The House’s Syria hearing: Live updates

Our live blog coverage is coming to an end today, as the last few members ask their questions.

But feel free to stick around and review what’s happened so far as you watch the rest of the hearing.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has passed its use of force resolution out of committee, by a vote of 10-7.

Here’s the recap, from Ed O’Keefe:

BREAKING: Senate Foreign Relations Committee approves resolution authorizing military force in #Syria: 10 Yes, 7 No 1 present

— Ed O’Keefe (@edatpost) September 4, 2013

Voting YES on #Syria resolution: Boxer, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Durbin, Kaine, Corker, Flake, McCain

— Ed O’Keefe (@edatpost) September 4, 2013

Voting NO on #Syria resolution: Udall (D-N.M.), Murphy, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Barrasso, Paul

— Ed O’Keefe (@edatpost) September 4, 2013

Voting PRESENT on #Syria resolution: Markey

— Ed O’Keefe (@edatpost) September 4, 2013

Across the Capitol, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to vote momentarily on its use of force resolution.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said that he does not consider Russia to be a superpower, but that it does have some capabilities of a superpower.

“Russia still possesses elements that would qualify them to join the club of superpowers,” Dempsey said. “They still have an incredible strategic arsenal. But conventionally, I wouldn’t put them in that class.”

Dempsey’s comments came in response to questions from Rep. George Holding (R-N.C.), who asked whether Russia might retaliate if the United States attacked Syria.

There has been disagreement about whether Russia has risen to superpower status following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for one, has said Russia is a superpower, as has former Russian prime minister Dmitri Medvedev.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has said he might filibuster the Syria use of force resolution, clarified Wednesday that he doesn’t plan to — at least at this point.

From Ed O’Keefe:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Wednesday he has no plans to filibuster a resolution authorizing U.S. military force in Syria.

“That would be a misinterpretation from the media,” Paul said in response to an inquiry by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee debate on a new version of a resolution authorizing force.

News reports earlier Wednesday citing Paul aides said the senator was planning to filibuster the resolution. That would require the resolution’s supporters to amass at least 60 senators to vote to override a filibuster. Senate Democratic aides have said for days that they always expected the need to have at least 60 votes in support of the measure, assuming that some senator would at some point attempt to filibuster the resolution.

As the House Foreign Relations Committee weighs a use of force resolution, it’s worth noting that a majority of the House GOP contingent is freshmen — 13 of 25, in fact.

Worth noting: 13 of 25 Republicans on House Foreign Affairs Committee are freshmen.

— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlakeWP) September 4, 2013

The reason that’s important: Freshmen and second-term members have proven to be very independent of party leaders and willing to vote against them. So despite House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) support for the use of force, that doesn’t mean it will pass out of committee.

Rep. Alan Grayson.(D-Fla.), a long-time critic of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, asked Dempsey whether he believed “a counter-attack is more likely than not?”

“No, I don’t think I can say that without signaling to the Syrian regime in some way. I wouldn’t say that, I wouldn’t come to that conclusion,” he replied.

Dempsey said that U.S. ships are out-of-reach of Syrian missiles but noted that embassies “are always subject to terrorist attack” and that Israel had moved to a state of high alert in anticipation of a military response by President Assad.

Asked if air strikes would require supplemental funds, Hagel said it would depend on the military option chosen.

Following Rep. Joe Wilson’s comments earlier, Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) became the second congressman to bring up the death of four Americans in Benghazi last year.

He said President Obama had a “credibility issue” due to unanswered questions about the incident.

Responding angrily, Kerry reminded Duncan that he had volunteered to fight for the U.S. in Vietnam and said the debate was “not about getting into Syria’s civil war.”

“We don’t deserve to drift this into yet another Benghazi discussion,” he said, as Duncan held up a photograph of a Navy SEAL who died in the Benghazi attack.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) then held up a photograph of Syrian children as he read out details of the symptoms of a Sarin gas attack.

Towards the end of his testy exchange with Rep. Tom Marino (R.-Pa.), the defense secretary was asked about the cost of U.S. air strikes.

Marino asked: “Who is going to pay for this and what is it going to cost United States taxpayers?”

Hagel replied that “it would be in the tens of millions of dollars, that kind of range.”

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel engaged in an intense exchange with Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.), during which Hagel said it’s “not my business” to trust the Syrian opposition.

Here’s the transcript:

MARINO: Do you explicitly trust these people?

