[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13353-13361]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 SYRIA

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak to the grave issue of the 
Syria resolution currently pending before the body.
  It is September 11. I know many Members have expressed thoughts, and 
we are all thinking about that day and what it means to our country. In 
a few minutes I will leave and go to the Pentagon to be with Pentagon 
staffers and family members as they commemorate the anniversary of this 
horrible tragedy in American life. The shadow of that tragedy and its 
rippling effects even today, 12 years later, definitely are a matter on 
my mind and heart as I think about this issue with respect to Syria.
  Also on my mind and heart as I think about this grave issue is its 
connection to Virginia. I believe Virginia is the most militarily 
connected State in our country. Our map is a map of American military 
history: the battle at Yorktown, the surrender at Appomattox Court 
House, the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11. Our map is a map of American 
military history. We are more connected to the military in the sense 
that one in nine of our citizens is a veteran. We have Active Duty at 
the Pentagon, training to be officers at Quantico, the largest 
concentration of naval power in the world at Hampton Roads. We have DOD 
contractors. We have DOD civilians such as Army nurses. We have ROTC 
cadets, Guard and Reserve members, and military families, all of whom 
care very deeply about the issue we are grappling with as a nation.
  I am sure in the Presiding Officer's State, as in mine and across the 
country, there is a war weariness on this 12th anniversary of 9/11, and 
that affects the way we look at this question of whether the United 
States should potentially engage in military action.
  I cast a vote last week in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to 
authorize limited military action, and I have spent the days since that 
vote talking to Virginians and hearing from them and hearing from some 
who aren't happy with the vote I cast.
  I spent 1 day talking to ROTC cadets at Virginia State University, 
folks who are training to be officers who might fight in future 
conflicts for this country. Then I spent Friday in Hampton Roads with 
veterans and military families talking about the choices before us.
  I heard a teenager last night say something that truly struck me. 
This is a teenager who doesn't have any direct connection to the 
military herself, no family members in service. But at an event I was 
attending, she stood and said: I don't know war, but all my generation 
and I know is war. Think about that: I don't know war, but all my 
generation and I know is war. During her entire life that she has been 
kind of a thinking person, aware of the outside world, we have been at 
war. That makes us tremendously war-weary, and I understand that. So 
trying to separate out all those feelings and do what is right is hard.
  Similar to many Virginians, I have family in the military who are 
going to be directly affected by what we do or what we don't do. I 
think about those family members and all Virginians and all Americans 
who have loved ones in service as I contemplate this difficult issue.
  I wish to say three things. First, I wish to praise the President for 
bringing this matter to Congress, which I believe is courageous and 
historic. Secondly, I wish to talk about why I believe authorizing 
limited military action makes sense. Third, I wish to talk about the 
need to exhaust all diplomatic opportunities and openings, including 
the ones that were reported beginning Monday of this week by Russia and 
Syria.
  First, on the President coming to Congress. This was what was 
intended by the Framers of the Constitution; that prior to the 
initiation of significant military action--and this would be 
significant by all accounts--that Congress should have to weigh in. The 
Framers wanted that to be so. They had read history. They knew 
executives might be a little too prone to initiating military action, 
and they wanted to make sure the people's elected representatives had a 
vote about whether an action should be initiated. Once initiated, there 
is only one Commander in Chief. But at the initiation, Congress needs 
to be involved. That was the intent from the very beginning of this 
Nation from 1787. There was an understanding that in an emergency, a 
President might need to act immediately, but even in that case there 
would need to be a reckoning, a coming back to Congress and seeking 
approval of Presidential action.
  In my view, the President, by bringing this matter to Congress, has 
acted in accord with law, acted in accord with the intent of the 
Framers of the Constitution, and actually has done so in a way that has 
cleared up some sloppiness about the way this institution and the 
President has actually done this over time.
  Only five times in the history of the Nation has Congress declared 
war. Over 120 times Presidents have initiated military action without 
congressional approval--at least prior congressional approval. 
Presidents have overreached their power, and Congress has often made a 
decision to avoid being accountable for this most grave decision that 
we make as a nation.
  I praise the President for bringing it to Congress, the people's 
body, because I think it is in accord with law. But I praise him for a 
second reason. It is not just about the constitutional allocation of 
responsibility. Responsibilities were allocated in the Constitution, in 
my view, for a very important moral reason. The moral reason is this: 
We cannot ask our men and women in service to put their lives on the 
line if there is not a consensus of the legislative and executive 
branches that the mission is worthwhile.
  That is why it is important for Congress to weigh in on a decision to 
initiate military hostility because, absent that, we face the situation 
that would be a very real possibility in this instance that a President 
would make a decision that an action or a war was worth fighting but a 
Congress would not support it. That would put the men and women who 
have to face the risk and potentially risk their lives in a very 
difficult situation. If we are going to ask people to risk their lives 
in any kind of a military action, we shouldn't be asking them to do it 
if the legislative and political branches haven't reached some 
consensus that it should be done.
  That is the first point I wish to make. I wish to thank the President 
for cleaning up this sloppiness in the historical allocation of 
responsibilities between a President and Congress, for taking a 
historic step--as he said he would as a candidate--of bringing a 
question such as this to Congress.
  We may be unable to act in certain cases because we are divided. But 
if we act and we act united, we are much stronger both militarily and 
in the moral example that we pose to the world. It is the right thing 
to do for the troops who bear the burden of battle.

[[Page 13354]]

