if it does so. israel has on several occasions seen fit to deal with threats to its security. not once has assad responded to that to date. i think there are a bunch of things we should talk about in a classified session. let me just make it clear to you that you asked these questions. will this or that be more likely to happen? if the united states of america doesn't do this, is it more or less likely that assad does it again? do you want to answer that question? >> i think it is unknown. >> senator, it is not unknown. if the united states doesn't hold him accountable on this, it is a guarantee assad will do it again. a guarantee. i urge you to go to the classified briefing and learn that. secondly, let me point out to you that with respect to this question of americans wanting to

go to war, you got three people here who have been to war. you have john mccain who has been to war. not one of us doesn't understand what going to war means. we don't want to go to war. we don't believe we are going to war in the classic sense of taking american troops to war. the president is asking for the authority to do a limited action that will degrade the capacity of a tyrant who has been using chemical weapons to kill his own people. >> i think by doing so you announce in advance at your goal is not winning. i think the last 50 years of secretaries of defense would say >> of course not. 100% of americans will say no. we say no. we don't want to go to war in syria either. it is not what we are here to ask. the president is not asking you to go to war. he is not asking you to send one american troop to war. he is simply saying we need to take an action that can degrade

the capacity of a man who has been willing to kill his own people by breaking a 100-year- old prohibition, and will we stand up and be counted to say we want to that? i don't consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young americans in harms way. that is not what the president is asking for. general, do you want to speak to authorizing this to 60 days with the option to extend an additional 30 days. it also prohibits the deployment of u.s. troops on the ground in the region. next, a meeting that took place before the final vote. this is one hour and 45 minutes.

the committee has rules against electronic games. 12>> this meeting of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. in the last you days, the committee has come together in a spirit of bipartisanship and drafted a resolution to authorize the use of limited military force in syria that i believe can achieve bipartisan support. there will be obviously through our process here on the committee, an amendment process,

but it is my expectation that we will be able to achieve the goals largely set out by the resolution. i appreciate the spirit in which all members have come to this issue. this is one of the most weightiest issues that any memorable cast a vote on. we come to it seriously and committed to getting the facts and coming to their respective conclusions. i want to thank senator corker for being a close partner in making the resolution tailored and focused so that it reflects the general sentiment and will of the majority of the committee. i believe the interests of the american people, it gives the president the authority that he needs to respond to syria's use of chemical weapons against its own people. this is an authority he has

asked for and it is an authority that we believe we have tailored in such a way that it meets those goals but also the concerns of members of the committee. we have developed language that we believe appropriately narrows the scope, duration and breadth of the campaign to meet concerns. i want to thank all of our colleagues who have engaged, sometimes very passionately, including senator mccain on this issue, for helping the committee and the nation focus its attention on the importance of what we are doing. this is a tightly tailored or specified authorization to give the president necessary and appropriate authority to use military force against the syrian government to protect the national security interest of the united date and our partners and degrade syria's capacity to use those weapons in the future.

that the united states has 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 protocols of u.s. strategy toward syria including achieving a negotiated settlement to the conflict. it has the limitation specifying that the resolution does not authorize the use of the united states armed forces on the ground in syria for the purpose of combat operations to ensure that there be no boots on the ground. the authorization would end after 60 days with the president having the authority to request and certify another 30 days and congress having the power to pass a resolution of disapproval. it provides united strategy for

syria including a copper hence of review of economic and military policy toward syria. it requires a report to congress on the status of those military operations. let me thank senator corker and all the members of the committee for working together in the interest of the american people. to respond to this challenge, i believe it is a declaration of our values. it sends a clear message that the world cannot and will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons anywhere. with that, let me turn to my colleague and ranking member, senator corker or his statement. >> mr. chairman, i thank you. i want to thank you for your patience. for especially the briefing that we had this morning where obviously some themes were developed.

in particular, through the line of questioning that took place i want to thank all the committee members for the humility but also the thoughtfulness that everyone has approached this issue with. in particular, i want to stress my appreciation to senator mccain and senator coons who i think were able to grasp the essence of developing themes that are going to further the markup in a very positive way. with that, thanks to all members, i have had plenty of time to be heard. i would rather defer. i know we have some members that may have only a short period of time with us. we are somewhat filibustering as we wait for language to be developed that encompasses the discussions taking place. with that, after chairman, thanks for bringing us to this place.>> all right.

think you, senator corker. we are trying to logistically get to where we are at. i would entertain amendments of that seek to be offered to the resolution, senator paul. >> i commend the president for doing his constitutional duty and bringing before the congress and asking for the authority to go to war. i think it should be made very explicit that this is his constitutional duty and that we are bound by the constitution, bound by the ideas of the founding fathers. it was very explicitly presented by james madison in the federalist papers that the executive branch is the branch of government most prone to war and therefore, the constitution vested the power to go to war in congress. some would say this isn't a war, this bombing is not a war. sailors and ships are not war.

that we only define war when there are boots on the ground. i think that would be an absurdly narrow definition of war. this will indeed be a war. hopefully it won't include casualties on our side. we should make a pretense about getting involved in a war. the president when he ran for office said that no president should unilaterally go to war without the authority of congress. many paid lip service to this, but this is a chance to vote for whether or not you believe this to be true. this will be a senate resolution that reads that the president does not have the power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. i submit it for recorded vote if i may. >> senator mccain. >> mr. chairman, first i would like to applaud senator paul's

active participation in this issue. i respect very much his zeal in trying to make sure that the respective authority of congress and the president is preserved. paul's what senator amendment brings up is something that i hope this committee will start to work on and that is the war powers act. in a little bit of contrast to what senator paul's interpretation of the constitution is, the war powers act, the president can act but has to come back to congress within 60 days. no president has ever agreed that that is constitutional and yet they have observed it. i think what senator paul's amendment brought up is this

whole issue of constitutionality of when the president can take us to war, what the role of congress is, and how we address that very important issue that i think is a distorted balance between the congress and the president. i thank senator paul for his amendment even though i may not agree with it. he really does bring an important issue that we need -- it is wrong for a law to be on the books and every president of the united states saying it is not constitutional. if every president thinks it is unconstitutional, challenge it in court. they haven't. i thank senator paul for his amendment. >> one of the things that i think is misunderstood about the war powers act is that the war powers act does allow the