HAGEL: Well, that’s not my business to trust anybody.

MARINO: Well, certainly it has to be the business, because you’re making decisions to go into war and put American lives at risk, so it’s a simple concept. You either trust or do not trust. And if you do not trust, we don’t call these people our allies or support [them].

HAGEL: Congressman, every nation, every individual, every group responds in their own self-interest. We’re not unaware of all the different groups’ self-interests. Our allies…

MARINO: Excuse me, sir, with all due respect, I think we are aware, if we look back at what happened in Libya, if we look back at what happened in the Middle East in the past, if we look at the Muslim Brotherhood, if we look at al Qaeda. We have to take this into consideration. Obviously we do not know yet who are the good guys.

HAGEL: Congressman, let me respond to that. The focus is not on good guys/bad guys. The focus is on a narrowly drafted resolution asking authorization from the Congress.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey. (AFP Photo/Getty Images/Jim Watson)

At the prompting of Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), Gen. Martin Dempsey laid out some possible ways in which President Assad could retaliate to a U.S. air strike.

He said the Syrian leader might use “long-range rockets to attack his neighbors or some of our facilities,” could “encourage Lebanese Hezbollah to attack an embassy,” or launch a cyber-attack.

“We are alert to all of the possibilities and our mitigating strategy’s in the way we’ve positioned ourselves in the region,” the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman said.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said any military action would not be able to get rid of all of Syria’s chemical weapons.

“This is not about eliminating chemical weapons; that’s impossible,” Dempsey said, citing the “number and the distribution” of weapons.

Dempsey said the military action would be more about sending a message that future use of chemical weapons won’t be allowed. He added that the U.S. and regional allies are “postured for retaliation” from Assad if the air strikes are carried out.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) has used the hearing to allege that the current focus on Syria is a deliberate tactic by the Obama administration to distract attention from the Benghazi, IRS and NSA “scandals” as well as the “White House-drafted sequestration” and the forthcoming debt ceiling vote.

He asked why the president hadn’t sought authorization for military force after a smaller-scale use of chemical weapons last spring. Kerry replied that he “didn’t believe it was a compelling enough case to win the support of the American people.”

Earlier, Hagel told the panel that the Defense Department had considered all possible effects of launching an air strike including the “security of our forces, security of our embassies, consulates [and] collateral damage, innocent people being hurt.”

Asked by Wilson where the Assad regime had obtained chemical weapons from, Hagel added: “The Russians supply them, others are supplying them with chemical weapons, they make some themselves.”

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday likened the situation in Syria to the Munich Agreement of 1938, in which countries sought to appease Nazi Germany and paid a price for it.

Kerry said members who are merely voting against the resolution to keep their jobs are doing their country a disservice and will pay a price in the annals of history.

“We will have said to [Assad]: Nobody cares, gas your people, you do what you need to to stay in office, and we’re backing off,” Kerry said.

“That would be one of those moments that will live in infamy — and there are some of those moments,” he added. “Munich, a ship off the coast of Florida that we sent back, filled with Jews, who then lost their lives to gas because we didn’t receive them. There are moments where you have to make a decision, and I think this is one of those moments.

The Munich Agreement effectively allowed Nazi Germany to annex the “Sudetenland” from Czechoslovakia after it had already taken over Austria.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifies at the House hearing about Syria. (Reuters/Jason Reed)

One of the main concerns for those who have reservations about voting to approve the use of military force in Syria is that targeted air strikes will quickly spiral into a drawn-out, long-lasting ground war.

Responding to questions from Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), General Martin Dempsey admitted that the risk of escalation can never be ruled out altogether.

“I think it’s the focus and the purpose of the military action that will give us the best chance of limiting it in time and commitment,” he said.

“That’s not to say I discount the risk of escalation, which I can never discount, but we’ve mitigated it as much as possible.”

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) asked the witnesses to respond to a rumor that the House would not, in fact, vote on a use of force resolution.

Secretary of State John Kerry said he wouldn’t comment and dismissed it as a rumor. He said it was the first he had heard of it.

Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

“With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.

Read more:

Where the votes stand on Syria
11 questions Congress faces on Syria
Poll: Most in U.S. oppose Syria strike

Raw video from AP shows continuing violence on the outskirts of Damascus on Wednesday:

In his opening statement, Secretary of State John Kerry referred to a top Syrian official who had reportedly defected, citing it as evidence of the Syrian regime’s vulnerability.

