the heavy weight of a centralized,taking away my freem of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, confiscating private property, shutting down businesses, attacking everyone that had anything, small business or big business. putting preachers in prison. i will tell you that in the middle of all of that they impose a socialized medicine system in cuba. they had a premier medical system. the university was renowned worldwide for its quality of medical construction.

today the system is gone. relatives that go back always they always take a suitcase full of medicine. there isn't aspirin in cuba. in the hospitals in cuba, staph infections are epidemic. everywhere. that is something else socialized medicine will do. under socialized medicine, the doctors cannot make enough money. what happens is, doctors go somewhere else so they can practice. it happens in canada. a lot of canadian doctors cannot practice it because they cannot make any money in canada. thousands upon thousands of medical doctors left cuba and our practicing medicine in this country. i talked to you yesterday, he said he started the university

of new orleans. he said the majority of the professors and medical schools were doctors from the university of cuba that have come to florida and were teaching. this will happen all over the world. it socialism does not work. it is never worked. by the grace of god, i had the privilege when i was being persecuted and was imprisoned, had the blessing to be able to come to the greatest country the face of the earth. i am so proud to be an american. i feel so fortunate to be in the land of the free. and the home of the brave.

i will tell you, i love this country. i love the opportunity that this country is given me. when i came, i couldn't speak a world of english. practically didn't have any money. got a job at the dishwasher because you didn't have to talk to anybody to wash dishes. they bring you dirty dishes pretty you wash them. you get paid. i worked full-time with the school, started a small business. i was watching my son being sworn in as a u.s. senator. i cannot contain the tears in my

eyes. only in america. i have been a student of american history. him before i came to this country. then, here i just fell in love with the founding documents of this country. i love the constitution. even more, i love the declaration. independenceon of has changed my life. i meditated upon those truths. as a wise -- as i was sharing in my prayer, i believe the reason the declaration of independence and the overitution have lasted 200 years is because they were written on the knees of the framers. those men were seeking revelation from above.

a doubt, outside of the bible, those of the greatest documents that have ever been written. [applause] as you look at the declaration, it has a series of grievances to king george. did you know that every one of those grievances were preached from the pulpits of america before they were written on the declaration? it was pastors that were the back door and of the revolution. did you know where paul revere

was going when he was saying the british are going? one of many that were called the black robe regiment. many had the continental u underneath the black robe. i want to encourage pastors not to hide behind their pulpits. take the spirit of the black robe regiment and become leaders to inspire us again to restore liberty to the nation. declaration, the the declaration begins by saying that these truths are self-evident. they are not self-evident for this it ministration. they continue saying that all men are created equal. to the obama administration, some are more equal than others. like we heard about obamacare, big businesses are more equal than we the people. they get an exemption. it is very interesting that the irs was charged with forcing obamacare on us. the labor unions that were

pushing and jumping up and down with obama, now they want an exemption. we the people need in exception. it is not by accident that the first three words of the constitution are in big letters saying we the people. we the people. the declaration continues by saying that we are endowed by our creator. very interesting that you don't hear the obama administration

uttering those same words. they want you to think that those rights come from government. come of course, if they from government, government can take them away and government can control them, and they are doing precisely that.

then after that, it mentions the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. it says that governments are instituted to protect those rights. not to drop those rights. but to protect them. then it says that government exercise its powers by the consent of the governed. we are the governed. we refuse to keep -- give the

consent of his government. then it continue saying that when the government seizes to protect those rights, that we have the right do -- we have the right to replace that government. that brings us back to what both mike and the senator were saying. accountability. we need to hold our elected officials accountable. they work for us. we do not work for them. [applause] i will tell you. i want to encourage each and

every one of you before you leave here tonight, but you go by that table and you talk to mike victory, and you say, i want to be a sentinel. we are ready told you plenty about being a sentinel. actionntinel, heritage will train you through skills connect to be an effective grassroots leader. through skill clinics, through conference, through coaching individual coaching.

toolsill give you the necessary so you can become a leader in your community. i want to encourage you to become a sentinel, and tell everyone you know to be, sentinel. let us create an army of we the people that will take this country back. [applause] i want you to do a second thing. there was a website called dontfundit.com. when we started, there were 375 thousand people signed to that website. right now, it is almost at 900,000. over half a million people have signed up for that petition to defund obamacare. sarah palin just signed that two days ago. my son is going all over the country, encouraging everybody to make every elected official accountable. i want to encourage you tonight to sign up. you can do it from your phone. you can do it right now. we can send the big message to all those elected officials.

they are -- they either align them to the will of the people, we have the power to make them accountable. i want to leave you with my favorite part of the declaration. that is the last few words of the declaration. before i get there, i have to tell you one more thing because we are where we are because of two problems that have plagued us. the first one is political correctness. we must stop being politically correct. the second one is apathy. i saw my freedoms taken away

overnight. that is happening in america. the best is able i can give you is that of a frog. you throw in a pot of hot and that frog will jump out. that water being warmed little at a time, a little bit at a time, that frog is comfortable. that frog is complacent. you can boil that frog today.

we just like that frog are being boiled to death a little time while we remain complacent. [applause] we can be complacent no more. we can be silent no more. [applause] i want to leave you with the last few words of the

declaration of independence. theays, relying upon protection of divine providence. we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. we have seen our lives under attack. our quality of life is being eroded more and more. our liberties are taken away. more taxation. we are seeing our lives being destroyed. our pressures, the obama administration, they have both their hands in your pocket. they are trying to take every

dollar that you make. they cannot take our honor. they cannot take our honor. i want to challenge you to make a covenant. not a covenant with me. a covenant with one another. i would like for us to face someone next to you. let's make a pledge to one

another of these last few words. i'm going to say these words i worry too repeated to each other. relying on the protection of divine providence. we mutually pledge to each other. our lives, our fortune and our sacred honor. to do all we can, to restore liberty to this country. so help me god. if we all do this, we will take this country back. we will restore it. god bless you. god bless america.

[applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> on the next "washington journal" we will look at the u.s. options in syria. will meet with a former senior aide to the romney campaign. and we will discuss the effect on mentalration health services and the societal impression the public has on the mentally ill. and we will discuss congressional aide. "washington journal" is live on at 7:00 and day eastern.

>> the universe may bend towards justice, but it does not bend on its own. countrye the gains this has made requires constant vigilance, not complacency. whether by challenging those who direct new barriers to the vote for ensuring that the scales of justice works equally for all in the criminal justice system and are not just a pipeline from overcrowded schools to overcrowded country has jails. >> this weekend on c-span, from whence -- from wednesday, the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. sunday on c-span 2, your calls and comments for ben shapiro, bright part editor at large. on american history tv on c-span 3, two award consolations, for the last full-scale warship built by the u.s. navy. >> the british house of commons thursday night rejected a proposal supporting military

action against syria, a defeat for prime minister david cameron. david cameron recall parliament to outline the basis for military action, saying it was beyond a doubt that the syrian government used chemical weapons people. its own detro that the british government could>> not step aside. debate on the proposal was a little more than two hours. >> order! order! we begin with the business of the house motion, motion no. one, as from the order paper, the leaderf the house to move the motion makes a move forward. the question is the business of the house motion as on the order papers, all in favor say aye. the eyes have it. we come to the motion in the

name of the prime minister reting to syria and the use of chemical weapons. the text of the motion submitted yesterday as it appears on the order paper was incorrect. a few words were omitted from line 16. as these are purely factual i am content the motion should be moved in a corrected form. a copy of the motion in its corrected form is available in the vote office. i can informs the house that i have selected manuscript amendment be submitted this morning in the name of the leader of the opposition, a text of the manuscript amendment is also available from the vote office. i should also inform the house that i have set a five minute limit on the feature of the debate. to move the motion i call the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker and i

move the motion standing on the order paper in my name and those of my right hon. friends. i thank you, mr. speaker, for agreeing to request recall the house of commons for this important debate. the question before the house today is how to respond to one of the most abhorrence uses of chemical weapons in history, slaughtering innocent men, women and children in syria. is not about taking sides in the syrian conflict. is not about invading. is not about regime change or even working more closely with the opposition. it is about the large-scale use of chemical weapons and our response to a war crime, nothing else. in reaching our conclusions let me say what the house says in front of it today is a summary of the government's legal position making explicit military action would have a clear legal basis. we have the key independent judgments of the joint

intelligence committee making clear their view of what happened and who is responsle and a motion from the government that sets out a careful path of steps that need to be taken before britain could participate in any direct military action. these include the weapons inspectors reporting, further action at the united nations and another vote in this house of commons and the motion also makes clear that even if all these steps are taken, anything we do would have to be legal, proportionate and specifically focused on deterring and preventing further use of chemical weapons. >> i am grateful to the prime minister for giving away, tell the house why he refused to publish the full attorney-general advice? why is he instead just publishing and have side summary of it with legal experts saying without explicit un secretary council reinforcement is simply not legal under the law?

>> longstanding convention backed by attorney-general all parties and all--not to publish any legal advice and all. this gentleman has changed that and with the libya conflict we published a summary of the legal advice and with this is to publish the clear summary of the legal advice and i urge all hon. land right hon. members to read it. i am deeply mindful of the lessons of the conflict. i will make some progressnd take a huge number of interventions. i am mindful of lessons of previous conflicts in particular deep concerns in the country caused by what went wrong with the iraq conflict in 2003 but this is not like iraq and. what we are seeing in syria is fundamentally different. we are not invading a country, we are not searching for chemical or biological weapons. the case will ultimate and i say ultimately because there has to be another vote in the house, ultimately supporting action is

not based on a specific piece or pieces of intelligence. the fact the syrian government has and has used chemical weapons is beyond doubt. the fact the most recent attack took place is not seriously doubted. the syrian government said it took place. the iranian president said it took place in the evidence the syrian regime use these weapons in the early hours of the 20 first of august is right in front ofur eyes. we have multiple eyewitness accounts of chemicals build rockets being used against opposition controlled areas. we have thousands of social social media reports that these terrific videos documenting the evidence. the differences in 2003 the situation with iraq, europe was divided over what should be done and europe is united in the view we should not let chemical weapons use stand. nato was divided. nato made a clear statement that those who are responsible should be held accountable. in 2003 the arab league was

opposed to action. now a are calling for it. day issue statements holding that syrian regime responsible and asking the international community tovercome internal disagreements and take action against tho who committed this crime. give way to my right hon. friend. >> a couple days ago i was expecting to oppose the government tonight but my right hon. friend is determined to go down the right of the united nations, his willingness to overturn in this house will be extremely helpful in making up my mind tonight. >> i say to my right hon. friend, i want to unite as much of the country and as much of this house as possible. i think it is right on these vital issues of national and international importance to seek the greatest possible consensus, that is the right thing for the government to do and we will

continue to do that. let me make some more progress. the president of the united states, barack obama, is a man who opposed the actn iraq. no one could in any way describe him as a president who wants to involve america in more wars in the middle east but he profoundly believes an important red line has been crossed in an appalling way which is why he supports action in this case. when i spoke to president obama last weekend i said we shared his view about the despicable naturef this use of chemical weapons and we must not stand aside but i also explained to him that because of the damage done to public confidence by iraq we would have to follow a serious -- series of incremental steps including the united nations to build public confidence and to ensure maximum possible legitimacy for any action. these steps are all set out in the motion before the house today and let me say, mr. speaker, i remember in 2003 i was sitting there two rose from

the back of the opposition benches, it was just after -- i was determined to be here. i wanted to listen to the man standing right here and believe everything that he told me. we are not here to debate those issues today but one thing is indisputable. the bulk of public opinion was poisoned by the iraq episode. we need to understand and give way to the right hon. lady. >> i am most grateful to the prime minister for giving way. my meeting of his motion tells me that everything within it could have been debated on monday. this house has been recalled and i believe it was recalled in order to give cover for possible military action. had the prime minister made it clear president obama that in no way does this country support any attack that could come before the u.n. inspectors have

done their job. >> i recall debating these vital national and international issues but i will answer that question very directly. it is this house that will decide what steps we next take if you agree to the motion i sat down, no action can be taken until we have heard from the un weapons inspectors, until there has been further action at the united nations and another vote in the house. those are the conditions we, the british parliament is sending and is absolutely right that we do so. let me make a little more progress and i will take interventions from across the house. this deep public cynicism imposes particular responsibilities on me as prime minister to carry people in the country and this house with me. i feel that very deeply. that is why i wanted parliament recalled and to bring the country together and not divide it. that is why i included in my motion and government motion all

the issues raised with me by the leader of the opposition and indeed by many colleagues on all sides of the house and the liberal democrat party and conservative party on other sides of the house because i want us to try to have the greatest possible unity on this issue. i read the opposition motion carefully and it has much to commend it. the need for the u.n. investigative report, quite right. the importance of the process of the united nations and commitment to another vote in the house before british participation in direct action. that is in our motion too but i believe the opposition motion, important we make this point, is sufficient in two final respects. first refers to the 20 first of august, did not in any way referred to the fact that they were caused by chemical weapons. this fact is accepted by almost everyone across the world and for the house to ignore it would send a bad message to the world's. second, i will make the point,

in no way does the opposition motion even begin to point the finger of blame at president assad. that is at odds with what has been said by nato, president obama and every european and regional leader i have spokeno by the government of australia, cana, turkey and india to name a few cans by the hole of the arab league, at odds with the judgment of the independent joint intelligence committee and the opposition amendment would be the wrong message for this house to send to the world and for that reason recommending hon. friend--i give way to my hon. friend. >> mr. speaker, i am grateful to my hon. friend for giving way. in welcoming his decision to go through the u.n. process could he confirm to the house that where we to find during that process overwhelming opposition in the general assembly and majority against it in the security council we wouldn't motor on.

