Story highlights The bill limits the authorization to 60 days, with an option for an additional 30 days 
 
 It makes clear there would be no U.S. armed forces on the ground 
 
 Kerry says Syria intelligence has been "scrubbed and re-scrubbed" 
 
 U.N. chief urges countries to "avoid further militarization of the conflict" in Syria 
 
 The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will take up a bipartisan authorization bill Wednesday for the use of force in Syria. 
 
 The resolution, which limits the authorization to 60 days with an option for an additional 30 days, was revised to address some of the concerns expressed during a Senate committee hearing Tuesday. 
 
 At the hearing, top U.S. officials faced tough questions from senators about plans for military strikes as House leaders lined up behind President Barack Obama's call to punish Syria for an August poison gas attack near Damascus. 
 
 Afterward, Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, said he and the committee's ranking Republican, Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker successfully negotiated the revised resolution. 
 
 According to a copy of that text, provided to CNN by a legislative source, the bill limits the authorization to 60 days with an option for an additional 30-day deadline. It also makes clear there would be no U.S. armed forces on the ground in Syria. 
 
 "Together we have pursued a course of action that gives the President the authority he needs to deploy force in response to the Assad regime's criminal use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, while assuring that the authorization is narrow and focused, limited in time, and assures that the Armed Forces of the United States will not be deployed for combat operations in Syria," Menendez said in a statement. 
 
 JUST WATCHED Boehner: I'm supporting Obama on Syria Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Boehner: I'm supporting Obama on Syria 01:26 
 
 JUST WATCHED What are the 'signatures of sarin'? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH What are the 'signatures of sarin'? 02:33 
 
 JUST WATCHED Pentagon: Syria can't hide key targets Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Pentagon: Syria can't hide key targets 02:08 
 
 JUST WATCHED Will GOP opposition galvanize Dems? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Will GOP opposition galvanize Dems? 05:22 
 
 "With this agreement, we are one step closer to granting the President the authority to act in our national security interest," he added. 
 
 Kerry: Syria isn't Iraq, we've got the proof 
 
 Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as the Obama administration lobbied Congress to authorize military action against Syria. From the outset, Kerry addressed the shadow of claims offered in the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, reassuring committee members that the intelligence linking Syrian government forces to the August 21 attack was solid. 
 
 "We are especially sensitive, Chuck and I, to never again asking any member of Congress to take a vote on faulty intelligence," said Kerry, who like Hagel, voted as a senator to authorize the Iraq invasion. "And that is why our intelligence community has scrubbed and re-scrubbed the evidence. We have declassified unprecedented amounts of information, and we ask the American people and the rest of the world to judge that information." 
 
 Kerry said that intelligence includes the trajectory of the rockets used to deliver the gas, Syrian military instructions to troops to don gas masks and concerns by top Syrian officials that U.N. inspectors would discover evidence of the attack. 
 
 "Not one rocket landed in regime-controlled territory -- not one," Kerry said. "All of them landed in opposition-controlled or contested territory." 
 
 Kerry said Obama isn't asking the United States to go to war -- just "to degrade and deter" the capacity of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to launch another chemical attack. But he and Hagel faced tough questions from senators concerned that giving the administration the green light to attack Syria would draw the United States into that country's civil war, now 2 1/2 years old. 
 
 "Americans are understandably weary after the fiasco in Iraq and over a decade of war," said Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico. "How can this administration make a guarantee that our military actions will be limited? How can we guarantee that one surgical strike will have any impact other than to tighten the vise grip that Assad has on his power, or allow rebels allied with al Qaeda to gain a stronger foothold in Syria?" 
 
 Kerry said the administration has no intention of sending American ground troops to Syria "with respect to the civil war." But he opposed any effort to put a ban on deploying ground forces into a congressional resolution authorizing military action, leaving open the possibility that U.S. troops may have to seize chemical weapons "in the event Syria imploded" or if extremist groups were poised to obtain them. 
 
 Hagel: Risks of action, risks of inaction 
 
 Hagel said any military action "would be limited in duration and scope," and won't be aimed at settling the Syrian civil war by force. He testified that the administration's proposal would not authorize strikes outside Syria, against any other government or against non-state groups. 
 
