>> you are very smart, mr. pascrell, 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. regarding the 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. >> it depends upon their income. >> 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. >> good evening, congressman pascrell. i would be remiss not to say the comparison between slavery and gun access is offensive and should never be made. the degradation of human beings, one of the constituents in this audience said it, is offensive. >> i understand your point. >> my statement and question is,

but i want do a lecture. i am a supporter of marriage equality, and we do not have that in new jersey. i want to know what can you do to make marriage equality a reality nationwide, because i 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. if you ask me to do something in 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. if there should be a chance, i hope that you do come out in support of marriage equality. >> ok, thank you. [applause] i think this is a great time to introduce the people -- you will be next -- the people who work every day for us. i never hear complaints about anybody who goes to our offices in englewood or lyndhurst or in 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 quick. my deputy chief of staff, my legislator director, my caseworker constituent service worker, 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 saved 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 veteran, in fact i tried to 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? [laughter] shannon mckee. hurry up. let's give her a round of applause. i'll tell you why. let me tell you something. she's the newest person our office. 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? oh, ok. i can't hear you george. make sure it is on. do not pull it out. thank you for listening to me. i think this guy knows what he is doing, george. there you go. speak out. thank you. [indiscernible] yes sir.

>> [indiscernible] >> what is your question, doctor? >> [indiscernible] >> all right, i understand the question. i am absolutely convinced that we are going to be soon in the midst of a cultural change, to use your words. that is the whole profession and the whole system is moving towards more results oriented medicine. instead of fee-for-service.

here is the problem. all of us, i said us, i didn't say you, all of us, 90% of the time 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. we can never have enough money for healthcare if we continue to go the direction we are going in. we need to cut cost. in the 12 states that are into 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 thank you, doctor. next. >> i live in cliffside park and thank you for the opportunity. i have a question. i just want to know your opinion about jobs that are taken overseas. and what should be done to prevent that? and should there be an amendment to the constitution to prevent that from 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 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 putz around anymore like we did with china. they deal with manipulating the currency which we lose the billions of dollars. we need to do something very important and that is to make sure that every deal is fair both for workers and the company. the nafta deal that we made 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 limit 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. thirdly, i don't like reading my x-ray in the hospital and they tell me that 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 president of the new jersey tenants organization. i could ask 100 questions, but i will limit myself to two issues, social security and medicare. even though they are not housing issues, they really concerned our members. they rely on them.

earlier, you said that you would vote against an increase in -- you would oppose an increase in >> no, 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.

>> what he meant is he won't go 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 word -- it is that i keep my word. >> i have known that to be true. earlier you said that medicare is extremely efficient and i agree with you. it has an expense ratio of three percent whereas private insurance companies are like 30%. >> it is 14%. >>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.

>> my question is, as a leader, isn't it also important sometimes, not just to make things work the way you do so very well, but also to teach and 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. >> i am saying get. -- it. one way you could do that, 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. it was at the bottom of the list. it would provide medicare for everybody.

nobody would be left out. it would not cost this country one more dime 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. what is your question? >> why do you not sign on to hr 676? >> in all honesty, i think i answered that question. did not answer 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 see that. that may sound corny, i fight 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 how 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. >> those kinds of things we can change and we have. thank you. let's give him a nice round of applause. i want to go over, before you 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. this building that we are in withstood a tremendous amount of damage. in fact, that damage was about

$1.6 million. hold on one second. $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. you have 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. there is no city hall left, so we are 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 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. we got $50 million. the parts of the country that voted against us, we have all voted to help them whenever they were in need. it is a wacky world we live in.

if you saw the 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. southeastern texas. i went there to see how bad it was when all their homes were leveled. they had blue canopies. as we flew in on a helicopter, i was a lord 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. this is not a perfect world and 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? 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 than the 80% which is now the law. it is lower costs, that is what it saved each person. it is better care because we are moving away from, where is the doctor? we are moving away from the per service and we are moving towards results 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 going to save in that regard. do 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 who are going to be missing by the year 2020 to deal 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? they want to start a family, they're getting married. >> when you talk about cutting the budget, we want to get rid of the stuff we don't really need. when you talk about cutting the budget, we need to be careful

about is that we're are not cutting investments into our future. when we decide not to fix a bridge or to fix an airport or to fix a federal highway, this is an investment not only for now but the future. are we waiting for another bridge to fall down? when you are trying to balance the budget, it is not an easy task just slash 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? >> come to my office and we will talk about it. we have time for one more question. >> this chart looks great.

if this is all true, 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. >> i hear you. your staff requested not to be on this. is that a correct statement? >> no. >> i think it was reported, correct me if i'm wrong, that they opted to be out. >> i am used to getting hit --

>> the staff is in obamacare. 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 act all members of congress are going to be buying their own health care through the exchange. >> are you going to promise me you will read that myths sheet? >> [indiscernible] will prevent of representatives and thousands of capitol hill staff. what they say is that -- >> what are you reading? that is today's story?? >> i looked it up on the internet.

>> there is no exemption. we have to buy our healthcare. >> correct. >> if you get health insurance for your employer. you get a subsidy for your health insurance. you pay part and your employer pays part or it as far of last year -- 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. we get the same subsidy from our 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? >> let me say what i want to say. excuse me for interrupting your conversation. in every one of your questions, jan, you have 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. in fact, i don't even have the plan, i told you. you didn't listen to me. >> it was 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. >> anybody who 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, right? >> that is what happens now. that is what happens with your employer. >> i will lose coverage for my employer because of obamacare. >> just like they have been doing. this just continues the plan. the employee still has to pay x amount. >> but isn't the idea of obamacare that everybody pays and buys insurance in exchange? >> not if you don't have to do that. if you are on medicare you are certainly not going to change 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. do -- that 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 anybody. >> i don't trust the president. for all i know, the nsa could be recording this. >> i voted, no. >> you are only one guy? you are not my friend.

>> excuse me. can i end on this note? >> 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. let me tell you something. i don't mind you distrusting. that is your prerogative. you have reason sometimes, not all the time. i am saying to you, you will be able to reconcile this if you come off the stick that you know all your answers. i do not. when you take the position that

you are not going to read anything else it doesn't fit into your agenda, you don't know all the answers. let's come to an agreement. >> what do 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. we get pre-should buy the president of the united states. 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? collette, can you hold on? you have to hurry? do have a show at 9:00 you have to look at? hold on. look, in 2009, when i was the congressmen in the eighth district. in 2009, there were many debates about health care. i had one of the doozies up at montclair state university. 1,500 people. they bussed some people in 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. this is nothing like what i experienced then. this is easy. i said look. we are all walking out of there,

the campus police were there. take it easy. some people came here to be arrested. i said look we are all going out, we are all neighbors, what are we going to do? want to take this person's life if he disagrees with you? we are all 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 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 they did to our president. to 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. we have to have respect for everybody's opinion. that kind of question was very critical about the single-payer, i can't bite off more than i can chew and swallow. whether you are talking about abortion or marriage equity, if that is all you care about, the world is behind you, baby, and you are missing a whole lot tonight 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. i'm going to tell her that you loved her 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. you may be surprised, you may wind up liking it. even if you don't agree with us. do you think every person that votes for me cares and likes 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.

people ask me how i get a lot of votes from them if this is what i am saying. you know what is important? in my business, 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. be straight, and that is all that matters. and have an open ear for the other person. god bless you. we will see you again. and you know what? you were a great audience. collette, stand on your feet. >> i want to go to your office because i don't believe what i read when i first came in. >> you have a special appointment with me. you can bring the witness.

>> second of all, congressman, i believe you when you say you have blue cross. but all those other congressmen, they opted out -- >> many of them opted out and have the same plan. 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. you have to go and get another plan. >> 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.

they 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. 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. i will get a preventive look and so will you. that is good, isn't it? >> i am over 65. >> that is none of my business, but you know. get a checkup. >> 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. you didn't read before you voted. congress has to take that plan. when they take that plan then i will believe you. >> do i have to say this one more time?

i will -- do you think it was fun reading those bills? >> why did you do it? >> final seconds. you put a good. -- good ideas regardless of where they come from. that is america. god bless america. thank you. that meeting was

tuesday. he was one of the lawmakers who responded to president obama's decision yesterday to make congress a part of the decision on whether to take action in syria. as we look at a live picture this afternoon from capitol

hill, members of congress are attending what is called an in person briefing on syria. it got under way about half an hour ago. congressman pascarella as one of the members we saw walking down the hall. he said if they did this heinous crime -- if they did this, heinous crime deserves strong responses. should be aimed at military targets. phil. remarks aboute that meeting we will have some of those comments later. and the senate foreign relations committee chair, bob menendez says there is a fork in the road before us --

>> one of the most fun times in 2006. had is it looks at democrats were really going to take back over the house. it was looking pretty bad for republicans. officeesident cheney's called and wanted to know if we could come over and have breakfast with him. we went over to the vice president's residence and had breakfast with him. i had met him before. it is unbelievable how much he knew about -- he had been to so many of these districts over the years as one of the republican leaders of the house. he was sort of asking us how bad is this. , it is pretty bad. it is fun when you get to do that and talk to various caucuses on both sides. you get a glimpse of the inside

players. >> with more than said -- more than 30 years as a political analyst, charlie cook has uncovered the trend. tonight at 8:00 on c-span. >> heritage action for america held a town hall meeting in loa. it is the last of the series of events to defund the health care law. for senator jim demint and ref file cruise, father of senator ted cruz of texas. >> hello, delaware valley. it is great to be with you all this evening. my name is andrew, i am part of the team in heritage action.

the opportunity to be here in the first state is very exciting for all of us. thank you for the warm welcome. as many of you know, this is a nine city tour that heritage action has been going on, talking about the funding obamacare across the nation. [applause]we decided that delaware and the surrounding area is a pretty important area to come to when talking about obamacare because, this may come , we surprise to some of you agree with vice president biden that this bill is a big deal. it must be defunded. last night we were in pittsburgh and we were talking to them. after the program was over they

talked about how great the pirates are doing. they may have a winning season, which may be exciting for the few view you that are pirates fans. they told us to give you a hard time about how they're doing better than the phillies. i told him we would have to be very careful about that. the eagles have done so much better in the preseason than the steelers and they did not like to hear that. we are so pleased to be with you all tonight. we have an incredible program. they are going to be broadcasting this live at 7:00. [applause]this is a rambunctious crowd. we introduced the political director of heritage action, let us give a warm welcome. >> good evening. welcome to the heritage action town hall it as andrew says this

is our ninth stop read this is the kind of crowd we have been getting and we are enthusiastic that you are here. he came out on a thursday night to learn how important it is, how we can do it, why it is so important, and what you can do to be a part of it. you are going to hear a lot about congressional accountability. what is important about defunding obamacare, and how you can provide some accountability to your member of congress. we believe that every member of congress needs accountability, whether they are the best or worst member of congress. what does that look like? [applause] [applause] we believe congressional accountability looks like this. those that know, grow, and go. they know the issues, inside and out, often better than their member of congress. they grow their network of relationships, their skill set,

so they can get the conservative message out, and then they go and lead in their communities. a get the message out and are influential, and we are looking for a vast network of these people across the country so we can provide an infrastructure of accountability. we believe they have been doing it all along, and we want to stay in the system. we have established federal programs to invite more people to be trained and to do this kind of important work. in pennsylvania, there is one woman who is involved in her local tea party, or local republican club. when she first started, she was relatively inactive, but now, she is taking meetings with her congressman. she goes in there armed with the facts, and she is able to get the message out about obamacare. she is giving us her pledge. [applause]

>> i pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the united states of america, and to the republic of which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [applause] we are now going to have our next guest come up and give us our prayer. for those of you who do not know him, rafael cruz came the country in 1957. [applause] he fled oppression and came to find a better life. he came to texas and started a life for himself. he started a small business and grew it and became involved in a ministry, and now he is a traveling preacher.

in the great state of texas. [applause] and i am judging by the clapping that you think he is doing a pretty good job. [applause] he is going to come up later in the program to do a call to action. for right now, please welcome him to give us our prayer. >> since you are standing, please remain standing for our prayer. oh, father, we praise you. we thank you for being americans, father. thankful for living in this wonderful country.