>> it would be unthinkable to preed if there was overwhelming opposition in the security council. let me set out why this is so important. the very best route to follow is to have a chapter vii resolution, take it to the u.n. security council, had it passed and about taking action. that is the path we followed. this -- this is very important. it cannot be the case that that is the only way to have a legal basis for action and we should consider for a moment what the consequences would be if that were the case. you could have a situation in a country where the government was literally annihilating half the people in that country but because of one veto on the security council you would be hampered from taking any action. i can't think of any member in any party that wants to sign up for that and that is why it is important we do have a humanitarian intervention set out in the attorney general's excellent legal lead vice. let me give way to my hon.

friend. >> i am grateful to my right hon. friend and extremely grateful to him for taking the time to listen to the concerns of various residents about further british military intervention in the middle east. however, could i ask him why is it that our allies in the middle east like kuwait and others cannot take military action? why does it fall on us yet again? >> my hon. friend makes a good point. no decision about military action has been taken. it would require another vote of this house but if we wanted to see action that was purely about the tearing and degrading future chemical weapons used by syria and the only basis on which i would support any action you need countries that have the capabilities to do that for which the united statesnd the united kingdom are too. my hon. friend here and the gentleman there. >> on the matter of international law, world leaders

and the un in 2005, signed off to the doctrine of responsibility to protect which means if countries default in their responsibility to defend their own citizens the international community has an opportunity to defend those citizens. syria has the fall to the on its responsibility to ptect its own citizens. the international community has a responsibility to undertake what we aeed to do as recently as 2005. >> an important as it relates to what happened in kosovo and elsewhere but let me be clear what we are talking about today. it is that doctrine but also about chemical weapons. the tree to hold world agreed to a hundred years ago after the horrors of the first wld war. >> the issues of iraq and the

impact they have on the decisions of today, the perception in my opinion of his own preparedness to get involved in this conflict long before the current incident shortly has an impact on the decisions of today. >> the case i am making is the house of commonneeds to consider purely and simply this issue of a massive chemical weapons use by this regime. i am not arguing we should get more involved in this conflict, i am not arguing with are the rebels. i am not making any of those arguments. the question before us is as a world, the 1925 agreement posed the first world war these weapons are reprehensible when do we want to try to maintain that law? put simply is it ibritain's national interest to maintain an

international taboo about the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield? my argument is yes it is. britain was part of drying up that vital protocol which incidentally syria itself signed ani think we have an interest in maintaining it. that we take an intervention from the democratic unionist party. >> many people in this house do not believe this is a prelude to a statement to syria. can you explain to us as the breeding says today, 14 instances of use of chemical weapons, 1,000 people dead, 1.2 million people deceased, why is it only now that the prime minister thinks this is the time for greater intervention? >> the point for considering this tougher approach is we know there are the 14 uses of chemical weapons on a smaller scale. and this does seem to me and

president obama -- you can down when it accused me of rushing into something and on the other hand say why have you waited? let me make a little progress. in my speech i want to do three things. explain what we know, sat down the path we will follow and try to answer all the difficult questions that have been put to me. iromise i will take intervention as i go along. let me set out what we now all happened. in three hours on the morning of the 20 first of august three hospitals in the damascus area received 3,600 patients with symptoms consistent with chemical weapons attacks. at least 350 of those innocent people died. the video footage illustrates the most sickening human suffering imaginable. expert video analysis confined no way this wide array of

footage cou have been fabricated particularly the behavior of small children in those shocking deos. area pictures of bodies with symptoms consistent with nerve patient exposure including muscle spasms and foaming of the nose and mouth anyone in the chamber who has not seen these videos should force themselves to watch them. you can never forget the sight of children's body stored in nice, young men and women gasping for air suffering the most agonizing deaths and all inflicted by weapons that have been outlawed for nearly a century. the syrian regime has publicly admitted they were conducting a major military operation in the carry at that time. the regime resisted calls for unrestricted access for u.n. inspectors while artillery and rocket fire in the area reached a level round four times higher than the preceding ten days and intelligence that syrian rime forces took precautions normally associated with chemical weapons

use. examining all this evidence with the available intelligence the joint intelligence committee has made its judgment and has done so in line with reforms put in place after the iraq war by sir robin butler which publishing these key judgments and a letter from the chair of the joint intelligence committee the letter states to take some intervention that there is little serious dispute that chemical attacks causing mass casualties on a larger scale took place on the twenty-first of august. on syria opposition the letter states there is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of chemical weapons by the opposition. the joint intelligence committee concludes it is not possible for the opposition to have carried out a chemical weapons attack on this scale. it says this. the regime has used chemical weapons on a smaller scale on 14 occasions in the past. there is some intelligence to suggest regime culpability in this attack and these factors

make it highly likely the syrian regime was responsible and crucially the chairman in his letter to me makes this point absolutely clear. he says this, quote, there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility. i am not standing here and saying some pieces of intelligence i have seen that the world won't see that convinces me i am right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. i am saying this is a judgment. we all have to reach a judgment about what happened and who was responsible but i would put it to you that from all the evidence we have the fact that opposition don't have chemical weapons and the regime do, the fact that they used it and were attacking at the time and intelligence i have reported, that is enough to conclude the regime is responsible and should be held accountable. let me take the right hon. lady and the right honorable gentleman. >> what has convinced him, where is the evidence that an action

by the international community would cease the use of chemical weapons within syria, a country where they have accepted 100,000 dead, millions of refugees and a continuing action which is destroying totally that country? where is the evidence that convins him the external world can prevent this? >> that is an extremely serious point. in the end there is no 100% certainty about who is responsible, you have to make a judgment. there's also no 100% certainty about what action might succeed or fail but let me say this to the hon. lady. we can be as certain as possible what we have a regime that use chemical weapons on 14 occasions and likely responsible for this large scale attack that if nothing is done it will conclude that it can use these weapons again and again and on a larger scale and with impunity. let's talk about escalation. the biggest danger of escalation

is if the world community, not just britain but america and others stand back and do nothing because i think assad will draw a very clear conclusion from that. >> a very powerful and heartfelt speech. could he explain to the house why he thinks president assad did this? there seems to be no logic to this and that is worrying some people. >> it is a very good question. if you read the conclusion this is where they find the greatest difficulty of ascribing motives. lots of motives have ascribed. from my part the most likely possibility is that he has been testing 14 uses and response and he wants to know whether the world will respond to the use of theseeapons which suspect tragicly and repulse >> guest: are proving quite a effective on the battlefield but in the end weekend know the mind of this brutal dictator. all we can do is make a judgment

about whether it is better to act or not to act and make a judgment whether he is responsible or not responsible. in an end these are all issues of judgment anas members of parliament we have to make them. i take a question from the scotsh natiol party. >> anyigns of military action before syria? >> i obviously can't discuss the details of potential action in detail in front of this house but i can tell the house the american president and i have been discussions reported in the newspaper about potential military action. we have had those discussions and the american president would like to have allies alongside the united states with the capability and the partnership that britain and america has but we have set out very clearly what britain would need to see to happen for us to take part in that. more action at the u.n. report by the u.n. inspectors and further vote in this house.

actions won't be determined by my good friend and ally the american psident. they will be cited by this government and the house of commons. >> i agree with the prime minister the horror of chemical weapons but the vast majority of the 100,000 killed so far in this civil war in syria was the result of conventional weapons. can you convince the house that military action by our country would shorten the civil war, how to herald in the postwar government that could create stability? >> good question. i can't make any of those assurances. we have not made that decision but were we to make a decion to join the americans in military action it would have to be action in my view that was solely about deterring and degrading the future use of chemical weapons by the syrian regime. full stop, an end of story and if we were aware of large-scale use of chemical weapons by the opposition i would be making the

same argument and the same recommendations. .. as i said, the second part of my speech is to deal with the actions set in motion. whatever disagreements there are in the complex situation in

syria, the should be no disagreement that the use of chemical weapons is wrong. aty andoutlaw the use of chemical the world came together and international law has reflected that that should never be repeated. they put a line in the sand and said that whatever happens, the should not be used. , in my view, and there should be consequence. it's the first use of chemical weapons this century. for at least 100 years. interfering in another country's affairs should be undertake except for the most exceptional circumstance. it is must be a humanitarian catastrophe and a last result. this is the humanitarian catastrophe. if there are no consequences for it, there's nothing to stop it and other dictators from usin

the weapons again and again. as i said doing nothing is a choice. it's a qhois with consequences and the consequences, in my view, wouldot just be about president assad and his future use of chemical weapons. decades of pain staking work to construct an international system of rules and checks to prevent the use of chemical -- weapons and destroy stockpiles. the global consensus -- is it not in the british national interest that rules about chemical weapons are upheld. in my view of course it is. that's why i believe we shouldn't stabbed stand idly by. >> i'm grateful to the prime minister d notwithstanding the differences on the timing and approach to conflict. can i bring up the issue of consequences. whoever is responsible for chemical weapons attack should know they will face a court whether that's the international criminal court or specially convened war crimes tibunal in

the future. whether there's military intervention or not. somebody is responsible for heinous crime. >> i agree. people should be subject to international criminal court. use of hemical weapons can a crime and has to be prosecuted. have to recognize the slownd of the wheels and the fact that syria is not a signature to he treaty. let me make a little bit more progress, and giveaway. i consted the attorney general -- institutes a war crime and a crime against humanitarian. i want to be clear about the ocess we follow. the motion is clear about this. the weapons investigators in damascus should brief the -- finish the work. can we have another british involvement and district military action. i explained again the legal position and i don't need to

repeat that again, but i would urge colleagues to read this legal advise for the court in the library of the house of commons. let me repeat one more time. we have not reached that point. we have made the decision to ability. and where there to be a decision to act the advise proves it would be legal. [inaudible conversations] would he agree that -- across the house are concerned about person becoming involved in another middle eastern conflict. what he's tling the house is focusing specifically on the war crimes use of chemical weapons which is a very different matter for person involved in the -- [inaudible] >> i completely agree with my honorable friend. i'm aware of the deep public skepticism there is. the war weariness it there is in the country. linked to the fact that people had difficult economic times to deal with as well. they are asking questions why britain hasto do so much in the

world. i think we should reassure it's about chemical weapons. it's not about intervention. it's not about getting involved in aother middle eastern war. i take the secretary. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] mr. speaker -- [inaudible] mr. speaker, the prime minister said a moment ago that the hearing of the house one of the purposes of the action would be degrading, his words, of chemical weapons capability of thes a sad -- s-- sent to carllevin the united states congress he fully to do that would involve hundred of ships and aircraft at the cost to $1 billion a month. could the prime minister simply not proposing that say what is

objective in term of degrading the chemical weapon capability? >> i think have any jobs -- [inaudible] refer to my constituents as -- [laughter] he makes a very good point. he makes a very good point, which is i think he was addressing if you wanted entirely to dismantle or attempt to dismantle syria's weapons, that would be an enormous undertaking that would involve troops that involve all sorts -- that is not what is being proposed. what is being prposed were we to take part is an attempt to deter and grade the future you saw. that's ver different. and you would do that i don't want to set out at the dispatch of the house of commons a list of targets perfectly simple straightforward to think of actions you could take to do a command and control of the use of chemical weapons, and the

people and buildings involved in that. which would indeed deter the great. honorable members i think when asked point a nuer of ways how can we be certain any action will work? any action wouldn't have to be repeatedded. flankly, these are judgment issues. the only firm judgment i think question come to if nothing is done we're likely to see more chemical weapons used. giving away a lot the joint intelligence committee say that back to the motivation for us assad using chemicalweapons, they say they have a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgment of the regime is responsible. i appreciate the prime minister cannot share such intelligence with the house as a whole. members of the all-party intelligence and security committee have top secret clearance to look at precisely this sort of material. as members of the committee some

support and some oppose the military intervention would he be willing, for members of the committee to seethat material? >> i'm very happy to consider that request, because the intelligence and security committee let me say this, i don't want to -- the own debate of individual or groups of piece of -- that wouldn't be appropriate. what i've said the house of commons there's an an enormous amount of video he with see. there's a fact we know the regime has an enormous arsenal. the fact they used it before. the fact they were attacking that area, and with the opposition, of course. there's the fact they don't have the weapons. they don't have the deliver i are systems. and the attack took place in an area which they themselves were holding. yes, of course, intelligence is part of the picture. let's not pretended there's one smokingiece of intelligence that can be solve the whole problem. it's a judgment issue and one which the honorable members will

have to make a judgment. i giveaway to my friend. >> the reason many of us in parliament oppose. it was ae toesty committed by both side. there's a real risk of escalading no matter how clinical the strike. there's a risk the violation is escalade. what assurance can he give them? both within the country and beyond syria's borders. we haven't agreed about every aspect of syria policy. that's no. but the point i would make if we torp take action, it would be purely and simply by degrading and deterring chemical weapon use. when we worry about escalation the greatest form of escalation we have in front of us is the danger of additional chemical weapons use for nothing has been done. this debate, this motion, this