 "There are always risks in taking action, but there are also risks with inaction," he said. "The Assad regime, under increasing pressure by the Syrian opposition, could feel empowered to carry out even more devastating chemical weapons attacks." 
 
 JUST WATCHED Leader of the Free Syrian Army speaks Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Leader of the Free Syrian Army speaks 04:23 
 
 JUST WATCHED Analysis: Obama not afraid to use force Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Analysis: Obama not afraid to use force 03:52 
 
 JUST WATCHED McCain: Good strategy may be effective Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH McCain: Good strategy may be effective 09:40 
 
 JUST WATCHED On Syria, Obama faces uphill battle Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH On Syria, Obama faces uphill battle 04:25 
 
 Likewise, Kerry warned that a failure to act would undermine American alliances, encourage other U.S. adversaries like Iran and North Korea and encourage al-Assad to use chemical weapons again. 
 
 U.S. officials have said the August 21 attack left more than 1,400 dead, and Obama said Tuesday that more than 400 of those were children. Syria denies government troops were behind the attack, arguing that they were the victims of a rebel chemical attack. 
 
 Syria's U.N. ambassador, Bashar al-Jaafari, told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that the allegations of poison gas use by his government "are false and unfounded." Al-Assad told the French newspaper Le Figaro on Monday that an attack on his country risks a regional war. 
 
 Administration officials and Obama himself have said the president has the authority to conduct military strikes even without congressional approval. But asked what the administration would do if Congress refused to authorize military action, Kerry said, "We're not contemplating that, because it's too dire." 
 
 Weapons inspectors from the United Nations are analyzing samples taken from the scene last week, but their results aren't expected to assign blame. The United States and its allies say the rebels have no capability to carry out a large-scale chemical weapons attack, however. 
 
 House leaders line up behind Obama 
 
 Earlier Tuesday, the leaders of both parties in the House of Representatives emerged from a White House meeting to support Obama's call for American strikes. 
 
 House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters the use of poison gas was "a barbarous act" to which only the United States is capable of responding. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, added that Washington must respond to actions "outside the circle of civilized human behavior." 
 
 But in a written statement later, Boehner said it is up to Obama "to make his case to the American people and their elected representatives" -- including securing support from individual members. 
 
 "All votes authorizing the use of military force are conscience votes for members, and passage will require direct, continuous engagement from the White House," the speaker said. 
 
 No vote is scheduled before Congress returns from its summer recess on Monday. Kerry defended the delay to seek congressional authorization, saying the move gives the United States time to make its case while adding pressure on al-Assad. 
 
 "This is working," Kerry said. "There are defections taking place. There's great uncertainty in Syria. We are building support, a greater understanding, and I would far rather be playing our hand than his at this point in time." 
 
 Most of the focus of administration lobbying has been on the House. In the Senate, a Democratic source familiar with Majority Leader Harry Reid's thinking told CNN that Reid is confident any authorization measure will pass his chamber. The source said it is likely 60 votes will be needed to overcome a filibuster, and Reid thinks the votes are there. 
 
 U.N. chief calls for end to Security Council 'stalemate' 
 
 The United Nations has said more than 100,000 people -- including many civilians -- have been killed in Syria since a popular uprising spiraled into a civil war in 2011. Syrian opposition activists reported another 77 dead on Tuesday, mostly in Damascus and its suburbs. 
 
 New U.N. figures point to the staggering impact the war has had on the nation. 
 
 The number of Syrians who have fled their war-ravaged country has risen above 2 million, the U.N. refugee agency reported, an increase of nearly 1.8 million people over the past 12 months. 
 
 But at the United Nations, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Security Council members to await test results on the samples collected by U.N. inspectors. 
 
 "We should avoid further militarization of the conflict and revitalize the search for a political settlement," Ban said. "I take note of the argument for action to prevent further uses of chemical weapons. At the same time, we must consider the impact of any punitive measure on efforts to prevent further bloodshed and facilitate a political resolution of the conflict. The turmoil in Syria and across the region serves nobody." 
 
 He urged member states to work through the Security Council, where Syrian allies Russia and China are expected to block any call for military action. 
 
