becomes irrelevant. However, im equally concerned about the condition of a military that has been chewed up by budget cuts and years of fighting and the lack of certainty this chief and the chiefs that serve with him have not had a budget in this term in office. They do not really know what they have to spend at the end of this month going into next year. Theres no 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. Ofrd incisiveness, clarity purpose, and leadership, the president has the power to al a many of these concerns. I look forward to answers to these questions and your testimony here today. Mr. Smith. Hearing you for this and i want to thank our witnesses, secretary kerry, secretary hagel, general dempsey come and for your leadership on this. I think there is no question at this point that assad used chemical weapons in syria. The evidence and intelligence and has been made has been overwhelming in the hearings that i have into 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 themselves. These challenges for those best tong today is how 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, but can i one time limited military strike accomplish that . I think what the committee wants to hear today is how that will happen, how the onetime strike will be enough to hold assad accountable while not creating more chaos and running the risk that these very dangerous weapons would fall into even more dangerous hands giving the presence of al qaeda and other groups in syria. How do you strike that allens between Holding Assad accountable and not creating a worse situation . Going to be very difficult and we hope to hear answers from our witnesses to help us better understand this problem. Also, were very interested in how serious the russian proposal is. If you think that is a worthy goal goal in terms of Holding Assad accountable in eliminating chemical weapons, is that something that can happen . We want to hear how you think that will play going forward. I want to agree with the chairman on sequestration. Its an enormous problem and it adds a layer of complication for every issue that comes up including syria. Personally, i would end it tomorrow. We can talk about how to get the budget under control longterm, revenues and spending, but we know that sequestration is really devastating our military costs and 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. We should just eliminate it and theback to a discussion on budget without torching discretionary. If the Syrian Crisis prompts a more serious discussion that will be one tiny positive in what is otherwise a very dangerous situation. Look forward to the testimony i thank the distinguished panel for being here today. Thank you. Secretary kerry. Chairman mckeon, Ranking Member smith, and distinguished members of the committee, im privileged to be here this morning with secretary hagel and general 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 dont 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. Its good that were 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 theyre watching not just to see what we decide. Theyre 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 in so many parts of the world. As challenges to governance, writ large, its important that we show the world that we actually do have the ability to, hopefully, speak with one voice. And we believe that 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, this is a very Large Committee, and so well try to summarize in these comments and give the opportunity for the q a. But i just want to open with a few comments about questions im 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 are choosing to have a debate on syria at a time when theres 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 of the United States didnt wake up one day and just kind of flippantly say, lets go take military action in syria. He didnt choose this. We didnt choose this. Were here today because Bashar Alassad, a dictator who has chosen to meet the requests for reform in his country with bullets and bombs and napalm and gas, because he made a decision to use the worlds 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. Now, to those who doubt whether assads 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 this. 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, threaten lebanon, create greater instability in a region already wracked by instability, where stability is one of the greatest priorities of our Foreign Policy and of our National Security interest. And that brings me to the second question that ive heard lately, which is sort of whats really at stake here . 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 youre all hearing. The instant reaction of a lot of americans anywhere in our country is, woah, we dont want to go to war again. We dont want to iraq. We dont want to go to afghanistan. Weve seen how those turned out. I get it, and ill 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, that what assad has done directly affects americas security americas 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 chink in our armor that we have 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 decorations, otherwise i know many of you have served in the military, some of you still in the reserves. And you know the training we used to go through when youre learning. And i went to chemical, nuclear, biological warfare school, and i remember going into a room and a gas mask, and they make you take it off, and you see how long you can do it. It aint for long. Those weapons have been outlawed, and our troops, in all of the wars we fought since world war i, have never been subjected to it because we stand up for that prohibition. Theres a reason for that. If we dont answer assad today, we will irreparably damage a centuryold 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 dont want to go to war . Because you want to protect american troops, because you want to protect americas prohibition and the worlds prohibition against these weapons. The stability of this region is also in our direct security interest. Our allies, our friends in israel, jordan, and turkey, are, all of them, just a strong wind away from being injured themselves or potentially from a purposeful attack. Failure to act now will make this already volatile neighborhood even more combustible, and it will almost certainly pave the way for a more serious challenge in the future. And you can just ask our friends in israel or elsewhere. In israel, they cant get enough gas masks. And theres a reason that the Prime Minister has said this matters, this decision matters. Its 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. Theyre watching what we do here. Theyre watching what you do and whether or not this means something. If we choose not to act, we will be sending a message to iran of american ambivalence, american weakness. It will raise the question ive heard this question. As secretary of state as i meet with people and they ask us about sort of our longterm interests and the future with respect to iran, theyve asked me many times, do you really mean what you say . Are you really going to do something . Can he deliver . This is all integrated. 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 syrias chemical weapons threaten the security of the middle east. Thats in plain writing. Its in the act. You voted for it. Weve already decided these chemical weapons are important to the security of our nation. I quote, the National Security interests of the United States are the National Security interests of the United States are at risk with the weapons of mass the chemical weapons of syria. The fourth question ive been asked a lot of times is why diplomacy isnt changing this dynamic. Isnt there some alternative that could avoid this . And i want to emphasize on behalf of president obama, president obamas First Priority throughout this process has been and is diplomacy. Diplomacy is our first resort, and we have brought this issue to the United NationsSecurity Council on many occasions. We have sent direct messages to syria, and weve had syrias allies bring them direct messages dont do this. Dont 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 resolutions that simply 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. Weve 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 regions players to get a geneva 2 peace negotiation underway. And 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 longterm military i mean, some people think we ought to be, but we dont 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 a coalition of support for this now. Thirtyone countries have signed on to the g20 statement, which is a powerful one, endorsing the United States efforts to hold assad accountable for what he is doing. Turkey, saudi arabia, qatar, france and many others are committed to joining with us in any action. Were 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. I mentioned 31 nations signing on to the g20 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 were stronger as a United Nation around this purpose. In order to speak with that voice, we need you, the congress. Thats what the president did. Many of you said please bring this to congress. The president has done that, and hes bringing it to 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 a president , but the United States of america with respect to these weapons of mass destruction. Now, i want to be Crystal Clear about something else. Some people want to do more in sy