issue is not about arming the rebel. it's not about intervening in the con flibt. it's not about changing our approach on syria. it's about chemical weapons and something i think everyone in the house has an interest in. the use of chemical weapons has made syria our business. does the prime minister agree with me, to misthe opportunity today san diego strong message to assad and others the house condes the war crime and use of chemical weapons and undermine -- >> i think she makes an important point. one of the important questions is where the british national east. a stable middle east in the national interest. i think there's a specific national interest relating to the chemical wells use we have seen and preventing th escalation. i tried in the section of my speech, i'm giveaway in a minute. i want to make further progress in plenty of time for the speeches. i've been trying to address the

questions that people have. let me take the next question. whether we would be in danger of undermining our ambitiouses for a political solution in syria. there's not some choice on the one hand acting to prevent chemical weapons being used on syria people and continuing to push for long-term political solution. we need do both. we reremain committed to using it to end this war with a political solution. let me make this point, for as long as assad is able to defie international will and get away with the attack i believe he'll feel little if any pressure to come together negotiating table. he'llappy going on killing and maining his own part as part of his strategy for winning the brutal civil war. far from undermine the political process it would strengthen the political process. i giveaway to the chairman. >> can i thank the prime minister for giving away. one of the consequences of

intervening will be the effect it will have on other countries in the region. my particular concern is he knows is yemen. which is the most unstable country in the area. has he looked at the continues consequenceses what might happen with intervention and the affect its will have on the stability of a country like yemen. >> of course. we hav-- i have taken advice from all of the experts about all of the potential impact on the region. it was actually the next question in my question that need to be answered. the fact is the region already profoundly in dangered by the conflict in syria. you have lebanon facing sectarian tensions with refugee piling across the border. gourden -- jordan. is not going to alleviate the challenges. it's going to deepen. that's why the arab league has been clear in condemning the action and attributing it

precisely to president assad and calling for international abs. -- action. needs a bubble clea international law and people and countrie who prepared to stand up for them. i giveaway to my honorable friend. i'm grateful. i believe my constituents like those of the rest of the house want the prime minister to make clear on the country we're not going turn away from the illegal use of chemical weapons. but the going give peace a chance. will he assure us that he will continue to engage however difficult with russia and the other key countries to try to make sure that the u.n. root is productive under the diplomatic process is engaged as soon as possible. i absolutely agree with my friend that we must continue the process of diplomatic engagement. even after i spoke with

president obama before the weekend. i called president putin on monday and had a long discussion with him about the issue. we're a a long way apart. the one issue e agree about is get the georgia geneva process going. e assurance i can give him. if there was any action, it would be immediately taken other biff running a political process once again, and britain will do everything in the power to make it happen. let me answer a final question that has been pushed in the debate over recent days. and that is the question of whether this will risk radicalizing more young muslims including people in ritain. it's a vital question and not asked enough in 2003. it was asked in the national security council yesterday and we received consided able analysis from the counterterrorism expert. one is there in no room for complacency. the legal proportion of unfocused action proposed will not be a significant new course of really a callization and extremism. young muslim in the region and

here in britain are looking at the pictures of musliming suffering and seeing the most horrific deaths from chemical weapons. many will be asking if the world will step up and respond. i believe the right message is we should. i'll take one more intervention from the honorable - >> i'm grateful to the prime minister. would he reflect on the -- [inaudible] on the humanitarian situation t just as it might appear in the future but as it happens now. -- [inaudible] how can we be absolutely sure that given the agency like -- [inaudible] the 21st century but not -- [inaudible] make it an extremely point. right on, gentleman.

we should be proud in the house and the country british aid money is playing in the -- relieving this disastrous situation. we are one of the largest donor and go on making that investment. we are saving lives and helping people every day. we have to ask ourselves the question is the unfettered use of chmical weapons by the regime going to make the humanitarian situation worse? i believe that it wil. so if we believe there was a way of deteeterring and degrading future chemical weapons action it would be irresponsible not do it. when you study the legal advice published by the government it makes the point that the -- has to be about saving lives. so mr. speaker, let me conclude where i began. the question beforeus is how to respond to one of the worst uses of chemical weapons in 100 years. the answer is we must do the right thing and in the right way. we must be sure to learn the lessons of previous conflict we must pursue every avenue of

the united nations. every diplomatic channel. every option for securing the latest for the steps we take. and we must recognize the skepticism and concern that many in the country will have after iran all the way in which "the situation" and the a x we take are very different. we muster in -- ensure any action is proportionate, legal, and specifically designed to deter the use of chemical weapons. we must ensure any action support that is accompanied by a renewed effort to forge a political solution and relieve humanitarian suffering in syria. but at the same time, we must not let the specter of previous mistakes paralyze our ability to stand up for what is right. we must not be so afraid of doing anything that we end up doing nothing. let me repeat again. there will be no action without a further vote in this house of commons. but on this issue, britain should not stand aside. we must play our parin a

strong international response. we must be prepared to take the identity of action. in order to do so. that's what the motion is about. and i commend it for the house. >> order! the question is the motion on syria and the use of chemowall -- chemical weapons as published in corrected form. to move his amendment i call the leader of the opposition mr. ed. >> i rise to move the amendment standing in the name of myself and my right honorable friends. i start by joining the prime minister in expressioning re-- revulsion of lling. there was a moral outrage it was a moral outrage and the international community is right to condemn it. as the prime minister said. everyone in the house and most people in the country will have seen the picture of men, women, and children gasping or breath and dyi as a result of this

heinous attack. i can assure members of the house the divide that exists does not exist over the condemnation of the use of chemical weapons. and the fact that it breaches international law. nor does it lie in the willingness to condemn the regime of president assad. the question facing this house is what, if any, military action we should take. and what criteria should determine that decision. and that's what i want to focus on in my speech today. and i think it's right to say in my remarks the prime minist said a couple of times in his speech, words to the effect we're not going to get further involved in that conflict. this doesn't change our stance on syria. i've got to say for the prime minister, with the greatest respect, that simply is not the case. to me that does not military intervention. toint clear about this.

i don't think anybody in this house or anybody in the country should be under any illusions about the effect of our relationship to the conflict in syria if we torp militarily intervene. as i said in my going remarks, it doesn't mean rule out intervention, but i think we need to be clear eyed -- we need o clear-we need to clear-eyed. we need to be clear-eyed about the impact this -- would have. let me also say, mr. speaker, this is one of the most solemn duties the house possesses. let peanut outline a simple question which is upholding international law and legitimacy, how can we make the live of the syrian people better? we should also have an outline a right to remember on it on the occasion, the duty we owe to the exceptional men and women of our armed forces and their families

who face the direct cobs consequences of any decision we make. mr. speaker, the basis on which we make this decision, is our fundamental importance. the basis of making the decision term determines legitimacy and moral authority of any action we undertake. that's why our amendment asks the house to support a clear and legitimate road map to decision on the issue. a set of steps which enable us to judge any recommended international action. i want develop he argument about why the sequential road map, sinal the right thing for the house to support today. most of all, if we follow this road map, if can assure the country and the international community if we take action follow the right legitimate and course not an artificial time table or political time table -- and i think that's very, very important for any decision we make. mr. speaker, this is fundamental

to the principle 77 britain. a belief in the rule of law. a belief that any military action must be justified in term of the corps. about potential consequences. and re-- make the international institutions we have in our world work to deal with the outrages in syria. let me turn to the conditions in our motion. first, and this is where the prime minister and i now agree. we must let the u.n. inspectors do the work and let them report to the security council. the u.s. secretary general said yesterday, and i quote, let them conclude the work in four days and analyze scientifically with expes and have to report the security counsel for action. so the weapons inspectors are in the midst of the work and will be reporting in the coming days. today will not be the day when the house is asked to decide the military a. for this house, for this house, for this house it is surely a

basic point. evidence should proceed decision, not decision proceed evidenc u i'm glad the reflection the prime minister accepted it yesterday. now it is true, because some people raised the isue, the weapons inspectors cannot reach a judgment on the a at -- they cob collude the chemical weapons are used in the eye of this country and the world it con fevers legitimacy on the finding beyond the view o my country or itelligence agency. what is more possible that what the weapons inspectors discover could give the world greater confidence and identifying in the perpetrators of this horrific atta. the second step, mr. speaker, our road map makes clear compelling evidence for the syrian regime responsible for ate tack. i welcome the lecture from the joint intelligence committee today.

and i notethe arab league's view of president assad's capability. as the prime minister said, in conflict there is reason for doubt. but the greate the weight of evidence the better. on tuesday we were promised it will be american intelligence and proof of the regime capability. we await the publication ofthe evidence, which i gather will be later today. that evidence too will be important in building up the body o evidence that president assad was responsible. >> the leader of the opposition said he might be able to support military action of the kind of the government contemplating. he is put in his amendment a lis of requirements virtually all of which i can tell appear in the government's own motion. why can't he not support the government's motion in order this house could speak with the united voice -- i'll develop in my remarkingy don't think that's the case. in particular i would point fact

that the government amendment does not mention compelling evidence against president assad. and i develop in my remarks on the fifth point of our amendment which is very, very important the basis on which we judge with action can be justified in term of the consequences. and i will come to that later in my remarks. the third step, mr. speaker is the weapon's inspectors findings and the other evidence. as the secretary general said, the u.n. security counsel should debate what action should be taken and vote the action. mr. speaker, i have head it suggested that we should have a united nations moment. that certainly not my word. they are words no justice the seriousness with which we must take the united nations. the u.n. is not some inconvenient side show. don't want to engineer a moment. instead we want to adhere to the principle of international law. i giveaway to the gentleman. >> very much. welcome in the docket rain that the evidence proceed decision.

that's a staunch change from one of the predecessors. tell the house whether he believes the evidence being presented to us today by the joint intelligence committee is compelling or not. >> i think this is important evidence. i think we need to gather furthered evidence over the coming days. that's hard to per sway the international community and anemia this country of president aside's capability. i think that's important. let he come to the earlier point, though, let me come to the earlier point. the prime minister racessed this -- raised it top. i'm hear we have to learn the lessons of iraq. i have to learn the lessons. one of the most important lesson was indeed about respect for the united nations. that's part of our amendment today. let me say on thequestion of the security counsel, mr. speaker, i'm also clear incumbent on us to try to build the widest level of support among the security counsel. whatever the intentions of particular country, the level of

international support is vital should we decide to take military action. it's vital in the eye of the world. that's why it can't be seen as some side show or some moment. but actually an essential part of building te cape intervention ake place. >> i thank the leadeof the opposition for giving away. he's right it shouldn't be a side show. why does the motion said the counsel shoul have vote on the motion but rather in favor of the intervention. i'll come directly to the question. i'm come directly to the question. there will be those who argue in the event of western china vetoing the security counsel resolution that any military action would necessarily not be legitimate. i i understand that view. i don't agree with it. i believe if there's a proper case made there is scope of international law our con action to be taken even without the

security counsel relation. mr. speaker, the prime minister didn't go in much details of the attorney general's legal advice. it was worth noting the adice there are three important conditions. con vunsing -- convincing evidence generally accepted by the international community as a whole. second objectively clear there's no practical order if the use of force if lives are to be saved. it's a testing condition we need to test out in the coming days and the coming period. and third, the proposed use of force must be proportionate and strictly limited in time. so the attorney concludes the it's important for the house to understand this. but they could be circumstances in the absence of a chapter vii security counsel resolution for action to be taken by subject to those three conditions. that's the case that must be

built over the coming period. now these principles, mr. speaker, we flect the -- reflect the responsibility to develop -- wide spread support. >> i just say -- he's right. i didn't cover everything in my speech. i could have gone to more detail in the attorney general side. but i just open for the clarity. you might not have time to read. it the the next sentence from the attorney general's advice is all three conditions would clearly be met in the case. >> well, what does the attorney general's view if that -- that is a view that needs to be tested out. that is a view that needs to be tested over the coming period. of course that's a case and the judgment that will have to made. additionally, additionally, additionally, mr. speaker. the responsibility to protect also demands a reasonable perspective of success in improving the -- to the syrian people.

the responsibility to protect an essential part of making this case. this takes me, mr. speaker, to the final point point of the road map we propose. any military action -- i'm referring to the road map, and has alrey detrmined any action must be legal, proportionate, and term-limited and have precise and achievable objective. he could he etail bhat objectives are? >> i'm coming exactly to that point. the government needs to stebd out in the coming days. that takes me precisely to the final point of the road map which is any military action must be specifically design deter the future use of chemical weapons, it must be time limited with specific scope. so the future action require further for the house. and it must have regards to the consequences of any action. now, mr. speaker, we must ensure

that every certificate made to bring the civil war to an end. the pary in the conflict and in particular president aside. -- assad. the international community also has a duty do everything it can to support the geneva process. any action, this is a key point w take must assist the process and not hinder it. and that is the -- that is the responsibility that lies on the government in the coming period. the government and the allies to set out the case. there will be some in the house that say it should not con contemplate ction even when it's limited. we don't know precisely the consequencings that will follow. i'm not, as i said, with those to rule out action. the horrific events unfolding in syria -- consider all the options available. but here is the point, mr. speaker, i want to make a bit more progress. we owe it to the syrian people, to our own country, and the future security of our world to scrutinize any plan that will better the consequences they have.