 "The Security Council has a duty to move beyond the current stalemate and show leadership," Ban said. "This is a larger issue than the conflict in Syria. This is about our collective responsibility to humankind." 
 
 And al-Jaafari, the Syrian envoy, told CNN that all Syrians will be victims "of any escalation of the situation." 
 
 "We don't need wars. We need peaceful settlement of conflicts according to the charter of the United Nations," he said. 
 
 During Tuesday's hearing, Udall questioned whether the United States should be doing more to pressure Russia and China rather than going around the Security Council. Kerry said the Russians refused to sign off even on a resolution condemning a chemical attack that didn't assign blame. 
 
 "That doesn't mean we should turn our backs and say there's nothing we can do," Udall said. 
 
 But Kerry responded that if the Security Council is being blocked, "That doesn't mean we should turn our backs and say there's nothing we can do." 
 
 U.N. inspectors await test results 
 
 U.N. weapons inspectors left Syria on Saturday with samples that will help determine whether chemical weapons were used in the August 21 attack. Those samples will all be at laboratories by Wednesday and will be tested "strictly according to internationally recognized standards," Ban told reporters at U.N. headquarters. 
 
 Those tests could take up to three weeks -- and even then, those tests will only determine whether a gas attack took place, not who was behind it. 
 
 Kerry said Sunday that hat blood and hair samples taken from medics at the scene of the alleged attack point to the nerve agent sarin. The samples reached U.S. hands "through an appropriate chain of custody, from east Damascus, from first responders," he said. 
 
 But David Kay, the former head of the U.S. weapons hunt in Iraq, said the "shadowing effect" of that war makes the U.N. inspectors' jobs more difficult. 
 
 "Remember, these results will be analyzed and re-analyzed around the world," said Kay, the former U.N. weapons inspector who ultimately determined Iraq had dismantled the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons programs used to justify the American-led invasion in 2003. "So as an inspector, you want to get it right rather than necessarily get it quick" 
 
 Kay told CNN the question has been settled for the Obama administration "and for many Americans, including myself. But that's not enough, because of Iraq." ||||| House Majority Leader Eric Cantor today released the following statement on Syria and the regional conflict following his meeting with President Obama at the White House: 
 
 "I intend to vote to provide the President of the United States the option to use military force in Syria. While the authorizing language will likely change, the underlying reality will not. America has a compelling national security interest to prevent and respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction, especially by a terrorist state such as Syria, and to prevent further instability in a region of vital interest to the United States. 
 
 “Understanding that there are differing opinions on both sides of the aisle, it is up to President Obama to make the case to Congress and to the American people that this is the right course of action, and I hope he is successful in that endeavor. 
 
 “Bashar Assad's Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism, is the epitome of a rogue state, and it has long posed a direct threat to American interests and to our partners. The ongoing civil war in Syria has enlarged this threat. 
 
 “The Syrian conflict is not merely a civil war; it is a sectarian proxy war that is exacerbating tensions throughout the Muslim world. It is clear Iran is a principal combatant in this conflict, and its direct involvement is an integral part of Iran’s bid to establish regional hegemony. Were Assad and his Iranian patrons to come out on top it would be a strategic victory for Iran, embolden Hizballah, and convince our allies that we cannot be trusted. 
 
 “Furthermore, sectarian tensions and extremist terrorism are already spilling over beyond Syria's borders, with terrorist attacks and assassinations on the rise in neighboring countries. It is not just an abstract theory that the Syrian conflict threatens the stability of key American partners in the region. It is a reality. 
 
 “Beyond the obvious regional interests, a failure to adequately respond to the use of chemical weapons and compel the end of this conflict on terms beneficial to America and our partners only increases the likelihood of future WMD use by the regime, transfer to Hizballah, or acquisition by Al Qaeda. No one wants to be asking why we failed to act if the next time Sarin is used it is in the Paris or New York subway. 
 
 “The United States’ broader policy goal, as articulated by the President, is that Assad should go, and President Obama's redline is consistent with that goal and with the goal of deterring the use of weapons of mass destruction. It is the type of redline virtually any American President would draw. Now America's credibility is on the line. A failure to act when acting is in America's interests and when a red line has been so clearly crossed will only weaken our ability to use diplomacy, economic pressure, and other non-lethal tools to remove Assad and deter Iran and other aggressors. 
 
