Hes going to speak directly to the American People about the potential for limited military action in syria. Hes going to do that at 9 00 tonight. As i said last night, its appropriate to allow other conversations to go on. We now have, as a result of some work done by other countries, france, russia, and we understand syria is involved in this, this is aimed at avoiding military action. Well have to see if this works out. Very important to understand that the only way russia is seeking to avoid military, the president obama has made it clear the its will act if we must. Our credible threat of force has made these diplomatic discussions with syria possible. And the United States should withdraw from the direction were taking as a country. If theres a realistic chance and i hope there is to secure syrias chemical weapons to avoid further atrocities of the assad regime, we should not turn our back. But the regime must quickly prove their offer is real, not a ploy to delay military action or act on the part of the United States senate, and must also assure chemical weapons in the hands of syria can be secured. And this can be done in an open process. Any agreement must ensure that syrias unable to transfer dangerous chemical weapons into the hands of terrorists in that area. Such an attempt would be met with a Rapid Response and robust from the United States. So im pleased the administration is considering this offer. Im pleased other countries are involved. And in addition to russia, its my understanding syria and im sorry its my understanding france is heavily involved, as of a few hours ago, and i think thats the right direction at this time. We move forward but under the general criteria ive suggested and outlined. The senate should give these discussions time to play out, but not unlimited time. Thats why although theres support to move forward and debate this bipartisan issue, reported be senators menendez and corker, who did a terrific job with the Committee Last week, i didnt indicated last night a motion to proceed to this. We dont need to prove how quickly we can do this but how well we can do this. Syrian regime should fully understand that the United Stateses watching very, very closely. The assad regime should be warned, our country will not tolerate this breach of human decency, and longheld International Consensus against the use of chemical weapons. Mr. President , i ask unanimous consent, the Energy Efficiency legislation, be modified so that the motion to proceed be agreed to at a time to be determined by me, with the concurrence of the republican leader. Not consultation with him but with concurrence with him. Is there ox . Without objection, so ordered. Mr. President , the republican leader. Mr. President , first id like to welcome the president to the capitol today. Members on both sides of the aisle are eager to hear from him and share their own thoughts. We look forward to a spirited and constructive exchange. It is often said that of all the questions we face as lawmakers, none is more serious or indeed more difficult than the question of whether to commit ourselves to military action. Thats why its so important for us to have this debate. To lay out the arguments for and against military action in syria. To let the public know where we stand on this issue and why. But if debates like this are always challenging, in some ways this one has been on more difficult. Not because of some political calculus, to the sinnics will always suspect that. No, this debate has been made more difficult because of even those of white house truly want to support the commanderinchief, have struggled to understand the purpose of the mission. Over the past several days, ive spoken with a lot of people, a lot of kentuckians, and i have to tell you most of them arent exactly clear about the mission themselves. Or shy about saying so. But i told them i understand their concerns, i share them, i also appreciate the war weariness out there. But then i tell them there are other potential concerns we cant ignore here, either. Chief among them is the fact that the credibility of the commanderinchief matters. And related to that is the fact we cant afford as a country to withdraw from the world stage. So no one should be faulted for being skeptical about this proposal, regardless of what party theyre in, or foring dumb founded, literally dumb founded at the hamhanded manner which the white house announced this. Theres absolutely no reason, no reason, to signal to the enemy when and how and for how long you plan to strike them. None. As ive said before you dont send out a save the date card, to the enemy. And yet there are other important considerations to keep in mind here as well, that go beyond the wisdom or the marketing of the proposal. Ive spent a lot of time weighing all of these things. Ive thought a lot about americas obligations and the irreplaceable role ive always believed and still believe, america plays in the world. And ive also thought a lot about the context, about this president s vision, and his record, and what it says whether we should be confident in his ability to bring about a favorable outcome in syria. Because how we got to this point says a lot about where we may be headed. And thats why before announcing my vote i think its important to look back at some of the president s other decisions on matters of Foreign Policy and National Security, and then turn back to what he is proposing now in syria, because in the end, these things simply cant be separated. Now, its not exactly a state secret im no fan of this president s Foreign Policy. On the deepest level i think it comes down to a fundamentally different view of americas role in the world. Unlike the president , ive always been a firm and unapologetic believer in the idea that america isnt just another