[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13186-13198]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 AUTHORIZING THE LIMITED AND SPECIFIED USE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED 
                FORCES AGAINST SYRIA--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to consider S.J. Res. 21.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the joint 
resolution by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 21 to authorize limited and 
     specified use of the United States Armed Forces against 
     Syria.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this evening the Senate will proceed to 
executive session to consider a couple of would-be judges, Caproni and 
Broderick, both from the Southern District of New York, at 5:30 p.m., 
and then there will be two rollcall votes on the confirmation of those 
nominations. We may only have one rollcall vote and one voice vote, but 
we will get both of them done today.
  I just moved to proceed to the joint resolution reported last week by 
the Foreign Relations Committee to authorize the limited use of force 
against Syria. This matter demands the attention of the Senate and this 
country. It is this resolution the Senate will turn to. Regardless of 
where Senators stand on the merits of this issue, we should have this 
debate. I hope all Senators will support proceeding to this measure. 
That vote will occur sometime on Wednesday on the motion to proceed.
  Under a previous order, at 11 tomorrow morning, the Senate is to have 
a motion to proceed to the energy efficiency bill. It is obvious we are 
not going to be able to do that. I will work with the Republican leader 
to reach a consent agreement to defer consideration of that bill to a 
later time.
  On the Syria resolution, I intend that the Senate should have a full 
and open debate. I encourage Senators to come to the floor to begin 
that debate.
  Also this week, President Obama will come to the Capitol to address 
the Democratic caucus. He has also extended his invitation to the 
Republicans. I have not heard back from the Republicans as to whether 
they wish to hear from the President.
  President Obama will address the Nation tomorrow evening. Senior 
administration officials will brief all Senators in a classified 
session on Wednesday. There will be other meetings in the White House 
today with Democratic and Republican Senators. The Senate will give 
this matter the serious attention it deserves.


                            Chemical Weapons

  Mr. President, the first large-scale military use of deadly military 
weapons occurred almost 100 years ago when the Germans deployed 
chlorine gas during World War I. During that war, World War I, there 
were 1,200,000 casualties from attacks with deadly toxins--chlorine 
gas, mustard gas, and other deathly and destructive chemical agents. 
Great Britain, Austria, Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, and the United 
States all suffered losses.
  ``This is a horrible weapon,'' wrote German Major Karl von Zinger, 
who reported a firsthand battlefield account of the carnage to his 
superior officers.
  One hundred thousand soldiers died, and most of the other casualties 
were debilitated for life by the exposure to these deadly toxins. The 
effects of these killers were horrific. Those who didn't die suffered 
blindness, burns, blisters, and labored breathing. For those dying, it 
was as terrible as anyone could imagine. The great World War I era poet 
Wilfred Owen from Great Britain wrote that gassed soldiers cried out 
like men on fire as they drowned in air thick with poison. The world 
was horrified by the gruesomeness of these new evil weapons of war, and 
so, as a global community, we agreed these weapons should be banished 
from the battlefield forever.
  Despite the success of global efforts to eliminate their use, today 
the Syrian Government is the second largest holder of chemical weapons 
in the world--only shortly behind North Korea. The well-documented use 
of these toxic and unsavory stockpiles by President Bashar al-Asad's 
regime is a certain violation of the overwhelming international 
consensus forged against these weapons nearly 10 decades ago. It is a 
clear violation of human decency. This is not the first time Asad has 
used chemical weapons against his own citizens. We all heard in our 
classified briefings that these weapons have been used a number of 
times, but this is the most gruesome and extensive.

[[Page 13187]]

  This morning I watched some film in my office. The film takes about 
13 minutes. It was pictures that were taken following the dropping of 
those horrible weapons. I will never get that out of my mind. There 
were little baby boys and girls dressed in colorful play clothes. Some 
of the boys and girls looked like teenagers. They were retching and had 
spasms with their arms. Of course there were older people as well. 
These poisons kill the kids first. Their little bodies cannot take this 
as well as older folks. It kills the older people also but more slowly.
  The well-documented use of these unsavory stockpiles by Asad is a 
certain violation, I repeat, of the overwhelming international 
consensus forged against these weapons 10 decades past. I have talked 
about human decency. It is a clear violation of human decency.
  The August 21 attacks killed more than 1,000 civilians--including 
hundreds of these children. This week we will further examine the 
evidence that is growing which proves the viciousness of these attacks 
and discuss their brutal results.
  The innocent civilians who were killed by the Syrian Government 
during those attacks died terrible deaths. Their death was just as 
painful and shocking as those suffered on the battlefields of World War 
I. These deaths were just as terrible as those that convinced the 
global community to outlaw the use of such brutal tactics against 
soldiers, and, of course, against innocent civilians such as those Asad 
murdered last month.
  The evidence of the Asad regime, and their using outlawed nerve 
agents against its own citizens, is clear and very convincing. The 
Syrian Government has worked to hide the gruesome evidence. They have 
done it a number of different ways. After the bodies had been cleared 
away, they sent a barrage of weaponry in there--artillery and tanks--
and blasted the ground and destroyed the evidence. They couldn't 
destroy it; it is still there, but they did try. They worked very hard 
to hide these gruesome attacks by repeatedly bombing the site of these 
grisly and unforgettable occurrences. Without question, this brutality 
demands a response. The satellite imagery and amateur video shot by 
eyewitnesses--and I talked about that--paint a clear picture of the 
brutality of this awful regime.
  President Obama sought approval 2 weeks ago for targeted military 
action--action that will hold President Asad accountable for these 
heinous acts. Congress has done its due diligence. Since President 
Obama announced he would seek congressional approval for the limited 
military action against Syria, the Senate has held many committee 
hearings and briefings as well as five classified all-Members 
briefings. There are more briefings and much debate to come this week--
including open debate here in the Senate.
  On a bipartisan basis the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a 
resolution that restricts the use of military force to 60 days, with a 
single 30-day extension. The resolution reflects President Obama's 
proposal for limited military action--including strikes of limited 
duration and limited scope.
  The resolution plainly states there may be no U.S. military boots on 
the ground. America's intention, as specified in the resolution, is not 
to engage in an open-ended conflict or invasion. Nor is it the 
Commander in Chief's intention to commit ground troops to this conflict 
or to effect regime change. Rather, the Senate will be voting to uphold 
the century-long international consensus that chemical weapons have no 
place on the battlefield and certainly no place in attacking innocent 
civilians. This standard demands any government--a dictator or any 
other government--that has used chemical weapons to be held 
accountable.
  Some may disagree with my conclusions. I don't expect everyone to 
agree with the statement I am giving here today, as is anyone's right, 
but this is my firm conviction.
  Today, many Americans say that these atrocities are none of our 
business, that they are not our concern. I disagree. Anytime the 
powerful turn such weapons of terror and destruction against the 
powerless it is our business.
  The weapons in question are categorically different. Chemical 
weapons, we know, can kill not just dozens or hundreds of people but 
tens of thousands of innocents in a single attack--tens of thousands. 
These weapons don't just pose a threat to the Syrian people or to our 
allies in the region; they pose a threat to every one of us, every 
American, and, in particular, every member of the U.S. Armed Forces.
  If we allow Asad's use of chemical weapons to go unchecked and 
unanswered, hostile forces around the world will also assume that these 
terrible tactics of demons such as Asad are permissible, that they are 
OK. That America cannot allow. That is why the massacres in Syria are 
our business and our concern, both as humans and as Americans. 
America's willingness to stand for what is right should not end at its 
borders.
  Our intervention on behalf of those in danger hasn't always been 
popular. Look back at history. There has always been part of our 
society that prefers isolation. Look prior to World War I. Look prior 
to World War II. Some prefer isolation. That is the easy thing to do. 
But sitting on the sidelines isn't what made the United States of 
America the greatest Nation in the world in years past and, yes, today, 
and sitting on the sidelines won't make us a better Nation tomorrow.
  As America faces yet another crisis of conscience, another 
opportunity to intervene on behalf of humanity, my mind returns to that 
turning point in the world's history when the United States of America 
faced down an evil regime that murdered millions of innocent citizens. 
Millions of civilians and prisoners of war were murdered by gas in Nazi 
death camps--Belsen, Treblinka, Auschwitz. Never again, swore the 
world. Never again would we permit the use of these poisonous weapons 
of war.
  Fourteen blocks from here, down Constitution Avenue, is the Holocaust 
Museum. We walk in there and see a quote on the wall from Dante's 
famous ``Inferno.'' Here is what it says: ``The hottest places in hell 
are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain 
their neutrality.'' I repeat: ``The hottest places in hell are reserved 
for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their 
neutrality.'' I have thought about those words very often--and very 
often lately--as I have considered whether America should take action 
to avert further atrocities in Syria.
  In Europe, in World War II, far too many were neutral. Far too many 
around the world were neutral. Far too many in America were neutral, 
and in Europe, in World War II. Six million Jews and tens of thousands 
of gypsies, disabled people, gay people, and political dissidents were 
murdered. Never again.
  Now we are faced with that choice again. Some say it is not our 
fight. Some say Syria is too far away. Some say it is not in our 
security interest. Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and 
the United States--we should all remember our history. There were 1.2 
million casualties in World War I from these poisons.
  We should remember our history. Rabbi Hillel, a respected and famous 
scholar, said more than 2,000 years ago: ``If I care only for myself, 
what am I? If not now, when?''
  I, Harry Reid, say: If not now, when?
  I believe America must set the example for the rest of the world. If 
America must once again lead--as we have before and we will again--to 
set an example for the world, so be it. This is America. It is who we 
are as a country. That is what we do as a country. That is where we 
stand as a country. That is the American tradition of which I am proud 
and a tradition which I have faith will continue.
  We are the United States of America.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is an order outstanding. I ask 
unanimous consent that the order until 5 o'clock today be modified on 
the motion to proceed, with the other aspects of the order remaining in 
place.

