allowing people to use that it is possible to modernize like that will stop very difficult. i'm surprised clip did not mention it because he wrote a whole book. thelso has to do with russians of size and the difficulty of administering and modernizing such a vast country. the challenge is quite big. >> he wrote the book of but he did not read it. [laughter] in the back? >> thank you very much. i lived in russia for seven years. i would like to ask about russia's future. peers seen on my -- my

and growing up in russia and i have noticed that basically if they are smart and if they are liberal, they try to leave the country. you mentioned silicon valley how russia is one of the languages. russians are very's bart -- are very smart but they are not looking to improve -- stay in their country because it is so shaky -- the legal system and so forth. then you see the other guys that are staying, nationalist and skinheads and people like that who are going to protest in beating up immigrants and stuff like that on the streets. they are not just of the streets, protesting and they are rising up and taking positions and government as well. that is just about the future of russia in its self. putin, the man is 61

years old and he is not going to be around very long. [laughter] >> we are all very old on this panel. [laughter] >> sorry about that. speaking as a member of the younger generation, i'm looking for to russia's future. i do not mean to offend anybody. just a russia's history, it has had a very difficult giving up our and when a leader leaves it is usually- not just handed over without a struggle. of people i a lot talk to and russia have feared what will happen. anyway, i would like to hear your thoughts on that.

>> to formulate that intake was in. plan?re a succession can the system operate without putin? -- to formulate that it way question. >> there's a system in place. in the moment, putin is at the had. he is balancing different interests and different groups. there radically, it is possible to have that system survived and somebody else at the head of it. depending on who it is the what kind of deal. that if atnot assume some point he decides to retire that his successor would run the country differently. to anticipate that things will change, it is a system. it is not dependent on one

person even though it looks as though it is from the outside. .> a slightly contrary view there's a system but it is like juggling knives and handing it over to somebody else is a little hard. [laughter] >> i disagree. it depends on one man will putin. it will not survive without him. does not balance interests, he plays them. he is not bouncing them because he believes he does to keep our deck keep our. without him no agreement could be reached among the really important people. -- he believes he does not need to keep them. all that breaks loose. that system will not survive without him. and by the way, there is no succession plan. that is the big weakness. everybody is right to worry about that.

>> there is no real institutional plan. if he gets run over by a truck tomorrow, there is no plan that goes into effect. instabilitye for after he disappears from the stage. he has written a lot about, would you like to talk about this? >> i also want to -- i have another question. [laughter] regarding -- [indiscernible] you have made points. i see a contradiction here. policyid american foreign- with russia and you do not know what to do. president did not

believe that putin was the guy he thought he was. [indiscernible] am annot understand putin it is his fault. he is a very simple guy was stop -- he is a very simple guy. his economy is much smaller. course real subjective kind of judgment. is, why has the policy failed every time? what happened this time? here?s wrong that is what my issue is. >> teacup about the issue and the system -- can you talk about the issue and the system?

>> it is a system designed for putin. agomber, a couple of years -- the system will collapse. do not bury me too early. do you have any successors that the beer challenger? for example, mr. -- on.e [laughter] [indiscernible] we started to laugh. with cliff. the system will not survive without putin. [laughter] thank you.

>> who was to take a first crack at that? >> what the u.s. is not very good at is putting ourselves in the position of the country or individuals we are dealing with and trying to the out how the world looks to them. we tend to approach the world as what we have done and thinking that more or less everybody will operate on similar lines. we fail to understand. the mistakes that were made very early under the clinton administration by ending the we could do a few things and russia was subtly began to develop like the united states. we need to a better job of how things are understood. very difficult to figure out exactly how the system works in russia. it is much easier to figure out how it works in this country because we are more transparent about this. saying we should go through this

exercise is a very tough exercise. another thing is we have a four- year election cycles. every time a president comes in, he is going to do something and you hope you can do it. therefore, you often raise expectations. it is too ambitious or not really appropriate for the difficulty of the task at hand. dylan with russia -- in dealing with russia -- you have to be meticulous and have a very long- term horizon to think you can achieve something. that is much more difficult. our system mitigates against it and the fact we do not have -- -- of course we have officers that are important to deal with other countries. we do not have the continuity and policymaking like you do in other systems where you do not have political appointees that

change all the time. those are a few. >> a quick mention. we might disagree on whether putin is anti-american will stop an anti-agree there is american tendency within the russian population which i think has not gone beyond the cold war. there's also probably the united states. you can look at certain parts of it has notciety and yet come to terms that the cold war is 20 years old. me go back to the medvedev act. the united states has every right to say we are not going to let the people connect with this merger in this country. and iou look at russia think russia has been going in the wrong direction in the last 10 years in terms of the democratic situation, there are dozens of countries around the world that have worse human record rights -- human rights

records. i think that is reflection of attitudes toward russia. also unfortunately, it undercuts the message that congress is trying to send. they are churned to send a message of our age and the abuse -- outrage and the abuse of medvedev. the way it was heard by most russians is you single us out. it is about anti-russian. determine our can policy choices. >> bodmer putin is just a single guy -- vladimir putin is just a single -- a simple guy. why don't we understand him? [laughter] >> i was hoping you would not answer me -- ask me that. obviously, people have very different opinions about him.

answers no bright, magic that need to be translated. to me, it is always why do we have strategy toward russia as a copper hand would understanding of who was the leader and how powerful they are? is to have at clearly defined long-term strategy which you can then react sometimes to unexpected events and also plan issues rather than having a summit based on a laundry list of issues. sometimes it there's an idea of this is what we want to achieve with this country in the long- term. and then steve said, it requires a great deal of patience. and we can therefore weather the ups and downs. when you do not have that kind of strategy, it is floundering about with people, many vested interests believing passionately

and their ideas and simply presenting without countervailing cents of cost- benefit. everybody has something they want to accomplish when it comes to russia. it is only when you are having to put this in the context of an ovl goal that you can say em i get it, i would like to see this happen. we should push this but i understand it might infringe upon a more important strategic interest. without that latter part of the phrase thomas everybody is piling on. -- everybody comes in. this in part a is very confusing from the russian side, what are you trying to stay -- say to us? everybody seems to have an equal voice in terms of the weight of their voice. it is the preponderance of how much they hear it. that's right now is the

situation we are in. i do not think it would make sense to have a summit until we could do it with a sense of what is the purpose of this? the overall strategy? >> here in front. >> i'm retired warned service officer who worked on soviet exchanges for many years. first and regard to the reference to silicon valley. years ago we brought an economist to the united states and he toured silicon valley and all the other hot spots and he said he is convinced that there has to be a secret that runs the system or it cannot work so well. [laughter] recognize that a new

generation is slowly but surely coming to power in russia. and this is a generation that knows the west and is free to travel and can by western books. and in time will be succeeding in the leadership. russia whether it goingin or kgb, they are to have to consider the new generation that is slowly but surely coming to power. -- what is to be done? much ofto remember that the changes that have taken place in the soviet union and now russia are the result of the exchanges between americans and russians. we have to do everything we can to encourage those exchanges. the other was will make the decisions of the problems we are

