A joint resolution relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to suspend the debt limit, as submitted under section 1002(b) of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 on October 17, 2013.

Mr. President, before the Internet, RCA knew how many records Elvis sold every day. Before the Internet, Ford knew how many cars they were selling every day. Before the Internet, McDonald's could tell you how many hamburgers it was selling every day. Yet the Obama administration cannot tell us how many Americans have tried to sign up for ObamaCare. They can't tell us how many Americans did sign up for ObamaCare. They can't tell us what level of insurance they bought, nor can they tell us in what zip code they live.

They told us that 20 million Americans have visited the ObamaCare Web site. They have the basic information to shop, but how many have tried to sign up? How many did sign up? Where do they live? What kind of insurance did they buy? Not only have they not told us, they have done their best to keep us from finding out.

With WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden spilling our beans every day, what is happening on the ObamaCare exchanges is the biggest secret left in Washington, DC. The National Security Agency could learn lessons from Secretary Sebelius. We should not have to rely on anonymous sources to get basic information about what is happening with ObamaCare.

Therefore, I am introducing legislation today to require the administration answer the following questions every week: How many people tried to sign up? How many people did sign up? What level of insurance did they buy? In what ZIP code do they live? What are they doing to fix the problems? This is not complicated information.

In the Internet age, the administration ought to be able to provide this information not every week but every day. In fact, they should be able to provide it every minute. We should not have to pass a law to find these things out. I hope that every Senator will support this simple request that this legislation makes. It is a six-page bill. I will put it in the Congressional Record today, and everyone will have a chance to read it tomorrow. After everyone has had a chance to read it, I intend to ask unanimous consent to pass it.

This Congress--both sides of the aisle--is dedicated to transparency. This administration has described itself as the most transparent administration in American history. So why should we not unanimously pass legislation to ask for the most basic information about what is happening on the ObamaCare exchanges?

Health insurance companies say that in order to guarantee that everyone has a chance to sign up for insurance before January 1, which is when the law says they must, the application has to be in by December 15. That is not very far away.

The administration has been talking about giving a grace period of a few weeks before the IRS will fine them for not having bought insurance, as

ObamaCare says most Americans must buy health insurance. Still, if the Web site is not fixed, millions of Americans will be required to sign up for health insurance on a Web site that does not work. As a consequence of not being able to sign up for health care, they will be fined by the Internal Revenue Service.

There is a much bigger problem than the fine, and that is millions of Americans may be without any health insurance at all after January 1 because their insurance is being canceled because of ObamaCare. Remember when President Obama said: If you like your insurance, you can keep it? Well, like a lot of things that have been said about ObamaCare, that is turning out not to be the case.

Our staff has counted the announcements by health insurance companies that are ceasing to offer policies on January 1 because they don't qualify under the ObamaCare law. For example, in Tennessee, the State provides 16,000 Tennesseans who have trouble getting insurance with a plan called CoverTN. Because it doesn't meet the exact requirements of ObamaCare, the State is having to cancel that insurance on January 1, and those 16,000 Tennesseans won't have health insurance.

Other Americans--for example, Tennesseans I have talked to--have what we call catastrophic insurance. They have insurance that provides for a catastrophe. That kind of insurance is often not available under ObamaCare. It is not allowed by ObamaCare for most people. An insurance company that offers these policies will not be offering them after January 1, and as a result, millions of Americans will not be able to buy the insurance they now have.

If individuals can't or won't sign up, that will mean that after January 1, many of the sickest people will go into the exchanges. The result will be that the price of insurance--for everyone who has insurance--will go through the roof. We are already seeing that in the insurance markets today.

The bottom line: If the Web site is not fixed, millions of Americans will not only be fined by the IRS for not buying insurance on a Web site that doesn't work, more importantly, they will be without health care insurance on January 1, insurance that many of them have today.

The President has said over the last few days that the Web site will be ready by November 30. You are supposed to have your application in by December 15 and have the insurance bought by January 1, which only gives 2 weeks for millions of Americans to make their way through this maze. We tried to obtain this simple information that I have asked for, yet repeatedly, the requests which I have directed to Secretary Sebelius have come back with no answer at all--no answers, nothing.

Outside analysts tell us that only \1/2\ of 1 percent of the people who logged on to the ObamaCare Web site in the first week were able to enroll, but we really don't know.

Two weeks ago I sent a letter with House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa to Secretary Sebelius, asking for the information she and the President are not giving us Such as how many people have enrolled successfully in the exchanges, what the technical problems are, how much it already costs, and how much it will cost to address these problems. The deadline for a response to our request has passed. Chairman Issa has said--and I joined him in the letter--that he may consider a subpoena to get that information. The American people deserve an answer to these questions.

Often when the debate comes up, someone will say, Well, the Republicans don't have any proposals of their own. I have often made those proposals. I remember on this floor of the Senate many times proposing steps we should take to change our health care system so more people could afford insurance. We went back and counted the number of times when, during the health care debate, various Republicans talked about our step-by-step proposals for what we should do about health care, and there were 173 mentions of our step-by-step proposals.

The basic problem with what happened with the new health care law was that we--the Democratic Congress did, I didn't; I didn't vote for it-- expanded a health care delivery system that already costs too much. That was the wrong thing to do. That was an historic mistake. What we should have done is to make changes, step by step, in the health care delivery system that would reduce the cost of health care for the largest number of Americans so more people could have afforded it. Those were the steps we should have taken. We can still do that. Our health care delivery system is nearly 20 percent of our economy.

ObamaCare is not our health care delivery system. Rather, ObamaCare includes some additions to our health care delivery system. ObamaCare is an expansion of a health care delivery system that already costs too much. The law is making some changes such as the ones I described earlier in my remarks. Those changes have been described as a train wreck, but we can turn the train around and head it in another direction--a direction of more competition, more choices, and lower costs for Americans buying health insurance.

How can we do that? That is a subject for a long discussion, but here are a few of the ideas: Make Medicare solvent. The trustees have said that in 10 years there won't be enough money to pay hospital bills. We have a duty to make Medicare solvent.

Reform Medicare Advantage to increase more choices and put it on a more level playing field with Traditional Medicare. That will provide seniors more options and it should save some money.

Make Medicaid more flexible. I was Governor. I said on the floor that every Senator who voted for ObamaCare ought to be sentenced to go home and serve as Governor and try to implement the law. During my time as Governor, Medicaid was 8 percent of the State budget. I see it has grown to 26 percent today in Tennessee, soaking up money that otherwise would go for higher education or for other needed parts of State government.

We should encourage workplace wellness. We had a lot of debate about that during the ObamaCare debate and we have ended up with a regulation that is too restrictive. We can change that.

We can allow small businesses to pool their resources and offer a larger number of plans to a larger number of Americans at prices they can afford. We can allow Americans to purchase insurance across State lines. That would reduce the cost of health care, which should be our major goal.

We could expand health care savings accounts.

There is bipartisan legislation before the Senate that would define full-time employment for purposes of the health care law--this one or any one in the future--as 40 hours instead of 30 hours. That would be a great help to American business and an even bigger help to the employees who are being forced to go from 40 hours to 30 hours-- employees who most need that income, and who, by going to 30 hours, will have to go to a second part-time job, and in many cases, in doing so, lose whatever health care benefits that might be available to them. I don't know where the 30 hours came from. That sounds as though it was made in France. A made-in-America part-time job ought to be up to 40 hours.

Those are just a few of the steps we could take to turn the train around and avoid the wreck and move us in the right direction. We will be making those arguments over time. But for now, we need information about what is happening on the ObamaCare exchanges.

