someplace like new mexico on federal land, had not been touched before, how long would it take for that first barrel of oil to reach the dism economy? he said without hesitatin hesit0 days. i said, that's ten weeks, not ten years. i have never been refuted since we used that. so in addition to all the arguments that we're using, just think about what our oil independence could dovment our energy independence could do in this country. it is all there for the taking. this is the key element to make that a reality. mr. hoeven: again, i would like it thank the senator from oklahoma who has been a leader in energy and certainly a statesman and a leader in energy for many years. when you look at not only what's going on with isil, this morning we were addressed by the president of the ukraine. and look at their situation because they haven't developed their own energy resources and because they don't have, you know, their own infrastructure, they're now dependent, ukraine

is dependent, along with most of the european union, on russia for their energy. they get more than a third of their energy from russia. so at the same time that russia is invading ukraine, the european union is reluctant to stand with the united states and our other allies on strong sanctions to prevent that type of aggression. why? because they get their energy from russia. so when we talk about this, when we talk about building the infrastructure that we need in this country to work with our closest friend and ally, canada, to make sure that we are energy secure and that we do not need to get energy from places like the middle east or venezuela or other places that may have interests that are antithetical to ourselves, think about how -- ours, think about how important that is for the security of our country with what's going on in the world today, in the middle east, with isil, when you see what's going on in ukraine, in eastern europe with russian aggression, and the e.u. so i would turn to our colleague from georgia, who's also been a

staunch supporter of this project and ask him, with what's going on in terms of -- of national security, the situation that we face today, why in the world would we not be building not only producing our energy resources in this country, deploying these new technologies that we are talking about that produce energy with better environmental stewardship and building the infrastructure to move it to our refineries and move it to our consumers? why in the world are we not -- you know, why are we waiting six years for a decision that would enable us to do that very thing on behalf of the american people? mr. isakson: well, i'm pleased to join the distinguished senator from the state of north dakota. i'm pleased to join the senator from oklahoma. and i'm pleased to speak as an american from a state that that is a net consumer and not producer of energy. you know, your state is a great producer of energy. senator inhofe's a great producer of energy. george is a great consumer of

energy. we don't have a lot of oil or natural gas or coal. but i'm here because i have a lot of experience in my lifetime, a lot of it with national security issues and with economic issues, and our ability -- or our failure to approve the keystone pipeline and fracking very simply is professional malpractice. i want to refresh everybody's memory. this is the sixth anniversary of a letter to the president of the united states. you know what it's the 35th anniversary of? the arab oil embargo. i was a real estate salesman in the 1970's. when something called the misery index was developed. do you know what the misery index was? we had double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, and double-digit interest rates. why? because the arab oil embargo in the middle 1970's brought america to its knees. this real estate salesman used to have to wait for two hours in a line at an exxonmobil station with a $10 bill to get my ration of gasoline in the 1970's. why? because we depended on the middle east and opec to supply us with energy. we sit here today on the cusp of being a net producer of energy. we can use it in our national

defense. we can use it in our national security. we can use it in our economy. if we produce the energy that we know we have available to us and if we bring in the energy safely and environmentally sound that we now have available to us, we can rule our foreign policy and our economy based on our own strength and not a dependence on anybody else. 35 years ago was not just a time of the misery index but it was a time of failed u.s. foreign policy. remember, it was the late 1970's when the iranians took the american embassy hostage in tehran. and for 445 days held the strongest military power in the world hostage. why? in large measure because they controlled petroleum to our country. so it is a national security threat. when the president of the ukraine spoke today, he didn't say this but i will say it. if america was producing the oil and energy it could with the keystone pipeline and with fracking, and if we were exporting to foreign countries, we could replace russia in a heartbeat and be the net supplier of energy to ukraine and germany. but it's important in the national security of our country and the employment of our people

and the soundless of our economy that we do hydraulic fracking for our natural gaze in haynesville and marcellis, that we bring the keystone pipeline into houston and refine that petroleum for gas clean and energy for our people. you know, the pipeline for the senator from north dakota is very interesting thing. i ran the state board of education in georgia for three years. we couldn't build a public school by law in georgia if it was within 2,000 feet of an underground pipeline. it's hard in atlanta, georgia, to find a piece of line in georgia that isn't. america's energy and petroleum flows rapidly today safely and environmentally soundly in pipelines. if we weren't using the pipeline and we were bringing it on rail cars or trucks, we'd be producing carbon out the kazoo because those engines would burn petroleum to get the petroleum to houston. by using the pipeline, it's safe and sound and secure. so i think it's basically professional malpractice for this country to fail to approve the keystone pipeline or fracking because it hurts our national defense, it makes us

dependent on people we shouldn't be dependent on, it hurts our economy. and one day the misery index could come back. and if it comes back, it's because we're held hostage because of our own failed policy, not because we were held hostage because someone is strong. i want to be a part of seeking the best for our american people, bric bringing the energo our american people and being the most competitive o economy n the world today. and i'd like to thank the distinguished senator from yielding me the time. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank the distinguished senator from georgia to his strong support and his clear understanding why we need this vital project and for really putting the focus on national security. you know, in poll after poll, two-thirds of americans support this project and so i think in the final analysis, the american people will make a decision here, because if the president, after six years, refuses to make a decision, clearly his strategy is to defeat it -- this project

with endless delays. so just defeat through delay. here we are in year six of the application process. so i would turn to my colleague from georgia and say, it's my belief -- and i would ask his thoughts on this body's ability to step up and make the decision and approve this project in behalf of the american people. what do you foresee? we have 57 that have signed on now. i believe it will get to the 60. what's your sense of our ability to get this done for the american people? mr. isakson: if before we left today and had the final vote on the c.r., the majority leader would let a vote come to the floor to get 60 votes to go ahead and move forward on the keystone pipeline, in my belief it would happen. for all the reasons i stated and what the american people want and all of the reasons that you said. i, quite frankly, do not understand why one person in this single administration would hold back the keystone pipeline. correct me if i'm wrong, but the state department has five times approved that. is that not correct?

mr. hoeven: that's absolutely correct. we've got the dates for the approval of five different environmental impact statements right there. all finding no significant environmental impact. mr. isakson: so that's number one. number two, there is no question that being independent in energy makes us a stronger country in terms of our national defense and our foreign policy. is that not correct? mr. hoeven: that's correct. mr. isakson: number three, we'll have better jobs, more employment, less inflation and a more vibrant economy if we were developing this petroleum, is that not correct? mr. hoeven: that's correct. mr. isakson: then i think knowing the quality and the intellect of the united states senate, there is no doubt if the majority leader were to bring it for a vote, we would again more than the 60 votes needed. this is not professional malpractice, we want to do good for the american people. we want energy and we want it now. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank the good senator from georgia. i'll turn -- madam president, i understand that our time has expired. i ask for -- unanimous consent for one minute to wrap up this colloquy. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection. mr. hoeven: thank you, madam president. look, on the facts and on the merits, which is how we have to make decisions for the american people, this is a project about energy, producing energy here at home so that we won't have to get it from the middle east. and we know what's going on in the middle east with isil and other organizations that are creating huge problems and that are a danger not only to this country but to the world. it's about energy here at home and working with our closest friend and ally, canada. it's about jobs. the state department itself says more than 40,000 jobs are created with this project. it's about economic activity. $5.3 billion project, not one penny of federal spending, just private investment. it's about national security, as we've talked about. but it's also about congestion on our rails. it's about making sure that we don't try to move all this oil on rail so we have so much

congestion we have accidents. and we've seen that happen. it's about harvest and moving ag fructs the heart -- products from the heartland throughout the country. look, it's about using the latest, greatest technology to make sure we produce more energy, more dependablely and with better environmental stewardship than without the project. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. hoeven: six years? it's time for this body to step forward on behalf of the american people. madam president, i yield the floor. thank you. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, i don't think we should adjourn and go home with matters of war and peace in front of us. now, i realize and this senator certainly intends to support the appropriations bill, the continuing resolution.

