Transcripts For CSPAN Caught The Chinese 20130904

Congress. The president saying that wasnt something i made up. I did not pluck it out of thin air. There is a reason for it. He went on to say was far more than his credibility at stake in responding to the chemical weapons attack. A lot going on on capitol hill today. Members getting a closeddoor reefing. Briefing. Members spoke to reporters before they went in. We have the Ranking Member and the chairman for starting with senator bob corker. We will see. Of the things we want to be sure of is that every member has the opportunity to feel like they can affect this outcome in a meaningful way, so i think we have a very good starting point. I have been on the phone until late last night and beginning early this morning. Again, hopefully, we will have a good day today. I do think there is a push for people to have enough time to digest a couple things. Number one, the nuance of the legislation. To hear i think today, a full accounting from the administration as to what they really will attempt to do integrating assads ability. This is obviously an important day, but i want to ensure that every member we have a lot of members on both sides of the aisle and i want to feel that every member has the opportunity to affect this in the way they believe is constructive and meaningful and were going to begin this discussion suggest a minute. Were you on the phone with senators . I have not had any conversations with the house since the meeting yesterday at the white house. Senators, administration, and or others. How important is it to the committee that Vladimir Putin has proposed to sanctions would be illegal in terms of International Law as has ban ki moon . I doubt that will have much impact. I dont mean that in any way to be majority of, i just dont think that is where pupils focus is right now. [indiscernible] i have a couple of ideas. I have had personal conversations with the number of them last night and this morning. We will see. I want them to certainly be the ones to express their points of view. I am really pleased with the starting point that we have achieved. Again, i just want to emphasize, as i did all day yesterday, this is a starting point in the senate i am thankful the senate is weighing in in this way. I think it is good were doing it in advance. Hopefully, youll move forward a little bit today. We may be back in friday. I know theres a jewish holiday that starts late this afternoon. Maybe here over the weekend. I think everybody should have the opportunity to purposefully moved on this piece of legislation. What would you be doing . We will see. There have been a lot of discussions about the best way to get where we need to go with all of the things. I know there is an attempt to get this to the floor soon as possible. At the same time, as we have all said, this is one of the biggest issues in the senate will any senator will ever weigh in on. Lets make sure we do this the right way. Inc. You and we will talk later. Thank you and we will talk later. What you want to know . What to do . Havell, we are going to our classified heang now. Im also going to discuss with our colleagues about process and moving forward. When we come to determination of people feeling comfortable about the process, we will determine to move forward on the resolution. I think the resolution of senator corker and i with the input of members from both sides of the aisle have achieved strikes the balance. It gives the president the wherewithal to have the limited military actions that he has punishor in order to assad for the use of chemical weapons in the killing of innocent civilians. At the same time, is tightly tailored by having a timeframe in it. And i certainly prohibiting american troops on the ground. I think that is the center of the spectrum of the comments that we have heard at yesterdays hearing and from colleagues. Spane will be live on c about 11 30 with a Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They will review that information. They could vote today we are told on authorizing the use of force against the Syrian Regime for last months alleged chemical weapons attack on syrian civilians. The committees top members drafting a resolution late yesterday that would prevent president obama to present limited and tailored military against syria as long as it does not exceed 90 days and involve american troops on the ground for combat operations. The House Foreign Affairs committee begins its look and a possible u. S. Military action in syria. We will be live at noon eastern and have it right here on cspan was secretary of state john kerry in a defense secretary chuck hagel, and joint chiefs of staff chairman Martin Dempsey. The return to chapel hill to answer questions from members of the house. Heres what some of the members of congress are tweeting about the issue we would like to hear from you. How should your congressional representatives vote on the syria issue . We will take your comments on facebook. We will read some of those comments throughout the day. s parliament will debate whether that country should join the u. S. And launching strikes against syria. No Parliament Vote is scheduled. Frances constitution does not require such a vote for military intervention unless the last longer than four months. Some lawmakers have asked the to call onedent anyway. The british Parliament Voted last week against military action in syria or method that issue came up today during question time. We will show you as much as we can. It is about half an hour. Questions for the Prime Minister. Prime minister, thank you, mr. Speaker. I am sure the whole house will wish to join me in congratulating the duke and duchess of cambridge on the birth of their son from his Royal Highness Prince George of cambridge. I am sure i speak for the whole nation is sending our congratulations and wish them and Prince George a very happy and healthy life. I can assure honorable members they will be able to offer their own congratulations next monday when a formal motion is moved in the proper way. Just her speaker, i had meetings with colleagues and others in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today. [indiscernible] been good Economic News around the country. Manufacturing is up, exports are up. It is time for those to stop messing around, give it up, and abandon plan b. My friend makes an important point. We have had welcome news over the summer. , Business Confidence at its highest level since january 2008, Consumer Confidence is up and all the figures on construction, manufacturing, and services all going in the right direction. We mustnt be complacent. These are early days. Toughbecause of the decisions that this government took that we can see progress and we ought to remember the Party Opposite told us unemployment would go up, which it has come down. They told us the economy would go back, and it is Going Forward. It is time for them to explain they were wrong and we were right. [cheers] mr. Speaker, i joined the Prime Minister in congratulating the duke and duchess of cambridge on the birth of Prince George. And i wish all of them all of the happiness in the world. In st. G 20 summit petersburg tomorrow, will the Prime Minister do everything he can to get other countries to match the u. K. s important aid commitment to alleviate sanitary emergency in syria . Given that we know on this one third of syrian families are being forced to flee their homes, yet the u. N. Has left them have to resources that it needs. Of course i will be taking an action because britain has a proud record on humanitarian aid, not just in this conflict, but in many previous conflicts. We are the second largest aid donor there is. We have spent over 400 Million Pounds. It is very important the g 20 to make a number of points clear, absolute repulsion abuse of chemical weapons, our desire for Peace Process, but above all, getting donor countries together and making sure we do everything we can that they live up to the responsibilities and we do everything we can to help the Syrian People in their hour of need. Mr. Speaker, the civil war in syria and the refugee crisis are having profound consequences not just in that country, but across the middle east, specifically in ,ordan and turkey, iraq especially in lebanon where the population is up by 25 since the civil war began. What specific support the on the wealth and humanitarian assistance that his government is providing in britain give to these countries to help deal with the burden on infrastructure, their economy, and their [indiscernible] having venture refugee camp in jordan myself, to see how greater pressures are common a refugee camp in jordan is now one of the biggest cities are is and that country. Funded embassies, wellfunded diplomatic networks, very close relations with lebanon and jordan and a close relationship with the turks as well. Were doing everything we can to help and advise them. Were spending serious money on the humanitarian aid programs. At the end of the day, we need a solution to the syrian crisis. We need the Peace Process to be put in place. We also need to make sure we are absolutely clear about our repulsion of in terms of chemical weapons. We should be making sure our aid program is also helping give Syrian People protection from the chemical weapons attacks they have suffered. The repulsion of the chemical weapons attack is shared on all sides of this house as the debate last thursday made clear. I wanted to come onto the seat of the Prime Minister aid which is getting the talk going between the warring parties. The Opposition Syrian National Council is meeting i believe the foreign secretary next couple of days. Can the Prime Minister tell us what work he is doing with them, the Syrian National council, to make those talks in geneva happen . What were doing with the steering National Council is twofold. One, we want to support those limits of the Syrian Opposition that support a prolisted democratic and free syria. That is what our engagement with them has been all about. But we go further than that because we recognize the so called rebels who backed those views also deserve our support, our support in terms of training and assistance and device because the truth is this. We wont get a Peace Process in syria unless president assad realizes that actually his regime is under some sort of pressure, some sort of threat from not just the rebels, but from the millions of syrians who we must be standing up for who want to mock received, want freedom, what a Better Future for themselves and their children. Democracy, want freedom, want a Better Future for themselves and their children. All parts of this house due to stand up for the innocent people of syria. Question at issue house has approached this in a calm and measured way in we should carry on doing that. The point at issue is how to do that. Speaker, there are large barriers, big barriers, as we found out over the last year or more, to the geneva peace talk action happening. Can ask the Prime Minister whether this is a case for immediate talks between those parties with those countries backing the rebels and those countries backing the regime . That happened during the civil war in lebanon and would have at least provided a basis for discussion. I agree with the gentleman that britain should use all of its diplomatic muscle to discuss with those countries that goes back to the regime and join with those countries who backed rebels and the opposition to try bring this talks about. I have had repeated discussions, for instance, with president putin, most recently last monday, and why i travel to see into discuss this issue. It is well for the country supporting either side to want these peace talks to take place, but what you also need is for those people involved in the conflict in syria to recognize it is in their interest to see a Peace Process start to begin. I think we can convince the Syrian National council it is in their interest, because transition could lead to genuinely free elections and change for syria. But we need the regime, assad himself, to realize that it is in his interest because there is no victory he can win against his own people. And for that to happen, we need to take and the world needs to take a very tough response to things like chemical weapons attack. I accept that britain cannot be part and wont be part of any military action on that front, but we must not add any degree give up odor results in the repulsion. Nobody disagrees with our repulsion of chemical weapons, but how do we deal with it . The thing i said to the Prime Minister is given the careful told the difficulty of giving direct talks moving the twin the Syrian Government and the opposition were there isnt a case for getting a regional partners involved, we all know i in roleran has played feeling this conflict. Given the successful diplomacy involves talking to those whom we profoundly disagree, what is the governments position on iran participating either in a contact or part of the geneva process . Said,a foreign secretary he will be meeting with the Iranian Foreign minister any is in new york for the u n general assembly. Ran hasot forget what i done to our embassy in our country. We should not put that on one side. The point i would make to the gentleman is, of course, we all want these peace talks to take place and we all went geneva ii to happen, but we cant want more than the participants involved in syria possibility conflict. We have to make sure in their interest that these talks go ahead. That is why, yes, diplomacy is important, but the work we do with the Syrian Oppositions that supports democracy that supports a pluralistic fair and free syria, that is important. There are standing up for millions of syrians who have been bombed and blasted out of their houses. Those of the people you need to talk to in the refugee camps in jordan and elsewhere to see how they feel, how badly the rest of the world is currently letting them down. Nobody disagrees with that or, indeed, the view we take behavior. s the question is, how are we going to bring the parties together, including the regional parties . Finally, mr. Speaker, and we accept the remains support across the country for britain taking every diplomatic, political, into miniature an effort to help the Syrian People . At last weeks vote, he was not about britain shirking its wasal responsibility, it about preventing a rush to war. The house of commons voted clearly, and ive said i respect the outcome out of that vote, and i wont be british back transfer anticipation of military action. I agree we must use everything we can in our power, our diplomatic networks, our influence with other countries, our membership of all the key bear. To bring to my only regret of last week as i dont think was necessary to divide the house on a vote [indiscernible] [cheers] thank you, mr. Speaker. We hear today the u. K. Services Business Activity index is at its highest level for 6. 