I intend to ask unanimous consent tomorrow to pass a simple, six-page bill. It is legislation which requires the administration to give us weekly reports about how many have tried to enroll, how many have succeeded, what ZIP Code they live in, and what level of insurance they have purchased. Congress needs to know that, if millions of Americans are going to lose insurance on January 1, before they have a way to buy it through a Web site that doesn't work. States need to know it because, as time goes on, these decisions are going to have an effect on the Medicaid Programs that States are a partner in and are operating. Americans need to know it because, in many cases--we have counted at least 1.5 million cases and we expect millions more policies that were available to Americans when the law passed will not be available after January 1. So these

Americans--and this includes people working in the Congress and people who are in the Congress--these Americans are going to have to make decisions before January 1 about what insurance they will have, because the insurance they now have isn't going to be available under the new health care law.

This is a six-page bill, and a pretty simple idea. If RCA knew how many records Elvis was selling every day, if Ford knew before the Internet age how many cars Ford was selling every day, if McDonald's before the Internet age knew how many hamburgers it was selling every day, surely the Obama administration can tell us every week how many are enrolling on ObamaCare's Web site, how many are successfully getting their insurance, where they live, and what kind of insurance they buy. The stakes are much higher than Elvis's records, than Ford's cars, and than McDonald's hamburgers. These are the stakes of health insurance that involve the lives of millions of Americans, and I hope my colleagues will join me tomorrow when I ask unanimous consent to approve legislation that will require these weekly reports.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak to the issues the majority leader just addressed. I don't anticipate speaking for more than 12 to 15 minutes. I know the minority leader is delayed in being able to be here. I would be happy to defer to him when he arrives or I would be happy to defer to someone coming back to speak on the business of the day.

Mr. President, President Obama will finally make his case to the American people tomorrow, explaining why he wants to take military action against Syria. His explanation is long overdue.

I think I have a pretty good idea of what I expect he will say. First, he will explain that we have compelling evidence that it was Asad himself who used long-banned chemical weapons to murder his own people. This is not seriously contested. Neither I nor perhaps I think any of my colleagues here dispute these sad facts. It has been well documented by our intelligence sources. As a member of that committee, I have had access to those sources, and I don't doubt the conclusion of the President and others that Asad is responsible for this attack.

The President will also most likely explain that such a horrendous violation of international norms deserves a worldwide response of condemnation. Who could possibly look at those standards and those rooms full of dead children and not agree that the perpetrators have to face consequences for their crimes?

The President will also surely discuss the issue of credibility. He is likely to maintain, as he did recently in Stockholm, that it is not his own credibility at stake, nor even American credibility, but the credibility of the international community that will be harmed by inaction.

I agree with those who say the President's credibility and our Nation's credibility are linked. They are. However, with his now notorious and, I believe, ill-considered ``red line'' comment, President Obama has forced us to debate a military attack in yet another Middle Eastern country. Unfortunately, it appears that the purpose of this military attack first and foremost is perhaps to defend his own credibility. I am certain that if the President had not drawn his red line, we would not be having this discussion. In that case, Asad's use of such weapons would be roundly condemned as yet another example of his horrendous brutality, but we would be no more eager to engage militarily in his civil war than we have been as the other 100,000 Syrian people were being slaughtered by more conventional means.

Make no mistake--it is the credibility issue that has brought us to this pass, and the credibility issue is of President Obama's own making--his and his alone.

So tomorrow evening the President will need to explain to the American public exactly what will be achieved by this limited, focused attack, as described by the administration, beyond simply a token punishment for a horrendous crime in defense of his credibility. The President has said the proposed limited attack is to be a ``shot across the bow.'' His Secretary of State, Secretary Kerry, has said it is going to be unbelievably small. We need to know what the plan is, and will be, should President Asad be undeterred by this unbelievably small, shot-across-the-bow attack. What if he isn't? What then? What do we do next? The President needs to explain that.

We need to know how this escalation is likely to influence extremist radical fighters now active in Syria--extremist radical fighters. There is not a line between good guys and bad guys here. There is the infiltration of Al Qaeda, al-Nusra, and other terrorist organizations and individuals with those seeking to overturn Asad. So it is not clear just how Syria will turn out should Asad be deposed. I don't think these extremist fighters will be overly concerned with an ``unbelievably small, shot across the bow'' response by the United States.

What will Hezbollah and Hamas and Al Qaeda affiliate fighters do when this ``show of force'' is over? What is the President's plan of action if the chemical weapons fall into the hands of these anti-American jihadists? And how about the always-threatened spillover of the Syria conflict into Lebanon or Turkey or Jordan? Will an attack intended to slap Asad's wrist while defending President Obama's credibility make expansion of the conflict more likely or less likely? Most importantly, the President needs to explain to the American people more thoroughly exactly how America's national security and best interests will be served by this response.

The President, in my opinion, must also address additional concerns that are widely--almost universally--shared by the American people. We all know that taking America to war without support from the people is the surest path to disaster. I suggest this must be avoided, and the President is going to have to make his case as to how to avoid that.

Over this last week I visited with Hoosiers from across Indiana to gather their input. Through these visits, as well as calls and e-mails by the thousands, the vast majority--shockingly, the majority of Hoosiers I have heard from are opposed to U.S. military engagement in Syria. As all conscientious lawmakers, I know I have to balance the views of my constituents with my own judgment on how best to represent their interests and the interests of our country.

In this case, I must first ask myself, what do the people back home in my State know that many of the rest of us here in Washington perhaps do not, or at least have expressed?

First, the people back home know that America has been at war in far- off lands for more than a decade--12 years on. They have seen long repeated deployments of their loved ones, and they have seen the body bags come home. They are aware of sacrifices that have been made in the name of protecting our interests, but they are less aware of positive results of those sacrifices.

They see Iraq descending again into conflict as its own citizens continue to slaughter one another because of different interpretations of the Koran or different political motivations or just pure outright quests for power. They see a corrupt government there that authorizes overflights of Russian aircraft bringing modern weapons to Syria to fuel a similar conflict.

Hoosiers see an Afghanistan so deeply corrupt and ungrateful to the United States that the current regime tries to extort huge ransom payments simply

to permit us to remove equipment and personnel from that sorry country. They do not see meaningful progress toward a democratic, stable, and humane government that was to be the objective of American sacrifice of blood and treasure. They do not see how our 12 years of effort have contributed to our own national security interests.

Hoosiers look at the spiraling disaster in Egypt, where the choices have been an extremist, deeply anti-American Islamic radicalism or a brutal and undemocratic military dictatorship. both benefiting from billions of American taxpayer dollars spent on weapons or lining uniform pockets. In the meantime, fellow Christians are being killed in their churches.

Simply put, the people of Indiana do not see that American policy and action have attained meaningful results in the Middle East. Instead, they see a region of continuing and increasing violence, chaos, and disintegration. They are war weary and they are discouraged after more than a decade of wars that have not produced the desired outcomes.

What they do not see is an articulate response. They do not know what our regional strategy is in the Middle East because no one is explaining it, much less pursuing it. They cannot measure progress because they do not know the destination. And they cannot evaluate this latest proposal for a fourth military engagement in the Middle East because they cannot see how it contributes to our own security here at home.

More importantly, they worry that a focused, limited attack on Syria will end up being something else entirely because so little thought has been devoted to potential unintended consequences. Yes, they are war weary, but the American people are also war wise.

In addition to the above unanswered questions, for me, one of the most important questions is how this proposed limited strike will affect Iran's perception of our resolve and our ability to prevent that country from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. It is not so much what we do or how we do it but how Iran perceives the action we take. This may be the most significant question of all because, unlike Syria, Iran poses threats to our core national security interests.