  Second, I wish to talk about the actual authorization. We grappled 
with this. The news came out about the chemical weapons attack on 
August 21, and 18 of us members of the Foreign Relations Committee 
returned last week. The Presiding Officer came and attended some of our 
classified meetings. We grappled with the question about whether in 
this circumstance a limited military authorization was appropriate, and 
I voted yes. I voted yes for a very simple reason. I believe there has 
to be a consequence for using chemical weapons against civilians.
  It is pretty simple. There are a lot of nuances, a lot of subtleties, 
and a lot of questions about whether the plans might accomplish the 
particular objective we hope. Those are all legitimate questions. But 
at the end of the day, I feel so very strongly that if chemical weapons 
have been used--and in this case they were and used on a massive scale 
and used against civilians--there must be a consequence for that. There 
must be a sharp consequence for it. If there isn't, the whole world 
will be worse off.
  I believe that if the United States acts in this way to uphold an 
important international norm--perhaps the most important international 
norm that weapons of mass destruction can't be used against civilians--
if we act to uphold the norm, we will have partners. How many partners? 
We will see. Maybe not as many as we would wish, but we will have 
partners. But I am also convinced that if the United States does not 
act to uphold this principle, I don't think anyone will act. If we act, 
we will have partners; if we don't, I don't think anyone will act. That 
is the burden of leadership that is on this country's shoulders.
  We know about the history of the chemical weapons ban, and we are so 
used to it that it seems normal. But just to kind of step back from it, 
if we think about it, it is not that normal at all.
  The chemical weapons ban came out of World War I. World War I was a 
mechanized slaughter with over 10 million deaths, a slaughter unlike 
anything that had ever been seen in global history. There were all 
kinds of weapons used in World War I that had never been used before, 
including dropping bombs out of airplanes. Dropping bombs out of 
airplanes, new kinds of artillery, new kinds of munitions, new kinds of 
machine guns, chemical weapons, all kinds of mechanized and 
industrialized weapons were used in World War I. The American troops 
who served in 1917 and 1918 were gassed. They would be sleeping in a 
trench, trying to get a couple hours of sleep, and they would wake up 
coughing their lungs out or blinded--or they wouldn't wake up because 
some of the gases were invisible and silent. With no knowledge, you 
could suddenly lose your life or be disabled for life because of 
chemical weapons.
  The number of casualties in World War I because of chemical weapons 
was small as a percentage of the total casualties. But it is 
interesting what happened. After World War I, the nations of the world 
that had been at each other's throats, that had battled each other, 
gathered a few years later. It is interesting to think what they banned 
and didn't ban. They didn't ban aerial bombardment. They didn't ban 
machine guns. They didn't ban rockets. They didn't ban shells. They 
didn't ban artillery. But they did decide to ban chemical weapons. They 
were able to all agree, as combatants, that chemical weapons were 
unacceptable and should neither be manufactured nor used.
  It can seem maybe a little bit illogical or even absurd: Why is it 
worse to be killed by a chemical weapon than a machine gun or by an 
artillery shell? I don't know what the logic is to it. All I can assume 
is that the experience of that day and moment had inspired some common 
spark of humanity in all of these cultures and combating nations, and 
they all agreed the use of chemical weapons should be banned heretofore 
on the Earth.
  Nations agreed with that ban. The Soviet Union was on board. The 
United States was on board. So many nations were on board. Syria 
ultimately signed that accord in 1968. Even in the midst of horrific 
wars where humans have done horrific things to each other, since 1925 
and the passage of the ban, the ban has stuck. The international 
community has kept that ember of humanity alive that says these weapons 
should not be used, and only two dictators until now have used these 
weapons--Adolph Hitler using these weapons against millions of Jews and 
others and Saddam Hussein using the weapons against Kurds, his own 
people, and then against Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war.
  When we think about it, it is pretty amazing. With all the barbarity 
that has happened since 1925, this has generally stuck, with the 
exception of Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein, until now. The 
beneficiaries of this policy have been civilians, but they have also 
been American service men and women. The service men and women who 
fought in World War I were gassed from this country, but the Americans 
who fought in World War II, in Europe and North Africa and the Pacific, 
who fought in Korea, who fought in Vietnam, who fought in Afghanistan, 
who fought in Iraq, who fought in other minor military involvements 
have never had to worry about facing chemical weapons. No matter how 
bad the opponent was, American troops haven't had to worry about it, 
and the troops of other nations haven't had to worry about it either. 
This is a very important principle, and it is a positive thing for 
humanity that we reached this accord and we have honored it.
  So what happens now if there isn't a consequence for Bashar al-
Assad's escalating use of chemical weapons, to include chemical weapons 
against civilians.
  What happens if we let go of the norm and we say: Look, that may have 
been OK for the 20th century, but we are tougher and more cynical now. 
There are not any more limits now, so we don't have to abide by any 
norms now. What I believe the lesson is--and I think the lessons of 
history will demonstrate that this will apply--is that an atrocity 
unpunished will engender future atrocities. We will see more atrocities 
in Syria against civilians and others. We will see more atrocities 
abroad. We will see atrocities, and we will have to face the likely 
consequence that our servicemembers, who have not had to face chemical 
weapons since 1925, will now have to prepare to face them on the 
battlefield.
  If countries can use chemical weapons and there is no serious 
consequence, guess what else they can do. They can manufacture chemical 
weapons. Guess what else. They can sell chemical weapons and 
proliferate chemical weapons. It is not just a matter that the use of 
chemical weapons would be encouraged, but the manufacture and sale of 
chemical weapons by individuals or companies or countries that want to 
make money will proliferate.
  This has a devastating potential effect on allies of the United 
States and the neighbors around Syria such as Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, 
and Turkey. It would have a devastating impact on other allies, such as 
South Korea, that border nations that use chemical weapons. It could 
encourage other nations that have nonchemical weapons of mass 
destruction, for example, nuclear weapons, to think that the world will 
not stand up, there is no consequence for their use so they can violate 
treaties, violate norms, and no one is willing to stand and oppose it.
  That was the reason I voted last week in the Foreign Relations 
Committee for this limited authorization of military force. I was fully 
aware the debate on the floor might amend or change it, and I was open 
to that possibility. But I thought it was important to stand as a 
representative of Virginia and a representative of this country to say: 
The use of chemical weapons may suddenly be OK in the 21st century for 
Bashar al-Asad, it may suddenly be OK to Vladimir Putin and others, but 
it is not OK to the United States of America, and we are willing to 
stand and oppose them.
  The limited military authorization that is on this floor, as the 
Presiding Officer knows, talks about action to punish, deter, and 
degrade the ability of the Syrian regime to use chemical

[[Page 13355]]