Later, Kerry noted that the report was somewhat inconclusive.

So what’s actually happening? Basically, the opposition is confirming the defection, while the Syrian government is denying it.

Here’s what Reuters reported a couple of hours ago:

Former Syrian Defence Minister General Ali Habib, a prominent member of President Bashar al-Assad’s Alawite sect, has defected and is now in Turkey, a senior member of the opposition Syrian National Coalition told Reuters on Wednesday.

If his defection is confirmed, Habib would be the highest ranking figure from the Alawite minority to break with Assad since the uprising against him began in 2011.

It comes at a time when forces loyal to Assad have made progress against the rebels on the battlefield but face the possibility of a U.S. military strike in response to a chemical weapons attack in Damascus for which Washington blames the Syrian leader.

“Ali Habib has managed to escape from the grip of the regime and he is now in Turkey, but this does not mean that he has joined the opposition. I was told this by a Western diplomatic official,” Kamal al-Labwani said from Paris.

Syrian state television has denied the defection.

Kerry said today that the possibility of the U.S. launching air strikes is already prompting a spike in defections from the Syrian regime.

“I think there is something like 60 to 100 in the last day or so, officers and enlisted personnel,” he said.

“There are serious questions going on among the so-called elite in Syria about whether or not Bashar al-Assad has run the table here too far.”

Code Pink, the anti-war group who interrupted Tuesday’s Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, has adopted a new tactic today.

At least three activists seated behind Secretary of State John F. Kerry have painted their hands red and are holding them in the air as he delivers his opening statement.

The effect on TV and in photographs is dramatic, with the ‘bloodied’ hands clearly visible behind Kerry, as can be seen from the Twitter post below:

The Senate’s hearing on its new Syria use of force resolution has been delayed, the Post’s Ed O’Keefe reports:

A hearing scheduled to begin consideration of a new resolution authorizing U.S. military action in Syria has been delayed amid reports that the panel might not vote on the proposal Wednesday.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was scheduled to begin meeting at 11:30 a.m., but had yet to begin meeting more than 45 minutes later.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told the Associated Press that there might not be a vote on the new resolution Wednesday, as scheduled. That comes amid reports that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — a leading GOP voice on national security issues — is opposed to the wording of the new resolution.

Later, Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) emerged from a closed-door meeting of the committee to say it was his “sense” that panel would still vote on the resolution today.

Secretary of State John Kerry at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Syria (REUTERS/Jason Reed)

Secretary of State John Kerry repeated much of his opening statement from Tuesday’s Senate hearing, reinforcing the administration’s argument that there is no doubt the Syrian regime is responsible for the use of chemical weapons.

“This is not the time for armchair isolationism,” he said.

Kerry added: “We’re here because a dictator and his family’s enterprise … were willing to infect the air of Damascus” with chemical weapons.

“Some people in a few places, amazingly against all evidence, have questioned whether this took place,” Kerry said.

Kerry said Tuesday that the evidence would be enough to sentence someone to death. Wednesday, he said it would be enough for a life sentence.

Kerry continued: “It did happen, and the Bashar al-Assad regime did it. .. I can tell you beyond a reasonable doubt the evidence proves that the Assad regime prepared this attack and that they attacked exclusively opposition-controlled or -contested territory.”

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the committee, opens his remarks with a warning that the United States must launch limited military action in order to send a message to Iran and North Korea.

“I strongly agreed with President Obama that the United States must respond to this flagrant violation of international law with a limited military strike…but the issue we confront today is much bigger,” he said.

“We are talking about the credibility of America as a global power.”

Engel argued that air strikes would also be about sending a message “to dictators in Tehran and Pyongyang.”

He said “Iran in particular is watching very closely” to see if there are consequences for flouting international laws.

Engel continued: “If we do not pass the authorization measure, what message will Assad get? What message will Tehran get?”

The hearing has begun, but Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey are not yet at the witness table.

Fear not, though, as committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) just said they willarrive shortly.

Some members have cast doubt on the Obama administration’s belief that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons. House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) is not one of them.

During his opening remarks, Royce referred to Syria’s “odious use of chemical weapons.”

Royce is considered undecided on the use of military force, according to The Fix’s vote tracker.

Royce used his opening statement to reflect on the tough decision ahead.

“The administration’s Syria policy doesn’t build confidence,” Royce said. “It is a cliche but true: There are no good answers.”