and by setting the framework today, we ive ourselves a time and space to actually scrutinize what is being propos bid the government to see what the implications are. i give way. >> for the sake of clarity for the house. how did the -- [inaudible] gentleman tell us if there was no u.n. security resolution, would the labor opposition back military intervention? >> it depends on the case that is being set out, and the extend to which an international support has been developed. and the honorable gentleman making a strange noises, i've got say to them. it's all right -- right to go about the process in a calm, and measured way. if people are asking me today to say, yes, let us take military action. i'm not going to say nap nor am i going to rule out military action. we have to do so on the basis of

evidence and the basis of the con sen us is about support to be built. i give way. >> the -- the honorable member for -- [inaudible] very important question which i felt in term of -- in paragraph e of the motion, he proposed to precise unachievable objective that he has in mind precise unachievable projective. could he detail what they would be, please. >> yes, i can. it goes on to say designed to deter the future use of proibt -- prohibited use of chemical weapons in syria. but as it also says, as it also says in point five such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region. so any proposed action to deter the use of chemical weapons must be judged against the consequences taking place.

i thnkthere's further work to set out what the consequences would be. >> i giveaway to the honorable -- >> on the issue of -- [inaudible] leader of the opposition to say and he's essentially making a strong case against military action. as a military ation the consequences of which are ver because the objective are frankly pretty soft and deterring. and a link between military affect and the affect on the ground and he's also to the consequences for the geneva 2 process which can only be negative. >> i'm saying to the horable gentleman and the house, we have to -- [inaudible] over the coming period in a calm and measured way. not in a knee jerk way and not on a political time table of whether the advantage of the potential action and whether it can be done on the basis of legitimacy and international law and whatthe consequences would be. >> [inaudible] >> listening to the speech any

reasonable human being would assume the gentleman is looking to quited house for political advantage. what has happened? what has happened to that interest? >> i have to say that intervention is not worthy of the honorable gentleman. i'm merely trying to get a framework for decisions for this house. my interest in this to ensure that the house of commons can make the decision when the evidence is available. ere will be some people in the house -- ly giveaway in a moment. there are some people in the house, mr. speaker that it's simple. and there clearly will -- there will be some people who think we should make decisions now engadget the military conflict. even those ruling it out now. i think we have to assess the evidence over the coming period. i think that's the right thing do.

and our road map sets out how we would do it . i give way honorable. >> one thing to not throw out military action. isn't the problem with the government's motion it's inprinceble force for military action. before we give the inspector say, before the -- take place. >> i do say to my honorable friend and to the house that it was notice thbl morning that it was certainly being presented at the government motion as if it was voted for, i think this is an important point as the house endorsing the principle military action. that's why i don't feel ready to support the government motion. i think that's why our motion which test our frame work for decisions is a right thing to do. i'm going make a bit more progress. >> i will give way, yes. >> will the right honorable gentleman confirm in advance of previous conflicts such is the

intervention in afghanistan political parties in this house were briefed in detail and canceled term on the nature of the evidence of why there should be intersection. -- erintervention. can he confirm there were no such briefings in advance of the vote. >> actually, mr. speaker, i have the benefit -- [inaudible] with the prpl. i'm sure te prime minister have having heard the intervention will want to extend him and the minority party. so, mr. speaker, by setting this framework today. we give ourselves the time and space to assess the impact it would have on the syrian people at if i intervention, and indeed the framework of international law and legitimacy. as said, i do not believe we should b rushed to judgment on the question on the political time table set elsewhere. in the coming days the government has a responsibility building on the prime minister

did today but more than what he did today to set out the case for why thebenefit of intervention and action outweigh th benefits of -- i not rule supporting out the prime minister. i want to make the point. i do not rule supporting te prime minister, but i believe he has to make a better case than he did today. and frankly, he cannot say to the house and to the country this does not change our stance on sir cra and the involvement in the syrian conflict. frankly, it would, mr. speaker and the house will need to assess it. i'm not going give way. our -- that i believe can come o the confidence of the house and the british public. and crucially, this is an imporant point it places responsibility for the judgment about the achievement of the criteria for action reporting by the western inspectors to compelling evidence both in the security council the legal base, and the prospect of successful action with the house in a subsequent vote. i hope that the house can unit

around the amendment today. i believe it captured a shared view on the house. both about our anger of the attack on the civilians, but also frame work to make the decision how we respond. i will give way. yes. >> can i thank my honorable friend for the -- [inaudible] don't you agree any responsible action could lead to -- [inaudible] previous conflict. the war is not a -- concept [inaudible] my honorable friend is entirely right. speak of a road map. does he not appreciate that the stage in our -- is what we do in the chamber this afternoon. given that his personally legitimate concern about consequences evidence, et. cetera has been met by the

government. i urge you -- i urge you to support the motion so we can end a united -- [inaudible] mr. speaker, we're not going supporting the government motion was briefed this morning setting out principl decision to take military action. that's the wng thing to do. we will oppose the motion. we could onlysupport military action and should only make the decision to do so with the condition of our amendment are met, and if they are met. mr. speaker, we know that stability cannot achieved by military means alone. i want to end by saying this the -- in recent months and years further demonstrate of the need to ensure that we uphold the innocent civilian, the national interest on the security and future prosperity of the region

and world. i know, the whole house recognize it is will not be and achieved through military solution. whatever our disagreement today we on this side of the house -- improve the prospect of spaes in syria and the middle east. it's what the people of britain and the world have a right to expect. it's a very grave decision and should be treated as such by this house and will be treated as such by this country. in the end, the fundamental task will be this. as we think about the men, women, and children who have been subjected to th awe toesty and can the international community that's why i urge the house to support our amendment today. the man script amendment be

made. i must tl the house the 99 honorable right and honorable members are seeking to catch my eye in this debate. meaning necessarily the large numberf colleagues will be disappointed. as always the chair will do it best to accommodate the level of interest. the chair willnot be assisted by members coming up to it asking whether and if so when they will be called. i must ask member, please, not do so. calm and patience are acquired. [inaudible] poin of order. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the prime minister at least spoke yesterday morning told the media that u.n. resolution was to be circulated in the afternoon. i believe it's -- which i asked for a text from the library neither they nor the foreign office were able to provide. i wondered, plrk, if you might look in to that.

>> right, honorable lady is an immensely -- she's in the 26th year in the house. she's started extremely young. [laughter] the that is not a matter for the chair. she's aired her concern in a very candid fashion. the prime minister and the other members of the treasury heard what she had to say. mr. speaker, i have less than listened to the most charitable way i can to the leader of the opposition. explaining why he cannot support the government's motion. given that the government responded not simply to his request but those from member on this side to wait until the inspector to complete the task and enable the security download consider the -- we can only conclude and the country can conclude he is incapable of taking yes for an answer. [laughter] i want to use the short time available to me to concentrate

on one particular set of words in his amendment, and the need to reasonable phrase the knee for compelling evidence of the assad regime responsibility to these chemical attacks. we should be clear what compelling evidence means. nothing can even be proven 100 percent. if a person is charged with inured our court, he can be convicted of the jy of satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. it doesn't require someone to have been able to say i actually saw him pull the trigger. sometimes that's not available. normally it's not available. when we look at the situation in regard to use of chemical weapon in sir yap. what -- chemical weapons were use the. the assad regime themselves admit that. we know that they were use in the middle of a sustained artiller attack by thesyrian government forces on the suburb

in damascus where the chemical attacks then took place. we know that the syrian government themselves are the only state in the middle east that have massive stops of chemical weapons. and we know, and we know there cannot have been any ethical objection on the part of the assad regime to using chemical eapons. not just because they probably used them bore, but because any regime that slaughters 100,000 of its own -- 0,000 of its own citizens which clearly have no -- in uing chemical weapons as well. i give way. >> the righ honorable gentleman said we know that syria is the only country in the middle east that possesses stockpiles of chemical weapons. he would he draw ttention to the use by israel for illegal chemical weapons in gaza, white

-- surely israel too has such weapons. we should take that in to account at looking at the pectrum. >> let us use another occasion if we may to debate these -- these important allegations. the issue is the syrian government themselves do not deny they have massive stocks of chemical weapons, and; therefore e issue is whether there's any considerable argumen on the particular occasion in a district controlled by the opposition themselves. and theopposition has somehow the capability and the will and indeed carry out this attack. now, the inspector's reports -- in a moment. if i may. the inspector's reports will be help of the in two respects, i hope. they will give conformation of the scale of the chemical attack. if only three or four people died maybe somebody was carrying around a chemical agent as what happened in the underground a

number of years of ago. when you have over 3,000 people treated y medicine, clearly it was a massive chemical weapons attack which required rocket and a capability we heard no one else in syria has either now or likely to have in the short to medium term. gheans background, the inspectors could indeed provide us with some helpful additnal information. the question then becomes what is the purpose that military action is actually taking. it's not going to be limited as the prime minister rightly said. but it has one overwhelming -- and thathas to be to deter furthered action of the use of chemical weapon by the assad regime. let me -- i hope no one can argue other that the very moment the assad regime in damascus are watching very carefully as to whether they will get away with what they have done. if they get away with what they

have done. if there's no international response of a significant kind, then we can be absolutely certain that the forces within damascus will be successful in saying we must don't do use these whenever there's a military rational for doing so. there's no guarantee that a military strike against military will work. there's every certainty if we don't make the -- the action will indeed continue. the other point that has to, i believe, concentrate all our minds comprehensively is that a syria to act is not in itself an absence of a decision. itself has profound other consequences not just the ones i have mentioned. and most profound for he united nations itself. the league of nations effectively collapsed in the 1930s which germany and italy effectively prevented any sanction or other action being taken for the innovation of --

that together with other simila act of aggression which the league could not handle because the absence of unanimity created a cay use which lead to the second world war. the united nations far from suffering for we can take action which has the support of out of states and the bulk of the international community. far from suffering the united nations and the concept of international institutions and the international community acting to deal with acts aggress of this kind wille boosted in a way that would not happen by any other course of action. so i believe that the -- and come back to the house is not an overwhelmingly an interest of innocent, men women and children but far more likely to boost the concept of international action to deal with gross atrocity of human rights than simply wringing our hands, protesting at the action but failing to take any effective respon to. . >> thank you, mr. speaker.

i was the final speaker in this house on the 18th of march, 2003. on a resolution which i recommended to the house that we should take mill military action against the assad regime. that was passed by 412 votes to 149. i set out in detail how i came to the conclusion the war against saddam hussein was goferred based on the information available and widely shared international judgment about the threat posed by that regime. whatever the jusks on the 18th of march, 2003, the fact was there was an e egregious failure. it has had profound consequences. consequences across the region of the middle east and consequences not -- or establish politics trapped between the electors and the elected so essential to a house -- healthy democracy.

iraq? however has becomes pass cyst. two years ago, the house approved the public approved actn against the gadhafi regime. the need for the action was. a palble to prevent a mas consider around benghazi. it was approved by the security counsel, and it was plainly lawful. iraq has ade the public more queioning, more worries about whether we put troops in harm's way. especially where intelligence is involved. and the question before us now is whether the use of chemowall -- chemical weapons changes the -- determined we should not intervene militarily. military support in syria and whether we should, as a government, propose agree that a strong humanitarian response to the use of chemical weapons may, if necessary, require military action by the united nations

armed forces. my conclusion at the moment, at the moment, is that the government had yet to prove its case. and i think we are clear the chemical weapons were used. we'll get more iformation from the inspector. qel also pretty clear that it's the capability likely tosee that of the assad regie. i say to the prime minister and my honorable members. there was strong evidence about what we all thought that saddam hussein held. he had -- >> we didn't. >> because we had -- because he had no hope for al the -- [inaudible] of chemica biological weapons. one second. and the issue was much more what we should do about that rather than a wide spread sharing of the assessment by the security council. so saddam hussein posed a threat to international peace and security. >> i'm grateful for the

gentleman for giving way. it was the -- described in the house information as extensive detailed and -- which later turned out to be limited sporadic and touchy. it was a political failure. we -- we can cover that another day. i'm sure we shall. i make the point i accept my responsibility fully for what happened in respect to iraq. i think before the iraq inquiry and elsewhere to explain why came to that conclusion. i just make the point i accept widely shared across the house one of the cobs -- consequences of the has been to raise the bar we have to get over where the aggression of military action arises. i give way to my honorable

friend. >> te honorable friend agree that the fact that the house was told they were weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to the united nations, and told again in 2006, we went to the province in a hope that another shot would be fired. the result accepting the decision are 623 united nations deaths of our great soldiers. doesn't he reaize now that those are the reasons why the public has lost trust in government assurances about going war? >> very different argument in with respect to afghanistan and now. there are wayses to debate that. let me say this even f there is compelling evidence, on copability, the bigger question arises at the strategic object of any military action. one thing the prime minister has

accepted that such strikes must take place will not significantly degrade the chemical weapons capability of the assad regime. we need to be clear about that. the adjtment spoke a moment about trying to take the capability down. if the first set of strike fail to do that and the prime mister seemed to be acepting that by the punishment and action degrading as a capability. what happens after that? and we know -- [inaudible] how easy it is to get to military action and how difficult it is to get out of it. and then the issue of precisely what is the objective of the action. and the case -- to fear between the alleviation of humanitarian suffering to some sort of warning.