weapons. The goal is to take the chemical weapons stockpile of that 
nation out of the battlefield equation. The civil war will continue. We 
don't have the power, as the United States, to dictate the outcome of 
that war. But chemical weapons should not be part of that war, and they 
should not be part of any war.
  The authorization was limited. There will be no ground troops. It was 
limited in scope and duration, but make no mistake, the authorization 
was a clear statement of American resolve that there has to be a 
consequence for use of these weapons in violation of international 
norms that have been in place since 1925.
  Finally, I want to talk about diplomacy and the urgent need that I 
know we all feel in this body, and as Americans, to pursue diplomatic 
alternatives--including some current alternatives on the table--that 
would be far preferable to military action. It is very important that 
we be creative. It is very important that we have direct talks with the 
perpetrators and enablers of these crimes, but also important to look 
to intermediaries and independent nations for diplomatic alternatives.
  We have been trying to do so until recently and have been blocked in 
the United Nations. But the authorization for military force actually 
had that as its first caveat. The authorization said: Mr. President, if 
this passes, we authorize you to use military force, but before you do, 
you have to come back to Congress and stipulate that all diplomatic 
angles, options, and possibilities have been exhausted.
  So on the committee, and with the wording of this authorization, we 
were very focused on the need to continue a diplomatic effort, and that 
is why it was so gratifying on Monday, on my way back to DC after a 
long week, to hear that Russia had come to the table with a proposal 
inspired by a discussion with administration figures. It is a proposal 
that the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile--one of the largest in the 
world--would be placed under international control.
  Then a few hours later--and this was no coincidence--Syria, 
essentially Russia's client state, spoke up and said: We will very much 
entertain placing our chemical weapons under international control. 
Syria has even suggested, beyond that, they would finally sign on to 
the 1990s-era Chemical Weapons Convention. They are one of six nations 
in the world that refused to sign it. Syria would not even acknowledge 
they had chemical weapons until 2012--even though the world knew it.
  Over the last 48 hours, we have seen diplomatic options emerge that 
are very serious and meaningful. In fact--and it is too early to tell--
if we can have these discussions and find an accord where Syria will 
sign on to the convention and put these weapons under international 
control, we will not only have avoided a bad thing, such as military 
action, which none of us want unless it is necessary, but we will have 
accomplished a good thing for Syrians and humanity by taking this 
massive chemical weapons stockpile off the battlefield and submitting 
it to international control and eventually destruction.
  The offer that is on the table, and the action that has happened 
since Monday is very serious, very significant, and very encouraging, 
and it could be a game changer in this discussion. I said it is 
serious, but what we still need to determine is if it is sincere. It is 
serious and significant, but obviously what the administration needs to 
do in tandem with the U.N. is to determine whether it is sincere.
  I will conclude by saying I think it is very important for Americans, 
for citizens, and for the Members of Congress to understand--we should 
make no mistake about this--that the diplomatic offer that is on the 
table was not on the table until America demonstrated it was prepared 
to stand for the proposition that chemical weapons cannot be used.
  I have no doubt that had we not taken the action in Congress last 
week in the Foreign Relations Committee to show America is resolved to 
do something, if no one else in the world is resolved to do something, 
at least we would be resolved to do something, had we not taken that 
action, Russia would not have suddenly changed its position--they have 
been blocking action after action in the Security Council--and come 
forward with this serious recommendation. Had we not taken that action, 
and had they not been frightened of what America might do, Syria--which 
was willing to use with impunity these weapons against civilians--would 
not have come forward either.
  So American resolve is important. American resolve is important to 
show the world that we value this norm and we will enforce it, even to 
the point of limited military action. But even more important, American 
resolve is important because it encourages other nations--even the 
perpetrators and enablers of the use of these weapons--to come forward 
and shoulder the responsibilities they have, or so we pray, in the days 
ahead.
  What I ask of my colleagues and my countrymen is that because it has 
been our resolve that has produced a possibility for a huge diplomatic 
breakthrough and win, I ask we continue to be resolved, continue to 
show strength, continue to hold out the option that there will be a 
consequence for this international crime, that America will play a 
leading role in making sure there is a consequence, and as long as we 
stand strong with this resolve, we will maximize the chance that we 
will be able to obtain the diplomatic result we want.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The minority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, my dad was a pilot in the Army Air Corps 
in World War II. He served in the Eighth Air Force, the 303rd Bomb 
Group stationed in Molesworth, England. On his 26th bombing mission 
over Nazi Germany, he was shot down and captured as a prisoner of war 
where he served for the remainder of the war. So I learned at a very 
young age that when we start talking about matters of war and peace, we 
must take these very seriously.
  I appreciate the fact that President Obama came to Capitol Hill 
yesterday and spoke to both the Democratic conference and the 
Republican conference. I further appreciate very much the fact that 
President Obama spoke to the American people last night. I actually 
wish he had done it a little earlier since the chemical weapons attacks 
occurred on the 21st of August. It was roughly 3 weeks after that that 
he finally spoke to the American people. I think it would have been 
better for him and better for the country if he had done it sooner and 
demonstrated a greater urgency, but I am glad he did it.
  When a President asks the American people to support our U.S. 
military and the use of military force, he has a solemn obligation to 
communicate to the American people how it will protect America's vital 
interests. He has an obligation to tell the American people why going 
to war is absolutely essential to U.S. national security. He has an 
obligation to lay out clear and realistic objectives; and finally, he 
has an obligation to explain how military intervention fits within 
America's broader foreign policy strategy.
  I have used the word war advisedly because sometimes I think we get 
caught up in political correctness around here--talking about workplace 
violence at Fort Hood and overseas contingency operations.
  As a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps who served 40 years told me 
last week when I asked for his advice on what the President was asking 
us to do, he said: Anytime you kill people in the name of the U.S. 
Government, it is an act of war.
  So like others in this Chamber over the last few weeks, I have 
attended meetings with the President where I had the honor of being in 
his presence and listening to him in person on two occasions. I 
listened to other administration officials. Like all of us, I sat 
through hours of classified briefings with the Central Intelligence 
Agency, the Department of Defense, and the State Department.

[[Page 13356]]

  I have listened intently as Senator Kerry described in what I thought 
at first was an inadvertent statement made as a result of fatigue. I 
can only imagine what he must have been going through. He has been 
shuttled back and forth around the world to try to resolve this issue. 
But he described this strike as unbelievably small. I was further 
surprised when I heard the White House press secretary say: No, it 
wasn't a gaffe; he didn't misspeak. I mean, we all misspeak from time 
to time, so I expected him to say: Well, he should have used other 
words or might have used other words. Then Senator Kerry himself--now 
Secretary Kerry--said: No, I didn't misspeak.
  I was encouraged to hear the President address the Nation because I 
believe before we take our case overseas to American allies, we should 
first make the case here at home to the American people.
  In making their case for a brief, limited attack against Syria, 
administration officials have repeatedly said U.S. military 
intervention would not seek to topple the Asad regime even though 
regime change has been the policy of the U.S. Government since at least 
August 2011. They said their military campaign would not seek to change 
the momentum in Syria's civil war, even though, as I mentioned a moment 
ago, our government's official policy is one of regime change, that 
Asad must go.
  My view is a U.S. attack that allowed Asad to remain in power with 
one of the world's largest stockpiles of chemical weapons would not 
promote U.S. national security interests. Indeed, it is not hard to 
imagine how that kind of intervention could actually backfire and end 
up being a propaganda disaster.
  Many of us are concerned about upholding America's credibility, 
particularly when it comes to matters such as this, and I share their 
concern. But it would help if before we launch a halfhearted, 
ineffectual attack which gives our enemies a major propaganda victory 
that we come up with a more coherent plan and strategy for 
accomplishing our public policy goals.
  Murphy's law says what can go wrong will go wrong. Well, there is a 
Murphy's law of war too--perhaps many of them but one of them is no 
plan to go to war survives the first contact intact. In other words, we 
can plan to shoot the first bullet, but we can't control what happens 
after that.
  In all likelihood, such an attack would hurt our credibility and 
reduce U.S. public support for future interventions. This is what I 
mean: If we were to undertake a limited military attack against Asad in 
order to punish him for using chemical weapons--which is a horrific act 
on his part, a barbaric act on his part--but it left Asad in power, 
what is he going to tell the rest of the world? He is going to say: The 
world's greatest military force took a shot at me and I am still here. 
I am still in power. I won and America lost. That is how I can see this 
backfiring in a very serious way, undermining America's credibility--
credibility we must keep intact, particularly as we look at larger, 
looming threats such as the Iranian aspiration for nuclear weapons.
  I wish to be clear, though: I would be willing to support a military 
operation in Syria but only if our intervention met certain criteria. 
No. 1: If it directly addressed the nightmare scenario of Asad's use of 
chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. It is not just 
his use of chemical weapons on his own people; it is the potential that 
those chemical weapons could get into the hands of Al Qaeda and other 
terrorist organizations and harm either Americans or American interests 
around the world.
  No. 2: I could support a resolution if it involved the use of 
decisive and overwhelming force, without self-imposed limitations, and 
without leaking to our enemies what our tactics are and what it is we 
would not do, and ruining one of the greatest tools in war, which is 
the element of surprise. Why in the world would we tell Asad what we 
are going to do--and Secretary Kerry said it would be a small attack--
and why would we tell Asad what we won't do, thereby eliminating both 
the ambiguity of our position and the potential threat of even more 
serious and overwhelming military force?
  No. 3: I would be willing to support an authorization if it were an 
integral part of a larger coherent Syria policy that clearly defined 
the political end state. I still remember General Petraeus, the head of 
Central Command covering Iraq and Afghanistan, talking about our policy 
in those countries. He said, The most important question, perhaps, when 
we go to war is how does this end. We need a clearly defined political 
end state that we are trying to achieve by what the President requested 
and we need an outline of a realistic path to get there.
  No. 4: I believe it is important that we have a sizable international 
coalition of nations, each of which is contributing to the war effort.
  This is an amazing reversal for the President since the time he was a 
Senator and a Presidential candidate. To say we are not going to the 
United Nations--and I understand why; because of China and Russia, 
their veto of any resolution out of the Security Council, we are not 
going to go to NATO. Indeed, the President seemed content, or at least 
resigned, to going it alone. And if it is true this redline is the 
international community's redline, then the international community 
needs to contribute to the effort to hold Asad accountable.
  The problem is President Obama's requested authorization for the use 
of military force under these circumstances fails to meet each of those 
criteria. He has failed to make the case that a short, limited military 
campaign would promote our vital interests and our national security. 
He has failed to lay out clear and realistic objectives that could be 
obtained through the use of military force. And he has failed to offer 
a compelling description of how his proposed intervention would advance 
America's broader foreign policy strategy; indeed, how it would advance 
his own policy of regime change. Therefore, if we were asked to vote on 
an authorization under these circumstances, I would vote no.
  I am under no illusion--none of us are--about the utter depravity of 
Bashar al-Asad. Over the last 2\1/2\ years his regime has committed 
unspeakable acts of rape, torture, and murder. The chemical weapons 
attacks, by the way, as described by Secretary Kerry's own testimony in 
the House of Representatives, included 11 earlier uses of chemical 
weapons, but they were smaller. Can we imagine the difficulty of trying 
to impose a redline when that redline is crossed 11 times before the 
President finally decides to try to enforce it? But there is no 
question that the use of chemical weapons shows an appalling disregard 
for human life and a cruel desire to terrorize the Syrian population. 
I, as others, have consistently demanded that Russia stop arming Asad 
and stop defending him and blocking U.N. Security Council resolutions, 
and aiding and abetting his barbaric atrocities against his own people. 
I want to see a free democratic Syria as much as anyone else. But that 
does not mean I will vote to support a reckless, ill-advised military 
intervention that could jeopardize our most important national security 
interests.
  There have been a lot of people who have opined on the President's 
request, some better informed than others. One opinion I found 
particularly convincing was that of retired Army MG Robert Scales who 
has written that the path to war chosen by the Obama administration 
``violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, 
achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.''
  As I said, we know the latest chemical weapons attack occurred on 
August 21. Yet President Obama didn't address the Nation until 3 weeks 
later. The Syrians, of course, have now had weeks to prepare for any 
pending military intervention and no doubt have moved the chemical 
weapons to other locations and their military equipment to civilian 
population centers in order to protect them from any attack. With no 
element of surprise, it makes the potential for success of any military 
intervention much less and reveals there is no real coherent policy in 
this regard.
  Consider what happened last Monday. Secretary of State Kerry made 
what he