president to take action in three specific cases. one, if a war has been cleared -- declared by congress. two, if there has been statutory approval under use of authorization of force. third is imminent attack. it doesn't give unlimited power to the president to authorize military force. we can debate whether it is constitutional or not but under the war powers act those are the only three ways you can go. the press and the media and everybody misinterprets the war powers act to be 60 days and he has to report. that is true but that is not the beginning of the act. that is one part of the act. the initial part says the president can only go to war with imminent danger or the statutory approved force. >> could i just say to my friend in response, the third provision is what is not clear. we are about to enact a statutory act. i don't think it is quite as

clear as senator paul -- >> senator durbin. >> mr. chairman, this is an important proposal by the senator from kentucky. we should take it seriously. the most awesome responsibility that we have as members of congress is the constitution. i would like to suggest to him that we take care in the language that we use and that we use the exact language of the war powers resolution as opposed to the addedwhiche you which you have added here. i think it will create some ambiguity if we put in a new standard. let me be specific. amendment,of your you say does not involve, and you use the words, stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. the war powers act says, a national emergency created by attack on the united states or its territories or armed forces. if you would consider that as a

friendly amendment to use the exact language of the war powers resolution which you referred to indirectly, i think we would be on more solid ground. happy, i would be very to. >> senator rich. >> mr. chairman, first of all, senator mccain is right. this is an important debate probably for another day. i submit an amendment. i see we haven't got it here. i think maybe i can make this simpler. if you go to page three and go to the third last line where it says the word constitution. where is the president has authority under the constitution, that is where the rub is. the argument is to whether or not he has authority. i would suggest that we take out the word constitution and state instead that whereas the

president has authority under the war powers resolution of 1973. that will incorporate the exact language as suggested by senator durbin. i think it also, senator paul, gets us exactly where you and i want to be as far as our belief as to what the power of the president is. >> senator mccain. >> i like senator rick's point. that is a good one. this war powers issue is one i am obsessed about. senator mccain and i have talked and i hope we will address it. the debate we have had a last couple of days demonstrate the important of it. here is the challenge. i hope you will tell me i am wrong on this. i just read an ap report about your stated intention to filibuster a vote on the syria resolution if it hit the senate floor. it is hard to praise the president for bringing something to congress for a vote and then say you were going to try to filibuster to deny me the right to vote about it on the

floor of the senate. >> misinterpretation from the media. >> i am just reporting what the ap is reporting. i would hope that if we are going to encourage the president to bring these matters to congress that we don't use procedural tricks to block congress from being able to vote on these matters. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator corker. >> i want to thank the senator from kentucky for bringing this up and say that senator kaine has wanted to address this issue. begink a process might with looking at the authorization for the use of military force in general. i know we have one specific to syria right now and we have lots of other activities that are taking place around the world. i know there have been discussions about trying to address that. build into the place of dealing with the war powers resolution

in general. i thank him for bringing it to us today. i hope that we don't do anything today that takes away from our ability to pass something on the committee. >> let me just say that the chair appreciates senator paul's commitment and passion on this issue. i think that the issue is so significant to place into question the constitutionality of what the president does and -- inot have, and this this particular context, is not timely. it deserves, including something that the ranking member has been pursuing for a while which is a debate and consideration of what authorization of military force

looks like more broadly than in the context of syria, that would be an appropriate debate and hopefully a discussion in getting some key witnesses here. i cannot support, and the context of this resolution, to make weighty determinations even though it may be a sense of congress on the constitutionality of this particular set of issues in this timeframe. theuld have to oppose amendment. senator udall. >> thank you, chairman menendez. let me just say -- i know the issue of whether or not we put it in here is one that is pending and the chairman feels strongly about it. i am very proud of the congress. the way it has stepped forward and asserted its authority.

severalt last count hundred members sign a letter to specifically asked the president to not go forward and bring this to congress. to me, that is recognizing a new era in terms of congress rather than sitting back, actually saying, we are going to exercise our right under the constitution. the constitution specifically says, as senator paul has put in here, that the power to declare war is with the legislative branch, not with the executive branch. we have heard a lot of statements about whether or not the president can move forward regardless of this amendment. i think it is important to have this in here. i would applaud him and i hope that we have entered a new era where congress will assert its power under the constitution

when we get into situations like this. so i would support the amendment if we get the opportunity to have a vote on it. thank you. >> any other members? senator rubio has not had an opportunity. >> this is an important issue regarding the role of congress in setting foreign policy and in particular it power to make war. i want to understand the amendments in the context of history. i think one that reflects what is being discussed here is an engagement when president reagan decided to launch a limited strike in libya. how does this reconcile with president reagan's decision in d 86 or grenada which involve ground troops, and operation of that magnitude? >> when you look at this and you look at a war powers act, this doesn't do anything beyond what

the war powers act says. it does reiterate what the war powers act says. as has been discussed, there is some disagreement. some people don't think what we are getting ready to commence with is war. some people think the lesser the military attack, the less of a war it is. the constitution doesn't differentiate between big wars and small wars. it does differentiate in the war powers act between defensive action and an action that doesn't have some sort of immediate threat. i don't think either of the cases you mentioned, there was an immediate right to the united -- immediate threat to the united states. i think these are open to interpretation but what is not open to interpretation is an event like what we have now, whether or not the congress should have to give authorization. >> it is interesting we are having this debate on a request by the president for us to act

under the war powers resolution. i think senator mccain is correct. this is a subject that the president and congress -- it is a debate we should have in congress. i am a strong supporter of the war powers act. i think presidents should adhere to the powers. i think the resolution that we have here is properly drafted. it says where the president has authority under the constitution. the president's responsibility to carry out laws passed by congress. we have already covered this. there is a specific reference to the war powers in this constitution. in this legislation. we are not going to be able to resolve in this committee the long-standing dispute between the executive and legislative and judicial branches of government as to how the

exercise of force is authorized and implemented. i would urge us to stick to the issue at hand. this is one of the most challenging and difficult decisions for members to make on the authorization of force. it is heart wrenching. we knowconsequences of the use of force -- i think we shouldn't try to deal with the overall issues of authorization generally, which requires far more discussion. >> any other members? >> mr. chairman, i agree with senator cardin that the president has asked for authority under the war powers authorization. as a result of that, we ought to be clear here that that is what we are responding to. we have the word constitution in here and that is what causes the disagreement among parties. i would respectfully request we just take out the word constitution and accept what everybody agrees to, and that is that this is under the war powers resolution of november