Part of the administration's argument is that to do nothing would embolden the Iranian regime as they pursue their own weapons-of-mass- destruction programs. But I think we have to raise the question, is that really so, or is it, perhaps, the reverse? Will a limited punitive attack discourage the mullahs in Iran because of some degree of destruction--remember, unbelievably small--or will it actually encourage the Iranians because there is no followup option or broader strategic context informing our policy? If an attack is ineffective in altering Asad's behavior or fortune, will it not actually encourage Iran in pursuing its own weapons program? I have not heard the administration address this question.

Also, will a fourth military engagement in the Middle East make it harder to assemble popular and political support for action should Iran's behavior make that necessary? My constant fear here during the past several years, as I have been engaged on the Iranian issue of the pursuit of nuclear weapons, has been that our country will be too militarily, politically, and economically exhausted to confront the real strategic enemy when our core interests require it. I fear a Syria attack will make this problem even more difficult. To my knowledge, no one has yet to address this question within the administration, which President Obama, like the previous three Presidents, has declared a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran to be ``unacceptable.''

I think this is a critical question we must have to ask ourselves. For all of those who are saying: We will change the perception of Iran to the point where they will change their behavior in the pursuit of nuclear weapons by a, quote, unbelievably small shot across the bow or a military response that could lead us into further conflict in the Middle East--I think this undermines our credibility. I think the question has to be asked: Is the reverse going to happen as a consequence of all of this?

This is a deeply historic and profound moment for our Nation. It carries an importance that goes well beyond Syria or even the Middle East. This debate carries important consequences for the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of our government.

To refuse the Commander in Chief war-making authorities when he has asked for them is not a decision any of us can take lightly.

We must all balance the views of the people we represent--even when they have been nearly unanimous--with other elements, such as the abstract, unknowable geostrategic factors that could carry profound consequences not just for this year or next year, for this generation, but for many generations; and such as the compelling moral arguments that resonate with special strength in our unique Nation guided from birth by moral principles; and now even the constitutional challenges that could affect the delicate balance we have maintained for two centuries.

I will weigh all I have said before I announce how I intend to vote on the resolution before us. I will defer to the President's request to address the Nation. In my opinion, consequential actions proposed by the President need to be clarified and numerous questions need to be answered before we grant the authority to the President to engage America in yet another Middle East conflict.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I now move to consider S.J. Res. 21.

Mr. President, this evening the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider a couple of would-be judges, Caproni and Broderick, both from the Southern District of New York, at 5:30 p.m., and then there will be two rollcall votes on the confirmation of those nominations. We may only have one rollcall vote and one voice vote, but we will get both of them done today.

I just moved to proceed to the joint resolution reported last week by the Foreign Relations Committee to authorize the limited use of force against Syria. This matter demands the attention of the Senate and this country. It is this resolution the Senate will turn to. Regardless of where Senators stand on the merits of this issue, we should have this debate. I hope all Senators will support proceeding to this measure. That vote will occur sometime on Wednesday on the motion to proceed.

Under a previous order, at 11 tomorrow morning, the Senate is to have a motion to proceed to the energy efficiency bill. It is obvious we are not going to be able to do that. I will work with the Republican leader to reach a consent agreement to defer consideration of that bill to a later time.

On the Syria resolution, I intend that the Senate should have a full and open debate. I encourage Senators to come to the floor to begin that debate.

Also this week, President Obama will come to the Capitol to address the Democratic caucus. He has also extended his invitation to the Republicans. I have not heard back from the Republicans as to whether they wish to hear from the President.

President Obama will address the Nation tomorrow evening. Senior administration officials will brief all Senators in a classified session on Wednesday. There will be other meetings in the White House today with Democratic and Republican Senators. The Senate will give this matter the serious attention it deserves.

Chemical Weapons

Mr. President, the first large-scale military use of deadly military weapons occurred almost 100 years ago when the Germans deployed chlorine gas during World War I. During that war,

World War I, there were 1,200,000 casualties from attacks with deadly toxins--chlorine gas, mustard gas, and other deathly and destructive chemical agents. Great Britain, Austria, Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, and the United States all suffered losses.

``This is a horrible weapon,'' wrote German Major Karl von Zinger, who reported a firsthand battlefield account of the carnage to his superior officers.

One hundred thousand soldiers died, and most of the other casualties were debilitated for life by the exposure to these deadly toxins. The effects of these killers were horrific. Those who didn't die suffered blindness, burns, blisters, and labored breathing. For those dying, it was as terrible as anyone could imagine. The great World War I era poet Wilfred Owen from Great Britain wrote that gassed soldiers cried out like men on fire as they drowned in air thick with poison. The world was horrified by the gruesomeness of these new evil weapons of war, and so, as a global community, we agreed these weapons should be banished from the battlefield forever.

Despite the success of global efforts to eliminate their use, today the Syrian Government is the second largest holder of chemical weapons in the world--only shortly behind North Korea. The well-documented use of these toxic and unsavory stockpiles by President Bashar al-Asad's regime is a certain violation of the overwhelming international consensus forged against these weapons nearly 10 decades ago. It is a clear violation of human decency. This is not the first time Asad has used chemical weapons against his own citizens. We all heard in our classified briefings that these weapons have been used a number of times, but this is the most gruesome and extensive.

This morning I watched some film in my office. The film takes about 13 minutes. It was pictures that were taken following the dropping of those horrible weapons. I will never get that out of my mind. There were little baby boys and girls dressed in colorful play clothes. Some of the boys and girls looked like teenagers. They were retching and had spasms with their arms. Of course there were older people as well. These poisons kill the kids first. Their little bodies cannot take this as well as older folks. It kills the older people also but more slowly.

The well-documented use of these unsavory stockpiles by Asad is a certain violation, I repeat, of the overwhelming international consensus forged against these weapons 10 decades past. I have talked about human decency. It is a clear violation of human decency.

The August 21 attacks killed more than 1,000 civilians--including hundreds of these children. This week we will further examine the evidence that is growing which proves the viciousness of these attacks and discuss their brutal results.

The innocent civilians who were killed by the Syrian Government during those attacks died terrible deaths. Their death was just as painful and shocking as those suffered on the battlefields of World War I. These deaths were just as terrible as those that convinced the global community to outlaw the use of such brutal tactics against soldiers, and, of course, against innocent civilians such as those Asad murdered last month.

The evidence of the Asad regime, and their using outlawed nerve agents against its own citizens, is clear and very convincing. The Syrian Government has worked to hide the gruesome evidence. They have done it a number of different ways. After the bodies had been cleared away, they sent a barrage of weaponry in there--artillery and tanks-- and blasted the ground and destroyed the evidence. They couldn't destroy it; it is still there, but they did try. They worked very hard to hide these gruesome attacks by repeatedly bombing the site of these grisly and unforgettable occurrences. Without question, this brutality demands a response. The satellite imagery and amateur video shot by eyewitnesses--and I talked about that--paint a clear picture of the brutality of this awful regime.

President Obama sought approval 2 weeks ago for targeted military action--action that will hold President Asad accountable for these heinous acts. Congress has done its due diligence. Since President Obama announced he would seek congressional approval for the limited military action against Syria, the Senate has held many committee hearings and briefings as well as five classified all-Members briefings. There are more briefings and much debate to come this week-- including open debate here in the Senate.

On a bipartisan basis the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution that restricts the use of military force to 60 days, with a single 30-day extension. The resolution reflects President Obama's proposal for limited military action--including strikes of limited duration and limited scope.

The resolution plainly states there may be no U.S. military boots on the ground. America's intention, as specified in the resolution, is not to engage in an open-ended conflict or invasion. Nor is it the Commander in Chief's intention to commit ground troops to this conflict or to effect regime change. Rather, the Senate will be voting to uphold the century-long international consensus that chemical weapons have no place on the battlefield and certainly no place in attacking innocent civilians. This standard demands any government--a dictator or any other government--that has used chemical weapons to be held accountable.