discussing today. >> ok. i am not sure i heard a question there so will continue. on the left. >> ok. meeting, whathe is next? so -- what is the u.s. going to do with the u.s.-russia relations what kind of measures is the u.s. going to take to relations inpush the direction that the country desires? thank you. >> maybe we can amend that by saying there is not much to accomplish. there is a drift in that from

the u.s. perspective, a huge problem. anything that needs to be accomplished, something like he is recommended need to be done or can we let it drift? >> i am sorry. i do not think it will trust in the sense we will still have talks between the defense, secretary of state and russian counterparts. still engage in conversations of cooperation on afghanistan, distribution route. there are discussions on counterterrorism. we have issues that we both face since the boston marathon bombing that has become more important. we will still be talking to russia about a variety of issues . was of a bilateral position that will continue to function. the expectation of achieving something on the highest level thatssile defense etc.,

ms. goldbach. of the issues where we would our viewsve achieved are too far apart. but it is adrift more back-and-forth relationship. >> fair enough. among things we are not making progress on, his urgency to change that dynamic -- is there urgency to change that dynamic? >> back in 2009, it seems to be arms control. the president would like to build on that. the russians at this point do not appear to be prepared. be ann, there seems to opportunity for the five plus one talks be more productive than the past several years.

the russians have no incentive to disrupt that was stop by the same token, we are not going to get the russians to crank out more prescient -- pressure on iran. afghanistan, the russians at the end of the day do not want to see the united states' nato fail. if it is a failure, it is a big problem much closer to russia than the united states. they were read by situation. -- they are worried about central asia. a few years ago, things were going to go forward. they do not require residential engagement at the white house concludes it is unlikely to produce it. >> ok. over here. >> thank you.

i have a question for cliff. you mentioned that economic strategies to make the country more robust. it seems he is doing very little to deal with the russian economy -- to tie the russian economy to the rest of the world. this is not a big market. a very poor market. it does not seem like it will add that much to russia. trying -- if you try to make a moral bust or making a step -- if he tried to make it more robust or he will not do a lot to change the status quo either? >> there is no easy answer for him to make himself robust in today's world. i do not think he sees and i do not think it is true that marketn union is a small

especially the ukraine. without the ukraine, it is kind of meaningless. that explains part of his fierce effort to force the you current -- the ukraine to choose. gas, in my opinion, very common misperception somehow that russia is a liability and it would be better off in diverse find out of oil and gas will stop -- gasp. i do not think it is true. -- gas. -- i do not think is true. they can stop producing get but you will be very for -- or but you would not be reliant on the outside world. it allows you to make yourself independent from the international lenders and everybody else in the prosperity

and the wealth comes from oil and gas. there are ways of dealing with liability, it is volatile. try to deal with that without building up reserve funds. there is a way of dealing with it. there's a way of dealing with on the production side which is to share the risk with other entities, other investors other than your domestic companies and your own state. that means inviting in foreign producers who would share part of the risk of big projects. we ran into a problem there that yes that solves part of the risk problem of being a big oil and gas producer but you are now expose yourself to the globalization of phenomenon of having international companies, a lot operating inside of russia. not just because they will still

be are well or that sort of thing and all of the medals. wealth or that sort of thing. the younger class and we do not treat it as a question. , the st. friend petersburg race -- graduate. they are the ones who are the potential to link up the global economy and introduce these ideas and translate these into the russian context. aber present something that is the future. that again leads us to the limit that putin wants, he wants very little of that. way, he hasf the these dilemmas. there is no black and white here. diversify awayly from oil and gas as a practical

economic issue, that is not possible. how to commit to oil and gas admin short will replace the reserves -- and make sure we replace reserves economic ourselves vulnerable? i do not think he can make himself isolated from the world economy. right now, we are going to try and make ourselves more robust than we probably did leading up 2008 crisis when we over estimate like everybody else in the world the likelihood this poem would continue. -- boom would continue. >> here in front. >> ken meyer. how is her insistence in syria

-- how is there resistance is syria? -- >> it feelske like a loaded question. >> i do not have a good answer. obstructionist -- sense of obstructionist? >> admitted to u.s. policy which is simply from the u.s. perspective not intended to be -- i take your point. it is in the eye of the beholder. we have time for one more question will stop -- question. >> [indiscernible] -- back to the other side.

imagine that american strikes in syria happened before the g-8 summit. >> the g 20. you mean the g 20? >> yes, i am sorry. the g 20 summit will stop -- summit. can somebody imagine the humiliation mr. putin can postpone this summit? by saying iart doubt it because it is g-20. he may not like what u.s., britain, and france are involved in. i doubt he would counsel the summit. summit.l the insult the other

leaders. withw does he interact other leaders if there's a military strike against syria? i do not know the answer to that. it'll be interesting to see. that somebody good opening for the next brookings event. thus give a round of applause to our speakers. [applause] a look at the week ahead for president obama include his visit to st. petersburg, russia for the g 20 summit. on wednesday, he will travel to sweden where he would take place in a series of events including meetings with the prime minister and the country skiing the queen . from sweden he will head to st. petersburg for the g 20 summit. he will remain there for one night before returning to the white house late friday evening. of the look for coverage

trip overseas and our programming schedule throughout the week online at www.c- span.org. >> the media is clearly a dominant -- increasingly dominant criteria for every first lady. biographical, human stories which are not limited to the 19th century are 20th century. indoor --these people endure and prevail in the very rough world of politics. >> historian richard norton smith with season two of the first lady series. featuring 21st ladies. looking at their private lives. monday night at 9:00 eastern.

>> on the cap next, -- coming up next, brad roberts talks about nuclear deterrence and u.s. strategies toward northeast asia. the threat and modernization of child's arsenal and nuclear deterrence and other allies in the region hosted by the stimson center. this about 90 minutes. >> good morning, everybody will stop i'm delighted to welcome you to this event on monday morning. we are delighted to see all of you for discussion on a very important international security topic. extended deterrence and strategic stability in northeast asia. we are delighted to welcome brad roberts who has finished long

towards working with this issues as the deputy assistant and two is just back from a long visit in japan talking with the japanese about their views and extended deterrence. i know his remarks today will be focused in part on his research in japan but also more broadly how the u.s. looks at these issues for all of its present engagements. i am very happy to turn the expert atur lead stimson and part of our east asian program. i hope it will have a discussion that will illuminate some of the issues on the minds of our japanese allies and more broadly be about american asian interest on these topics. welcome, brag. -- brad. >> good morning antiwhite for coming -- and thank you for

coming. he will be talking by extended the terms and asia was the -- extended difference in asia. as many of you may know, japan is in the middle of reviving its national defense guidelines which is a five-year document they were new every five years or so. , thewhen he was in japan ministry was finishing up the interim report. i do not know if he had any of the content that went in their but i am sure he burbles a lot of thinking on the policymakers. they are speaking through these issues. dr. roberts does not need much of a introduction. yet the program material. he came back from a six week assignment as a visiting fellow.