7, 1973. if you put that in here, we can move on with the merits of it. as senator cardin correctly stated, this has been wrestled with by every branch of government. there is no resolution at this point. i am worried that if we put this in here, somebody is going to say, he is going to interpret that to be that this power is under the constitution, not the war powers resolution. >> i think that clause is beyond the authorization concluded in this bill. it is not in regards to chemical weapon used by syria. >> again, i come back too, we ought to get this behind us and get onto the merits of the thing. you don't even need this word. whereas is superfluous and it is

causing a fight that we don't need to have. we are arguing about specific language of a whereas that we don't need in there. you can resolve this by changing the word constitution to work -- war powers resolution. >> senator paul's amendment is broader than that specific note. i will give you the final word before we go to vote. >> what i would say is there never seems to be a good time to debate. this is a very good time to debate this. the nation is looking at us, asking us what we believe with regard to what our role is, what congress's role is. if congress wants to take back power gravitating the wrong way,this is precisely the time to do it. what i would also say, is this precisely comes up because the

president has been asked point blank, the secretary of state has been asked on at least two or three occasions what would happen if congress puts you -- votes you down. are you going to stand by the authority of congress to make this decision? they have hedged. the vote is a very important vote because this is about -- like i have said to secretary kerry, you are probably going to win. the thing is, we need to be very clear that by coming, he is seeking congressional authority. he must abide by it. you shouldn't get it both ways. you should not be able to say i will abide by it when the wind but if i do not, i will not. we should say we are either for congressional authority or not. this is a great issue. it is a perfect time to talk about it. it is a perfect time to take a stance. thank you. >> i appreciate the senator's remarks. the issue is weighty and important, but not to be done in this context.

i assume the senator is asking for a vote. his request is put forward. i am going to move to table the amendment because it is an expression -- from my view, this is an important issue that should be held. debate. right now, it is much greater than the issue that is before us. i will move to table. the clerk will call the roll. [inaudible]

mr. m;uurphy. mr. corker. >> mr. rubio? >> aye. >> mr. johnson? >> no. >> mr. mccain? [inaudible] pardon me.

>> mr. paul? mr. chair? >> aye. 14 aye, 5 nay. the amendment is taken. tabled. senator mccain. >> mr. chairman, i have two amendments. considered they together since they are inextricably related. thesed like to describe amendments. i would like to thank senator coons -- this amendment is beyond -- on behalf of myself and senator coons. i thought this morning's session that was held was a very excellent ability for all thes to not only hear from

administration but to get a lot of questions answered and i appreciate you holding those. i thank you and senator corker for the hard work that you have done on this legislation. i think it may be one of the most important pieces of legislation that this committee will consider and i thank you and senator corker for your leadership. both of these amendments have to do with the issue of changing the battlefield situation in syria. the president of the united states has articulated three basic policy measures that he advocates. one, is to degrade the chemical weapons capabilities of bashar

al-assad. two, to give greater support to the syrian army and those who are seeking to prevail. thed, a change in battlefield to switch the momentum which presently thanks to 4000 hezbollah, russian equipment being flown in every day, iranian assistance, the momentum is on the part of bashar al-assad. leaveexpect them to power, it would be because that situation is reversed and he believes that he cannot prevail. dowhat these two amendments is state -- i will quote. it is a policy of the united states to change the momentum on the battlefield in syria so

as to create a favorable condition for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in syria. a conference of u.s. strategy in syria should aim as part of a coordinated effort to degrade the capabilities of the assad regime to use weapons of mass destruction. it is " upgrading the elements of the opposition forces. this requires an amendment to start with that we basically replace part of the legislation as it is presently written and replace it with the following tatement, whereas on may 21, 2013, the foreign relations committee passed by a 15-3 vote a serious transition support act which founded the president's goal of assad

leaving power an end and to the violence, are prerequisites for a stable democratic future for syria and peace in the region. absent the size of changes on the ground,sufficient incentives do not yet exist for the achievement of such goals. i might add, that entire act was passed by a 15-3 vote here in the foreign relations committee and is presently on the calendar. i hope my colleagues will appreciate that this is really important, that we are on record, that we want to change the military equation on the battlefield. i think any observer, all of us included, would agree that unless bashar al-assad believes that he is going to lose, it would be impossible for him to

negotiate a peaceful settlement and departure from syria. i would like to ask my colleague senator coons, if you don't mind, to make remarks. i hope my colleagues will consider this amendment. >> senator coons. >> thank you. i think this offers a clarification. nothing about this adds to the scope of the authorization. nothing about this amendment adds to the scope of the authorization for the use of force. it does point the rest of our colleagues do valuable work that was done on this committee and that currently sits waiting for the consideration on the floor. it considered a wide range of factors and concerns in place. i want to draw your attention to the point of that is made

here that our overall policy is a negotiated resolution. an international effort to degrade the capabilities of the assad regime to use weapons of mass destruction, to change the momentum on the battlefield, to change the momentum on the battlefield in order to encourage a negotiated a political settlement to the civil war. i think that is worth restating. i would be grateful for this part of my colleagues. >> any other colleagues who wish to speak to this? senator murphy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think it goes without saying that this does fundamentally alter the nature of this authorization. it combines the authorizing resolution that we passed several months ago with the underlying legislation that we have been debating. it does so in a statement of policy that says for the first time that congress, but passage

of this act, supports the president's efforts which have been reported in open sources over the past several months, arming with both lethal and nonlethal capabilities, the vetted elements of the syrian opposition. i would note that in that authorization that we passed several months ago which i did not support, we were very careful to attach to that resolution and authorization, some pretty carefully thought- out conditions and controls. that would go along with the president's new authority to arm the syrian rebels. by stating today that it is the policy of the united states government endorsed by the congress to do that, we drop all of that work that we have previously done. i know this is not the same thing as authorizing legislation but i do think that this is a fairly substantial change. i think it will take some people by surprise, particularly in the house of representatives as this goes forward. i appreciate the fact that many

members of the committee have been calling upon the president to do this for every long time. this committee has spent an enormous amount of time talking about this issue of arming the vetted elements of the syrian opposition. it is not a debate that this full senate has had or that has been conducted in the full house. i would argue it may complicate discussion on this forward. >> senator corker. >> i just want to thank senator mccain for being such an advocate, for having a coordinated strategy. i don't think there is any committee that has spent more time trying to press that issue. i want to thank senator coons or trying to continually ensure that things that we do we do in a way that accomplishes an and. i thank them both for capturing a theme through the question that they and others asked this

morning. i will say, i think the administration very much supports as secretary kerry said this morning, a further affirmation of these policies in an integrated way. i look forward to wholeheartedly supporting their amendment. > any other colleague? i will be supportive of the amendment and i want to ongratulate both of them for coming together and particularly senator mccain for his stalwart advocacy towards this and senator coons who has been an advocate of a broader serious strategy. the first amendment is part of a whereas clause. what it does is restate what this committee has already done

in a vote of 15-3. in that respect, amendment number one is just a restatement of that fact which exist but it is an important fact. on amendment number two, it is a statement of policy but it is largely a statement of policy that the administration itself has verbalized and ultimately, in the statement of policy, it creates an understanding that this is our ultimate policy. but it does nothing in terms of as senator coons said to alter the scope of authorization in which that authorization unlike these. transition support act would have specific rovisions. i think it is an important statement.