Some may disagree with my conclusions. I don't expect everyone to agree with the statement I am giving here today, as is anyone's right, but this is my firm conviction.

Today, many Americans say that these atrocities are none of our business, that they are not our concern. I disagree. Anytime the powerful turn such weapons of terror and destruction against the powerless it is our business.

The weapons in question are categorically different. Chemical weapons, we know, can kill not just dozens or hundreds of people but tens of thousands of innocents in a single attack--tens of thousands. These weapons don't just pose a threat to the Syrian people or to our allies in the region; they pose a threat to every one of us, every American, and, in particular, every member of the U.S. Armed Forces.

If we allow Asad's use of chemical weapons to go unchecked and unanswered, hostile forces around the world will also assume that these terrible tactics of demons such as Asad are permissible, that they are OK. That America cannot allow. That is why the massacres in Syria are our business and our concern, both as humans and as Americans. America's willingness to stand for what is right should not end at its borders.

Our intervention on behalf of those in danger hasn't always been popular. Look back at history. There has always been part of our society that prefers isolation. Look prior to World War I. Look prior to World War II. Some prefer isolation. That is the easy thing to do. But sitting on the sidelines isn't what made the United States of America the greatest Nation in the world in years past and, yes, today, and sitting on the sidelines won't make us a better Nation tomorrow.

As America faces yet another crisis of conscience, another opportunity to intervene on behalf of humanity, my mind returns to that turning point in the world's history when the United States of America faced down an evil regime that murdered millions of innocent citizens. Millions of civilians and prisoners of war were murdered by gas in Nazi death camps--Belsen, Treblinka, Auschwitz. Never again, swore the world. Never again would we permit the use of these poisonous weapons of war.

Fourteen blocks from here, down Constitution Avenue, is the Holocaust Museum. We walk in there and see a quote on the wall from Dante's famous ``Inferno.'' Here is what it says: ``The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.'' I repeat: ``The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.'' I have thought about those words very often--and very often lately--as I have considered whether America should take action to avert further atrocities in Syria.

In Europe, in World War II, far too many were neutral. Far too many around the world were neutral. Far too many in America were neutral, and in Europe, in World War II. Six million

Jews and tens of thousands of gypsies, disabled people, gay people, and political dissidents were murdered. Never again.

Now we are faced with that choice again. Some say it is not our fight. Some say Syria is too far away. Some say it is not in our security interest. Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and the United States--we should all remember our history. There were 1.2 million casualties in World War I from these poisons.

We should remember our history. Rabbi Hillel, a respected and famous scholar, said more than 2,000 years ago: ``If I care only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?''

I, Harry Reid, say: If not now, when?

I believe America must set the example for the rest of the world. If America must once again lead--as we have before and we will again--to set an example for the world, so be it. This is America. It is who we are as a country. That is what we do as a country. That is where we stand as a country. That is the American tradition of which I am proud and a tradition which I have faith will continue.

We are the United States of America.

Order of Procedure

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

Mr. President, let me start by thanking my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Delaware, for his remarks, and the people of Delaware who came to New Jersey to help us. That is the essence of why we call this great country the United States of America. In moments of challenge and adversity we come together. We appreciate the Delawareans who came to help us. We hope we never have to repay the kindness, but if perchance it comes, we will.

I come to the floor on this anniversary of Superstorm Sandy a year ago. We all remember what has now become an iconic photo. It is hard to believe that it has been 1 year since Sandy, but it has. For a year, under difficult and trying circumstances, New Jerseyans have pulled together, worked together, and helped each other to recover. I rise today in praise of their tenacity, their resilience, their spirit of community, and remembering all of the hard work of the many first responders, Federal, State, and local officials, community leaders, and volunteers who helped in those recovery efforts.

Just yesterday I was with Secretary Donovan in New Jersey to announce another $1.4 billion in community development grant disaster relief funding. This is $1.4 billion in flexible-use funding that comes in addition to the $1.8 billion we have already received from the hard- fought $60 billion disaster relief package we secured a year ago. We secured that funding after a long debate over whether we as a nation and the Congress were prepared to provide disaster relief to the people of my State and others who suffered devastating losses. Standing with me in that effort were many in this Chamber, and one who is no longer with us, our late colleague and friend Senator Frank Lautenberg. He and I worked against many who did not want to provide New Jersey the disaster relief we needed. We were in the midst of a debt ceiling debate, a fiscal cliff at the end after a congressional session, and even after Sandy relief had passed the Senate with bipartisan support, the House Republican leadership chose not to immediately bring the relief package to a vote, unnecessarily delaying our recovery from Sandy by 6 weeks.

There were those in Congress who believe that even in times of disaster and crisis we are on our own. I don't believe that. I believe we are all in this together and in times of crisis we come together as a community.

That is why when the State of New Jersey submitted its application last March to use $1.83 billion in Federal Sandy relief to help thousands of homeowners and small businesses rebuild, the Obama administration, through HUD Secretary Donovan, approved the application in April, the following month.

We have come a long way since October 29th when Sandy made landfall in southern New Jersey. One hundred and fifty-nine people lost their lives, 8.5 million customers lost power, more than 650,000 homes were damaged and 40,000 in our State were severely damaged or destroyed.

Here is a perfect example of how far we have come. You can see here the damage Sandy brought on this home one year ago today. And, as you can see in this second photo, today it is well on its way to being fully restored. But we have a long way yet to go in every community to fully recover from the extent of the damage and to make families and businesses whole again.

A year ago, this headline ran in the Record: ``Business losses mount; Some choosing to close rather than rebuild.'' Hundreds of thousands of businesses were forced to close, causing an estimated $65 billion in economic loss and resulting in emergency declarations or disasters in 13 States up and down the East Coast.

In a matter of minutes, people had lost loved ones, they lost their homes, their property, and their livelihoods, but they stood strong and began to rebuild. Beyond the headlines of this story, we see the Jersey spirit that came through in person after person. Despite the uphill climb, New Jersey rebuilt one home at a time, one business at a time, one community at a time. That's what makes us Jersey Strong.

For 10 days, millions along the East Coast lived without power, without phones, seniors were stranded on the upper floors of buildings where elevators were out, and the loss of power led to fuel shortages and long gas lines. You can see in this photograph of the PATH Train Terminal in Hoboken, the extent of damage to our transportation infrastructure.

It was a wake-up call to what could happen again in the future and the investment we need to make in our infrastructure to avoid future damage from future storms.

The Sandy Recovery package we passed last year included $13 billion in critical funding I sought to help restore our transit and highway systems from what they looked like then, as you can see in this photograph.

The Port Authority was able to repair the PATH station at Hoboken and harden electrical equipment to prevent future damage. NJDOT was able to elevate roads that were washed away by Sandy.

At the end of the day, the legislation included necessary policy reforms that helped streamline recovery efforts and improve FEMA's Public Assistance Programs, allowing us to rebuild what was in place before the storm and build it stronger and better than before.

Since then, almost $400 million in FEMA grants have been approved to help individuals and families recover. That is over $341 million for housing assistance and more than $54 million for additional needs.

Homeowners, renters, and business owners have received over $764 million in SBA disaster loans and $314 million in FEMA Public Assistance grants to help local communities and local non-profits that serve the public and provided relief.

National Flood Insurance Program payments to New Jersey have amounted to $3.5 billion to help people rebuild and get their lives back on track. In New Jersey alone, more than 261,000 people contacted FEMA for help and information and over 126,000 homes have been inspected.