[[Page 13188]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.
  Under the previous order, the Senate will be in a period of debate on 
the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 21 until 5 p.m., with Senators 
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak to the 
issues the majority leader just addressed. I don't anticipate speaking 
for more than 12 to 15 minutes. I know the minority leader is delayed 
in being able to be here. I would be happy to defer to him when he 
arrives or I would be happy to defer to someone coming back to speak on 
the business of the day.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, President Obama will finally make his case 
to the American people tomorrow, explaining why he wants to take 
military action against Syria. His explanation is long overdue.
  I think I have a pretty good idea of what I expect he will say. 
First, he will explain that we have compelling evidence that it was 
Asad himself who used long-banned chemical weapons to murder his own 
people. This is not seriously contested. Neither I nor perhaps I think 
any of my colleagues here dispute these sad facts. It has been well 
documented by our intelligence sources. As a member of that committee, 
I have had access to those sources, and I don't doubt the conclusion of 
the President and others that Asad is responsible for this attack.
  The President will also most likely explain that such a horrendous 
violation of international norms deserves a worldwide response of 
condemnation. Who could possibly look at those standards and those 
rooms full of dead children and not agree that the perpetrators have to 
face consequences for their crimes?
  The President will also surely discuss the issue of credibility. He 
is likely to maintain, as he did recently in Stockholm, that it is not 
his own credibility at stake, nor even American credibility, but the 
credibility of the international community that will be harmed by 
inaction.
  I agree with those who say the President's credibility and our 
Nation's credibility are linked. They are. However, with his now 
notorious and, I believe, ill-considered ``red line'' comment, 
President Obama has forced us to debate a military attack in yet 
another Middle Eastern country. Unfortunately, it appears that the 
purpose of this military attack first and foremost is perhaps to defend 
his own credibility. I am certain that if the President had not drawn 
his red line, we would not be having this discussion. In that case, 
Asad's use of such weapons would be roundly condemned as yet another 
example of his horrendous brutality, but we would be no more eager to 
engage militarily in his civil war than we have been as the other 
100,000 Syrian people were being slaughtered by more conventional 
means.
  Make no mistake--it is the credibility issue that has brought us to 
this pass, and the credibility issue is of President Obama's own 
making--his and his alone.
  So tomorrow evening the President will need to explain to the 
American public exactly what will be achieved by this limited, focused 
attack, as described by the administration, beyond simply a token 
punishment for a horrendous crime in defense of his credibility. The 
President has said the proposed limited attack is to be a ``shot across 
the bow.'' His Secretary of State, Secretary Kerry, has said it is 
going to be unbelievably small. We need to know what the plan is, and 
will be, should President Asad be undeterred by this unbelievably 
small, shot-across-the-bow attack. What if he isn't? What then? What do 
we do next? The President needs to explain that.
  We need to know how this escalation is likely to influence extremist 
radical fighters now active in Syria--extremist radical fighters. There 
is not a line between good guys and bad guys here. There is the 
infiltration of Al Qaeda, al-Nusra, and other terrorist organizations 
and individuals with those seeking to overturn Asad. So it is not clear 
just how Syria will turn out should Asad be deposed. I don't think 
these extremist fighters will be overly concerned with an 
``unbelievably small, shot across the bow'' response by the United 
States.
  What will Hezbollah and Hamas and Al Qaeda affiliate fighters do when 
this ``show of force'' is over? What is the President's plan of action 
if the chemical weapons fall into the hands of these anti-American 
jihadists? And how about the always-threatened spillover of the Syria 
conflict into Lebanon or Turkey or Jordan? Will an attack intended to 
slap Asad's wrist while defending President Obama's credibility make 
expansion of the conflict more likely or less likely? Most importantly, 
the President needs to explain to the American people more thoroughly 
exactly how America's national security and best interests will be 
served by this response.
  The President, in my opinion, must also address additional concerns 
that are widely--almost universally--shared by the American people. We 
all know that taking America to war without support from the people is 
the surest path to disaster. I suggest this must be avoided, and the 
President is going to have to make his case as to how to avoid that.
  Over this last week I visited with Hoosiers from across Indiana to 
gather their input. Through these visits, as well as calls and e-mails 
by the thousands, the vast majority--shockingly, the majority of 
Hoosiers I have heard from are opposed to U.S. military engagement in 
Syria. As all conscientious lawmakers, I know I have to balance the 
views of my constituents with my own judgment on how best to represent 
their interests and the interests of our country.
  In this case, I must first ask myself, what do the people back home 
in my State know that many of the rest of us here in Washington perhaps 
do not, or at least have expressed?
  First, the people back home know that America has been at war in far-
off lands for more than a decade--12 years on. They have seen long 
repeated deployments of their loved ones, and they have seen the body 
bags come home. They are aware of sacrifices that have been made in the 
name of protecting our interests, but they are less aware of positive 
results of those sacrifices.
  They see Iraq descending again into conflict as its own citizens 
continue to slaughter one another because of different interpretations 
of the Koran or different political motivations or just pure outright 
quests for power. They see a corrupt government there that authorizes 
overflights of Russian aircraft bringing modern weapons to Syria to 
fuel a similar conflict.
  Hoosiers see an Afghanistan so deeply corrupt and ungrateful to the 
United States that the current regime tries to extort huge ransom 
payments simply to permit us to remove equipment and personnel from 
that sorry country. They do not see meaningful progress toward a 
democratic, stable, and humane government that was to be the objective 
of American sacrifice of blood and treasure. They do not see how our 12 
years of effort have contributed to our own national security 
interests.
  Hoosiers look at the spiraling disaster in Egypt, where the choices 
have been an extremist, deeply anti-American Islamic radicalism or a 
brutal and undemocratic military dictatorship. both benefiting from 
billions of American taxpayer dollars spent on weapons or lining 
uniform pockets. In the meantime, fellow Christians are being killed in 
their churches.
  Simply put, the people of Indiana do not see that American policy and 
action have attained meaningful results in the Middle East. Instead, 
they see a region of continuing and increasing violence, chaos, and 
disintegration. They are war weary and they are discouraged after more 
than a decade of wars that have not produced the desired outcomes.
  What they do not see is an articulate response. They do not know what 
our

[[Page 13189]]