some punishment of the assad regime. if the prime minister is going to come back to the house to recommend military action, he needs to be clear about precisely what the purposes are. this morning, we woke up to hear the president of the united states, barack obama, say that by acting in a clear and decisive very limited way, we san dio shot as cross -- send a shot across -- let's pause for a moment and consider the metaphor chosen by the prime minister. the choice revealing. -- choicen -- choicen by the president. and the choice is revealing. it's a warning that causes no casualties. in this case, a missile which was is argeted to fly over damascus and land in occupied deserts beyond. this cannotbe what the president has in mind.

but what we need know is what he really has in mind and what the consequences of what he has in mind willbe. because there will be casualties from any military action. some military almost certainly have many civilian as well. and my last point, the prime minister is this, he draw a distinction in the speech, i quote, our response war crime and taking sides in the conflict. i say; however much he struggles to make that distinction if we take an active part in military action, which i not rule out. it we do, then let us be clear we shall be taking sides. there's knows cape from that. we should be joining with the rebel and the consequences that arise from it and not maintain a positio

i share that skepticism. i also believe that there is no national interest for the united kingdom in taking aside side in that particular civil war two

assad regime for an al qaeda regime does not seem to offer any advantage. that is not the issue that is being put in front of us today. there is a separate issue upon rate we need to have very clarity. that issue is how we respond to a regime that has used chemical weapons against its own civilian population, something that is against international law and is a war crime. believe the pictures that we saw in recent days shocked us even in our desensitized age. the pictures of toddlers laid out in rows was deeply disturbing to all of us and should be. the question is whether we are

willing to tolerate more such pictures. how do we go about minimizing the risk of such pictures coming to our screens in the future? much of the debate has already focused on the consequences of taking action. we must also focus on the consequences of not taking action. on the consequences for the syrian people. does that make them more or less

safe from the use of such weapons in the future. from the implications of the syrian regime. -- are other regimes with chemical weapons and might decide to use them against the domestic populations, what signal would we send to them about the international community's willingness to such use in future if we do nothing? >> i except many of the points that the gentleman is making. there is not a choice between action and inaction. it is a choice between what action should be taken.

military action might exacerbate the situation and draws into mission creep, which we would have very little control over. it is a valid point. it is a judgment call. does he agree that if we do nothing and stand by and watch

as the horrific atrocities described by the prime minister take place, it will be as if we agree with these chemical weapons that have been spread across syria? >> if we do nothing i believe it would be an abdication of our international, legal, and moral obligations, which we should take extremely seriously. let me say briefly one other thing. the government should be commended for taking the united nations route. it is right and proper that we do so and that the appropriate amount of time is given to consideration, but that comes with a caveat. it is clear that russia has military interests in the port of tartus and that it still feels very sore about its belief that it was sold a pup over libya. we are not likely to get russian support in the security council, nor are we likely to get chinese support there, either. we cannot allow a situation where the international

community's ability to implement international law is thwarted by a constant veto by russia and china. therefore, i think we should be deeply grateful to the attorney general for the clarity of the advice that he has set out on how we can carry forward our international humanitarian obligations were such a situation to present itself. let us be veryar nothing will be interpreted in damascus as appeasement of a dreadful regime and the dreadful actions it has carried out. appeasement has never worked to further the cause of peace in the past, and it will not now, and it will not in the future. >> i rise to speak in favor of the amendment tabled by my right

honorable friend the leader of the opposition. i was a member of the cabinet that decided in good faith that this country should join the invasion of iraq, and i know how heavy the burden is on those who are charged with such a decision. i also agree that, in many cases, doing nothing is as much a decision as doing something and that the present catastrophe in syria demands a decision of us. as has been said, the use of chemical weapons is prohibited by customary international law and binding conventions. short of the use of nuclear weapons, it is the most heinous crime a country can commit, made even more dreadful when chemical weapons are used in civil war on its own people. i am therefore unhesitatingly in favor of taking the step that

will deal as effectively as we can with assad. but what is that step? what is our locus? how can we be effective, and at what cost? i want to deal with the last question first. the cost in human suffering and human life is clear, but there is another long-term cost -- the damage that we may do to the rule of international law in international affairs. it is obviously deeply frustrating that russia and china have formed a blocking minority in the security council, and i know that members will want to reinforce the

importance of diplomatic initiatives to seek to engage russia, in particular, in negotiation with the syrian government. however, it is also clear that to go to war with assad -- that is what it would be -- without the sanction of a un security council resolution would set a terrible precedent. after the mission creep of the libyan operation, it would amount to nothing less than a clear statement by the u.s. and its allies that we were the arbiters of international right and wrong when we felt that right was on our side. what could we do or say if, at some point, the russians or chinese adopted a similar argument?

what could we say if they attacked a country without a un resolution because they claimed it was right and cited our action as a precedent? these threats may not amount to much, but it is all we have. it remains our best hope, and we cast it aside at terrible peril, hence the importance of the route map set out in the opposition amendment. i welcome the decision that the government have now made to take no action until the un inspectors have delivered their report, but if or when it is proved conclusively that assad has used chemical weapons on his people, what can we do to prevent him from doing that again? there will perhaps be time in the future to bring him before the international criminal court, but in practical terms, what can we do, even if we are

able to get a un security council resolution? here is what the us chairman of the joint chiefs of staff wrote to the senate armed services committee last month -- we are all grateful for the excellent briefing by the library -- about having examined five options. he said that controlling chemical weapons would involve billions of dollars each month and involve risks that "not all chemical weapons would be controlled, extremists could gain better access to remaining weapons, similar risks to no-fly zone but with the added risk to

troops on the ground." the situation is parlous, and -- >> it is no secret that, notwithstanding the horrors of damascus, i have reservations about the use of military action in the circumstances with which we are engaged. in particular, i have reservations relating to the absence of a proper role for the united nations. however, as the government motion now sets out, there is a role for the inspectors, there is a duty imposed on the secretary-general, and there is an endorsement to use every effort to secure a united nations security council resolution under chapter vii of its charter. in addition, and i will come back to this in a moment, the motion also provides that for all of us -- supporters, sceptics, or opponents -- there will be an opportunity to pass judgment on any question of british involvement at a further stage when, not surprisingly

perhaps, rather more information may be available. >> does my right honorable and learned friend agree that for some of us at least, tonight's vote will not predetermine that we are satisfied at the next stage that there is a coherent plan that does not inflict too much damage on neighboring countries? >> i think my right honorable friend is referring, by way of inference, to the suggestion that there has been briefing that those who voted for the government motion would be endorsing in principle military action. most of us have been around here long enough to know how often briefing is a long way from the truth. anyone who is in any doubt about that should read the precise terms of the government's

motion. the effort to achieve a resolution under chapter vii is a vital component of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, because if no such resolution is achieved -- here, i agree with the attorney- general -- we turn to what was once called humanitarian intervention and now is called responsibility to protect. it is a fundamental of that doctrine that every possible political and diplomatic alternative will have been explored and found not to be capable. i want to applaud, if i may, mr. speaker, the house for taking the unusual step -- in my view wholly justified -- of publishing the attorney- general's advice. those of us with long memories will remember that 10 years ago we were not favored with anything like as much detail. it is also worth pointing out that there was no second vote 10 years ago. within 24 hours of the motion

being passed by the house endorsing the labor government's proposals, the tomahawk cruise missiles began to rain down on baghdad. it respectfully seems to me that we need to examine the matter not in response to the emotion that it undoubtedly engenders in all of us. emotion is no substitution for judgment in matters of this kind. we must look beyond what might be achieved in the short term, to the medium term and the long term. >> the right honorable and learned gentleman spoke a moment ago of the responsibility to protect. one of the criteria is the prospects of success. is he satisfied with the objectives of this action and the prospects of success on those objectives? >> we cannot arrive at a conclusion on the prospects of success until we have more

information than is currently available. the honorable gentleman is right. i should have mentioned that the prospect of success is a part of that evolving doctrine. we should also remember that the doctrine is not universally accepted, and that the mere use of it is, on occasion, regarded as highly controversial.ag 20 -f responsible is to protect may not get very considerable support. >> the questions i have, mr. speaker, which i don't expect to be answered but which i hope will lie on the table are these. will minister action bring the neva constants any closer? is it more likely to produce the political settlement whh everyone believes is necessary? and although a strategic objective is set out, i hope i might, forgive me for thinking, perhaps military action is more of a tactic rather than a strategic imperative.

and that's why i think we must give some consideration to the end again, to use it a colloquialism, and to particular to thewhole issue of regional stabilityof what the consequences might be in a region which is already in a very unstable condition. and what, too, mr. speaker worth the next tour to carried out by some conventional means? what would be our response then in the light of the fact that for two years or so there have been a number of horrors brought about by the use of conventional weapons? and my concern is that if you open the gate, once, then it would be very difficult to close it. mr. speaker, i've read the motion and i read the amendments of the opposition, and i believe both are from the same determination to do what's right and to see that the house

endorses everything that is right. but i have to confess that even with the most narrow textual analysis, i can find no difference of substance or principle anywhere within these two offerings. >> here, here. >> that is why i shall support the government in the lobby this evening. and i very much hope that the opposition will, too. >> angus robertson. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. across the house and all political parties, there is total revulsion at what has been happening in syria over the past month, and years, of the brutal conflict there, and particular the recent apparent attacks on civilians with chemical weapons. there's absolute unanimity here and internationally that the use of these indiscriminate weapons is unacceptable and the united nations is right to be currently investigating the circumstances of the attacks.

if we're serious about our support for the united nations, the inspectors must be able to complete their work and report back to the world community before in the course of new action is undertaken. if as we expect a distant from the chemical weapons were used, one of the first things that should be made clear is that whoever ordered and carried out those attacks will in time face the full force of the law. regardless of what may otherwise may happen in the short term, the perpetrators of such a crime should understand that they face indictment by the international criminal court, or by a specially convened war crimes tribunal. today, however, mr. speaker, we have been recalled department because of potential imminent military action by uk and other forces. we have been called back for days before parliament was to reconvene anyway. so as not unreadable to conclude that there was a very high probability of intervention would take place before monday. the uk government expected that

we should vote for a blank check that would've allowed you to military action before u.n. weapons inspectors concluded their investigations, and befo their detailed evidence was provided to the united nations, or indeed members of this house. and having been misled on reasons for war in iraq, the least of the uk government could have done is provide detailed evidence, and, frankly, they have not as was underlined in my intervention to the prime minister earlier. in contrast with a sensible approachtaken in the run up to the 2001 intervention in afghanistan, we were today expected to get the uk government up like check, but members on all sides of the house clearly reminded her leg that this is a hung parliament and the would be a majority for a blank check. but instead at least there ould be safeguards. giveaway. >> thank you i will jump in for giving way but does he agree with me that when the conflict, especially now, -- [inaudible]

is not regime change and only get a few weeks ago the governmt -- that has cost under confusion. >> the honorable gentleman makes a good point. i appeal to inpiece on the government side to look closely at the amendment and ask emselves what is wrong with the safeguard if proposes. sure the u.n. weapons inspectors must be able to conclude their mission and had an assist opportunity to report to the security council and evidence in the funnies on whether chemical weapons were used in syria. surely we must have definitive evidence that the scene regime or opposition was responsible for the use of these weapons and with the greatest of respect that is not just two pages of a4 paper. sure the u.n. security council must consider and vote on this matter and the like other parts of the evidence that is submitted. and surely there must be clearly leg basis international law for taking collective military action to ptect the syrian

people on humanitarian grounds but and surely, theobjections and counselors of any intervention must be made clear and not run the risk of escalating the conflict causing for the deaths in worsening the humanitarian situation. the safeguards in the mms are absolutely clear and will bring the issue by for a parliamentary vote before in the uk military intervention is possible. suly these safeguards, should the safeguards not be satisfied, the scotish national will vote against convention -- intervention. i would urge the uk gvernment to invest more time and effort in supporting an actual end to the conflict and setting up you mention support for the hundreds of thousands of victims in syria and refugees have fled to neighboring countries. earlier today i met an organization that serves as much assistance as possible to help people in and around so you. he warned about the potential negative impact of military intervention and why that significantly worked -- worsened

the condition. can urge the government to do more involved in the disasters emergency committee? with so may people watching our deliberations i would also urge the public to continue the great generosity in supporting humanitarian efforts. i also urge the government to renew its efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. do we really think tomahawk cruise missiles fired into cities will make it easier or more difficult? it is clearly understood that the civil war is intractable and there's little willingness to compromise. earlier today i heard an appeal by the london-based syria expert and commentator. he said to the people of syria from all backgrounds are crying out for help to resolve the civil war. please can the uk government focus its attention on working with the united states and the russian federation and all others of influence in the region including iran to bring the different syrian sides to negotiating table? in conclusion, mr. speaker, the uk government must not have a

blank check for military intervention in say. we've heard it's been briefed that tonight's vote on the motion is an agreement in principle for military action. we should not give them a blank check for military intervention in syria either in principle or in practice. i have only 30 seconds left. we cannot ignore the lessons of the clematis iraq war. we need safeguards to ensure that all is done to provide evidence about chemical weapons in support for the united nations and international law. we need a comprehensive strategy which fully takes into account the consequences of intervention. what is currently a calamity could worsen a become a concentration across the middle east because with associate unite around the crossbreed safeguards amendment vote against the government motion and make up about it and she mentioned efforts the key focus of t international -- >> mr. speaker, there are four key questions we have to address. is there a moral case? does the intelligence stack up? is it lawful?