[[Page 13357]]

calls an off-the-cuff remark about the possibility of canceling a 
missile strike if Asad turned over all of his chemical weapons. In the 
same statement he said he wasn't sure that would work or that he would 
ever be serious about it, but he did say it. Russia, of course, 
immediately responded by offering to broker a transfer of Syria's WMD 
to international monitors.
  After spending weeks trying to make the case for war, President Obama 
has asked that the vote in this Chamber be canceled and is apparently 
treating the Russian-Syrian proposal as a serious diplomatic 
breakthrough. I would caution all of us--the American people and all of 
our colleagues--to be skeptical, for good reason, at this lifeline 
Vladimir Putin has now thrown the administration. I would remind the 
President and our colleagues that Russia itself is not in full 
compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention, nor is it even in 
compliance with nuclear arms control obligations that are subject to an 
international treaty. The litany of Russian offenses is long, but I 
would remind President Obama that since he launched the so-called 
Russian reset, Moscow has vetoed U.N. resolutions on Syria, sent 
advanced weaponry to the Asad regime, stolen elections, stoked anti-
Americanism, made threats over our possible deployment of missile 
defense systems; it has expelled USAID from Russia, pulled out of the 
Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program; it has banned U.S. 
citizens from adopting Russian children, and offered asylum to NSA 
leaker Edward Snowden. In short, we have very little reason to believe 
Moscow is a reliable diplomatic partner. The Russians are part of the 
problem in Syria, not part of the solution. Let me say that clearly. 
The Russians are part of the problem in Syria; they are not credibly 
part of the solution.
  Moreover, I am curious to learn how international monitors would 
adequately confirm the disposal of chemical weapons by a terrorist-
sponsoring dictatorship among a ferocious civil war. While this strike 
the President talked about might have been limited in his imagination, 
if you are Bashar al-Asad, this is total war, because he realizes the 
only way he will leave power is in a pine box. He knows that. This is 
total war. I asked the President yesterday: What happens if, in order 
to punish Asad, we intervene militarily and it doesn't work? In his 
fight for his survival and the survival of his regime, he uses them 
again in an act of desperation? The President said, We will hit him 
again. Well, clearly, what had become a limited strike could quickly 
spiral out of control into a full-blown engagement in Syria. I think 
the President's own words suggest that.
  But, of course, the Asad regime is the same one that refuses to 
acknowledge the full extent of its chemical arsenal--and this is 
something we will be hearing more about. It has bioweapons capability. 
Bioweapons capability is actually a much greater threat to American 
interests than chemical weapons, which are more difficult to transport 
and much harder to handle. And this is the same dictatorship that was 
secretly working on a nuclear weapons program before the Israelis took 
care of it in 2007.
  We have been told that however unfortunate President Obama's 
``redline'' comment might have been, upholding his threat is about 
maintaining American credibility. And I admit, American credibility in 
matters of war and peace and national security are very, very 
important. But America's credibility on the world stage is about more 
than just Presidential rhetoric. It is about defining clear objectives 
and establishing a coherent strategy for achieving them. In the case of 
Syria, President Obama has not offered a clear strategy or clearly laid 
out his objectives.
  Given all that, I am not surprised that the American people do not 
support the President's call for the use of limited military force in 
Syria. Those are the calls I got in my office. As I went back to Texas, 
I kept hearing people--who I would think under almost any other 
circumstances would say: If America's national security interests are 
at stake, then we are behind the President, we are behind military 
intervention, but they simply saw an incoherent policy and objectives 
that were not clearly laid out to obtain the result the President 
himself said is our policy.
  Well, the most recent experience we have had as a country with 
limited war has been Libya, and I have heard the President tout that as 
perhaps an example about how we can get in and get out. The 2011 
military operation that deposed Muammar Qadhafi was supposed to be a 
showcase example of a limited operation in which America led from 
behind and still obtained its objectives without putting U.S. boots on 
the ground. Unfortunately, the administration had no real plan for what 
happened after Qadhafi fell.
  We all know it was 1 year ago today in Benghazi when terrorists 
linked to Al Qaeda massacred four brave Americans, including U.S. 
Ambassador Chris Stevens. Today Libya is spiraling into chaos and 
rapidly becoming a failed state. Earlier this month a leading British 
newspaper reported that ``Libya has almost entirely stopped producing 
oil as the government loses control of much of the country to militia 
fighters.'' All sorts of bad actors, including terrorist groups, are 
flooding into the security vacuum, and ``Libyans are increasingly at 
the mercy of militias which act outside the law.''
  Before I conclude, I want to say a few words about America's Armed 
Forces and America's role in the world.
  We all know and are extraordinarily proud of our men and women who 
wear the uniform of the U.S. military. No military in history has been 
more powerful. No military has ever been more courageous. No military 
has been more selfless and fought and bled and died to protect innocent 
people in far-flung places across the planet. No military has ever done 
more to promote peace and prosperity around the world. I have every 
confidence that if called upon to act our men and women in uniform will 
do just that. They will perform their duties with the utmost skill, 
bravery, and professionalism. But we should never send them to war 
tying one hand behind their back and ask them to wage limited war 
against a dictator for whom, as I said earlier, this is total war. This 
is win or die. Military force is like a hammer, and you cannot thread 
the needle President Obama wants to thread with a hammer.
  I would like to conclude by saying that this debate--which is 
important and serious and one the American people expect us to have--is 
not about isolationism versus internationalism. Believe me, I am no 
isolationist, and I fully support the global security role America has 
played since World War II, since my dad was a POW. A world without 
American military dominance would be, as Ronald Reagan noted, a much 
more dangerous place. I believe peace comes with American strength. 
However, it will be harder to maintain our global military dominance if 
we waste precious resources, our credibility, and political capital on 
hasty, misguided, unbelievably small interventions.
  Once again, I would be willing to support an authorization for a 
military strike against Syria if it met certain basic criteria I have 
laid out. But I cannot support an operation that is so poorly 
conceived, so foolishly telegraphed, and virtually guaranteed to fail.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Good afternoon, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
25 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam President.
  I rise to speak on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime 
and the decision that is before the Senate on how to respond to such 
inhumanity. I also come to the floor with the hope that the use of 
military force will not prove necessary and that the proposal to place 
Syria's chemical weapons program under United Nations control will, in 
fact, be successful.
  Last night, in my view, the President delivered a strong, 
straightforward

