Ben Cardin

We have a direct interest here. We not only have humanitarian reasons to respond to the use of chemical weapons, we have a direct American interest in that region.

Both of you have indicated your concern about American military involvement in Syria, that it could draw us into an internal conflict.

I would suggest that as you have come to Congress for this authorization, if circumstances change and there is time to come to Congress, you will have the opportunity to come back to Congress and seek our participation.

We have to have a tailored mission that deals with degrading and deterring the use of chemical weapons.

It is very clear, the type of conduct that President Assad has done in Syria, his actions have created a humanitarian crisis, and now he has escalated to the use of chemical weapons.

We need to deal with asbestos, for goodness sake. We need to ban asbestos.

Let's make sure we get it right this time, because it may be 37 years before we get back to it again.

I think now it is agreed by every member of this Committee that the TSCA law today doesn't work. It is broken. It is not protecting the public. And we have a responsibility to act.

I am optimistic that we should be able to use that framework to move forward with legislation that cannot only pass this Committee but can pass the U.S. Senate and House, to be signed by President Obama.

I would not want to see us pass legislation that would prevent our State from protecting our citizens.

We have a responsibility to pass a framework to protect the public from these toxins.

I could cite many examples of concerns that we have, and we could talk about BPA in plastics and baby bottles that has been brought to national attention.

There are these moments when countries like Myanmar or Namibia or Nepal change governments and things happen, where shame on us if we do not provide the right technical assistance at the right moment.

When nations want to take on leadership responsibility within regional organizations, they need to be a model in using that to advance the goals of those regional organizations.

We expect to see whether that can be done, either formally or informally.

It is a complicated group. When you are in each country they have different priorities, but I think they share a lot in common.

I think having a Senate hearing on this topic would be magnificent and would open up not only the crisis, but also the options that are in front of us.

I think it would be helpful if you could perhaps give us help as to what should be on our wish list as they manage the resources of their country, things that we should try to promote, which might be useful.

I believe the United States ought to focus significantly on the fundamentals of good governance.

But we have seen some signs of progress. Certainly I could get into human rights, which is one of my favorite subjects, and there are certain deficiencies there that are pretty fundamental that have to be dealt with.

The motivating factor for this is South Korea. They are the ones pushing it hard.

A commitment to your environment is compatible with economic growth.

It is all about the economics, and the U.S. market is an important tool that we have.

It is all about her generation.

When I was in Korea we talked about the problems of North Korea beyond just the nuclear risk factors.