and what is the objective? the moral case is something which each individual mps will have to decide based on his own character, morality and attitude to world affairs. many colleagues and friends are in principle non-interventions but others have a strong interventionist street. others say that criteria is met, or this, then maybe. all wrestle with the conflict between head and heart. but to those who say that the murder of hundreds of innocent citizens i chemical weapons is nothing to do with us, it's easy not to get involved him then i ask them to examine their conscience. syria is a signatory to the geneva protocol prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. it was a protocol drawn up in the aftermath of the first world war when the world of said never again. do we say, well, nevermind? let's just sit on your hands and ignore the atrocities taking place.

mr. speaker, this isn't any ordinary convention but it is at the convention on genocide and the abuse of basic morality. some say, well, what is the difference between being killed by an artillery shell or gas? with all advice there is a red line. there is a straw that breaks the camel back, and to me this is it. in my judgment, faced with the mass murder of innocent civilians doing nothing is not an option. but then there is the question of credibility, a point made an excellent speech by my friend. britain is a member of nato. brenda is chairman of the g8 and we have a permant seat on the u.n. security council. this gives us huge diplomatic plans but with befits comes responsibilities. this is just the moment we have to ask ourselves what those responsibilities are. we can behave like a minor

nation with no real international responsibilities. we can put our head in the sand, or live up to the expectations that the world community has on us. our objectives must be strategic. and a missile strike makes clear that chemical weapons cannot be used without a response from the world community. it helps to degrade the assad regimes this capacity and helps to deter the regime against future use. in my judgment, those are worthy objectives that have my support. >> one of the components which is common tooth the motion and the opposition amendment is that we could end up and they -- this is the first step of two steps potentially due to action. want the transfer doesn't answer, the question about what the action with intel and the prime minister ruled out -- [inaudible] so in order to

degrade assad's opportunity to use chemical weapons, wouldwe not have to use either special forces on the round to deal with them, or have a missile strike which could cause even more damage? >> i say to the honorable gentleman to get to take the world as you find it. the situation has been made quite clear and the prime minister actress this pnt. and initially is to attempt to degrade assad's capacity. it's essential that our strategic objective is focused on the commands and control of the chemical weapons proam. if that is not successful but i'm sure that he and i will be back here asking, where do we go from here? but can i turn, mr. deputy speaker, to the attorney general's view that there is a legal basis for intervention without security council resolution, which poses more questions than it answers. i give way. >> i'm very grateful the honorable gentleman, but could he justbe a bit more precise on

this issue? the prime minister said oday, it's widely the objective that it includes the grading chemical weapons capability. genera dempsey has made it very clear that that's impossible to a significant degree by the deployment of thousands of troops and hundreds of ships. sure that be clear about what we are anticipating will result from use of tomahawk missiles and such things before we embark on them, not afterwards. >> this is the point the honorable gentleman made to the prime minister, and i thought general dental talk about a wider picture. what this prticular motion and the proposal i looking at is the pacific chemical weapon regime that we will be attempting to degrade. the attorney general -- sorry, that's my two interventions. the question, i turn now to the attorney general opinion. his view is that there is a

legal basis or intervention without a security council resolution, and i have to say to the house, i believe this poses more questions than answers. since the present doctrine was introduced in 2005, there is no precedent for this and this step has in my view serious consequent is. in effect, it means that the united nations is now redundant and that the american doctrine has legs of its own. it can be interpreted virtually anyway that the parties wished, and hope that when the dust settles, that this house and the united nations revisit the responsibility to prote, because i believe at present it is not working the way hat it was intended. and then and there is the question of the intelligence. those of us who are here in 2003 at the time of the iraq war felt that they had their fingers burned. the case for war was made. parliament was briefed on the intelligence, but we were only given part of the story, and in

some cases, and in accurate story. we have seen a summary of intelligence which has been published but it is their burden, and i do urge the government in the following days to consider how more intelligence can be provided. the picture is clear and as far as it goes, but in truth, it has no depth, and i warn to the suggestion by my honorable friend, that intelligence and security committee looks at the analysis and reports to the house on the veracity of that intelligence and to confirm that it coincides with the opinions that has been contained in the jake's intelligence letter which is before us. mr. speaker, this is a difficult time. there are no easy options and we are between a rock and a hard place and we have to decide that i, for one, will be in the government lobby tonight. >> john mcdowell.

>> a number of their members and the leisure of the -- foreign secretary for the intervention of the last 48 hours which holds what looks like a head long rush towards war. it's widely acknowledged that the american president has set a timetable, for probably an attack this weekend. he came under pressure last year from the republicans and mccain to set red lines as parameters but it was inevitable then that that would scalate the demand for military action at a later date. that might explain the american position but it doesn't explain why a sovereign independent state for great britain should automatically order to line in support of military action. if there's a lesson of the last 48 hours, it is no prime minister cameron no government should take this house or the british people for granted on matters of this nature. >> the reality is that yes, time has moved on since the right. people have made references to

the elections -- lessons from iraq. i will refer to three lesson. tre'so automatic approval or even trust in a prime ministerial judgment on an issue like this involving the country inmilitary action without overwhelming justification, evidence, and thorough debate. the evidence befor us fromhe jic today says this, there is to quote some evidence to suggest regime culpabily in the gas attack. and secondly, it is highly likely the assad regime is reonsible. i have to say highly likely and some evidence are not good enough to risk further lives, risk counter attack, and blame the whole region, ma risk dragging other states into this war, at he same time increase the risk of terrorism on british streets. the second lesson of iraq is that based upon the principles of humanitarian intervention.

it must be objectily clear that there's no pctical alternatives for the use of force if lives are to be safe. i don't believe it has been censoring all practical alternatives have been exhausted. in particular, discussions around the permanent stationing of u.n. weapons inspectors to prevent the use of these weapons has not been exhaustd. in addition to that, and insisted it participation of all sides and the u.n. piece conference has not been exhausted. >> is my friend not surprised that the british government appears to have made no rational efforts to try to build a relationship with the new government of iran, which might be part of a road to some kind of settlement? >> i think that lives with her point about the other lessons about iraq. and also with regard to afghanistan. -- [inaudible] any intervention does not cost lives, and also make matters worse?

but no arm, do no harm principle. no matter how surgical strike, planned by the americans or by us, lives will be lost and lives will be put at risk. and negotiated piece is the only long-term solution for syria. that's what's been expressed on all sides of the house, but military intervention is more likely to undermine the potential for piece talks. halts within the assad regime will be even more intransigent and defined. the opposition, the so-called rebels, will have no incentive because they when i believe the u.s. and yes the uk and others will be on theiride, and they can achieve a military victory. and also have to say, iran and therussians are very people we look to now to see whether they can bring assad to the negotiating table. if we've learned anything from iraq and afghanistan, it is this.

that military intervention doesn't just cost lives but it undermines the credibility of international institutions that we look to to secure piece in the world. and in the long run, in the long run, undermines piece settlements across the globe. so, therefore, i believe we should focus on conflict prevention and conflict resolution. we should not be sporting military aggression it and that's what i will not support any motion of in principle supports military intervention insurgent. i can only do more harm than good. >> in common, i suspect i find this an exceptionally difficult issue. my constituents hate the idea of our getting involved in syria, and so do i. and as i said earlier, i have not yet made up my mind which way to vote.

[inaudible] over the last couple days has been extremely helpful. i would like to look first at the legality of our taking action. the conversations that have been had with the media over the last few days have been talking about syria not haing ingenuity for the use --impunity for the use of chemical weapons. that word, ingenuity, implies that there is a new doctrine of punishment as a reasonfor going to war, not deterrence, not self-defense, not protecon, but punishment. but i believe that if it is a new doctrine it eets a considerable wider degree of international consensus than currently exists. certainly i will. >> he's making an important point, the very last setence of the attorney's advice says such an intervention would be directed exclusively to averting

a humanitarian catastrophe. and a minimum judge necessary for the purpose. so there can be no doctrine, new doctrine. >> well, i want to come -- my friend is an exceptional lawyer and i have -- question one aspect of what he says. the third, i will in a moment, the third of his conditions being met for humanitarian action is that the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian need. i believe that there is an additional point which he needed to spell out, which is that there must be a reasonable chance of success. and, therefore, the legality of this action, in my view, depends

entirely on the precise actions proposed. and that we do not yet know, and that is why i think the prime minister is right to say that we need to have a further vote in this ouse and once it is clear as to what action is proposed. i give way to the honorable gentleman. >> thank you for giving way. if this concern about a possible new doctrine of war as punishment informed by the fact that senior american political source on the last weekend talked in terms of retribution as being the basis for taking action against syria, and that was repeated that a government minister here as well. if the nternational community takes action on the basis of retribution as being the motive, es that not send a very dangerous message and they very dubious standard for the way to the middle is? >> possibly, although there is a

question as to how far, if there is a new doctrine, how far tis doctrine extends, why wast not used earlier? this is why i question the atrney's advice. we have differences as i say. next come the object is. what are the objectives of any military strike? my right honorable friend, the prime minister, said that it was to deter and degrade future use. now, as i understand it, i country which can make a nonstick frying pan can make chemical weapons. personally, ifind it very difficult for any country that can' make a nonstick frying pan. but nevertheless, if the city could simply re-create any weapons which we destroyed, where would we have god by attacking the chemical weapons? what is the risk of collateral

damage? what is the risk of keeping -- hitting the chemical weapons were trying to prevent being deployed? that is a matter which i think we need further information on. next, the evidence. now, i am certainly a minority in this country. and probably a minority in this house, in saying that i personally believe tony blair when he aid that he believed there were weapons of mass destruction in iran. i am certainly in a minority in the country when i say that i still believe that he was lling the truth, as he believed it to be. i think that he exaggerated the influence -- i know. i'm naïve. silly young thing. but i still believe that he

exaggerated influence and the importance of intelligence. and i don't think e have then gone to the bottom, precisely the limitation of what intelligence can tell us. >> [inaudible] >> certainly i will. >> chemical weapons were used against the kurds. they were used in the iran-iraq war, and they were used against the people in gaza in the form of phosphorus bombs. certainly a chemical bomb. isn't the real reason we're here day is not because of the horror of these weapons, poor exist, but because the american president foolishly drew ared line and it is because of his position now he's going to attack or face humiliation? that's what we've been brought into war. >> i think the real reason is that unless we do something, and it mustn't be something stupid, bu in less we do something that

assad will use more chemical weapons time after time after time. so i do believe that in order to stop chemical weapons, the use of chemical weapons becoming the norm, the world does need to act. for the world does not -- the united kingdom. is the world wants us to act as the international policeman, then let the world face of. because in the past when we have done so, the world has not tended to thank us. it may be argued that only we have the capability ofact. but there is a paradox here. we are a country which has the fourth largest defense budget in the world, and yet, still there are attacks that could be made on this country, weapons that could be used agains which we have no defense. and that is true actually of every country in the world. so that is a cocern that we

ought to take into account in the way we decide to vote, not tonight i think probably tonight it will be helpful to support the government. but i think nextweek, or whenever the decision comes up, we will need to take that issue very clearly into account. >> [inaudible] -- despite the statement that has been watered down, it does appear to me to be something of a paving motion from to action which refers if necessary to require military action then, a legal basis of taking action, and then end up on ultimate paragraph backing the objection but there's also the following i quote despite the diffulties at the united nations, that united nations process must be followed as far as possible to assure the maximum legitimacy. a serious question is why was the draft motion not presented

to the united nations before now? why the delay? it's all very interesting referring to difficulties, but diplomacy hasn't failed. it was, after all, the russians who pressed the government to allow the u.n. inspector general's in on monday. my colleagues, we believe any military acion would prolong the conflict and lead to further bloodshed. we would call on the governments to use its influence and also its relations with others to bring all of the relevant parties around the table to conduct talks. achieve and, of course, should be to prevnt further loss of life. now, there's been an ongoing humanitarian crisis in syria for almost two years if the government should also be putting efforts in to ensure greater humanitarian response, giving the level of aid sent t the region. previous military intervention in iraq, afghanistan, and

earlier examples in recent history, shows the commitment of troops without an end to plan costs a very high price both in money an in lives lost. not to mention the physical and mental scars that individuals and communities at home and abroad must therefore bear. but if the uk backs the use of u.s. governments military action are indeed participate in it, then the conflict could will draw and russia, iran, the back assad's regime, possibly making diplomatic talks more difficult and certainly not easier for the future. and i would at this point refer to yesterday's guardian where it was said that even if assad use chemical weapons, the west has no mandate to act as a global policeman and by ordering air strikes agains syria without a u.n. security council mandate. president obama would therefore be doing the same as bush in 2003. yes, i give way. >> in his legal experience and

opinion, at what point does destroying air defenses and preventing a military capability start to become regime change? wouldn't that b illegal? >> really, regime change is unlawful at and international law and any part of that -- therefore it would follow the autumn of -- auible jump is quite right but the timing of thedecision must also be questioned. regarding military abjection, if the decision as our been made in washington and agreed by the government here, then that's really why we're here, because washington feels there should be some bombs falling this weekend. now, many atrocities have taken place in the last two years since the conflict began. shirley, those seeking to take military action could wait a few days longer to assure that the facts are straight but it's obvious there's no threats to

thi journey of the uk that we know that the government seeks military action in orr to deter and undermines chemical weapons, that's fine. that it may well see, that's fine, although military action has to be sanctioned by law. but surely, it should wait until the full conclusive proof is available their fight by the

>> that has descended the civil war. the recent spill regarding militant objection has been confusing. last friday at united states a the uk governments were pressing for weapons inspectors to be allowed in c. on monday the inspector general's went albeit in

difficult circumstances but on monday evening all indications were that the u.s. and uk had made up their minds about the strike was indeed imminent and maybe that's why we're here today. but then on tuesday the uk stopped, perhaps worried about the consequences of proceeding into conflict with israel purpose of support for. the legacy of iraq begins looming large as we said. we will be voting against the government motion and its of supporting the amendment tabled by the official opposition and it is called in by the honorable lady for civilian. the last decade is in the uk and broken many bloody wars paying high price especially, and failing to secure any peace. the middle east is in a very precarious state as we now speak. we must learn from these mistakes very carefully. but i'd like to make, this one man on the record. eyes was support for the official opposition's anemic to date does not in any way imply

.