 “There are no easy solutions and a one-off military strike is not by itself an adequate strategy, but I am convinced that the risks of inaction outweigh the risks of a limited intervention. And a well-designed and well executed strike that both deters the use of chemical weapons and diminishes the capacity of the Assad regime can contribute to the achievement of a clear and attainable goal: the ultimate displacement of the Assad regime by moderate elements within the opposition. That is why it is imperative that the Administration continue to identify and support those moderate elements who are battling both Assad and Al Qaeda. ||||| CLOSE President Obama says he is confident he'll be able to work with Congress to pass a resolution authorizing military intervention in Syria.(Sept. 3) AP 
 
 U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-OH, looks on as U.S. President Barack Obama meets with members of Congress in the cabinet room of the White House. (Photo: Dennis Brack, Getty Images) Story Highlights President Obama meets with members of Congress about Syria 
 
 Obama wants congressional authorization for military strike on Syria 
 
 Obama leaves Tuesday for trip to Sweden and Russia 
 
 President Obama said Tuesday he believes Congress will vote to authorize a military strike against Syria over the use of chemical weapons, and he won the support of the top two Republicans in the U.S. House. 
 
 House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said after a White House meeting that he supports the president's "call for action" against Syria, and he believes most other congressional Republicans will do so as well. 
 
 "The use of chemical weapons is a barbarous act," Boehner said. "The use of these weapons has to be responded to." 
 
 House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., also endorsed military action, saying that the United States has "a compelling national security interest to prevent and respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction, especially by a terrorist state such as Syria." 
 
 Cantor also said he hopes Obama uses force "judiciously," and maintains "consultation with the Congress." 
 
 STORY: Will Russia lobby Congress against Syria strike? 
 
 MORE: Senate holds first hearing on Syria 
 
 Still, a Boehner aide described upcoming congressional votes on Syria as an "uphill battle." 
 
 Before the meeting with Boehner, Cantor and other members of Congress from both parties, Obama told reporters: "We have high confidence that Syria used — in an indiscriminate fashion — chemical weapons that killed thousands of people, including over 400 children." 
 
 Obama also said he is willing to work with lawmakers on the wording of a resolution authorizing the use of force as long as it preserves the mission of sending "a clear message" to the government of Bashar Assad, "degrading his capabilities to use chemical weapons, not just now but also in the future." 
 
 Some members of Congress said the resolution proposed by the White House is too open-ended on the use of force. 
 
 Congressional Democrats who met with Obama said they also support military action against Syria. 
 
 A congressional vote could be close. Some lawmakers have said the United States should not get involved in Syria; others question whether the administration has proved that Assad's government fired chemical weapons at Syrian rebels. 
 
 STORY: The six key players in Congress' Syria debate 
 
 After the announcements by Boehner and Cantor, Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., tweeted that his constituents have expressed "almost unanimous opposition to U.S. strikes." 
 
 Boehner did not say he would pressure fellow Republicans into supporting action against Syria. His spokesman, Brendan Buck, said these will be "conscience votes" for lawmakers, and that the White House must lead the lobbying effort. "Everyone understands that it is an uphill battle to pass a resolution, and the Speaker expects the White House to provide answers to members' questions," Buck said. 
 
 Syria has denied using chemical weapons, attributing an attack Aug. 21 to the rebels themselves. 
 
 Asked if he was confident about upcoming votes in the House and Senate, Obama said: "I am." 
 
 Obama stressed that he envisions a "limited" and "proportional" mission designed to "degrade" Assad's chemical weapons capability. 
 
 There will be no U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, Obama said: "This is not Iraq and this is not Afghanistan." 
 
 The use of chemical weapons violates "international norms" and increases the possibility that terrorists could obtain such weapons, Obama said. 
 
 "That poses a serious national security threat to the United States and to the region and, as a consequence, Assad and Syria need to be held accountable," Obama said. 
 
 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she is persuaded by the evidence against Assad, and that he "crossed a line" through the use of illegal chemical weapons. 
 
