Syria

Floor Speech

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak to the grave issue of the Syria resolution currently pending before the body.

It is September 11. I know many Members have expressed thoughts, and we are all thinking about that day and what it means to our country. In a few minutes I will leave and go to the Pentagon to be with Pentagon staffers and family members as they commemorate the anniversary of this horrible tragedy in American life. The shadow of that tragedy and its rippling effects even today, 12 years later, definitely are a matter on my mind and heart as I think about this issue with respect to Syria.

Also on my mind and heart as I think about this grave issue is its connection to Virginia. I believe Virginia is the most militarily connected State in our country. Our map is a map of American military history: the battle at Yorktown, the surrender at Appomattox Court House, the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11. Our map is a map of American military history. We are more connected to the military in the sense that one in nine of our citizens is a veteran. We have Active Duty at the Pentagon, training to be officers at Quantico, the largest concentration of naval power in the world at Hampton Roads. We have DOD contractors. We have DOD civilians such as Army nurses. We have ROTC cadets, Guard and Reserve members, and military families, all of whom care very deeply about the issue we are grappling with as a nation.

I am sure in the Presiding Officer's State, as in mine and across the country, there is a war weariness on this 12th anniversary of 9/11, and that affects the way we look at this question of whether the United States should potentially engage in military action.

I cast a vote last week in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to authorize limited military action, and I have spent the days since that vote talking to Virginians and hearing from them and hearing from some who aren't happy with the vote I cast.

I spent 1 day talking to ROTC cadets at Virginia State University, folks who are training to be officers who might fight in future conflicts for this country. Then I spent Friday in Hampton Roads with veterans and military families talking about the choices before us.

I heard a teenager last night say something that truly struck me. This is a teenager who doesn't have any direct connection to the military herself, no family members in service. But at an event I was attending, she stood and said: I don't know war, but all my generation and I know is war. Think about that: I don't know war, but all my generation and I know is war. During her entire life that she has been kind of a thinking person, aware of the outside world, we have been at war. That makes us tremendously war-weary, and I understand that. So trying to separate out all those feelings and do what is right is hard.

Similar to many Virginians, I have family in the military who are going to be directly affected by what we do or what we don't do. I think about those family members and all Virginians and all Americans who have loved ones in service as I contemplate this difficult issue.

I wish to say three things. First, I wish to praise the President for bringing this matter to Congress, which I believe is courageous and historic. Secondly, I wish to talk about why I believe authorizing limited military action makes sense. Third, I wish to talk about the need to exhaust all diplomatic opportunities and openings, including the ones that were reported beginning Monday of this week by Russia and Syria.

First, on the President coming to Congress. This was what was intended by the Framers of the Constitution; that prior to the initiation of significant military action--and this would be significant by all accounts--that Congress should have to weigh in. The Framers wanted that to be so. They had read history. They knew executives might be a little too prone to initiating military action, and they wanted to make sure the people's elected representatives had a vote about whether an action should be initiated. Once initiated, there is only one Commander in Chief. But at the initiation, Congress needs to be involved. That was the intent from the very beginning of this Nation from 1787. There was an understanding that in an emergency, a President might need to act immediately, but even in that case there would need to be a reckoning, a coming back to Congress and seeking approval of Presidential action.

In my view, the President, by bringing this matter to Congress, has acted in accord with law, acted in accord with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, and actually has done so in a way that has cleared up some sloppiness about the way this institution and the President has actually done this over time.

Only five times in the history of the Nation has Congress declared war. Over 120 times Presidents have initiated military action without congressional approval--at least prior congressional approval. Presidents have overreached their power, and Congress has often made a decision to avoid being accountable for this most grave decision that we make as a nation.

I praise the President for bringing it to Congress, the people's body, because I think it is in accord with law. But I praise him for a second reason. It is not just about the constitutional allocation of responsibility. Responsibilities were allocated in the Constitution, in my view, for a very important moral reason. The moral reason is this: We cannot ask our men and women in service to put their lives on the line if there is not a consensus of the legislative and executive branches that the mission is worthwhile.

That is why it is important for Congress to weigh in on a decision to initiate military hostility because, absent that, we face the situation that

would be a very real possibility in this instance that a President would make a decision that an action or a war was worth fighting but a Congress would not support it. That would put the men and women who have to face the risk and potentially risk their lives in a very difficult situation. If we are going to ask people to risk their lives in any kind of a military action, we shouldn't be asking them to do it if the legislative and political branches haven't reached some consensus that it should be done.

That is the first point I wish to make. I wish to thank the President for cleaning up this sloppiness in the historical allocation of responsibilities between a President and Congress, for taking a historic step--as he said he would as a candidate--of bringing a question such as this to Congress.

We may be unable to act in certain cases because we are divided. But if we act and we act united, we are much stronger both militarily and in the moral example that we pose to the world. It is the right thing to do for the troops who bear the burden of battle.