father, we thank you for the history of this country, the only country in the world that was created by people seeking the freedom to worship you. we thank you for our heritage. we thank you for those founding fathers who were on their knees, seeking revelation from above as they created the two greatest documents that ever existed in government. father, i want to thank you for the principles of the declaration and the constitution that have guided us for over 230 years. we know those principles are under attack today, and we pray, lord god, that you listen to us, with the perseverance to restore those principles to our country. we bless you for it all. in the name of jesus, amen. [applause]

>> thank you, rafael. with us now is a man who got his start at the heritage foundation and then went on to run one of our top policy centers at the heritage foundation and went to business school. we like to think of him as having a brilliant mind with the guts of a street. please welcome him. [applause] >> thank you all. thank you for being here. thank you. my wife says something very different about my gut, and i like what you said better. [laughter] i start off with an apology. we have been doing this all around the country, and somewhere around, we lost our teleprompter, so i apologize. my mother told me if i just tell

the truth, i will not get mixed up. that is what we will do tonight. thank you all for being here. it makes a big difference in our country. i know there is a lot of things we could be doing tonight. we would love to be out with our families or friends. some with our jobs. but we all know if we are at home, screaming at the tv by ourselves, our voice would not matter, so we come together with 500 people unified together with one voice, demanding change from washington, demanding washington step up and have the courage to defund obamacare. [applause] and it makes a difference that we are all here speaking with one voice, but i can tell you what smart people in washington are saying right now. i can tell you. they are saying that all of us here with our commitment to principle, with our spending thursday night together, it is

all of us here that is the reason washington does not work. we are the reason nothing gets done in washington. which is just an astounding idea. in the last 12 years, washington, d.c., has had the feingold campaign finance reform, sarbanes-oxley, dodd- frank, and no child left behind. we had medicare part d. we had obamacare in 2010. in any other period in our country's life, the legislation of this magnitude would be historic. we are told that this does not work. washington is not broken. washington is a finely tuned machine that is aimed at expanding government, taking away our freedom, and picking winners and losers in the economy. [applause] but here is the dirty secret.

all of us in this room together, when we stick together, when we make sure that our voice is heard, when we hold congress accountable, we can stop it. they cannot pass this legislation unless we allow them, and if we go to their town halls, if we go to the ballot box, if we demand change from washington, we will get it. [applause] and so, we have a problem in washington that there are a lot of people that seem to be part of the no, we can't caucus. they say, no, we cannot have a low, flat, fair tax. they say, no, we can't get rid of our department of education. and right now, they are saying no, we cannot defund obamacare. that is not true. we all know, yes, we can do all of those things. [applause]

and let me tell you how we can do it. the first and most important, immediate thing is that every member of congress who tells you he is against obamacare, every member of congress who says we are in favor of repealing it, that i will do everything i can to stop obamacare, needs to sign the letter in the house or the letter in the senate, and let me tell you what those are. the senator from utah. he would not vote for any continuing resolution, i will not vote for any continuing government built in september unless you defund obamacare. [applause] and a representative from north carolina has a similar letter, and right now, there are 14 names in the senate, and only 14 names in the senate who have stood up to say they will not vote to do that, and they are 80 people in the house who have said that, so one of the things we have to do is go out and hold our members accountable, ask them the question, are you on

board with the letters, and if not, why not? and the second thing that has to happen, the house of representatives comes back on september 10, the first day they are back, and pass the government funding resolution, say we are going to fund the entire government. we are not going to shut down or slow down, but we will not fund obamacare. [applause] and then our elected representatives have to go on offense. they have to go around the country and say we have done our job. we have funded the government but we're taking a time out from bomecare. because there's a lot of information that has come out in the last couple of months from the president delaying the employer mandate to the way premiums have come out to ups dropping families off their coverage to just yesterday in terms of a delay to signing up companies to be on the exchanges. so we're going to have a one-

year defunding of obamacare and if the president of the united states wants to shut down to government because he is so insistent then that shutdown is on him not those of us who want a [applause] but you're going to hear a lot of excuses from your elected representatives if you say that to them. one of the reasons that heritage action exists, one of the reasons that we're located here please stop by our table, sign up, grab mike's business card, he is full-time in this area to empower you with the answers to the questions and excuses you'll hear from your members of congress and you'll hear a lot of them. we're getting them from all around the country some members of congress will say i would love to do this but it's just not possible because so much of obamacare is mandatory spending and you can't touch mandatory spending on a c.r. this is totally untrue. every year since 1976 congress

has had something called the hide amendment to its funding bill. that says that no money in medicaid, a mandatory program, can be spent for abortion, this has happened every year since 1976. furthermore, on every single spending bill that passes in washington, d.c. there's a washington term called changes in mandatory program spending. so we have all this information for you so when you go to a town hall and ask a member of congress a tough question and he comes back and says i would love to do it but i just can't, you have the information to push back. a lot of them say we would love to be on board and we acknowledge that you can in fact defund mandatory spending on an appropriations bill but we only have one third of the government, we only have the house of representatives. and that's fine. that's true. but as we know, the constitution gives the house of representatives the purse, the power to fund. and if the house of representatives does not want to fund

obamacare, it doesn't need to. [applause] but then people say, well, that's true. we could do this if wrepted and yes we even have the power. the constitution gives us the power. but we'll never win the debate. we'll never convince the american people. the president has the bully pulpit. as if the american people love listening to these condescending hour and six minute long speeches the president of the united states gives. and you should say, when, when we've actually fought, have the american people not listened to our ideas, listened to his and said their ideas make sense? on the stimulus, we were told there was no way we could win the argument with the american people on the stimulus. but we did. on cap and trade. there's no way we could win the argument with the american people but we did. on obamacare, they jammed it down our throat. they used parliamentary procedures to get it passed. but the american people were, are, and will continue to be against this law. [applause]

but here's the final thing you'll hear. and frankly, it's my favorite. they'll say i agree with you that we could do this if we want. we have the power to do it. and maybe we'll be able to win the argument if we forcefully made it. but let's just wait. let's not do it right now. if we just wait 60 more days then the playing field will be sed or set. everything will be lined up. we'll have the right sequencing and then we'll fight. do they think we're stupid? how many times have we heard this? we heard this in 2011. we heard this in 2012. we were told in 2012 if we just don't stick our heads out, if we just don't make ourselves the issue, we're on a glide path to victory in 2012 and then we'll be able to do anything. that didn't work out very well. we don't have the time to wait. on october 1, sign up for these exchanges start. on january 1, the subsidies

start going out in these exchanges. we don't have time to wait. the time to fight is now. and that's why we're all here together saying we're going to defund obamacare. [applause] but i can say that from up here on stage. but i'm just one person. i need to hear it from all of you. and so with you'll due respect to the president of the united states, i ask you, can we keep the i.r.s. from enforcing obamacare? yes, we can. can we make sure that individuals are treated the same way as employers? and all of us get a waiver from obamacare? can we hold our members of congress accountable and say if you told us you're going to do everything to stop this bill, you're going to defund obamacare? can we in the month of september achieve defunding of obamacare? ladies and gentlemen, it is my real pleasure to introduce to you the real mr. smith comes to washington, the president of

the heritage foundation, senator jim demint. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. whoa. thank you. thanks for coming. i'm so proud of mike and his team. i know from being on the inside that they're making progress. and the way i know it is a lot of people are complaining about what they're doing on capitol hill. as we say, if you're not taking prior you're not over the target. and we've got everything firing at the heritage action. that means some good things are happening.

so mike, thank you for you and your team. i'm especially proud of mike. when he first came out he said thank you all for coming. now, he's from new york. maybe that's out of respect to someone who came from south carolina, but i appreciate that. he's making a lot of progress. and trying to relate to us everyday americans. but i hope you're as inspired as i am that you can really make a difference. and that's what we want to talk about here tonight. now, i know a lot of you had to wait a long time in line to get here. you're all packed in here tonight. a lot of people are having to stand up all along the walls. but we did that on purpose. we did. we wanted to simulate what it's going to be like in a doctor's office in about a year or so.

[cheers and applause] so welcome to national government-run health care. this is what it is going to be like. i can't tell you how good to be out of the senate and with you here tonight. so many good things have happened to me since i left the senate. the first thing was i didn't have to go to the inauguration. then it got even better. i didn't have to go to the state of the union address. but the best part about it is, every day i get to go to work with about 270 people who love this country and even more important they understand the principles that make this country great. they understand why we're the most powerful, successful,

prosperous, most compassionate nation that's ever been on the face of the earth. they know why that happened. it didn't happen by accident. it was not geography, it was not even the people that were here. it was a set of ideas that were unique to the whole world. that's why we're gathered here as conservatives tonight, is we believe in this country and we love this country. we want to protect those things that make this country so wonderful. it's great to start a meeting like this -- well, thanks. [applause] the first amendment gives us the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. and we're here tonight because we have a lot of grievances but we have one in particular we want to talk about. but before we do that, i want to just go back to rafael cruz's prayer opening up. sometimes we seem angry as

conservatives but we need to begin every conversation, every redress of grievances with what came from that prayer. just gratefulness that we are americans, that we live in this country, a wonderful country, a recognition that we are so blessed to be here. and that the blessings of liberty, things in that prayer just every time he starts that -- and this is the ninth or tenth time we've done it in the last couple of weeks, it just reminds me of how grateful i am. so everything we're talking about should be in the context of how grateful we are to god and to the millions of americans who came before us. [applause] because we know that we've got our rights and privileges and blessings not only from god but from millions of americans who sacrifice, worked, many gave their lives so that we can have what we have here today.

and we know ronald reagan reminded us that freedom is a fragile thing. that it can be -- it can become extint in each generation. that we have as americans have to stand up and fight for what we've been given. and i know a lot of you have in uniform served our country. -- thank you for that. but the service goes beyond just that of the military and in uniform. because we know as americans that if you are responsible for yourself, if you raise a family, if you volunteer in your church and your community, you work to make this country better, that that is part of handing to the next generation what is so good about this country. and so many in washington have forgot that, that this is not a top-down country. we didn't become great because

we were centrally managed and centrally planned, with someone in the distant place making our decisions for us. the reason we're so unique and so prosperous and successful, and the reason there's so much opportunity in america is we are a ground-up country. beginning with the individuals and the families and the little platoons that burt talked about that make this country great. freedom is really when millions of people can make their own decisions about what they want to do and what they value. and when you have millions of people doing that, you create this dynamic freedom we have where people are innovated, they're entrepreneurs, they're starting businesses, they're working in their communities and volunteering to make things better. that's what america is all about. but when we have someone and we have politics and politicians who want to take those freedoms away and replace it with a centrally-planned, centrally- managed system that has

destroyed so many nations, our gratefulness then turns to frustration and sometimes anger when people are betraying those principles that we know make life better for everyone who lives in this country. we're not here tonight just for ourselves or people who volt for conservative ideas. as conservatives, we're not going to rest until every american can get their hands on the ladder of opportunity and climb as high as they can dream. that's what we're about. and even though some in washington around the country don't understand it, those principles of personal responsibility and limited government, those key ideas that we talk about, those are the ideas that create a better life for everyone and more opportunity, even though some folks don't understand it i'm not going to rest until they do. that they understand why america

is so special and so blessed, and we cannot sit idle while people misinform and give all these false promises so that people give more and more of their freedoms to a government, even though those promises consistently don't come true. we know that what we're here tonight for is true. it's not a theatrical, political argument any more. we know where president obama's policies take our country. we don't have to look any more at greece and portugal. we can look close by at detroit. folks, that is a picture of where liberal progressive ideas go. detroit was america's premier city. highest per capita income in the country. proud of our country and the auto business there. but then as you had government

unions grow and higher taxes, and more regulation, as you saw these liberal progressive ideas that were supposed to help the poor and build a middle class, what have we been left with in detroit? for minorities and the poor? unemployment, about 40%. has it helped children get a better education? only 7% of children in the eighth grade read at the grade level. has it created the prosperity that they talk about when a third of the buildings are empty, where you've got 400ly quor stores and until a few weeks ago not one chain supermarket in what was america's premier city. folks, it's not a theatrical argument any more. and the states of california and illinois and other states following that policy are not far behind in some form of bankruptcy. our ideas are being show cased all over the country. when you create more competition in education children thrive and children get a better

education. we've seen it. [applause] we've had liberals who are now for choice and education because they've seen what happened in the d.c. scholarship program. i mean, we've got stories and real names and real people who were in failing schools in the third grade who got a scholarship to get out to another school, they're in college today with a chance to succeed and take advantage of the opportunities of the country. [applause] see, to me that's not a political idea, it's not a conservative idea. it's an american idea to allow people and parents the choices for a school where their children can succeed. we see it all over the country as choice spreads across the country children are getting better education. not rich children. they already have a choice. this is for the folks who have been told that our ideas would

hurt them. when in fact those ideas are being opposed because of special interests, not because of the interests of the children. our ideas help children. you see states that recognize that less government and lower taxes will create a better economy and more jobs. you see texas with no income tax and florida with no income tax and other states lowering their taxes and businesses moving from the big tax states to these states. and it's not just about helping business, it's the families and the people who are getting the jobs and having a better life that we want to talk about all over the country. our ideas work. and we can show they work. when they passed tort reform to limit frivolous lawsuits in a state like texas against doctors and hospitals, what happens? the best doctors move there. that's where they want to practice. the cost of health care goes down. we know we're right. it's not enough to be right.