it moves us to a broader syria strategy which i commend both senators for. something that has largely been accepted by and voted on by this committee. i would be supportive of both amendments. is there anyone else who wishes to speak on the amendment? f not, senator mccain? >> if it is agreeable to i would ask for a voice vote. >> the voice vote has been asked for. all those in favor will say aye. the ayes have it, both amendments are agreed to. is there anyone else who wishes to offer an amendment on the democratic side? senator cardin. >> i was going to offer an mendment with regards to the

use of ground troops that make it clear that the authorization does not authorize the use of american soldiers in syria. the language here is clear. it does say that the restrictions include the limitation of use of the united states armed forces on the ground in syria for the purposes of combat operations. i was concerned about the language, combat operations. as a result of hearing the committee has held, i am confident that there is no soldier being asked to go into syria as a result of this authorization and i understand that will be made extremely clear in our committee report. there is always the unexpected -- i certainly understand that -- but our authorization was clear that there will be no ground troops in syria.

i will not be offering the amendment. i assure you that the committee report will have language that makes it clear that the language that is in the resolution is for its stated purpose. i would be happy to work with him to make sure that language is something that he finds supportive. is there any other member that wishes to make an amendment? senator coons. >> this amendment simply expands on the required elements for inclusion in the yria strategy reports. it amends section 5b and inserts additional provisions within the broader serious strategy report. it has a section regarding security coordination with allies and regional partners

including israel, jordan and turkey. it has a section on planning for securing the existing chemical, biological and other weapons supplies in syria. last, it adds a section that the policy address efforts regarding the ongoing humanitarian challenges presented by 2 million syrian refugees in neighboring countries and 4.5 million internally displaced persons in syria. report that we anticipate from the administration as part of this authorization. i would hope for a voice vote. >> chair is supportive of the senator's amendment. it is a valuable addition to the resolution. any other members wish to speak to it? >> i thank him for a contribution. i plan to support it wholeheartedly. >> senator asked for a voice

vote. all those in favor will say aye. all those opposed will say nay. he ayes have it. enator durbin. >> and amendment i have been working on that addresses a practical situation. under the proposal before us, the president if this is enacted into law, after submitting certification to congress has 60 days to exercise his authority under this proposal. he can extend that another 30 days with another certification to congress unless congress disapproves. hypothetical situation, if this became law and the president implemented it on september 15, then he would have until november 15 to use that period of time.

the question is, what happens on the 91st day? what if assad decide then that he will use chemical weapons again? will we would turn to congress again to start the debate again? senator mccain and i have worked on the line which. i don't believe it is ready at this moment. it does leave open the possibility that we ought to consider. i wanted to raise that for the committee. i won't be offering the amendment. i asked senator mccain if you would like to make a comment. >> i think my colleague from illinois. there is a perception problem here that can be created that we need to avoid. that is that we will take this vigorous action until the 91st today and then bashar al-assad is able to resume his

atrocities with chemical weapons. obviously, none of us believe that. one of us agree with it. we are kind of working to try to find a way to give everybody confidence that at any time if bashar al-assad uses chemical weapons again, that the united its of america will act. we don't have to go through -- we don't want to go through the authorization and debate on the floor etc. at the same time, the dilemma that we face is that we don't want to give an open-ended kind of authority to the president of the united states either. we would solicit the input of all members as to how we can address the perception created by this issue, but at the same time, reserve the legitimate role that the congress plays in determining these issues.

i thank my friend from illinois and i hope that all my colleagues will continue to work together. by the time this legislation reaches the floor, perhaps we could have some kind of consensus on it. >> mr. chairman. >> senator durbin. >> i would like to offer durbin amendment number two. >> before you do that, if i may comment on the amendment that you withheld on. the chair appreciates the concerns that have been raised. i have prepared an amendment in this regard to bring us closer to ensuring that assad understands that he can't wait out the time. , go back to chemical weapons and go face no consequence or it we are getting closer and closer to a language that would find both the restraint and the opportunity, but i think it would be worthy of working collectively with everyone who

has an interest in this as we move towards the floor. the chairman withheld his amendment as well and appreciates the comments of my colleagues as we try to work towards something that meets that challenge. senator durbin. >> mr. chairman, i have two amendments. one of these i raised earlier when we had an informal meeting. the use of the word, limited and tailored has stumped me from the start. i hope i am not nitpicking here. i don't think that this is the right word. i am told that even the president has used the word. i hope that we would instead say that we are dealing with authorizing the limited and specified use of the united states armed forces against syria. i have looked up the word tailored. there is no definition that comes close to what we are trying to do. i think the word specified makes it clear that what we are trying to achieve, we are limiting what the president can do and specifying what the

president can do. that is my amendment number one. i can take a voice vote on this. >> is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on this amendment? the chair believes it achieves the goal we are trying to achieve. all in favor will say aye. the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed on. >> i think -- on behalf of the committee, there is one section that troubles me. it is on page four, paragraph one. keep in mind what we are doing here is spelling out the authority of the president of the united states to use military force for specified purposes. we are specific in paragraphs two and three, to deter syria's use of such weapons.

to degrade syria's capacity to use such weapons in the future. the first paragraph troubles me. it is open-ended. instead of specificity about the purpose for the use of force, it says, respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction of the government of syria in the conflict in syria. that to me is as general and wide-open as you could write it. i think it really belies the rest of this effort and what we are trying to achieve. i am troubled by that reference to respond, which i think is open-ended. i am also concerned, this came up in closed session, with another element that was not included in the original white house draft. the original draft included the following, prevent or deter the use or proliferation, and this is the important language.

including the transport to terrorist roots or other state and nonstate actors of chemical or biological weapons. this is something we are genuinely concerned about. not just that assad might transfer the chemical weapons, but at that moment when he is out of power, that the transfer be taking place as well. what i have included in taking out the generalized respond paragraph, is the specific language that says the president is authorized to use military force to prevent he ransferred to terrorist groups within syria of any weapons of mass destruction, etc. >> where would we -- is there any other member who wishes to be heard on this? >> mr. chairman. > senator johnson.

