[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6301-S6304]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 AUTHORIZING THE LIMITED AND SPECIFIED USE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED 
                FORCES AGAINST SYRIA--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 166, S.J. 
Res. 21.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 21 to authorize the limited 
     and specified use of the United States Armed Forces against 
     Syria.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my and Senator McConnell's 
remarks, there will be a period of morning business until 11 a.m. this 
morning. At 11 a.m. we will resume consideration of the motion to 
proceed to the Syria resolution. The time until noon will be divided 
and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The Senate 
will recess from noon until 2:15 p.m. to allow for our caucus meetings.
  The leader and I have talked this morning--and prior to this 
morning--with regard to the energy efficiency bill. We automatically go 
to that bill at 11 a.m. We are trying to work out a way we can go to 
that bill. Senators Shaheen and Portman have worked for more than a 
year to come up with a bill. We have not done an energy bill in a long 
time, so there is a desire on both sides to move forward on this.
  Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman have bipartisan amendments they 
want to offer to their bill, and I have expressed to the Republican 
leader that we need to move to that when we finish the Syria issue. I 
would like permission to move to that bill at the appropriate time. 
Once we get on the bill and we get the CR from the House, for example, 
I told the Republican leader--and everyone who wants to hear--that we 
don't have to finish the energy efficiency bill all at one time. We 
want to have an amendment process, and we will do that. I don't want to 
file cloture on the motion to proceed again, so we have instructed our 
staffs to try to come up with something before 11 a.m. that we can 
agree on.
  I repeat. There will be amendments offered, and we will have adequate 
time to work on this. We may not be able to do it all at one time, but 
we will do it and finish this legislation.


                                 Syria

  Mr. President, we are engaged in a very important debate. The Syria 
debate is one that cannot be taken lightly, and I don't believe anyone 
has taken it lightly. The discussion and bipartisan resolution under 
consideration is simply too important to be rushed through the Senate 
or given short shrift. So it is right and proper that the President be 
given an opportunity to meet with Senators from both parties, as he 
will today. He will meet with us at 12:30 p.m. When he finishes with 
us, it is my understanding he will report to Senator McConnell's 
conference.
  In addition to that, he is going to address the Nation tonight. He is 
going to speak directly to the American people about the potential for 
limited military action to Syria. He will do that at 9 p.m. tonight.
  As I said last night, it is 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 
as well. This is aimed at avoiding military action. We will have to see 
if this works out.
  It is very important to understand that the only reason Russia is 
seeking an alternative to military action is that President Obama has 
made it plain and clear that the United States will act, if we must. 
Our credible threat of force has made these diplomatic discussions with 
Syria possible, and the United States should not withdraw from the 
direction we are taking as a country.
  If there is a realistic chance--and I certainly hope there is--to 
secure Syria's chemical weapons without further atrocities of the Asad 
regime, we should not turn our backs on that chance. But for such a 
solution to be plausible, the Asad regime must act quickly and prove 
that their offer is real and not merely a ploy to delay military action 
or action by the body of the Senate.
  Any agreement must also assure that chemical weapons in the hands of 
Syria can be secured and done in an open process, even in the midst of 
this ongoing war we have in Syria. Any agreement must ensure that Syria 
is unable to transfer its dangerous chemical

[[Page S6302]]

weapons to the hands of terrorists in that area. Such an attempt would 
be met with a rapid and robust response from the United States.
  I am pleased the administration is considering this offer. I am 
pleased other countries are involved in addition to Russia. It is my 
understanding that France is heavily involved, as of a few hours ago, 
and I think that is the right direction at this time. We will move 
forward but under the general criteria I have suggested and outlined.
  The Senate should give these international discussions time to play 
out but not unlimited time. That is why, although there is support to 
move forward and debate this bipartisan resolution reported by Senators 
Menendez and Corker--they did a terrific job for the committee last 
week--I didn't rush to file cloture, as I indicated last night, on the 
motion to proceed. We don't need to prove how quickly we can do this 
but how well we can do this.
  The Syrian regime should fully understand that the United States is 
watching very closely. The Asad regime should be warned our country 
will not tolerate this breach of human decency and long-held 
international consensus against the use of chemical weapons.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 1392

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order with 
respect to S. 1392, which is 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 concurrence with him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.