regional strategy is in the Middle East because no one is explaining 
it, much less pursuing it. They cannot measure progress because they do 
not know the destination. And they cannot evaluate this latest proposal 
for a fourth military engagement in the Middle East because they cannot 
see how it contributes to our own security here at home.
  More importantly, they worry that a focused, limited attack on Syria 
will end up being something else entirely because so little thought has 
been devoted to potential unintended consequences. Yes, they are war 
weary, but the American people are also war wise.
  In addition to the above unanswered questions, for me, one of the 
most important questions is how this proposed limited strike will 
affect Iran's perception of our resolve and our ability to prevent that 
country from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. It is not so much 
what we do or how we do it but how Iran perceives the action we take. 
This may be the most significant question of all because, unlike Syria, 
Iran poses threats to our core national security interests.
  Part of the administration's argument is that to do nothing would 
embolden the Iranian regime as they pursue their own weapons-of-mass-
destruction programs. But I think we have to raise the question, is 
that really so, or is it, perhaps, the reverse? Will a limited punitive 
attack discourage the mullahs in Iran because of some degree of 
destruction--remember, unbelievably small--or will it actually 
encourage the Iranians because there is no followup option or broader 
strategic context informing our policy? If an attack is ineffective in 
altering Asad's behavior or fortune, will it not actually encourage 
Iran in pursuing its own weapons program? I have not heard the 
administration address this question.
  Also, will a fourth military engagement in the Middle East make it 
harder to assemble popular and political support for action should 
Iran's behavior make that necessary? My constant fear here during the 
past several years, as I have been engaged on the Iranian issue of the 
pursuit of nuclear weapons, has been that our country will be too 
militarily, politically, and economically exhausted to confront the 
real strategic enemy when our core interests require it. I fear a Syria 
attack will make this problem even more difficult. To my knowledge, no 
one has yet to address this question within the administration, which 
President Obama, like the previous three Presidents, has declared a 
nuclear-weapons-capable Iran to be ``unacceptable.''
  I think this is a critical question we must have to ask ourselves. 
For all of those who are saying: We will change the perception of Iran 
to the point where they will change their behavior in the pursuit of 
nuclear weapons by a, quote, unbelievably small shot across the bow or 
a military response that could lead us into further conflict in the 
Middle East--I think this undermines our credibility. I think the 
question has to be asked: Is the reverse going to happen as a 
consequence of all of this?
  This is a deeply historic and profound moment for our Nation. It 
carries an importance that goes well beyond Syria or even the Middle 
East. This debate carries important consequences for the relationship 
between the executive and legislative branches of our government.
  To refuse the Commander in Chief war-making authorities when he has 
asked for them is not a decision any of us can take lightly.
  We must all balance the views of the people we represent--even when 
they have been nearly unanimous--with other elements, such as the 
abstract, unknowable geostrategic factors that could carry profound 
consequences not just for this year or next year, for this generation, 
but for many generations; and such as the compelling moral arguments 
that resonate with special strength in our unique Nation guided from 
birth by moral principles; and now even the constitutional challenges 
that could affect the delicate balance we have maintained for two 
centuries.
  I will weigh all I have said before I announce how I intend to vote 
on the resolution before us. I will defer to the President's request to 
address the Nation. In my opinion, consequential actions proposed by 
the President need to be clarified and numerous questions need to be 
answered before we grant the authority to the President to engage 
America in yet another Middle East conflict.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wish to address the subject of Syria.
  First of all, I wish to commend to anyone who is listening to my 
voice to view the videos the intelligence community has released. They 
came from social media. There are 13 videos that came from a body of in 
excess of 100 videos, but they show the horror of what happens to the 
human body with an attack by a weapon of mass destruction--in this 
case, chemical weapons, a gas called sarin.
  It is my hope the President, when he speaks to the Nation on Tuesday, 
will show clips of those videos because I think very few Americans have 
seen the extent of those videos, even though they have been shown on 
some cable shows in some limited amounts. They could see the range of 
why, almost a century ago, in 1925, the nations of the world came 
together in a treaty after the use of chemical weapons in World War I. 
This treaty banned the use of chemical weapons anywhere, any time, 
including in war, because of the horrific nature their use causes. In 
the 1990s this was subsequently reaffirmed in a convention or some kind 
of conclave which the nations of the world--I believe in excess of 180 
nations--signed banning the use of chemical weapons.
  If you watch the videos, you will see why. You will see what happens 
to innocent human beings as they struggle for life before the throes of 
death overtake them. You will see this on the videos. Of course, 
parents may wish to use discretion because it is going to make a 
lasting impression. You will see how the body starts to shut down by 
the nerves being attacked.
  Interestingly, for the first time in a CBS interview today, President 
Asad of Syria has said, has admitted, today, that Syria has chemical 
weapons. Up to this point that was denied. No wonder he would want to 
deny, because when you see what happens in the use of them and what it 
does to the human nervous system--and I don't wish to be graphic, 
because I want anybody listening to what I am saying to watch them. I 
hope the President will show them Tuesday night, to see how the human 
body convulses when it attacks the nervous system--the convulsions, the 
twitching, what happens to the face, the respiratory system, and all of 
the evidence that comes from that.
  The American people need to know what we are dealing with, not only 
in Syria but in other nations that possess chemical weapons. This is 
not only sarin, which was the gas used here, but also mustard gas and a 
toxin called VX that directly attacks the nervous system. It does not 
have to be inhaled, like mustard gas or sarin, to do its evil deed. 
Instead, VX can be absorbed through the skin.
  If the American people understand the consequences of the use of 
this, they will understand why it is classified as a weapon of mass 
destruction, along with biological weapons of mass destruction 
introducing some plague among a community of innocents and, of course, 
the weapon of mass destruction that most everybody recognizes, the 
nuclear weapon.
  There are three weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, 
and nuclear. This is why, in the family of civilized nations, we have 
said their use is so abhorrent that civilized humans say they should be 
banned. But they weren't. They were used extensively on August 21.
  Before I give the unclassified evidence, I wish to point out that 
maybe

[[Page 13190]]

there is a little opening on the occasion of the Russian Foreign 
Minister today, since our Secretary of State, almost in an offhanded 
comment a few days ago, said it would certainly be a game changer if 
he, Asad, would allow the international community to come in and take 
control of his Syrian chemical weapons. The Russian Foreign Minister 
today picked that up. Supposedly there is a comment by an official out 
of Syria who says that is worth looking into. I can't speak to the 
authenticity of that comment. I have heard it was said.
  Whatever it is, of course, Asad is the decisionmaker and it is 
ultimately going to come down on him. But in the meantime, what the 
United States ought to do--and the Congress of the United States ought 
to authorize what the President of the United States has requested, 
that the Congress back him in giving him the authority to use a 
limited, short duration retaliation in degrading Asad's capability of 
utilizing these weapons in the future.
  If Congress will give the President that authority, it may well be 
the additional incentive for the ultimate decisionmaker, President 
Asad, to do what the Russian Foreign Minister has suggested. That would 
be a good thing.
  In the meantime, they are going to be debating this and we are going 
to be put to the question: Do we support the President in this time of 
peril?
  Let us look at the facts. I think when you see the videos, clearly, 
most every reasonable human being is going to conclude chemical weapons 
were used on innocents in the Damascus suburbs on the night of August 
21.
  The question then, of course, is, is there a chain of custody to show 
in fact they came from the Syrian army? There is an unclassified body 
of evidence that clearly shows, to put it in the speak of the 
intelligence community, we have high confidence. That means it 
happened.
  How did that happen? The assessment is the Syrian chemical weapons 
personnel, who are associated with the chemical weapons part of the 
Syrian command, were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. 
This is all unclassified. There were streams of data of human signals 
and geospatial intelligence that revealed regime activities that were 
associated with the preparations for that chemical weapons attack. 
Syria chemical weapons personnel, we know, were operating in the 
Damascus suburb from August 18 all the way through August 21. That was 
the suburb that was attacked. Multiple streams of intelligence indicate 
the Syrian army executed the rocket and artillery attack against those 
suburbs in the early morning hours of August 21. We have satellite 
detections that corroborate those attacks from a regime-controlled 
neighborhood to where the attacks landed. At the same time, social 
media reports started exploding about a chemical attack in the Damascus 
suburbs. Those social media reports started coming at 2:30 in the 
morning. Three hospitals in Damascus received approximately 3,600 
patients displaying the symptoms of a nerve agent exposure, and they 
received them in less than 3 hours on the morning of August 21.
  As I said earlier, there have been over 100 videos attributed to the 
attack. This has been distilled down into 13 videos, many of them 
showing large numbers of bodies exhibiting the physical signs of nerve 
agent exposure. Any Member of the Senate will have access to the 
classified information that shows the Syrian opposition does not have 
the capability to fabricate those videos or the physical symptoms 
verified by the medical personnel.
  So when we put all of this together, with past Syrian practice and 
some of the small-scale attacks they have done previously, the 
conclusion is obvious: The Syrian regime of Bashar Asad was willing and 
directed the attack on August 21.
  To this Senator, who has had the privilege of seeing and hearing 
classified information--and I have visited with President Asad three 
times, the last time being 6 years ago where the two of us had a sharp 
exchange over what was happening in Lebanon and the fact he was 
harboring Hamas and Hezbollah, which of course he denied--the 
conclusion is obvious: There is a substantial body of information that 
corroborates that the Syrian Government was responsible for the 
chemical weapons attack on August 21.
  There is additional information for the Senators to see, but the 
question is, Are we going to agree to the President's request that we 
authorize him to attack? If we don't, where does that leave the 
President on any kind of negotiations in the future? If the President 
decides to go ahead and attack, we automatically give to the opponents 
in these countries--especially President Asad and North Korea and 
Iran--the obvious scenario that the American people are so divided that 
they won't support the President. So if he were to decide to attack--
knowing it is his responsibility to provide for the national security, 
and he has sworn to provide for that national security--we will look so 
divided at that point, whatever the scenario is for the future.
  What about the mindset of other people who want to do harm to the 
United States? Does it give additional license to North Korea if we 
were to do nothing? North Korea is sitting on a huge stockpile of 
chemical weapons, not to mention their nuclear weapons. What about 
Iran? We are very concerned as they continue to energize weapons 
material and march down the road perhaps to building a nuclear weapon. 
What kind of message does it send to Iran? Just game that out. If Iran 
had a nuclear weapon or felt free to use chemical weapons, what would 
that do to the interests of the United States in that region of the 
world, not to mention our allies in the region, of which there are 
many.
  So it is clear to this Senator. I will admit I don't know why the 
President did not keep his own counsel and make the decision without 
saying he wanted to come to Congress, but he made that decision, and 
now it is up to us.
  Hopefully, there may be some validity to this report coming from the 
Russian Foreign Minister, but we won't know that for a long while, 
until, as we say, the proof is in the pudding with Asad turning over 
control of all the chemical weapons to an international body. In the 
meantime, are we going to support the President? Clearly, in the 
interest of the national security of this country and our allies, I 
think that is a position we must take. I will vote yes on the 
resolution.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is on the motion to 
proceed to S.J. Res. 21.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Which is?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Syria resolution.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it is to that ominous resolution that I 
would like to speak.
  Within a few days the Senate will be called upon to vote on whether 
to give the President of the United States limited authority to use 
military action in response to Syrian President Asad's use of chemical 
weapons against his own people. It is an enormous and grave decision. 
It is the most serious vote I can take.
  When a U.S. Senator is called upon to authorize America's use of 
military action or military might, it calls for the most sober 
reflection, the most due diligence analysis of the facts and the 
compelling need because once you vote to authorize the use of military 
might, you cannot take it back. It is one of the few votes you can't 
take back. We can vote on our budget this year, but there will be 
another vote next year. You can vote to confirm a member of the 
Cabinet, but they serve at the pleasure of the President. But once you 
vote to use military might or military action, it is irrevocable, so I 
take it very seriously.