we need to make sure that every american understands that what we're here for is not to protect some political agenda, but to make their life better, to give their children better education, to get them better health care. and that brings us -- [applause] that brings us to what we call obamacare. folks, the principles i just talked about,ically not think of anything that's more un-american than national government-run health care. those whobble in those principles of socialism and collective ysm we've seen over the centuries, they see as their holy grail taking control of the health care system. it's such a personal service, it's such a big part of the economy, if they can control

that, they can control most areas of our lives. so that's been something a the left in this country has wanted for years. and all-out proposals. and i've made a lot myself that were designed to make the best health care system in the world even better, to make health insurance available to more americans, they blocked these ideas. and we know they're common-sense ideas that can make health care and health insurance available to more and more americans. you don't have to have a 2,000 page bill and 20,000 pages of legislation. it's common sense that if you give businesses a tax break for buying health insurance, that you should do that for individuals as well. it's a simple thing to do. [applause] that would make health insurance less expensive and more available to individuals. if you let people who live in pennsylvania or delaware buy health insurance anywhere in the country instead of just here

-- [applause] -- then you have dozens and dozens of insurance companies instead of just a few competing for your business. and then the choices you want, whether it's high deductible, low deductible or keeping your children on the policies until they're 45 or whatever you want, those choices become available as companies have to compete for your business, not just your employer's business. and we know that small businesses have to pay a whole lot more for health insurance than large companies. so we've had proposals that i've supported in the house and the senate that say hey, here's an idea. why don't we let a lot of small businesses come together and pool their employees and buy less expensive health insurance? why not? and that doesn't have to be just for businesses. i mean, churches can do it. rotary clubs. this group.

why not let people pool their employees -- why would someone block that? it doesn't cost the government anything, it doesn't hurt anybody. but the democrats and the leftists that have been in congress blocked that. do you know why they blocked that? because they want national government-run health care. they don't want our system to work better. and when we have ideas to work with the states to create insurance plans for those who have preexisting conditions, high risk conditions, the democrats don't support that. it's not about getting people insured. it's about controlling our lives. from washington. that's what this is all about. [applause] so, folks, those that tell you that they're not ways to fix the system or that conservatives haven't offered them, they're not telling you the truth. we have got ideas that we know work and when they've been tried to some degree, whether it be in a state or other places, we know that we can get people the

health insurance they need. but we also know the promises that have been made by this government-run health care law have not been kept so far. they're not telling us the truth. it was sold under false pretenses. the american people were lied to. and they have every right -- you have every right to bemanned of your elected officials that we stop this bill right now. let's -- [applause] let's review some of the promises so we know if you expect people to get good insurance from this that promise isn't going to come true, either. what did they tell you? first of all, it's going to lower the cost of health insurance. the president said by this time, by this point, the average cost of a health insurance premium would go down $2500. instead they've gone up about $21 00. they told if you like your health insurance plan you can keep it.

the folks at ups found out that's not true. a lot of americans are finding out not only are they going to keep the health insurance they want, they're being moved to part time. this is supposed to improve the economy and create jobs. that's one of the promises made by this bill. now the second largest employer in america is a temporary firm. even the unions are saying it could destroy the 40-hour workweek. the promises are not coming true. so the promise that people who don't have good health care now are going to have it under this plan is not going to come true either. and the reason for that is they push people on to medicaid style plans that don't pay doctors enough to see you. what's going to happen is you are going to have a plan but you're not going to have a doctor that's going to see you. it's like having a bus ticket with no buses.

and i think the final thing for me, after being in washington and seeing the federal government try to do a lot of things, big things, small things, i've yet to see one thing that the federal government can manage well. [applause] and if the military wasn't somewhat outside the political process, we would be in trouble, too. but, folks, even though programs like medicare and social security, that people have paid into, these are promises we have to keep, the way they've been managed in washington all the money you put into social security all your life has been spent -- spent before you got there. and the program now is in the red. more is going out than is coming in. people have been paying into medicare their whole life and out of every paycheck. there's no money been saved. that is creating tens of trillions of dollars of liability on our children.

those are the programs they say are working. but i've seen them try to start small programs that seem like they might could do it. because they were going to help sell american cars a couple of years ago. do you remember cash for clunkers? it was a brilliant idea. a used car business, basically. and so they got a billion dollars that was supposed to run a program for six months. two weeks later it was broke. that's why i call obamacare a cash for clunkers health care plan. [applause] so no matter what the promise is, no matter what the intentions and motivation here is, even if they wanted to they cannot manage america's health care system. folks, we don't want government- run health care. a team of us from heritage, were in london a month or so ago talking about their national health plan.

the headlines in the paper when we were there were about how many people were dying in their hospitals. and why can't they change it? it's because now the health care system in britain is the largest employer in the country. they're all unionized, even the doctors. they control not only the health care system, but the whole political system. they can't change it. it's locked in. and you have to wait forever for health care that we are used to getting in a few days. we don't want that in america. we don't have to have it. there are better ideas. and we can stop it. let's talk about obamacare for a few minutes and then i want to get mike back up here for questions. first of all, it is important and it is urgent. if there's ever been anything worth fighting for in the political arena, it's this, it really is. [applause]

you know as americans government-run health care will change everything about america. our culture, how we think about each other. not only our health care system but our political system. it's 1/6th of our economy and it's really important to all of our lives that we have high quality health care. it's urgent because october 1st is when the sign-up begins and then january 1st tens of billions of dollars of subsidies go out the door. there are those in washington who say the best strategy is to let this thing be completely implemented. americans will see what a mess it is. and that will help the republicans win the next election. i'm not willing to unleash that plague on america in hopes that we can unravel it later. because -- thank you. [applause] once you move people on to

government health care, the private market is going to dry up, it's going to be almost impossible to go back. this is our time to stop it. so it's urgent and it's important. and we can do it. this is a winnable battle that we can get in. i'm interested in what they're saying in washington about this. a lot of the talking heads, commentators and politicians are saying heritage, you're crazy, you can't win this. this is impossible. i've been told a number of times that things are impossible in washington. a lot of those are called senators now. because when i broke ranks a couple of years ago and said this place is a mess, we're not going to change it until we change the people that are here, i didn't go through the party. i went to the people around the country. i went to pennsylvania. and it wasn't real popular to endorse pat toomy against a sitting senator. [applause] and i was lectured that you don't understand, demint, that

pennsylvania would never vote for toomy. he's too conservative. i heard the same thing in florida, rubio, or rand paul or mike lee, or wisconsin with ron johnson. you've heard the names. [applause] we haven't won the battle but one thing i saw is when they say it's impossible it's a good time to go to work because i think it really is possible to change things. and the same people told me that there's no way you couldr get rid of this favor factory of earmarks in washington. it could never happen. republicans, democrats, love to take home the bacon. that's why you stay for 30 years because senior members get to take home the most bacon. we couldn't change it. i had a resolution in my conference in 2008 to ban earmarks and i got five votes and a lot of dirty looks and lectures and things. but we took the case to the american people. we talked about bridges to nowhere.

we talked about the waste and the fraud and the abuse. to the point where 75% of americans thought we should get rid of these things even though sometimes it benefited their state or congressional districts. and what happened? the politics followed. you had people in 2010 running on a pledge that if they got there, if you elected them, they would walk in the door and they would ban earmarks. and that's what happened. 2010, when toomy and rubio and rand paul and this new group came into the senate, the first thing we did is that same petition that failed a couple years before passed by one vote and earmarks have been gone since then. [applause] so my point is this. this is not impossible. it's winnable. but the last point is it's really up to you. and you've already taken the first major step to make this happen. because every member of the delaware and pennsylvania delegation and people all over the country know you're here.

and that there are a lot of you. and we know in politics, if one person calls you there are probably a thousand people who feel the same way. and so if you took the time to show up, we know there are tens of thousands of people around here that feel the same way that you do, that we're americans. we don't have government health care in america. we are more innovative than that. we can make the system we've got better and better and better until everyone has a policy that they can afford and keep. [applause] so let's celebrate our country here tonight, the principles that made us great and let's leave here and do something about it. our whole point of going around the country -- this is heritage action's tour. i'm a guest traveling around with them. is we at the foundation side want to make sure people understand how bad this policy is, and educate and communicate to people that they can do something about changing it. heritage action takes the ball from there, takes the message to

congress, builds the networks around the country. and together we the people can stop this. mike come on up. thanks, folks. >> this question is from henry from chester springs, pennsylvania. why is it that only a handful of principled congressmen actually represent the people and further the wishes of their constituency? when will representatives represent? >> it's true. it's really easy in washington, d.c. to play the game. it's really easy to get there and say if i just stick one little tax loophole into an already complicated tax code that's already longer than the king james bible nobody will notice. and if i write one more regulation, there's another that will pay me. if i put a miscellaneous tariff,

and give an advantage, i can get paid off. i can raise the millions of dollars necessary for my campaign. and the more i do it the higher i'll rise in congress and the higher i rise in congress the more zeros will be on my paycheck once i retire from congress and become a lobbyist. it's easy. it's comfortable. there's a lot of people who come to washington to drain the swamp and realize they're actually enjoying the hot tub. but as i said, there's a way to stop and that's all of us holding our members of congress accountable. so that's why it's important for you to be here. i was told a couple weeks ago by a senior leader in the political world, you guys at heritage action have unrealistic expectations. you think that congress can inspire the american people. but they can't do it. their approval rating is only 12%. he looked at me like i told him for the first time that the world was round. when i said well maybe the

reason congress' approval is only 12% is you don't try to inspire people. and so it's important for all of us to be out here not just holding members of congress accountable. but also holding up the champions. we have 2,000 people in texas obtheir feet when texas cruz's name was mentioned because he actually -- [applause] he has taken the leap of faith to say i didn't come to washington to join the party. i came to washington to join the fight. and i trust that the american people will catch me. >> let me add to that, because what you hear a lot in washington, the reason i guess people fall off the longer they're there, is there's a lot of risk involved if you stake a stance. because most of the echo chamber in washington is telling you to spend more, grow the government. because there's a lot of folks lobbying for more things. and to try to actually stand up for something is a risk.

and i've reminded people all over the country that, yeah, it's risk qui if we try to stop the fuvending of this government health care plan. we could lose. all this work that we've done around the country could be wasted. but that's kind of what america is about. you know, it was risky to sign the declaration of independence. it was risky to storm the beaches of normandy. and what i've told people a lot, since when do americans not stand up and fight for freedom because they're afraid they might lose? i mean, that's not who we are. [applause] >> this question is from elly jones. if obamacare is successfully repealed or defunded, what is the best idea for making sure americans can receive health care at affordable prices? >> i'll jump in there since we're the policy side. i've talked about a lot of those

ideas. we want every american to be insured. and we think we can get them better insurance than a medicaid style plan, which research shows doesn't necessarily help people to be healthier than not have an insurance at all. so we need to really help people get plans where they can see a doctor and make their own decisions. and i've talked about the individual deductibility, the small business health plans, shopping across state lines, fixing the frivolous lawsuits. there's a series of things that we could do that americans could understand that we could implement at very little cost to taxpayers that we know would make the system better. and if we keep working on it we could keep finding little ways to make sure that no one goes without insurance. i would like to think that i could help my insurance, health insurance for my grandchildren who are six and five years old, policies that they could keep throughout their life. there's no reason they have to wait to get a job to get

insurance and then when they lose their job and go to a next one they have to get new insurance. we shouldn't have a system that way. but we don't have to replace our system with government health care to fix that. [applause] >> the question from tommy potter. since the debt limit issue is around the corner, would it be a stronger debate to lump it all into one big issue? >> you know, there are two major fiscal chokepoints between now and the end of the year and our country is in bad enough shape that we need to take care of both of them. anybody who says we should wait and what is going to be different if we blow past the limit and others say we shouldn't mess with the debt limit. ask yourselves why do we have a debt limit? there's no good reason. it's a fire alarm that we have installed in our house. we have passed legislation that said we choose to have a debt

limit. but if a fire breaks out in our house, the alarm goes off andavt whether to do something about it. and there have been 78 times that the fire alarm has gone out and each and every time we've taken the battery out. we've watched the smoke and opened the window. there is a fire going on in our house. you don't get $17 trillion into debt without a whole lot of bipartisanship. [applause] and so the time to fight on obamacare is now. it starts on october 1 and we need to defund it before that date, not in october, not in november, december, but now. >> this question is from suzy. since the thrust of the current administration is to divide americans, how can conservatives bring a message of unity and healing to america?

