[inaudible conversations] request the rally on the east front of the capital wrapping up. we heard from a number of lawmakers remarks which you can watch later today on our website c-span.org. you can also check their for information on what sent by when it will air on our network. -- of the consumer financial protection bureau role regarding auto financing. before they come back this afternoon, we are hoping to hear from republican and

democratic leaders that usually make comments resulting from a caucus punches and they do that live in the capital. as the course in today's washington journal on military action against syria amid tensions with russia. >> congressman, you are back at the desk and democrats, a member of the house armed committee. this afternoon with secretary mattis and -- what are you looking to have answered at the briefing? >> my principal issue is what is the legal authority for this act of war? from bombing a country that is an act of war. this is not going after isis which was presumably authorized in a 2001 afghanistan mission. this is a second time in one year, that this president has launched bombs, missiles against syria.

there is no authority to do so. under the constitution, the congress, article 1, section 8. has the authority to wage war. as a declaration of war. the president, article 2 section 2 is commander-in-chief. nowhere does it say that he can unilaterally attack another country. the chemical attacks were horrific. and they needed to be in response. but what the president needed to do was to come to congress and said this horrific event took place. i want to take action against the caregiving authorization to do so. he did not do that. >> for the authorization be that you would be willing to give at this point? what is the scope of what you're willing to do in syria? apparently the presidents proposed was to launch tomahawk missile attacks against the facilities that stored and produced chemical weapons. all well and good. if he had asked for a specific authority, i want to launch an attack, against these

facilities to deter, degrade and stop production of it and i want to do it for at least one year, and longer if necessary. he could have had that passed in congress within one day. very simple resolution. probably very close to 100 percent vote. but no, instead, he went ahead and now there is rage and controversy over his legal authority for the attack. >> from your understanding now, what is the redline for the president of when he is willing to take strikes? >> apparently, when he wakes up in the morning and says it is swell, i think i want to do it. it is willy-nilly. keep in mind that just two weeks ago, the president said he wanted the war against isis was complete. isis was out and he was going to pull the troops out of syria. and leave syria to others. seven days later, there was a chemical attack. by the government.

then he launched missiles into syria. so there's no consistent policy and that lack of consistency, that lack of strategy, the lack of specific objective that could be carried on with clear strategy creates confusion. it may very well have led to assad saying they will be out of here so i will end these rebels right now. and i will do with chemical weapons because leading.s it is hard to say exactly what was on the mind of assad. but there is a very clear pattern of inconsistency with the president. therefore, it is more important that congress to re-assert constitutional power. given with very specific reasons. the framers of the constitution did not want the power of war in hands of the chief executive. >> at any point can the president take military action on its own? legal? when is he justified?

>> yes. in 1973, the war powers act was put into place. the results of the vietnam war and the congress wanted the president to be able to defend the nation in case of an imminent attack for an attack that was underway. it was very clear. it was to limit the power of the president and simultaneously give the president power should there be basically, a nuclear threat. for a nuclear launch of missiles aimed at the united states. that was act in 1973. furthermore, in last years appropriations, military appropriations, there was a specific clause put in that none of the money in the military appropriations could be spent in syria. period. and contradiction of this act. three different laws. you have the constitution, the war powers act and last years

appropriation language. >> and justifications from the trump administration. the efpresident said he and inherent powers as commander-in-chief to protect vital national security interest. this from the washington times story today. the cia director last week saying stretchered be done under 2001 authorization of use for military force in the war against the taliban land al qaeda. >> that just doesn't make any sense at all. the syrian government is at war with the taliban. and so, and at war with isis. it makes no sense to use the 2001 authorization to use force in afghanistan which says al qaeda and related -- al qaeda, taliban and related entities. syria is not a related entity and any stretch of anybody's imagination. so that resolution makes no sense to be used at all. what was in the presidents statement is essentially, i am