[[Page 13358]]

speech that directly outlined the current situation in Syria. He asked 
that a vote by the Congress to authorize military force against the 
Asad regime be delayed so that a strategy could be developed with 
Russia and the United Nations Security Council that would eliminate 
Syria's deadly chemical weapons program. I believe this is the 
appropriate path forward, and I appreciate very much the majority 
leader's holding off on bringing this resolution for a vote so that 
negotiations can continue. Here in the Senate, there are discussions 
going on about how to amend the resolution passed by the Foreign 
Relations Committee to provide time for diplomacy.
  I would also like to take a minute to give Russia credit for bringing 
forward this plan for a negotiated solution to the conflict. I disagree 
with the Senator from Texas. As the Russian Ambassador described to me 
on Monday of this week, he said Russia is sincere, wants to see a 
United Nations resolution, and supports the Geneva II process which 
would accompany a negotiated settlement to Syria's civil war. Based on 
my conversation with Ambassador Kislyak, I believe Russia's goal is 
now, in fact, to eliminate these weapons, and I would point out that is 
also our goal.
  So I very much hope that the path to settlement--although 
complicated, no doubt, but if well-intentioned by all participants, it 
can be accomplished, and I deeply believe that. If the United Nations 
Security Council can agree on a resolution to put this proposal into 
practice, it would put the world's imprimatur on an important plan to 
safeguard and then to destroy Syria's chemical weapons program.
  Russia's responsibility to get this done is enormous, and they must 
move with all deliberate speed. I think Russia and Syria must 
understand that the only way to forestall a U.S. strike on Syria is for 
there to be a good-faith agreement and process underway to put all of 
Syria's chemical weapons--including munitions, delivery systems, and 
chemicals themselves--under international control for eventual 
demolition.
  Syria's chemical weapons program is maintained and stored across 
Syria in more than three dozen sites. There are indications that Syria 
currently has chemical weapons loaded and ready for immediate use in 
bombs, artillery, and rockets and already loaded on planes and 
helicopters. All of it needs to be inventoried, collected, and then 
destroyed as soon as possible if the effort is to succeed. This will be 
a large and complicated process, and the agreement may take some time 
to put in place. But if it can be done, we should take the time to get 
it done right. At the same time, we cannot allow there to be so much 
delay and hesitation, as has characterized some arms control efforts in 
the past.
  It is clear to me that the United States is moving quickly already. 
Tomorrow Secretary Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov 
will meet in Geneva to discuss the specifics of how to move forward.
  I cannot stress enough the importance of this process. Not only is it 
a possible solution to the specter of future use of chemical weapons by 
the Syrian regime and a way to ensure that extremist elements of the 
opposition do not gain control of these weapons, but it also sets an 
important precedent for the United Nations to act to resolve conflict 
before there is large military confrontation.
  But it should be clear by now that the Asad regime has repeatedly 
used chemical weapons. So I would like to speak as chairman of the 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and lay out some of the 
unclassified intelligence that shows the regime was indeed behind this 
largest use of chemical weapons in more than two decades. The 
unclassified assessment is based on classified intelligence we have 
seen on the Intelligence Committee and it has been available to all 
Senators. So here is the case.
  The intelligence community assesses today, with ``high confidence,'' 
that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons--specifically sarin--in 
the Damascus suburbs in the early morning of August 21. This assessment 
is supported by all 16 of our intelligence agencies as well as other 
countries, including the United Kingdom and France.
  The Obama administration has publicly laid out its case at an 
unclassified level, and I have carefully reviewed the classified 
information that supports those findings.
  First, there is intelligence indicating that the Asad regime--
specifically its military and the Syrian Scientific Studies and 
Research Center, which manages its chemical weapons program--has used 
chemical weapons roughly a dozen times over the past year.
  On June 13, 2 months before this latest attack, the administration 
stated that it had completed a review of all available intelligence and 
had concluded that the intelligence community had ``high confidence'' 
that the Asad regime used chemical weapons, ``including the nerve agent 
sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times.'' This 
followed similar assessments by France, the United Kingdom, Israel, and 
Turkey earlier this year. In some of these cases the regime may have 
been testing its delivery vehicles or various amounts of chemical 
agents. Some were small-scale tactical uses against the opposition. 
Perhaps Asad was just trying to find out how the world would react to 
his use of chemical weapons.
  It has been more than a year since top intelligence officials learned 
of Syrian preparations to use sarin in large quantities. Since then, at 
numerous other briefings and hearings, the Intelligence Committee has 
followed this issue closely. On September 11, 2012--exactly a year 
ago--while protests against our Embassy in Cairo were underway and the 
attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi was imminent, I was again 
briefed on the administration's plans should Asad conduct such an 
attack.
  So the attack on August 21 in Damascus was not a first-time use, 
rather it was a major escalation in the regime's willingness to employ 
weapons long held as anathema by almost the entire world population.
  Let me lay out the intelligence case that the Asad regime used 
chemical weapons on August 21. Much of this is described in a four-page 
August 30 unclassified document entitled ``U.S. Government Assessment 
of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 
2013.''
  I ask unanimous consent that the document be printed in the Record.
  We know that 3 days before the attack of August 21, Syrian officials 
involved in the preparation and use of chemical weapons and associated 
with the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center were ``preparing 
chemical munitions'' in the Damascus suburb of Adra. That is according 
to the intelligence community.
  The intelligence specifically relates to an area in Adra that the 
regime has used for mixing chemical weapons, including sarin. The 
Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating and present there from 
August 18 to the early morning of August 21, and finished their work 
shortly before the attack began.
  Some of the intelligence collected on the preparations for the attack 
is highly sensitive. So the details of the Syrian actions cannot be 
described publicly without jeopardizing our ability to collect this 
kind of intelligence in the future. But in numerous classified 
briefings over the past 2 weeks, Members of Congress have been provided 
with additional detail on the names of the officials involved and the 
stream of human signals and geospatial intelligence that indicates that 
regime was preparing to use chemical weapons. So we actually have 
names.
  It is from the specificity of this intelligence reporting that the 
intelligence community has drawn its high level of confidence that the 
regime was behind the use of chemical weapons. The strike began in the 
early morning hours on Wednesday, August 21. It is beyond doubt that 
large amounts of artillery and rockets were launched from regime-
controlled territory in Damascus and rained down on the opposition-
controlled areas of the Damascus suburbs. There is satellite imagery 
actually showing this, as well as thousands