affiliated with the minister japan and spring of 2013. dr. roberts served in the obama and recession as deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy. after the end, the conclusion of his fellowship at national institute for defense studies, he wrote the paper of the extended deterrence and the contents of northeast asia strategic environment. many of you might have picked up a copy of front when you signed and. -- in. for those who do not have copies, we will provide a link to his paper after the event along with a summary and the videos of this event as a whole was stopped dr. roberts will speak. he did take as much time or as brief time he wants on this

topic. i will open the floor of the questions after that stop -- after that. want to thank you for the opportunity for being here and making the time on a monday morning to be here for this discussion. i will try to set out remarks get theinutes or so to conversation going. i would like to make it clear i speak for myself and i do not present the administration anymore and i'm not here to see for the government of japan. the views are my own. i which are not torture these it -- attribute it to others. begins from administration perspective. guidanceeceived clear from the president to highlight issues of extended deterrence and assurance in our overall began thend when we review with extensive international consultations.

we began with consideration of lessons learned from prior npr' s. there have had been too little opportunity for stakeholders in nuclear strategy to express her views to the prior administrations, so we supposed by the secretary -- the office of the secretary of defense and the state department to lead consultations on npr. the npr -- this directed the npr in many useful ways. we, the united states, have a about the kinds of decisions and the united states make in the area of nuclear policy and capabilities. most eagercountry's to seize the opportunity was japan. often tocame early and

the state dod process and to my office. and this was have breaking kind of activity from the perspective of both countries. it had been a longtime since the united states has spoken with its allies outside of europe about these issues and follow-up more.nnot say it any the obama administration began sustained dialogues with a number of allies in order to carry on the spirit of dialogue that had begun on the npr. we established within the european context we took the deterrence review in the persian gulf area and we took a number of bilateral issues and existing

dialogue processes. the need to institutionalize some new processes. and so with the republic of korea we institutionalize the extent of deterrence policy committee. with japan on monday extended deterrence dialogue. these are official dialogues side andn the u.s. they serve to -- three primary functions. needirst is to ensure the of transparency about policy and the thinking behind it. as it develops in both countries. a second purpose is to think through together some common emerging challenges of deterrence. is to give purpose our allies the opportunity for firsthand, hands-on experience of the deterrence capabilities

that the united states contributes. for example in the context of the extended deterrence dialogue , the united states and japan have visit strategic demand a look at the planning capabilities and visited an airbase and a naval base where ballistic submarines are located. informativen highly to the japanese side to understand the kinds of capabilities and investments the united states has made japan's security in this regard. the president also put a focus on strategic stability. we were asked to carry out the npr enhancing stability even as we take steps to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. this process a sense of produces a set of challenges.

cases, would've is possible for the united states and its allies to partner to develop improved capability for the extended deterrence challenge in a manner that does not jeopardize. particularause in the ballistic missile defenses are relevant to the regional chains just challenges -- challenges. with china would propose a and thaton stability has not happened. so far. a very important point to make as an opening point is because it is sensitive in the u.s.- japan relationship and in every single relationship with the allies as it is domestically in the united states.

the point is if we are cutting all of this emphasis on extended deterrence and strategic stability with major powers thomas how can we and our nuclear policy how can we also proliferation and take practical steps toward long-term goal of disarmament? in the case of east asia, the answer is fairly simple. if we the united states were to fail in the project of ensuring our allies and determine north korea this surely there will be no proliferation pressures. there would not be further progress. it will be steps away from disarmament. similarly if or to fail at the ,roject of stability with china we are not going to have china sooner later joining in the reductions process and greater

stability and the u.s.-china relationship and greater cooperation and disarmament but something in the other direction. this a few strongly held in the japanese community that thinks about nuclear issues. the credibility of extended deterrence and strategic stability is essential to grading conditions that allows us to make further progress in a practical way toward long-term goals. the paper that i was asked to write which left copies of and which is written primarily for the japanese audience to be appear inwill shortly japanese translation on a website. it is a view of strategic stability in northeast asia from the perspective of the u.s.- japan alliance. purpose wasincipal

to shift the thinking of the u.s.-japanese communities working on these questions on to the next set of questions. after four years of dialogue between us at the official level, there was a desire to bring greater clarity to the merchant analytic agenda in a way that would motivate additional research and analysis from the analytic community. transpacific debate and additional discussion with china and perhaps the rok and other stakeholders. the paper begins with a reflection of the view that has emerged -- perhaps i should only speak for myself. my view of the deterrence challenges in northeast asia

environment as a result of changing factors there. the changing factors are simply 2. the fact that north korea is making steady progress towards developing and applying the capabilities that could deliver nuclear weapons onto u.s. allies in the region and ultimately onto the united states as well. this raises a series of familiar to those will study the cold war, familiar questions about coupling and decoupling and if america will be there or blackmailed away any time of crisis? the other significant development is of course the change in china's military posture in the development of anti-access areas. modernization program in china including a nuclear component but not principally nuclear that

is changing the overall balance of force. and raising questions again about is america going to be there or blackmailed away by the risks it would run and defending japan in a time of crisis? in my analysis, this brings century challenges which are set out in the paper. the first is the very high challenge of determining nuclear attack on the united states from an ally. spectrum,the conflict the lower end which is referred coercion, zone, think implicit threats but do not war. the third is in the middle of

this conflict spectrum. shapechallenge -- taking of in the time of war, north trying toaps china, determine how much leverage it has gotten out of this new capabilities and coercing us and making explicit nuclear threats and perhaps taking actions that it calculates follow but need -- fall but need our threshold. these are three types of challenges. end is the most- familiar to people who left out about nuclear deterrence. the two lower end ones are largely incognito to a lot of people. that's an opportunity. up paper then goes on to set a strategy that the

administration has and to emphasize the point that i inc. it is a strategy that enjoys bipartisan support in the early 1990's. to extend deterrence of states like north korea and iran by diversifying our military toolkit with all of the things that add value and supplement the nuclear component. coverage will strike capabilities, advanced resilience and space. a comprehensive strategy for dealing with these deterrence challenges in these regions which would be silly and perhaps unwise but certainly politically impossible. july simply only u.s. nuclear threats. administration try to pursue a broad, comprehensive approach and if you take a view of your response to the emerging

deterrence challenges, this a strategy that provides many opportunities are allies to contribute meaningful to extend deterrence and meaningfully to the credibility of u.s. commitments. the paper sets out a number of arguments about where japan is contributing. looking ahead was the core function of the paper. i highlighted or issues that will be the subject of continuing discussion within japan and the united states and between us and among all the other stakeholders. and south korea and china perhaps on some of these issues russia. conventional strike capabilities for japan. said, our cupboards of