.

they buy them from a trunk in paris, and a trunk in newark. >> they can buy them from a trunk anyplace. >> but they are not going to be paying that tax from that trunk. so why should i be punished because he is a criminal? >> that is why there should be criminal background checks. >> there should be a background check on that trunk? >> obviously they're getting away with it. >> i have personally confiscated shotguns that have been made from steel galvanized pipes.

>> that is not get off of your agenda. -- let us not get off of your agenda. i told you what it is for. do i have the right to take weapons away from you because of this --? will you have to give up any of your guns? >> snowsuit. >> what is your second question? >> the last question is, theories have been raised that ammo is just an peopler ways for keeping from voting against him. >> there out there fighting for me whenever i run for election.

if they disagree with me -- i cannot be a one issue person because that is what is destroying this country. we don't have to agree on many things, we don't have to agree sayverything, but if you one issue is a whole banana, you have the wrong guy. next. thank you. good evening, everyone. good evening, mr. pascarella. my name is lisa. very happy to meet you. i have a question for you. i have the knowledge that you positionfficient -- supporting the single-payer. can you tell me what this is about please?

>> we started looking at the , like to putoption everyone in medicare. never get nearly enough votes to pass this. many democrats were not supportive of it. what i do believe is that when i came forth with a public option with this fallback position, in the exchange have a government plan so it would be in competition with the private plans. we got no votes for that either. what we could get enough votes for is a mandated plan for , and because everybody had to be in this or it doesn't , that's a republican idea not a democratic idea. we wanted to make that competition robust so if you

chose to go on the exchange to see all of these different plans, you have to choose the one that is going to be most effective for you and most efficient for you and then you make your decision. that is why i ask you, i beg of you to read the articles that we gave you tonight. if you have questions, call the office. let us start that dialogue. >> i disagree with you on that point. payer bill is 30 pages. i can't read that. >> because something is shorter doesn't make it better. >> i think you are mistaken. i apologize for that. i must tell you this. if everyone can be informed, if you make it better and simple -- >>

there weren't enough votes. read my lips. happening is that the single-payer is a democratic idea. it has been on for many years. it didn't happen when obama proposed a health care plan. this has been around for 60 years. my question is to you as a democrat. been doing all this time to not inform people. >> your question is pretty long but go ahead. >> what happened that you as a democrat that you have not been informing everyone in your party to explain what single-payer is. let me tell you what it is. it is taking out the private insurance -- >> wait a minute, ma'am. i want to know what your question is.

>> what have you personally been doing to inform your party why single-payer is better. >> we were the ones that put the health care bill together in the subcommittee. i was on that subcommittee. we put that together. we looked at all the possible options and one of them was single-payer. i told you what the backup position was. there were not nearly enough votes. we could not even get it out of committee, mind you. we were the majority at that time. at is what i have done. -- >> i question me want to thank you for your support on single-payer because it makes a difference.

>> would probably agree on a lot but i don't agree with what you said. we have to compromise sometimes. i can't have it all my way and you can't have it all your way, so we come to a compromise. want you to explain to your constituents. you say that you are in committee. we don't know what is happening inside their. >> what am i asking you -- what i am asking you as a congressman is to explain to us what makes the difference. >> is everything is a priority nothing is a priority. right now i want to make the affordable care act workable. i haven't the time to look at adding through legislation for single-payer because i would be

wasting my time right now. that doesn't mean i don't supported, but i am a little smarter than you think i look. so give me some credit for it >> you are very smart, mr. pascarella, you are. >> thank you. >> isn't this a beautiful country? come on! don't be so grumpy. what is your name? >> my name is barbara. i'm a member of local 100. i am also an executive board member. we represent thousands of workers in new jersey. aca, we believe that the companies are going to cut the hours so that the workers do not have insurance, which is going to cost them more money out-of-pocket. at this point in time in new jersey it is very expensive to live. if they have to pay for the own insurance they will not be able to live.

there is no way they will get enough money out of this. also, with the subsidies, union workers are required to pay the taxes on the subsidies however, they are not eligible to receive them. we would like for you to try to tweak the language in the aca so that the workers in new jersey don't get hurt or it >> that is a legitimate request. believe me, i have tried to tweak a lot of things. >> thank you so much. evening, congressman pascarella. rell. thessman degradation of human beings, one of the constituents in this audience said it, is offensive.

point. >>stand your my statement and question is, but i want to a lecture. i am a sub porter of marriage equality, and we do not have that in new jersey. what can you do to make marriage equality a , because iionwide think it is a marriage issue that should be considered on the federal level. let me be straight with you from the very beginning. if that vote came up in the house of representatives i would vote yes. inyou ask me to do something this state of new jersey under this governor, under the situation between the governor and the legislature, you have another thing coming. i'm only going to deal with things i can change because i have so much energy and you have

so much energy. so deal with the things that you think you can change and do your best to do it. don't give up. and don't only have one issue. >> i don't. i definitely do not. chance, ihould be a hope that you do come out in support of marriage equality. >> ok, thank you. i think this is a great time to introduce the people -- you will be next search -- the people who work every day for us. i never hear complaints about anybody who goes to our offices or inlewood or lyndhurst patterson or the passaic about not getting full service. let me introduce them all. then we will give them a nice round of applause. this will be like. staff, mychief of , myslator director

caseworker constituent service stand up, carmen, nancy everett, where is nancy? she takes care of all veterans. medicare, medicaid. in the last two years, nancy and i have been trying to help people get out of their foreclosures. how the hell i ever got into that i don't know. we save you a lot of people because the banks are the banks and you know exactly what i'm talking about. i just got a letter, a homeless , in fact to church called call her yesterday, a homeless veteran who she helped get some shelter. you did a fantastic job.

don't forget our veterans. are you irish? he is a communications person. michelle d'angelo, are you still standing? he is my field rep. my staff assistant, orville. did you bring your fan club? let's give her a round of applause. i'll tell you why. she is running englewood and lyndhurst personnel offices. she started a few weeks ago and

this is who you have been dealing with if you have casework. let's give her a nice round of applause for it thank you, shannon. did i forget anybody? ok, next question. oh, jackie, where are you? is jackie here? i can't hear you george. > this guy knows what he is doing, george. there you go. speak out. thank you.

[indiscernible] yes sir. what is your question, dr.? [indiscernible] all right, i understand the question. convinced that we are going to be soon in the midst of a cultural change, to use your words. fashion andwhole of the whole system -- that is the whole profession and the whole

system is moving towards more results oriented medicine. here is the problem. , i said us, i didn't say you, all of us, 90% of the .ime don't read the bill we don't know what we are being charged. our answer is what the heck do i have to be worried about? i am covered. boy have we been snookered. money never have enough for healthcare if we continue to go the direction we are going in. we need to cut course. are into states that this already, fast and furious, is that the premiums in those states have all been tremendously lower than they were the previous years.

i look for hope in the affordable health care act that we will bring down the course of healthcare. it is not just enough to find the money to do this, you have to cut the costs to do this. that means we all have to be involved. thank you, dr.. next. i live in cliffside park and thank you for the opportunity. . have a question i just want to know your opinion about jobs that are taken overseas. do you have an hour? an amendmentt be to the constitution of the united states to prevent that happening. what should we do to attract corporations? >> we have to change our trade laws. we are giving the house and the store away. thank dog for two trade deals that we begin -- thank god for

two trade deals that we have made with jordan and peru. all dealt with labor issues, human rights issues, currency issues. we don't that's around anymore like we did with china -- we around anymore like we did with china. we need to do something very important and that is to make sure that every deal is fair both for workers and the company. madeafta deal that we under president clinton, i was totally against that trade deal. i think nafta caused a lot of jobs to be lost not just in the united states but also in mexico. the second thing i would do is .imit the amount of h-1b visas

i want to train americans to do these jobs that we are bringing these other people in do not have to provide health care for, give them a lower wage and then probably send them back in five or six years. hurriedly, i don't like reading my x in the hospital and they tell me and i am calling india. i love indians but i don't want to call their country to have to find out my x-ray. these are things we can do to preserve american jobs. i only have 44 more questions. next. >> my name is matt schapiro i am --sident of the new journey of the new jersey tenants organization. questions, but i will limit myself to two issues, social security and medicare.

though they are not housing issues, they really concerned our members. they rely on them. earlier, you said that you would --e against an increase in you said you would vote against >> know that was the cpi not the cola. in fact i tried to make it a statutory thing. that is my legislation. >> maybe i am saying it wrong. .> you are that doesn't make you a bad person. >> my question is, whatever you said before, it was very good, but if it is not included in a bigger deal -- >> no. >> thank you. he said no.

that was great. >> some people disagree with me. gowhat he meant is he won't for anything that includes that as part of the deal. that is a very important thing. >> when i first ran for the congress i said i would never vote to privatize social security and i have kept my word every year. [applause] and it is obviously not my looks that got me voted and it is my is that i keep my word. >> earlier you said that medicare is extremely efficient and i agree with you. it has an expense ratio of three percent whereas private 30%rance companies are like . it depends on which figures you use, but the aca brings it down to something lower or it you

also said you support single- payer healthcare you don't want to work on it. >> i don't have the time or it , as aht question is leader, isn't it also important sometimes, not just to make things work the way you do so teach and but also to to say what we really need eventually in order to solve the crisis in health care that we have got. in this case, medicare is great, medicare for all is the only real solution. one way you could do that -- >> i never said that by the way. that, way you could do which would take no energy at all, is just to sign on to hr

676 which is one of those you didn't get to. would provide medicare for everybody. nobody would be left out. it would not cost this country one more time than it is currently spending and would cover those 50 million people who are not covered with good health care. i know it is politically unfeasible -- >> it is your position, not mine. to hr do you not sign on 676? >> in all honesty, i think i answered that question. if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. i am not going to be a one issue congressman. i have to fight for what i think is right for working people who have no voice. , i fightsound corny

every day. i fight for the cops, i fight for our veterans and the firefighters. i fight for the people who have no say and who don't have a job because of their health. my biggest contribution to that legislation on the affordable care act is help can we and i a woman who has breast cancer coverage from an insurance company? that will never happen again in the united states of america. >> that is very important. >> thank you. let's give him a nice round of applause. , before you over leave, i want to go over quick things which we didn't have time because we got onto questions. can you bear with me for a little while, please? i want to take a moment to discuss the recovery from sandy. ins building that we are

with stood a tremendous amount of damage. in fact, that damage was about $1.6 million. this town was waiting to see what the insurance would cover like everybody else and whatever their problems were. as of this date, the insurance company has covered $700,000 of that $1.6 million. we have a ways to go yet. received about $140,000 which we fought for from fema to help put this building back together. other towns municipal operations were whacked out altogether. we ares no city hall (it

trying to help with that regard. they were really wiped out. that is why the secretary came to our part of the world, secretary donovan and the government team last week -- and the governor came last week. i said if you go down to the shore once more and you leave hoboken and all the towns that got banged around here out, you are going to have one hell of a mad guy on your hands. so we ended up in north jersey and we had a press conference and we got those things straightened out. we have a long way to go and we are going to fight for every dime to make sure that the jersey shore is better than before. now, we talked very briefly -- we got a long way to go. $50 million.

we have all voted to help them whenever they were in need. it is a wacky world we live in. governor of south carolina, governor haley, nikki haley, she has had a devastating problem with flooding and water. her crops were damaged. she needs help from the federal government. every one of those people on the other side in south carolina voted no to help new jersey. south texas. i went there to see how bad it was when all their homes were leveled. as we flew in on a helicopter, i was a port getting off the plane. we helped, we were the first ones to help. they voted no to help us.

this is what we are dealing with in the congress of the united states right now. it goes beyond democrat republican, just people who don't see that we have an obligation to each other. this is the united states of america. we already had one civil war. we are not going to have another one. so we help one another to the best of our ability. and is not a perfect world you're not going to find it here. you just have to make the best of what you got and try to do it day in and day out. we know that the task force had 69 recommendations. i am 100% committed to get this done. i want to talk a little bit about the affordable care act. can we get that back up on the screen? jersey -- how does new journey -- how does new jersey benefit from the aca?

here are the ways in which new jersey has already benefited. by getting lower drug costs. by saving millions in insurance company refunds. because that particular company went less in the 80% which is now the law. , that is whatsts it saved each person. it is better care because we are moving away from, where is the doctor? from the per away service and we are moving towards service like they do in the cleveland clinic and the mayo clinic across america were doctors are salaried. we have no idea how much we are dong to save in that regard. you want to know how come your insurers costs are going up in your premiums are going up?

because you have to pay someone to read your bill. don't tell me you read your bill, you don't read your bill! they are taking us over the niagara falls. if i do say so myself, the patterson falls. yes? >> [indiscernible] yes we do. and in the affordable care act we have incentives in there to train more doctors and we have a million nurses we are going to be missing by the year 2020 to do with the problem as well and nurses systems. >> my daughter is in there. for her to go ahead to become a physician's assistant will cost close to $40,000 or $50,000. how does a young couple do this? family,t to start a

they're getting married. >> when you talk about cutting the budget, we want to get rid of the stuff we don't really need. you talk about cutting the budget, we need to be careful --ut is that we are cutting we're are not cutting investments into our future. when we decide not to fix a bridge or to fix an airport or highway, thisal is an investment not only for now but the future. are we waiting for another bridge to fall down? and you are trying to balance easyudget, it is not an task just to/and cut everything away. you don't know what you are cutting half the time. >> i agree with you 100%. i just want to know if there's any funding available to help kids. >> yes. --how do you get it lacks how do you get it?