it's necessary to keep the government functioning. but one of the issues in this continuing resolution is the authorization in order to start training the free syrian army in saudi arabia and this senator certainly supports that. but the issues beyond just that training are very much in front of us which involves the united states protecting our national security by going after isis or isil or whatever you want to call them. it's the group that has already declared war on us and day by day we see their efforts and then we hear their statements that they want to fly the black flag of isis over the white house.

what more do we need to know about the national security being threatened? now, today in a joint session, we heard a very inspiring and emotional speech by the president of ukraine and he so poignantly pointed out how russia has invaded eastern ukraine and it's the russian army against the ukrainian army. and we certainly should be helping them as well, as we are, but it needs to be more. so, too, the national security of the united states is definitely threatened by isis. as i have said over and over, i believe that the president has the constitutional authority to strike isis in syria as he

already has in northern iraq and that's under his constitutional duty as commander in chief. but this is not going to be a strike for a few days. this is going to be a long effort to degrade and defeat, to use the president's words, this threat to america. and so here the congress of the united states is going to adjourn in the middle of september? and as i calculate, starting tomorrow, it's 55 days until we would return? we need to be talking about war and peace. we need to be talking about the

congress exercising its constitutional authority to give the authority to the president for this long-term effort. the senate has heard our colleague, tim kaine of virginia, speak very passionately about this. he believes it very firmly. i only disagree with senator kaine to the point that i believe that the president has the authority to strike now. to protect the interests of the united states. and i expect that president obama will do that. i'm talking about in syria. it's clear that the president has already appropriately started the attacks and have done it very well and successfully. in the kurdish region, in other regions of northern iraq, and

that will continue. and the president feels like he has the authority -- and i happen to agree. but when it comes to syria -- and that's where the head of the isis snake is, and if you're going to kill the snake, you've got to go to where the head is and chop it off. and so i think it's a mistake for us to go home, i think it sends a very bad message not only to our countrymen, but it sends a very bad message to our allies and to our enemies. the opposite message would be sent if we would discuss these matters and come together with a

resolution of an authorization for the use of military force, and to have that clearly stating that the united states is unified to go after this insidious, evil, brutal, uncivil kind of force. it would send a message of unity not only to our allies, to this country of ours, but to our enemies. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: what is the order? the presiding officer: we're in a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak up to 10 minutes. mrs. boxer: madam president, i ask that i be able to speak until i conclude. it may go over that time, but not much. the presiding officer: without

objection. mrs. boxer: thank you. first i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they've been approved by the majority and minority leaders, so i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to, these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you so much, madam president. i'm here because i wanted to respond to the colloquy that was held on the keystone pipeline, but before i go there i really do want to make some remarks about the very important vote we're going to be taking today, both to keep the government open and to give the president the ability to train and equip vetted syrian moderates so that they can help us take the fight to isil. madam president, it is my privilege to serve on the armed services committee, i've served on it for a very long time.

and yesterday we had an important hearing where the secretary of state laid out the president's plans for how we're going to meet this threat posed by isil. and i have to say before i explain the three options that you have, as an american, as far as which option you embrace, i think i need to lay out this organization's views. isil is -- or isis, different ways to describe them -- they're an outgrowth of al qaeda in iraq. and al qaeda in iraq came about because of the catastrophic iraq war that was based on false premises, put us in the middle of a civil war, created the worst sectarian tensions and one

of my proudest moments was voting no on that. the then bush administration said that saddam hussein was involved with 9/11, that he had nuclear weapons and all of this, and none of it was so. none of it was so. and as a result, we got in the middle of this war, we were told it would last six months, a year went by, another year, years 5, years, years. one of our longest wars. and 4,000-plus americans dead, tens of thousands wounded, some with very serious wounds they'll never get over them, and i would say well more than a trillion dollars, threw us into a terrible deficit situation where we had surpluses. what a nightmare. so that's the beginning of isil, an outgrowth of al qaeda.

now, there were two authorizations for the use of military force that i got to vote on. one of them was right after 9/11 when i voted to go after bin laden and al qaeda, and any other affiliate organization that would come out of al qaeda. that's one i voted for. that is why i believe the president has the authority based on that document to move forward and take the fight to isil. the other one was -- the other memorandum for use of force was permission to go into iraq, go after saddam hussein. i voted no on that. so i think it's important for the american people to remember why we're facing this problem. but it is what it is. there are some who say --

because there are three approaches here -- do nothing, do nothing. there are some who say do nothing, and my view is how can you possibly do nothing in the face of a group that has behead ed two innocent free lance journalists? how can you do nothing in the face of a group that sells 14-year-old girls as slaves? how can you do nothing in the face of a group, isil, who if they don't sell a 14-year-old as a slave, and they let her live, give her to a warrior as a reward? how do we sit back and do nothing, when we saw what they did to minorities, yazidis.

they said either you convert, flee, or we'll kill you. we can't sit back. they did it to christians, yazidis, they did it to turkmen. they have taken hostages. more than 40 turkish hostages. we don't even know the count and what nationalities. but we know their intent. they said -- and this is a quote from them -- that they're going to make sure that their thirst for american blood is quenched. this is a sick situation, and the people who say do nothing, i say to them, i understand your concern for unintended consequences, but don't count me in your camp because i can't do that. madam president, i am so

cautious when it comes to voting to go to war. i really know it is not -- it is not easy, you don't know every single thing that could happen, things could go wrong, things do go wrong but in my view, in this case if i were to sit back and say i'm too afraid, i'm too nervous, that is exactly the wrong signal to send a group of 'tis like that. i've never seen a group like this. so so one path is to do nothing. the other path is to start up the iraq war all over again. colleagues in this chamber pounding the table, troops on the ground, send our american troops back. no way. no way. i'm not going to send our troops back to the middle of a civil war. what we're going to do is another way.

president obama's strategy. which is really the moderate strategy here. it is to take our intelligence, our strategy, our air force assets, and make sure that those in the region who have the most at stake -- remember, isil has killed more muslims than anybody else, that they will be the boots on the ground. and we see that strategy is working in iraq. now, it's early, we don't know how it's all going to go, but we have started this strategy, we're able to tack back key pieces of territory -- take back key pieces of territory, a dam, very important -- and we seem to be able to coordinate well with the kurds and with the iraqi forces. now, clearly our president is right when he says this is about the whole world, and,

madam president, the whole world has to care about this. because this is about truly civilization. and every civilized person has to stand up against this. so what the president is doing with the secretary of state and our vice president is they're building coalitions and for the first time we see the arab nations coming forward. and so when i vote today for the continuing resolution, i want it to be clear to my constituents -- and they're not all going to agree with me, i know that -- that i am in favor of this strategy. i am in favor of training the moderate syrians to take the fight to isil on the ground. and i could tell you because i was in turkey in august, i have the privilege of meeting with the head of the one of the