5 years. Does this not show the Government Economic odysseys are working . And with the Prime Minister commit to ensuring our increased prosperity, help us to pay [indiscernible] [applause] the good news about this economic recovery from early as it is, we are seeing it more and more. There are more people employed and there were when this government came to office. Jobs. Llion private sector we need to see further progress with that because the best route best wayverty the to improve Living Standards is to see increasing number of men and women in gainful work. Thank you. Press the Prime Minister on the relations with iran. His previous answers sounded as if he it taken their account of the facts that since our embassy was outrageously sacked by ahmadinejad, there has been an irantion in a run in that is led to a different ,ndividual becoming president shoe my knowledge, is someone the west and the minister can do with. Can we take steps now to improve relations with iran, identified those, and try to get them involved with syria . I agree that the election of a president who has a greater commitment to reform is a positive step, but ive written to the president to raise a series of issues that need to be settled between britain and iran, and above all, we need to see progress on what president rouhani himself is said is important, which is trying to come to an agreement where iran gives up the idea of Nuclear Weapons and in return, we see some relief on sanctions. That would be major progress. But we should do this not from a position of just hoping for the best. We have seen with this country iran has been come capable up in the recent past and should proceed cautiously. Does the Prime Minister agreed that [indiscernible] aware thate minister 4 of the people believe elvis is still alive . To think [indiscernible] [cheers] [laughter] my honorable friend has put his time to good use. You need to see a round of opinion polls before you can see a true trend. [laughter] why does the Prime Minister believe what is the Prime Minister believed that his plans [indiscernible] i was listing to the exchanges before i came into the questions and it seems to be there is a concerted lobbying campaign being run by the trade unions who mysteriously managed to have convinced a member of parliament opposite [indiscernible] we all know what is going on. They dont want the trade unions wrought within the law. Brought within the law. They want them to spend millions after millions, trying to alter an Election Campaign rather than have them properly controlled by the law. That is what the lobbying bill is about. Thank you, mr. Speaker. The u. K. Economy is set to benefit from around 50 Million Pounds by hosting the clipper around the world yacht race that kicks off this week. Will the Prime Minister come and personally congratulate those were literally flying the flag for britains tourism trade and water sports . I think my honorable friend is absolutely right. Ive seen a model of this incredible vessel and i join her in welcoming the contribution the clipper makes to the british economy. See the flotilla was led by british folk. I will take into account her kind invitation to come. I wish those taking part well. Take the Prime Minister back to the answer he gave to my friend a moment ago, can you be more positive about building better relations urgently with iran as one of the keys to bringing about a Peace Process in syria across the whole region . All thettacking iran time isnt going to bring them to the negotiating table. It is much better if he is much more positive about it. If youre trying to build a relationship with someone, it depends on the actions a tape. Given the iranian government was complicit in the completely smashing of our embassy and residence in tehran, we will want to see some actions so we can build that sort of relationship. Now, i have reached out by writing to president rouhani, congratulating him on his power, but if we believe theres just some magical key to the syrian conflict by suddenly adopting a totally different posture towards iran, i dont think we are making a very good decision. Last week we saw the proportion of households fall to the lowest level since records began. This is further evidence [indiscernible] all opposed by the Party Opposite. I think my honorable friend makes a good point. And the Second Quarter of 2013, there are three. 5 million workers households in the k, down 182,000 on the air. There are 3. 5 million workers households in the u. K. , down 182,000 on the year. Each torry is about how people think it into work, provide for their families, make something of their lives. We should be proud of the welfare that we have put through. Every single one opposed by the Party Opposite. We have not just saved 83 billion pounds of welfare measures they opposed, but we have given hope to liens of families in our country. Mr. Prime minister, i condemn Chemical Attacks in syria, but is it not time for joint thinking . Surely, an American Strike now would squander the opportunities offered by the new iranian leadership and by the new u. S. Initiative in palestine. With the Prime Minister do with the british people want, insist of away tor chance bring about a ceasefire rather than a new bombing raid . Respectfully the decision the house came to after the debate last week. Partin wont play any in military action. A big yourself in the shoes of the president of the United States and others. He set a clear red line that if there was a large scale chemical weapons used, something under happen. We know the regime used chemical weapons on at least 14 previously occasions. I think having said that red line, made that warning, to ask the president of the United States to step away, i think that would be a perilous suggestion to make. In response, i think its a more chemical weapons attack. The honorable lady has a very long track record of supporting peace, supporting peace talks, and i support that. I will do everything i can to try to bring the geneva ii peace talks together. I dont believe there is a contradiction in taking the top line on local weapons of a revolting in our modern world and also wanting the peace talks they can bring this crisis to an end. Thank you. Cancer funding is half that in birmingham. Have. Academic Research Suggests the current funding formula discriminates against rural areas and older people. Does the Prime Minister share my view that the nhs should move as quickly as possible toward fairer funding for rural areas . Important point. We have given a lot of these decisions away from investors to nhs england and they said theyre looking at a fairer funding formula, and im sure there will look at the arguments that he has made. I would also ask them to look at the cancer drugs fund, which has been a phenomenal success. Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell the house what he is doing to support food banks and the United Kingdom . What we have done is something the food Bank Movement has been asking for for years, but labor didnt grant them because they were worried about the pr and that was the ability to say to people could this he needed help, they could get to food bank. That might be something that labor didnt want to do because it was bad publicity. We did it because it was the right thing. Thank you very much, mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister agree with maybe, nation of the good weather, our deficit reduction, and our control on public spending has given confidence to business and individuals to create 1. 3 million jobs . However, given these encouraging figures, is he somewhat surprised the opposition Still Believes our policy would cost one million jobs . Wonhe fact that andy murray wimbledon could be added into that good weather. Much of good news to be had over the summer. It is important we recognize what has brought this good news about. There was a key judgment the parties had to make about whether in this parliament to get to grips with the deficit and take the tough decisions that we needed to turn our country around. We made those tough decisions on the side of the house. The Party Opposite docked every single one of them. Ducked every single one of them. Providing free nursery to disadvantage two years old, the councilshow four in 10 wont have sufficient places. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that all of those children promised a place will actually have one . We have put in place the funding to provide that for the disadvantaged twoyearolds, and im confident they will receive the services they deserve. Our constituency is lower than any time since 2010. I have organized two very successful job fairs and am organizing a third. Does the Prime Minister agree this goes to show the government who is right to stick to the economic plan despite calls to abandon the by the members opposite . Friendink my honorable is right. The figures on employment are encouraging. There are more people in work in our country than ever before. In privateore people Sector Employment than ever before. There are Record Number of women in work in our country, no must one million more people in work compared with the situation that we inherited. At some stage, the Party Opposite is going to have to get off the bench and admit they got it wrong. , he says hes going to borrow even more. Even when we have started turning around the economy, his learned absolutely nothing. 3. 3 billion pound profit windfall while or near family size energy bills going up by 300 pounds a year. Why is the Prime Minister failed to stand up to Energy Companies and get a better deal from the Energy Market for ordinary families . I dont know where the honorable lady was during the debate on energy bill, but this government is legislating to make sure that people are put on the lowest tariffs. This government has done that when the leader of the labour party was inergy secretary, incidentally bills went to the roof, there was none of the sort of action. Given every sign these figures upwards given the figures have been rounded upwards, very low unemployment, very Good Condition for young people to get work, that is why my honorable friend thinks this would have been achieved if you taken the advice of the chancellor. Is interesting what my honorable friend said. Every time theres a question about the economy, the fact there are more people in work, more businesses getting established, that our economy is growing him at a Party Opposite dont want to hear a word of it. They know what the whole country can see, britain is exceeding and labor is failing. Will the Prime Minister accept any responsibility for the fact it is now forecasted than on wages, working people will at the time of the election poundsage have lost 6660 while he has been number 10 . Theres only one Sustainable Way to get Living Standards up, and that is to get the economy growing, which were doing, that is to cut taxes, which were delivering, and that is to keep Mortgage Rates low, which we are doing. The fact is, if we listen to the Party Opposite who only have one plan ash spend more, borrow more , build up more debt we will be back to where we started. [cheers] as the syrian tragedy has unfolded, i have always had the armageddon question in the back of my mind, which i shall now in an understated form, if i may, but to the Prime Minister. Illegallyricans bombard the assad forces and assad legally invites the russians in to degrade the rebels, what will nato do . The first point i would make, we would never support the legal action. We debated and discussed this at some length last week. It isnt the case that the only way action can be legal is a human resolution, so we would only support action that was legal. We would only support action that was proportionate. As i said, britain would not be ticking pardon any of this action. But in a way you to put the armageddon question around the other way, which is if no action is taken following president obamas red line, and if no action is taken following the supporting use of chemical weapons, you have to ask yourself, what sort of armageddon or the Syrian People going to be facing . You, mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister said he does not support attack site for those living [indiscernible] the claims some People Living in are capital rich and cash poor. Can the Prime Minister tell me, support for the bedroom tax the punishing people [indiscernible] and have no cash. First of all, he has to get clear what is a tax and what is not. Or was a subsidy for people who add additional room and we believe it is fair the same rules in private sector, nations sectorate consolidations. You have ranted and raved about the fair room subsidy. Are you going to reverse it . Just nod. Are you going to reverse it . Means no, that means yes. Say. Utely nothing to mr. Speaker, thank you. It is a decision for someone to leave their home in the country fleeing for their own safety. How many people must have left syria for it is impossible for its regime to declare any kind of moral entitlement to govern the country . I dont believe the regime has any legitimacy. I think the way it has treated its own people, i think the bombing and maiming of its own citizens, and now this use of chemical weapons, i see this as a completely illegitimate regime. But what we now have to do is bring every pressure to bear for transition so we can end up with syria in totally different hands. That is what is required. The cost of the uniform has spiraled to 285 pounds this year as academies insist on bringing clothing. Academy, 70 of the parents had to take out loans to pay for the uniform. Why has the Prime Minister failed to act so that his School Policy is now leading [indiscernible] like many people and many parents, i think is absolutely right for schools from if they want to choose, to have a tough and robust uniform policy. I was at the opening of a new free school in birmingham yesterday, where all of the parents in that room were very grateful of the fact that is exactly the policy they had. I have to say what i see from the honorable lady is just trying to find a way to oppose free schools. The fact is, we now have 194 free schools in our country that they dont like it because, actually, parents inc. Is a good education. Theyre going to have to listen to the figures. Two thirds of these goals are either good or outstanding, and at some stage, just as they got it wrong over the economy, the labour party is going to have goodman they got it wrong about free schools as well. A cost the ministry of defense 1. 