[[Page 13191]]

  I say to the men and women of our military that we owe them a 
tremendous debt of gratitude. I think that should not only be with 
yellow ribbons, but we also owe it to them to do the due diligence to 
choose the wisest, most prudent course.
  This is what I have done as I have contemplated my vote on the Syria 
resolution. I went to numerous briefings before Asad used chemical 
weapons, and I have gone to all of the briefings since then. I 
participated as a member of the Intelligence Committee in a variety of 
meetings. I went to a classified House and Senate briefing. I have 
listened carefully to the President, to the Secretary of State, to the 
Secretary of Defense, and even had the opportunity to sit with the Vice 
President of the United States in the Situation Room at the White House 
to go over this situation and what options are available to the United 
States of America.
  In addition to listening here in Washington, I have also listened to 
my Marylanders, whether at events or meetings going around the State, 
whether it has been grocery shopping or just being out in the Maryland 
community. I have also gotten thousands of e-mails and calls from 
Maryland constituents, and I want to thank them for their civic 
engagement. They overwhelmingly oppose military action in Syria. My 
constituents have spoken loudly and clearly. They don't want a war. 
They don't want boots on the ground. They don't want an all-in effort. 
They don't want to use or expend America's talent and treasure on 
another military expedition. They don't want war, and neither do I.
  Yet the use of chemical weapons--a weapon of mass destruction--grim 
and ghoulish, mandates a response. The use of chemical weapons flies 
against all international law and international norms. It is an act 
that should have consequences or I believe it surely will happen 
again--in Syria, possibly in Korea, possibly used by Iran.
  Since the attack, I have been waiting and hoping for a worldwide 
reaction because if it is serious enough for the world to be aghast, 
then it is serious enough for them to respond.
  I have been waiting to hear from the 189 countries that are 
signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention. I believe if you sign a 
treaty or a convention, you sign up for the responsibility that comes 
with that, which means stop proliferation of the weapons you signed 
against; stop the proliferation of chemical weapons; also, if 
necessary, to take action if mandated.
  I am waiting to hear from the Arab League. I wanted to hear from the 
Arab League, beyond: Yes, we want Asad to be accountable. I don't know 
what that means--hold him accountable. What does that mean? Does it 
mean if we use missiles they will send in Arab men to defend Arab women 
and children? I have not quite heard that.
  I have waited to hear from our allies, and there are a hearty, 
reliable few who have supported us. Are they going to help support the 
chemical weapons treaty? Are they going to help support the moderates 
in the opposition? Have they called for a donor conference on refugees? 
Hello out there.
  Then there is the U.N. Security Council. By the way, I applaud the 
work of the U.N. weapons inspectors and the U.N.'s work on refugees, 
but where is the Security Council? People will say: Oh, we can't act 
unless the Security Council acts. Three times Asad enablers at the 
U.N., Russia and China, have vetoed every effort to move to a political 
solution--vetoed three times efforts to move to a political solution. 
The U.N. seems paralyzed in this effort.
  In deciding my vote, I had to be sure that chemical weapons were used 
by the Asad regime. I was 1 of 19 Senators who voted against going to 
war in Iraq. I did vote after 9/11 to use lethal action against the 
Taliban, but when it came to the Iraq war, as a member of the 
Intelligence Committee I had reviewed these briefs and I did not 
believe Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons so I voted no. I was right.
  This time is different because, after extensive briefings and the 
evidence that has been outlined to members of the Intelligence 
Committee, I am satisfied that, indeed, chemical weapons were used in 
Syria and I am satisfied the Asad regime gave the order to do so.
  There are those who say to me: Senator Barb, aren't you concerned 
about the risks and the retaliations if we take action? You bet I am. I 
worry about that. I worry about my own country. I worry about our own 
military. I worry about treasured allies such as Jordan, Israel, 
Turkey. But I also worry about the risk of doing nothing because, as I 
weigh this, I believe the risk and retaliatory possibilities are the 
same even if we do not act because if they do not use them in 
retaliation against us there is a very good chance that if we leave it 
unresponded to, they will use them anyway. There is no guarantee that 
by doing nothing the bad guys, who have chemical weapons, will do 
nothing. In fact, I fear that Asad, Iran, and North Korea will be 
further emboldened.
  Last, I had to review the President's resolution that is pending 
before us, that came out of the Foreign Relations Committee, modified, 
and the President's plan. The President's plan is very straightforward, 
his proposal is very straightforward, a targeted limited attack. His 
purpose is to deter and to degrade; to deter Asad from using those 
weapons again and to degrade Asad's capability and capacity to use 
them.
  I also listened to the President's promise--and I take him at his 
word--that any action would not be boots on the ground; that it is not 
an extended air campaign; that it is not another Iraq or Afghanistan; 
that we are not in it to try to do regime change. That must come from 
the Syrian opposition themselves, and I hope others help do that. It is 
meant to deter the use of chemical weapons and to degrade Asad's 
capability.
  I believe the President's plan is the best response to protect U.S. 
security interests in the region and to show commitment to our common 
security interests with allies such as Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. 
Therefore, after great reflection and as much due diligence as I could 
do, I want to announce today to my colleagues, and most of all to the 
people of Maryland who supported me, that I will support the 
President's request for a targeted, limited military action against the 
Syrian President Bashar Asad's regime in response to the horrific, 
grim, and ghoulish use of chemical weapons.
  Let me be clear: I have no grand hopes or illusions about what this 
strike will do. I do not believe this strike will stop Syria's brutal 
civil war. I do not believe this strike will stop Asad from being a 
ruthless, brutal dictator. I do not believe a strike will eliminate all 
of his chemical weapons. But I do believe it will deter and degrade his 
capability to strike again, and I do believe when you sign up for a 
convention to ban the use of chemical weapons, the United States of 
America acts in accordance with its responsibility.
  Syria is one of the toughest foreign policy issues on which we have 
focused; there are not many good options. Yet I believe the President's 
plan is the best way and, as of this moment, the only way forward. He 
has my support.
  In today's late-breaking news, I understand Russia has now said: Oh, 
let's put these weapons under international control. Where were the 
Russians during the U.N. Security Council meetings on those three other 
occasions? Is this another tactic for delay? Is this just another 
tactic to enable Asad to have more time to focus?
  I remain skeptical, but I will leave that to the President to analyze 
the Russians' intent about what their followthrough is on that. Today 
is not to mandate the strike. My vote does not mandate a strike. But my 
vote is to say: Mr. President, you are the Commander in Chief. We can 
only have one at a time. You analyze the situation and if you think it 
is necessary to protect the security of the United States of America 
and to fulfill our responsibilities under the conventions we have 
signed on chemical weapons, you have my support to act in what you 
think is the best way and in our best interests.

[[Page 13192]]

  I look forward to additional debate with my colleagues and also 
further in this debate, in coming to closure, hopefully this week.
  I yield the floor.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the situation in 
Syria and the historic choice facing this Congress and America. I have 
been deeply concerned about the situation in Syria since March of 2011, 
when thousands of Syrians from all backgrounds peacefully protested for 
a change in the politics and the economy of their country. I think many 
of us believed these peaceful protests would lead to the end of an 
autocratic Asad regime, just as other despots have fallen in other 
parts of the Arab world.
  Yet President Bashar al-Asad, like his father before him, Hafez al-
Asad, instead responded with horrific violence to suppress the 
aspirations of his own people. With the disturbing help of Russia, 
Hezbollah, and Iran, Asad has managed to hang on to power and turn his 
country into a humanitarian nightmare.
  I met with the Russian Ambassador to the United States here in my 
office in Washington on this issue. I visited the refugee camps along 
the Turkish border. I talked with the moderate Syrian opposition in 
Istanbul. I discussed this situation with the Turkish President, Mr. 
Gul, and their Foreign Minister, Davutoglu, and met with many Chicago-
area Syrian Americans.
  I hoped diplomatic and economic pressure would bring an end to the 
mayhem and human suffering in Syria. I know the American people feel a 
responsibility for those overseas in need and those who are struggling 
to find freedom. But I also know something else about the people of my 
State of Illinois, and I believe of this country: They are weary of 
war.
  Then came the August 21 chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in 
the middle of the night. At that moment an important challenge was 
thrown down to the international community. That is not in any way to 
diminish the violence that has taken place in Syria over the last 
several years. Over 100,000 died in that violence.
  But when it comes to the use of chemical weapons, the world made a 
decision almost 100 years ago about their use--even in war. How did we 
reach this international consensus on this horrible weapon? We saw 
firsthand what it could do. The large-scale use of chemical weapons in 
World War I killed many and left many wounded and disabled.
  Those who have some memory of this war--either from a history class 
or having spoken to someone who served there--understand what it meant. 
These photos can't do justice to the devastation of chemical weapons 
and poison gas, but this is a German gas attack on the Eastern Front in 
World War I. We can see that as the gas billowed, the victims were 
anyone who happened to be in its wake.
  This is also a photograph of British troops from World War I who were 
subjected to the poison gas, the chemical weapon of the day, and 
blinded during the battle of Estaire in 1918. These photos show just a 
snapshot of the use of poison gases which don't reach the level of 
virulence of those used today. Yet maybe even more poignant are the 
audio recordings of the actual former World War I British soldiers 
maintained by the BBC for generations so the experience would not be 
forgotten.
  This is one excerpt of British troops struggling to cope with the 
effects of chemical warfare:

       Propped up against a wall was a dozen men--all gassed--
     their colours were black, green and blue, tongues hanging out 
     and eyes staring--one or two were dead and others beyond 
     human aid, some were coughing up green froth from their 
     lungs--as we advanced we passed many more men lying in the 
     ditches and gutterways--shells were bursting all around.

  This BBC report went on to say:

       My Respirator fell to pieces with the continual removal and 
     readjustment--the gas closed my eyes and filled them with 
     matter and I could not see. I was left lying in the trench 
     with one other gassed man and various wounded beings and 
     corpses and forced to lie and spit, cough and gasp the whole 
     of the day in that trench.

  Another soldier recorded by the BBC said:

       . . . the faces of our lads who lay in the open changed 
     colour and presented a gruesome spectacle. Their faces and 
     hands gradually assumed a blue and green color and their 
     buttons and metal fittings on their uniform were all 
     discoloured. Many lay there with their legs drawn up and 
     clutching their throats.

  As a result of the horrors of World War I, in 1925 the Geneva 
Protocol prohibited the use of chemical and biological weapons in war. 
It was drawn up and signed at a conference held in Geneva under the 
auspices of the League of Nations, the precursor of the United Nations. 
This happened in June of 1925, and it became a force of law in February 
of 1928. Syria was a signatory to this agreement.
  Let me read the opening of this protocol. It is even relevant today.

       Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other 
     gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, 
     has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the 
     civilized world; and
       Whereas the prohibition of such use has been declared in 
     Treaties to which the majority of Powers of the world are 
     Parties; and
       To the end that this prohibition shall be universally 
     accepted as a part of International Law, binding alike the 
     conscience and the practice of nations.

  What the world was saying in 1925 was clear: These chemical weapons 
would never, ever be accepted in the civilized world. This message was 
reaffirmed by the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, 
Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons, which went into 
effect in 1997 and to which almost every country in the world has 
signed--almost every country. Those who have not signed: Angola, Egypt, 
North Korea, South Sudan, and Syria.
  While not completely taken off the world's battlefields--notably in 
the case of Iraq, which used poison gas against Iran and its own 
Kurdish people in the 1980s--the global prohibition against using 
chemical weapons has been largely upheld for almost a century, that is, 
until last month in Damascus, Syria. Syria has one of the largest 
stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world.
  At our hearing last week, I asked General Dempsey whether the reports 
which we have from the French were accurate. They reported the Syrians 
now have almost 1,000 tons of chemical agents and hundreds of tons of 
the deadly gas sarin, which has been detected in the pathological 
investigation of those who were victims on August 21 in Damascus, 
Syria.
  Despite all international warnings not to do so--the Syrian 
Government is literally a superpower when it comes to chemical weapons 
and has an arsenal on such a large scale--on August 21, in the 
desperation of war, Bashar Asad unleashed these chemical weapons in his 
own city on his own people.
  These are horrible pictures of what happened as a result of that 
attack. I have seen worse. One room of children stacked like cordwood--
victims of these chemical weapons. We don't believe it was the first 
time he has used them, and his father used them before him. But it is 
the largest scale we have ever seen of the use of chemical weapons by 
Asad in Syria.
  Syria has crossed the line the civilized world said must never be 
crossed. Not only has the community of nations agreed that such weapons 
are never to be used but other regimes with weapons of mass destruction 
or plans for such weapons--including North Korea and Iran--are 
undoubtedly watching to see what the world will do now.
  Now that Bashar Asad has used chemical weapons in Syria, now that the 
world has reported it, now that the photos are there for the world to 
see, and now that the pathological investigations are completed, what 
will the world do? Ideally there is a place to resolve it--the U.N. 
Security Council.

[[Page 13193]]

But, sadly, both Russia and China have said they will veto not only any 
effort to hold Asad to account, they have literally vetoed efforts to 
even pass resolutions condemning the use of chemical weapons without 
specificity in Syria.
  Russia's behavior is incredible and particularly perverse given the 
thousands of Russian soldiers who were victims of chemical weapon 
attacks in World War I. In May 1915 alone, Russian soldiers on the 
Eastern Front suffered 9,000 casualties--1,000 of them fatalities--as a 
result of German chemical weapons.
  Today I was in the airport in Chicago, and the news was flashing 
about an overture made by President Putin to try to put an end to this 
controversy. I, of course, salute and applaud any effort to resolve 
this the right way and verifiable way, and to do it with dispatch.
  What I understand this proposal to be is that the Syrians will 
somehow destroy their cache of chemical weapons and, of course, 
forswear never to use them. That would be a good opportunity, but it 
will be a difficult outcome because investigating with a third party, 
such as the United Nations, verifying where these weapons are, removing 
them from Syria in the midst of a civil war, is particularly 
challenging. If there is a way to do this diplomatically, safely, and 
to do it in a fashion where we can be certain this type of atrocity 
will not occur again, we absolutely have a responsibility to pursue it.
  I don't understand how Russia and China can be signatories to the 
1925 Geneva Protocols and the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical 
Weapons, and then turn around and protect Syria in the Security Council 
of the United Nations. If there is one international agency that should 
be involved in any major diplomatic effort to resolve this peacefully, 
it should be the United Nations.
  We should call on Mr. Putin to step forward with the leaders in China 
and say they will work with the Security Council to execute any 
diplomatic policy that can avoid further military confrontation. Until 
then, make no mistake, President Putin's proposal today, and the 
activities we are seeing and hearing from Syria, are a direct result of 
President Obama's leadership. He has stepped up--even though it is an 
unpopular position with some in this country--and said we cannot ignore 
this redline created by the world when it came to chemical weapons. It 
is time for others to stand and join us in stopping the advancement and 
use of chemical weapons once and for all.
  I have been listening to this Syria debate, and I cannot say how many 
times I have harkened back to that time 12 years ago when we debated 
entering the war in Iraq. It was another one of those votes that come 
along in the course of a congressional career that keeps you awake at 
night.
  I was serving on the Intelligence Committee in the Senate. I sat 
through hour after hour of hearings about the suspected weapons of mass 
destruction in Iraq, but it never came together in a credible way as 
far as I was concerned. There was such a rush to war 12 years ago. 
Twenty-three of us voted no--22 Democrats and 1 Republican. I can 
recall the scene. It was late at night, after midnight, right here in 
the well of the Senate when three of us were left. It was Kent Conrad 
of North Dakota and, of course, from Minnesota our friend, the late 
Senator who served with so much distinction and spoke out so many times 
on issues of morals and ethics. We cast the vote no and waited in this 
empty Chamber.
  I thought about that vote so many times. I think it was the right 
vote to vote no, but there comes a moment in history when we have to 
stand as civilized nations and say to those who are willing to ignore 
the rules and to break the rules that a line cannot be crossed. I hope 
we can get that done, and not just for the memory of Senator Wellstone 
and Senator Conrad, but in memory of so many who served here and faced 
these challenges in the past in our history. I hope we can find a 
diplomatic solution that will avoid any military use, but I know the 
reason we have reached this point in diplomacy with this Putin overture 
has more to do with the President being determined to stand for a 
matter of principle than almost anything else. We have to continue to 
make it clear that we find it unacceptable to use these chemical 
weapons. We paid a bitter price for the war in Iraq as a nation when we 
were misled as to weapons of mass destruction.
  I have seen the evidence in briefings of this deadly attack in 
Damascus. I think the evidence is overwhelming and convincing. I think 
at this point many Americans are reluctant to even consider the use of 
military force. So we sat down and drew up a resolution in the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee last week. There are strict limitations 
within this resolution about the President's authority and power. He 
has 60 days to execute a military strategy--if nothing else intervenes, 
60 days. He can extend it 30 days, but even Congress can object to that 
if it wishes. He can use military weapons but only for the purposes 
specified. No troops on the ground. No troops in combat operations. As 
Senator McCain said yesterday, that will be part of the law. The 
President has already said that is his standard as well. So for those 
who are worried about mission creep and where this might lead us, if, 
God forbid, we are faced with that possibility, this resolution 
strictly limits what the President can do.
  It was about 8 days ago that I got a phone call I will never forget 
at my home in Springfield late on a Sunday night from the President 
himself. We talked for about half an hour. We talked about a lot of 
things because we go back a long way. He talked to me about his thought 
process and what he is taking under consideration in trying to lead the 
world in this response to chemical weapons.
  I was one of the early supporters of this President. I believe in 
him. I believe in his values. I believe he has been honest with me and 
with the American people about the situation we face. I know the 
options are not good. They never are under these circumstances. But I 
also know that if we turn our backs on this situation, there will be 
some dictator in Iran or North Korea who will be emboldened to do even 
more--to perhaps use not just chemical weapons but even nuclear 
weapons. There comes a point when we have to take a stand.
  I understand when the people I represent across Illinois have said to 
me so many times in the last week: Why is it always the United States? 
Why is it that we have to be involved in this so many times? Why do we 
have to be the policemen to the world?
  Well, there is a basic answer to that. I would like to believe we 
have values the rest of the world looks up to. Oh, we have stumbled in 
our own history, and we will continue to do so, but we continue to 
fight for those basic values all around the world.
  Secondly, if someone is in trouble in their country somewhere in the 
world and they have one 9-1-1 call to make, they pray to God the United 
States will answer because we have the best military in the world. We 
have responded to challenges around the world throughout history, and 
seldom do we leave a residual power base behind. We go in, we do the 
job, we come home. That is something we can't say for a lot of nations. 
It is an awesome responsibility.
  I think the President is doing the right thing. I think his appeal to 
the leaders around the world and his appeal to the American people is 
consistent with our values as a nation.
  The President doesn't come quickly to war. He is a person who 
understands, as I do, the heavy price that has to be paid, and he 
understands there are moments when a leader--a commander in chief, a 
person with the responsibility of protecting his nation in a dangerous 
world--has to step forth and lead. If the United States did not take 
this onerous leadership role, I doubt anyone else would have.
  I take very seriously the President's promise that he won't be 
putting boots on the ground in Syria. I have been to too many funerals 
and visited too many disabled veterans to ever want to see us do that 
again, except when it is