 The White House meeting featured a variety of congressional leaders, including Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the top Republican in the Senate. Members of the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees also attended the conference in the Cabinet Room. 
 
 McConnell said after the meeting that he would encourage Obama to continue updating the American public. "While we are learning more about his plans," McConnell said, "Congress and our constituents would all benefit from knowing more about what it is he thinks needs to be done -- and can be accomplished -- in Syria and the region." 
 
 The meeting is the latest in a series of contacts by the White House after Obama's announcement Saturday that he would seek congressional authorization before striking Syria. 
 
 "We will be stronger if we take action together, as one nation," Obama said. 
 
 In addition to the White House meeting, three key members of Obama's team are scheduled to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey. 
 
 Obama and Vice President Biden met with the lawmakers hours before the president was to depart for a trip to Europe. 
 
 After a stop in Stockholm, Obama will head to St. Petersburg, Russia, for a Group of 20 nations summit that is likely to be dominated by the Syria question. The G-20 figures to be part of Obama's effort to lobby world leaders in support of a strike at Syria. 
 
 The White House announced Tuesday that Obama spoke Monday night with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe about "their grave concern" regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria. 
 
 "The two leaders agreed that the use of chemical weapons is a serious violation of international norms and cannot be tolerated," the White House said in a statement. "They pledged to continue to consult closely on possible responses by the international community." 
 
 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/19eYTjn ||||| During a hearing on a possible military strike in Syria, John Kerry said it was important to consider different points of view.e the Senate (The Washington Post) 
 
 During a hearing on a possible military strike in Syria, John Kerry said it was important to consider different points of view.e the Senate (The Washington Post) 
 
 Obama administration officials told lawmakers Tuesday that a military strike against Syria would “degrade” the country’s ability to carry out attacks — the most specific military objective they have laid out yet — but faced sharp questions about whether such an operation would accomplish much. 
 
 Appearing before a Senate panel, Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel struggled at times to frame a proposed military strike on Syria as tough enough to be worthwhile but limited enough to guarantee that the United States would not get dragged into another open-ended military commitment in the Middle East. Nonetheless, they assured lawmakers that the administration was not asking for congressional backing to “go to war,” as Kerry put it. 
 
 “Our military objectives in Syria would be to hold the Assad regime accountable, degrade its ability to carry out these kinds of attacks and deter it from further use of chemical weapons,” Hagel said in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 
 
 Kerry said such a strike would have a “downstream” effect of limiting President Bashar al-Assad’s conventional military capacity. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said his goal would be to leave the regime weaker after any assault. 
 
 “On this issue, that is the use of chemical weapons, I find a clear linkage to our national security interest,” said Dempsey, who has long been skeptical of the wisdom of military intervention in Syria. “And we will find a way to make our use of force effective.” 
 
 View Graphic As of Sept. 4, lawmakers appear to be tentatively dividing into four camps over military action in Syria. 
 
 The packed hearing opened what is expected to be a week of intensive debate after President Obama’s surprise decision to seek congressional support for any military strike against the Syrian regime. Appealing to both national security hawks and nervous members of Obama’s own party, the administration has tried to cast any strike on Syria as crucial to the United States’ security interests, particularly its commitment to nonproliferation. 
 
 Over and over, officials from Obama on down have stressed that a strike on Syria would be a narrow and direct response to an alleged Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack that the administration says killed more than 1,400 civilians. 
 
 The debate has turned from weighing the Syrian government’s culpability in the attack to weighing the merits of inserting the U.S. military into a conflict that is in its third year. The United Nations estimates that more than 100,00 Syrian civilians have died in the violence, and U.S. officials said any military action is not intended to tilt the balance of power in favor of rebels fighting the Assad regime. 
 
 Obama has said that he believes he has the authority to act even without lawmakers’ approval but that the United States “will be stronger” if Congress endorses action in Syria. On Tuesday, he asked for a quick vote when all lawmakers return to Washington next week. 
 
 The proposed military action “does not involve boots on the ground,” Obama said, welcoming key lawmakers to the White House for a meeting. “This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan.” 
 
 Obama also gained the backing of former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, who said through a spokesman Tuesday that she “supports the president’s effort to enlist the Congress in pursuing a strong and targeted response to the Assad regime’s horrific use of chemical weapons.” 
 