moderate syrian organizations, and his comments were very strong that isil is absolutely going against the moderate syrians, and so it is very important that the moderate syrians are able to fight back against isil. and that's what we're voting for today, to allow the president to vet, train, and arm the moderate syrian opposition to the syrian president, and also in that regard, go after isil. now, i know everything is complicated in life, and nothing is the perfect solution. but if i could just say rhetorically, what is wrong is to do nothing. what is wrong is to go back into

the iraq war. what is right is to organize the world into a coalition, use the american assets because no one can do what we can do, but on the ground in the combat mission, utilize the regional forces. so i wanted to be clear today where i stand. three choices, and i choose the path that president obama has put together, and i think that the vote in the house was a very important vote yesterday because it showed that there's a majority, and republicans who could come together. following that, we were in the house this morning to hear the ukraine president, it was very touching, and very moving, and he laid out in the most beautiful language, i thought, because of its simplicity, the beauty of freedom and what

they're fighting for. and what i loved so much about it was the fact that his speech united everybody in the room. there wasn't one group that sat down and didn't stand up and say -- express their appreciation for what his countrymen are going through. so i just hope we can get behind this president in this fight against a terror group that is probably the best funded terror group ever in existence, the most barbaric i've ever seen, and i hope there will be a good vote today. i think that will send a very important message that we are sincere and will bring more people to our coalition. and, madam president, i said i was going to talk about an issue, i know you and i don't agree on, and i have total respect for your view and the people of your state are so lucky to have you fighting their

fight on energy, and the people in my state just have a disagreement. we're very fearful about climate change, and so we're also worried about health impacts of the tar sands. so i'm going to make a few comments about why i think we shouldn't disrupt the process that is happening now with keystone, there's a well-established process for considering projects like this. the purpose of the review process isn't just to waste time, it's to determine whether construction of keystone tar sands pipeline is, in fact, in the national interest. this is important. it's a major project. this the past, republicans have attempted to circumvent the review process for keystone by creating shortcuts in my opinion puts our families' health at risk. now, i want to show you a chart.

it shows you that tar sands oil is one of the filthiest kinds of oil on the planet. let's take a look at a place in texas where we see the tar sands oil being refined. this is port arthur, and we had visits from the port arthur community, and they said, please, we want to -- we want to bear witness to the fact that this is what it looks like when this tar sands is burned, and it hurts the health of our people. residents along the gulf coast are suffering from asthma, respiratory ailments, and cancer, and to get to the gulf coast, the tar sands will be transported through communities

and pass through key sources of drinking water. look what happened in west virginia when they couldn't drink the water there, and i would say to my colleague, senator sanders, i am going to speak about four or five more minutes at the most -- look at what happened when you can't access the drinking water. it is a nightmare. and we have experience with tar sand. people talk about the pipeline. the pipeline is one thing. it's what goes through it that's critical. and what's going to go through it, if it gets built, is the dirtiest, filthiest kind of oil we know. and i'll tell you, what happens in places like detroit and chicago, these are places that they store the by-product of the tar sands. they call it pet coke. pet coke. take a look at this. this is what it looks like. it looks like filthy, dirty

pollution, and, unfortunately, four thfor the people, that's wt is. and when there's wind blowing, we see black clouds containing concentrated heavy metals. people playing baseball have been forced off the fields to seek shelter from the dust. pet coke is dust, is a particulate matter. it is the most harmful. why? it is so small, the particles are. they lodge in your lungs, and they cause terribly severe asthma attacks. they aggravate bronchitis, other lug diseases and reduce the body's ability to fight infections. asthma affects one out of every 12 people. 26 million people -- i'm sure if i asked the poo people in the gallery how many had asthma, a lot would raise their hand. it's a all over.

we don't need more as mavment look, we have other ways to go. my state is approving it. other countries are proving it. we can move to clean energy, clean energy. we need to have a comprehensive human health impact on the tar sands that would go through that pipeline because, i will tell you, human health is important. if you can't breathe, you can't work. you know, it's as simple as that. you can't go to school and you can't get an education. if you can't drink the water, it is a serious problem. so while my republican friends come down here today and say, let's bypass all the studies, let's just move forward, that's a dangerous idea. it's a dangerous idea. i went to china less than a year ago -- about a year ago. i'll tell you, you cannot see one foot in front of the other in china. that's how bad the air is. because they don't care about the environment.

oh, we don't need rules, we don't need regulations, build, build, build, do it, do it, do it. if it's in the growrntiond get i-- ifit's in the ground, get it of the ground. we're doing great now on energy. yes, there are places to drill, there are places to get energy. but it's got to be clean, i.t. got t -- it's got to be good. lastly, i just want to say this: we've just come out of the hottest august ever known to humankind since we began keeping the records in the 1800's. climate change, it is so real. the only place they don't know it is here. you know, in the united states senate. they don't know. hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil. everything is great. but it's not great. and my colleague from vermont is brilliant on this point. and we know that keystone tar sands pipeline will create 17%

more carbon than domestic oil. this is a dirty, filthy oil. that's the equivalent of carbon pollution prosecute adding 5.8 -- from adding 5.8 million new cars on the road or 8 new coal power plants. it would be equivalent to add being 300,000 new cars on the road. we're going to go backward on climate. we can't afford to do it. and i know -- i know that people get impatient with decision making. but once in a while, you know, whether it is deciding how to take a fight to isil -- i'm glad the president didn't just say, do this, this, this. he thought about t he came up with an idea for a coalition to do it right. and when you're looking at

something like the keystone pipeline, which is going to vastly increase the importation of this filthy, dirty oil, we ought to take our time. very last point: i'm so proud to chair the environment and public works committee. four former republican e.p.a. administrators who served under presidents nixon, reagan, george h.w. bush and george w. bush spoke out on the need to address dangerous climate change. i mean, really. this is not about partisanship. 97% of scientists tell us climate change is real and caused by human activity. please, let's take our time when we're faced with a project that's going to set us back. the dirtiest, dirtiest oil. a picture is worth a thousand words. and this is not what i want to leave to our children. and thank you very much, madam president, and i yield the floor.

mr. sanders: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: let me begin by thanking senator boxer, not only for her remarks today but for her years and years of efforts and her chairmanship of the environmental committee and the extraordinarily good work she is doing in pointing out the dangers of climate change and toxicity in our environment. so, senator boxer, thank you very much. mrs. boxer: thank you, senator. mr. sanders: madam president, i rise today to discuss the dangerous and brutal extremist organization called isis, the terrorist army which in recent months has overrun vast swaths of iraq and syria and is a serious threat to the stability of the region and, in fact, to the international community. but before i do that, i also want to say that isis is not the

only major problem facing our country. it would be a real tragedy if, in our legitimate concerns about the dangers of isis, it would be a real tragedy if we continued to ignore the very serious problems that are taking place right here in the united states of america and impacting tens of millions of working families. madam president, there are crises here at home that we have ignored too long. real unemployment 25eud i today. youth unemployment is 20%. we can't ignore it. the minimum wage nationally is a starvation wage of $7.25 an hour. we cannot ignore that reality. we have to raise the minimum wage.