>> come to my office and we will talk about it. we have time for one more question. >> if this is all true -- if this is all true. i would there be 1000 exemptions of people not wanting to go on affordable care? >> you have to read what i gave you about the myths of healthcare. if you didn't get it make sure you get it before you leave. >> your staff requested not to be on this route is that a correct statement? >> no. >> i think it was reported, correct me if i'm wrong, that they opted to be out. used to getting hit --

>> we have to buy health care through obamacare. that is a myth? >> they're going to go on an exchange like you go on an exchange. >> are you going to be on that? >> i don't have federal coverage. i have my own private thing which i am fighting with all the time. >> do you know what i feel? i feel the congressmen and senators if they have a law like this, if there are 51% of the people that are on this program, i feel the congressmen and the senators should also be on this program so they can truly

represent us. because how can you represent us without the program? all congressional employees are covered under federal health benefits program like all federal employees. but under the affordable care members of congress are going to be buying their own health care. >> are you going to promise me you will read that myths sheet? >> [indiscernible] of representatives and thousands of capitol hill staff. what they say is that -- >> what are you reading? story??today's

there is no exemption. we have to buy our healthcare. insurance forlth your employer. you get a subsidy for your health insurance. you pay part and your employer pays part or it as far of last ,ear -- as far as last year that rule was made so we could continue receiving our subsidy so we would not pay 100% of our costs. from oure same subsidy employer than anybody else got from their employer. that is it. there is no other exemption. >> let me say this. what is your name again back of -- what is your name again? > in every one of your questions,

a right to ask any question of me. i have never run from a fight in my life. i have never run from a question. you have every right to ask. why do you keep asking questions to try to catch me? i am telling you, excuse me sir, you didn't prove me wrong one inch. even have the't plan, i told you. you didn't listen to me. reported by reuters which is a reputable news organization. >> did you just hear what i said? did you understand what i said? >> [indiscernible] >> what you said is that congressional staffers are not different from regular people. they are subsidized.

buys insurance on the market can apply for subsidization. i said that a half hour ago. >> just because they apply doesn't mean they can receive it, write? >>they can receive it right? just like they have been doing. this just continues the plan. the employee still has to pay x amount. isn't the idea of obamacare that everybody pays and buys insurance in exchange e >> not if you don't have to do that. if you are on medicare you are certainly not going to change her position. if you are covered at your

workplace, you are certainly not going to change your insurance. if you are a federal worker you are not going to change your insurance if you have the same ability and rights as everybody else. what are you talking about? does anybody else have any other questions? [indiscernible] that is a great question. -- thatking into it. do is a private company. i am going to find out. >> probably because of economic reasons. if you have the answers then why are you asking me? i don't trust the congress. i don't trust the president. , nasa could be nsa -- nsa could

be recording this. not my friend. >> sir, what is your name? >> you don't need my name. i don't trust the irs. i don't trust anybody. you don't need my name. >> such a nice hunch of guys. irs is a bunch of nice people. my name is bill in case you cared about it. the me tell you something. i don't mind you distrusting. that is your prerogative. sometimes, not all the time. will being to you, you

able to reconcile this if you come off the stick that you know all your answers. when you take the position that readre not going to anything else it doesn't fit you don't knowa, all the answers. >> what you want to agree on? >> if you disagree with anything i've said tonight, i am more than willing to sit, have a cup of coffee with you and we will discuss it. if you don't think that is important enough and i do, then maybe i am the fool and you know more than i do. >> i didn't call you a fool and i don't say i know everything. >> you are part of the group in your part of the party. >> nice to talk to, god bless you. wait a minute.

we are going to wrap it up, let me say this. let me finish and then i will answer the question. i promise i will answer. can you hold on? what is your name? colette, can you hold on? do have a show at 9:00 you have to look at? hold on. 2009, when i was the congressmen in the eighth district. in 2009 there were many debates about health care. doozies up athe montclair state university. 1500 people. they bust some people and that

were nowhere near my district. it is a free country, say what you want. so everybody is yelling at each other at the beginning of the thing. i had a couple of doctors and a couple of people and we were up there on the stage. we did our presentation and i was accused. by the time it was over i was accused of being a communist, a socialist, and one of the people accused me of being a lackey for the conservatives. no wonder people get schizophrenic. i don't know. at the end of the meeting i said this. nothing like what i experienced then. i said look. ,e are all walking out of their .he campus police were there some people came here to be arrested.

i said look we are all going out , what arell neighbors we going to do? neighbors. i disagree with these two guys on gun violence, so what? i respect what they think. they had the guts and the courage to come. they knew this was not going to pack -- this was not going to be packed with nra members. i respect that. and if they don't know that i respect that and they don't follow my record. all i have to say to them is this. there is a plethora of issues. we're going to agree on some and we are going to disagree. but we are not going to back each other into a corner and say you are no good. you are anti-american or what toy did to our president.

check out his birth certificate. no other president in the united states had to go through what he had to go through. i don't agree with all of his positive -- i don't agree with all of his policies, but that is beside the point. to have respect for everybody's opinion. that kind of question was very trickle about the single-payer, i can't bite off more than i can chew and swallow. whether you are talking about or marriage equity, if , theis all you care about world is behind you, baby, and you are missing a whole lot third when you go home tonight i want you to think about this for kids with their parents and

their mother and father. just think about what is going on over there and what a great country this is. [indiscernible] yeah, i don't think they did it. but that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. you don't like hillary. tell her that you love to until then. hey, do you promise me you're going to read this stuff we give you tonight? if you have questions call up the office. surprised, you may wind up liking it. even if you don't agree with us. do you think every person that likes andme cares and accepts every vote that i have made? you have got to be nuts.

you have to be crazy. i get a lot of votes from the other side. me how i get a lot of votes from them if this is what i am saying. , and that guy was right when he walked out, he doesn't trust. i understand that. how many politicians have given him a straight answer in his life? i am trying to be straight with you. you may not like what i say, but you can't hit me for being straight with you. the straight, and that is all that matters. and have an open year for the other person. e and have an open year -- for the other person. stand on your feet.

officent to go to your because i don't believe what i read when i first came in. >> you have a special appointment with me. congressman, il, believe you when you say you have blue cross. but all those other congressmen, they opted out -- out andof them opted have the same land. if you like what you have, you keep it. i said that an hour ago. there is nothing in the law that says you must change. >> that is not true because i worked for verizon and they change our plan. we can't have what we have before, it has all changed. >> insurance companies have the right to change your plans. >> that isn't true, congressman.

>> what isn't true? >> the president said if you like your plan you can keep it. sure, that is fine, i would love to keep it in the changed my drug plan. i worked 29 years for verizon. >> we are saving money on the part of the bill, the act that talks about drugs. they change the whole thing. you're telling me you did not get a check? you're telling me that you're paying higher healthcare costs now? >> for my drugs, yes. >> it is not the obama plan that did it. we belong to a union and the union doesn't have the same plan , the culprit aged children should learn. one of the reasons is that obamacare is coming in, ok? you can defend obamacare in many ways it's good. in many ways it is not good.

>> in the ways that it isn't good, we are going to to tweak it. we tweaked social security and we tweaked medicare and we will tweak the affordable care act. >> if you do that i will always vote for you, all right? >> we want you to be healthy. i don't want any death panels. >> i am over 65 years of age. i am speaking for myself. that is good, isn't it? over 65. >> that is none of my business, but you know. a checkup up. >> i get one now. and you don't pay for it? you have a good plan. >> congress has to take a plan that you put in there.

congress has to take that plan. when they take that plan then i will believe you. >> to i have to say this one more time? -- do think it was fun reading those bills echo >> enefit >> -- why you do a? god bless it? >> america. thank you. [inaudible]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] we will look at u.s. foreign policy, particularly the u.s.'s options in syria. in 2012, he was a senior advisor to the romney residential campaign. we will discuss the effect of sequestration on mental health services. discuss the cost of

college and federal student aid. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> one of the most fun times i itr had was, it was 2006 and looked like democrats were really going to take back over the house. it was looking pretty bad for republicans. vice president cheney's office called and wanted to know if rothenberg and i could come over and have breakfast with him. went over to the vice president's residence. . had met him before it was unbelievable how much he knew -- he had been to so many districts over the years as a republican leader in the house. he was asking us how bad is this?

saying yes, for republicans it is pretty bad. that is fun when you get to do that or talk to various caucuses on both sides and get a glimpse of the inside players. with more than 30 years as a political analyst, charlie cook has tracked the trends since 1984. see the rest of this interview sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c- span. house rejected a proposal for the response to syria. mr. cameron had recalled parliament to outline the basis for military action, saying it was beyond doubt that the syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people and that the uk cannot stand aside. opposition leader said they should wait for the u.n. report

before making any decisions on military intervention. this part of the debate is a little more than an hour. >> we begin with members of the house motion, motion number 1. the leader of the house to move the motion. thank you. say aye. we now come to the motion in the name of the prime minister relating to syria and the use of chemical weapons. the text of the motion submitted yesterday as it appears on the order paper was incorrect. a few words were omitted from line 16. as these are purely factual, the motion should be moved in a corrected form.

a copy of the motion in its corrected form is available in the vote office. i can inform the house that i have selected manuscript amendment b submitted this morning by a member of the leading opposition. the text is also available from the vote office. i should also inform the house that i have set a five minute limit on back bench speeches on the debate. to move the motion, i call the prime minister. >> i beg to move the motion standing on the order paper in my name and in the name of my honorable friends. thank you, mr. speaker, for approving requests. the question is how to respond to one of the most abhorrent uses of chemical weapons in a century. it is not about innovating.

it is not about regime change, or even working more closely with the opposition. it is about the large-scale use of chemical weapons and our response to a war crime, nothing else. in reaching our conclusions, let me set out with the house has in front of it today. we have a summary of the government's legal position, making it explicit that no action would have a legal basis at the moment. we have the legal basis from the joint intelligence committee. we have a motion from the government to set back a path of steps that need to be taken before britain can participate in any military action. they include another vote in this house of commons.

even if all of these steps are taken, anything we do would have to be legal, proportionate, and specifically focused on determining and preventing any further use of chemical weapons. >> why do you refuse to publish the full attorney general site, especially when legal experts are saying that without explicit u.n. security tontine -- security council enforcement, it is not legal under international law. >> this government has changed that. we published a summary of the legal advice. with this issue, we published a clear summary of the legal advice.

i would urge all right honorable members to read it. i am deeply mindful. i will make some progress and i will take a huge number of interventions. i am deeply mindful of the lessons of previous conflicts. there are concerns in the country concerns about what went wrong in iraq in 2003. what we are seeing in syria is fundamentally different. we are not invading a country. we are not searching for chemical or biological weapons. the case for ultimately supporting action is not based on a specific piece or pieces of intelligence. the fact that the government has and has used chemical weapons is a fact. the syrian government said it took place. even the iranian president has said it took place. the fact that the syrian

regime has used these weapons is right in front of our eyes. we have accounts of chemical- filled rockets being used. we have media reports and 95 different videos documenting the evidence. the difference between 2003 and the situation with iraq go wider. europe is united in the position that we should not let this chemical weapons use stand. nato made a clear statement that those who are responsible should be held accountable. in 2003, the arab league was opposed to action. now are calling for it. they issued a statement calling the syrian regime fully responsible and asked the international community to take action against those who committed this crime. >> a couple of days ago, i was expecting to oppose the government.

is my honorable friend aware that his determination to go down the route of the united nations and his willingness to share it in this house will be helpful in making up my mind tonight. >> i want to unite as much of the country and as much of this house as possible. it is right on these vital issues of national importance, we should seek the break this consensus. that is the right thing and we will continue to do that. mr. speaker, the president of the united states, barack obama, is a man who opposes the action. no one could describe him as a president who wants to evolve in america -- involve america in more wars in the middle east. he supports action in this case. when i spoke to president obama

last weekend, i said we shared his view about the despicable nature about the use of chemical weapons and we must not stand aside. i also explained to him that because of the damage done to public confidence by iraq, we would have to follow a series of public confidence and it sure the maximum possible legitimacy for any action. these steps are all set out in a motion before the house today. i remember in 2003. i was sitting two rose from the back on the opposition bench. it was just -- rows from the back on the opposition bench. it was just two days after my son had been born. i wanted to believe the man standing here. the wealth of public opinion was to be poisoned by the iraq episode.