After Tuesday’s three-and-a-half hour hearing before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, today the House gets its turn to grill Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Kerry, who noted that his first appearance in the committee room had been when he was a 27-year-old activist, faced the vast majority of questions as he insisted “the president is not asking you to go to war.”

Expect committee members to pick up on his “boots on the ground” comments from Tuesday and ask whether the Obama administration would consider sending American military personnel into Syria in any circumstances.

At one point during Tuesday’s Senate committee hearing, the secretary of state appeared to suggest that was a possibility.

“I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be on the table,” he said, before quickly revisiting the issue to clarify that he wanted to “shut that door now as tight as we can.”

Kerry insisted that he had addressed a “hypothetical question,” and said “there will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war.”

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel may also face more questions than he tackled Tuesday, considering his bruising experience at the hands of House Republicans during his confirmation hearings.

Anti-war Code Pink protesters, who often interrupt such hearings and did so Tuesday in the Senate, are in the room for today’s hearing.

Cops made Code Pink sit but they have still had their hand up for the last 10 minutes. pic.twitter.com/woO5R5JJki

— BuzzFeedBenny (@bennyjohnson) September 4, 2013

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin weighs in on the United States’ deliberations over military action in Syria in a new interview with AP.

The highlights, from the Post’s Will Englund:

MOSCOW — President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday warned the United States and its allies against launching a unilateral military strike against Damascus, saying the West’s case against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

In an interview published Wednesday by the Associated Press, Putin said Russia is developing a plan of action in case the United States does attack Syria without United Nations approval, but he declined to go into specifics.

He said Russia — Syria’s most stalwart ally — has frozen the shipment of certain parts for S-300 anti-aircraft missiles that it had agreed to sell to Assad’s regime.

Putin said that if the United States and its allies could provide sufficient evidence that Assad’s forces carried out a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 in a Damascus suburb, Russia would consider allowing United Nations action against Syria.

…

But Putin told the Associated Press that he remains skeptical, in part because it seems unlikely that Assad would risk international repercussion by using long-banned chemical weapons to kill hundreds of men, women and children.

“It ought to be convincing,” Putin said. “It shouldn’t be based on some rumors and information obtained by the special services through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that.”

…

The lengthy interview took place at his country residence late Tuesday night, with both the Associated Press and Russian television’s First Channel in attendance. Putin touched on his country’s relations with the United States, his sometimes “vexed” but generally constructive relations with Obama, and a host of other topics — including Syria, Snowden, gay rights and Moscow mayoral candidate Alexei Navalny.

“This man brings problems wherever he appears,” Putin said of Navalny, Russia’s most famous anti-corruption campaigner. Navalny, who memorably labeled Putin’s United Russia the “party of crooks and thieves,” is currently appealing a six-year sentence for extortion on charges that he claims were trumped up at the Kremlin’s behest.

…

“President Obama hasn’t been elected by the American people in order to be pleasant to Russia,” he said. “And your humble servant hasn’t been elected by the people of Russia to be pleasant to someone either.”

About Obama, he said, “We work, we argue about some issues. We are human. Sometimes one of us gets vexed. But I would like to repeat once again that global mutual interests form a good basis for finding a joint solution to our problems.”

On Syria, Putin emphasized the points that he and other Russian officials have made previously: He said it would have been “ludicrous” for Assad’s forces to use chemical weapons, when the whole world was watching and they were gaining the upper hand against the rebels.

Over the last 24 hours, the House has grown more opposed to the Senate’s measure, with many members weighing in against it but support staying the same.

As of now, there are three times as many opponents in the House (51) as supporters (17), according to The Fix’s whip count.

Also, the ranks of skeptics and those against military action are now larger than those who support it and are undecided.

The latest breakdown:

Today’s hearing is taking place in the House, but the Senate’s version of the resolution came under fire Wednesday when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he opposed the new language crafted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Here’s the report from Post Politics:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Wednesday that he opposes the Syria use-of-force resolution as crafted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

McCain has pushed for more active military involvement, but is concerned senators have sought to lessen the president’s authority in the language used in the resolution.

“In its current form, I do not” support it, McCain told AP.

McCain’s departure demonstrates the fine line members are walking in crafting the resolution. Most opponents of the resolution would prefer no military action at all. McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have suggested they may oppose the resolution if it’s too weak.

The Senate resolution was crafted after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday held a hearing featuring Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.

The resolution is being marked up Wednesday in the committee, so McCain’s opposition may not be final.