>> first of all, i appreciate senator durbin's proposed amendment. this is similar to what i was trying to accomplish with my wn amendment where i had a fourth point, to secure and prevent the transfer of chemical weapons tockpiles. durbin, i believe this encompasses about the same thing. i am very supportive because i believe one of the primary reasons if not the primary reason that the events in syria pose a national security threat to the unit is its is those chemical weapons stockpiles and those possibly being transferred to enemies of the nited dates. i would like to work with you and be assured that this does the exact same thing that i was trying to do with my amendment.

>> i think we are on the same track. the testimony we heard in this room was that the french have analyzed the situation and believe that assad has 1000 tons of chemical agents and weapons including several hundred tons of sarin. he may be in the chemical weapons world, a uperpower. we don't want him to use those within his own country but we also don't want him to put those on the block or transfer them to enemies of the united states. i think we are on the same track. >> let me also say, my amendment may be goes further. in section three, where we imit the authorization and use -- basically boots on the ground for the purpose of combat operations, i do accept as required under my authorization. basically, recognizing that if the president has to secure those weapons, that that would require ground troops.

>> i think you are into a new territory there. >> possibly, but i think your anguage implies the same thing. >> let me turn to senator corker. >> first of all i want to thank both of you for bringing this issue up. i wonder if we might resolve the concern that each of you have by, under section two, paragraph a, article one, where it says respond, if we can insert, respond in a limited anner. and then, use language that senator durbin has drafted as the fourth section of this, the fourth article down at the bottom. leave out the part including chemical, biological weapons or components used in such weapons, so that you have a fourth portion that says, prevent the transfer to terrorist groups or other actors within syria of any eapons of mass destruction, so

we hit the point that the two of you are trying to address and we are limiting the response that senator durbin is concerned, maybe too broad. >> i asked the senator from tennessee what he envisions by that phrase, respond in a limited manner? >> what i envision is that we would respond in a limited manner. i don't know if i can clarify. i know that you're trying to tighten and i appreciate that very much. a big portion of our time has been to make this specified. i do think, on the other hand, the essence of what we are doing here is in response to what is happening with weapons of mass destruction. i guess i am trying to address both needs here. >> the only thing i would say to the senator from tennessee is, everything i have imagined

in my mind that we do with military force could not be characterized as limited. it is going to be a powerful response by our country to what we view as a danger to the people of syria, to the world. i don't want to get lost in the language here. i think this is a friendly amendment you are offering, but respond in a limited manner, it still leaves me uncertain as to what we are trying to say. >> if i may, senator durbin, hat is the preface here is the resident is authorized subject to this subsection to use the armed forces of the united states as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and specified manner against legitimate military targets in syria only to

respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the government of syria. what is it, i am trying to grasp, what is it about the language there that is troublesome to you? >> compare the other two paragraphs, two and three. deter the use of weapons of ass destruction. it is linked to the use of weapons of mass destruction. respond, i think is so generic and so general that it can include any military action which would be a response, but it is not a response limited to the future use of this weapons. >> what if that first paragraph were to read, only to deter and degrade the use of weapons of mass destruction by the government of syria?

>> that would be repetitive but it wouldn't be nconsistent. >> if you could accept that. >> i can accept that if we can add the fourth paragraph that senator corker has talked about and senator johnson and i discussed, the prevention of transport of these weapons to errorist groups. >> do you need the entire phrase stated, or is it good enough to prevent the transfer to terrorist groups -- >> i think that is sufficient. the language i have goes on to explain that but you use weapons of mass destruction. yours is sufficient. >> i appreciate the concern that you have, senator durbin. this is the core of the authorization in this

particular language. i want to make sure that we get it right. ould the senator with this signature withholds on i would like to work with you and be assured that this does the exact same thing that i was trying to do with my amendment. > i think we are on the same or i think that would be acceptable, where it would

read, we would leave paragraph as is and we would add a photograph 4 where we would say revent the transfer of any weapons of mass destruction. >> senator doiben. carden. >> i'm going to agree with the compromise that has just been reached but i would hope that includes looking at the language under a. because i agree with senator durbin. i think this is too broad and that every time the president has been asking for the power to deter it's to degrade and prevents the transfer. so i hope we could look at that language. i'm confident that the leadership will take a look at it since senator durbin is in the leadership. i just wanted to encourage. >> that always helps. i think this is a good -- at this stage, i'm committed to working with the senator on this issue.

>> i am, too. >> but i think that for now this would help us get to a responsible place. we will then senator dur ban your amendment would be amended paragraph for four under section 2 a that would read prevent the transfer to terrorist groups or other nonstate actors. >> this is very similar to. so i would like to tack on. my amendment also says it is important to have similar anguage. right after c there would be a d basically making the same point. d to nder section 2 b 5 make the exact same point.

the united states has a military plan to achieve the goals of -- and it basically repeats the authorization. i would also note, as i listen to the administration they've been talking about holding the regime accountable for punishing them for the use of weapons. that's the first three goals. hold accountable, punishing, deter and degrading. i just think you need that preventing the transfer in two different places here. i think if we get that i would probably be satisfied and not offer my amendment but also talk about adding it to section 3 because i figure that probably wouldn't pass. >> the united states has a plan? >> i'm sorry, i was -- staff was in my ear. so trying to make sure we get this language straight.

o you'll forgive me. could you tell me specifically what you want to add on? >> in other words, we're adding paragraph four to section 2, according to the durbin amendment, we would use the .xact same language under b 5 d is what we would add then. because right now you have 5 a, b, and c and then d. >> i have no objection to that. i think it's consistent. >> and d in essence would be a restatement of your fourth? >> that the u.s. has a military plan to achieve specific goals of preventing the transfer of these weapons. which i think the senator offer as good amendment. >> if that's the case i will drop my amendment. >> i think that is acceptable. is there any other member who wishes to be heard? senator coons. >> i want to speak up in

support of senator durbin's point about making sure that this authorization is narrow, specific. his concerns about a 1 i think were well founded and i think the amendments that he has offered makes sense. the amendments that i've supported and offered were also designed to make it clear that our ultimate goal here is a negotiated resolution to the conflict in syria. >> i think senator johnson would like to cosponse tr durbin amendment. >> so what we have is the durbin amendment as amended by senator durbin to have a paragraph -- additional paragraph four. and further amended by senator to put that in 5 z. >> and then listing me as a cosponsor. >> and the senator would be added as a cosponsor.