[[Page 13194]]

absolutely necessary for America's survival.
  I think what we are doing this week in the Senate is a step in the 
right direction, and I believe it is a step that can move us toward a 
safer world. If we can find, because of the President's leadership, a 
diplomatic response that avoids further military conflict but keeps us 
safe from these deadly chemical weapons, we should pursue it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, almost all of this week on the floor of 
the Senate will be dedicated to one of the most serious, if not the 
most serious, matters this body ever considers--that of war and peace 
and the question of whether we engage American military assets in 
conflicts across the globe. I am sure I will be back to the floor later 
this week to speak on that weighty matter. I appreciate the very 
passionate remarks of the Senator from Illinois on this subject.
  Almost every week over the last several months when the Senate has 
been in session, I have come to the floor to talk about another subject 
of life-and-death consequence; that is, the growing number of 
individuals across this country who have been killed by guns. We are 
going to debate life and death on the Senate floor this week as we try 
to figure out what the course of American intervention may or may not 
be in a place on the other side of the Earth in which far too many 
innocent people, little babies and adults alike, are being killed. We 
also need to debate what we are going to do to prevent the fact that 
babies and teenagers and adults right here in the United States of 
America are being killed. So I have brought this poster down--or a 
variant of it--a couple of times a month every single month since about 
April of this year, and it shows a number. The number is a pretty 
simple number. It represents the number of people in the United States 
who have been killed by guns since December 14.
  As we get further away from that date, maybe people forget what it 
is, but in Connecticut we will never, ever forget what that date means. 
December 14 is the date on which 20 little 6- and 7-year-old boys and 
girls were killed inside Sandy Hook Elementary School, along with 6 
teachers and professionals who protected them, as well as the gunman 
and his mother. Twenty-eight people in all were killed that day. It has 
lit a spark under the American consciousness about this issue, which 
has frankly been lingering for far too long.
  Twenty-eight people died in Newtown on December 14, but every day 
across this country, on average, 30 people die due to homicide from 
guns. So I am back here today to try to tell the stories of just a 
handful of the 7,907 people who have been killed at the hands of gun 
violence since December 14. When I started back in April, I think this 
number was somewhere around 4,000. It has marched upward and almost 
doubled since then.
  This has been a really bad summer in Connecticut. For instance, in 
places such as New Haven and Hartford and Bridgeport, we thought we 
were making some real progress when it came to the number of homicides 
by guns. This summer, unfortunately, we saw far too many, people such 
as Devaante Jackson, 18 years old, who was killed on August 15 of this 
year in New Haven. He was killed in a driveby shooting while simply 
standing on a sidewalk just after 8 o'clock on the evening of August 
15. A friend of Devaante's said:

       I don't understand why somebody would do this to him. He's 
     real good. I never knew he had any problems with anybody 
     because he always (got) along with everybody.

  Another friend said:

       He wasn't a bad kid; he was just in the wrong spot at the 
     wrong time . . . everybody should know . . . stop the 
     violence, put the guns down.

  A few days later in Hartford, at the same nightclub, in two separate 
incidents, two young men--Miguel Delgado, age 21, and Brian Simpe, age 
19--were killed. Disputes started in the nightclub and spilled out onto 
the streets of Hartford--two different disputes, two different 
incidents, and both of these boys were killed.
  Brian was 19 years old. He graduated from Manchester High School and 
attended Manchester Community College. He worked at ShopRite in order 
to make enough money to go to community college. He wanted to start his 
own business. He was a kid who wanted to do something great with his 
life. Before he headed out that night, he tweeted, ``Just another 
summer night out.'' Unfortunately, in places such as Hartford and New 
Haven and Bridgeport and Baltimore and Chicago and Los Angeles, this is 
just another summer night out. Too many people are being killed simply 
as a result of common disputes, this time happening in a nightclub in 
Hartford.
  Domestic violence, as we know, unfortunately, often leads to tragic 
homicidal incidents. Janice Lesco, from Coventry, CT, died on August 
24--just a few weeks ago--from a gunshot wound to the chest. Her 
husband, who shot her, then committed suicide. Her husband had a well-
documented and decade-long history of threats and abuse. Ms. Lesco was 
a mother and a grandmother. She had lived in Coventry for most of her 
life.
  Luckily, in Connecticut we have an agreement that people who have a 
history of domestic violence shouldn't get their hands on a gun, but 
they can if they walk into a gun show or if they buy their gun on the 
Internet. We can't simply make the decision here that if a person buys 
a gun online or a person buys a gun at a gun show, they should be 
stopped from doing so if they have a history of domestic violence.
  Frankly, I was struck by this one newspaper article describing one 
night in New Haven. This is even earlier--on August 11, 2013. It starts 
by talking about Torrance Dawkins, a 22-year-old Waterbury man who was 
celebrating his birthday in a New Haven nightclub when he was shot and 
killed at about 1:30 on August 11.
  The article goes on and sort of casually says that later that day New 
Haven police responded to more gun violence. A local rapper was putting 
up sheets on an upcoming concert he was going to be holding in town, 
and he suffered a single gunshot wound to his neck. Davon Goodwin, who 
was 18 years old, was later that day shot in the thigh on Hamilton 
Street. And just before 5 p.m. that day, police were called to an area 
near Dixwell Avenue and found out that Jermaine Adams, 41, had received 
a gunshot wound to his face. Those last three people miraculously 
survived. But we can see how casual gun violence can be on a summer 
Sunday in New Haven, CT. One young man died as a consequence of a 
dispute at a nightclub, and three other people luckily survived who 
were shot later in the day.
  Every single day in this country--in the United States of America--30 
people are dying due to gun violence. Almost 8,000 people have died 
since the tragedy in Sandy Hook, and this body has done nothing to stop 
it. We have had commonsense legislation before this Senate that would 
just say: You know what. If you have a criminal history, you should not 
be able to buy a gun, no matter where you buy it--at a gun show, from a 
gun dealer, online.
  We have had commonsense bipartisan legislation on the floor saying: 
You know what. It should be a crime to buy a whole mess-load of guns 
from a gun store and then go out and intentionally sell them to 
criminals. We cannot get that passed either.
  We even tried to just say: Let's beef up our mental health system to 
make sure people who have serious mental illnesses get the treatment 
they need