[[Page 13359]]

of firsthand accounts that began showing up on social media sites at 
around 2:30 a.m.
  The barrage continued for 5 days, though the use of chemical weapons 
appears to have been deliberately suspended by the regime after the 
first few hours. Since the attack, physical samples from the area have 
been analyzed. The intelligence community assesses with high confidence 
that ``laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a 
number of individuals revealed exposure to Sarin.''
  More than 100 videos were posted online showing the effects of the 
chemical weapons on hundreds of men, women and, most troubling, 
sleeping children who were dead or showing the signs of exposure to the 
nerve agent. At my request, the intelligence community compiled a 
representative sample of 13 videos which have been corroborated and 
verified. According to the intelligence community, ``At least 12 
locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a 
sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at general times 
and locations described in the footage.''
  These videos clearly show the suffering and death caused by these 
weapons. The intelligence committee has posted these videos on our Web 
site, www.intelligence.senate.gov. I would urge all Americans to look 
at this. They are absolutely horrendous and should shock the conscience 
of all humanity.
  The videos show the physical manifestations of a nerve agent attack: 
foaming mouth, pinpointed and constricted pupils, convulsions, gasping 
for breath, all happening as the nervous system begins to shut down.
  One video shows a lifeless toddler receiving emergency respiratory 
assistance. Another shows a young boy struggling to breathe, gasping 
while his eyes are swollen shut and covered in mucous. A third heinous 
video shows rows and rows of bodies lined up in an improvised morgue. 
Another shows a man foaming at the mouth and convulsing, both 
indications of sarin exposure. It goes on and on.
  Last night, the President urged all Americans to watch these videos 
to see how hideous the use of these chemicals actually is. Seeing these 
images firsthand makes clear why chemical weapons have been banned and 
why Asad must be prevented from using them again.
  What truly affected me was a video I saw of a little Syrian girl with 
long dark hair who was wearing pajamas. The little girl looked just 
like my daughter at that age--same hair, same pajamas, same innocence, 
except the little Syrian girl was lifeless. She had died from exposure 
to sarin, a chemical the world has essentially outlawed. For me, 
watching the videos shows the abhorrence of chemical weapons. It shows 
why we must do something. Fired into densely populated areas such as 
cities, they have an indiscriminate effect, killing everyone in their 
path and causing suffering and eventual death to others nearby.
  We have evidence that the chemical attack was premeditated and 
planned as part of the regime's heinous tactics against the rebels. 
Specifically, there is intelligence that Syrian regime personnel were 
prepared with gas masks for its people in the area, so it could clear 
these areas in the Damascus suburbs that were attacked in order to 
wrest control from the opposition. Additional intelligence collected 
following the attacks includes communications from regime officials 
that confirms their knowledge that chemical weapons were used.
  Let me repeat that. Additional intelligence following the attack 
includes communications from regime officials that confirms their 
knowledge that chemical weapons were used. The official unclassified 
intelligence assessment distributed by the administration states: ``We 
intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately 
familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were 
used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. 
inspectors obtaining evidence.'' On the afternoon of August 21, we have 
intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to 
``cease operations.'' This is specific evidence.
  To sum up the intelligence case, I have no doubt the regime ordered 
the use of chemical weapons on August 21. I also have no doubt the use 
of these weapons by the military and under the guidance of Syria's 
chemical weapons team, Branch 450, operates under the command and 
control of the regime, under the ultimate leadership and responsibility 
of President Asad.
  Let me move now from the intelligence case of Syria's use of sarin on 
August 21 to the question before the Senate of how to respond. As I 
said in the beginning, it would be my strong hope that the United 
States and Russia can come to an agreement with other U.N. Security 
Council members on a way to resolve this situation peacefully.
  Not only is a peaceful solution preferred to the use of force, but if 
Syria's chemical weapons program, including all of its precursors, 
chemicals, equipment, delivery systems, and loaded bombs, can be put in 
the custody of the United Nations for its eventual destruction, that 
would provide a much stronger protection against future use.
  It also sets an important precedent for the future for the world to 
settle other disputes of this nature. I have urged the Obama 
administration to take all possible steps to make this proposal work. I 
appreciate the President's decision to ask us to delay any use-of-force 
resolution so diplomacy can be given a chance. However, the Senate may 
still face a resolution to authorize the use of force in the event that 
all diplomatic options fail. Many of my colleagues have noted that the 
threat of force has helped push forward the diplomatic option.
  The Asad regime has clearly used chemical weapons to gas its own 
people. I believe it will most likely do so again, unless it is 
confronted with a major condemnation by the world. That now is 
beginning to happen.
  The regime has escalated its attacks from small scale ones that 
killed 6 or 8 to 10 people with sarin to an attack that killed more 
than 1,000. We know the regime has munitions that could kill tens of 
thousands of Syrians in Aleppo or Homs. If the world does not respond 
now, we bear the responsibility if a larger tragedy happens later.
  Of course, it is not only Syria who is looking at preparing and using 
weapons long banned by the international community. Iran is watching 
intently what the world will do in Syria and will apply the lessons it 
learns to its current development of nuclear weapons.
  North Korea, which has refrained from using both the nuclear weapons 
it has and the chemical weapons stockpile that actually dwarfs that of 
Syria, may well use the Asad example to fire on South Korea. Remember, 
we have 28,000-plus troops right over the border of the DMZ, within a 
half hour.
  More generally, countries around the world will see the United States 
as a paper tiger if it promises to take action but fails to do so. 
Former Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, whom I have great respect for, 
who worked in both the Bush and Obama administrations, said exactly 
that when he came out in support on the resolution for use of force 
against Syria.
  Gates said this:

       I strongly urge the Congress, both Democrats and 
     Republicans, to approve the President's request for 
     authorization to use force. Whatever one's views on the 
     current United States policy towards Syria, failure by 
     Congress to approve the request would, in my view, have 
     profoundly negative and dangerous consequences for the United 
     States, not just in the Middle East, but around the world 
     both now and in the future.