strategy talks about introducing -- copperheads and strategy talks about strike capabilities as a way to add credibility to our threat to strike preemptively. it raise a logical question about what you allies contribute to conventional airstrike keep abilities? it is not obvious to get government generally -- u.s. government generally. the united states has approximately 40 allies and of those, approximately a dozen have strike capabilities. ballistic missiles of some kind. the majority do not. should japan be in that category is too many close followers of japan a new issue

raised by the new leadership. it is not a new issue in japan was stop they have been debating adding conventional strike capabilities of some kind since the 1950's. and of course, there was significant negative repercussions from among its neighbors. there will be a domestic political debate about how consistent it is within the constitution. and there should also be a debate about what would or would not contribute to turn. i am not here to take a position. this is coming onto our agenda we should bring to debate in a serious and thoughtful way. topic, missile defense. how much is enough for japan? japan is probably the most important missile defense

partner of the united states. we have important part is a europe as well and the middle east, but with japan -- in the joyse of my time, it was a to them to set after four years of thinking about nothing for longer than 30 minutes and the pentagon because that is the way life is. andit and read and reflect will the interesting reports i cam across was from a permit american it -- a prominent american ink tank -- think tank. the projected it would be decades before japan got serious and the defense missile. we are jointly operating defense capabilities and developing an advanced interceptor. a very close and productive relationship from the u.s. perspective.

we, the obama admin session him a try to set a arguments about how much is enough for america -- obama administration am a try to set a arguments about how much is enough for america? japan does not have a set of analytic answers. heart of that is -- part of that is the next of questions involve is missile defense about china or not? a much more citizens question from whether not missile defense is adequately composed to deal with the north korean. this is not an issue requiring an urgent answer. on a number ofke questions in this area, whether japan should consider capabilities and whether it should consider short capabilities such as the united states will the ploy with its nato allies.

there are important questions embedded in the process. doesdvanced interceptor not become available until late in the decade so there is time to work these questions. , which i shorthand nuclear required of united states in northeast asia? let me set the context. in fact copperheads of strategy -- comprehensive strategy with all of those different elements, we argued there will always remain a nuclear component as long as there is a nuclear threat that we are trying to deter. pr argued we will tailor it to the particular requirements of the individual regions where we extend nuclear guarantees on behalf of allies because what my

mixes in the european context might make sense of where else. the approach of these to be tailored. policyored both nuclear and posture capabilities. closeing a very consultations with the government in japan among others. i can review in the discussion what those adaptations were that followed in the tailoring. the very high level of strategic question is is that enough tailoring or do we need more? whoe are analysts in japan have various ideas about how to strengthen the credibility of the u.s. nuclear commitment. course, there are some individuals advocating for

japanese acquiring capabilities of its own, my way to organize conceptually was to say i think there are four simple map -- models and we should be talking through. strengths ande weaknesses are from the perspective of japanese security. first is the current model. on the commitment of the united states to employ strategic forces whenever needed and of the ability to deploy nonstrategic weapons, all nuclear weapons are strategic. not to deployed, the capability to for deployed in the time of crisis as a way to signal to stand up to some particular acts

of nuclear bullying. model, would be to go back to the cold war, east asian model. a lot of u.s. nuclear weapons in asia that were deployed on the ground in south korea and the board naval and attack submarines. at the end of the cold war in the context of the initiatives of the early 1990's, these are all withdrawn and mostly retired and dismantled. one option would be to go back to that. third would be to adopt the which isato posture essentially a heavy reliance on the u.s. and the british and --nch strategic determinants

deterrence. the unique nato sharing arrangements where a handful of allies participate with the united states and preparing for the possible deployment of nuclear weapons by stationing on their territory aircraft capable of delivering. model because of these will be joint operations conducted by nato, it is supported by a joint planning process and a ministerial level body. today the nuclear planning group has one function which is to enable nato to a discussion about nuclear policy without the french minister. [laughter] because lafrentz rejoined nato, it did not rejoin -- when france rejoin nato on it did not rejoin the nuclear. it has a lot of appeal in japan

and south korea as well. it is natural that america's allies would want to know if there were ever a moment when the american president was considering nuclear the plummet on their behalf, they would want to know. where is my seat at the table? what is the consultant a process that will allow me to somehow shape this really big deal decision? the nato model looks alluring from afar. but then what is the analog to the french minister in japan relationship? who is the party that needs to be excused? what you need a special mechanism? they are ready able to talk by any issue that on the bilateral agenda. that's the third model. is one wheredel

the u.s. -- the model that's presented by the independent national deterrence of the united kingdom and france which is not really a model of the u.s. extending deterrence to them. it is a different model but it is also as a model, it has some very clear distinctions from the current practice. tryase was rather than individual proposals for taking this step to strengthen deterrence or reduce nuclear, let's talk to dennis allies. together as allies. the fourth and final issue is strategic stability with china, what does it mean and how do we get it? the obama administration set out a commitment to strategic stability in the relationship

without adding content to what that might require. it was a calculated decision intended to great incentive for china to finally join an official dialogue with the united states on issues of nuclear deterrence and strategy. administratione keenly aware of a long track -- each ofssentially the three preceding president of the united states having achieved an agreement with their chinese counterparts to initiate a dialogue on nuclear weapons issues. and essentially nothing happened. unsatisfying answer politically, particularly if your ambition as a president is to reduce nuclear. if it is to try and reduce the

role of nuclear weapons in the north east asian environment, china needs to be a part of these processes not a bystander and not a party that is building up a decrease in the role of nuclear weapons while everybody is building down and stop -- building down. , oh by the way, what you mean by strategic stability? do you mean what you meant historically with the u.s.- russia relationship? we have accepted the mutual vulnerability that is the basis of the strategic relationship and we are not contesting the capability a russia's deterrent. will not see any value in doing so maybe since 1950's. willovernment of china most likely hear the united states say it except neutral von

ability as the basis of the strategic relationship. that is not the japan wants to hear. go back to the earlier point about coupling and decoupling the cold war thinking about how alliances work.