4 billion pounds to extend the life of the for trayvon summaries in order the liberal democrats could have a four of alternatives trident summaries and order for the liberal democrats to have a study of alternatives. It can never again be blackmailed by the liberal democrats in the House Parliament . I have to credit the honorable gentleman with a remarkable proficiency on this issue, on which basically, i agree with him. We have trident, it is the right approach, and we need to renew trident. The delay of the decision has saved us money rather than cost us money. His point about the review i think is absolutely right. It shows if you want to have a proper functioning deterrent, then you need to have the best and that means a permanently at bass alternative, and that is what a conservative only government after the next election will deliver. Is it not the case [indiscernible] the honorable gentleman is somewhat of in exotic creature. I think that excites the interest. I do wish to hear what he has to say on any must be heard. Is it not the case that real wages have fallen by nearly 1500 pounds a year since you became Prime Minister . Of course we live in tough times. Because of the incredible mess weve had to clear up from the Party Opposite. I have to say the Party Opposite complaining about the economy, complaining about Living Standards, is like the arsonist complaining to the fire brigade. It is his government turning it around. Mr. Gordon [indiscernible] recently awarded by the department of business, the must mosttooges award the prestigious award. Congratulate the many businesses are members. Certain the businesses, large and small enterprise they have shown. The fact about this recovery, it is a private sector her that recovery. That is what we needed after the mass of excessive government spending. It is been very good. Businesses have done so much to take people on and get our economy moving. That from earlier this morning in london. President obama overseas today in stockholm, sweden. The president saying according ifthe Associated Press that the u. S. Fails to act, it would embolden repressive regimes, speaking of syria, around the world to flout all sorts of international standards. The president being quoted as saying the moral thing to do is not to stand by and do nothing. That again, president obama at a News Conference on the question about syria this morning in stockholm, sweden, before he heads off to saint petersburg, russia for the g 20 summit. In a closedngress door intelligence briefing today on syria. We are waiting for members to come out and speak in front of the cameras. When they do, we will try and bring that to you live. We also have the public worsen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee public portion of the Senate Foreign relations meeting. At about 11 30, that will be on cspan2. Senator john mccain saying he doesnt support the latest resolution to authorize military force against syria. The sitter and outspoken advocate of intervention for the advocate of intervention, heres how the ap reports what he is saying. The Arizona Republican threatened earlier this week to vote against the white house draft resolution unless Presiden Barack Obama promised reuters support to syria. Mr. Mccain and expressed support after meeting with mr. Obama. He opposes a resolution. Crafted by democratic senator bob menendez of new jersey and republican senator bob corker of tennessee. Limit ond put a 90 day action and would say that no american troops can be sent into syria. Senator mccain said in its current form, i do not support it. Noonll be live at 12 00 right here on cspan with the House Foreign Affairs committee. There getting a briefing today the senate got yesterday from secretary of state john kerry. Chuck hagel and the chairman of the joint chiefs. That live at 12 00 noon here on cspan. Some of the tweets were looking at this morning we are asking that question here is cspan. You can do it on our Facebook Page. What youlike to hear think. As we wait for people to make their way to the cameras, lets show you some of our discussion about syria from this mornings washington journal. Now, americanus enterprise institute, the Vice President for foreign and defense studies. What do you think about the president s proposal as it has been made so far for syria . I thinkt is not one confuses anyone with a great deal of confidence about what the president and game is, what his aims are, what strategy it is a part of. I think that is part of the reason why the president s policies havent been very popular. Holes this morning show there is very little slim support in the public for a strike on syria and i think part of the reason is people understand instinctively there is not enough of a narrative there from the president. Host do you support it personally . Guest it is a hard class for me, personally. I wrote an article in the journal a few months back detailing how i thought the United States could be helpful to the rebels in conducting a series of targeted strikes on airfields and things like that. My biggest fear is this is just one of those missiles into an empty tent that does nothing to help the rebels, does nothing to stop the use of chemical weapons, does nothing to shift the balance of the war. It just makes people mad. Is a scope, then there needs to be a bigger picture, what would that look like . Guest i think it has to be part of the conference of plan. They cant does the made up of military action, surly not by the United States. Certainly not by the United States. Take out a solids ability to resupply, to receive weapons transfers from russia and iran and others. Going after his airfields, going after his fixed wing aircraft, even as rotary wing. Arming the rebels. The president said three months ago this is something his administration was going to do. Nothing has happened. It is quite striking. Nothing has happened. The president did not make a lot of fanfare of that announcement, either. If you want to do things like this, you have to explain to the American Public. Host what do you make about the strategy to go to congress, which we saw starting into the weekend and now debated on capitol hill . Spent 10 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Im never going to criticize the president for going to the representatives of the American People and asking their counsel, seeking their authorization. On the other hand, the hypocrisy of the president s moves strikes me a little bit. When was the question of libya, the president did not see the need to go to congress. Now he does. I can only assume this is really just a delaying tactic for him because he is not actually got the courage of the convictions expressed last week. Debatesw the committee a draft authorization. What is the possibility it could change a senators debate it . Guest the compromised hashed out late last night that will be voted on this morning is a very narrow authorization. Additional 30 of the president asks for it. It is very, very limited scope of strikes on chemical weapons related facilities. Specifically prohibits certain kinds of actions, some reasonable boots on the ground, some perhaps less reasonable. The president may see it is wise to take out additional marginal threats, for example, to our own facilities. This will limit him in that way. I think if the president wants this authorization from congress , and having trotted out his secretary defense and secretary and the joint chiefs today, i think he at least once the appearance of it. I think it will pass. I think the president will have to accept what congress does. Host you dont think it is enough . Guest i dont think it is enough. Whenever youre engaged in using American Military power or ends that are unclear, youre making a mistake. You are abusing our military. You are abusing your power. And youre not advancing any particular strategy. That is the problem here. No one has been able to answer the very simple question, why are you doing this . Will Bashar Alassad be able to use chemical weapons again . Probably. Is he about to lose the war because of what we are going to do . No. We have a coherent strategy of arming but also empowering moderates among the rebels . Not that i can tell. And that is really the biggest concern among people who oppose it. On the other side, you dont want any president of the United States, once he decides to take military action as commanderin chief, to be hamstrung by by the kinds of limitations that congress is now discussing. This is the tension we see. I want a robust policy on syria. I want to see a side go. That is what the president of the United States said. I just dont know why he hasnt been more decisive than putting together strategy over two plus years. Host that limitation was in the lynnwood yesterday, specifically to boots on the ground. Guest i think boots on the ground are absolute no go here. We dont add value here. But i think theres a more important thing for people to understand. Inm a big believer democracy. I always have been and i think it is something the United States should fight for and stand with people that are fighting for it. Bashar alassad is a brutal commit terrible, dictator, someone who has oppressed his people and his father before him, for decades. These are cruel and awful people and also the main supporters and conduit for iranian supported terrorism. It is not just a humanitarian question. What should we be doing in these instances . If people want to overthrow a leader like that, we should be doing our best to empower the best among them to do so. If we agree with their aims. And i think we agree with their aims, we just havent done anything. That is brought al qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood into the game and helped make a mess of what is going on in syria. Host if you want to ask her question about what has been revealed when it comes to strategy in syria, you can give us a call on three lines this morning. She will be with us until a 30. 8 30. You can send us emails are join us on twitter as well. Rebels, theming question is always been, which wants to arm and what the end result and if there is a slippery slope to deal with. Guest it is always a slippery slope. It is always dangerous. The important argument to understand is, there are people arming some on the rebels. The saudi government were arming the rebels for quite some time. The problem is, who were they arming . I would say the saudis left were arming the most extremist islamist among the rebels, those who are most closely affiliated with al qaeda. They were getting all the help. Yeanwhile, those who are morall aligned with our values who wanted to democratic few, who support secularism, support minorities in syria which there are a significant number and want to protect them, they have been getting the short end of the stick because it is only western powers who would support them. Host yesterday, a republican from idaho was questioning credibility issues when it comes to the u. S. , especially when there is an only plan that was out there was a limited strike. Lets hear what he had to say and get your reaction. [video clip] are we going to give them credibility if we going with a limited strike in the day after or the week after were the month after assad crawls out of his rat hole and says, look, i stood up to the strongest power in the face of this earth and i one. Now it is business as usual here. You may say by the way, im not going to use chemical weapons anymore because i dont like what just happened, but im going to continue to use conventional weapons and we are going to go on with business as usual and the refugees will continue and that thousands will be killed him and our allies will say, whats the matter with the United States . You said you would do something about this. Strike, butmited you didnt finish off assad. The problem is just as bad as it was. What does that do to our credibility . That concerns me. Senator, that is 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 is no way that with reality and other assessments he is going to be able to say he is 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. Guest i think the senator asked the right question. I watched about 2. 5 hours of the hearing yesterday. Think of me as someone who is pretty sympathetic to the idea we need to do something about Bashar Alassad and we need to help the rebels. I got to tell you, i thought they were incoherent. I thought they made a bad case for themselves. Thought, frankly, secretary kerry and secretary hagel both embarrassed themselves, contradicted themselves, and first of all, i just wrote down a quote from john kerry. Based on reality and other assessments im sorry, what . They cant explain the policy because it isnt coherent. Syria, thenabout what was the number, one hundred 10,000 . 100,000 . 