 Republican and Democratic leaders expressed strong support for the proposed strike. After meeting with Obama, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters: “I’m going to support the president’s call for action. I believe that my colleagues should support this call for action.” 
 
 House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said he intends “to vote to provide the president of the United States the option to use military force in Syria.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) voiced support for a strike, saying Assad had acted far outside the norms of civilized behavior. 
 
 But even as the House leadership backed the president, support for even a brief military assault remained thin among some rank-and-file members of the chamber. 
 
 To address congressional qualms that airstrikes could lead to broader, open-ended military operation, Democratic Reps. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and Gerald E. Connolly (Va.) said they are drafting a resolution that would sharply limit the authority that lawmakers would give Obama and the scope of such an attack. 
 
 At one point during the Senate hearing, Kerry said the congressional resolution authorizing force should not absolutely rule out the deployment of U.S. troops — a remark that he was forced to clarify after the objections of some members of the panel. 
 
 “Let’s shut that door now as tight as we can,” Kerry said. “All I did was raise a hypothetical question about some possibility, and I’m thinking out loud about how to protect America’s interests. Whatever prohibition clarifies it to Congress and the American people, there will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war.” 
 
 Kerry and other administration officials said U.S. leadership and credibility are on the line in Syria, with Iran among the bystanders awaiting the American response to the alleged chemical weapons attack. Failure to respond invites further use of chemical weapons, he said, or Iran’s conclusion that the United States would back down if the Islamic republic pushed ahead on building a nuclear bomb. 
 
 “Iran is hoping you look the other way,” Kerry told the committee. “Hezbollah [a Lebanese Shiite militia] is hoping that isolationism will prevail. North Korea is hoping that ambivalence carries the day.” 
 
 Many of the questions during the hearing centered on whether a Syria strike was good or bad for Israel’s security. Although Israel has made no public statement on the resolution, Israeli officials late Tuesday issued a statement quoting Obama’s Saturday announcement on Syria. 
 
 Israel agrees “that the use of chemical weapons is a ‘heinous act’ for which the Assad regime must be held accountable and for which there must be ‘international consequences,’ ” Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, said in the written statement. “Israel further agrees with the president that the use of chemical weapons promotes the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and encourages ‘governments who would choose to build nuclear arms.’ ” 
 
 In an interview, Oren dismissed some senators’ concerns that a U.S. strike against the Assad regime would provoke Syrian, Hezbollah or Iranian retaliation against Israel. “To those who would suggest than an American act against Syria would endanger Israel, we say that Israel can defend itself and will respond forcefully to any act of aggression on the part of Syria and its allies,” the ambassador said. 
 
 Members of the Foreign Relations Committee are expected to begin debating Wednesday a new draft of a resolution on the use of force in Syria. The resolution would permit up to 90 days of military action against the Syrian government and bar the deployment of U.S. combat troops in Syria but permit the deployment of a small rescue mission in the event of an emergency, according to a copy of the resolution obtained from Senate aides. The White House also would be required within 30 days of enactment of the resolution to send lawmakers a plan for a diplomatic solution to end the violence in Syria. 
 
 Karen Tumulty and Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.
– President Obama took a big step forward in his quest to gain Congressional approval for a strike on Syria, convincing the leaders of both parties in the House to back his play. Obama held a meeting with John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, and other top lawmakers this morning, arguing that military action was necessary, but would be limited. "This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan," he promised, according to CNN. He said he was confident Congress would back him, and soon thereafter, both Boehner and Pelosi announced that they would. "The United States for our entire history has stood up for democracy and freedom," Boehner said, according to the Washington Post. "These weapons have to be responded to." Eric Cantor issued a statement saying that he, too, would vote to intervene—though he didn't sound eager to strong-arm his caucus into following suit. "It is up to President Obama to make the case to Congress," he wrote, "and I hope he is successful." Mitch McConnell was also at the meeting, but hasn't yet voiced his intentions—though Obama already has two Senate Republicans in his corner in John McCain and Lindsey Graham. But despite all that support, the vote could be close, USA Today warns, as some lawmakers worry that the resolution is too open-ended.