now, just give me a moment ere. is there any other senator who wishes to be heard on senator durbin's amendment as amend bid senator johnson? if not all those in favor will say aye. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. any other member who wishes to offer an amendment? senator you'd al. >> thank you, chairman. i would offer you'd al amendment number 1. it's eight pages back in the out ut that has been given to the members here. i'm proposing to amendment section 2 to clarify that the president does not have a blank check to launch any type of attack. my amendment would authorize only naval and air-based

military strikes outside of syrian territory or air space as the president determines to be necessary and appropriate. and i believe this will help address the concerns i've heard from new mexicoances and the american people that this furthers strike will lead to further involvement. a bombing campaign involving u.s. planes flying in syrian air space puts u.s. personnel in harm's way and dramatically increases the risk that this conflict could escalate. this language reflects what the president has asked for and i think the history has been very clear here that when we have resolutions that are too broad, they get taken way too far. so with that, i would offer the amendment and ask for a vote on it. >> mr. chairman. >> senator mccain. >> i would just say that this frankly anagement that

not only is unnecessary but we really can't tell the president of the united states what employ.that he has to we can certainly place limitations on certain broad activities or efforts on the part of the united states. the president of the united states. but we really don't have the exactly here to know what kind of attack should be launched. i understand snample new mexico's caution but if we start down this road, we're going to be running the campaign from here. and as smart as we are i don't hink we're that smart. >> i'm sympathetic to the view expressd in this amendment by senator udall that our military actions should be specified and limited. i also believe based upon our

hearing the amendment reflects the administration's thinking about what is required to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the assad regime. however, i believe it would be it would be a mistake for the senate to tie the president's hands by having us dictate the specific military tactics he can and cannot use to complete the mission. the language already limits the geographic scope of the mission to syria, focuses the mission on addressing the use of chemical weapons. limits the time frame and rules out the use of ground forces for combat operations. i appreciate the senator's concern, but the chair would have to oppose the amendment. does the senator seek a recorded vote? >> yes. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote]

>> the amendment is not agreed to. are there any other amendments? if not, all amendments having been considered, [inaudible] absolutely. having dispensed with all of the amendments, let us proceed to a final vote on the use of force. >> chairman? >> i do not have an amendment. >> i would certainly entertain the senator's request. the senator has hung in here with us despite the advent of the jewish holidays. >> shana tova.

>>if any other senator wishes to address it, i would urge them to let us take a vote. >> thank you. this issue is of concern. many senators have raised the inclusion of the broader issue of u.s. policy and national strategy on syria. this is a concern that i share. i would argue that section five of the resolution on syria's strategy does not belong in this resolution as it ranges well beyond the issue of deterring and degrading the chemical weapons attacks capacity and

their ability to launch a future attack. in addition, since this requirement is directly linked to the presidential determination required under sections 2b 6, it raises the question whether the 30 day reports becomes a mechanism for dragging the u.s. further into the middle of the syrian civil war. it is not an appropriate thing to be in this resolution. it is not something the president talked about in terms of what we need. i just wanted to make that statement. >> i ask unanimous consent to allow committee staff to make technical changes to the text. any objection? without objection, so ordered. i moved to vote on passage of the resolution. is there a second?

the clerk will call the roll. >> [roll call vote]

>> the clerk will report. >> the resolution is agreed to. i thank all of the committee members for their serious engagement in this process. i stand ready to have any member who wishes to make a statement for the record. senator rubio? >> thank you. for the record, i would like to state the following. what is happening in syria is of vital national consideration. syria is far away. but it matters for several regions. syria is of vital importance to

iran. assad is a dangerous anti- american dictator. third, this prolonged conflict is creating vast spaces which are creating jihadist to operate. if assad does not face consequences for what he has done, and is doing, it sends a message to north korea and iran that they can cross redlines without fear. those who argue it is none of our business are wrong. i have urged the president to pursue a more robust engagement. however, while i have long argued forcefully for an engagement and empowering the syrian people, i have never

supported the use of military force in this conflict. i still don't. i remain unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work. the only thing that will prevent assad from using the chemical weapons in the future is to have the people remove him from power. i do not believe furthers that goal. i believe it may prove to be counter productive. it will allow assad to claim they took on the united states and survived. it could unleash a series of events that could destabilize the region. this idea that a military response is the only way to respond to what is happening in syria is not true. instead, our response should have always been a multifaceted plan to help the syrian people get rid of assad.

this committee has already put forth a plan that accomplishes that. the syrian transition support act. it would openly provide non- lethal and non-lethal support and increase non-lethal support. we should only do this if we are able to identify rebel groups that will not transfer those weapons. second, we would pursue sanctions against individuals and financial institutions that have provided or facilitated the sale of weapons to assad. we should create a transition fund that will assist a transition to a moderate transitional government in syria. fourth, we should increase humanitarian aid to syrian people. and to the countries hosting

syrian refugees. let me close by recognizing that there is a movement afoot in both parties to disengage the united states from issues throughout the world. it is true that we cannot solve every crisis on the planet, but if we follow the advice of those who seek to disengage with global issues, we will pay a terrible price. america is not just another country. it is an exceptional one. the most influential, the most powerful, and the most inspirational on earth. we must recognize the world is a safer place when america is the strongest country in the world. when america doesn't lead, chaos follows. eventually, that chaos forces us to deal with these problems in the most expensive and in the most dangerous ways imaginable. just because we ignore global problems doesn't mean they will ignore us. they become bigger and harder to solve. sadly, cre is just the latest example of that fundamental truth.