>> i would love to talk about that because i know there are messages that unite people. we saw a lot of it during the tea party movement. while the tea party has been villified a lot, i went to a lot of tea party meetings and these were average americans. they didn't like either political party very much. they were libertarians, conservatives, they were independents, recovering liberals. it was a big big tent of people but they were focused on just basic economic issues. they wanted to stop the spending and borrowing which they just knew in their gut if we just kept going this way we're going to bankrupt our country. and part of that was stopping obamacare, stopping the bailouts, but it was just a strong message of responsibility fiscal responsibility. and it united the whole country that's what gave republicans the majority in 2010. it had nothing to do with republican strategy. it was just a ground up spontaneous stop the madness.

and that's what we need to do. it's what we're going to do at the heritage foundation next year. [applause] what we need to provide americans and the conservative movement and hopefully any candidate that wants to follow a unite america agenda that's simple and clear and pulls everyone together. and i'm convinced that even those who never vote conservative, if you sit around the table and talk to them, most americans agree with why you're here tonight. [applause] >> this next question is about divided government. the house may pass the defunding bill. the senate may pass it but the white house won't pass it. what is plan b? >> there's an assumption built into that question that tells us where we are as conservatives and the country. one side of the debate cares so much about enforcing -- imposing this law upon us that if we get into a showdown, if we

get into a temporary slowdown situation, they won't blink. there is no chance that the president and the democrats will blink because this means that much to them. and the assumption on the other side is there's another side, the conservatives, the party that's supposed to represent the conservatives, and if we get into a showdown we'll blink. we'll vote to repeal obamacare 40 times as long as it doesn't really mean anything. but if we ever get into a showdown with the president we'll blink. can you imagine if the current consulting class in washington, d.c. on the side of the republican party had existed in 1993 when hillary care was defeated for 50 years the first thing you would be told as a candidate, don't touch health care. it's a losing issue. that's -- the left believes this stuff. the democrat party actually believes the progressive agenda. and the only way to win is for

our side to -- to mean it as much. it's almost as if you're on a football team. [applause] it's almost as if you're the coach of a football team and you've got one team whose end zone is over here and they're trying to score on that and these guys are trying to win. and the other side says if we just come together and talk maybe they'll agree to place the football on the 42 yard line. so there are two diametrically opposed visions for this country. there's one party that believes that the role of government is to defend those god-given rights talked about in the declaration and there's another party that has a bunch of grievances and thinks that government's role is to solve those grievances. and the only way to win is to stand up for what you believe for, take the fight to the american people, trust them to catch you and when we do we win all the time. look at the individuals who senator demint was talking about. you can look at ronald reagan.

>> this question is from paul from delaware. how do we get the message out to young people about obamacare and in general? >> i'm really inspired to see all of you here tonight. i am -- there's a six-year-old towards the back there. can you stand up? [applause] >> he is pumping his fist. i'll go into battle with him any day of the week. we're not here right now because we care about an election or we care about -- we're here because we're trying to save the country for that young man. that's what we're all here for. [applause] >> i'm very optimistic that the younger generation -- i started this off with an apology. my generation, we voted 2-1 for president obama. so i apologize to all of you in the audience. but i'm very optimistic that the generation and below will be the generation that saves

freedom for this country. [applause] my younger brother is 24 years old. he has never in his life bought a cd. when i was growing up, we would buy cd's. we would pay $15, get 15 songs and we really only wanted two of them. my brother goes on to i tune. song one is terrible and song two is also terrible. but i'm willing to pay a buck-29 for song three and seven. when my brother wants to book a flight from new york out to california he goes on to kayak and looks at every single flight that can take him there. he looks at how much money he can save if he has layover. he looks at whether or not the flight has wifi and he looks at the price and makes a decision about what is right for him. the notion that this generation is going to accept obamacare, the notion that this generation is going to allow an unelected

panel of people decide what the cost effective treatment would be mandated to buy certain coverage in their insurance package is absolutely out of touch with the younger generation. [applause] >> this is our last question. if we were to encourage complacent friends to do one thing to become informed and involved citizens what would that one thing be? >> i think that's an action. i'll talk for a second and let the senator come up with closing remarks. the most important thing you can do right now is be involved. and by showing up today let me assure you there's c-span cameras, every single stop of this tour that we've been on there's been major media attention of the capacity crowd. we turned away, unfortunately, hundreds of people today who couldn't get in. because of the great demand to come out here and be heard. [cheers and applause]

and then stay involved. i want all of you to go to our website and look at our score card. look up your member of congress. and we make it as transparent as possible. we say every vote that we've scored, what our thinking in terms of why this was an important vote and why the position was one way or the other. and ask your member of congress, why weren't you on the side of heritage action? why didn't you take that conservative position? or if you did. say thank you. a lot of members of congress, they get a lot of heat. a lot of it we actually talk. but they also need to hear thank you when they do the right thing. [applause] so stay involved. >> pick up mike henry's business card on your way out. he wants to be involved with you. we want to be with you. if you want to spend time calling and e mailing your

member of congress we'll help you with that. we'll help you to going to your member of congress, to setting up meetings. reach out to mike, stay involved. and let us help you be as involved as active citizens. >> thank you both. come on up. >> i want to let him close but leave you one comment from somebody who has been on the inside, in the house and the senate so you know how much power you have. when i was there and i was trying to shake things up a little bit, a lot of the folks were trying to take my legs out from under me, marginalize me on the inside, the only thing that kept me going was knowing there were millions of people who had my back. wherever i landed in the country [applause]

wrr i landed in the country, people would say thanks for fighting. we're praying for you. what can i do? and i knew i was on the right team every time i got outside of washington. so never forget that the power you have to encourage a congressman or senator takes a tough stand, whether they're in your state or district or not. i can tell you right now as ted cruz travels the country -- he doesn't even have to travel. every time we mention his name people clap. [applause] so is the power to change our country is in your hands. that's why we're here tonight. and i want you to hear from rafael cruz who has been an inspiration to me. i wish you could have been in dallas -- and he'll tell you about this story. but when he was able to introduce ted cruz in his home state and talk about their story from the time he was imprisoned in cuba to the time he was there swearing in his son in the united

states senate, it just tells you what a wonderful country we live in. but it's not a country that belongs to government. it belongs to we, the people. that's why you're here. thank you. [applause] >> let's hear it for senator jim demint. [cheers and applause] >> let me tell you, you were the inspiration for my son. you pave the way for him. great boots to fill. as i stand here before all of you, i know from personal

experience what it is to feel a heavy boot of a centralized government taking away my freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion. confiscating private property. shutting down businesses. attacking everyone that has anything, attacking religion. putting preachers in prison. i will tell you, in the midst of all that, then they impose socialized medicine system. the university of havana was renown world knowledge for the quality of medical instruction. today, that medical system is gone.

today, you talk to cubans to go back to see relatives. they always take a suitcase full of medicine. there isn't aspirin in cuba. in the hospitals in cuba, staph infections are epidemic. everywhere. there is something else that 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, i had the blessing to be able to come to the greatest country on 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. the declaration of independence 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 constitution have lasted over 200 years is because they were written on the knees of the framers. those men were seeking

revelation from above. i believe without a shadow of 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. as i think on the declaration, 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. host: of course, if they come

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.we are ry about being a sentinel. as a sentinel, heritage action 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. theon is going all over

everybodyncouraging 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,y 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. away my freedoms taken 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 water, 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 at a 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. it says, relying upon the 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. everyre trying to take 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.

im going to say these words 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] ♪ [country music] >> the situation in syria- continues to lead the headlines today. this morning john kerry, secretary of state, discussed the issues and whether to take

action in the country. he appeared on "meet the press." here is a look. the president, when the american people are invested, because we've had an appropriate vetting of all of the facts. let me just add this morning a very important recent development, that in the last 24 hours we have learned through samples that were provided to the united states that have now been tested from first responders in east damascus and hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin. so this case is building, and this case will build. and i don't believe that my former colleagues in the united states senate and the house will turn their backs on all of our interests, on the credibility of our country, on the norms with respect to the enforcement of prohibitioagainst the use of chemical weapons, which has been

in place since 1925. the congress adopted the chemical weapons convention. the congress has passed the syria accountability act. congress has a responsibility here, too. and i think that congress will recognize that and realize that our interests with respect to iran, we are hoping we have a diplomatic resolution of this standoff on the nuclear program in iran. but if we don't, iran will read importantly what we decide to do with respect to the enforcement of this convention in syria. >> mr. secretary. >> likewise israel. israel is at risk. jordan is at risk. turkey is at risk. the re to a is really hurtful to u.s. credibility. >> well, the one thing i would say that i'm proud of the president for is that he's coming to congress in a constitutional manner and asking for our authorization. that's what he ran on. his policy was that no president

should unilaterally go to war without congressional authority. and i'm proud that he's sticking by it. but you ask john kerry whether or not he'll stick by the decision of congress, and i believe he waffled on that and wobbled and wasn't exactly concrete that they would. but absolutely if congress votes this down, we should not be involved in the syrian war. and i think it's at least 50/50 whether the house will vote down involvement in the syrian war. >> you think it's 50/50. it's that close. you don't think that this is a compelling case that's been made and that congress will follow suit. >> in the house. i think the senate >> john mccain and lindsay gramm have been invited to the white house tomorrow for talks with president obama. this morning on "face the nation" senator mccain said that they were in a bit of a dilemma because they wanted a plan.

saying "we need to have a strategy." the senate plans for a hearing on u.s. action on tuesday. you can watch that coverage on c-span and c-span two. >> how much more of a corner is he going to be back into if we itd something over there does him harm? i do not see how anything changes? this would be dispersed into the general environment. there are a lot of risks here.

the down sides are great. what general to eisenhower said, he said you should not go to war for emotional reasons. i think that this would be a emotional response. be clear, it sounds like you are saying no, but you are going to vote that? >> my understanding is that that is the resolution from the plane back home. get into thee whole business of authorizing force and how long we go on and what the parameters are for an exit strategy and the parameters that you all ask before i got here. are no? >> i am now. congressman, you are on the rules committee.

>> to anticipate multiple resolutions from the rules committee? >> no. >> would you like to see that? itfrom a rural perspective, have to come to the floor for a vote. wrong again -- to move against the rules committee. >> [indiscernible] >> that is always a question. authorizetion to force in iraq was before i got here, but it was pretty well laid out, the things that saddam hussein had done over time. at the same time, no one would have predicted that we would have been here 10 years later. it would appear that congress had misjudged.

>> that was congressman michael juror -- michael burgess, live on capitol hill, one of the members who attended a short time ago and in person briefing with lawmakers on the possible response to the alleged use of chemical weapons during attack. sarin gas is for liberally -- preliminarily thought to have been used. we are standing by and waiting as members leave the meeting room.