While these numbers show the progress we have made, the reality is that for thousands of people in New Jersey, recovery is a round-the- clock, 24-7 effort.

Many New Jersey families have been hit with the ``triple whammy,'' having been flooded by Sandy, then facing repair and mitigation costs and then facing astronomical increases in flood insurance costs built into a flood reform bill that was passed before Sandy hit.

Even as we slowly recover from the worst natural disaster in our State's history, a manmade disaster is looming in the distance, jeopardizing our recovery.

The combination of updated flood maps and the phaseout of premium subsidies for the National Flood Insurance Program threatens to force victims out of their homes and destroy entire communities.

Many homeowners will be forced to pay premiums that are several times higher than the current rate they pay. Those who cannot afford the higher premiums will be forced to either sell

or be priced out of their home--probably at a fire-sale price. This in turn will drive down property values and local revenues at the worst possible time.

I have heard from countless New Jerseyans, many who have come to me in tears, who are facing this predicament. These are hardworking middle class families, who played by the rules, purchased flood insurance, and are now being priced out of their home.

In order to stop this manmade disaster from doing even more damage, I am leaving the floor in a few minutes and going to introduce bipartisan legislation to take a time-out and assess the impact these premium hikes will have on homeowners and the flood insurance program as a whole.

The Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act, which we will be announcing in a few minutes, would delay flood insurance premium increases imposed in the Biggert-Waters legislation for most primary residences until FEMA completes an affordability study that I had offered, and proposes a regulatory framework to address the issues found in the study.

This will give current homeowners some breathing room before their flood insurance premiums go up. For prospective homebuyers, the certainty that they will not see their rate dramatically increase simply because they purchased a home is critically important to maintaining property values.

At the end of the day, we look back at the year since the storm struck and remember those who lost their lives and those who came together to help their neighbors rebuild. We remember the efforts of first responders and government and community leaders pulling together.

It is often said that ``the hardest steel must go through the hottest fire,'' and Sandy tested what we were made of.

When we look at this photograph of twisted metal that once was a rollercoaster, we associate it with the destruction of Sandy, but we also associate it with how far we have come and what we have learned. We learned that it is not enough to live in a community, we have to be part of it. We have to remember that citizenship comes with responsibility not just to ourselves, but to each other.

In the face of Sandy--in the aftermath, the tragedy, and the loss--we pulled together as a community. We worked together, helped each other rebuild lives, businesses, homes, our beaches and boardwalks--and, in doing so, we strengthened New Jersey's sense of pride and a belief that we are, in fact, all in this together. It is that spirit, that unity, that has made New Jersey stronger and better than before.

Let me conclude by saying that recovery from any disaster depends on our continuing cooperation within our communities at every level of government. The business of government is people--their lives, their hopes, their dreams of a better life for themselves and their families.

In New Jersey, we proved that--at every level of government--with various agencies working together--we all came together. There can be no tolerance of partisan division when it comes to the future of my State or any State's efforts to help families rebuild from a disaster like Sandy. The storm was extraordinary, but what makes me extraordinarily proud is that New Jerseyans rose to the challenge as they always do.

There is much work left to do. We have learned that recovery from a disaster is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor. Full recovery from Sandy will take more than a village.

But at the end of the day the biggest reason New Jersey has made the progress that it has, and why our State will come back better and stronger than before, is because of the people who live there. It hasn't been easy. But I have never been more proud to represent the people of New Jersey than I have during this last year since Sandy struck.

I have seen the best of who we are and what we can do when we pull together, each of us working for the recovery of all of us. Looking back at the last year, I would say we are all New Jersey proud as well as New Jersey strong.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman for his comments for a historical analysis of what has occurred and his comments regarding our ability to work together. I do wish to reiterate a point that the chairman made partially through his comments. I do not think any of us know at this time whether the offers that today have been made from Russia and responses that have been given from Syria, I do not think we have any idea whether there is credibility at present.

What I do know is there would be absolutely zero conversation about that had our committee not passed an authorization out on a 10-to-7 vote and if we were not taking this up this week. So I wish to commend the chairman for his leadership on this issue. I have enjoyed working with him. I have enjoyed working with him on all the issues relative to Syria and all the other things we have done in a bipartisan way.

I think it has been the tradition--I know it has been the tradition of this body, when it comes to issues beyond our shorelines, to set aside partisanship, as was mentioned a moment ago, and do things that are in the best interests of our Nation. There is nothing more important that each Member of this body will take up than the authorization for the use of military force. I sensed it the other day in our committee. I have sensed it with those whom I have talked to since. Each Member is looking at this with a sense of humility and soberness. I truly believe it is up to each Member to make this decision.

I will say the issues of Syria are something I am familiar with. I have traveled to the region, as I know the chairman and many others have. I have traveled three times this year. I wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in April regarding what our response to Syria should be. Our committee thankfully passed, on a 15-to-3 vote on May 21, with the chairman's leadership, the Syria Transition Support Act.

This was to support the vetted moderate opposition and require the administration to develop a comprehensive strategy. I know Members of this body know I support this authorization. I helped write it with the chairman. I am very comfortable with my position in supporting this and believe what we have done with this authorization we have done in the right and correct way.

I will say I have been very dismayed at the administration's lack of response after stating publicly that they were going to support the vetted moderate opposition in certain ways. I have been very frustrated at the response and the lack of support in that way. As I mentioned, I was just in the area 3 weeks ago. I visited the same refugee camp in Turkey on the Syrian border and in Jordan on the Syrian border. I saw some of the same refugees whom I saw there less than 1 year ago.

Candidly, I am dismayed we have not supported the vetted opposition in a better way. I know we have urged out of our committee that we have a much

more comprehensive strategy. I wish that bill had come to the floor. I wish the Senate had taken action. But, candidly, I also am dismayed this administration has not taken action to do something in a more comprehensive way.

No question the introduction of chemical weapons has changed the dynamic tremendously. I think the chairman was very articulate in explaining why this is important. I wish to say to everybody in this body, to me an equally important issue for our Nation is the credibility of the United States of America. I believe our President, whether you support him, whether you like him, I believe the President spoke for our Nation when he established a red line some months ago regarding the use of chemical weapons.

I believe it is very important for our Nation's credibility in the region and in the world that we have an appropriate response when we have a dictator such as Asad take the actions he has taken against international norms the way he has but especially when the Commander in Chief of our Nation has spoken the way he has about this issue. To me this is twofold. Certainly, it is about the international norms that have been spoken to eloquently by many, but to me it is also an issue of this Nation's credibility of the response as people are looking on to what we are going to do.

That is why I support this authorization. I do wish to go back over a couple points the chairman referred to relative to the substance of the authorization. I think most people know the White House sent over an authorization that to me was very broad. It did not define what we were going to do in a specific way.

I know the chairman just talked about the fact that this authorization is tailored. It is specific. Let me go over again specifically what this authorization does. It is specific purposes only: to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction to dissuade future use, degrade ability, and to prevent transfer, no boots on the ground for combat operations.

I know there have been some discussions about that in our committee. Very emphatically, this authorization eliminates and keeps any boots on the ground for combat operations from occurring.

This has a time limit of 60 days with a 30-day extension which Congress can disapprove. It is geographically limited to Syria only, which the original authorization was not. It is against legitimate military targets only, which again the original authorization was not.

There are a series of determinations the President has to make prior to taking action with this authorization, including that it is in the core national interests of the United States and that he has a military plan to achieve the objectives.

In addition, this authorization requires a comprehensive strategy for a negotiated end to this conflict.

I wish to refer to something else the chairman mentioned; that is, the type of activity. I know there have been a number of editorial comments in papers and publications around the country referring to this as a pinprick. There have been other concerns by Members of this body as to the duration of this effort, as to how long it will be.