Second, I wish to talk about the actual authorization. We grappled with this. The news came out about the chemical weapons attack on August 21, and 18 of us members of the Foreign Relations Committee returned last week. The Presiding Officer came and attended some of our classified meetings. We grappled with the question about whether in this circumstance a limited military authorization was appropriate, and I voted yes. I voted yes for a very simple reason. I believe there has to be a consequence for using chemical weapons against civilians.

It is pretty simple. There are a lot of nuances, a lot of subtleties, and a lot of questions about whether the plans might accomplish the particular objective we hope. Those are all legitimate questions. But at the end of the day, I feel so very strongly that if chemical weapons have been used--and in this case they were and used on a massive scale and used against civilians--there must be a consequence for that. There must be a sharp consequence for it. If there isn't, the whole world will be worse off.

I believe that if the United States acts in this way to uphold an important international norm--perhaps the most important international norm that weapons of mass destruction can't be used against civilians--if we act to uphold the norm, we will have partners. How many partners? We will see. Maybe not as many as we would wish, but we will have partners. But I am also convinced that if the United States does not act to uphold this principle, I don't think anyone will act. If we act, we will have partners; if we don't, I don't think anyone will act. That is the burden of leadership that is on this country's shoulders.

We know about the history of the chemical weapons ban, and we are so used to it that it seems normal. But just to kind of step back from it, if we think about it, it is not that normal at all.

The chemical weapons ban came out of World War I. World War I was a mechanized slaughter with over 10 million deaths, a slaughter unlike anything that had ever been seen in global history. There were all kinds of weapons used in World War I that had never been used before, including dropping bombs out of airplanes. Dropping bombs out of airplanes, new kinds of artillery, new kinds of munitions, new kinds of machine guns, chemical weapons, all kinds of mechanized and industrialized weapons were used in World War I. The American troops who served in 1917 and 1918 were gassed. They would be sleeping in a trench, trying to get a couple hours of sleep, and they would wake up coughing their lungs out or blinded--or they wouldn't wake up because some of the gases were invisible and silent. With no knowledge, you could suddenly lose your life or be disabled for life because of chemical weapons.

The number of casualties in World War I because of chemical weapons was small as a percentage of the total casualties. But it is interesting what happened. After World War I, the nations of the world that had been at each other's throats, that had battled each other, gathered a few years later. It is interesting to think what they banned and didn't ban. They didn't ban aerial bombardment. They didn't ban machine guns. They didn't ban rockets. They didn't ban shells. They didn't ban artillery. But they did decide to ban chemical weapons. They were able to all agree, as combatants, that chemical weapons were unacceptable and should neither be manufactured nor used.

It can seem maybe a little bit illogical or even absurd: Why is it worse to be killed by a chemical weapon than a machine gun or by an artillery shell? I don't know what the logic is to it. All I can assume is that the experience of that day and moment had inspired some common spark of humanity in all of these cultures and combating nations, and they all agreed the use of chemical weapons should be banned heretofore on the Earth.

Nations agreed with that ban. The Soviet Union was on board. The United States was on board. So many nations were on board. Syria ultimately signed that accord in 1968. Even in the midst of horrific wars where humans have done horrific things to each other, since 1925 and the passage of the ban, the ban has stuck. The international community has kept that ember of humanity alive that says these weapons should not be used, and only two dictators until now have used these weapons--Adolph Hitler using these weapons against millions of Jews and others and Saddam Hussein using the weapons against Kurds, his own people, and then against Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war.

When we think about it, it is pretty amazing. With all the barbarity that has happened since 1925, this has generally stuck, with the exception of Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein, until now. The beneficiaries of this policy have been civilians, but they have also been American service men and women. The service men and women who fought in World War I were gassed from this country, but the Americans who fought in World War II, in Europe and North Africa and the Pacific, who fought in Korea, who fought in Vietnam, who fought in Afghanistan, who fought in Iraq, who fought in other minor military involvements have never had to worry about facing chemical weapons. No matter how bad the opponent was, American troops haven't had to worry about it, and the troops of other nations haven't had to worry about it either. This is a very important principle, and it is a positive thing for humanity that we reached this accord and we have honored it.

So what happens now if there isn't a consequence for Bashar al-Assad's escalating use of chemical weapons, to include chemical weapons against civilians.

What happens if we let go of the norm and we say: Look, that may have been OK for the 20th century, but we are tougher and more cynical now. There are not any more limits now, so we don't have to abide by any norms now. What I believe the lesson is--and I think the lessons of history will demonstrate that this will apply--is that an atrocity unpunished will engender future atrocities. We will see more atrocities in Syria against civilians and others. We will see more atrocities abroad. We will see atrocities, and we will have to face the likely consequence that our servicemembers, who have not had to face chemical weapons since 1925, will now have to prepare to face them on the battlefield.

If countries can use chemical weapons and there is no serious consequence, guess what else they can do. They can manufacture chemical weapons. Guess what else. They can sell chemical weapons and proliferate chemical weapons. It is not just a matter that the use of chemical weapons would be encouraged, but the manufacture and sale of chemical weapons by individuals or companies or countries that want to make money will proliferate.