>> as we await further live reaction from congress, we understand they are still in the briefing room. as we wait we will show you some of what they had to say earlier today. here is congressman jim hines.

>> jim hines. >> your reaction? utility,the effectiveness, and support we would have for the kind of strike the president has proposed. there is not a lot of skepticism about whether or not this was an attack carried out by the syrian regime. while no one would say that it has been proven, evidence shows that this was an attack carried out by the aside regime. cannot comment on that. it is not clear to me that we know what the result of this attack was. was it undertaken by iran?

the syrians? it is not at all clear that we have any international support. most of us agree that in these circumstances, military responses are ok provided swift international report -- response. >> what about this being a big, important legacy vote? >> it is certainly a consideration, but today there were a lot of memories for another time when the president was to say that this intelligence that they would have to repeat. most members are thinking more about the merits over the political consequences. >> if you were to vote today? [inaudible] >> [indiscernible] >> does the president need to brief congress in a classified setting? >> personally, no.

most people have looked at all of the intelligence and what not. to know more about what the exports say was the likely result of the attack and if we have any support internationally out there. the u.k. has always been an ally. there are a lot of questions about that. >> thank you. >> first of all, i am very pleased that the president decided to ask for congress to bring approval here.

i think we are in a very only ourmoment in not nation's history, but in world history. i think that it is the case that we are looking at that is going most probably one of the complex for members of congress to resolve. there are a lot of questions. i will of course not talk about what went on in that room. but i know places that need to be resolved. carry this morning talk about chemical weapons being used. i expect the administration will probably be able to show that. , iond that, the question is

think a lot of people, my constituents, and i attend a church of 10,000, most of these people, i would say the average education is about four years of college, i do not think many of our constituents understand the full significance of chemical and biological warfare, something the president has got to spend some time explaining, the significance of that and why it is off limits regarding 98% of the world. i think people have got to be administratione is not talking about people when they do not understand the basics. that we want to know and my constituents have

asked over and over, what is the relationship to the united states? much of this comes in the background of being world weary. people are concerned, as i am. there is another issue we are concerned about, i am concerned about, the possible unintended consequences. finally, congress has been placed in a very interesting position. if we do not vote, the question of a ridge question is whether or not he is strengthened. i honestly could not say. questions that i need answered. much of what's has been said here today, there are a lot more questions. >> [indiscernible] >> and not yet.

in other words, i think that the , the draft resolution is very broad. the concernsone of in the past has been whether these types of resolutions have been too broad. comes tohat when it the president said this would be limited in scope. know, exactly, what resolution has been limited. >> what is it that you still need to know? >> i want to know exactly what the game plan is after this. in other words, let's assume that we do a limited strike.

strike lead to, as the resolution says, a diplomatic resolution to this issue? another thing we are concerned happens if we do not approved it? a lot of people are concentrating on approval. assad strengthen the? is somethingt it else, does that come back? iose other kinds of issues would like to have some answers to. i think that the administration is going to work very hard over the next couple of weeks. >> do you think that the administration will respect those wishes?

>> i am sure they will, but i do not know. a good question. >> [indiscernible] >> i am not going to talk about anything that went over there. generally, that it was helpful, but that there are a lot more questions i would like answered. youegarding the scope, did want it to be narrowed? would you like the admission to be narrowed? we get allthat once the information that we need, again, this was a good and important start. once we get all that information, we can determine how narrow it should be. >> thank you, sir. >> congressman? are you right now, yes

or no? >> yes. >> why? >> let me read from the unclassified soft-drink in terms of carrying out a chemical weapons attacks on the 21st. ,he briefing here, i think comes from multiple sources. the government essentially theys the red line that began to draw 100 years ago. it is something that more or less human society has drawn. there has to be a focus response and if we do not respond, there will be incentive for him to do it again. that enough of

your colleagues agree with you? >> i think that as long as they do, we should vote. i have confidence. if we do nothing, i think it sends the wrong message. >> if congress sends the resolution? >>do, we should vote. the president has essentially said that he is confident that congress will respond to the crossing of this red line. remember, again, he drew it, but so has our society. a chemical attack with new evidence. obviously from the intelligence report, i am constrained, but it makes clear that there are multiple sources of this assessment.

if it was different from previous sources did did not have issue here. >> [indiscernible] >> it may be so, the administration indicated they are willing to work with that. if there is a will, i think they can find a way. the president has essentially saidi think that thn invitation to the syrian government's to cross a line that i think should not be crossed. sense of thet a limited strike and that what would happen next would not require follow-up? think anyone is quite sure, but i think we know where to start. >> a number of your colleagues

said that it seemed like your members were 50-50. >> that is the first time that i heard that many. as many came as possible. i was there for almost all of it. look, we have to face up to this. there are questions to be asked, we are not quite sure what the ultimate result will be. syrian government essentially u.s. chemical warfare. there is now on classified information. they know the missiles were shot, they know from where. -- we simply going to say

are we going to do nothing? are we moving to politics? to this, i think national security is very much involved. i think beyond. not take anyd will action. a think the answer is yes. when the time comes right now it is over 30 years. >> thank you.

>> congressman? everybody does. >> ok, ok. you were skeptical going in? >> i was skeptical that the regime committed atrocities. in the suburbs of damascus.

assad regimet the committed these atrocities. what i wrestle with and continue to wrestle with is -- how do we design success and our objective and a full understanding and consideration of the ramifications? if the attack is going to take the submarines or ships, there will be a series of events unfolds. accurately predict what is going to happen with specificity, but one person -- but after this limited strike, the fact of the regime is still there? has control of the military and chemical weapons, which troubles me.

in our strike -- let's say for example that he has attacked two air force bases, it would in a loss ofult life of conscripts who had nothing to do with the attack, yet the regime is in place. i am wrestling with this question of how this works against the targeted strike on assad. he is the call one. our policy is not targetting someone. does that make where he is present a safe zone? i think that everyone of us has an ideal solution here, and that would be that he is tried as a war criminal. that scenario is very unlikely,

but these of the things i am wrestling with. >> where are you with [indiscernible] am may know based on the information i have now. not with respect to the evidence that the assad regime committed the atrocity. i am in no because the clarity of where this goes, the-and it -- definition of accomplishing the mission is still unclear to me. i am faced with a series of imperfect alternatives. i am convinced, and many others are, that this was constitutionally the correct path that he should have taken. i respect the decision as it did

not show weakness, in my view. >> thank you for stopping. congressman? >> live on capitol hill as we await further comments on the situation in syria. those comments followed a closed-door briefing from earlier today. we understand that between 60 and 70 members were there. we are waiting for other action as other members discuss the situation. we will bring it to you here on the c-span networks. the uniteds morning, nations spokesman, martin nesirky, brief the team in syria and talk about when the samples would be arriving at

laboratories. this is about half of an hour. >> good morning, everyone. the secretary-general held a phone call today regarding the investigation in syria. having just returned with the , a briefis expert team to the secretary-general on the progress,s of the moving well, but a transcript to laboratories tomorrow. the doctor told the secretary- general that two syrian officials were observed in the process. the whole process will be done strictly adhering to the highest

established standards of verifications' recognized. of the horrendous magnitude of the incident in damascus, the secretary general asked the doctor to expedite the analysis of the samples and the information they have obtained without jeopardize in the scientific timeline needed for analysis and report the results to him as soon as possible. they discuss ways to further accelerate the process. the secretary general thanked him for the performance of the team in syria despite the difficult circumstances. i wanted to update you a little bit on the humanitarian feature. the u.n. is continuing its critical humanitarian work in syria where and when possible, as

well as in neighboring countries. for example, the world food program targeted three million people with food aid in august, and last week it distributed rations for 10,000 people. in light of the food chrises, the program sought to feed 235050,000 people in august. the world health organization has coordinated assistance to 3.7 million people in syria. the u.n. children's fund, unicef, has helped reach millions of children, and it has helped more than 10 million people in syria access drinking water. for its part, unhcr, and its partners have reached more than 1.5 million people with much needed supplies. of course there are many more people outside of syria and in neighboring countries receiving assistance.

theso advyo secretary general spoke this morning with the foreign minister of france, mr. fabios, and he will continue to stay in touch with world leaders in the days to come. yes? >> your analysis -- is there a window or opportunity for the government to react? and what are they doing on that? [inaudible] >> at this point i'm not sure of any full meeting. the secretary general did speak to the department, members of already,ity council and he did intend to speak to

the non-permanent members of the security council in the days to come. i think that will probably be on tuesday. we can give you more details when we get closer on that. nextregard to your question, i would say the secretary general took notes of the announcement by president obama yesterday on the referral to congress. i can tell you, he regards this as one aspect of an effort to achieve a broad-based international consensus on measures in response to any use of chemical

weapons. use of chemical weapons will not be accepted under any circumstance, and there should be no impunity, and any perpetrators of such an horrific crime against humanity should be held accountable. the u.n. mission should be given an opportunity to succeed. the secretary general applauds the bravery of the team of u.n. personnel. finally, the secretary general reity rates the primary role of the security council of mean tange international peace and security, including in any case where the use of chemical weapons is established. in such case, he believes the council should stand firm and united in agreeing on any weapons of chemical use. yes? >> does the secretary general plan to meet with either president obama or the -- president putin? and will dr. sallstrom be on the return trip? >> needless to say the president is likely to take place in any discussions on the topics which

would ordinarily be discussed. at this point i cannot say with whom the secretary general will be meeting. but of course they will be gathered there in st. petersburg, the major leaders from the major countries from the world's industrialized economies in the world, and we'll keep you posted as we get closer to that. >> and dr. sellstrom? >> well, we have not said what the combination of that team will be. >> and you mentioned two syrian officials are acome anying the samples to ensure the samples are correct. why are there not two officials from the opposition? you didn't mention that, unless

there are, acome anying that, to ensure the samples are accurate. --ondly, you mentioned the dr. sallstrom wants to get these in as soon as possible without jep ties -- jeopardizing the tests. the emergence of evidence -- >> i beg your pardon. i forgot to remind you about the microphone. >> sorry. thank you. first question -- i forgot. >> syrian officials. >> you mentioned syrian officials. syriann't mention

officials watching out for the credibility of the samples. and the second, asking sellstrom to expite the results. do you see that there is a possibility of a convergence of peffed in the first two weeks, while congress is making this decision that we have, the result from the united nations? >> i wouldn't speculate on the latter part of your question. i would simply reiterate what we said. the united nations mission is completely capable of establishing and parceling a critical manner the facts of any use of chemical evidence based on the evidence on the ground. we are not giving a timeline, despite various reports of different timelines. we are not giving a timeline. one of the reasons is precisely what i said early yes on and you picked up on it. the secretary general discussed with dr. sellstrom there are ways to accelerate this process while keeping in the scientific bounds that there are, including this hearing of the

standards set down by the obcw, the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons. which brings me to your first question. the secretary general's mechanism. so the guidelines from this procedure set out very clearly who should be there to oversee the chain of customer can i -- custody, and that is why there are two syrian officials there. that's where i would leave it. because the guidelines specify precisely what the mechanism should be to ensure the chain of custody. as i said, and i would repeat again, this is all being done strictly in adherence with the established standards for verification.