madam president, women earn 77 cents to the dollar that men earn. that is unfair. we cannot ignore the issue of pay equity. we've got to address that issue. senator boxer was just on the floor talking about the planetary crisis of global warming and the fact that virtually the entire scientific community is united in telling us that global warming is real; it is significantly caused by human activity; it is already causing devastating problems in our country and around the world. we cannot continue to ignore the crisis of global warming. madam president, last week many of us voted to overturn the disastrous citizens united supreme court decision that allows billionaires the ability

to spend unlimited sums of money to buy elections, which will benefit keand candidates who sut the rich and the powerful. my point, madam president, is that while we address the very serious problems in the middle east -- and these are very serious problems -- we cannot take our eye off the very serious problems facing tens of millions of americans. madam president, the issue involving isis, in my view, is enormously complex. just one example: in syria, the assad government is a dictatorship which has killed many thousands of its own people and has even used, we believe, chemical weapons

against its own citizens. and these are the good guys. decisions we make now in syria, in iraq, in the middle east must be made with great thoughtfulness. as you know, president obama has been attacked time and time again because he publicly stated a while ago that -- quote -- "we don't have a strategy yet" -- end of quote -- for dealing with isis. frankly, i applaud the president for trying to think through this incredibly complicated issue and not make rash decisions which would make a very bad and dangerous situation even worse and more dangerous. madam president, i remember back in 2002 -- i was then in the house of representatives -- when

george w. bush and dick cheney, they did have a strategy. they were tough. they were forceful. they acted boldly. they acted swiftly. but, unfortunately, what they did was dead wrong. in fact, it was the worst foreign policy blunder in the recent history of america and opened up the can of worms that we are trying to deal with today. so, frankly, i must say that i am not impressed with all of the tough talk. i want smart policy that will work, that will in fact lead to the destruction of isis, not sound bites that may be effective in a political campaign. let me just take a few moments, madam president, to lay out some

of my concerns. first, president obama is absolutely right, that this struggle will not be successful unless there is a strong international coalition. and lea let's be clear: isis is a terrorist threat not only to the united states but to britain, to france, to germany, to countries throughout europe, and in fact to nations throughout the world. more importantly, isis, which wants to establish a new caliphate, which includes many countries across a large geographical area, is a major threat in the region to countries like saudi arabia, kuwait, turkey, qatar, iran,

jordan, and other countries. madam president, i very much appreciate the hard work that president obama and secretary of state kerry have undertaken in trying to put together an international coalition that will effectively fight isis. we all know how difficult thattesthateffort is. but, at this point, it appears to me that the kind of coalition we need has yet to come togeth together. madam president, in my view, isis will never be defeated unless the countries in the region, the people in the region, the muslim world, including sunni and shiite nations stand up to this threat. i know how hard president obama

and secretary of state kerry are trying, but we are nowhere near where we need to be in terms of building this coalition at this moment. madam president, it may surprise many people to know that saudi arabia, a country run by an autocratic royal family, which is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, one of the wealthiest families in the world, is a country which was the world's fourth-largest defense spender in 2014. most people don't know that. according to a roi a reuters ar, saudi arabia beat britain to become the world's fourth-largest defense spending

in 2014. end of quote. in other words, saudi arabia is now spending more money on arms and the military than is the united kingdom. the article goes ton cite a report by london's international institute for strategic studies, which estimated saudi arabia was spending over $59 billion, a figure researchers said was extremely conservative, pushing it above britain at $57 billion or france at $52 billion. once again, saudi arabia is spending more on the military, on their military, than is britain or france. another article from bloomberg provides additional details on saudi arabia's military strength. and let me -- it cites that in

2011, the u.s. government signed an agreement with saudi arabia valued at $29 billion. madam president -- end of quotes from bloomberg. but according to military value arranges the royal saudi air force has more than 300 combat-capable aircraft including 81f-15-c and d fighter aircraft, f-15-s tornado fighters capable of ground attacks. dozens of c-130 transport aircrafts. this is what the saudi arabian air force has. madam president, let me also quote from an article in "forbes" which details the strength in numbers of many of the militaries in the mideast. the article notes, "countries in

the region have more than enough power to destroy the islamic state. turkey has an army of 400,000. iran as nearly as many in the army and paramilitaries. iraq has a nominal army of nearly 200,000 and some 300,000 police. saudi arabia has nearly 200,000 army, national guard and paramilitary personnel. syria's military, though degraded by war, numbers some 110,000 plus paramilitaries. jordan has 74,000 in the army. the kurdish pershmirgas number in the tens of thousands. all of them but iraq and kyrgyzstan have some air force ground attack capabilities. end of quote. furthermore, madam president, not only are countries in the region not stepping up in the

fight against isis but, believe it or not, several of these gulf states are empowering isis and al qaeda related groups through their financial contribution. a recent article in "the washington post" noted -- and i quote -- "kuwait, a u.s. ally whose aid to besieged syrian civilians has been surpassed only by the united states this year, is also the leading source of funding for al qaeda linked terrorists fighting in syria's civil war." now, think back not so long ago when the united states of america went to war to push saddam hussein's troops out of kuwait and restored the ruling family. and today we find that kuwait is the leading source of funding for al qaeda linked terrorists fighting in syria's civil war."

the article goes on to state that -- quote -- "the amount of money that has flowed from kuwaiti individuals and through organized charities to syrian rebel groups such as jalbat al nusra, totals in the hundreds of millions of dollars." and, madam president, kuwait is hardly alone in this effort. as treasury department undersecretary cohen recently stated -- quote -- "a number of fund-raisers operating in more permissive jurisdictions, particularly in kuwait and qatar, are soliciting donations to fund extremist insurgents, not to meet legitimate humanitarian needs." on and on it goes. madam president, why is all of this of enormous consequence? and the answer is pretty obvious. the worst thing that we can do

now is to allow isis to portray this struggle as east versus west, as muslim versus christian, as the middle east versus america. that is exactly what they want and that is exactly what we should not be giving them. in other words, this is not just a question whether young men and women in vermont or north dakota or in any other state of this country should be putting their lives on the line to defend the billionaire families of saudi arabia when saudi arabian troops are not in the struggle. this is not just whether the taxpayers of our country and not the billionaire ruling families of saudi arabia, kuwait, qatar and other countries should be

paying for this war. more importantly, it is an understanding that at the end of the day, this war will never be won by the united states alone but must be won by the people in the region. should we, as the most powerful military in the world, be of help to those people struggling against isis? and the answer is obviously yes. along with the international community, we should be strongly supportive of those countries in the region that are standing up to isis. and i personally believe that president obama is absolutely right in his efforts to judiciously use airstrikes which at this point have shown some

success. but at the end of the day, in my view, the united states of america cannot and should not lead this effort. we must be supportive of other countries in the region who are standing up and fighting against the isis terrorist organization, but this fight will have to be fought by countries in the region that are, in fact, most threatened by isis. they cannot stand aside, they cannot say, "hey, go for it, united states. thank you, american taxpayers. but we and saudi arabia, no, we don't want our young people involved in this war. we don't want our airplanes involved in the attacks. we don't want our billions to go into this war. we thank you, america. it's really nice of you to do

that. and, by the way, while you do that, we may play both sides of the issue and some families may actually fund terrorist organizations. but we really do appreciate your stepping up to the plate because we are not doing that." so, madam president, that is where we are today. it is a very complicated, difficult situation. and, again, i want to applaud president obama and secretary kerry for trying to work through this. but this is what i worry about i worry very much that supporting questionable groups in syria, so-called moderates, who are outnumbered and outgunned by both isis and the assad government, i worry very much that getting involved in that area could open the door to the united states once again being involved in a quagmire, being

involved in perpetual warfare. and what happens when the first american plane gets shot down or the first american soldier is captured? what happens then? already i am hearing from some of our republican colleagues who are already talking about the need for u.s. military boots on the ground. that's what they're talking about today. and that concerns me very, very much. so, madam president, i am going to vote against this continuing resolution because i have very real concerns about the united states getting deeply involved in a war that we should not be deeply involved in. at the end of the day, if this war against this horrendous

organization called isis is going to be won, it will have to be saudi arabia, it will have to be iraq, it will have to be the people of syria, it will have to be the people of that region saying, no, we are not going to accept an organization of terrorists like isis. and we should be there to help, as should the united kingdom, as should britain, as should france, as should germany. this has got to be an international coalition. but the last thing we need is the united states being the only or the major military power involved in this war. so, madam president, thank you very much. and with that, i yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call: mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: what is the order before the senate?