after that, a look at the 20 states across the u.s. that have right to work laws with mark mix president of the legal defense foundation discussing the impact of those laws on unions and the labor force. and then service employees international union mary kay henry will talk about the top issues facing labor unions and the workers represented it will take your phone calls and share the days latest news headlines. on "washington journal" live every day here on c-span. >> i think you have to unplug. i think it is good to be analog sometime. i think it is very hard. i think one of the unintended

unfortunate consequences of texting and instant messaging and social networking and e-mail is that it is very hard to be .ff the grid, out of touch sometimes that means it is hard to find a big enough chunk of time to just think or just relax and all of those things i think are important for your health and also the quality of your work. i think it is up to people to try to figure out a way to unplug or mostly unplug, at least, for periods of time. >> in part two of our conversation, the wall street journal's walt mossberg, more about the future personal technology. on c-span two. books menay, un's spoke with reporters about the

u.n. team that was recently in syria investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons. he also talked about the status of the report outlining the findings. this is about half an hour. good morning, everyone. the secretary-general held a telephone call today with dr. ake sellstrom, head of the united nations mission to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the syrian arab republic. dr. sellstrom, who has just returned to the hague with the rest of his expert team after work in syria from the 19th to the 31st of august, briefed the secretary-general on the next stages of the investigation process. all preparations for classifying the samples are progressing well. samples will begin to be

transferred to laboratories tomorrow. dr. sellstrom told the secretary-general that two syrian officials were observing the process. the whole process will be done strictly adhering to the highest established standards of verification recognized by the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons. in light of the horrendous magnitude of the 21st of august incident in the ghouta area of damascus, the secretary-general asked dr. sellstrom to expedite the mission's analysis of the samples and information it had obtained without jeopardizing the scientific timelines required for accurate analysis and to report the results to him as soon as possible. they discussed ways to further accelerate the process. the secretary-general personally thanked professor sellstrom for his undertaking and for the performance of the team while in syria in spite of the difficult and dangerous circumstances.

and i just wanted to update you a little on the humanitarian picture in syria. 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 3 million people with food aid in august and last week it dispatched 2,000 emergency ready-to-eat rations for 10,000 people in latakia. in aleppo, where fighting and the spike in prices are leading to food shortages, the program sought to feed more than 350,000 people in august. in the first seven months of this year the world health organization has coordinated the provision of assistance to 3.7 million people in syria. the u.n. children's fund unicef has reached more than 180,000 uprooted children with health support in clinics and it has also helped more than 10 million people in syria access drinking water and for its part, the u.n.

refugee agency 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 neighboring countries receiving assistance. i would also advise you that the secretary-general spoke this morning with the foreign minister of france, mr. fabius, and he will continue to stay in touch with world leaders in the days to come. yes? >> [inaudible]

>> at this point, to answer your second question first, at this point i'm not aware of any full security council meeting as you will be aware. the secretary-general did speak to the permanent members of the security council already. he intends to speak to the nonpermanent members of the security council in the days to come. i think that will probably be on tuesday. we can give you more details as we get closer to that. with regard to your first question, i would simply say that the secretary-general took note of the announcement by president obama yesterday on the referral to congress. i can tell you he regards it 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 circumstances and there should

be no impunity and any perpetrators of such a horrific crime against humanity must be held accountable. the u.n. investigation mission should be given an opportunity to succeed. the secretary-general applauds the bravery of the team of u.n. experts who undertook the on- site fact-finding activities despite grave security risks. finally, the secretary-general reiterates the primary role of the security council in maintaining and restoring international peace and security, including in any case where the use of chemical weapons is established. as such. he believes the council should stand firm and united in agreeing on measures in response to any use of chemical weapons. yes, pam? >> does the secretary-general plan to meet with either president obama or president putin at the g 20 and will syria be on the agenda? just a separate, will dr. sellstrom be on the return trip to syria?

>> on the g 20, needless to say, syria is likely to figure rather prominently in any discussions, in addition to all the discussions about the global economy, sustainable development and the other topics which would ordinarily be discussed there. at this point, i cannot say precisely with whom the secretary-general will be meeting, but of course there will will be gathered there in st. petersburg the major leaders from the major countries of the world, industrialized economies of the world. we will keep you posted as we get closer to that. i don't have any set itinerary at this point. yes? well, we have said that the team has given an undertaking to return. we have not said when and we have not said precisely what the composition of that team will be. >> two short questions.

you mentioned two syrian officials accompanying the samples to assure the safety of the samples. why aren't the two officials from oppositions? secondly, you mentioned that the sg is encouraging sellstrom to get these results as soon as possible without jeopardizing the credibility of the tests. do you see a feasibility that this timeline will coincide with congress voting in the first week of september that with the emergence of evidence - >> i beg your pardon. i forgot to remind you about the microphone. >> sorry, thank you. first question is, there are two syrian officials, but you didn't mention the two syrian rebels, or opposition officials watching

out for the credibility of the samples. the second one, now that he is asking sellstrom to expedite the results, do you see a feasibility that there is a convergence of evidence in the first week of september? is that a possibility, while the congress is making its decision, that we have the results from the united nations? >> well, i wouldn't speculate on that latter part of your question. i would simply reiterate what we said. the united nations mission is uniquely capable of establishing in a partially credible manner the use of chemical weapons based on evidence collected 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 earlier on and you picked up on it that the secretary-general discussed with dr. sellstrom ways to accelerate

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

>> the secretary-general has indicated that the security council members should be united on that and that no unilateral action can be taken against syria. >> don't put words into his mouth. >> but that is what he implies. >> just listen to what i said, ok? >> yesterday, he addressed the secretary-general in a letter, asking him to use his office as a guardian of the charter in order to prevent unilateral action against this 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 have already said on numerous occasions and the secretary-

general has said equally often. that is that he would underscore the importance of the charter and as i just said, the secretary-general reiterates the primary role of the security council in maintaining and restoring international peace and security. yes? >> it has been 10 days since the attacks. the u.s. has already put out the results of its blood and tissue samples. are you confident you can match the timing? >> let me just repeat what i just said. we are not specifying a timeline. we are simply saying that 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. just to answer your point, when you said that the u.s. has announced the results of its evidence, let me just repeat that the united nations mission is uniquely capable of establishing, in an impartial and credible manner, the facts of any use of chemical weapons based directly on evidence collected on the grounds. that relates to chain of custody. james. >> the secretary-general said he might be briefing the security council once he had heard from the lab. it doesn't appear to have happened. does he intend to give the p5 any further details about the progress in the forthcoming week? 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 have just said that in addition to the discussion with the permanent five members, the secretary-general intends to speak to the nonpermanent 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. the secretary-general is seeking to reach out to the member states and this is part of that process. >> he was very specific in austria that he would be briefing -- he was inaccurate then. >> no, it was not inaccurate. he has said he was willing and ready to brief the security council. it is for the security council to invite him to brief them. james. >> we know about the problem with the shooting incident on the ground when they were in syria. were there any other problems, because secretary of state john kerry when he spoke on friday said when the human inspectors finally gained access, that access as we now know was restricted and controlled. did professor sellstrom report that that was the case?