the executive officer. i am the commander-in-chief. i will do whatever i want to do when i think it is in the national interest. >> congressman john garamendi with us until 8:00 this morning. phone lines are open for your questions or comments. -- jesse is up first. good morning.>> hello jesse. >> good morning. i am an independent. i lean more toward libertarian then republican but really conservative. i have to tell you -- you know, when you look at what is going around the world, taking the ability within the commander-in-chief to authorize a strike without declaring war,

it just piseems stupid to me. and to give the authority to congress which has shown time and time again incapable of doing anything constructive except for taking our money and spending it i think is another step to lunacy. he did not declare war on syria. and congress is not either. he did not ask congress to. what he did was tried to keep an atrocity from happening and i think ithat needs to be considered here. >> as i said a moment ago, i believe congress would have enacted an enauthorization usin force in very short order had the president come to congress and said here are the problems, this is what happened with the chemical attack and it was very clear the chemical attack did take place. he said i want to make sure that syria does not have the ability to do this again. and i want you authorization.

to launch an attack against production facilities and storage facilities and whatever things he may want to do. i believe congress would have acted very quickly on that. we do not know. but i do know that there was overwhelming support in congress for the action. however, we have to have a process in place. we may or may not like mr. trump. we may or may not trust him. the next president we may like and we may not trust but we cannot give the power to create a war to a single individual. the framers of the constitution were very conservative about this. and to this day we should remain concerned.t because the president is commander-in-chief, he can tell the military to go here and there or attack here or attack there. is a very dangerous situation. i want to bring to your attention the situation in north korea. the president did threaten "fire and fury". which many people thought could be a nuclear attack on north

korea for at least an attack on north korea conventional warfare attack. that is an extraordinary situation and to enter into a new renewal of the korean war without congress being very much involved, keep in mind congress is the representative of the people. 530 bus. 100 centers, 135 members of congress. each of us here to represent the people of the united states. want to vote. yes or no. that is something that is our responsibility under the constitution and not the president. >> you're looking to bring a vote on new legislation to prevent the presidents powers specifically with syria. >> with regard to a nuclear attack. this would be the first that is an offense if first strike nuclear attack. yes, we are attempting to do that. we do not want the president to be in a position to initiate a nuclear war. >> where did that legislation i

stand? >> it has been introduced. it has not had a hearing nor do i think it will have a hearing. it will be -- by the republicans and i think it is a mistake. >> carol, republican mind. go ahead. >> good morning. -- >> the democrats do not hate you. >> i heard plenty of names being called. you said that it is willy-nilly that on jan for the strategy there. but at least he has a strategy. and you escannot go to congress and places like that because there are so many leaks that would have been out. we do not care who trump -- how about you care all about the rule of law but you are in california we seem to worry more about the illegal criminals than the american

people. >> i have two questions here. first of all, it was the president that went with his statement. those were not my statements. the president in ohio said we had won the isis, the battle with isis. he was going to pull troops out and leave syria to others. the others are iran, turkey, syria itself, russia, saudi arabia and iraq. those are the others. and the united states apparently, actually did pull away from it. there was a meeting in turkey two weeks ago. about the future of syria. who attended? turkey, russia and iran. the united states did not participate in the last meeting about what the future of syria would be. and we still have a vital interest in that area. whether we like it or not, we still have a vital interest. with regard to the question of willy-nilly, that is the president. he said he wanted to pull out. that he did not.

after the chemical strike he said he wanted to attack. he is the one that sent out the tweet that big beautiful missiles going to be landing in syria. head's up russia. that was he.he was the one that actually signaled that this government was going to attack the chemical facilities. congress did not do that. with regard to keeping the tactics a secret, you should look to the president. he is the one actually tweeted out exactly what would happen in the days ahead and indeed, it did happen just as he said it would. >> what responsibility did the obama administration bear for the state of syria today? >> a great deal. the obama strategy and syria did not work. from the initial onset of the syrian civil war. the obama administration said assad has to go. and that remains to this day the po o