i'm coming to you. yes? >> the security general indicated -- you mentioned the security council should be united on that. >> i don't want to put words into his mouth. just listen to what i said, ok? >> yesterday he addressed in a general letter, asking him to use his office in an order to prevent unilateral action against his country by any party, especially after what mr. obama has said. is there any reaction to that? what kind of actions do you expect? >> not at this point. let's just repeat what i've already said on numerous occasions, and the secretary general has said equally often, and that is that he would underscore the importance of the charter. as i said, the secretary general reity rates the primary role of the security council in

maintaining and restoring international peace and security. it has been 10 days since the attack. are you confident -- >> let me repeat what i just said. yes, we are not specify identifying a timeline. we are simply saying it is being done as fast as it is possible to do within the scientific constraints. the secretary general is obviously very keen, as is the rest of the international community, that this should be done as swiftly as possible. but you need to be able to adhere to the standards so that the scientific process of verification is credible. and just to answer your point, when you said that the u.s. has

meounced the results, let repeat the united nations mission is uniquely capable of establishing in an impartial and credible mooner -- manner, the facts of any use of congressmen chemical weapons based on weapons used on the ground, and that relates to chain of custody. >> thank you, general. >> he will be briefing the security council once he hears from cain. does he intend to give the p-5 any further progress? what happened to that original suggestion in austria? >> he said he would be briefing the security council. that can be done in numerous forms. i just said, in addition with the discussions with the permanent five members, the secretary general intends to speak to the non-permanent 10 members in the coming days, probably on tuesday. it is, of course, for the

security council itself to invite the secretary general to speak to them as one body. speakcretary general is -- seeking to reach out to the member states. this is part of that process. >> he was very specific in austria. >> well, i'm being very specific now. >> he was inaccurate then? >> no, not inaccurate. he said he was willing and ready to brief its security council. it is the security council to invite him to brief them. jameds. >> we know about the problem of the shooting incident when they were on the ground in syria. were there other problems? because secretary of state john kerry when he spoke said when finally inspectors gained access, that access as we know, was restricted and controlled. did professor sellstrom report

that that is the case? >> i can already say, regardless of what the secretary general and what dr. sellstrom discussed this morning, that while in the country, the mission was able to access all locations it has identified as priority sites, and it was able to conduct the fact-finding activities it deemed necessary. the mission did that to overcome serious safety concerns. and as you just mentioned on one owe indication while traveling, the mission came under fire by unknown assailants in a buffer area. >> this morning, as i'm sure you saw, the secretary very specifically talked about blood and hair samples. >> i said -- >> i understand you said it. your answer is that the u.n. is uniquely qualified -- >> uniquely capable. >> they obviously believe their

lab has moved quickly on this. i understand if it is only in their does did i, it doesn't have the credibility to the world ads a whole. but it seems like their lab has moved pretty fast. are you saying their lab work is less than credible? have they shared this evidence at the up unthat the secretary general requested? i wanted to ask you to respond to, yesterday president obama said, quote, i am comfortable going forward without the approval of the security council -- council. what does the secretary general to a member state ignoring this uniquely capable entity and announcing the results? >> i have already characterized the secretary general's thoughts on that last part of the equation. i don't intend to go back over

that. all i can do is repeat what i already said, that the united nations mission is uniquely capable of establishing in an impartial and critical manner the use of chemical weapons based on evidence collected from the ground. anynd has the u.s. shared of this evidence that it has received with the u.n.? >> as we said, member states are encouraged to share information they may have with regard to alleged incidents. yes? >> the italian prime minister said repeatedly that any outside syrianntion in the prizes by any power, unless it happens under the umbrella, if you like, of the united nations, is likely to trigger a major conflict with war. is this the up unview? >> i don't really want comment on every individual politician's and minister's

comments on this around the world. we have repeatedly said there must be a political constitution solution to this crisis. that ultimately, the -- a military solution is not an option. at some point they will need -- there will need to be a political discussion solution. the sooner that can hatch happen, the better. >> two questions. you said that the oppositioning are not part of the observers monitoring the process but there are guidelines that specify what the mechanism should be and the guideline was derived from the u.n. and the syrian government? >> the syrian government's mechanism have guidelines that encompass any investigation underneath that mechanism. the guidelines are online. also, the key part here is that this is all being done in the strictest adherence to the standards that exist for verification as laid down by the organization for the prohibition of chemicals. >> can i finish a second question? you say half the u.s. shares information that secretary kerry was sharing today on nbc? >> i don't know. i would simply say, member states are encouraged to provide information that they have. that's an important distinction. >> i don't know who put these

guidelines, but i mean, logic states that if two parties have a major stake in finding out which one of them has used chemical weapons and we have two officers from the syrian regime but we don't have -- >> officials. >> officials, i'm sorry. two officials from the syrian regime but we don't have anybody from the other party, other major state, since the united nations does not represent the opposition, shouldn't it have been whoever put these guidelines, and we don't know far, has taken account of this? >> well, the secretary general's mechanism is something that, as i mentioned yesterday, der

arrives from a general assembly resolution adhered to and ratified by the security council -- council. in any case, i don't need to tell you, being an expert in the region accident that there isn't just one opposition group. i'm not quite sure how you would decide who would tag along. i would leave it there. >> you said the secretary general condemns the use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstance. several months ago the russian federation submitted an 80-page report on an incident at kan nal assal with very, very serious evidence that the opposition had been using chemical weapons. albeit primitive ones, but

chemical weapons in that area. why has this report not been made public or available to the u.s. congress who may have to vote on issues? according to yesterday's huffington post there are questions of whether rebels could have carried out the attack. >> can you please get to your question. >> why is this information not being made vibble available? >> as i understand it, the document which was submitted by the russian federation, is for the russian federation to make available to member states. the second thing is, we've repeatedly said, and i mentioned it yesterday, the team is carrying out its investigation of this incident given the international community's interest in trying to find out what happened. we have also said that the team has given an undertaking to the syrian government that it will

return to carry out its investigation into all pending allegations. that includes kahn al-assal. so when it comes to a report that will encompass all of the allegations, this part will be addressed. yes? >> the briefing timeline, if t- were on this, is there no invitation from any of the those interested parties to hear from him again after angela cain? and do you -- >> bear in mind the secretary general traveling to st. petersberg, but there are other department officials who can obviously brief the council should they so wish. you have to speak to the

council. >> do you expect -- >> it would be unusual to comment on what the briefing would be if we decent know when the briefing would be. >> tuesday you mentioned. >> that's a meeting with the non-permanent members of the security council. given, as you pointed out, and i said, that the secretary general spoke to the permanent five members of the council. so there are other ways to be able to reach out to member states. i think at some point it may be possible to elaborate on that. also, i think knees briefings are intended to help explain to

the international community the secretary general is doing thehis interaction with team and with the representative at the summit of affairs, for example. >> he was supposed to speak to them after he -- >> please -- force >> why did that change occur? >> no. the secretary general has made clear that he is available and ready and willing to brief the security council. as i said yesterday, the security general has reached out to the representative of argentina, who obviously was a presence at the council. and also spoke to the austrian representative, and who is, as of today, lucky man, the president of the council.

>> would there be an update on the timing? >> look, i think we said quite a of theut the logistics time unit. should there be more information -- >> you haven't given us a timeline. you did tell you today, if are paying attention, that the samples would start to be delivered to leboeuf -- two laboratories tomorrow. i'm trying to help you. behind you. when is -- >> tuesday, the third of september. >> has russia shared any information about the recent incident? russia has said this is a fabricated incident, etc. have they shared any of their information with the sg or the u.n.? >> i'm not aware of any such

interaction along the lines you suggested. this'll be the last question at the back. use ofmentioned any chemical weapons will be held accountable. punishmenty -- what can the u.n. established as punishment if it were to be found that somebody used chemical weapons? we understand the u.n. is going read --out who did it it. how will that play out if it is found that somebody used them and you want to hold that person accountable or that country accountable? how will that work? >> as i said, the security council has the primary role in --h matters in maintaining restoring international peace and security, in any case of a chemical weapons attack.

it would be for the saturday counsel to determine. the secretary-general is simply saying that the council should stand firm and united in measures in response to any use of chemical weapons. it would be for the council itself to decide on any such measures. >> would they then probably ask to find out who use them? would they have the capabilities -- >> i'm not going to prejudge what the council may or may not do. the very last question. i'm being extra generous. >> i appreciate it. you might have seen this one whether germany did land a plane -- >> yes. other one has to do with an article in today's "new york times." i wanted to ask you directly, it is a very interesting article, but it says he likes to go golfing, he doesn't have a

membership, but he golfs with an investor from korea. some might say that he shows to much closest to -- closeness to a country or maybe the financial applications. what would you say to those who say that this undercuts the idea of impartiality? >> it's complete nonsense. the secretary-general did not mention that he plays golf with many hombre -- many other permanent members of the security council. he has played with others. for example, the united kingdom current representative. he plays golf with any number of people. i don't see anything wrong with that. dpr k, syria, iran? >> you supply the clubs, and i'm sure he will play. thanks very much.

>> a live picture on capitol hill once again as we have been hearing from lawmakers following a closed-door briefing on syria this afternoon. about 60-70 members of the house and senate gather to discuss the u.s. reaction to the situation in syria. president obama said he is taking the issue to congress. members have been discussing. the briefing has ended. congressman michael burgess was one of those who talked about what was discussed. >> can you answer a couple of

questions? thank you. >> who am i talking to? >> can you identify who you are? >> m burgess, i represent the 26th district of the state of texas. information. of a lot of pros and cons. i have to tell you come in my mind, it is far from settled. it is not something that should be undertaken lightly. certainly the mood in the district ever present is, do not do this. i honestly did not hear anything that told me i ought to have a different position. >> thank you. >> if they hold off for another week or two weeks, is that too late? >> that is part of the question. if this is important to do, is it important to do today, or is it important to do before the year ends? i cannot tell you that i am convinced that the timeline that

was outlined by the president yesterday is a valid one. intelligence?the the short answer to that, the larger question is, what are you trying to accomplish with this? if the intelligence is correct and mr. assad launched an attack on his own people, it he did that because he felt he was backed into a corner -- how much more of a corner will he feel backed into if we send something over there that doesn't great harm? harm?s him great i do not see how that is going to change by this attack. by consequence, i do not see how anything changes. the chemical bomb

weapons because then you disperse them into the general environment. there are a lot of risks here. the downsides are great. i think back to a general eisenhower said in 1954, pretty he said,r for him -- you shouldn't go to war for emotional reasons. right now, i think it would be an emotional response, and that probably is not a good enough reason. >> just to be clear, it sounds like you are a no. >> there is no vote right now. my understanding is there has been a resolution that the white house has delivered to the congress. i'm going to go try and download that and read it on the way back home. again, we get into the business of an authorization of use of military force and how open ended it is and the parameters, and what is the exit strategy, all those questions you will ask. congressman burgess, you were

on the rules committee. inevitably, this would come through the rules committee. has there been a discussion about having multiple resolutions or amendments? >> no. >> would you like to see a multiple tiered strategy? i from a rules perspective, would have to come to the floor for a vote. if that is the intention of the president, it would belong to block it at the level of the rules committee. >> no discussions about multiple resolutions or amendments. >> no. resolution that authorized force in iraq. it was before i got here, but it was pretty well laid out. saddam hussein had done this over time. i thought it spelled things out pretty well. at the same time, no one would've predicted that 10 years later we would still be there. cost estimates, they were not inaccurate. it was just the length of time.

