As President Barack Obama continues to press his case for punitive U.S. military action in Syria, at least two of Hawaii’s four-member, all-Democratic congressional delegation say they are opposed to such intervention, while the others are skeptical that the move would accomplish its intended goals or advance U.S. interests.

U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa and U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz have gone on record this week opposing U.S. action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, which the U.S. has blamed for an alleged Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in a rebel-held suburb of Damascus.

"I am a no vote on the resolution," Hanabusa said Wednesday after a campaign event. She said her position has remained unchanged by what she has learned in briefings and after listening to various positions.

She said she would oppose any measure authorizing U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war. Obama is seeking congressional authorization for military action against Syria; a vote is expected after Congress returns to work Monday.

"The question is, what is the role of the United States?" Hanabusa said. "The president has said very clearly that this is not the solution, that even a limited strike which he’s proposing is not going to solve the problem. … So my position is, then, why would we do this? We should explore all diplomatic resolutions."

Schatz issued a statement Thursday saying he also would oppose the resolution advanced Wednesday by a 10-7 vote of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"I have weighed the expert briefings and analysis, and listened closely to the people of Hawaii," Schatz said. "Though all of us are outraged by the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons, I have concluded that a military strike against Syria is not the answer."

All members of the delegation condemned the use of chemical weapons. Administration officials have said sarin gas was used in an attack that killed 1,400 civilians, including at least 400 children.

U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono, in a statement, said she was reviewing the facts surrounding the reported chemical weapon attacks, the administration’s plan and the scope of the authorizing resolution.

"The use of chemical weapons is universally abhorrent and deplorable, but we should always be cautious about the use of force abroad, especially after the rush to war in Iraq," she said. "My decision will rest on whether the administration’s plan would advance our national interests."

U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard cut short a visit to her district this week to return to Washington, D.C., to participate in the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing with Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Gabbard, a combat veteran, called the use of chemical weapons "horrifying," but said she remained concerned over the path forward being advocated by the administration. Her questions focused on whether the limited strike proposed by Obama would deter Assad and other dictators, whether it would assist or strengthen opposition forces and what steps would be taken to ensure that chemical weapon stockpiles do not fall into hands of groups that would harm the United States.

"I think we can place many limitations on what role the United States will play both through resolutions and other means, but whether we like it or not, the consequences of our actions will impact the civil war — a very complicated region," she told the officials. "And once we are involved with our military it is likely we will have to consider the extended role that we’ll play in any escalation or any retaliations that occur."

Although she has not stated her position on the resolution, she continued to attend classified briefings and other meetings Thursday to pursue answers to her questions, her office said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.