[[Page 13195]]

so they do not resort to violence--the very few who do. That was part 
of the bill we could not get passed.
  So I am going to continue to come down to the floor to give voices to 
these victims, to talk about the real people, the stories behind the 
dozens of people who are killed every day by guns and the 8,000 people 
who have been killed since Sandy Hook. We are going to make an 
important decision this week about whether we are going to commit 
military assets to the Middle East, and maybe that debate will stretch 
into next week and the week after. But we should not forget that while 
people are dying overseas, people are dying due to gun violence right 
here in the United States, and before it is too late--before another 
8,000 people die from guns in this country--we should do something 
about it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we come to this Chamber as we have many 
times before--to make one of the most difficult decisions we are tasked 
to make: the authorization of the use of American military power--this 
time in Syria, to respond to the horrific attack, including the use of 
chemical weapons, of August 21 that took the lives of 1,429 Syrians, 
including at least 426 children.
  The world is watching, America is waiting to see what we do in this 
Chamber in response to the threat the world faces from those who cross 
the line of human decency and use chemical weapons against anyone, 
anywhere in the world.
  The images of August 21 were sickening and, in my view, the world 
cannot ignore the inhumanity and horror of what Bashar al-Asad did.
  As I have had to say too many times before as a Member of Congress: I 
do not take the responsibility to authorize military force lightly or 
make such decisions easily. I voted against the war in Iraq when it was 
popular, according to the polls, to vote for the war and strongly 
supported the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. But today I 
urge my colleagues to support this tightly crafted, clearly focused 
resolution to give the President authorization to use military force in 
the face of this horrific crime against humanity.
  Yes, there are clearly risks to any action we authorize, but the 
consequences of inaction--the consequences of standing down from fully 
upholding the norms of international behavior--are greater and graver 
still: further humanitarian disaster in Syria, regional instability, 
the loss of American credibility around the world, an emboldened Iran 
and North Korea, and the disintegration of international law.
  This vote will be among the most difficult any of us will be asked to 
make. But the American people expect us to make the hard decisions and 
take the hard votes. They expect us to put aside political differences 
and personal ideologies, forget partisanship and preconceptions, forget 
the polls and personal consequences.
  This is a moment for a profile in courage--a moment for each of us to 
do what we know is right--based on what we know is in the best interest 
of the United States, regardless of the polls or pontifications of 
political pundits.
  To be clear, the authorization Senator Corker and I seek is for 
focused action, with a clear understanding that American troops will 
not be on the ground in combat.
  We have worked closely to put politics aside, weigh the facts, search 
our consciences, and pass a resolution in committee that we believe is 
in the national security interest of the American people.
  I have said before and will say again: This is not a declaration of 
war but a declaration of our values to the world.
  I want to thank Senator Corker for being a close partner in helping 
to tailor and focus the language of this resolution so it reflects the 
will of the committee, the interests of the American people, and gives 
the President the authority he needs to respond to Syria's use of 
chemical weapons against its own people.
  What we know. What we know is clear, notwithstanding Asad's interview 
and his denials.
  According to the declassified intelligence assessment, we know--with 
high confidence--that the Syrian Government carried out a chemical 
weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21.
  We know that the buck stops with Asad--his interview-denials aside. 
We know that he controls the regime's stockpiles of chemical agents, 
including mustard, sarin, and VX gas, and has thousands of munitions 
capable of delivering them, again, under his control.
  It is inconceivable--and defies all logic--that he would not know 
about the preparations and deployment of these horrific weapons.
  We know that personnel involved in the program are carefully vetted 
to ensure loyalty to the regime and the security of the program.
  We know that chemical weapons personnel from the Syrian Scientific 
Studies and Research Center, subordinate to the regime's Ministry of 
Defense, were operating in the Damascus suburb of `Adra from Sunday, 
August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday August 21 near an 
area the regime uses to mix chemical weapons including sarin.
  Human intelligence, as well as signal and geospatial intelligence 
have shown regime activity in the preparation of chemicals prior to the 
attack, including the distribution and use of gas masks.
  Some may still be skeptical about Asad's direct involvement, but 
clearly the buck stops with Asad when it comes to the use of these 
weapons.
  Some may also be skeptical that we have not done enough to allow 
diplomacy to work, but the fact is we have tried diplomacy. We have 
gone to the UN on many occasions, and it has only bought Asad more 
time.
  Notwithstanding Russia's belated offer today to take action, which, 
by the way, will only be on the table today specifically because of the 
threat of the use of force, let us not forget it has been their 
intransigence that brought us to this point in the first place.
  The fact is, on August 28, a week after the attack, Russia blocked a 
UN Security Council resolution that called ``for all necessary 
measures'' to be taken, and simply called for any state that used 
chemical weapons to be held accountable.
  On the day of the attack, August 21, Russia blocked a Security 
Council press statement simply expressing ``concern'' that chemical 
weapons might have been used.
  On August 6, Russia blocked another press statement welcoming the 
news that a UN investigations team would investigate three sites, and 
calling for their full and unfettered access to those sites.
  Russia has also vetoed a Security Council resolution enshrining the 
June 30 Geneva Communique brokered by Kofi Annan, vetoed a resolution 
calling for an end to violence in Syria, vetoed a draft resolution 
endorsing the Arab League's plan of action that would have condemned 
human rights violations.
  They blocked a press statement calling for humanitarian access to the 
besieged city of Homs, and one calling for Syrian authorities to 
provide the UN with humanitarian access.
  Over the course of the conflict in Syria, the United States 
Government, specifically the State Department, has met consistently 
with its close allies and partners, as well as with Syria's neighbors, 
to help prepare the region to detect, prevent, and respond to potential 
use or proliferation of chemical weapons.
  As Ambassador Power acknowledged in her remarks at the Center for 
American Progress on September 6, the United States has regularly 
engaged with the Russians and Iranians to attempt to get them to use 
their influence to stop the Asad regime from using chemical weapons.

[[Page 13196]]

  The same day, September 6, the United States and 10 other countries 
issued a joint statement condemning the Asad regime's use of chemical 
weapons. They were: Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, the 
Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, and Great Britain. 
Since then 14 other nations have also signed onto that statement: 
Albania, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, Kosovo, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Morocco, Qatar, Romania, and the United Arab 
Emirates.
  It is only the threat by the President, and this resolution, that 
would drive both Russia and Syria to the negotiating table.
  The facts are clear. We have tried diplomacy.
  Let us understand that this action is not a choice of force or 
diplomacy. It is about both.
  It is about enforcing international norms that will, at the end of 
the day, leverage necessary UN action and help bring about a political 
solution.
  For those who want to see UN Security Council action, those who want 
to push Syria to sign a chemical weapons agreement and give up their 
weapons, this resolution is the best path to getting there.
  Let me say to my colleagues who believe that the authorization of the 
use of military force will be nothing more than a pin-prick. This 
resolution will have clear and verifiable consequences.
  It will help keep these weapons in check, degrade Asad's ability to 
deploy them, and prevent the proliferation of chemical weapons and 
their use by anyone, anywhere in the world.
  The resolution will have clear consequences, but it is also not open-
ended.
  It appropriately narrows the scope, duration, and breadth of the 
authority granted to meet Congressional concerns, and the concerns of 
the American people.
  It is tightly tailored to give the President ``necessary and 
appropriate'' authority to use military force to respond to the use of 
weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government; protect the 
national security interests of the United States and our allies and 
partners; and degrade Syria's capacity to use such weapons in the 
future.
  It has a requirement for determination that the use of military force 
is necessary, that appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to 
prevent the deployment and use of chemical weapons by Syria have been 
used, and that the United States has both a specific military plan to 
achieve the goal of responding to the use of weapons of mass 
destruction by the Syrian government and that the use of military force 
is consistent with the broader goals of U.S. strategy toward Syria, 
including achieving a negotiated settlement to the conflict, and a 
limitation that specifies that the resolution ``does not authorize the 
use of United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the 
purposes of combat operations'' assuring there will be no ``boots on 
the ground.''
  The authorization would end after 60 days, with the President having 
the ability to request and certify for another 30 days, and with 
Congress having an opportunity to pass a resolution of disapproval. It 
provides for an integrated United States Government strategy for Syria, 
including a comprehensive review of current and planned U.S. 
diplomatic, political, economic and military policy towards Syria, and 
requires a Report to Congress on the status of the military operations. 
I know my colleagues on both sides will want to offer a range of 
amendments.
  Let me say in conclusion, history has taught us harsh lessons when it 
comes to the use of chemical weapons.
  The images we saw of children lined on the floor on August 21 were 
not the first images the world has ever seen of the horrors of chemical 
attacks.
  We saw them almost 100 years ago in World War I.
  If we do not learn from and live by the lessons of the past, if we 
fail the test of history then we are destined and doomed to repeat it.
  If we allow the use and proliferation of chemical weapons despite the 
world's horror at the gruesome and horrific use of mustard gas, 
phosgene, and chlorine at the beginning of last century, then we risk 
the same horrors again in this century.
  Let us not fail the test of history.
  Let us say to the world that we cannot allow anyone to use chemical 
weapons again, and that we can never allow such weapons to fall into 
the hands of stateless-actors and terrorists who would unleash them 
against America or American interests around the world.
  I repeat what I said earlier: Let us understand that this action is 
not about force or diplomacy. It is about both. It is about enforcing 
international norms that will, at the end of the day, leverage 
necessary UN action and help bring about a political solution.
  For those who want to see UN Security Council action, those who want 
to push Syria to sign a chemical weapons agreement and give up their 
weapons, this is the best path to getting there.
  Make no mistake, the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime 
ultimately represents a national security threat to the United States, 
a global security threat we cannot ignore.
  Let me read what our former colleague and respected Chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, recently said in the press: 
``We are talking about weapons of mass destruction. We are talking 
about chemical weapons in particular which may be the greatest threat 
to our country of any security risk we have--much more than any other 
government, or another nation--because they can be used by terrorists, 
by very small groups.
  The use of those weapons has got to concern us to the point that we 
take action whenever any country crosses that line and use these 
weapons as we have seen in Syria.''
  Senator Lugar is right. We must be concerned--deeply concerned--and 
that is why we must act. The danger of proliferation is too great--too 
much of a risk--for us to stand silent and stand down.
  I urge my colleagues to put aside politics, polls, and preconceptions 
and do what we know, at the end of the day, is in the national security 
of the American people.
  Again, I want to thank Senator Corker and members of the committee 
for working quickly together to respond to this crisis with a well-
crafted resolution that is a declaration of our values and will send a 
clear message that we--and the world--cannot and will not tolerate the 
use of chemical weapons anywhere--by anyone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman for his 
comments for a historical analysis of what has occurred and his 
comments regarding our ability to work together. I do wish to reiterate 
a point that the chairman made partially through his comments. I do not 
think any of us know at this time whether the offers that today have 
been made from Russia and responses that have been given from Syria, I 
do not think we have any idea whether there is credibility at present.
  What I do know is there would be absolutely zero conversation about 
that had our committee not passed an authorization out on a 10-to-7 
vote and if we were not taking this up this week. So I wish to commend 
the chairman for his leadership on this issue. I have enjoyed working 
with him. I have enjoyed working with him on all the issues relative to 
Syria and all the other things we have done in a bipartisan way.
  I think it has been the tradition--I know it has been the tradition 
of this body, when it comes to issues beyond our shorelines, to set 
aside partisanship, as was mentioned a moment ago, and do things that 
are in the best interests of our Nation. There is nothing more 
important that each Member of this body will take up than the 
authorization for the use of military force. I sensed it the other day 
in our committee. I have sensed it with those whom I have talked to 
since. Each Member is looking at this with a sense of humility and 
soberness. I truly believe it is up to each Member to make this 
decision.