I have had the privilege, because of the position I serve in on the Foreign Relations Committee, to be involved in multiple phone calls and personal meetings. There was one last night that lasted at great length with the President and Vice President.

I wish to say to every person in this body, I have no belief whatsoever that if military action is taken, it is going to be a pinprick--none. The American military has incredible ability to deal with issues in a forceful way but also do so in a very short timeframe.

I do believe, based on the many meetings we have had, both with military and civilian leadership, that to characterize what is proposed as a pinprick or to characterize what is proposed as inserting ourselves into a long-term civil war, I think both of those characterizations are wrong.

Obviously, one of the dilemmas people here deal with is that we write policy and then it is up to the administration to carry that out--and no question, none of us will be involved in the direct carrying out. But it is my firm belief that there is not a thread of thinking by the administration that what they are considering is a pinprick.

On the other hand, I have not a thread of thought that they are also considering doing something that is going to involve us in a long-term civil war. Obviously, conflicts such as this are complex.

In closing, let me say this. Each Senator has to make their own decision. This is one of those things where lobbying is not something that is going to make up the minds of Senators. I think each Senator has to make up their own hearts and minds.

What I can say is we are going to have an open process. I know we have talked about the process going forward. I hope Senators will keep their amendments germane. I hope we have a sober debate about an issue that is the most important type of decision any Senator will make.

I am thrilled the President decided to come to Congress for an authorization. I know a lot of people have made many comments regarding this. Candidly, I am pleased the President has come to us for a debate. It is my hope the Senate, after hearing the facts and after having a thoughtful debate, will approve the authorization for the use of military force.

I couldn't agree more with the chairman that if people wish to see a diplomatic solution--which is the only way we are going to end this conflict--I do not think this conflict ends militarily. I believe we have learned a lot from the last two episodes we have been through.

I believe it is important for us to have this authorization because I believe it is the only thing at this point, the fact that we passed it out of committee, the fact that it is on the floor, that might possibly lead to a diplomatic settlement.

I also believe it is time for the President to lead. I know there have been a lot of statements over the last week, and the President had multiple audiences in which to speak. I understand this, and I understand reports out of these meetings can come in many ways not to be accurate.

The President is coming to the Hill tomorrow. He will be making a major speech to the United States, the citizens of our country, tomorrow night. I know many of them have lives, where all of them, most of them, get up in the mornings, go to work, they raise their families, and they haven't had the opportunity to spend as much time on these issues. That is why we are elected to do this.

I will say this. It is very important for the President of the United States to come to Congress and for the President of the United States to make his case to the American people.

He is asking for this authorization. I believe it is important for us to give him this authorization.

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

I thank you for the time, and I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to address the subject of Syria.

First of all, I wish to commend to anyone who is listening to my voice to view the videos the intelligence community has released. They came from social media. There are 13 videos that came from a body of in excess of 100 videos, but they show the horror of what happens to the human body with an attack by a weapon of mass destruction--in this case, chemical weapons, a gas called sarin.

It is my hope the President, when he speaks to the Nation on Tuesday, will show clips of those videos because I think very few Americans have seen the extent of those videos, even though they have been shown on some cable shows in some limited amounts. They could see the range of why, almost a century ago, in 1925, the nations of the world came together in a treaty after the use of chemical weapons in World War I. This treaty banned the use of chemical weapons anywhere, any time, including in war, because of the horrific nature their use causes. In the 1990s this was subsequently reaffirmed in a convention or some kind of conclave which the nations of the world--I believe in excess of 180 nations--signed banning the use of chemical weapons.

If you watch the videos, you will see why. You will see what happens to innocent human beings as they struggle for life before the throes of death overtake them. You will see this on the videos. Of course, parents may wish to use discretion because it is going to make a lasting impression. You will see how the body starts to shut down by the nerves being attacked.

Interestingly, for the first time in a CBS interview today, President Asad of Syria has said, has admitted, today, that Syria has chemical weapons. Up to this point that was denied. No wonder he would want to deny, because when you see what happens in the use of them and what it does to the human nervous system--and I don't wish to be graphic, because I want anybody listening to what I am saying to watch them. I hope the President will show them Tuesday night, to see how the human body convulses when it attacks the nervous system--the convulsions, the twitching, what happens to the face, the respiratory system, and all of the evidence that comes from that.

The American people need to know what we are dealing with, not only in Syria but in other nations that possess chemical weapons. This is not only sarin, which was the gas used here, but also mustard gas and a toxin called VX that directly attacks the nervous system. It does not have to be inhaled,

like mustard gas or sarin, to do its evil deed. Instead, VX can be absorbed through the skin.

If the American people understand the consequences of the use of this, they will understand why it is classified as a weapon of mass destruction, along with biological weapons of mass destruction introducing some plague among a community of innocents and, of course, the weapon of mass destruction that most everybody recognizes, the nuclear weapon.

There are three weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, and nuclear. This is why, in the family of civilized nations, we have said their use is so abhorrent that civilized humans say they should be banned. But they weren't. They were used extensively on August 21.

Before I give the unclassified evidence, I wish to point out that maybe there is a little opening on the occasion of the Russian Foreign Minister today, since our Secretary of State, almost in an offhanded comment a few days ago, said it would certainly be a game changer if he, Asad, would allow the international community to come in and take control of his Syrian chemical weapons. The Russian Foreign Minister today picked that up. Supposedly there is a comment by an official out of Syria who says that is worth looking into. I can't speak to the authenticity of that comment. I have heard it was said.

Whatever it is, of course, Asad is the decisionmaker and it is ultimately going to come down on him. But in the meantime, what the United States ought to do--and the Congress of the United States ought to authorize what the President of the United States has requested, that the Congress back him in giving him the authority to use a limited, short duration retaliation in degrading Asad's capability of utilizing these weapons in the future.

If Congress will give the President that authority, it may well be the additional incentive for the ultimate decisionmaker, President Asad, to do what the Russian Foreign Minister has suggested. That would be a good thing.

In the meantime, they are going to be debating this and we are going to be put to the question: Do we support the President in this time of peril?

Let us look at the facts. I think when you see the videos, clearly, most every reasonable human being is going to conclude chemical weapons were used on innocents in the Damascus suburbs on the night of August 21.

The question then, of course, is, is there a chain of custody to show in fact they came from the Syrian army? There is an unclassified body of evidence that clearly shows, to put it in the speak of the intelligence community, we have high confidence. That means it happened.

How did that happen? The assessment is the Syrian chemical weapons personnel, who are associated with the chemical weapons part of the Syrian command, were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. This is all unclassified. There were streams of data of human signals and geospatial intelligence that revealed regime activities that were associated with the preparations for that chemical weapons attack. Syria chemical weapons personnel, we know, were operating in the Damascus suburb from August 18 all the way through August 21. That was the suburb that was attacked. Multiple streams of intelligence indicate the Syrian army executed the rocket and artillery attack against those suburbs in the early morning hours of August 21. We have satellite detections that corroborate those attacks from a regime-controlled neighborhood to where the attacks landed. At the same time, social media reports started exploding about a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs. Those social media reports started coming at 2:30 in the morning. Three hospitals in Damascus received approximately 3,600 patients displaying the symptoms of a nerve agent exposure, and they received them in less than 3 hours on the morning of August 21.

As I said earlier, there have been over 100 videos attributed to the attack. This has been distilled down into 13 videos, many of them showing large numbers of bodies exhibiting the physical signs of nerve agent exposure. Any Member of the Senate will have access to the classified information that shows the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate those videos or the physical symptoms verified by the medical personnel.

So when we put all of this together, with past Syrian practice and some of the small-scale attacks they have done previously, the conclusion is obvious: The Syrian regime of Bashar Asad was willing and directed the attack on August 21.