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of h.j. res. 124, which the clerk will report. the clerk: h.j. res. 124, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015, and for other purposes. mr. reid: madam president, i have an amendment to the joint resolution, and that has already been filed at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes amendment numbered 3851. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. all those in favor? no? not quite yet. majority leader. mr. reid: madam president, there is now a second-degree amendment which has also been filed at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3852 to

amendment number 3851. mr. reid: i have a motion to commit h.j. res. 124 with instructions which has been filed. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, moves to commit the bill to the committee on appropriations with instruction to report back forth with the following amendment numbered 3853. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have an amendment with instructions at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from mr. reid proposes amendment number 3854 to the instructions on the motion to commit. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes amendment numbered 3855 to

amendment number 3854. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on h.j. res. 124, a joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015, and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators as follows: reid of nevada, mikulski, feinstein, blumenthal, casey, walsh, hirono, booker, heitkamp, boxer, nelson, durban, white house, klobuchar, reed of rhode island, and levin. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline under rule 22 of the first-degree amendments to h.j.

res. 124 be 2:00 this afternoon and the filing deadline for second-degree amendments be 3:30 p.m. today. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the motion to table an amendment to the joint resolution provided under the previous order be in order during the time for debate, if made during the debate the vote on the motion to table occur immediately after all debate time has been used or yielded back on h.j. res. 124. further that if a budget point of order is made the motion to waive be considered made and the vote on the motion to waive occur following the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on h.j. res. 124. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum and ask the time be charged equally. i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, there will be up to four hours and 30 minutes equally divided between

the two leaders or their designees. mr. reid: i now ask that there be a quorum call initiated and the time charged equally on both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. mikulski: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, i ask that the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: madam president, i rise today to bring to the floor the house joint resolution 124. it is a continuing funding resolution for fiscal year 2015. madam president, let me explain where we are. we're in the closing hours before the senate takes a recess for the fall elections. in the middle of all that, on october 1, our fiscal year begins. if we don't have a bridge between now and december 11 or in that, we could face a government shutdown. we do not want a government shutdown. we want to make sure that we could provide funding and make sure that the government will not be shut down and that after the election we can return and

do due diligence and pass this in a more comprehensive way. our job as the appropriations committee and the congress is to put money in the federal checkbook each year to keep the federal government functioning. people -- the american people want their government to work as hard as they do. they want us to combat the threats against the united states of america. they want us to honor our commitments to our veterans. they want us to meet the compelling human needs of the american people. and they want us to have an opportunity ladder so that the american people can have a fair shot. what we do, we provide funding one year at a time. september 30 is our fiscal new year's eve. october 1 is the first day of the fiscal year. and if congress leaves before we pass the continuing resolution,

the government could shut down. we don't want another government shutdown, and i believe that there is support on both sides of the aisle not to do that. we know from last year that it was a terrible situation, putting thousands of federal workers were paid not to work. other personnel like f.b.i. agents had to work for i.o.u.'s, even using their own money to put gas in their car as they pursued the people who wanted to underminus. so we know we don't want a shutdown. what is our goal for this continuing resolution, but to do more than that. to do no harm to existing programs so that we can meet our compelling human needs, the national security needs of the united states of america, and

continue those public investments in innovation that makes america the exceptional nation and often the indispensable nation. it allows us also to lay the groundwork for an omnibus funding bill in december which would be a comprehensive funding bill, including all 12 appropriations. also, it gives the president the fiscal resources to protect the nation, to deal with isil, to make sure we support the needs of the ukraine and nato and also to work on a global basis to stamp out ebola. what i want to say to my colleagues who will look at this bill and scrutinize it, the continuing resolution is only from now to december 11. remember, it is a temporary stop-gap bill. also, it is at current levels of funding, so i want to say there are no new programs and there

are no -- there is no new funding. as i said, it meets these needs. i worked very closely with my house counterpart, the distinguished gentleman from kentucky, mr. hal rogers, the chair of the appropriation bill in the house. we worked very hard to do bills where we thought we could bring individual ones to the nation. well, it didn't work out that way because one party stopped me from bringing bills to the floor. i'm sorry we don't have that omnibus, but poison pill riders kept the senate from considering appropriation bills to the floor and also demanding 60-vote thresholds. that's a debate for another day. so where are we in this continuing resolution? as i said, it keeps government running through december 11, operating at the same amount of money as fiscal 2014 for the

same items and the same programs and the same restrictions. people might say haven't things changed since last year? there are some technical adjustments that we do, but we just simply are extending what we have. and again, what we do here is help the president, though, with what has changed, is three alarming threats that are facing us. number one, this growing threat of an organization called isil. people say are you talking about isis? no, i'm talking about isil because it goes beyond syria. the islamic state of iraq and levant. what we have in here is the authority for the president to use title 10 of the united states code. what that does is allow the president to train and equip with proper -- with proper

vetting moderate -- the moderates in the syria -- in the syrian forces, the syrian rebel forces. we also are supporting our president as he works with nato and tries to deal with the russian threat to the ukraine. and then there is another grim and ghoulish thing going around in africa, spreading, which is ebola. what we are doing here is providing him, the president, with the resources to help africa fight this problem and at the same time while we're fighting in africa, make sure that n.i.h. and f.d.a. and c.d.c. have the resources to fight the issues here. i could elaborate on this bill more. i want you to know that we have come -- the c.r. is bicameral. it's already passed the house. it's bipartisan. i've worked with my counterpart in the other party, senator

shelby, who really has worked in a very rigorous way here, bringing the principles of fiscal conservative and stability so we have this. but i know that there are other senators that want to debate, and i want them to have the opportunity to debate this bill, and i will have more to say when there are not others waiting. so, madam president, i want to yield the floor but before i do, i'm going to thank senator shelby for the cooperation of his staff. we haven't always agreed on every content or the content, every line item. he is a very staunch fiscal conservative, but out of it all, working with civility, due diligence, absolute candor, i think we have been able to bring a bill to the floor, and i hope my members -- i hope my colleagues in the senate will pass this bill. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: madam president,

thank you very much. this afternoon, i rise in support of this continuing resolution which is now before the united states senate. overall, it's a relatively clean bill that carries forward current levels for discretionary spending and avoids another government shutdown. it contains a minimal amount of what we call anomalies or deviations from a straight continuation of previous year funding. the anomalies it does contain are limited in duration and subject to relitigation when we return after the break. the bill is also consistent with a total level of discretionary spending enacted in the bipartisan budget act for the fiscal year 2014. but most significantly, madam president, this legislation will authorize assistance for elements of the syrian opposition to help confront the threat presented by the so-called islamic state of

iraq and the levant or isil. while i believe action against this menace is long overdue, it's unfortunate, i believe, that the action once again requires the involvement of our military and our resources. this authority for training and equipping appropriate moderate elements in syria is no panacea, and we should remember this. we should not expect, madam president, quick and easy progress in turning the tide against this new terrorist threat that has developed in the region while this administration withdrew and hoped for the best. history and our experience in the region tell us that we will not -- this will not be the last time congress will struggle with this issue. even if we can identify, train and equip a large number of fighters in a relatively short period of time, there will come a time when more will be

required to defeat this enemy. it will not be a short duration. it's unfortunate, i believe, that the president has chosen to ignore the fact, thereby avoiding an honest discussion with the american people. nevertheless, i believe today it's important that we give the moderates in the region a fighting chance. if proper training and equipment can do that, we can support it until it becomes clear that we must pursue other means to achieve our goal. when that time comes, i expect congress to have a full and open debate on that issue. but for now, congress, i believe, has a responsibility to carefully track what the administration is doing with any funds it reprograms for this assistance and how this fits into a broader regional strategy there. the language in this bill will ensure that the administration provides the information to the congress that we need to do so to do our job.