>> thank you. >> we understand that closed- door meeting on capitol hill is done. we will be showing you remarks from lawmakers made after that meeting later today on c-span. according to the "washington republican senators john mccain and lindsey graham has been invited to the white house tomorrow for talks with the president. this morning on "face the nation," senator graham said, we are in a bit of a dilemma here. plan, ratheregy, than, or we just went to launch some cruise missiles and that's it? the senate plans to hold hearings on u.s. action in syria starting tuesday. you can watch live congressional coverage when both chambers return on c-span and c-span 2.

we talked about syria on this morning's washington journal is part of a street about chemical weapons. it is about half an hour. a senior fellow at the center for nonproliferation studies. thank you very much for being with us. we want to talk about the history and the use of these chemical and biological weapons. first this morning, the secretary of state john kerry on the sunday morning program confirming that sarin was used in syria. what is sarin? is a nerve agent. it is part of a family of organic phosphorus chemicals. it was discovered in world war ii. along with a variety of other nerve agents. it can kill in minute quantities. to give you an idea of how powerful this stuff is, i had a jar about the size, a quart size george -- jar.

theoretically, one million lethal doses could fit in that jar. it is breathed into the respiratory system or it gets onto the skin. it is a very small quantity needed to kill a human. host: where does this come from? guest: in this case, i believe it was the syrian government to produce this. the history of the syrian chemical weapons program, at first, they leaned on outside assistance. they probably got hand-me-down weapons during the 1970s from egypt. more recently, they've gotten technical assistance and perhaps precursor chemicals from iran and from russia. , the delivery system courtesy of north korea. they have a domestic capability at this point not only to produce nerve agents like sarin, but also the world war i agents known as mustard gas. your with the organization

for the prohibition of chemical weapons. in 1993, this international agreement that basically prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons by states parties. can you elaborate, what is the teeth behind this? at this point, -- at this point, there are 180 members of this treaty. syria is a member of the geneva protocol which dates from world war i, just past that, in 1925. that is the treaty that bans the use of chemical weapons. the other teeth behind this treaty is that it comes with a very complex and i think effective system of inspections. if you are a party to this treaty, not only are your military facilities open to inspection, if they have any association with chemical activities, which the treaty permits, but your commercial chemical industry is open to inspection.

these inspections have been taking place since 1997 around the world. literally hundreds and hundreds of inspections have taken place. the other part of this treaty that is equal for all countries is that it requires all countries that have chemical weapons to declare them and to have their destruction supervised. at this point, russia and the united states are among the handful of countries that declared chemical weapons stockpiles and chemical weapons production facilities. our destruction process is still ongoing because we have such huge, whopping arsenals. host: as you indicated, signed by a majority of nations around the world, 189 countries have signed this country -- this treaty. the exception, syria, egypt, north korea, somalia, and angola. at this point, both israel and myanmar sign the convention, but they did not ratify it. can you explain? guest: in the middle east, the

politics in the secured -- and the security politics are rather compensated, in part because of israel's presumed chemical weapons program. there were a number of countries when the treaty was opened for signature in 1993 that thought they would never sign the treaty, but immediately, the number of arab -- a number of arab entries did sign entering the agreement. does still holds out, as syria, in part because they are presumed to have a chemical weapons capability and they acquired that thinking perhaps they could offset egypt's nuclear capability. -- israel's nuclear capability. host: how is that playing out? guest: the israelis have participated as observers in a lot of activities associated with the treaties and limitation. thishe security aspects of -- quite frankly, chemical weapons are no match for nuclear weapons. a military commander will tell you this in a heartbeat.

it is something of an awkward situation. it would ideally be part of a --pons of mass destruction there are currently discussions trying to initiate a process for that. the politics in the area have countries like egypt and others that really are balking at coming to the table because of israel's nuclear arsenal. the announcement last week by secretary of state john kerry, 1400 deaths as a result of chemical weapons, including 400 children. here is what he said friday at the state department. [video clip] >> instead of being tucked safely at their beds at home, we saw a rose of children -- rowsw of -- rows of children lying side-by-side. all of them dead from assad's gas, surrounded by parents and grandparents who suffered the same fate. the u.s. government now knows that at least 1429 syrians were killed and this attack,

including at least 426 children -- in this attack, including at least 426 children. even the first responders who try to save them became victims themselves. we saw them gasping for air, terrified that their own lives were in danger. this is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. this is what assad did to his own people. host: secretary kerry last week. this is a list of chemical attacks. this courtesy of npr.

guest: let's separate those two examples you gave us. the one in japan was an attack which had used sarin in a previous incident, trying to kill judges. they ended up killing seven people and sending several dozens to the hospital. the attack in the tokyo subway system is the best known of those horrendous acts. there was panic in tokyo. people flooded the hospitals. not that many were seriously injured, but there were a lot of people who were scared by the attack.

it's one thing to have a terrorist group get ahold of and use these weapons. the attack you referred to in the second example with iraq, the physicians for human rights sent a team in four years later and they were taking samples at the site which were later analyzed by britain's top chemical biological defense facility. they were able to conclusively prove that not only was mustard gas used in the attacks, but also nerve agents. host: our guest is amy smithson, senior fellow at the center for nonproliferation studies. she is a graduate of the university of north carolina and georgetown university. she earned her doctorate at george washington university. previously with the center for strategic and international studies. our phone lines are open. you can send us an e-mail or join us on facebook or send us a tweet. liz is joining us from new york city on the independent line.

caller: my question is, is there a signature mark for wmds? could we determine who actually did it? you are assuming that assad did it. it could have been the cia. host: a comment -- guest: one of the things that told me this was likely to have been an attack by the assad

government is the timing of the attack. this is the government that has been in the business of chemical weapons since the 1970s. when you get into the chemical weapons area, you train in military and chemical doctrine. the best time to attack is in the wee hours of the morning. it is a time when the winds are the lowest and the temperatures are the coolest, and that is what makes poison gas hang over the target. it sits over there. in the middle of the day, the wind would blow it away. this is a situation where they had simultaneous rocket attacks on multiple targets. that is another hallmark of a military action. the rebels don't have that sophisticated of a capability. this is waddling and quacking like a duck.the duck is the assad government.

host: why would it -- he have to and it? -- done it?-- why would he have done it? guest: this happened at a time when the inspectors were in downtown damascus. what better time, if you were seeking to demoralize your opponent, than to attack their families while they are sleeping? when you see the interviews of syrian refugees and syrians still inside the country, they are petrified that chemical warfare will be used again. assad succeeded beyond his wildest imagination in terms of scaring the opposition. in terms of deterrence, there is something i have been advocating since the outset of civil conflict in syria. that is to provide gas masks and nerve agent antidotes and other defensive equipment to the hospitals in syria, and to the syrian civilians, and to syrian opposition fighters. assad's troops already have this

equipment and capability. if you're in doubt about who has done it, you need to level the playing field with defenses. that takes away the very advantage of using chemical weapons in the first place. if the syrian civilians have gas masks, if they are taught about how to decontaminate -- they know how to do this, from the videos from the other night. they are stripping people down and washing them with water. for those who may doubt this is an effective thing to do, do -- prior to the 19 91 gulf war, when israel was worried that saddam hussein would lob chemical scuds on israeli cities, they equipped their entire civilian populace with gas masks. the chemical weapons convention obligates its members to provide this very type of assistance.

the international community and our own congress may be struggling with what should be done about this, but this is truly the no-brainer thing to do, to take the military advantage of using chemical weapons away. host: and yet vladimir putin, who will be with the president this week at the g-20 summit, called the idea that president assad would use chemical weapons is, in his own words, utter nonsense. guest: i'm not sure that russia's hands are entirely clean. in the 1990s, the people who were in charge of russia's chemical weapons program were providing technical assistance in chemical weapons to the russians. this is documented in "state secrets." why would i believe the author? he was inside russia's chemical

weapons program for 26 years. he is also the man who blew the whistle on russia's ultrasecret program, which is the next generation of chemical warfare agents. the world, including western agents, knew nothing about it until he blew the whistle. he is a very authoritative person to tell the tale the russia provided. host: a comment, gas masks will not help much against mustard gas or sarin. guest: this is protection of the respiratory system. it's not a perfect solution, but it's difficult to expect civilians to wear the protective garb that the military has every day for the next however long this conflict lasts. let's not make perfect the enemy of the good. let's provide gas masks, with clear instructions and illustrations in arabic.

let's provide instructions about the importance of the camera decontamination. literally, if you have to jump in a fountain in the circumstances. you probably will have achieved the happy medium of what can be anticipated in this type of environment, where there is a very real threat that chemical weapons will be used again. host: nearly 90 years ago, before world war ii, there was the geneva protocol signed in 1925 that prohibits the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases. we saw much of that in world war ii with the holocaust. guest: cyclon-b was used to attempt to entirely eliminate a religious group.

this is something that was motivated by the widespread use of chemical weapons during world war i. chemical weapons were introduced with industrial chemicals on the battlefield in 1915, when germany used chlorine. the allies retaliated. both sides were lobbing industrial chemicals, and till germany one-upped and introduced mustard gas. it sears the lungs, burns the skin. in that conflict, 90,000 died from chemical weapons. a million were injured from chemical weapons.

the people who don't take this seriously should look at the historical record of that conflict. host: our guest is amy smithson, senior fellow at the center for nonproliferation studies. you can join in on the conversation on our twitter page. michael from butler, pennsylvania on our republican line. caller: amy, i agree with you totally. what i would like to see is someone connect the dots. i am 100% convinced that the evidence is there that assad inherited saddam hussein's program. two days before the second gulf war, two magic trains went to syria from the program. this to me gets to the heart of the whole issue. we have two options. respond, not respond. what frightens me -- the caller went this way earlier, but i've heard several people mention this -- this belief that maybe the cia is doing this, there's

no logic i can find where that makes any sense at all. how would you recommend that the administration respond to this fear on the ground that bad actors in our own government are behind this? guest: i think there are certain americans who distrust their government. but there are certain atrocities that i can't believe anyone would undertake. in this case, common sense points anyone who is looking at those dots you are talking about connecting will realize this is a chemical -- you are talking about connecting will realize this is a chemical -- assad did not need hand-me-downs from iraq. he already had chemical weapons

at the time of the 2003 war. he has his own chemical weapons production capability. a few production sites, as well as research and development sites. it first leaned on outside assistance, but no longer needs it. assad has his own reasons -- he has gradually escalated the level of conventional violence. for the past several months, he's been testing the waters with smaller chemical weapons. he flagrantly crossed the line on the night of the 21st. the rebels don't have the motivation that he does. i thought it was possible the rebels might have released an an industrial toxic chemical to

point the finger of suspicion at assad. but the death toll exceeds anything that i think the rebels could logically be expected to have done here on the 21st. in terms of sheer, ruthless atrocity, it doesn't make sense. host: a comment to your earlier point. guest: this is true. in the iran-iraq war, there were 100,000 iranians injured by chemical weapons. 20,000 were killed. many of those who survived still suffer the after effects of exposure not only from mustard gas, but to nerve agents. one thing i would like to draw your viewers' attention to is not to count out the inspectors

in this case, the people who just left iraq. the secretary-general has been very clear in saying that their job is not to say who did this. during 12 reviews inspections by -- 12 previous inspection by the secretary-general, there have been a number of occasions where they have been able to rule out the use of chemical weapons. in iraq, they specifically said the iraqis used chemical weapons during the 1980's conflict against iran. host: you can continue the conversation at facebook.com/cspan. here are a couple of points. we are joined from plymouth, england. caller: good morning.

i think that the u.s. and its close friends like the u.k. and nato have got to be more cautious in their approach to the middle east in general, and perhaps the wider international community. i think we have come up against the real constraints of what can be achieved. well-intentioned actions may make things worse. guest: none of the options are terribly attractive, with the exception of providing chemical defenses. if you bomb the chemical sites, you risk releasing toxic gases over nearby civilian populations. this is one of the reasons why the obama administration rule that out as too risky. creating a no-fly zone, that

leaves assad with the delivery systems we used on the evening of the 21st, rockets and missiles. bombing other sites, that leaves assad with his chemical weapons. there are not that many attractive options militarily. the aftermath of a conflict -- as we have seen and iraq and afghanistan, it can be more difficult to resolve the aftermath than the war itself. host: there is this from one of our viewers, saying what about the recent information about prince bandar? guest: they are a member of the chemical weapons convention, saudi arabia. i keep my ear close to the ground on those matters. i never heard a whisper from the hague that there has been

anything about saudi cooperation about inspectors coming down there. i'm not going to provide a whisper in the wind. host: any idea how long syria has had chemical weapons? guest: they have been at this for quite a while. countries need technical assistance when they start on this road, but they have had plenty of that. they can stand on their own now. host: if that is the case, why hasn't the u.s. and the u.n. try to stop them in 40 years? guest: it is a difficult thing to do, especially if a country has a sophisticated chemical industry. the building blocks for the agents are industrial chemicals that have legitimate purposes.

all the countries that belong to the treaty declare the production of those chemicals in significant quantities. those are the industry facilities that are subject to investigation to make sure those agents are not being diverted or produced on-site for anything other than a legitimate reason. the chemical weapons convention sets of a number of barriers. the australia group was started during the mid-1980's. the major chemical supplier countries realize that iran and iraq were selectively shopping for chemical weapons precursors. if they got denied and export from one country, -- an export from one country, they went to another. they started to coordinate their export controls. the australia group has over 40 members.

these are all the major supplier countries. syria has long been on the don't sell to list. host: frank is joining us from orlando, florida. caller: good morning. the mainstream media is the only news we get here. if you do any research, there's other points of view on this of who created these attacks, but nobody will even bring it up. it's like it doesn't exist. any kind of discussion should have both sides, shouldn't it? when iraq invaded iran, they bought their chemical weapons from us.