To this Senator, who has had the privilege of seeing and hearing classified information--and I have visited with President Asad three times, the last time being 6 years ago where the two of us had a sharp exchange over what was happening in Lebanon and the fact he was harboring Hamas and Hezbollah, which of course he denied--the conclusion is obvious: There is a substantial body of information that corroborates that the Syrian Government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack on August 21.

There is additional information for the Senators to see, but the question is, Are we going to agree to the President's request that we authorize him to attack? If we don't, where does that leave the President on any kind of negotiations in the future? If the President decides to go ahead and attack, we automatically give to the opponents in these countries--especially President Asad and North Korea and Iran--the obvious scenario that the American people are so divided that they won't support the President. So if he were to decide to attack-- knowing it is his responsibility to provide for the national security, and he has sworn to provide for that national security--we will look so divided at that point, whatever the scenario is for the future.

What about the mindset of other people who want to do harm to the United States? Does it give additional license to North Korea if we were to do nothing? North Korea is sitting on a huge stockpile of chemical weapons, not to mention their nuclear weapons. What about Iran? We are very concerned as they continue to energize weapons material and march down the road perhaps to building a nuclear weapon. What kind of message does it send to Iran? Just game that out. If Iran had a nuclear weapon or felt free to use chemical weapons, what would that do to the interests of the United States in that region of the world, not to mention our allies in the region, of which there are many.

So it is clear to this Senator. I will admit I don't know why the President did not keep his own counsel and make the decision without saying he wanted to come to Congress, but he made that decision, and now it is up to us.

Hopefully, there may be some validity to this report coming from the Russian Foreign Minister, but we won't know that for a long while, until, as we say, the proof is in the pudding with Asad turning over control of all the chemical weapons to an international body. In the meantime, are we going to support the President? Clearly, in the interest of the national security of this country and our allies, I think that is a position we must take. I will vote yes on the resolution.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Which is?

Mr. President, it is to that ominous resolution that I would like to speak.

Within a few days the Senate will be called upon to vote on whether to give the President of the United States limited authority to use military action in response to Syrian President Asad's use of chemical weapons against his own people. It is an enormous and grave decision. It is the most serious vote I can take.

When a U.S. Senator is called upon to authorize America's use of military action or military might, it calls for the

most sober reflection, the most due diligence analysis of the facts and the compelling need because once you vote to authorize the use of military might, you cannot take it back. It is one of the few votes you can't take back. We can vote on our budget this year, but there will be another vote next year. You can vote to confirm a member of the Cabinet, but they serve at the pleasure of the President. But once you vote to use military might or military action, it is irrevocable, so I take it very seriously.

I say to the men and women of our military that we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. I think that should not only be with yellow ribbons, but we also owe it to them to do the due diligence to choose the wisest, most prudent course.

This is what I have done as I have contemplated my vote on the Syria resolution. I went to numerous briefings before Asad used chemical weapons, and I have gone to all of the briefings since then. I participated as a member of the Intelligence Committee in a variety of meetings. I went to a classified House and Senate briefing. I have listened carefully to the President, to the Secretary of State, to the Secretary of Defense, and even had the opportunity to sit with the Vice President of the United States in the Situation Room at the White House to go over this situation and what options are available to the United States of America.

In addition to listening here in Washington, I have also listened to my Marylanders, whether at events or meetings going around the State, whether it has been grocery shopping or just being out in the Maryland community. I have also gotten thousands of e-mails and calls from Maryland constituents, and I want to thank them for their civic engagement. They overwhelmingly oppose military action in Syria. My constituents have spoken loudly and clearly. They don't want a war. They don't want boots on the ground. They don't want an all-in effort. They don't want to use or expend America's talent and treasure on another military expedition. They don't want war, and neither do I.

Yet the use of chemical weapons--a weapon of mass destruction--grim and ghoulish, mandates a response. The use of chemical weapons flies against all international law and international norms. It is an act that should have consequences or I believe it surely will happen again--in Syria, possibly in Korea, possibly used by Iran.

Since the attack, I have been waiting and hoping for a worldwide reaction because if it is serious enough for the world to be aghast, then it is serious enough for them to respond.

I have been waiting to hear from the 189 countries that are signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention. I believe if you sign a treaty or a convention, you sign up for the responsibility that comes with that, which means stop proliferation of the weapons you signed against; stop the proliferation of chemical weapons; also, if necessary, to take action if mandated.

I am waiting to hear from the Arab League. I wanted to hear from the Arab League, beyond: Yes, we want Asad to be accountable. I don't know what that means--hold him accountable. What does that mean? Does it mean if we use missiles they will send in Arab men to defend Arab women and children? I have not quite heard that.

I have waited to hear from our allies, and there are a hearty, reliable few who have supported us. Are they going to help support the chemical weapons treaty? Are they going to help support the moderates in the opposition? Have they called for a donor conference on refugees? Hello out there.

Then there is the U.N. Security Council. By the way, I applaud the work of the U.N. weapons inspectors and the U.N.'s work on refugees, but where is the Security Council? People will say: Oh, we can't act unless the Security Council acts. Three times Asad enablers at the U.N., Russia and China, have vetoed every effort to move to a political solution--vetoed three times efforts to move to a political solution. The U.N. seems paralyzed in this effort.

In deciding my vote, I had to be sure that chemical weapons were used by the Asad regime. I was 1 of 19 Senators who voted against going to war in Iraq. I did vote after 9/11 to use lethal action against the Taliban, but when it came to the Iraq war, as a member of the Intelligence Committee I had reviewed these briefs and I did not believe Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons so I voted no. I was right.

This time is different because, after extensive briefings and the evidence that has been outlined to members of the Intelligence Committee, I am satisfied that, indeed, chemical weapons were used in Syria and I am satisfied the Asad regime gave the order to do so.

There are those who say to me: Senator Barb, aren't you concerned about the risks and the retaliations if we take action? You bet I am. I worry about that. I worry about my own country. I worry about our own military. I worry about treasured allies such as Jordan, Israel, Turkey. But I also worry about the risk of doing nothing because, as I weigh this, I believe the risk and retaliatory possibilities are the same even if we do not act because if they do not use them in retaliation against us there is a very good chance that if we leave it unresponded to, they will use them anyway. There is no guarantee that by doing nothing the bad guys, who have chemical weapons, will do nothing. In fact, I fear that Asad, Iran, and North Korea will be further emboldened.

Last, I had to review the President's resolution that is pending before us, that came out of the Foreign Relations Committee, modified, and the President's plan. The President's plan is very straightforward, his proposal is very straightforward, a targeted limited attack. His purpose is to deter and to degrade; to deter Asad from using those weapons again and to degrade Asad's capability and capacity to use them.

I also listened to the President's promise--and I take him at his word--that any action would not be boots on the ground; that it is not an extended air campaign; that it is not another Iraq or Afghanistan; that we are not in it to try to do regime change. That must come from the Syrian opposition themselves, and I hope others help do that. It is meant to deter the use of chemical weapons and to degrade Asad's capability.

I believe the President's plan is the best response to protect U.S. security interests in the region and to show commitment to our common security interests with allies such as Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. Therefore, after great reflection and as much due diligence as I could do, I want to announce today to my colleagues, and most of all to the people of Maryland who supported me, that I will support the President's request for a targeted, limited military action against the Syrian President Bashar Asad's regime in response to the horrific, grim, and ghoulish use of chemical weapons.

Let me be clear: I have no grand hopes or illusions about what this strike will do. I do not believe this strike will stop Syria's brutal civil war. I do not believe this strike will stop Asad from being a ruthless, brutal dictator. I do not believe a strike will eliminate all of his chemical weapons. But I do believe it will deter and degrade his capability to strike again, and I do believe when you sign up for a convention to ban the use of chemical weapons, the United States of America acts in accordance with its responsibility.