once again, support for this continuing resolution will achieve two very important goals. one, avoiding a government shutdown and maintaining spending levels currently in the law. very important. for these two reasons, i will be supporting the bill. during the break that we are about to go on, when we -- and when we return in november, senator mikulski, the chair of the appropriation committee, and i will be working very closely on an omnibus bill to put in place funding for the remainder of the fiscal year. it's my hope that we will be able to once again reach an agreement and complete the work of the committee before this congress adjourns. i believe that this is an achievable goal as long as both sides come to the table with reasonable expectations. we have done it before, and i expect that we can do it again. thank you, madam president.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: we have before us one of the most important duties of the united states senate and of the u.s. congress, and that is to decide whether or not we will be involved in war. i think it's inexcusable that the debate over whether we involve a country in war, another country's civil war, that this would be debated as part of a spending bill and not as part of an independent, free-standing bill. it was debated as a free-standing bill yesterday in the house and there was a free-standing amendment. it takes 15 extra minutes. one might wonder why the united states senate, the deliberative body of the world, the most deliberative body of the world, doesn't have 15 minutes to debate separately a question of war. it will be thrown into an

amendment or a bill over spending, and instead of having a debate over war, we will have a debate over spending. i think this is a sad day for the united states senate. it goes against our history. it goes against the history of the country, and therefore i have asked that the amendment that i will set before the senate will separate the votes so we will have a debate over war and then we will have a debate over spending. i have an amendment at the desk that would cue up the two separate votes on this legislation and allow the senate to vote on the inclusion of the serial language as a separate question. i therefore ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to call up my amendment numbered 3856. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. mikulski: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: i want to acknowledge the -- first of all, that the gentleman from kentucky's long-standing views

on foreign policy and also on this process. what i want to just say is that, number one, the senate bill and the authorization in title 10, which we have here, takes us only to december 11. so this is temporary. what we hope is that the appropriate committees have additional legislation that they're working on that we can really look at other matters like greater authorization on the war that the greater refinement of the title 10. so i acknowledge that there is much to be debated. i say to my colleague from kentucky we have allowed four and a half hours of debate. quite frankly, if he has views on it, i look forward to hearing those views. so my objection is not meant to

be pugnacious at all, but in the way that the leadership has agreed to move this bill, that's where we stand. but i look forward to hearing the debate. mr. paul: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: if there is a theme that connects the dots in the middle east, it is that chaos breeds terrorism. what much of the foreign policy elite fail to grasp, though, is that intervention to topple secular dictators has been the prime source of the chaos. from hussein to assad to qadhafi, it's the same history. intervention topless the secular dictator. chaos ensues, and radical jihadists emerge. the pattern has been repeated time and time again, and yet what we have here is a failure to understand, a failure to reflect on the outcome of our

involvement in arab civil wars. they say nature abhors a vacuum. radical jihadists have again and again filled the chaotic vacuum of the middle east. secular dictators, despots who frankly do terrorize their own people, are replaced by radical jihadists who seek terror not only at home but abroad. intervention when both choices are bad is a mistake. intervention when both sides are evil is a mistake. intervention that destabilizes the middle east is a mistake. and yet, here we are again, wading into a civil war. i warned a year ago that involving us in syria's civil war was a mistake, that the inescapable irony is that someday the arms we supply would

be used against us or israel. that day's now. isis has grabbed up from the u.s., from the saudis, from the qataris weapons by the truckload, and we are now forced to fight against our own weapons, and this body wants to throw more weapons into the mix. now, even those of us who have been reluctant to get involved in middle eastern wars feel now that american interests are threatened, that our consulate, that our embassy is threatened, and we feel that if isis is left to its own devices, that maybe they will fulfill what they have boasted, an attack on our homeland. so yes, we must now defend ourselves from these barbarous jihadists, but let's not compound the problem by arming feckless rebels in syria who seem to be merely a pit stop for weapons that are really on their

way to isis. remember clearly that the president and his republican allies have been clamoring for over a year for air strikes against assad. assad was our enemy last year. this year, he's our friend. had all those airstrikes occurred last year in syria, today isis might be in damascus. realize the consequences of involving ourselves in these complicated thousand-year long civil wars leads to unintended consequences. had we bombed assad last year isis might be more of a threat this year. isis might be in did a mass -- damascus had we bombed assad last year. intervention is not always the

answer and often leads to unintended consequences. but some will argue no, no, it's not intervention that led to this chaos. we didn't have enough intervention. they say if we'd only given the rebels more arms, isis wouldn't be as strong now. the only problem is the facts argue otherwise. we did give arms and assistance to the rebels through secret c.i.a. operations, through our allies, through our erstwhile allies. we gave 600 tons -- let me repeat that. we gave 600 tons of weapons to the syrian rebels in 2013 alone. 600 tops of weapons and they cry out and say we haven't done enough. perhaps we're giving them to people who don't want to fight. perhaps the fighters for isis aren't taking the weapons we give to so-called moderate weapons. it is a mistake to send more arms to the syrians. according to u.n. records,

turkey alone in the space of a four-month period sent 47 tons in addition to the 600 tons of weapons. they sent 29 tons in one month. but there are rumors that the turks are not quite that discriminating, that many of these weapons either went directly or indirectly to the very radical jihadists that are now threatening us. if you want to know are there any weapons over there, are there enough weapons, is it a lack of weapons that causes the moderate syrian rebels to be not very good at fighting? well, there are videos online of the free syrian army, the army that our government wants to give more arms to. we see them with m-8 helicopters, we see them with shoulder launch missiles. and yet we see them lose battle after battle. we see american-made tow, antitank weapons in the hands of a so-called moderate group.