90,000 . At the end of the day, do we care about chemical weapons used but not how the children died . The 400 plus children that are so often cited were killed with this nerve gas attack that took place in late august. What do we care about . What are our objectives . The secretary kerry was asked about boots on the ground and he said, well, maybe. And someone caught it and they went after him and he said, well, no. Again, i dont think they inspired confidence. What they gave everybody was kind of a ham sandwich and democratic loyalist support of them. Believe Congress Needs to stand by the commander inchief and that we need to do more in syria also supported them, but i thought they didnt a very good job of assuaging peoples concerns. Host to have any solid evidence that assad is involved in the first place . Guest this is the kind of thing that bums me out. I think when the United Nations agrees the United States, the germans, the french, the british, and others agree, that chemical weapons were used theres physical evidence, it has been collected by u. N. And specters, we have seen the physical evidence of and rituals who were attacked of individuals who were attacked, i dont think we have a lot of doubt about this happening. The assertions by assad, which by the way, were made law last time he used chemical weapons early this year which people have forgotten about because it was a smaller scale, with the assertions made by assad that this was done by the rebels doesnt hold water. They dont have the sort of supplies. In many cases, in the first attack for example, they dont have the delivery mechanisms. Weree first attacks, these delivered by air. The rebels dont have air power. No. I think it is a credible assertion. Host panama city, florida, independent line. Good morning. Caller good morning. My main statement would be benghazi. We went in there without boots on the ground. You see how that turned out. A second point about babies. If you dont think he wont have babies lined up on the sidewalk after an attack, you are crazy. There is no way to win this thing, to go in there and strike this. This is a stay out policy or it will be another benghazi at best. At worst, it is going to be babies lined up on the streets. We are already, supporting the scannable in the first place. Supporting this cannibal in the first place. It is a little embarrassing for the president , but he is the one that opened his mouth and inserted foot. That is all i would like to say. Guest i have heard a lot of these analogies to benghazi. I guess the president set himself up for that because libya was so important as serious has been so unimportant in his worldview. The analogies are not really that out. That apt. We had an ambassador on the ground in benghazi and a cia station and consular officials. That is not what we have on the ground in syria. We dont have anyone on the ground and the president is proposing to put anyone on the ground. The biggest criticism i have heard is that we didnt do in benghazi what we are proposing to do in syria. Done something about the al qaeda that was seeking sneaking into in gaza in that would have stopped the ambassador and others from being killed. I dont think analogy is apt. I think the president set himself up. Host new york, democrat line. For taking myyou call. What im wanting to know, do they really believe shooting missiles into these places is not going to spray these chemicals any further . Its not like were destroying conventional weapons. We are destroying chemical weapons. Wont that spread . Why isnt russia trying to do anything to stop what is going on over there . Theyre the biggest supporters of them, right . Guest well done. I think those are good questions. On the technical aspect of what a strike would look like, what we hear through the news media and leaks from the white house is the president is not proposing to strike at actual chemical stockpiles, which is risky, but chemicals are unstable. They will more likely burn up than spread. That aint said, the that being said, it is more logical to go after the distribution. Those are some of the things i have seen in public reporting. The russians are playing a complicated game here. While they might serve Vladimir Putins ego nicely, i am not sure they serve russias long term, strategic interests. Vladimir putin likes to play the nostalgic communist game we are on par with the United States, you choose your guys in the middle east and we will choose hours. At the end of the day, Bashar Alassad will not stay in power. Lets hope they are better. Even if they are words, let me tell russia something, are you listening . Host is there a message going into the g 20 from the president . Guest the problem for russia is serious is there only for in the middle east, port in the middle east, one of their few allies, and that will not be there for them now that they have taken the wrong side against the Syrian People. Today he said he would be open to a u. N. Resolution if there were proof chemical weapons were used. Maybe it is a trap for him trying to be conciliatory. A tobit is the latter. Host georgia. The public in line. Rusty, go ahead. Caller my comment is about the narrow focus of the Senate Hearings where secretary kerry stated this was a narrowed and focused attempt at serious, but is there not a statement in their that says the president might act upon nonstate and state actors in this, and this could bleed over into hezbollah or iran and brought in this engagement brought in this engagement . Host there is an oped in usa today that says the military action is part of a broader strategy. Guest part of a broader strategy, but not to go against hezbollah or iran. There are people that suspected his pretext for the president to go in and start bombing everyone we do not like. That might be nice in some cases because goodness knows we will need a strategy to deal with hezbollah and iran and the president does not have one, but that being said i do not think the construction of the resolution as it came out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last night will allow the president any such latitude. It is very specific about targets in syria. Host mary from longwood, florida. Independent line. Caller good morning. I want to point out this young lady is a representative of the aei. A lot of the aei scholars were the architects of the bush administrations policy, like john bolton. I know syrias oil is nationalized and the eu put sanctions on that. Shell, one of the few companies allowed to do business in syria has been squashed or in the civil war. And you the eu lifted this section. I think this is all about oil. Aei is supported by corporations that we do not even know. Going to syria, we need to take care of business here at home. We, the people, have a message to congress who vote yes for this. If you vote yes for this, you take your sons and your grandsons and go over there. That is all i have to say. Host thank you. Guest i am always disappointed when i hear people say doit yourself. I think john kerry and Lindsey Graham gave amply in service to their country. Lets talk about syrian oil. Syria has almost no oil. It is one of the biggest disappointments for the assad dictatorships. They had a 10year supply for domestic use. They are an incredibly poor country. Its greatest wealth has always been its people, its entrepreneurs, and i hope that will remain the case. I do not think Oil Companies have a great interest in the outcome here except insofar as turmoil in the middle east is bad for business. Host ever since saturday you have heard the term war weary. What comes to your mind, especially given your experience with the iraq war when you hear comparisons . Guest my colleague tom donnelly has developed what i would only call a mania on this expression were weary war weary. How many people among the war weary are actually serving in our voluntary forces . Less than 1 . Who is fighting . The 3 million americans, or those guys that volunteered . What are the American People weary of talking about it, spending on it . Are they also weary about Social Security and medicaid because we are spending those at a much faster clip than we are on any conflict, any pentagon account. I am not sure what anyone means when they say war weary. We are a great power, we want to remain a great power and enjoy the privileges of being a great power. One of those is understanding just what we need to do overseas. Sometimes that involves our military. More often it does not, but people should make no mistake, our strength and our nation, the way it is constructed right now with the privileges and the economy that people have come to enjoy was built on american power, not war weariness. Host you have heard that term from the president guest it has become a clich . It is the kind of clich . That led former president jimmy carter talk about malays in the country. I understand people are sick of the problems of the middle east because they are big, intractable, and hard to solve, and they affect us in ways that we do not want them to affect us, but that being said, those that are fighting for us are not complaining, and they represent a very small part of this country. I give them full credit, and i am amazed by the things that they do. I only wish we were supporting the more. Host danielle pletka, our guest. American enterprise institute. Peter. Democrats want. Caller democrats line. Caller israel launched missiles into syria a few months ago. I am wondering if that was illegal, and we still have to back israel up for those missiles launched if serial was to respond back to syria was to respond back to israel . Guest that is a good question. Israel has gone in more than once from the air and taken out shipments either from iran or russia to has bulla, what israel has has bulla has bulla and israel have gone in three times and taken out three turn such targets. The syrians have not retaliated against him. What we are proposing to do is not a whole lot more germanic than that. Maybe unfortunately. I think syria and threats of retaliation are empty if israel is any measure. Host a headline in the Washington Post. Michael, centreville, virginia, republican line. Caller good morning. The decision by this administration to get involved in syria would be the wrong decision. Again, we are making the wrong decision when it comes to Foreign Policy in the middle east. After what happened in libya and what is happening in egypt, i see that the decisions made do little but harm our image in the middle east. Getting a war in syria would not defend our National Interests. There were many here protesting the decision to get involved over the weekend. Getting involved in syria is not the emphasis of our allies. Israel knew all along that Charlotte Sun Bashar Al Assads regime had chemical weapons. The real fear is not the chemical weapons in his hands, but if the weapons are possessed by the extremist groups. Number three, the french opposition to the war cited that 80 of the attacks on bush ares Bashar Alassads regime are done by al qaeda. They would be the rebels we would be helping. Host thank you. Guest we talked about this upfront. When the president wants to do something in the middle east that involves military power, after having spent more than five years in office, including his said career, saying we do not senate career, saying we do not belong in the middle east, we have no dog in this. Fight, syrian fight, i understand where the caller is coming from. The president needs to articulate what are what our interests are. Insofar as the president is the leader of the country, and the bully pulpit as so much value, he has done nothing to build consensus around this. He has done nothing to explain to the American People what is at stake. It is not just syria. It is the spillover into lebanon. We see bombings in lebanon, sectarian fighting in lesbian lebanon. We see bombings on the turkish syrian border. We see the return of al qaeda in iraq. We see new powers position themselves in the Golan Heights to threaten israel. The notion that we have nothing at stake, that we can wash our hands of this let them kill each other someone said that to me, i think it is false, but i am just a lady sitting here on cspan. I am not the president of the United States. It strikes me that when the president made the decision to arm the syrian rebels, he did so with ben rhodes doing a Conference Call on friday after night, and on monday night at 11 30 p. M. , the president went on charlie rose to talk more about the rebels. That is not selling a policy. Host what about other countries and how they watch us . Guest absolutely. It is not just the American People scratching their heads. With the gentleman said about egypt is right. The democratically elected government that we did not like, the Muslim Brotherhood, they believed they were betrayed. Those that believe in democracy and secular freedom, and they think we have let them down because we let my comment morsi run a muck Mohamed Morsi run amok. We are playing a loselose game. Host ralph. Ridgway, pennsylvania. Go ahead. Caller the president ran his mouth with this red line talk. It was not a red line or i will go to congress. The republicans are falling for it. They cannot win either way. If it turns out good, the president will take credit. If it is bad, it is all about elections in 2014. Guest i think the accusation about the red line is absolutely true part of the problem the president has is that he was, lets say, rhetorically aggressive in talking about his red lines last year in the context of a National Election where he was charged of being weak on National Security. He said he was talk and tough, and here is my red line. Now the president has to lie in the bed that he made for himself, and that is part of what this game with congress is about, distancing himself. Host the Deputy Foreign minister said wants a war starts, no one controls what happens and we believe any attack on syria will result in chaos in the region, and guest and might be it might be the best they have put together since 1970. We have forgotten how bad the assads are. Our concern is what comes next is worse. Part of the reason he