                                 Syria

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, first, I would like to welcome the 
President to the Capitol today. Members on both sides of the aisle are 
eager to hear from him and to 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. That is why it is 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.
  If debates such as this are always challenging, in some ways this one 
has been even more difficult, not because of some political calculus--
though cynics will always suspect that--no, this debate has been made 
more difficult because even those of us who truly want to support the 
Commander in Chief have struggled to understand the purpose of the 
mission.
  Over the past several days I have spoken with a lot of people--a lot 
of Kentuckians--and most of them are not exactly clear about the 
mission or shy about saying so. What I have told them is that I 
understand their concerns, and I share them. I also appreciate the war 
weariness out there, but then I tell them there are other potential 
concerns we cannot ignore either. Chief among them is the fact that the 
credibility of the Commander in Chief matters, and related to that is 
the fact that we cannot 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 they are in, or for being 
dumbfounded--literally dumbfounded--at the ham-handed manner in which 
the White House announced it.
  There is absolutely no reason to signal to the enemy when, how, and 
for how long we plan to strike them--none. As I have said before, we 
don't send out a save-the-date card to the enemy. Yet there are other 
important considerations to keep in mind as well that go beyond the 
wisdom or the marketing of the proposal.
  I have spent a lot of time weighing all of these things. I thought a 
lot about America's obligations and the irreplaceable role I have 
always believed, and still believe, America plays in the world. I have 
also thought a lot about the context, about this President's vision and 
his record and what it says about 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. That is why, 
before announcing my vote, I think it is 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 cannot be separated.
  It is not exactly a State secret that I am no fan of this President's 
foreign policy. On the deepest level I think it comes down to a 
fundamentally different view of America's role in the world. Unlike the 
President, I have always been a firm and unapologetic believer in the 
idea that America isn't just another Nation among many; that we are, 
indeed, exceptional. As I have said, I believe we have a duty as a 
superpower, without imperialistic aims, to help maintain an 
international order and balance of power that we and other allies have 
worked very hard to achieve over the years.
  The President, on the other hand, has always been a very reluctant 
Commander in Chief. We saw that in the rhetoric of his famous Cairo 
speech and in speeches he gave in other foreign capitals in the early 
days of his administration. The tone, and the policies that followed, 
were meant to project a humbler, more withdrawn America. Frankly, I am 
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 
would be closed within a year, without any plan of what to do with its 
detainees. There were the executive orders that ended the CIA's 
detention and interrogation programs.
  We all saw the so-called ``reset'' with Russia and how the 
President's stated commitment to a world without nuclear weapons led 
him to hastily sign an arms treaty with Russia that did nothing to 
substantially reduce its nuclear stockpile or its tactical nuclear 
weapons. We saw the President announce a strategic pivot to the Asia-
Pacific region, without any real plan to fund it, and an effort to end 
the capture, interrogation, and detention of terrorists, as well as the 
return of the old idea that terrorism should be treated as a law 
enforcement matter. After a decade-long counterinsurgency in 
Afghanistan, we have seen the President's failure to invest in the kind 
of strategic modernization that is needed to make this pivot to Asia 
meaningful. Specifically, his failure to make the kind of investments 
that are needed to maintain our dominance in the Asia-Pacific theater 
in the kind of naval, air, and Marine Corps forces that we will need in 
the years ahead could have tragic consequences down the road.
  His domestic agenda has also obviously had serious implications for 
our global standing. While borrowing trillions and wasting taxpayer 
dollars here at home, the President has imposed a policy of austerity 
at the Pentagon that threatens to undermine our stabilizing presence 
around the globe. Of course, we have seen how eager the President is to 
declare an end to the war on terror. Unfortunately, the world hasn't 
cooperated. It hasn't cooperated with the President's vision or his 
hopes. Far from responding favorably to this gentler approach, it has 
become arguably more dangerous. We have learned the hard way that being 
nice to our enemies doesn't make them like us or clear a path to peace.
  I understand the President ran for office on an antiwar platform, 
that his rise to political power was marked by his determination to get 
us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and to declare an end to the war on 
terror. I know he would rather focus on his domestic agenda. But the 
ongoing threat from Al Qaeda and its affiliates and the turmoil 
unleashed by uprisings in north Africa and the broader Middle East, not 
to mention the rise of Chinese military power, make it clear to me, at 
least, that 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 
parts of the Sinai, of Libya, of Syria, are now basically ungoverned. 
We have seen prison breaks in Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, and the release of 
hundreds of prisoners in Egypt. Terrorists have also escaped from 
prisons in Yemen, a