"the wall street journal" reported saudi arabia has been providing weapons like this to the rebels. it also detailed millions of dollars in direct u.s. aid to the rebels. we have not been sitting around doing nothing. 600 tons of weapons have already been given to the syrian rebels. what happened during the period of time we gave 600 tons of weapons to the moderate rebels in syria? isis grew stronger. they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. we gave 600 tons of weapons to the rebels and they got weaker and weaker, and isis grew stronger. perhaps by throwing all of these weapons into the civil war, we actually degraded assad's ability to counter them. so perhaps assad might well have taken care of the radical jihadists, and he can't because of the weapons. perhaps we created a safe haven. the other night the president

said in his speech, he said that it will be a policy of his administration to leave no safe haven for anyone who threatens america. sounds good except for the last three years we've been creating a safe haven for isis. isis has grown stronger because we've been arming the resistance that isis is part of. a "new york times" reports that qatar has used a shadowy arms network to move shoulder-fired missiles into the rebels. according to gulf news, saudi arabia has also partnered with pakistan to provide a pakistan version of a chinese shoulder-launched missiles. doesn't sound like a dearth of weapons. it sounds like an abundance of weapons. iraqi officials have accused saudi arabia and qatar of also funding and arming isis at the same time. kuwaitis, a sunni majority

country bordering iraq, funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to a wide range of opposition forces throughout iraq and syria according to brookings institute. according to "the new york times," over a year ago the c.i.a. began training syrian rebels in nearby jordan, thousands of them delivering arms and ammunition. over this period of time, what has happened? isis has grown stronger, perhaps sending more weapons into the syrian civil war is not working. "the new york times" also reports huge arms and financial transfers from qatar to the syrian rebels beginning as early as three years ago. no one really knows where all this is going to end up, where these arms are going to wind up. james terrorism center noted the transfer of qatari weapons has the same practical effect of transferring the weapons to al-nusra, a violent jihadist group. let me repeat that.

janes defense analyst says if you give the weapons to the moderate, so-called moderate rebels, it's the same as giving it to al-nusra. "the new york times" further detailed that even sudan has been sending antitank missiles and other arms to syria. hard to argue there's not enough weapons floating around over there. so the idea of these rebels having been armed really is ludicrous. it's also ludicrous to believe that we know where all the money and all the arms and all the ammunition will wind up. or who will wind up benefiting from these arms. why? because we don't even know who all these groups are. even if we think we do, the loyalties shift on a daily basis. the groups have become amorphous. not to mention that guess what? some of these people don't tell the truth. finally moderates have been

found to sell their weapons. in fact, there is accusations by the family of steve sotloff, who was recently killed by the barbarians, there's accusations he was sold by the moderate rebels to the jihadists. the carnegie endowment says there are no neat, clean secular rebel groups. they don't exist. they reiterate that this is a very dirty war with no clear good guys on either side. the german ambassador to the u.s. has acknowledged this. the germans are arming the kurds. they're not sending anything into syria. it's a mess, and they're concerned that the weapons they send into syria will wind up in the wrong hands. many former officials are very forthright with their criticism. according to the former ambassador to iraq and syria, our ambassador, he says we need to do everything we can to figure out who the non-isis

opposition is, because, frankly, we don't have a clue. think about this. we are voting, or obscuring the vote in a spending bill to send $500 million worth of arms to syria, to people who we say are the vetted moderate syrian rebels. well, guess what? one of the men with the most knowledge on the ground of this who has been our intar to iraq and -- our ambassador to iraq and syria says we don't have a clue who the moderates are and who the jihadists are. and even if they tell you they are the moderates -- and we love thomas jefferson. give us a shoulder-fired missile. we love thomas jefferson. can you trust these people? the rebels have been all over the map. there are said to be 1,500 different groups. it is chaos over there. we will be sending arms into chaos. the largest coalition is the free syrian army.

i say largest coalition. really all the islamic fronts are bigger than the free syrian army but the biggest we give to is the free syrian army who currently has three different people who claim to lead the free syrian army. we don't even know who is in charge of the free syrian army. they voted out one guy, in another guy and didn't know they were voting. there are estimates that half of the free syrian army has defected many of them to al-nusra and to al qaeda and to isis. these are the people your representatives are going to vote to send arms to. half of them have defected. half of them are now fighting with the jihadists. we've proven time and again that we don't know how to vet these leaders. two groups that were initially provided u.s. aid and help last year are good examples. a top official of arar al sham,

one of the largest rebel groups at the time announced publicly that he now considers himself to be allied with al qaeda. just yesterday our ambassador, our most recent ambassador to syria, robert ford, said that the moderate forces have and will tactically ally with al qaeda. with al qaeda-linked news are -- nusra. listen carefully. your representatives are sending $500 million to people who will tactically ally with al qaeda. so we asked them -- i asked secretary kerry yesterday, i said where do you get the authority to wage this war? and he says from 2001. some of the people fighting weren't born in 2001. many of the people who voted in 2001 are no longer living. we voted to go to war in afghanistan, and i supported going into that war because we were attacked and we had to do something about it. but the thing is that vote had

nothing to do with this. absolutely nothing to do with this. you are a dishonest person if you say otherwise. that sounds pretty mean spirited. here and again, you are intellectually dishonest if you argue that something passed in 2001 to do with the people who attacked us in 9/11 has anything to do with sending arms into syria. it's intellectually dishonest, and to say otherwise you are intellectually dishonest person. i said it frankly yesterday. mr. president, what you're doing is illegal and unconstitutional. the response from secretary kerry was, we have article 2 authority to do whatever we want. it's absolutely incorrect. we give power to the commander in chief to execute the war, but we were explicit that the wars were to be initiated by congress. there was debate over this.

thomas jefferson reports of his opinion about how this is the legislative function. there are letters in the "federalist papers" from madison talking about how they precisely took this power from the executive and gave it to the legislative body. we hear, we'll do something in december. what happens between now and december? an election. the people of this body are petrified not of isis, but of the american voter. they're afraid to come forward and vote on war now. we should have a full-throated discussion of going to war. we shouldn't put it off until december. secretary kerry was asked will there be sunni allies in this war on the ground fighting to overturn isis, the ones precisely maybe who have been funding it is saudi arabia who should be the first troops in line receiving the first volley, should not be u.s. jihads. they should be saudi arabians,

qataris, kuwaitis and iraqis but they shouldn't be americans. according to the washington freebie con some of the -- free beacon some of the people we continue to supply arms to aren't so excited about israel. surprise. one of them remarked this. he said that their goal is to topple assad. but when they're done with assad, their goal is the return of all syrian land occupied by israel. so mark my words, i said the great irony here would be that someday our dollars and our weapons would be used against us and israel. they will be. we will be fighting, if we get over there with troops on the ground, against arms we supplied to feckless moderate rebels that were immediately snatched and taken by isis, we'll be fighting our own weapons. mark my words, if these people get a chance they'll attack israel next. these are among the many

problems that i have in arming the syrian opposition. who are we really arming? what will be the result? where will the arms end up? there are too many here thability answers -- that believe the answers to these questions when all indicators are otherwise, or maybe they continue to believe something that is frankly not provable and not true. i'm a skeptic of this administration's policies, but this is a bipartisan problem. this is not a republican or democrat problem. this is a bipartisan problem. i do share the administration's belief that the radical jihadists in this region are a threat to america. but they need to think through how we got here. radical jihad has run amok in the middle east because intersection has toppled secular dictators. there weren't radical jihadists doing much of anything in libya

until qadhafi was gone. he kept them in check. was qadhafi a great humanitarian? no. he was an awful despot, but his terror was on his own people, not the united states. the people in charge -- if you can say anybody is in charge in libya, their terror is to the exported. some of them are fighting in syria. where i differ with this administration is whether to arm the same side as the jihadists. we will be in a war on the same side as the jihadists. they say oh, no, we can make it a three-way war. war is very confusing, but can you imagine we're going to be in the middle of a three-way war where many analysts say when you're in the trenches, when the so-called moderates that your money is going to buy arms for, when they are in the trenches, they are side by side with al-nusra, they are side by side with al qaeda. do you want your money and your arms being sent to support troops that are fighting alongside al qaeda?