nation among many. That we are indeed exceptional. As ive said i believe we have a duty, as a super power, without imperialistic gains to maintain an International Balance of power thought we and our allies worked very hard to achieve over the years. The president , on the other hand, has always been a very reluctant commanderinchief. We saw that in the rhetoric of this famous cairo speech. And in speeches he gave in other foreign capitols in the early days of his administration. The tone, and the policies that followed, were meant to project a humbler, more withdrawn america. And, frankly, im hard pressed to see any good that came from any of that. Any list would have to start with the arbitrary deadlines for military withdrawal, and the triumphant declaration that Guantanamo Bay would be closed within a year. Without any plan of what to do with its detainees. Executive orders that ended the cia detention and interrogation programs. We all so the socalled reset with russia. And how the president s stated commitment to a World WithoutNuclear Weapons led him to sign an arms treaty with russia that did nothing to substantially reduce its Nuclear Profile or weapons weapon saw the president announce a strategic pivot to the asiapacific region, without any real plan to fund it and an effort to end the capture of terrorists and return to the old idea that terrorism should be treated as a Law Enforcement matter. Of a decadelong counterincentury genesis in afghanistan we have seen the president s failure to invest in the moored concernization that is needed to make this post to asia meaningful. Specifically, his failure to make the kind of investments needed to maintain our dominance in the asia pacific theater, and the kind of naval, air, and ma reason corps forces well need there in the years ahead could have tragic consequences down the road. His domestic agenda has also obviously had serious implications for or global stapling. Why borrowing trims and wasting taxpayer dollars at home, the president imposed austerity at the pentagon that threatens to undermine our stabilizing presence around the globe. And we have seen how eager the president is to declare an tone the war on terror. Unfortunately the world just hasnt cooperated. They havent cooperated with the president s vision or his hopes. While responding favorably to this gentler approach, its become more dangerous. He learned the hard way that being nice to our enemies doesnt make them like you or clear a path to peace. I understand that the president ran for office on an antiwar platform. That his rise to political power was marked by a determination to get us out of afghanistan and iraq, and declare an end, an end to the war on terror. I know heed rather focus on his domestic agenda. But the ongoing threat from al id and its affiliated and the broader middle east, not to mention the rice of Chinese Military power, make it clear to me this is not the time for america to shrink from the world stage. The world is a dangerous place. In the wake of the arab spring, large part office the sinai, libya, syria, are now basically ungoverned. We have seen prison breaks in iraq, pakistan, libya, and release of prisoners in egypt. Terrorists escaped from prisons in yemen, a country that is no more ready to main the terrorists in guantanamo now than in 2009. And the flow of foreign fighter into syria promise the war will last for years, whether assad is in power. Yes, the president deserves praise for weakening al qaeda, but the a threat from al qaeda affiliates are very real. These terrorists are adaptable, versatile, lethal, resilient, and they arent going away. Pocket office these terrorist extend from north africa to the persian gulf, and its time he faced up to it. And its time to face up to Something Else as well. International order is not maintained by some Global Police force. Which only exists in a liberal fantasy. International order is maintained its backbone through American Military might, which brings me back to syria. For two years now syria has been marred in a ferocious civil war, with more than 100,000 killed, with conventional arms. Thats according to u. N. Estimates. This tragic situation has promoted many to look to the United States for help. And so one year ago president obama made a declaration. If assad used or started moving chemical weapons, eat do something about it. Well, as we all know, august 21st this year that red line was crossed. The president s delayed response was to call for a show of force for targeted limited strikes against the regime. We have been told that the purpose of these strikes is to deter and degrade assads regimes ability to use chemical weapons. So lets take a closer look at these aims. First, no one disputes the atrocities in syria in recent weeks are unspeakable. No one disputes that those responsible for these crimes against the independent should be held to account. We were absolutely right, of course to condemn these crimes. But lets be very clear about something. These attacks, monstrous as they are, were not a direct attack against the United States or one of its treaty allies. And just so theres no confusion, let me assure everyone that if a weapon of mass destruction were used against the u. S. Or one of our allies are congress would react immediately with an authorization for the use of force in support of an overwhelming response, i would introduce the resolution myself. So, no leader in north korea or iran or in the other of the United States should take any solace is the u. S. Were not to respond with an action against syria. We will never, never, tolerate the use of them kale weapons against the United States or any of its treaty allies. Second, in the course of the Administration Hearings and briefings over the past several days, secretary of state kerry has revealed