gets out there and starts to sound like he might be making sense is because the president is not out there selling the vacuum. Host they faye, sacramento, california. Caller good morning, ms. Pletka. All summer long, the republicans have said theyre coming back to washington to shut down the government and impeach the president. This morning, cspan is talking about interventions in. I think we have more Serious Problems in this country. Thank you. Guest ok. Host roger is next. Salem, oregon. Guest i would like to encourage syrias assad to act rationally. I suspect they use one of their large western beaches and invite french and u. S. Military navy forces and remove them. Guest interesting idea. If assad were serious about a negotiated agreement, he would do Something Like that. He would say i did not use them, in fact, here, i will give you chemicals that might be used for chemical weapons. Take them from me. Of course, aside is in this game to win it but he wants to defeat the rebels, retake power, and reestablishes irani and proxy dictatorship. He will not do something rational like that. There was a time a couple of years ago where he still was a person with whom one could potentially have a conversation. That day has long passed. Host frank. West virginia. Independent line. Caller good morning. I think you have done a great job of assessing the situation. Two things i have not heard much of has anyone considered the wag the dog that we heard so much about one bill clinton was in the . No one is talking about the irs, the nsa. That is all a thing of the past. There is a term i have not heard much and it is Mission Creep. When john kerry talked about maybe boots on the ground in case we had to guard stockpiles of weapons and then he backtracked, i think the people that feel we can limit this, get that done and be out are not recognizing the danger of making more moves and more moves and finally we are in a big mess over there. I would like to listen to your comments. Guest thank you for your comments up front. Two very good questions. There have been accusations that there is a rabid dog exercise, wag the dog exercise, that the president wants to distract. We have some polling experts at the American Enterprise institute. I would say that perhaps the caller could be right, although i do not think he is, that it would be a possibility if, in fact, the American People actually cared about these scandals. As shocking as it is to me living in washington, i am utterly horrified by the way the benghazi prosecution has been followed, the American Public is not excited about these issues. Your listeners are. We are very interested in these questions, but the American Public is not as excited about all of this as i would have thought and a lot of polling shows that to be consistent. I do not think the president needs to distract people from these things. The problem is the president is not doing anything about these problems the irs, benghazi. He is doing something have fast about halfassed about syria and republicans are not holding his feet to the fire on any of these challenges. On the question of Mission Creep, we spoke about that, and i mentioned a specific quote from secretary kerry, and i think there is every reason to suspect that there could be Mission Creep because we have not gotten any context. The administration keeps saying there will not be Mission Creep, it will not change, nothing will happen, trust us. Again, without the context, without the narrative from the president , people will suspect get out there, mr. Obama, tell people what you are thinking. Host an oped looking at the United Nations question. The u n charter has been breached, but what is one more . All of these beaches at up. Guest well, my late boss used to say i think we will have to agree to disagree. Im a big believer in the constitution of the United States and not the United Nations charter. It is the constitution that dictates what the president does, not the United Nations charter, and i do not believe the American People believe the United Nations should be an arbiter of what is in our National Interest and what is not. First of all, iraq was legal because we had an authorization from the Security Council to use whatever means necessary to enforce what the weapons inspectors were doing. I would assert an unnecessary technicality. What the president needs to do is persuade the American Congress and the American People and forget about the United Nations. Host tile. Vermont kyle. Vermont. Independent. Caller i wanted to touch on americans being war weary. We saw a lot of friends and family members come back in coffins. Americans became weary when we were chasing around weapons of mass destruction and we found they did not particulary exist. It is hard to go to other countries when we see americans coming back in unjust causes. Guest i think the question of unjust causes is a matter of opinion. I spent a lot of time talking to our forces, and i do not think there is any battle in america to see who is more sorry about our military, who gives the ultimate sacrifice in war, and the cost that that exact on families. That being said, it is those soldiers and their families the notion that americans are were weary war weary is a little bit callous, and it is important to look to what the military says about their efforts soldiers i talk to are enormously proud of the work they have done in fighting terrorism. Host one more call from scott in west virginia. Republican line. Caller if he created a war crime by using chemical weapons, why can we not arrest him, give him his day in court, and when he is guilty or innocent, give him his trial . Guest there are conventions against the use of chemical weapons and in addition there are charges of crimes against humanity. The case can be brought in the International Criminal court. There are two sides to the question for the caller, and is another 45 minutes of conversation, but part of the problem is when you indict someone it makes them less likely they will come to a negotiated settlement. That being said, i do not think he is coming to a negotiated settlement. Indict him. On the other hand, who will pick him up, deliver him . That has not been answered. In other cases where we have gone to International Criminal courts or other courts that have been set up, it is a tall order to get these folks into the dock. It is only once we were able to win in the balkans that we were able to do that. Host danielle pletka, American Enterprise institute. He were for joining us. Guest my pleasure. A busy morning here on c span. Members of congress are tweeting about the situation in syria. Duncan hunter of california says that from the kentucky republican. The live picture now at the Russell Senate office building. We are waiting for members of the Senate Armed Services committee. Were getting a closed door meeting right now between secretary chuck hagel and the joint chiefs. We are ready to bring that to you. We are also hearing today from senator john baucus, the wyoming barrasso, john saying it is unclear if the senates Foreign Relations committee will vote today moving forward on the authorization for the use of military force in syria. Coverage of a business meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee scheduled to start in just a couple of minutes. We have that for you on cspan2. And about half an hour, we plan coverage of the House Foreign Affairs committee, they will get the briefing the senate folks got from secretary of state kerry, secretary of defense hagel and general Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs. Thats scheduled for noon eastern. We will have a life for you on cspan. President obama is overseas right now in stockholm, sweden on his way to st. Petersburg, russia on his way to the g 20 summit. The president acknowledged this morning a military response will not resolve the civil war in syria. According to the ap, the president says it is needed, a military response, to send a clear message. Subject in thehe british house of commons this morning. Prime minister David Cameron answering some questions this morning. Lets show you some of that right now. There is no difference in this house because all parties in this hell need to stand up for the innocent people of syria. Issue i think the house has approached this issue in a calm and measured way and should carry on doing that. The point at issue is how to do that. There are big barriers as we found out over the last year or more to the geneva peace talks actually happening. Whether there is a case for immediate talks between those parties backing the rebels and those countries backing the regime. That happened in the civil war in lebanon and would provide a basis for discussion. I agree with the right honorable gentleman that britain should use its diplomatic muscle to discuss with those countries that goes back to the regime and join with those countries who back the rebels and opposition to bring this talks about. Thats why ive had repeated discussions with president putin, was recently last monday, and why i traveled to see him specifically to discuss this issue. But i come back to this point its all very well for the countries supporting either side to want these peace talks to take lace. What you also need is for those people involved in the conflict that it is in their interest to see a Peace Process start to begin. Can convince the Syrian National council that its in their interest because a transition could lead to generally genuinely free elections and change serious. But we need a sought himself to realize that it is in his interest we need assad himself to realize that is in his interest. We need to take in the world needs to take a very tough response to things like chemical weapons attacks. I said britain cannot be pardoned will be part of any military action on that front. Give up ournot utter revulsion at the Chemical Attacks weve seen and we must press this in every form in which we can. The british house of commons making moret obama news in stockholm. The Associated Press reporting the president says he will continue to engage Vladimir Putin even though they have hit a wall in their relationship. Mr. Obama says putin is rejecting the idea that Bashar Alassad used chemical weapons against his people, but he is always hopeful mr. Putin will change his position. Mr. Putin said in an interview with the Associated Press that russia doesnt exclude supporting a u. N. Resolution on military strikes against the provedegime if it is Regime Forces used poison gas on civilians. But he said it was ludicrous the regime would use chemical weapons a time when rebels were in the defensive. He warned the west against take you onesided action in syria. We had a chance to speak with a capitol Hill Reporter to see how some of the politics play out here in washington. Joining us is just an sink, a writer for the hell. Thank you for joining us. Talk about the document that was released yesterday. What it says in essence and what the debate will be on the senate side. Time one is the amount of the Obama Administration would have to take action in syria to about treatments. It puts a kind of strict limit on whether the president can send troops into syria and say no boots on the ground. Says weof more closely are looking for a tailored, narrow intervention in serious. These are goals the president himself has expressed and it did not appear in the draft language submitted to the senate and i think that angered senators on both sides of the aisle. With this new resolution, it could pick up a lot of support against some of those democrats and republicans. I also think it is something the that seems in line with the a lot of objectives they have laid out. Is their concern on the senate side that even as the proposal goes out that it could be amended or changed, especially for those who dont support action in syria . There is a bit of a balance going on right now, especially on the senate side. Some republican senators including john mccain and Lindsey Graham who are at the white house on monday have pushed for more aggressive action in syria. Looking to give the president morepower to intervene, power to target additional sites to help rebel forces on the democrats or libertarians, sort of an odd coalition, but one that is askging in the senate will to narrow this resolution even further. For the white house, the challenge is to stitch together a coalition that sticks together in the middle that could be of some sort of intervention in syria without pushing it too far. What does it mean as far as the building there because Speaker Boehners report support said he made it yesterday. Johnting House Speaker boehner and eric cantor is a big win for the president. It never a bad thing. Lee after,diate Speaker Boehner came out and said it is still the president s. Ob to sell this while it is undoubtedly a good boehner ispeaker coming behind us, its still a big challenge for the president. Weve seen a couple of occasions that Speaker Boehner does not have a huge amount of control over his caucus, especially the sort of tea Party Elements that will be particularly hard to win over. Does it mean for nancy pelosi in the days Going Forward . Hert she also voiced support for a resolution and she has expressed a lot of reticence Many Democrats have buted on going back nevertheless has started to work needs ande votes she the president needs to pass grade the president is going to the g 20. What happens as far as relations in congress . Who does that . Officialsinistration stand out across the capital today and for the rest of the week. John kerry will be back on capitol hill today for more testimony. Congress are on phone calls with the white house and this is just part of an effort the white house has described as a flood the zone offensive really trying to reach out to every member of congress they can and win them over to supporting this resolution. Of wheres your sense it stands today for passage in both the house and the senate . Guess the senate is a little more likely than the house. Who we have heard of there is a coalition of liberal democrats and teeth party