[[Page 13197]]

  I will say the issues of Syria are something I am familiar with. I 
have traveled to the region, as I know the chairman and many others 
have. I have traveled three times this year. I wrote an op-ed in the 
New York Times in April regarding what our response to Syria should be. 
Our committee thankfully passed, on a 15-to-3 vote on May 21, with the 
chairman's leadership, the Syria Transition Support Act.
  This was to support the vetted moderate opposition and require the 
administration to develop a comprehensive strategy. I know Members of 
this body know I support this authorization. I helped write it with the 
chairman. I am very comfortable with my position in supporting this and 
believe what we have done with this authorization we have done in the 
right and correct way.
  I will say I have been very dismayed at the administration's lack of 
response after stating publicly that they were going to support the 
vetted moderate opposition in certain ways. I have been very frustrated 
at the response and the lack of support in that way. As I mentioned, I 
was just in the area 3 weeks ago. I visited the same refugee camp in 
Turkey on the Syrian border and in Jordan on the Syrian border. I saw 
some of the same refugees whom I saw there less than 1 year ago.
  Candidly, I am dismayed we have not supported the vetted opposition 
in a better way. I know we have urged out of our committee that we have 
a much more comprehensive strategy. I wish that bill had come to the 
floor. I wish the Senate had taken action. But, candidly, I also am 
dismayed this administration has not taken action to do something in a 
more comprehensive way.
  No question the introduction of chemical weapons has changed the 
dynamic tremendously. I think the chairman was very articulate in 
explaining why this is important. I wish to say to everybody in this 
body, to me an equally important issue for our Nation is the 
credibility of the United States of America. I believe our President, 
whether you support him, whether you like him, I believe the President 
spoke for our Nation when he established a red line some months ago 
regarding the use of chemical weapons.
  I believe it is very important for our Nation's credibility in the 
region and in the world that we have an appropriate response when we 
have a dictator such as Asad take the actions he has taken against 
international norms the way he has but especially when the Commander in 
Chief of our Nation has spoken the way he has about this issue. To me 
this is twofold. Certainly, it is about the international norms that 
have been spoken to eloquently by many, but to me it is also an issue 
of this Nation's credibility of the response as people are looking on 
to what we are going to do.
  That is why I support this authorization. I do wish to go back over a 
couple points the chairman referred to relative to the substance of the 
authorization. I think most people know the White House sent over an 
authorization that to me was very broad. It did not define what we were 
going to do in a specific way.
  I know the chairman just talked about the fact that this 
authorization is tailored. It is specific. Let me go over again 
specifically what this authorization does. It is specific purposes 
only: to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction to dissuade 
future use, degrade ability, and to prevent transfer, no boots on the 
ground for combat operations.
  I know there have been some discussions about that in our committee. 
Very emphatically, this authorization eliminates and keeps any boots on 
the ground for combat operations from occurring.
  This has a time limit of 60 days with a 30-day extension which 
Congress can disapprove. It is geographically limited to Syria only, 
which the original authorization was not. It is against legitimate 
military targets only, which again the original authorization was not.
  There are a series of determinations the President has to make prior 
to taking action with this authorization, including that it is in the 
core national interests of the United States and that he has a military 
plan to achieve the objectives.
  In addition, this authorization requires a comprehensive strategy for 
a negotiated end to this conflict.
  I wish to refer to something else the chairman mentioned; that is, 
the type of activity. I know there have been a number of editorial 
comments in papers and publications around the country referring to 
this as a pinprick. There have been other concerns by Members of this 
body as to the duration of this effort, as to how long it will be.
  I have had the privilege, because of the position I serve in on the 
Foreign Relations Committee, to be involved in multiple phone calls and 
personal meetings. There was one last night that lasted at great length 
with the President and Vice President.
  I wish to say to every person in this body, I have no belief 
whatsoever that if military action is taken, it is going to be a 
pinprick--none. The American military has incredible ability to deal 
with issues in a forceful way but also do so in a very short timeframe.
  I do believe, based on the many meetings we have had, both with 
military and civilian leadership, that to characterize what is proposed 
as a pinprick or to characterize what is proposed as inserting 
ourselves into a long-term civil war, I think both of those 
characterizations are wrong.
  Obviously, one of the dilemmas people here deal with is that we write 
policy and then it is up to the administration to carry that out--and 
no question, none of us will be involved in the direct carrying out. 
But it is my firm belief that there is not a thread of thinking by the 
administration that what they are considering is a pinprick.
  On the other hand, I have not a thread of thought that they are also 
considering doing something that is going to involve us in a long-term 
civil war. Obviously, conflicts such as this are complex.
  In closing, let me say this. Each Senator has to make their own 
decision. This is one of those things where lobbying is not something 
that is going to make up the minds of Senators. I think each Senator 
has to make up their own hearts and minds.
  What I can say is we are going to have an open process. I know we 
have talked about the process going forward. I hope Senators will keep 
their amendments germane. I hope we have a sober debate about an issue 
that is the most important type of decision any Senator will make.
  I am thrilled the President decided to come to Congress for an 
authorization. I know a lot of people have made many comments regarding 
this. Candidly, I am pleased the President has come to us for a debate. 
It is my hope the Senate, after hearing the facts and after having a 
thoughtful debate, will approve the authorization for the use of 
military force.
  I couldn't agree more with the chairman that if people wish to see a 
diplomatic solution--which is the only way we are going to end this 
conflict--I do not think this conflict ends militarily. I believe we 
have learned a lot from the last two episodes we have been through.
  I believe it is important for us to have this authorization because I 
believe it is the only thing at this point, the fact that we passed it 
out of committee, the fact that it is on the floor, that might possibly 
lead to a diplomatic settlement.
  I also believe it is time for the President to lead. I know there 
have been a lot of statements over the last week, and the President had 
multiple audiences in which to speak. I understand this, and I 
understand reports out of these meetings can come in many ways not to 
be accurate.
  The President is coming to the Hill tomorrow. He will be making a 
major speech to the United States, the citizens of our country, 
tomorrow night. I know many of them have lives, where all of them, most 
of them, get up in the mornings, go to work, they raise their families, 
and they haven't had the opportunity to spend as much time on these 
issues. That is why we are elected to do this.

[[Page 13198]]

  I will say this. It is very important for the President of the United 
States to come to Congress and for the President of the United States 
to make his case to the American people.
  He is asking for this authorization. I believe it is important for us 
to give him this authorization.
  Again, I wish to thank the chairman for working with us to make sure 
we have narrowed this authorization in such a way that I think it meets 
the test of what the American people and what all of us wish to see 
happen. But I do believe now it is up to the President, over the next 
several days and this week, to make his case to the American people as 
to why the Senate should give him this authorization for the use of 
military force, which I hope we will do.
  I thank you for the time, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________