had do we forcefully engaged earlier in this conflict, today we would have more and better options before us. instead, the president with the support of voices in my party chose to let others lead instead. now, we are dealing with the consequences of that inaction. thank you. >> thank you senator rubio. >> i have a longer statement i will submit to the record. i just wanted to be clear this afternoon that the decision to take military action is not one that i take lightly. but, failing to take action against assad's regime and their use of chemical weapons poses a real threat to our national security interest. i understand that there are a lot of people in new hampshire, my home state, and throughout this country who are war-weary a concerned about the consequences of the use of military force. i share those concerns. i do believe that we have to act to deter the spread and use of

weapons of mass destruction. i believe this limited military action that we have authorized will deter the assad regime. this resolution that was passed by the committee is limited in time and scope. it does not authorize american troops on the ground. i believe this type of targeted appropriate response will best protect our national security interest. thank you. >> thank you. your statement will be in the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank you. you have done a masterful job in dealing with one of the most challenging issues that we could possibly consider. i have listened to this debate. i cannot tell you how many times i've hearkened back to 12 years

ago, the debate over the war in iraq. maybe that is one of the curses of being in congress for a while. some of these ghosts still rattle around the halls of the united states congress. there is a clear difference between what we are considering today and what happened to of years ago. our decision is being made in the shadow of the war of iraq, with the specter of a war in iran looming. the shadow recalls a moment 12 years ago when the government of the united states america was guilty of political mortal sin. it misled the american people into a war. it told the american people that we had to invade iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, which threatens our neighbors, allies, and ourselves. it wasn't true. we learned that the hard way. we paid a bitter, heavy price for it. thousands of americans lost their lives. more than a trillion dollars was

spent in a war that should've been avoided. that was the reality of the war in iraq. on it's heels, the war in afghanistan. i voted against that war in iraq and for the authorization for the use of force in afghanistan. that seemed like such a clear choice. in afghanistan, we're going after those responsible for 9/11. responsible for killing over 3000 innocent americans. of course we would. no one strikes united states and kills our people without paying a price. i voted for it. i didn't know at the time, no one could have known that i was voting for the longest war in american history. voting for an authorization for use of military force which took that president and many others to far-flung corners of the world in pursuit of stopping terrorism. i think that is what is behind the american people's reluctance to see the united states engage in additional conflict in the middle east.

this bitter memory of what happened in iraq, when we were misled, and this long war in afghanistan, which the president now brings to close. i think this is different. i really do. i believe that there is a moral component here that is critically important. i listened to senator rubio. he is right. the united states bear the responsibility. we try to be a leader when it comes to civilized conduct. when it comes to the use of weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical weapons, the united states must take a strong position, and try to lead the world into a civilized path to avoid the use of these weapons in the future. the president is my friend. i was the first senator to endorse him for president. for 14 months, i was the only one.

his time came in iowa. he became our nominee and president of the united states. i'm proud of him. i respect his values. i know him better than most any person in this town. this president doesn't come easily to war. he understands that there are moments when a leader, a commander in chief, to protect this country has to step up and lead. that is what he has done here. this last saturday, i was with many of his friends in illinois. they do not agree with the president at this moment, and his policy in syria. he understands that. but a true leader has to step up and do what he thinks is right. that is why joined him today. i think we have narrowly defined what is this administration and president can do for purpose that serves beyond our own peace and security. a good for the whole world. i hope the message comes through on this committee meeting and

the floor of the senate and the house. that this congress, democrats and republicans, are resolute when it comes to discouraging and stopping the spread of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction. if the united states and not take this leadership role, i do not know who would. i want to say that i think -- i take seriously the president's promise we will not be putting boots on the ground in syria. i have been to too many funerals to ever want to see us do that again, except when absolutely necessary for america's survival. i think the we have done today is a step in the right direction. i hope that makes it a safer world. >> thank you. is there any other member who wishes to be heard? >> thank you. i would like to thank my colleagues on the committee for the way that this debate has been conducted. as secretary kerry said to us, it is important not just what we decide as a body, but how we as

a body, but how we decide it. i think the cautious and thorough discussion of this authorization is one that meets the expectations of the american people. the outcome is unpredictable based on partisanship, but is a reflection of the values and the insights of each member of this committee. as this authorization moves to a debate, i continue to be mindful that i represent a state that is weary of war. the conflict in iraq brings to the fourth. i have reviewed in detail the intelligence offered and am convinced that assad's regime has used chemical weapons. likely repeatedly. the attack two weeks ago in the damascus suburbs massacred more

than 1000 innocent civilians, and given the steady rising crescendo in deaths over the last two years that has graduated from using snipers and helicopters, and using cluster bombs and scud missiles. in the absence of action to reinforce a global red line that has been enshrined for decades, in the absence of that action, assad will use these weapons again. we will be less safe. i have been persuaded the risks of inaction are greater. this is a difficult debate. i believe we will have more on the -- more to discuss on the floor of the senate. it is my hope that we will ultimately approve this

authorization. this is not an act that i take with any lightness of heart, and with a full recognition of the potential of difficulties ahead. thank you. >> thank you. let me thank you and senator corker for your efforts to revise the reauthorization of force that was submitted for the administration for the dignified process you followed, and how you shepherded it along. this authorization of force is an improvement over what was originally proposed by the -- but at this point, i do not see how i can support it. and how i can support it in the future.

i want to repeat that i'm horrified by what assad has done to his own people. he has committed a heinous act and a violation of the geneva convention. no doubt about it. however, i believe that this proposal is the wrong course of action for the united states. i am voting no because this policy moves united states towards greater involvement in the syrian civil war, and an increasing regional conflict. this is a complicated sectarian civil war. some of the rebels share our values. they want an open society. many others are allied with al qaeda and a greater threat to the united states than president assad ever was. u.s. military involvement, no matter the limits at this point, will likely only pull us towards greater involvement. with no clear end game. i remain concerned that we have not sufficiently made our case internationally. as i said yesterday, our attention should be on the source of assad's ability to

continue to ruthlessly kill his own people. that is support from nations, that is support from nations, including russia and china, which are cynically trying to hold the high moral ground. assad would not able to maintain his grip on power if he were not being supported from outside. the full force of the international outrage should come down on those nations that are refusing to allow the u.n. to act and find a solution. instead, an attack on assad puts us on shaky legal ground internationally. just as the president get stronger with congressional support, we are much stronger with international support. we do not have the support of some of our key allies. we cannot achieve a u.n. mandate. our recent history should serve to make us very cautious. vietnam started with u.s. advisors and a limited naval presence.