republicans, neither of whom are particularly inclined at this point to support it. Host justin hill is a staff writer for the hill thank you. I live look here as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee gets ready to hold what is described as a business business meeting on the authorization of force in syria. We will cover that for you live as it getsas soon under way. You can see a few folks there in the chair. We will have that for you on c span2. Scheduled to begin in about 20 minutes, we have the House Foreign Affairs committee. They are hearing today from the secretary of defense chuck hagel and the chairman of the joint chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Martin Dempsey. The same briefing they brought to the senate yesterday, they will bring to the house and be questioned by house members. We will have that coverage for you here on cspan. We want to know what using. One of the ways you can weigh in is on facebook. There you see where you can go. Tell us what you can tell us what you think about the situation. We have chances for you to weigh in via phone. Here are some of the calls on thisyrian issue from mornings washington journal. Host this is reflective of other headlines you see. Go to the headline of the Washington Post was quote goes to the senate side. Talking about the draft authorization that will be debated today in the senate. Times New York House leaders express support for the syrian strike. Also talked about the Senate Action as well. Your reaction to how senators and legislators are react inc. And comments they have made. If you want to give us a call, the numbers are on your screen. To talk a little bit about reaction going on on capitol hill, joining us is just in sync, with the hill. Talk about the document that was released yesterday, what it says in essence and what the expected debate will be on the senate side. There are a couple of key points. One of the biggest ones is that it limits the amount of time the Obama Administration would have to undertake any military action in syria to about three months. Limit on whether the president can send troops into syria. No boots on the ground. It more closely says we are looking for a tailored, narrow intervention into syria these are goals the president himself has expressed but it did not appear in the draft language submitted to the senate which i think angered a lot of senators on both sides of the aisle. , theyhis new resolution could pick up a lot of support from both democrats and republicans. Think its something the white house is particularly opposed to. That evene a concern as a proposal goes out and it could be amended or changed in language, especially for those who dont support action in syria . There is a bit of a balance going on right now. Republican senators, including john mccain and Lindsey Graham who were at the white house on monday has pushed for a more aggressive action in syria. The president e , moreower to intervene power to target additional sites, to help rebel forces on democrats,while libertarians, it sort of an odd coalition, but one that has emerged in the senate, they have been asked to narrow this even further. For the white house, the real challenge is to stitch together a coalition of 50 senators in the middle who could be supportive of some sort of intervention in syria without pushing it too far to either extreme. What does it mean as far as support building on the house side . Anduse of Speaker Boehner the proposals he made yesterday. Getting john boehner and to have theis good Top Republicans in the house backing this proposal is never a bad thing. Almost immediately after Speaker Boehner came out yesterday and voiced his support, and aid for bader says it is still the president s job. It is still the president s job to sell the American People on this. While it is undoubtedly a good sign Speaker Boehner is coming behind it, it is still a big challenge for the president. Weve seen on a couple of different occasions recently that Speaker Boehner doesnt have a huge amount of control over his caucus, especially the sort of tea party element that will be particularly hard to win over. What does it mean for nancy pelosi in the days Going Forward . Guest she also voiced her support. Expressed reticence that many local democrats have voiced on going back to war but nevertheless it has started to work hard on the votes she needs in the president needs to pass. As far as the president going to the g 20, who does that . Administration officials are fanning out across the capital today. John kerry will be back on capitol hill. Members of congress expect to have phone calls with though white house. I have a phone call with the white house and thats just part of an effort as a sort of flood the zone offensive to try to reach out to every member of congress that they can. What is your sense of how it stands today about passage on both the house and the senate . Guess the senate is more likely than the house. There is a coalition of both liberal democrats and tea party of them are neither particularly inclined to support the resolution. Sync, making the case to congress and the congressional reaction. Thank you. Supportongress the link for the presence land on syria. You can get a chance to comment on the congressional reaction. Our first call this morning is from bob in granger, indiana on the republican line. Caller good morning, cspan. Im not in favor of this at all. I dont trust john kerry any farther than i can throw him. If this goes bad, they are going to wrap around the republicans neck and maybe now we can get john boehner out of speakership. Im getting really fed up with these guys. Thank you. Kerrysecretary of state as well as the joint chiefs chair, Martin Dempsey on the hill today to testify before the House Foreign Affairs committee on that hearing on syria live today. Find that on our website and Video Library later on. We are getting your reaction to what is going on. Is im not sure how smart it is going to war when we have no allies backing us. If the whole world is against areical weapons usage, why we the only ones to step in and do something about it . We were also using chemical weapons in vietnam, agent orange was used by the u. S. As you watch Congress Deal with this, what is your reaction . Im happy we have people like rand paul who actually listen to the people and vote on their behalf area on their behalf. Host ron from serious says this is a another chance to see the difference between libertarians and the rest. Randy in michigan, democrat line. We are going to break away from this portion of washington journal and take you over to capitol hill. You see a live picture from the Russell Senate office golding. Lets see what we can here. This is live coverage on cspan. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] senateooks like the Armed Service Committee Meeting is breaking up. You can see the Ranking Members there or one of the members i should say lets take you back to some of your calls from this morning as we wait for the house Foreign Relations committee to get underway. You can see the same thing happening in vietnam. We started with just advisers and we were going to go any farther than that. Its the same story, its just history repeating and these boys in congress, all this money they spent on our security has bought us nothing but a bunch of attacks on our constitutional rights. Thats the reaction i see from tongass. They are running scared. They dont know what to do. They are afraid of their shadows. It worries me because we are a tougher country than that. People have always been out to get rid of us ever since we became a nation. Together. Stick we will never all agree on politics but weve got to stick together on taking care of one another in america first. Host many stories highlight the fact that john boehner meeting with the president yesterday talked about his support of what is going on. Here is Speaker Boehner giving his reaction. The use of chemical weapons is a barbarous act. It is pretty clear to me that the United Nations is unable to take action, nato not likely to take action. The United States for our entire history has stood up for democracy and freedom for people around the world. The use of these weapons has to be responded to, and only the United States has the capability assad andty to stop warn others around the world that this type of behavior is not going to be tolerated. I appreciate the president reaching out to me and my colleagues in the congress over the last couple of weeks. President reciate the asking the congress to support him in his action. This is something that the United States as a country needs to do. Im going to support the president s call for action. I believe my colleagues should support this call for action. We have enemies around the world that need to understand we are not going to tolerate this type of behavior. We also have outlier we also have allies around the world and in the region who also need to know america will be there and stand up when it is necessary. Were going to take you live to capitol hill, over to the house side. The House Foreign Affairs committee is about ready to hear from secretary of state kerry, defense secretary hagel, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. It is scheduled to start in about 10 minutes but there are some people in the room, so lets show you who is there and what is going on. Live coverage here on cspan. Houseexpect for this Committee Meeting to get underway. Some of the tweets we have seen this morning congressman rooney opposes strikes on syria. Colorado republican cory gardner saying im deeply skeptical of u. S. Involvement in syria. Im not yet convinced its in compelling and vital National Interest. And a california democrat says i just came back to attend the house foreign premier House Foreign Committee Affairs Meeting on syria. House members talking about what they are thinking. We would like to hear what your views are. Now, robert rolen writes obama is simply begging congress to save his credibility after painting himself into a corner with that red line he drew. To our Facebook Page and give us a comment or remark on someone elses comment. Obviously this entire response has been mishandled from the beginning. Innocent lives would be lost area now live to capitol hill, cspan live coverage underway. To getxpect this hearing underway shortly. You can see what looks like some protesters and theyre wearing different messages on their shirts. This is the House Foreign Affairs committee. There will be a hearing and we expect the secretary of state, secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs to brief house members. Here is some more of what youre seeing on Facebook Joann writes this is the third issue i have disagreed with president rock obama. I say no military strike. We can gain more by sending help to the refugees. Yes, he used chemical weapons against the innocent, but help not harm the rest is needed. Tom jefferson writes when republicans and democrats agree, very bad things happen. We would like to hear from you. You can go to our Facebook Page. Nd tell us what you think our live coverage continuing here on cspan. We have the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, their business meeting authorizing the use of military force scheduled to get underway shortly. We will cover that for you on c span2. [indiscernible] [indiscernible] quick this hearing will come to order. I am going to ask the members if you could take your seat at this time. Welcome, secretary kerry. Meet to wait the obama proposed response to the Syrian Regimes odious use of google weapons. I want to thank secretary care, sick i want to thank secretary kerry, secretary forl, and chairman dempsey appearing. I want to thank the members for attending this hearing on short notice. The president s decision to seek an authorization of military force from congress was not anticipated, but it was welcome. Has no greater responsibility than overseeing the deployment and use of the United States armed forces. Since the administration of president john adams, congress has acted several times to authorize the use of met bill jerry forced by the president. One thing different here is the Administration Proposal supports the u. S. Military response against a country in civil war. Needless to say, this complicates the consideration. I think we are all troubled by the unfortunate lack of international support. Although the proposed action aims to upholding international norm, or is no United Nations resolution of support nor nato backing. As we will hear today, the president views striking the Syrian Regime is a way to strengthen deterrence against the future use of chemical weapons by assad and by others. That is him portlands incineration. That is in important consideration. Countries like iran are watching. And yes a Credible Threats is key to putting the brakes on Irans Nuclear program. There are concerns. The president from this is a military operation in syria of limited scope and duration. But the assad regime will have a say in what happens next. That would be particularly true as president obama is not aiming to change the situation on the ground. What are the chances of escalation . Are different scenarios accounted for . If our credibility is on the line now, as is argued, what retaliates . Ad americans are skeptical about getting near a conflict that, as one witness has noted, is fueled , ethnic, andc tribal issues. The Administration Policy does not build confidence. For nearly two years, u. S. Policy has been adrift. Initially the Obama Administration saw assad as a reformer. Once the revolt started, it back to you when diplomacy and then it that on the moscow how is he play at russia would constructive role. Predictably that has not worked. President obama drew in his words a red line, and yet only last week did the administration congressconsult with on what that means. Today the house begins formal consideration of the president s request to use military force in syria. It is a cliche, but true. There are no easy answers. Syria and much of the middle east is watching. We look