>> i can already say, regardless of what the secretary-general and dr. sellstrom discussed this morning, that while in the country the mission was able to access all locations it had identified as priority sites. it was able to conduct the fact- finding activities it deemed necessary. the mission did have to overcome serious safety concerns and as you just mentioned on one occasion while traveling, the mission came under fire by unknown assailants in a buffer area. >> yes, matthew? >> this morning, as i'm sure you saw, secretary kerry said. specifically talked about blood and hair samples. what i wanted to understand was your answer said that the u.n. is uniquely qualified, capable. they obviously believe that their lab has moved pretty quickly on this. what i wanted to know is that i understand if it is only in their custody, and it doesn't

have the credibility - does their pacing indicate that their lab work is less credible? have they shared their evidence with the u.n. as the secretary- general requested? yesterday president obama said, "i am confident in the case our government has made without waiting for u.n. inspectors. i'm comfortable going forward without the approval of the security council. what does the secretary-general say to a member state ignoring this uniquely capable entity and announcing the results that mr. kerry did? >> i've already characterized the secretary-general's thoughts on that last part of your question. i don't intend to go back over that. i also can simply -- all i can do is repeat what i've already said, that the united nations mission is uniquely capable of establishing in an impartial and credible manner the facts of any use of chemical weapons based directly on evidence collected from the ground. >> has the u.s. shared any of this evidence as described with

the u.n.? >> as we repeatedly said, member states are encouraged to share information they may have with regard to alleged incidents. yes? >> bonino, the italian foreign minister, said repeatedly that any outside intervention in the syrian -- by any power, unless it happens under the umbrella of the united nations is likely to trigger a major conflict, perhaps even a world war. is this the u.n. view? >> i don't really want to comment on every individual politician's and minister's comments on this around the world. we have repeatedly said that

there must be a political solution to this crisis, that ultimately -- a military solution is not an option. at some point there will need to be a political solution and the sooner that that can happen, the better. >> syrian opposition, they are not part of the observers monitoring the process as per guidelines that specify what the mechanism should be. that guideline was as agreed with cain and the syrian government, is that correct? >> the secretary-general's mechanism has 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 chemical weapons. >> can i just follow? >> you can when she has finished her second question. >> when you say member states are encouraged to share information, has the u.s. shared information as secretary kerry was mentioning on nbc? >> that i do not know. i would simply say member states are encouraged to provide information that they may have. that is actually an important distinction. >> just to follow up. i don't know who put these guidelines, but logic states that if two parties have a major stake in finding out which one of them has used a chemical weapon, 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 of the major state. since the united nations does

not represent the opposition, shouldn't there have been, whoever put these guidelines, and we don't know so far, has taken account of this? >> the secretary-general's mechanism is something that as i mentioned yesterday derives from a general assembly resolution, later adhered to and ratified by the security council. in any case, i don't need to tell you, being an expert in the region, that there isn't just one opposition group. i'm not quite sure how you decide who would tag along. i would leave it there. please? microphone, please. >> you said that the secretary- general condemns these chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstance. several months ago the russian federation submitted an 80-page report on the incident at khan al-assal to the secretary- general and to the p5 with 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 of war and peace? according to yesterday's "huffington post," even u.s. intelligence officials have talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack - >> i get the point, so what is your question? >> why is this information not being made available? >> i think as far as i understand it, the document which was submitted by the russian federation is for the russian federation to make available to member states if they wish to have it. that's the first thing. the second thing that we have repeatedly said, and i mentioned it yesterday, that the chemical

weapons investigation team is carrying out its investigation into this 21st of august incident as a priority given the international community's evident and obvious 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 khan al-assal. when it comes to a report that will encompass all of the allegations, this part will be addressed. yes? >> going back to the briefing timeline, the p5 who you spoken to this friday, is there no invitation from any of those interested parties to hear again from him? secondly, do you anticipate any

further briefings during this week and what would they be on? >> bear in mind the secretary- general is traveling to st. petersburg, but there are other officials, of course, within the department of political affairs, office for disarmament affairs who can brief the council should they so wish. >> have they not issued an invitation? >> you have to ask the council which as of today is speaking to the australian permit mission, if i'm not mistaken. >> do you anticipate any further briefings on the content? >> it would be a little unusual to say what the content of a briefing would be if we don't know when the briefing is going to be or if indeed there is going to be one. but simply to say -- >> tuesday, you mentioned. >> that is a meeting with the nonpermanent 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.

there are other ways to be able to reach out to member states and i think at some point it should be possible to elaborate on that. also, i think these briefings are intended to help to explain to international community what the secretary-general is doing and his interaction with the team and with the high representative at disarmament affairs, for example. >> he was supposed to talk to them after. i was just trying to work out why that change occurred. >> the secretary-general has made clear that he is available and ready and willing to brief the security council. but it is obvious and everybody knows that, but it is for the council to invite him to brief. at this point not to my knowledge. as i also said yesterday, the secretary-general has reached

out to the permanent representative of argentina who obviously was the president of the council last august and has also spoken to the australian permanent representative who as of today, the lucky man, is president of the council. could you give an update about the logistics and timing, or would it be -- >> should there be more information -- for example, i did tell you today if you were paying attention that the samples would start to be delivered to laboratories tomorrow. that is something i didn't say yesterday. so i am trying to help here. >> when is the sg leaving new york? >> tuesday. >> has russia shared any

information about the recent incidents in ghouta? russia said this is a fabricated incident, etc. have they shared any of their information with the sg or with the u.n.? >> i'm not aware of any such interaction along the lines you suggested, no. >> this will be the last question at the back, ok. you mentioned that any use of chemical weapons will be held accountable. in which way -- what punishment will you establish? if it was to be found that somebody used chemical weapons over the punishment? >> would we find out who did it? how will that play out at the end of the day, if it was found that somebody used them and then you want to hold that person or that country accountable? how would that work?

>> as i said, the security council has a primary role in such matters, in maintaining and restoring international peace and security, including, in any case, where chemical weapons have been used. therefore, it would be for the security council to determine. the secretary-general is simply saying the council should stand firm and united in agreeing on measures in response to any use of chemical weapons. of course, it would be for the council itself to decide on any such measures should it come to that point. >> would they then, have to find out who used them? >> i'm not going to prejudge what the council may or may not do. >> yes, matthew. very last question, ok? i'm being extra generous on a sunday. >> first, i just wanted to ask two connected questions. whether germany did land a plane. >> yes, they did. >> there's an article in today's

"new york times." it's the sunday at home with the secretary-general. i want to ask you directly. there was a section about golf that says he likes to go golfing. he doesn't have a membership, but he golfs with the ambassador of korea. what would you say to those that say this in some degree undercuts the idea of impartiality, etc. >> i would say it is complete nonsense because he secretary- general didn't mention that he plays golf with many other permanent members of the security council. he has played with others, for example the united kingdom. he plays golf with any number of people and i don't see anything wrong with that. you supply the clubs, i'm sure he'll play. thanks very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013] [indiscernible] >> lawmakers met behind closed doors yesterday with officials from the white house, state department and pentagon to discuss the possibility of u.s. military intervention in the syrian conflict. at the meeting's conclusion, several lawmakers stop to speak

with reporters about the issue. here's some of what was said. i am catching another plane. i am congresswoman janice hahn think mostrnia and i members of congress will have said that it is pretty obvious that chemical weapons were used. currently that is abhorrent to the entire international community. i think members of congress were divided in terms of what does that mean. war?is a reason to go to what is the objective of going to war? what authorization are we giving our president? i think there was a lot of concern in the room. there were a lot of good questions. members of congress that came back here today are taking this very seriously, are very