  I strongly believe the major powers in the world have a 
responsibility to take action when a country not only slaughters 
100,000 of its own citizens, makes millions homeless within Syria, and 
makes millions into refugees in Turkey and Jordan, but especially when 
it is willing to use weapons against them that have been banned as an 
affront to all humanity because they are outlawed by a treaty joined by 
189 nations representing 98 percent of the world's population.
  If the United Nations does not act in such cases, I believe it 
becomes irrelevant. If nothing is done to stop this use

[[Page 13360]]

of chemical weapons, they will be used in future conflicts. I am 
confident of that.
  American servicemen in World War I were gassed with their allied 
partners. In our briefings over the past week, the military has made 
clear to us that if we allow the prohibition on chemical weapons use to 
erode, our men and women in uniform may again suffer from these weapons 
on the battlefield.
  Chemical weapons are not like conventional weapons. Consider for a 
moment how sarin, for example, can kill so indiscriminately. The closer 
you are to the release, such as from a mortar or an artillery shell, 
the more certain you are to death. It spreads over a wide geographic 
area. It can shift from one neighborhood to another if the wind shifts.
  During World War I, chemical weapons, primarily chlorine, phosgene, 
and mustard gas were used by both sides of the war. They caused an 
estimated 100,000 fatalities and 1.3 million injuries, 1,462 American 
soldiers were killed, and 72,807 were injured by chemical weapons, 
which represented one-third of all U.S. casualties during World War I.
  Since World War I, not a single U.S. soldier has died in battle from 
exposure to chemical weapons. However, according to the United Nations 
Office for Disarmament Affairs, ``since World War I, chemical weapons 
have caused more than 1 million casualties globally.''
  During World War II, Nazi Germany used carbon monoxide and pesticides 
such as Zyklon B in gas chambers during the Holocaust, killing an 
estimated 3 million people.
  An additional document will be printed in the Record that details the 
history and uses of chemical weapons around the world since World War 
I.
  These past uses of chemical weapons make clear that they should never 
be used again and that the entire world must stand up and take action 
if they are.
  In Syria, the intentional use of chemical weapons on civilians, on 
men, women, and children gassed to death during the middle of the night 
while they were sleeping, is a travesty that reflects hatred and 
increasing desperation of the Asad regime. I also believe there are 
other chemical weapons that have been mixed and loaded into delivery 
vehicles with the potential to kill thousands more.
  Think about that. If Asad can slaughter 100,000 of his own people 
without a second thought, what is he going to do next if we do nothing 
to hold him accountable? What is he going to do next if the United 
Nations does nothing? What is he going to do next if this effort to 
reach consensus on the Security Council doesn't work? He will use them 
again. I believe they are ready to go.
  Why would the Asad regime load bombs with chemical weapons and not 
use them?
  If the United States does nothing in the face of this atrocity, it 
sends such a signal of weakness to the rest of the world that we are, 
yes, a paper tiger. That is going to be the conclusion in Iran and in 
North Korea.
  The answer is we cannot turn our backs. The use of chemical weapons 
is prohibited by international law and it must now be condemned by the 
world with action.
  Albert Einstein said in a well-known quote: ``The world is a 
dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but 
because of the people who don't do anything about it.''
  For more than 90 years, our country has played the leading role in 
the world in prohibiting the atrocities of World War I and then World 
War II. We are the Nation that others look upon to stop repressive 
dictators and massive violations of human rights. We must act in Syria. 
We cannot withdraw into our own borders, do nothing, and let the 
slaughter continue.
  I hope military force will not be needed, that we will allow the time 
for the United Nations and the parties on the Security Council to put 
an agreement together, and that the threat of force will be sufficient 
to change President Asad's behavior.
  If these diplomatic efforts at the U.N. fail, I know we are going to 
be back here on the floor to consider the authorization for use of 
military force, but I sincerely hope it won't be necessary.
  When the Ambassador from Russia described Russia's intentions to me 
on Monday, he told me it was sincere. Now the ball is in Russia's 
court. Russia and the United States will need to come together, bring 
the other parties together, and make it possible for the United Nations 
to act so the United States won't have to.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical 
                       Weapons on August 21, 2013

       The United States Government assesses with high confidence 
     that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons 
     attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. We further 
     assess that the regime used a nerve agent in the attack. 
     These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and 
     geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open 
     source reporting. Our classified assessments have been shared 
     with the U.S. Congress and key international partners. To 
     protect sources and methods, we cannot publicly release all 
     available intelligence--but what follows is an unclassified 
     summary of the U.S. Intelligence Community's analysis of what 
     took place.


         Syrian Government Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21

       A large body of independent sources indicates that a 
     chemical weapons attack took place in the Damascus suburbs on 
     August 21. In addition to U.S. intelligence information, 
     there are accounts from international and Syrian medical 
     personnel; videos; witness accounts; thousands of social 
     media reports from at least 12 different locations in the 
     Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly 
     credible nongovernmental organizations.
       A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 
     1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, 
     including at least 426 children, though this assessment will 
     certainly evolve as we obtain more information.
       We assess with high confidence that the Syrian government 
     carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition 
     elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We assess that 
     the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on 
     August 21 is highly unlikely. The body of information used to 
     make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the 
     regime's preparations for this attack and its means of 
     delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack 
     itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the 
     differences between the capabilities of the regime and the 
     opposition. Our high confidence assessment is the strongest 
     position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short 
     of confirmation. We will continue to seek additional 
     information to close gaps in our understanding of what took 
     place.


                               Background

       The Syrian regime maintains a stockpile of numerous 
     chemical agents, including mustard, sarin, and VX and has 
     thousands of munitions that can be used to deliver chemical 
     warfare agents.
       Syrian President Bashar al-Asad is the ultimate decision 
     maker for the chemical weapons program and members of the 
     program are carefully vetted to ensure security and loyalty. 
     The Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC)--
     which is subordinate to the Syrian Ministry of Defense--
     manages Syria's chemical weapons program.
       We assess with high confidence that the Syrian regime has 
     used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition 
     multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus 
     suburbs. This assessment is based on multiple streams of 
     information including reporting of Syrian officials planning 
     and executing chemical weapons attacks and laboratory 
     analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of 
     individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin. We assess that 
     the opposition has not used chemical weapons.
       The Syrian regime has the types of munitions that we assess 
     were used to carry out the attack on August 21, and has the 
     ability to strike simultaneously in multiple locations. We 
     have seen no indication that the opposition has carried out a 
     large-scale, coordinated rocket and artillery attack like the 
     one that occurred on August 21.
       We assess that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons 
     over the last year primarily to gain the upper hand or break 
     a stalemate in areas where it has struggled to seize and hold 
     strategically valuable territory. In this regard, we continue 
     to judge that the Syrian regime views chemical weapons as one 
     of many tools in its arsenal, including air power and 
     ballistic missiles, which they indiscriminately use against 
     the opposition.
       The Syrian regime has initiated an effort to rid the 
     Damascus suburbs of opposition forces using the area as a 
     base to stage attacks against regime targets in the capital. 
     The regime has failed to clear dozens of Damascus 
     neighborhoods of opposition elements, including neighborhoods 
     targeted on

[[Page 13361]]

     August 21, despite employing nearly all of its conventional 
     weapons systems. We assess that the regime's frustration with 
     its inability to secure large portions of Damascus may have 
     contributed to its decision to use chemical weapons on August 
     21.