that assad has used chemical weapons repeatedly. Repeatedly over the last year. So theres a further question here about why the administration didnt respond on those occasions. Third. Assad, as ive indicated, has killed tens of thousands of people with conventional weapons. Is there any reason to believe he wont continue if the president s strikes are as limited as were told they would be. Fourth, what if degrading assads control of the weapons if in doing that you make it easier for other extremists elements, like those associated with al qaeda to actually get ahold of them themselves. Or what if by weakening the Syrian Military you tilt the military balance towards an opposition that is in no position to govern or control anything right now. I think the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey, put the issue best when he recently suggested in a letter to congress that the issue is not about choosing between two sides in syria. Its about choosing one among many sides. And that in his estimation, even if we were to choose sides, the side we chose wouldnt be in a position to promote their own interests or ours. Thats the chairman of the joint chiefs. And then theres the question of how assad himself would react to u. S. Action in syria. If assad views an air campaign as preparation for regime change, then he may lose all constraint in the use of his arsenal, chemical or otherwise. And lose any incentive whatsoever to move to the negotiating table. Its very clear that the unintended consequences of this strike could very well be a new cycle of escalation. Which then drags us into a larger war than were all that were all seeking to avoid. Some have even suggested the humanitarian crisis serenaing the Syrian Civil War could be made worse as a result of even targeted u. S. Strikes. In the end, then, the president s proposal seems fundamentally flawed. If its too narrow it may not deter assads further use of chemical weapons, but if its too broad it recollections jeopardizing the security over the same stockpiles, potentially putting them in the hands of extremists and thats why i think were compelled to apply a more traditional standard to whether to proceed with the use of force. One that asks a simple question. Does assads use of chemical weapons pose a threat to the National Security interest of the United States . And the answer to that question is fairly obvious. Even the president himself says, it doesnt. Now, one could argue, as i have suggested, theres an important National Security concern at play, that we have a very strong interest in preserving the credibility of our commanderinchief, regardless of the party in power, and in giving him the Political Support that reinforces that credibility. This is an issue i take very seriously. Its the main reason i wanted to take my time in making a final decision. But ultimately, ive concluded that being credible on syria requires presenting a credible response. And having a credible strategy. For all those reasons, ive indicated this proposal just doesnt pass muster. Indeed, if through this limited strike the president s credibility is not restored because assad uses chemical weapons again, what then . And new targets aimed at toppling the regime which jeopardize control of the same chemical weapons stashes, allowing them to fall into the hands of al qaeda and others intent on using them against the United States or our alf allies, where where the cycle of escalation end . Now, last neath we learned about a russian diplomatic gambit to forestall military action to procure and eventually destroy the chemical weapons stockpile. This morning there are initial reports that suggest syria is supportive of it. Let me remind everyone that even if this is agreed to its still a long way off to reaching an agreement at the United Nations. To syria gaining entry into the Chemical Weapons Convention and eventually securing and destroying the stockpile. As we have seen in my own state of kentucky, where we have been working for 30 years finally destroy a stockpile of chemical weapons, destroying chemical weapons is extremely challenging. And requires a great deal of attention to detail and safety. Nonetheless, this proposal is obviously worth exploring. But more broadly, and this is my larger point this one punitive strike were debating could not make up for the president S Performance of the last five years. The only way, the only way for him to achieve the credibility he seeks is by embracing the kind of serious, integrated, National Security plan that matches strategy to resources, capables to commitments. And which shows our allies around the world that the u. S. Is fully engaged and ready to act at a moments notice in all the major areas of concern around the globe. Whether its the met ter rainan, mediterranean, persian gulf, or South China Sea and just as importantly he is willing to invest in the strategy for the long term in syria, a limited strike would not resolve the civil war there. Nor will it remove assad from power. There appears to be no broader strategy to train, advise, and assist a vetted Opposition Group on a meaningful scale. As we did during the cold war. What is needed in syria is what is needed almost everywhere necessary the world from america right now, a Clear Strategy and a president determined to carry it out. When it comes to syria, our partners in the middle east, countries like turkey, jordan, saudi arabia and israel, all of them face real consequences from instability, refugee flows, and the growth of terrorist networks. Responding to this crisis requires a regional strategy and leadership. What we have gotten instead is an administration that seems more interesting in telling us what the mission is not, more interested in telling us what the mission is not, than what it is. We have gotten th