concerned, and are asking a lot of hard questions, probably some questions that were not asked 10 years ago when we invaded. i took the redeye last night from los angeles. i left los angeles at 10:40 p.m.. i am taking this very seriously to. i want to see the classified documents. we got a classified briefing. the case is trying to be made to that this is chemical weapons put our national security at risk. you? are you there yet? >> i'm not there yet. >> how would you define? >> i feel terrible about the chemical weapons that are been used. however we know that they have been used in other instances and we did not take military action. hoping to find an answer to the question, is there another

aside accountable? this is what the international community wants to do. we want to hold them accountable, we want there to be some onto crisis. what is that? is that just going to war? is that bombing and killing more people? i am not there yet. --if the vote was hold today your vote was held today, do you think it would pass? >> that is a very good question. -- or is anumber limited number of congress are today. >> i would not vote for it today. that we are going to, i am hoping the president can get more international support on tuesday. i think a lot of us are concerned where the international community is. if this is such an outrage if this is so abhorrent to every one where is the outrage? i'm going to spend a week training and i hope the people of america will pray for the leaders that

we will have the kind of wisdom. this is a very serious debt that we will be taking which i think will have consequences either way. i think we need to be prepared for that and i am taking it very seriously and i hope to ask god to give us the wisdom we need. thank you. >> there's a great deal of skepticism in the room about the utility effectiveness and support that we would have for the kind of strike that the president has proposed. there is not a lot of skepticism, frankly, about whether or not this was an attack carried out to the syrian regime. proven,thing has been the bulk of the evidence suggests and shows that this was

an attack carried out by the assad regime. i can't comment on that. >> which way are you leaning? >> i am still very skeptical about the president's proposal. it is not clear to me that we know what the results of this attack will be, meaning will it be effective? it is not clear to me what response might the undertaken by iran, by the syrians against israel, against us. it is not clear that we have got any really international support. i think most of us agree that in limited circumstances military responses are ok, provided that we have significant international support. >> what about the fact that this is a big, important legacy vote for the president waiting on you? >> that is certainly a consideration, but i think in lot room today there was a of memories over another time when a president came and said, or at least he presidents people

came and said this is slamdunk intelligence and of course that was an episode that i don't think most numbers would want to repeat what i do think that most members are thinking more about the merits of the proposal rather than the political consequences for the president. >> if you devote today how would you vote? >> on today's resolution i would vote no. >> do you think president needs to come here and brief the congress a classified setting? >> personally know heard i think congress and the last 10 days for intimately with intelligence. i think the president's preference is not relative to us -- the president's presence is not necessary for us to understand. experts say that it is the likely results of an attack. what we need to know is if we have any support internationally. obviously, those of us in looking at what the house of commons sit in the uk with trepidation. there are a lot of questions. i have to run and catch a flight. >> thank you.

>> first of all, i am very pleased that the president decided to ask the congress for its approval here. i think we are at a very in not only our nation's history but in world history. that it's the case that we are looking at is going to be probably one of the most complex for members of congress to resolve. questionsa lot of

come of course i will not talk about what went on in that room, but there are a number of questions that have to be resolved. i think senator kerry this chemicalalked about weapons being used and i think the -- i expect that administration will probably be able to show that. but beyond that, the question is , i think a lot of people, and my constituents -- i attended church of 10,000 and most of those people i say the average education is about four years of college. i don't think many of our constituents understand the full significance of chemical and biological warfare. that is something that the president has got to spend some time explaining the significance of that and why it is off-limits with regard to 98% of the world.

carefulk we have to be that the administration is not talking above people's heads when they don't understand the basics. another thing that i think we want to know, and my constituents have asked over and is what is the relationship to the united states? in other words, is a threat? a lot of this comes with the weary.und of being war am.le are concerned, as i there's another issue that we are concerned about, i am concerned about the possible unintended consequences. place incongress is in an interesting position because if we don't vote for the resolution, how much is assad

strengthen? >> if you had to vote today would it be yes or no? >> honestly, i cannot say. i've got to have a lot of questions answered. i must admit that some of them were answered here today, but there are a lot more questions that have to be answered. recs are you comfortable with the way the legislation is written? >> not yet. -- is, we've got think the draft resolution is very broad. i think one of the concerns in the past has been whether these types of resolutions are too broad. tohink that when it comes , the president has said that this effort would be limited in scope and duration.

i don't know exactly whether the resolution is that limited her make af you had to decision, what is it that you still need to know? exactly whatknow the game plan is after this. in other words, let's assume we do the limited strike. how will the strike lead to, as the resolution says, to a diplomatic resolution to this issue? another thing i'm concerned about is what happens, i need to know, what happens if we don't approve it? a lot of people are concentrating on approving it at what happens if we don't? is assad's hand strengthened? let's say we don't approve it.

assad does something else, does that mean we come back and start this all over again? those are the kinds of issues that i want to have some answers to. i think the administration is going to work for a hard over the next week to provide those answers. --are you satisfied that it that the administration will respect the wishes of congress? rexam pretty sure they will, but i don't know. what did we know before the chemical weapons attacks? >> i am not going there. i'm not getting into trouble. generally that it was helpful. but there are a lot more questions that i have to have answered. >> with regard to the scope of the authorization language, you or do you be narrowed want the mission to be narrow? >> let me put it like this. once we get all the information

that we need, and again this is a good start and a very important start, but once you get all the information, then we can determine how narrow it should be. as far as i'm concerned when i look at it now it is pretty wide open. >> where are you right now? are you a yes or no? >> i am a yes. >> why? assessess. government with high confidence that the syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack. the briefing here, i think, spells that out. it comes from multiple sources. essentially the syrian government engaged across the red line. it is a red line that began to be drawn 100 years ago. it is not only a red line the

president has drawn, but more or less our human society has drawn. there has to be a focused response. if we don't respond, it will be an incentive for him to do it again or for other nations to cross at redline. >> do think enough of your colleagues agree with you? pass.hink it will i think it was wise of the president to call this vote. i have confidence that members of the congress will step up to the plate because if we do , i think it sends a very wrong message. >> what do think certain of congress votes against the resolution? will the obama administration take military action against syria? >> i think the president said he has confidence that we in congress will respond to the crossing of this red line.

that thereber again is new evidence that it was serendipity that multiple, and i read the intelligence report, obviously i'm constrained, but it makes clear that there are multiple sources of this assessment by the administration. it was different than some previous reports which did not have multiple sources as is true here. >> are you comfortable with the language of the authorization legislation? some of your colleagues said it is too broad. >> will see. the administration indicated they will be willing to work on this. i think if there is a will we can find a way. i think there has to be a will, because if we fail to step up to the plate here, i think it is an invitation to the syrian government and to others to essentially cross the line that

i think should not be crossed. >> to get a sense from the briefing about what the end goal is? is it really just a limited strike and whatever happens next will not require follow-up action? >> i don't think anybody is quite sure, but i think we know where we need to start. >> your colleagues said that it seems members were split 50-50 on this vote. >> first of all there aren't many of us here. as many came as possible. secondly, i don't think based on the questions and a buddy can draw that conclusion. almost the whole time. i left just a few minutes ago. look, we have to face up to this. asked.re questions to be we are not quite sure what will be the ultimate result.