what makes us so high and mighty on all of this? when we use uranium tip shells and everything in iraq and caused the cancer to our soldiers, i just don't get it. guest: frank, you do have a point. some chemical companies did funnel chemical weapons precursors into iraq during the 1980's. they funneled over 650 metric tons of chemical weapons precursors into that conflict. but in that case, the companies were violating u.s. law. in the case of syria and these recent events, initially with a

smaller scale incidents, i too have an open mind because it was difficult to tell whether it might have been a conventional bomb the landed next to an industrial facility and ruptured a tank and released something that had these effects. so many industrial chemicals can have the types of effects we are seeing in the videos. difficulty breathing, foaming at the mouth, convulsions and the like. it was difficult to tell whether the assad government was testing the waters, or the rebels might have been doing something. in this last attack, it carried so many hallmarks of a military trained to use chemical weapons. that's not something that a coordinated group of rebels with pipe bombs have as an ability to do at this point, much less look at the motivation. use your common sense here and it will tell you what happened.

host: a comment on our facebook page. is america going to get involved every time some psycho dictator kills his own people? guest: i would like to see this norm up he -- upheld. i think we put ourselves in jeopardy around the world, so it's important to uphold the chemical weapons convention at geneva protocol to have some type of punitive measure against the assad government. if it is providing senses -- census, these are decisions that can come in the days ahead.

the international community ought to be able to agree on the lowest common denominator that can save lives. in that case, that is putting chemical defense into the equation. host: an e-mail -- guest: i don't forget about those things, nor has assad. two days ago, there were reports that he bombed a school with napalm. what errors the u.s. made in the past should not handicapped our -- handicap our decision-

making now. we need to be pretty clear about the importance of upholding international laws that prohibit atrocities that occurred in the past and that are unfolding in front of our eyes, literally as we speak. host: that is what one of our viewers says. good morning, dan. independent line. caller: you brought up how iraq may have obtained some chemical weapons back in the 1980's and 1990's. specifically, you said the 1990's. companies from the u.s. supplied ingredients that could be used to make, which was against international law. i have a couple of questions. i would like you to hit this one first. how many of those companies were prosecuted for that illegal action?

guest: i would like to give you a reference for this so that you can read for yourself. it is at the cnf website, a study by jonathan tucker about trafficking chemical precursors into the 1980's iran-iraq war. there were two masterminds that were funneling chemical precursors. one into iran, one into iraq. one of them was a dutch national. he was sentenced to jail for 17 years. the two american companies, i believe they're both out of business now. one of them was in baltimore and another was in charleston, north carolina. they funneled over 650,000 metric tons. host: our guest is a senior fellow at the center for nonproliferation studies. amy smithson, thank you for joining us. the apparent use of chemical

weapons in syria and how the u.s. should react has dominated news on capitol hill today. secretary of state john kerry offered the latest from the administration. here is some of what he said on "meet the press" this morning. [video clip] >> united states is strongest when the congress speaks with the president, when the american people are invested, because we have had an appropriate vetting of all the facts. let me add this morning a very important recent development, that in the last 24 hours, we have learned, through samples that were provided to the united states that have now been tested from first responders in east damascus and hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin. so this case is building, and this case will build. i do not believe that my former colleagues in the united states than it and the house will turn their backs on all of our

interests, the credibility of our country, the norms with theect to the enforcement prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, which has been in place since 1925. congress adopted the chemical weapons convention. the congress has passed the syria accountability act. --res's has responsibility congress has responsibility too. i think congress will realize that our interest with respect to iran -- we are hoping we have a diplomatic resolution of this standoff on the nuclear program in iran, but if we don't, iran will read importantly what we decide to do with respect to the enforcement of this convention in syria. likewise, israel, israel is at risk. jordan is at risk. turkey is at risk. the region is at risk. he believed the congress of the united states will do what is responsible. -- we believe the congress of the united states will do what

is responsible. afternoon, some 60-70 members attended a briefing on the situation in syria. afterwards, congress members came to our campus -- to our cameras to discuss how they thought the u.s. should respond to the apparent use of chemical weapons in syria. >> yes, go ahead. >> after hearing what you've heard, where are you? >> i haven't made up my mind yet. i still have to read the intelligence briefing downstairs. i still have to talk to my constituents. i would be still leaning no, which is where i was going in. the scope of the way the authorization legislation is written may be too broad. would you like it to be narrowed? >> i certainly would. although that is not the core of my concern. the core of my concern is it is a civil war and religious war. i'm sure it indirectly impacts the national security interests of the united states, and

frankly, most of my constituents, from what they've heard so far, they are like all the rest of us, certainly willing to listen, and i think they would ask me to listen. i do not think they would expect a knee-jerk reaction. i think my judgment would be that they would be very skeptical at this point. >> thank you, sir. >> i think it is really important that we are having an opportunity, as the representative body of the american people, to listen to each other. to hear the insights from members across the country, reflecting the concerns and questions that their constituents have. that is going to help us make a better informed decision. ultimately, particularly if congress chooses to authorize the president's use of limited military strikes, that we would be more united, and it would be

a stronger response. reflection, as i'm going through the process of making my decisions, accountability has to be certain and severe. fors going to be important the strength of our response to have an impact on syria and its that ahip for the unity congressional authorization would provide. the delay, this is been going on for several weeks. >> the definition of swiftness -- >> there has been a lot of criticism that without acting -- >> criticism from people who do not have the benefit of the intelligence briefing that we just had. >> do you have any idea of which way you would go on the vote? >> you know, i'm really looking at this. me, the searing image, as a as a mom, of --

babies lined up dead, as a god forbidould want, that in the suburbs i represent, if a tyrant would after my babies -- that the nation as strong as the united states would stand up for my children. >> it sounds like you are leaning yes. >> what i said should stand on its own. that is what i cannot get out of my mind. >> as a congresswoman and as politically, how important is this for the president to have this for his legacy and his ability to get things done in the congress in the future and get things done on the international stage? how much power will he have in the future? >> this has nothing to do with politics. this has everything to do with making sure that an international norm that was -- byed by the syrian

clearly the syrian government cannot and should not go unanswered. that is the only consideration that we have to come together. politics should be set completely aside. i can tell you there is no catalyst that i or anyone else that i know is doing in terms of the impact on president obama's effectiveness. this is important for america. it is important for the world. the deliberative process we are going to go through is going to help strengthen our response. thank you. >> thank you, congresswoman. >> hi, i'm chris van hollen from the great state of maryland. it's great to have many of my colleagues here from around the country. those close at home have been

following this issue carefully. this was an important meeting. i think every member of congress has a very special obligation to collect all the facts about what happened in syria. i think that is true any time, especially true given the fact that the united states went to war in iraq based on false claims that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons. this was an important briefing. we also had the opportunity to review the classified information separately. it is very clear that the assad regime used chemical weapons against its civilians on august 21. that theng believed united states and the international community have an obligation to enforce the well- established ban on the use of poison gas. i happen to be on the staff of

the senate foreign relations committee that happened to be on the staff of the senate foreign relations committee in the 1980s -- i happened to be on the staff of the senate foreign relations 1980s.ee in the we determine saddam hussein had used chemical weapons against the kurds. he had also used chemical weapons in the iran-iraq war. we urge the united states government to take action then. united states senate passed economic sanctions. the houston not act. the reagan administration was opposed. i believe the fair -- the failure of the united states and international community to not take action they're emboldened saddam hussein. to great irony is we went war with iraq in 2003 when there were no longer chemical weapons in iraq. i think it is important that the united dates and international community enforce this norm. -- united states and international community to enforce this norm. though i will not support a blank check, i would support a

narrowly tailored, narrowly crafted resolution that made it clear that u.s. troops would not be on the ground, made it very clear that the purpose of our action is to deter future use of chemical weapons in syria and elsewhere around the world, and i believe that the draft resolution presented by the administration does not currently meet that test, that it is too broadly drafted, it is too open ended. this is not a question of whether or not you trust the president. i do trust the president. this is a question now of, what kind of authorization will the congress give to the executive branch? >> how do you see this going forward in terms of changing it to make it more narrow so that you and other congress members are more comfortable? >> there are a number of changes , it seems.

one is an express prohibition on american troops on the ground. argue that we should limit our action to the use of our standoff capability. line of fire. at the very least, clear are not put in the language that american troops and soldiers will not be on the ground. secondly, there has to be some expiration date. careful because you want to be deterring the use of chemical weapons. that is the narrow purpose of this. there should be some opportunity to take action if the assad regime were to use it chemicaluse again, the weapons print you can do with that situation. you can say, after the initial strike, the only additional authorization for force would be if there was another case of chemical weapons used by the assad regime. there are ways to deal with it. it needs to be more narrowly drawn, and i do not think anybody is interested in writing

blank checks or even partial blank checks. >> this is a blank check? >> this is a partial when checked the way it is currently drafted, because it doesn't have those limitations that i mentioned. >> how do you see the changes going forward? do you think it will be done by the democratic leadership in consultation with the white house? >> i think it will go through the regular order. obviously the white house will have lots of input. so will members of congress. the president has now asked the congress to engage in this. i don't know exactly whether it will go through the committee process. i know the senate right now is scheduling hearings. we will have to see. ok? thank you.

>> last but not least. -- whatis your sense kind of tension or whatever? were a lot of questions. i think a lot of legitimate questions. wide range of a discussion about everything involving, what with the strike be like? how much latitude with the president have? what would be the repercussions? what might other countries do? i think it was well thought out. everybody had the opportunity to ask the question. there were follow-ups. it was respectful. i think it was a very good presentation. i am happy that i heard it. >> are you a yes or no? >> i am supporting the president. i feel very strongly that these are war crimes and these are

murdering innocent children, women and children, and it should not stand. we have had prohibitions on this kind of behavior for many years, certainly since world war i, and i think if this goes unchecked, it will invite every desk in terrorist organization in the world to feel that they can use -- every despot and terrorist organization in the world to feel they can use chemical weapons against their own people. i do not think that is something we want to continue. >> somebody said earlier he thought the resolution was a partial blank check. a couple minutes ago, you seemed concerned about getting to micromanaging. should there be changes to the resolution? >> i think there will be some changes possibly after some discussion. i think we can narrow it somewhat. we have to be careful. you do not want to tie the president's hands.

you want them to do what he needs to do. people cannot have it both ways. it iseople say, you know just a surgical strike, and it has no military value, and what is the point of the president lashing out and saying he doesn't like something? then you have the same people the resolution is too broad, and it's got to be narrowed. where do you find a happy medium? i think it will be narrowed a bit, but i do not want to tie the president hands. i think he knows what he is doing. thank you. >> did you learn anything about the intel we had before the chemical weapons attack that you can share from the briefing? >> i think we can share any of the intel, but what i learned was i have no doubt in my mind that gas was used and that assad's people used it. >> do you think other members of congress share the same sentiment? >> i think people are asking questions.

for me, you have the situation -- you have the gas being used in the damascus suburbs, which is really the stronghold of the opposition. so it would seem to me if the opposition forces used it, they wouldn't use it against their own citizens. they would use it against the strongholds of assad. i think the fact of the matter is that where those weapons of mass, it gives you -- it tells you who use them. all thethat, along with other evidence, all the intercepts and things we have seen and movement of personnel, leaves me no doubt that it was used and that the assad forces used it. >> thank you very much. >> on the next "washington journal," george mason university associate professor jeremy mayer joins us to discuss

the war powers act. the 20hat, a look at states across the country that have right to work laws with mark mix, the president of the national right to work legal defense foundation. he will discuss the impact of the laws on the unions and labor force. then a look at the 20 states across the country that have right to work laws. then service employee international union's president mary kay henry about the top issues facing labor unions and the workers they represent. we will also take your phone calls, tweets, and e-mails. that is "washington journal," >> joining us on "newsmakers," the president and ceo of the chamber of commerce, thomas donahue. he covered economic issues for the "washington post." i was talking with some folks on the hill about being on that

show. i said what should i ask him. he said ask him why it has become such a paper tiger. over the past couple of years, your priorities have not fared as well as the priorities of some of the more conservative, right-wing organizations like heritage and club for growth. we do not have immigration reform yet. we said we do not have infrastructure spending. can you talk about the transformation of the republican party and white seems to be so difficult to advance the interest? >> i do not agree with the argument that we are having difficulty. if you look at our record in the courts, if you look at our record which has a lot to do