forward to a thorough and deliver it discussion today, one reflecting the gravity of the issue and i will now turn to el,king member angle eng who has been ringing the alarm bell on syria for long, long time. From newember engle york. Thank you for holding this hearing today. Secretary kerry, welcome. Toook forward to hearing a hearing which addresses the seriouss regime use of chemical weapons, a serious risk to the United States and our allies. Many of you know i have been following the middle east for many years but in particular i have spent an enormous amount of time on syria. The syria accountability act of , which i authored, imposed sanctions on damascus in large part due to its chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. In march of this year, i introduced a bipartisan bill that would authorize the president to arms fully vetted members of the Syrian Opposition. Serious, i amout talking from years of experience, ours of hearings, and scores of meeting. Mr. Chairman, we have all seen the pictures of lifeless serious men, women, and children. The pictures of lifeless syrian men, women, and children. Up underren lined white sheets. These innocent civilians were gas, a deadlyn nerve agent classified as a weapon of mass distraction by the u. N. Security council and outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. They have also concluded beyond a reasonable doubt the assad regime is responsible for the use of these horrific weapons. I strongly agree with president obama that the United States must respond to this flagrant deletion of International Law with a limited military strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons and the gravy assad regime and degrade the to useegimes ability them again. The threat we face is much bigger than chemical weapons in syria. We are talking about the credibility of america as a global power. We are talking about sending a clear message to dictators in that thereongyang will be serious consequences for flouting the international community. Particular is watching very carefully to see if the United States is willing to stand up for its vital interests in the region and the interest of our allies. They are a central player in the syrian civil war, providing weapons, money, advice, and manpower to the assad regime, and supporting the intervention of the terrorist proxy hezbollah. They are moving ahead with developing Nuclear Weapons capability. I believe that Congress Must authorize the commanderinchief to use limited military force against the assad regime, and i hope my colleagues will join me in authorizing. But we should not give the president a blank check. The authorization measure we take up most clarify any strike should be of a limited nature and there should absolutely be no american boots on the ground in syria. While it is critically important for the u. S. To hold the assad regime accountable for the use of chemical weapons, you must focus on developing a strategy to address the ongoing humanitarian crisis, support a regional partners, and ultimately find the path or word that brings lasting peace to the Syrian People. As i mentioned earlier, in march i introduced the bipartisan free free free serious syria act. Continue to believe that the moderate opposition is key to syrias future and we should make all efforts to support them as soon as possible. I know many members on both sides of the aisle are struggling with this issue of using force in syria. We are all trying to do the right thing for our constituents, for our country, and for our National Security. Questions of war and peace are always difficult and i am proud that we are treating them with the utmost seriousness in this committee. But a day before we take any vote, i urge my colleagues to ask themselves these questions. If we do not pass the authorization measure, what message will assad get . What message will iran received . Hezbollah . Our allies . We have to live up to our commitments. Mr. Chairman, i would like to thank you for calling this important hearing and i look forward to secretary kerry and the testimony of our other distinguished witnesses. Engel. K you, mr. Joined byased to be secretary kerry. Shortly we will be joined by the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. His appointment, he was in the senate, and without objection, the witnesses the witness statements, those of senator kerry and secretary dempsey willeral be made part of the record. Members here will have five days to submit statements and questions and extraneous material for the record. And i would like to note, members, that we have a nearly full committee here with us today, and therefore we need to work within the time constraints we have. We are going to ask all members to be mindful of that time are as you ask questions, so we will sgin now with secretary kerry testimony. Mr. Secretary . Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Making member Ranking Member said, an the german early congressional leader on syria. And to all members of the committee. I have enormous respect for the fact that everybody has returned unexpectedly and hurriedly to be part of this debate and on behalf of the administration and the American People, i think you for do i thank you for doing so. Know it is no exaggeration to world is not just watching to see what we decide here, but the world is really watching to see how we decide it. Frankly, whether or not we can still make, achieve a single voice speaking for the United States of america, congress, and the president of the United States. They want to know whether or not america is going to rise to this we willwhether or not express our position with the unity this moment demands. The question of whether or not , as therize force chairman referenced my 28 years i had a number of occasions to make those votes in the number of other occasions to make judgments on president s who acted without coming to congress. I found that we were and are always stronger when we can act together. Foremost, i think it is important to explain to the American People why we are here. I dont think it can bear enough repetition as people grapple with this at the end of summer, postlabor day, kids going back to school, and a lot of other concerns on their mind. Against thebecause multiple warnings from the president and the United States, warnings from congress, many of you, warnings from friends and and even warnings from russia and he ran and iran that chemical weapons are out of bounds, against all of that the assad regime, and only undeniably the assad regime, unleashed an outrageous, cool attack against its own citizens. An outrageous chemical attack against its own citizens. Because a dictator and his familys enterprise, aich is what it is, unleashed poison in damascus that killed mothers and fathers and children, their lives all snuffed out a gas during the Early Morning hours of august 21. Some people in a few places, amazingly, against all the evidence, have questioned whether or not this assault on conscience actually took lace. And i repeat again here today, only the most willful desire to avoid reality, almost the most devious assertal purpose could this did not occur as described or that the regime did not do it. It did happen. And the Bashar Alassad regime did it. At i remember a rack. Q. I remember ira and generalgel density both were member it. Secretary hagel and i both voted in the United States senate. Both of us are especially sensitive to never again asking any member of congress to vote on faulty intelligence. That is why our Intelligence Community took time. That is why the president took time, to make certain of the facts in this case and to declassify unprecedented amount of information in order to scrub and rescrub the evidence and present the facts to the American People, and especially to the congress. And through you to the American People. We have declassified unprecedented amount of information. Becauseit, i might add, that might have been the ,nstinct in protecting sources and some of it leaked. After it leaked, we thought it was born to verify whether it was true or not. By now you avert a great deal for me and others in the administration about the comprehensive evidence by now you have heard a great deal from me and others in the administration about the comprehensive evidence we have gathered. I am not going to go into it all right now. Im happy to discuss it further if any of you have any questions. I can tell you beyond a reasonable doubt and i used to prosecute cases. I ran one of the largest district attorneys offices in america. I can tell you beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence proves the assad regime prepared this attack and they attacked exclusively opposition controlled or contested territories. Appropriatet in an setting you will learn additional evidence which came to us even today, which further the acknowledgment of various friends of the assad regime that they know that this happened. Our evidence proves that they used sarin gas that morning and it proves they used some of the worlds most heinous weapons to kill more than 1400 innocent people including at least 426 children. Im sure many of you have seen the images yourselves. The men and women, the elderly, and children sprawled on a hospital floor, no wounds, no blood, in chaos and desperation around them. None of which could possibly have been contrived. All of that was real. We have the evidence. We know what happened. There is no question. This would meet the standard i which we send people to jail for the rest of their lives. So, we are here because of what happens. But we are also here, not just the cause of what happened two weeks ago. We are here because of what happened nearly a century ago. When in the darkest moments of after the horror of gas warfare, when the majority of the world came together to declare in no Uncertain Terms that chemical weapons crossed a line of conscience, and that they must be banned. And over the years that followed , more than 180 countries 184 to be precise. Iran, a rant, iraq, iraq, and russia, joins. Even countries with whom we agree on very little else agreed on this. Some have tried to suggest the debate we are having today is about this president s redlined, that this is about president obamas redline. But me make it as clear as i can to all of you. That is just not true. This is about the worlds redline. It is about humanitys redline. A line that anyone with a conscience should rot and a line that was drawn nearly 100 years Chemical Weapons Convention was agreed on. This debate, i might add to you, is also about congresss redline. You agreed to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Not all of you were here to vote for it, but the congress agreed to that. The Congress Asked the syrian accountability act, which referred to anel altered. The act says clearly syrias chemical weapons threaten the security of the middle east and the National Security interest of the United States. Repeatedly members of congress have spoken out about the grave consequences if assad in particular were to use chemical weapons. And both Speaker Boehner and nancy pelosi have stated in ofent days that the actions the assad regime are unacceptable and the United States has the responsibility to respond. As we debate, the world is watching and the world is wondering. Not if assads regime actually did this. I think that fact is now beyond question. The world is wondering whether the United States of america is going to consent through silence to stand aside while this kind of brutality is allowed to happen without consequence. In the nearly 100 years since this global commitment against chemical weapons was made, only to tyrants have dared only two tyrants have dared to cross the line. Bashar alassad has become the third. History, i think everyone here knows, old nothing but infamy for those criminals, and history also reserves very little sympathy for their enablers. That is the gravity of this moment. That is really what is at stake in this decision the congress faces. Importanttom line, is to america and our security for many reasons. First, you cant overlook the danger that these weapons, as you said in the syrian accountability act, post to our allies and our friends. You cannot overlook the danger they pose even to the United States ultimately if they fall into the wrong hands or are used with impunity. Obamas policy is that assad must go, it is not insignificant that to degrade sivs assads chemical weapons degrades his ability in this civil war. We have a strategic National Interest to read not just limiting the proliferation of chemical weapons, but to avoid the creation of a safe haven for extremists to use these chemical weapons, either against us or against our friends, forcing assad to changes calculation about the ability to ask with impunity. It may force his realization that he cannot gas or shoot his way out of his predicament. Important because quite simply and i cannot say this strongly enough to all of you. Many of you are parents. You know how lessons are learned by children. You may have confronted at one point of bully on the block or in a building. I think quite simply common sense and Human Experience and reality tell us that the risk of not acting is greater than the risk of acting. If we do not take a stand here today, i guarantee you we are more likely to face up or greater risks to our security and a far greater likelihood of conflict that demand our action in the future. Why . We, as confidently as we know what happened in damascus on august 21, we know that assad our read our silence, unwillingness to act as a signal he can use his weapons with impunity. After all has been said and done , if we dont now, knowing he has done this at least 11 times that our Intelligence Community can prove, and here in this grotesque larger event, larger than anything that has happened before, it we back down, if the world backs down, we have sent an unmistakable message of permissiveness. Ran, i guarantee you, is hoping we look the other way. And surely they will interpret americas unwillingness to act as an unwillingness to act against