but when the syrian government essentially utilized chemical damascusn august 21 in -- in a damascus suburb and there is classified information, they knew where it came from. missiles were shot and they know from where, so are we simply going to say we will do nothing? i have confidence that members will go beyond politics. i think there is a waters edge this kind of to issue. i think national security is very much involved and it relates to syria, but i think beyond. if we essentially say to the world we are not going to take any action, don't we send a message not only to syrian government but to others? i think the answer is yes.

so i have confidence when the time comes, and i have been here over 30 years, i think now and then we can go beyond politics. this is one time we need to do that. >> thank you very much. thank you for stopping. [indiscernible]

>> hike, congressman. everybody does. thank you. so, you are skeptical going in. at this point would you be a yes or no based on what you have heard. >> i was not skeptical with relation to the evidence or that the syrian regime, the asad regime committed atrocities in the suburbs of damascus. my belief on that was reinforced, that is, the asad regime committed these atrocities. what i wrestle with and of course i am at continuing to wrestle with this, is how we define success in our objectives. understanding and consideration of the ramifications, because if an attack from the united states on the asad regime is going to take place, after that first cruise leaves one of our submarines or ships, there will be a series of events that unfold.

not one person who can accurately predict with specificity what exactly what is going to happen. one scenario that i am troubled by is that if after the limited strike the asad regime is still regime ise assad still there and he still has weapons, let's say for example we attack two air fnly it woulde syrian life of the young conscripts who had nothing to do with the attack. yet the assad regime is still in place. with thisling question of how does our prohibition against targeted -- on assad,ide

our policy is not targeting someone. does that make wherever he is present a safe zone? us -- ieveryone of think an ideal solution would be that he ends up being tried as a war criminal in the hague. prefer, but of course that scenario is very unlikely. these are the things that i am wrestling with and i think the other members are as well. >> with regards to >> before you, they vote on authorization, where are you with that based on what you just heard? yes or no. >> i may no based on information that i have now. not based on the evidence that the asad regime -- that assad regime committed an atrocity. i fully acknowledge that the president is faced with a series

of imperfect alternatives. i know that he is wrestling with this. we each will, 435 members of the house, a hundred senate members. he was right to bring this to the congress. i am convinced and many others are that this was the only right, constitutionally correct path that he could've taken or should have taken. i respect his decision. it does not show weakness in my view. >> thank you for stopping. congressman? >> who am i talking to? burgess, i represent the 26th district in the state of texas. there was a lot of information there were a lot of pros and cons. i have to tell you in my mind it is far from settled. it is not something that should be undertaken lightly.

certainly in the district that i represent is to not do this. anythingi didn't hear that told me i ought to have a different position. >> thank you. if we have to wait a week or two weeks, is it too late? >> that is a question. if it is important to do, is it important to do today or is it important to do before the year ends. i can't tell you that i am convinced that the timeline that was outlined by the president yesterday is a valid one. >> what about the intelligence that they were presenting that was at least valid? >> yes is a short answer to that. is, what areestion you trying to accomplish with this? clearly if the intelligence is launchednd mr. assad

an attack on his own people and did that because he felt he was backed into a corner, how many corners can he be backed into. clearly he is someone who is functioning for his own self- interest. i don't see that is printed change by these attacks. as a consequence at ncr anything changes. you clearly cannot go and bomb storehouses and new chemical weapons even if you knew where they all work because you are you it just dispersed into the general environment. .here are a lot of risks here the downsides are great. i just think back to a general eisenhower said in 1954. it was a rough year for him. he said he shouldn't go to war for emotional reasons. right now i think you it would be an emotional response and that probably is not a good enough reason. >> just to be clear, it sounds like you're saying no.

there is no vote right now. my understanding is there has been a resolution in the white house -- there's been a resolution that the white house has delivered to congress. i'm going to take it on the plane and read that. what are the parameters, what is isasked his strategy -- what the exit strategy and all the questions that you asked before i got here. >> inevitably this would come to the rules committee. have there been discussions in the rules committee? would you like to see a multiple tiered strategy? , itrom a rules perspective has to come to the floor for vote. if that is the intention of the president then we would be wrong to block it with the rules committee. >> but no discussions about

multiple resistant -- about multiple resolutions are amendments. it was pretty well laid out. it was an indictment of what saddam hussein had done over time. at the same time, no one would've predicted that 10 years later we would still be there. so the cost estimates weren't in accurate, it is just a length of time that was misjudged. >> thank you. >> several senators are expected to return to capitol hill this week to hold hearings on the issue of syria. senate foreign affairs commission -- committee chair will hold a hearing tuesday to address the issue of military intervention by the u.s.. john boehner has not indicated whether house members will return from their summer recess early, however a joint statement

released saturday by he and other house republican leaders stated that a measure outlining military intervention would be debated by the chamber when members return the week of september 9. you can see the house live on c- span and senate live on c-span two. >> in just a couple moments q&a with political analyst charlie cook. he talks about his experience was tracking every congressional race since 1984 and some of the trends he is uncovered in the process. and on "washington journal" your phone calls and with the latest news headlines. following that a look at the pursuit and capture of osama bin laden as outlined in a recent book and documentary. >> this week on q and a, editor talksblisher charlie cook

about his career as a political reporter. his speaking and writing jobs and how he became interested in politics. >> charlie cook, winded charlie cook become charlie cook. started getting interested in politics in junior high and high school. i got bit by the bug and worked my first campaign in 1972, second semester of my senior year in high school. i was working on capitol hill while i was in college. i think that was when i started getting bit by the bug. i didn't come from an intensely political family. do you know who captain shreve was? >> he was a riverboat captain and he broke a logjam on the red near my highs school in shreveport louisiana.

>> what impacted -- what impacted louisiana have on you. >> it depends on which part of the state. i say louisiana. everybody thinks that their state is unique, is different from all the others. maybe a little bit, but louisiana really is different. politics is part of the culture. but we haveo now, always had such colorful , thereers that it was >> who was the first politician you ever met?

>> i think i actually shook hands with spiro agnew in high school once. but the first politician i knew was bennett johnston. i worked on the senate race. he had just come off the governor's race and was running for the u.s. senate. i started working on his campaign. he actually was the first one. although there was a director of public safety that went to jail. he was in my father's sunday school class. i guess he would be the first. >> did that have an impact on you that he went to jail? >> oh, no, it was many, many, many years later. i used to come from sunday school, my father's class, and they had doughnuts. "no good, charlie." >> the reason i asked about