Syria is one of the toughest foreign policy issues on which we have focused; there are not many good options. Yet I believe the President's plan is the best way and, as of this moment, the only way forward. He has my support.

In today's late-breaking news, I understand Russia has now said: Oh, let's put these weapons under international control. Where were the Russians during the U.N. Security Council meetings on those three other occasions? Is this another tactic for delay? Is this just another tactic to enable Asad to have more time to focus?

I remain skeptical, but I will leave that to the President to analyze the Russians' intent about what their followthrough is on that. Today is not to mandate the strike. My vote does not mandate a strike. But my vote is to say: Mr. President, you are the Commander in Chief. We can only have one at a time. You analyze the situation and if you think it is necessary to protect the security of the United States of America and to fulfill our responsibilities under the conventions we

have signed on chemical weapons, you have my support to act in what you think is the best way and in our best interests.

I look forward to additional debate with my colleagues and also further in this debate, in coming to closure, hopefully this week.

I yield the floor.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, nearly 5 months ago I had the high honor to stand in this historic Chamber, surrounded by my family, and be sworn in as a Member of the Senate. My service as a Senator will soon draw to a close, so I wish to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues a few thoughts before I leave.

I want to begin by thanking Governor Christie for providing me with this incredible opportunity. Our professional relationship, and our friendship, began more than 20 years ago as young lawyers working together in a New Jersey law firm. We had our entire careers ahead of us. If someone had suggested that one day Chris Christie would have been Governor, I would not have been surprised. I would, however, have dismissed out of hand any suggestion that I might someday be the New Jersey attorney general, let alone a Member of the Senate.

To have served here representing the people of New Jersey has to rank as the greatest honor of my professional life. I will always be grateful to Governor Christie for the confidence he has shown in me by appointing me, and I will always be thankful for the wonderful opportunities he has given me, time and again, to serve in public life.

I also thank my colleagues in the Senate from both sides of the aisle who have gone out of their way to make me feel welcome, to help me navigate the sometimes confusing rules and traditions of the Senate, and for assisting me in making the most of my time here.

One thing I did know for certain when I arrived here in June was that I wanted to use my time as effectively as possible. To the extent I have, I have so many of my colleagues to thank. The senior Senator from New Jersey, who will have to break in another new Senator from our State, has been a supportive colleague. I truly appreciate his willingness to assist me in my time in the Senate. I thank the Senator.

The Republican leader has gone above and beyond to give me the opportunity to work and make a difference during my tenure here, and I thank him very much.

I also thank the senior Senator from Delaware and the junior Senator from Oklahoma for agreeing to my request to hold a hearing on human trafficking in the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. Eliminating human trafficking or, more directly, abolishing modern-day slavery has been a priority for me throughout my career in public service. The chairman and ranking member of the committee could not have been more helpful in my efforts to raise awareness of this evil crime, a crime that robs people of their innocence and dignity, taking a terrible toll on our victims and society as a whole.

The junior Senators from New Hampshire and North Dakota, both former attorneys general themselves, stood alongside me in this effort. When I first spoke with them about my desire to hold a hearing, they immediately agreed to work with me to make it work as productively as possible. I am grateful to them for partnering with me and I know they will continue to make this issue a top priority.

I also thank the senior Senator from Arizona for attending and contributing to the hearing on a day when no votes were scheduled and for his strong commitment for righting this terrible wrong. These are important and forceful voices for the victims of human trafficking, and I appreciate their support of my efforts.

I want all of my colleagues to know I will continue to work to abolish this scourge on our Nation and on the entire human family. I hope they will feel free to call on me if I can ever be helpful to them in their efforts, just as I may call on them from time to time.

So many of my colleagues have made this a wonderful experience, and I am proud to call all of them my friends.

I know I looked pretty lost on more than one occasion here, but I always had someone pointing me in the right direction. I am particularly grateful to my good friends from Utah, Wyoming, Tennessee, Ohio, and Illinois, who have repeatedly helped me over the past 5 months both by listening and also providing good advice.

As every Senator knows, the work we do here would not be possible without the work of the people who serve on

our staffs. I have been incredibly fortunate to have an outstanding group of people on my Senate staff--a group that jumped right in with me on very short notice and a group I am so proud to have worked with. They were fully aware that their tenure, like mine, would be short. They interrupted and, in many cases, disrupted their lives to serve with me.

My chief of staff Donna Mullins did an amazing job assembling a talented and dedicated group of professionals to serve both here in Washington and back in New Jersey. Their willingness to do so reflects their commitment to the people of New Jersey, the Senate, and to our Nation. Some of them I have worked with for years, others only for a few short months. All of them have earned my everlasting respect and friendship.

I want to acknowledge each of them by name: Donna Mullins, John Lutz, Tomi-Anne Nolino, Nick DiRocco, Jeannette Larkins, Chip Sinders, Ken Lundberg, Bob Bostock, Ryan Berger, Krista Powers, Tyler Yingling, Marissa Watkins, Michael Rebuck, Chris Mindnich, Taylor Holgate, Nicole Dube, Jamie Rhoades, Michael Pock, and Shante Palmer. They reflect the best of public service, and I will always be thankful to them and the work we have done together.

Of course, the greatest thanks goes to my family. My wife Jenny and our children Al and Hannah have always given me their unconditional love and support. I could not have done this without them. I am lucky to have them.

I was born and raised in New Jersey. It is not just my home State, it is my home in every sense of the word. The honor of representing the people of my State--my friends, my neighbors--is almost beyond description. After all, there could be no greater calling for any citizen than to have the opportunity to represent the people of your State in the highest councils of government. Although the past 5 months have passed very quickly, my deep sense of gratitude for the opportunity to serve will stay with me for the rest of my life.

My experience as a Member of this body has confirmed what I already thought was true--every Member of the Senate is a dedicated public servant. Every Senator is deeply committed to the work they do. Every Senator is here because he or she wants to contribute to the centuries- old work of forming a more perfect union. We do not always agree on how this is best accomplished, but vigorous, respectful debate is critical in a government such as ours.

There is so much talent, so much commitment, and so much love of country here. I urge my colleagues to advance their efforts to find common ground in pursuit of their common purpose, to continue to advance the success of the country we love and secure the blessings of liberty for the people we serve.

Soon there will be a new Senator-elect from New Jersey who will stand where I stood just a few months ago to be sworn in. When he takes his place in this body, he will be joining a long list of dedicated public servants who have served New Jersey--stretching back to the very first Congress. I urge him to continue to work as hard for the people of our State as he did while serving as the mayor of New Jersey's largest city. I know he will always put the people of New Jersey first.

New Jersey's new Senator will have a very long list of priorities waiting for him when he arrives in Washington--all of them important. There is one area that will require his immediate and ongoing focus, and that is New Jersey's continued effort to recover and rebuild from the devastation of Superstorm Sandy, which struck my State a year ago today. Working together New Jerseyans have made incredible progress in coming back from what the storm delivered, but our work continues.

For those who have suffered so much loss, a year seems like an eternity. They must know that until all the damage done by the storm is undone, and until all the work needed to protect our State and its people and their property from future storms like this is completed, we will not rest.

As I prepare to make the transition back to private life, I do so with a deep sense of gratitude to all of those who made my service in the Senate possible, and an even deeper sense of humility for having been given this opportunity.

This has been, for me, a remarkable 5 months. I know I will in the years ahead look back on this time with gratitude and appreciation for the privilege of having served the people of New Jersey and the Senate of the United States of America.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.