This has a devastating potential effect on allies of the United States and the neighbors around Syria such as Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey. It would have a devastating impact on other allies, such as South Korea, that border nations that use chemical weapons. It could encourage other nations that have nonchemical weapons of mass destruction, for example, nuclear weapons, to think that the world will not stand up, there is no consequence for their use so they can violate treaties, violate norms, and no one is willing to stand and oppose it.

That was the reason I voted last week in the Foreign Relations Committee for this limited authorization of military force. I was fully aware the debate on the floor might amend or change it, and I was open to that possibility. But I thought it was important to stand as a representative of Virginia and a representative of this country to say: The use of chemical weapons may suddenly be OK in the 21st century for Bashar al-Asad, it may suddenly be OK to Vladimir Putin and others, but it is not OK to the United States of America, and we are willing to stand and oppose them.

The limited military authorization that is on this floor, as the Presiding Officer knows, talks about action to punish, deter, and degrade the ability of the Syrian regime to use chemical weapons. The goal is to take the chemical weapons stockpile of that nation out of the battlefield equation. The civil war will continue. We don't have the power, as the United States, to dictate the outcome of that war. But chemical weapons should not be part of that war, and they should not be part of any war.

The authorization was limited. There will be no ground troops. It was limited in scope and duration, but make no mistake, the authorization was a clear statement of American resolve that there has to be a consequence for use of these weapons in violation of international norms that have been in place since 1925.

Finally, I want to talk about diplomacy and the urgent need that I know we all feel in this body, and as Americans, to pursue diplomatic alternatives--including some current alternatives on the table--that would be far preferable to military action. It is very important that we be creative. It is very important that we have direct talks with the perpetrators and enablers of these crimes, but also important to look to intermediaries and independent nations for diplomatic alternatives.

We have been trying to do so until recently and have been blocked in the United Nations. But the authorization for military force actually had that as its first caveat. The authorization said: Mr. President, if this passes, we authorize you to use military force, but before you do, you have to come back to Congress and stipulate that all diplomatic angles, options, and possibilities have been exhausted.

So on the committee, and with the wording of this authorization, we were very focused on the need to continue a diplomatic effort, and that is why it was so gratifying on Monday, on my way back to DC after a long week, to hear that Russia had come to the table with a proposal inspired by a discussion with administration figures. It is a proposal that the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile--one of the largest in the world--would be placed under international control.

Then a few hours later--and this was no coincidence--Syria, essentially Russia's client state, spoke up and said: We will very much entertain placing our chemical weapons under international control. Syria has even suggested, beyond that, they would finally sign on to the 1990s-era Chemical Weapons Convention. They are one of six nations in the world that refused to sign it. Syria would not even acknowledge they had chemical weapons until 2012--even though the world knew it.

Over the last 48 hours, we have seen diplomatic options emerge that are very serious and meaningful. In fact--and it is too early to tell--if we can have these discussions and find an accord where Syria will sign on to the convention and put these weapons under international control, we will not only have avoided a bad thing, such as military action, which none of us want unless it is necessary, but we will have accomplished a good thing for Syrians and humanity by taking this massive chemical weapons stockpile off the battlefield and submitting it to international control and eventually destruction.

The offer that is on the table, and the action that has happened since Monday is very serious, very significant, and very encouraging, and it could be a game changer in this discussion. I said it is serious, but what we still need to determine is if it is sincere. It is serious and significant, but obviously what the administration needs to do in tandem with the U.N. is to determine whether it is sincere.

I will conclude by saying I think it is very important for Americans, for citizens, and for the Members of Congress to understand--we should make no mistake about this--that the diplomatic offer that is on the table was not on the table until America demonstrated it was prepared to stand for the proposition that chemical weapons cannot be used.

I have no doubt that had we not taken the action in Congress last week in the Foreign Relations Committee to show America is resolved to do something, if no one else in the world is resolved to do something, at least we would be resolved to do something, had we not taken that action, Russia would not have suddenly changed its position--they have been blocking action after action in the Security Council--and come forward with this serious recommendation. Had we not taken that action, and had they not been frightened of what America might do, Syria--which was willing to use with impunity these weapons against civilians--would not have come forward either.

So American resolve is important. American resolve is important to show the world that we value this norm and we will enforce it, even to the point of limited military action. But even more important, American resolve is important because it encourages other nations--even the perpetrators and enablers of the use of these weapons--to come forward and shoulder the responsibilities they have, or so we pray, in the days ahead.

What I ask of my colleagues and my countrymen is that because it has been our resolve that has produced a possibility for a huge diplomatic breakthrough and win, I ask we continue to be resolved, continue to show strength, continue to hold out the option that there will be a consequence for this international crime, that America will play a leading role in making sure there is a consequence, and as long as we stand strong with this resolve, we will maximize the chance that we will be able to obtain the diplomatic result we want.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Source