                              Preparation

       We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian 
     chemical weapons personnel--including personnel assessed to 
     be associated with the SSRC--were preparing chemical 
     munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to the 
     attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial 
     intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess 
     were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons 
     attack.
       Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the 
     Damascus suburb of Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in 
     the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the 
     regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On 
     August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical 
     weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the 
     utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the 
     Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days 
     prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning 
     to use chemical weapons.


                               The Attack

       Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime 
     executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus 
     suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections 
     corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck 
     neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly 
     occurred--including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, Ayn Tarma, Darayya, 
     and Mu'addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket 
     launches from regime controlled territory early in the 
     morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of 
     a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of 
     flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude 
     that the regime used rockets in the attack.
       Local social media reports of a chemical attack in the 
     Damascus suburbs began at 2:30 a.m. local time on August 21. 
     Within the next four hours there were thousands of social 
     media reports on this attack from at least 12 different 
     locations in the Damascus area. Multiple accounts described 
     chemical-filled rockets impacting opposition-controlled 
     areas.
       Three hospitals in the Damascus area received approximately 
     3,600 patients displaying symptoms consistent with nerve 
     agent exposure in less than three hours on the morning of 
     August 21, according to a highly credible international 
     humanitarian organization. The reported symptoms, and the 
     epidemiological pattern of events--characterized by the 
     massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the 
     origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and 
     first aid workers--were consistent with mass exposure to a 
     nerve agent. We also received reports from international and 
     Syrian medical personnel on the ground.
       We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the 
     attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting 
     physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve 
     agent exposure. The reported symptoms of victims included 
     unconsciousness, foaming from the nose and mouth, constricted 
     pupils, rapid heartbeat, and difficulty breathing. Several of 
     the videos show what appear to be numerous fatalities with no 
     visible injuries, which is consistent with death from 
     chemical weapons, and inconsistent with death from small-
     arms, high-explosive munitions or blister agents. At least 12 
     locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and 
     a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at 
     the general times and locations described in the footage.
       We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the 
     capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms 
     verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information 
     associated with this chemical attack.
       We have a body of information, including past Syrian 
     practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials 
     were witting of and directed the attack on August 21. We 
     intercepted communications involving a senior official 
     intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that 
     chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was 
     concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence. On the 
     afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian 
     chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations. 
     At the same time, the regime intensified the artillery 
     barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical 
     attacks occurred. In the 24 hour period after the attack, we 
     detected indications of artillery and rocket fire at a rate 
     approximately four times higher than the ten preceding days. 
     We continued to see indications of sustained shelling in the 
     neighborhoods up until the morning of August 26.
       To conclude, there is a substantial body of information 
     that implicates the Syrian government's responsibility in the 
     chemical weapons attack that took place on August 21. As 
     indicated, there is additional intelligence that remains 
     classified because of sources and methods concerns that is 
     being provided to Congress and international partners.
                                  ____


                     Chemical Weapons Usage Since 
                              World War I

       1,462 American soldiers were killed and 72,807 injured by 
     chemical weapons in World War I, one-third of all U.S. 
     casualties during the war. No Americans have died in battle 
     from chemical weapons since World War I.
       According to the United Nations Office for Disarmament 
     Affairs, ``Since World War I, chemical weapons have caused 
     more than one million casualties globally.''
       1914-1918--During World War I, chemical weapons (primarily 
     chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas) were used by both sides 
     and caused an estimated 100,000 fatalities and 1.3 million 
     injuries.
       During the war, Germany used 68,000 tons of gas, the French 
     used 36,000 tons, and the British used 25,000.
       April 1915--Germany used chlorine gas at the Battle of 
     Ypres. This is the first significant use of chemical weapons 
     in World War I.
       September 1915--The British used chlorine gas against the 
     Germans at the Battle of Loos.
       February 1918--Germans used phosgene and chloropicrin 
     artillery shells against American troops. This is the first 
     major use of chemical weapons against U.S. forces.
       June 1918--The United States employed a wide variety of 
     chemical weapons against Axis forces using British and French 
     artillery shells.
       1918-1921--The Bolshevik army used chemical weapons to 
     suppress at least three uprisings following the Bolshevik 
     revolution.
       1919--The British Air Force used Adamsite gas, a vomiting 
     agent, against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War.
       1921-1927--Spanish forces used mustard gas against Berber 
     rebels during the Third Rif War in Morocco.
       1936--Italy used mustard gas during its invasion of 
     Ethiopia. No precise estimate of chemical weapon-specific 
     casualties, but contemporary Soviet estimates stated 15,000 
     Ethiopian casualties from chemical weapons.
       1937-1945--Japan used chemical weapons (sulfur mustard, 
     chlorine, chloropicrin, phosgene, and lewisite) during its 
     invasion of China. The Japanese were the only country to use 
     chemical weapons during World War II and did not use them 
     against Western forces. Estimated 10,000 Chinese fatalities 
     and 80,000 casualties as a result of chemical weapons.
       1939-1945--Nazi Germany used carbon monoxide and 
     pesticides, such as Zyklon B (hydrocyanic acid), in gas 
     chambers during the Holocaust. Estimated 3 million killed.
       1941--Mobile vans were used following the German invasion 
     of the Soviet Union to murder an unknown number of Jews, 
     Roma, and mental patients using exhaust from the vans to gas 
     victims. Vans were also used at the Chelmno concentration 
     camp in Poland.
       1942--Nazi Germany began using diesel gas chambers at the 
     Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka camps in Poland.
       Zyklon B was used to kill up to 6,000 Jews per day at 
     Auschwitz. Zyklon B was also used at Stutthoff, Mauthausen, 
     Sachsenhausen, and Ravensbrueck concentration camps.
       1963-1967--Egypt used phosgene and mustard gas against 
     Yemeni royalist forces during the North Yemen Civil War 
     between royalists and republicans. Egypt denied their use, 
     but the Red Cross affirmed their use after forensic 
     investigation.
       1975-1982--Las and Vietnamese forces used chemical weapons 
     against Hmong rebels. At least 6,504 killed.
       1978-1982--Vietnamese forces used chemical weapons against 
     Kampuchean troops and Khmer villages. At least 1,014 
     fatalities.
       1979-1992--The United States alleged that the Soviet Union 
     used mustard gas and other chemical weapons against mujahidin 
     rebels in Afghanistan. At least 3,000 fatalities.
       1980-1988--During the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq employed mustard 
     gas and Tabun nerve agent. Iran retaliated with mustard, 
     phosgene, and hydrogen cyanide gas. Estimated 1 million 
     chemical weapons casualties.
       1987--Libya allegedly used Iranian-supplied mustard gas 
     against Chadian forces. However, the Organization for the 
     Prohibition of Chemical Weapons did not find the allegations 
     sufficiently persuasive to send investigators.
       1988--Iraq used hydrogen cyanide and mustard gas against 
     the Kurdish village of Halabja. Estimated 5,000 casualties.
       1994--Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese terrorist group, released 
     sarin gas in Matsumoto, Japan. 8 fatalities and 200 injuries.
       1995--Aum Shinrikyo released sarin gas in the Tokyo subway 
     system. 12 fatalities and 5,000 estimated casualities.
       Sources: Monterey Institute of International Studies, The 
     Nonproliferation Review, declassified CIA report, 
     Encyclopedia Britannica, The Washington Post, Reuters, New 
     York Times, NPR.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

                          ____________________