weapons of mass destruction. And we will fight for the credibility to deter the nuclear weapon. North korea is hoping for ambivalence from the congress. They are all listening for our silence. So, the authorization that issident obama seeks distinctly and clearly in our National Interest. In our National Security interest. Need to say to syria and the world, the dictators and terrorist, to allies and alike, the unmistakable message that when we say never again, we dont actually mean sometimes. We do not mean somewhere. We mean never again. This is a vote for accountability. The norms and the laws of the civilized war. That is what this vote is for. If we dont answer assad today, we will erode the standard that has protected our troops for a century. Our troops. Our troops in war have been protected by the existence of this prohibition. Through world war ii, through korea, through vietnam, through both iraq wars. We have not seen chemical weapons in the battlefield but for the two occasions i mentioned previously. Our troops are protected. We have to stand up for americas interests. I say to allies and our partners are counting on us. The people of israel, jordan, and turkey, each look next door and they see chemical weapons being used. They are one stiff breeze away from the potential of those weapons harming them. Await ourusly assurance that our word is true and they await the assurance that if the children lined up in those unbloody burial shroud in where their own children, as they might be if this got out of hand, they want to know that we would keep the worlds promise. Said in theackson opening argument at nuremberg, the ultimate step in avoiding which arears, inevitable in a system of International Lawlessness, is to make statesmen as possible to the law. If the world worst respites see they can if the worlds worst desperate see they can flout prohibitions, then those prohibitions are rendered just pieces of paper. That is what we mean by accountability. And that is, i say to all of you respectfully, that is why we cannot be silent. Let me be very, very clear. When i walked into this room, a person of conscience stood up by peopleis the ability of in our country. And that person said, please dont take us to war. You will take us to another war. Sittingthe three of us here understand that plea as well as anyone in this country. Let me be clear. We are not asking america to go to war. And i say that sitting next to who well knows what war is, and others here today know what war is. They know the difference between going to war and what the president is requesting now. There will be no american boots on the ground. The president has made crystal ofar, we have no intention assuming responsibility for sivs civil war. That is not in the cards. That is not what is here. The president is asking only for thatower to make certain the United States of america means what we say. He is asking or authorization, targeted and limited to deter or sgrade Bashar Alassad capacity to use chemical weapons. I will make it clear. For those who feel more ought to be done in keeping with the go, thehat assad must degradation of his capacity to use those weapons has an impact on the weapons available to him and it will have an impact on the battlefield. Just today before coming in here, i read an email to me about the general, the minister of defense, former assistant minister, i forget which, who has defected, and is now in turkey. There are other defections we are hearing the potential of because of the potential we might take action. There will be downstream impacts, although that is not the principal purpose of what the president is asking you for. Aboutill undoubtedly ask the unintended consequences of action. Will distract you when an advert and link . Inwill distract you inadvertently . Let me say unequivocably, bluntly. If the site is arrogant enough and foolish enough to retaliate to the consequences of his own ,hemical criminal activity the United States and its allies have ample ways to make him regret that decision without going to war. Even asides supporters, russia , say publicly the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. Guess what . Even in ron and iran and syria itself acknowledge these weapons were used. They just say that the guys who did not have the capacity to do it did it. At some well questioned our responsibility to act here. To them i say, when someone kills hundreds of children with eapon the war has banned the world has banned, we are all responsible. It is true because of the geneva convention. But it is also true because we share a common humanity and sense of decency. This is not the time for armchair isolationism. It is not the time to be spectators to slaughter. Giveis not the time to permission to a dictator who has already used these weapons the unfettered ability to continue to use them because we stepped back. Neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence or inaction. So, we have spoken up, the president of the United States has made his decision. The president has decided we need to do this. But in keeping with our constitution and the full articulatedhe aspirations of our founding fathers, the president is coming to the congress of the united decision the American People agree with, and asking the congress to stand with him , towith this administration stand up for our security, to protect our values, to lead the world with conviction that is clear. That is why we are here. We look forward to having a rigorous discussion with you in furtherance of that mission. You, mr. Secretary. We have been joined by secretary hagel, who before being appointed secretary of defense, served in the United States and until 2009. He is the recipient of two purple hearts for service in vietnam and we have been joined by general dempsey, a former platoon leader to common. Commander. He has served in the United States army for over 40 years and now serves as the chairman of the joint chiefs. We will now go to our secretary of defense, mr. Hagel first. Mr. Chairman. Members ofber engel, the committee. Thank you. General dempsey and i also apologize for being late. Lhe other side of the capito held us up. But we are much better for it. So, thank you for your understanding. In the coming days, as we all know, congress will debate how to respond to the most recent chemical weapons attacks in syria. Gas assaulte sarin perpetrated by the Syrian Government against its own people. I welcome this debate and i strongly support president obamas decision to seek congressional authorization for the use of force in syria. Committingus knows, a country to using military force is the most difficult and important decision americas leaders can make. All those who are privileged to serve our nation and have a responsibility, in many ways, to serve our country but the primary responsibility is to ask the tough questions before any military commitment is made. The American People must be assured that their leaders are u. S. G with the court to military objectives with an risks anding of the consequences involved. The president and his entire National Security team asked those tough questions before we concluded that the United States should take military action against Syrian Regime targets. I want to address very briefly, get toirman, before i your questions, how we reached this decision by clarifying our interests at stake, our military objectives, and the risks 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 americas National Security interests and those of our allies. The Syrian Regimes use of chemical weapons poses rate risks to our friends and borders along syrian including israel, turkey, lebanon, and iraq. If assad is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people, we have to be concerned that terrorist groups like his he, which has forces supporting we have toegime be concerned that terrorist groups like his he has the zbollah, which is forces supporting the assad regime, would use them. We cannot afford four terrorist groups to acquire or use these chemical weapons. The syrians regimes actions threatens to erode the nearly centuryold norm against the use of chemical weapons, a norm that has helped reject United States forces helped attacked united protectorces helped United States forces and our homeland. Koreaample, north supply ofa master chemical weapons that threaten our treaty partner the republic of south korea. Asia, wherened from i had a very serious and long conversation with the south Korean Defense minister about the threat of north koreas stockpile of chemical weapons. Our allies throughout the world must be assured the united securityll fulfill its commitments. Given the threat to our National Security, the United States must them in straight through our must demonstrate through our actions that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. The president has made clear would be toective hold the assad regime accountable, degrade its ability to take out these kind of attacks, and deterred the further use of chemical weapons. The department of defense has developed military options to achieve these objectives and we have positioned u. S. Assets throughout the region to successfully execute the omission. We believe we can achieve them with a military action that would be limited in duration and scope. General dempsey and i have assured the president that u. S. Forces will be ready to act whenever the president gives the order. We are also working with our allies and our partners, key partners including france, turkey, saudi arabia, the united arab immigrant the united arab emirates, and other friends in the region. Defining our military objectives, we have made clear we are not seeking to resolve the underlying conflict in syria through direct military force. 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 of the violence in syria. Secretary kerry is leading International Efforts to help the parties in syria move forward to a negotiated transition. We are 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. Andng defined americas trysts and military objectives, we also must examine the risks having defined americas interests and military objectives, we also must examine the risks. There are risks of taking action. There are also risks of inaction. And feelsad regime empowered to carry out even more devastating chemical weapons attacks, chemical weapons make no distinction between combatants and innocent civilians and inflict the worst kind of indiscriminate suffering, as we have recently seen. Undermineto act would the credibility of americas other security commitments including the presents commitment to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The word of the United States must mean something. Is vital currency and Foreign Relations and international and allied commitments. Every witness here today at this table secretary kerry, general dempsey, and myself has served in uniform, fought in war, and seen its ugly realities close. Understand a country faces few decisions as grave as using military force. We are not unaware of the cost of war. But we also understand that america must protect its people and its National Interest. That is our highest responsibility. Only those of us who have the privilege and responsibility of serving this great nation oh our theple and those wearing uniform of our country a great debate. I know everyone on this committee agrees and take the responsibility of office just as seriously as the president and everyone at this table. Mr. Man, thank chairman, thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank you. We also appreciate general dempsey being here today to answer the committee questions. If i could go to you, secretary kerry, a question i referenced in my opening statement. Other countries are watching. As i understand it, the administration and you have been in contact with the governments in discussion with south korea, turkey, saudi arabia, israel. I have read several others in the press. I was going to ask you, the communications that you are what are those communicating to you about this incident, when you talk to these governments . Happy chairman, im very to share that with you. Let me just say at the outset, i mentioned in email i got coming reuterssame news outlet has now said the Syrian Government is saying the defection has not taken place. Nozick that has or it hasnt. At what i do know is this. The intelligence is very clear. In other settings, i urge you to go and look at it. There are currently defections taking place. I think there are Something Like 60 to 100 in the last day or so. Officers and enlisted personnel. Questionsare serious taking place among the socalled elite of serious about whether or not the sharp was sought the socalled elite of serious about whether or not the sharp alassad has taken things to far. Westerns. Serious i put that on the table for you to think about. But erstand, we have reached out to over 100 countries. We continue to reach out to these countries. 53 countries have acknowledged that chemical weapons are used. Have said so publicly. That number will grow as the evidence we released yesterday becomes more troubling. I will be meeting with the Foreign Ministers of europe, 28 Foreign Ministers, on saturday. This will clearly be a topic of discussion. Many of them have had reservations, waiting for the evidence. I see many more countries joining. 31 countries, or organizations, have stated publicly or privately that the assad regime is responsible for this attack, and that was before our evidence package was put together. 34 34 countries organizations have indicated that if the allegations prove to be true they would support some sort of action against syria appeared to be specific and bear down on the president s proposal and this particular action, currently in the region there are a number of countries, friends of ours, that have offered to be part of this operation. And those countries can speak for themselves. But there are more countries that have offered to be part of this operation that our military currently believes we need to have part of it, in order to affect the operation. Is interest in