it led to an all-out war, and a quagmire that cost lives of thousands of u.s. service members. the iraq war began as an international effort to kick saddam hussein out of kuwait. as we all know, this action eventually led to what is one of the greatest blunders in u.s. military history. we cannot afford another iraq. finally, i want to say that we should not take it lightly that the american people are not with us. i've received hundreds of calls and letters from new mexicans. i have talked to scores myself over the last couple of weeks,

and the neighbors of the calls and letters have been opposed to escalating. americans are tired of war. their worry about the stress it puts on our economy. their worry about the safety of our troops. their husbands, wives, sons, daughters. they know what the administration is proposing won't provide assurance that assad will not attack again. that it will not ensure his regime will not retaliate in some way. the truth is we cannot guarantee that even a surgical strike will prevent the united states from being embroiled in war. we should not enter into a conflict until we have exhausted every diplomatic and international option. we have not done that. the risk of the the actions we are contemplating now are too great. i cannot support this proposal. again, i think senator menendez and senator corker. you have led an excellent effort here.

it shows the good work we can have in this committee. i thank you for trying to mediate the concerns that i have had in this language. thank you. i yield back. >> i appreciate your views. senator murphy. >> i want to add my thanks to that of senator myrdal's. we were ready for this debate in large part because we have been talking about syria and the threat that the instability poses to the united states all year. i want to express my thanks to the administration for being so deliberative in this process. this president has been reluctant to bring military force to bear on the syrian conflict. it reflects a reluctance of the american public. i may differ today with respect

to his view on the immediate subject in hand, by -- but i appreciate the fact that he has been careful in reaching the conclusion he has today. i voted against this authorization today because i think there are two questions that you have to ask when considering whether to use military force. first, whether there is a national security imperative. i think that secretary kerry and the president have made that case well over the past several days. there is no one on this committee that doesn't believe what assad has done to his people is not atrocious. there are few of us that don't believe he hasn't crossed an international red line. i would agree that what happened in theory is important to national security interests. the second question i think we all are asking is, are the methods that we have before us to change a situation going to be effective? are they going to make things better for the syrian people and for security interest, or could they make things worse?

that is what leads to my no vote today. i cannot answer that second question in the affirmative. first, there is a chance that the strikes could actually make the situation worse on the ground in the short run. i will briefly read a paragraph written by stephen cook, a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations. he said in the face of an attack, assad will remain defiant. he would step up the balance to exert control in his country and to demonstrate united states and allies cannot intimidate him. the regimes supporters would increase their investment in the conflict, meaning more weapons and fighters, resulting in more supporters. this environment would heighten serious substantial divisions, divisions, pulling the country apart. the secretary said the only thing we know that if we do nothing the situation will continue to deteriorate.

this sounds even worse. everyone has come to different conclusions. i simply believe the risks of action today outweigh the risks of inaction. given this resolution commits congressional support for arming the syrian rebels, i worry that we have now committed ourselves to a level of support that will have to endure past the fall of assad. given the commitments were we're making today, it will be difficult for the american government to untie ourselves from support for the opposition and they follow one government because of this resolution. i know none of us want to be involved in a long-term conflict. i worry that the resolution and authorization would make it difficult for us to avoid that reality. i thank you for the work you have done. i think this language is much

better than what was composed to proposed to us at the outset from the administration. i oppose not because i do not gag every time i look at those photos of children who have been killed by assad in his lethal attack. i have deep concerns about the limits of american power. >> thank you for your comments. i respect them. >> i extend my thanks to you for this process. i am impressed by the thoughts of my colleagues as i've listened to the debate and talk to them in these committee hearings. i also expressed my appreciation to the administration. it took courage to bring this matter to congress. it is the right thing to do for a variety of reasons. to me, i think the principle that has grabbed me the most and is the principal you elaborated yesterday in your opening

statement before the committee. the basic fundamental principle that at the top of the pyramid, of the relationship of nations, there is not a more principal then weapons of mass destruction. not to be used against civilian populations without a consequence. international norms, there are a lot of important ones. there's not a more important one in this. there is american writer that wrote a book about the making of the atomic bomb. there is a chapter toward war one and the development of chemical weapons technologies that were used during world war i. they went to a fraction of the casualties. it is an amazing thing to think back to the aftermath of world war i and the nations of the world gathered and said that there is something different about chemical weapons. they passed through the geneva convention immediately ratified

by the united states and soviet union. syria ratified in 1968. a ban on the use of chemical weapons. not just against civilians. a ban on the use of chemical weapons. protected serviceman know chemical weapons would not be used against them. my fear is that if the united states does not stand up for the principle the chemical weapons cannot be used, especially against civilians, no one will step up. it will be cast into the dust because the night it saves is going to be unwilling to play a -- united states is unwilling to play a leadership role. if we play a leadership role, we have partners who play that role with us. if we do not lay leadership

role, i do not think there is anyone who will stand up for the principle. i would agree with senator udall's point that we wish we had more partners than we do. that is an indictment of united nation and other nations quaking before this flagrant violation of this moral principle. there are partners who are willing to stand up for the principle with us. i fear for the world if we are not willing to stand up, no one is. i voted for this because i think it is important for us to stand up for that principle, they chemical weapons should not be used against civilians. we will give our allies safer. we would keep our nation safer. the authorization we voted for today stresses that military authorized but it is only one piece of a larger strategy. it president is required pursuant to the terms of what we have reported that he certified first priority use of military action of the united states, using peaceful means to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction. that diplomacy effort is ongoing right now.

it happened at the u.n. as we're talking about this matter on the floor of the senate. i hope diplomatic efforts will continue. if syria were to turn their stockpile over to inspectors, if russia would decide to stop blocking the un security council, those would be contemplated by the authorization that would pass. it is a heavy vote to have to cast. all of us spend time with men and women in the military. we don't want our men and women in the military to suddenly be faced with the specter that

chemical weapons are ok. this is a principle that has been part of the fabric of our collective moral imagination as humanity for 90 years. only hitler and saddam hussein had violated this convention until now. hitler violated it and the world dedicated itself to eradicating him and the third reich from the face of the earth. saddam hussein violated it and to our detriment, we did not act immediately. we did act as an international community by deciding to be that the 1920's convention. we strengthen the norm against the use of chemical weapons round the world with so many nations, including russia signing onto it.

if we do not stand up for the principle, no one else will. for that reason, i support this. i'm glad it is reported to the floor. i look forward to working with you and our colleagues to making sure it passes. >> let me thank you for a thoughtful statement. there is a reason that the u.s. is the one indispensable nation in the world. it is a heavy burden. it is also an opportunity to lead the world to a safer, more secure world. i believe we have met that burden today. i believe that we will do so as we move to the senate floor. this meeting now comes to adjournment. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]