[[Page S6303]]

country that is no more ready to detain the terrorists at Guantanamo 
now than they were back in 2009. And the flow of foreign fighters into 
Syria suggests that the civil war there will last for years, regardless 
of whether Asad is still in power.
  Yes, the President deserves praise for weakening Al Qaeda's senior 
leadership. But the threat we face from Al Qaeda affiliates is very 
real. These terrorists are adaptable. They are versatile, lethal, 
resilient, and they aren't going away. Pockets of these terrorists 
extend from north Africa to the Persian Gulf and it is time he faced up 
to it.
  It is 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 is 
American military might, which brings me back to Syria.
  For 2 years now Syria has been mired in a ferocious civil war with 
more than 100,000 killed with conventional arms. That is according to 
U.N. estimates. This tragic situation has prompted many to look to the 
United States for help. So 1 year ago President Obama made a 
declaration: If Asad used or started moving chemical weapons, he would 
do something about it.
  Well, as we all know, on August 21 of this year, that redline 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 the purpose of these strikes is to deter and degrade Asad's 
regime's ability to use chemical weapons. So let's take a closer look 
at these aims.
  First, no one disputes that the atrocities committed in Syria in 
recent weeks are unspeakable. No one disputes that those responsible 
for these crimes against the innocent should be held to account. We 
were absolutely right, of course, to condemn these crimes. But let's 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 there is no confusion, let me assure everyone that 
if a weapon of mass destruction were used against the United States or 
one of our allies, 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 any other enemy of the United States should take 
any solace if the United States were not to respond to these attacks 
with an action against Syria. We will never--never--tolerate the use of 
chemical weapons against the United States or any of its treaty allies.
  Second, in the course of administration hearings and briefings over 
the past several days, Secretary of State Kerry has revealed that Asad 
has used chemical weapons repeatedly--repeatedly--over the last year. 
So there is a further question here about why the administration didn't 
respond on those occasions.
  Third, Asad, as I have indicated, has killed tens of thousands of 
people with conventional weapons. Is there any reason to believe he 
won't continue if the President's strikes are as limited as we are told 
they would be?
  Fourth, what if, in degrading Asad's control of those weapons, we 
make it easier for other extremist elements such as those associated 
with the al-Nusra Front and Al Qaeda to actually get hold of 
them themselves or what if, by weakening the Syrian military, we end up 
tilting the military balance toward a fractured 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 this particular best when he recently suggested in a letter to 
Congress that the issue here isn't about choosing between two sides in 
Syria, it is about choosing one among many sides; and that, in his 
estimation, even if we were to choose sides, the side we chose wouldn't 
be in a position to promote their own interests or ours. That is the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
  Then there is the question of how Asad himself will react to U.S. 
action in Syria. If Asad 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. It is 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 that we are all 
seeking to avoid. Some have even suggested that the humanitarian crisis 
surrounding the Syrian civil war could actually be made worse as a 
result of even targeted U.S. strikes.
  In the end, then, the President's proposal seems fundamentally flawed 
since, if it is too narrow, it may not deter Asad's further use of 
chemical weapons. But if it is too broad, it risks jeopardizing the 
security of these same stockpiles, potentially putting them into the 
hands of extremists.
  That is why I think we are compelled in this case to apply a more 
traditional standard on whether to proceed with a use of force, one 
that asks a simple question: Does Asad's use of chemical weapons pose a 
threat to the vital national security interests of the United States? 
And the answer to that question is fairly obvious; even the President 
himself says it doesn't.
  One could argue, as I have suggested, that there is an important 
national security concern at play, that we have a very strong interest 
in preserving the credibility of our Commander in Chief, 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. It 
is the main reason I have wanted to take my time in making a final 
decision. But, ultimately, I have concluded that being credible on 
Syria requires presenting a credible response and having a credible 
strategy. For all of the reasons I have indicated, this proposal 
doesn't pass muster.
  Indeed, if, through this limited strike, the President's credibility 
is not restored because Asad uses chemical weapons again, what then? 
And new targets aimed at toppling the regime which end up jeopardizing 
control of these 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 allies. Where would the cycle of escalation end?
  Last night we learned about a Russian diplomatic gambit to forestall 
U.S. military action through a proposal to secure and eventually 
destroy the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile. This morning there are 
initial reports that suggest Syria is supportive of them. Let me remind 
everyone that even if this is agreed to, it is a still a long way off 
to reaching an agreement at the United Nations, to Syria gaining entry 
to the chemical weapons convention, and to eventually securing and 
destroying the stockpile. As we have seen in my own State of Kentucky 
where we have been working for 30 years to 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 we are debating could not make up for the President's 
performance over the last 5 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, capabilities to commitments, and which shows our allies 
around the world that the United States is fully engaged and ready to 
act at a moment's notice in all the major areas of concern around the 
globe, whether it is the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, or in the 
South China Sea, and, just as importantly, that he is willing to invest 
in that strategy for the long term.
  In Syria, a limited strike would not resolve the civil war there, nor 
will it remove Asad 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 else in 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 
such as Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel--all of them face real 
consequences from instability, refugee

[[Page S6304]]

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 interested in telling us 
what the mission is not--more interested in telling us what the mission 
is not--rather than what it is. We have gotten the same timid, 
reluctant leadership that I have seen from the President for nearly 5 
years.

  As I have said, this decision was not easy. When the President of the 
United States asks you to take a question like this seriously, you do 
so. Because just as our credibility in Syria is tied up with our 
credibility in places such as Iran and North Korea, so too is the 
credibility of the Commander in Chief tied up, to a large extent, with 
America's credibility in general. There is no doubt about that. So let 
me repeat: I will stand shoulder to shoulder with this President or any 
other in any case where our vital national security interests are 
threatened, our treaty allies are attacked, or we face an imminent 
threat.
  As for Israel, very few people, if anyone, expect that Syria would 
test its readiness to respond on its own, which just goes to show you 
the importance of credibility on the world stage. As Prime Minister 
Netanyahu put it last week, the enemies of Israel have very good reason 
not to test its might. But the Prime Minister should know nonetheless 
that America stands with him.
  I have never been an isolationist, and a vote against this resolution 
should not be confused by anyone as a turn in that direction. But just 
as the most committed isolationist could be convinced of the need for 
intervention under the right circumstances when confronted with a 
threat, so too do the internationalists among us believe that all 
interventions are not created equal. And this proposal just does not 
stand up.
  So I will be voting against this resolution. A vital national 
security risk is clearly not at play, there are too many unanswered 
questions about our long-term strategy in Syria, including the fact 
that this proposal is utterly detached from a wider strategy to end the 
civil war there, and on the specific question of deterring the use of 
chemical weapons, the President's proposal appears to be based actually 
on a contradiction: either we will strike targets that threaten the 
stability of the regime--something the President says he does not 
intend to do--or we will execute a strike so narrow as to be a mere 
demonstration.
  It is not enough, as General Dempsey has noted, to simply alter the 
balance of military power without carefully considering what is needed 
to preserve a functioning state after the fact. We cannot ignore the 
unintended consequences of our actions.
  But we also cannot ignore our broader obligations in the world. I 
firmly believe the international system that was constructed on the 
ashes of World War II rests upon the stability provided by the American 
military, and by our commitments to our allies. It is a necessary role 
that only we can continue to fulfill in the decades to come. And 
especially in times like this, the United States cannot afford to 
withdraw from the world stage. My record reflects that belief and that 
commitment regardless of which party has controlled the White House. We 
either choose to be dominant in the world or we resign ourselves and 
our allies to the mercy of our enemies. We either defend our freedoms 
and our civilization or it crumbles.
  So as we shift our military focus to the Asia Pacific, we cannot 
ignore our commitments to the Middle East, to stability in the Persian 
Gulf, to an enduring presence in Afghanistan, to hunting down the 
terrorists who would threaten the United States and its people. And 
when the Commander in Chief sets his mind to action, the world should 
think he believes in it. When the Commander in Chief sets his mind to 
an action, the world should think he believes in it. Frankly, the 
President did not exactly inspire confidence when he distanced himself 
from his own redlines in Stockholm last week.
  It is long past time the President drops the pose of the reluctant 
warrior and lead. You cannot build an effective foreign policy on the 
vilification of your predecessor alone. At some point, you have to take 
responsibility for your own actions and see the world the way it is, 
not the way you would like it to be.
  If you wish to engage countries that have been hostile, so be it. But 
be a realist, know the limits of rhetoric, and prepare for the worst.
  For too long this President has put his faith in the power of his own 
rhetoric to change the minds of America's enemies. For too long he has 
been more interested in showing the world that America is somehow 
different now than it has been in the past; it is humbler; it is not 
interested in meddling in the affairs of others or in shaping events.
  But in his eagerness to turn the page, he has blinded himself to 
worrisome trends and developments from Tunisia to Damascus to Tehran 
and in countless places in between.
  A year ago this month four Americans were senselessly murdered on 
sovereign U.S. territory in Benghazi. Last month the President ordered 
the closing of more than two dozen diplomatic posts stretching from 
west Africa to the Bay of Bengal. As I have indicated, and as the 
decision to close these embassies clearly shows, the terrorist threat 
continues to be real. Expressions of anti-Americanism are rampant 
throughout Africa and the Middle East, even more so perhaps than when 
the President first took office.
  So the President's new approach has clearly come with a cost. And for 
the sake of our own security and that of our allies, it is time he 
recognized it. Because if America does not meet its international 
commitments, who will? That is one question that those on the left who 
are comfortable with a weakened America cannot answer, because the 
answer is too frightening. No one will. That is the answer.
  If this episode has shown us anything, it is that the time has come 
for the President to finally acknowledge that there is no substitute 
for American might. It is time for America to lead again, this time 
from the front. But we need strategic vision, in the Middle East and in 
many other places around the world, to do it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                       Reservation Of Leader Time

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time 
is reserved.

                          ____________________