here's the great irony of this. the use of force resolution that they predicate this whole thing on from 2001 says that we can fight terrorism. they have interpreted that to be al qaeda and associated forces. well, guess what? the moderate rebels are fighting with al qaeda. we can use the 2001 use of authorization of force as secretary kerry understands it, we could use that authorization of force to attack the same people we're giving the weapons to. think about the insanity of this. we're giving weapons to people fighting in trenches with al qaeda, and if you interpret the use of force resolution as secretary kerry does, we could actually attack under that formulation the very people we're giving the weapons to. it's absurd. we shouldn't be fighting alongside jihadists. this administration and its allies have been really on both

sides of this civil war. it's messy, it's unclear. there are bad people on both sides. we need to stay the heck out of their civil war. i have opposed them for reasons that i think are becoming clear and that i think that the american people will understand. it's not that i'm against all intervention. i do see isis as a problem. isis is now a threat to us, but i see our previous policy as having made it worse. i supported the decision to go into afghanistan after 9/11. there are valid reasons for war. they should be few and far between. they should be very importantly debated and not shuffled into a 2,000-page bill, not shuffled under the rug. when we go to the vote, it's the most important vote that any senator will ever take. many on the other side have been

vetted on this issue. when there were republicans in office, there were loud voices on the other side. i see an empty chamber. there will be no voices against war because this is a democrat president's war. that is something the hypocrisy of that should resound in this nearly empty chamber. is that where are the voices on the other side who were so hard on george bush, who actually by the way actually did come to congress and we voted on an authorization of force, agree or disagree, we did the right thing. but now we're going to fight the war for three or four months, see how it's going, see how the election goes, and then we're going to come back and maybe we'll talk about the use of authorization of force, maybe we'll have amendments. colin powell wrote in his autobiography, he said war should be the politics of last resort, and when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support. i think that's well thought out, i think he had it right.

america should only go to war to win. we shouldn't go to war sort of meandering our way to a spending bill. war should only occur when america's attacked, when it's threatened or when our american interests are threatened or attacked. i've spent about a year and i will probably spend a couple more years trying to explain to the american people why secretary clinton made terrible decisions in benghazi not defending the consulate. not the night of, not the day after, not the talking points. the six months in advance when security was requested. and this is one of the reason it persuades me that as reluctant as i am to be involved in middle eastern wars, that we have to do something about it. we have to either leave iraq or we have to protect our embassy, protect our consulate. so i think there are valid reasons for being involved, and i think we are doing the right thing but just in the wrong way. if you want to have less partisan sniping about war, if you want to unify the country,

think back to december 8, 1941. f.d.r. came before a joint session of congress and he said this day will live in infamy, and he united the country. people who had previously been opposed to war came forward and said we can't stand this attack, we will respond, we will be at war with japan. he didn't wait around four months. he didn't wait and say hmmm, let's wait until the midterm elections and then we'll come back maybe in the lame duck if there is a lame duck and maybe we'll discuss whether or not the japanese should be responded to. war is a serious business, but we make it less serious by making it political, hiding and tucking war around, tucking war away into a spending bill, we make it less serious. we don't unify the public. and then as isis grows stronger or they are not quelled by sending arms to feckless allies in syria, then what happens?

then they come back again and again. there is already the drumbeat, there is already those in both parties who insist that we must have american g.i.'s on the ground. i'm not sending any american soldiers. i'm not sending your son, your daughter or mine over to the middle of that chaos. the people who live there need to stand up and fight. the kurds are fighting. it seems to me the only people who are really capable are willing to fight for their own land. the iraqis need to step up and fight. it's their country. they are not going to fight for it. i don't think we need to be in the middle of their fight. am i willing to provide air support, am i willing to provide intelligence and drones and everything we can to help them? yes, we have been helping them for ten years. we have a lot invested. so i'm not for giving up, but it is their war and they need to fight. i expect the sawdz to fight and the -- the saudis to fight and the kuwaitis. even our own military says there is no solution here that is good

for the syrian people and the best path forward is a political solution. is someone going to ultimately surrender? is one side going to wipe out the other? part of the solution here is that civilized islam needs to crush radical islam. civilized islam needs to say to radical islam this does not represent our religion. that the beheading of civilians, that rape and killing women does not represent islam. the voices aren't loud enough. i want to see civilized islam on the front page of the newspaper, international tv saying what they will do to wipe out radical islam. i want to see them on the front lines fighting. i don't want to see them sipping tea or in the discotheque in cairo. i want to see them on the front lines fighting a war to show the americans, to show the world that there is a form of civilized islam that doesn't believe in this barbarity.

the u.s. should not fight a war to save face. i won't fight to send our young men and women to sacrifice life and limb for stalemate. i won't vote to send our nation's best and brightest to fight for anything less than victory. when american interests are at stake, it is incumbent upon those advocating for military action to convince congress and the american people of that threat. too often, the debate begins and ends with a conclusion. they said well, our national interest is at stake. that's the conclusion. the debate is, is the national interest at stake? is what we're going to do work? you would think we would debate for days and this chamber would be full. before i came here, i imagine that when war was discussed, everybody would be at their desk and there would be this discussion hour on end on whether or not we would go to war. now it seems to be some sort of

geopolitical chess game or checkers. oh, let's throw some money, what's $500 million, which is yet another problem around here. but when we go to war, the burden of proof lies with those who wish to engage in war. they must convince the american people and convince congress. instead of being on television, the president should have been before a joint session of congress. and i would have voted to authorize force, but it needs to be done according to the constitution. not only is it constitutional, there is a pragmatic or a practical reason why the president should have come to us. he galvanizes people. it brings people together. both sides vote for the war, and it's a war of the american people, not a war of one man. this war will be a war until there is a vote, if there ever is one, this is one man's war. our founding fathers would be offended, would be appalled to know that one man can create a war. we -- we were very fearful of

that. that's why we came from europe with constant war, where brothers fought cousins and fathers fought sons, where everybody was related, all the world was related, and they fought continuously. we didn't want a king. we wanted the people, the congress to determine when we went to war. this president was largely elected on that concept. i didn't vote for the president, but i did admire when he ran first for office, he said that no president should unilaterally take a country to war without the authority of congress. that's what president obama said. he was running against the wars of the previous administration, and people voted for him for that very reason, and he became part of the problem. he now does everything that he criticized. it's what the american people despise about politics. and when they say we have a 10% approval rate republican or democrat, it's because of this hypocrisy, because we don't obey the law, because we don't engage

in important debate and because we stop war and shuffle war into a spending bill. bashar assad is clearly not an american ally. he's an evil dictator. but the question is will his ouster encourage stability or will it make the middle east less stable? with his ouster, will that mean isis replaces him? what are the odds that the moderate rebels that have lost every battle they have ever engaged in will be the rulers in damascus? if we succeed in degrading assad where someone can get to him, it will be isis. we will have isis in charge in syria. it will be worse. we have to ask are these islamic rebels our allies? i'm reminded of the story of zarki el-zakam.

he lived in syria where they speak aramaic. it's one of the few remaining villages where they speak the language that jesus spoke. as the marauding islamic rebels came into town, on the same side of the war -- who knows who funded them or where they got the arms, but the islamic rebels as they came and marauded into town, zarki el-zakam stood up. he's a christian. most of the christians side with assad. he speaks aramaic. he stands up and he says i am a christian, and if you must kill me, do it. and these were his last words. i don't know who these rebels were, but they're fighting on the same side that we're arming, and we don't know who they are. our former ambassador to iraq and syria says we have no clue who the non-isis rebels are. so for all we know, the rebels

that killed zarki el-zakam could well be part of the so-called vetted opposition. when they win, will they defend american interests? will they recognize israel? do you want to have a good question? why don't we ask the vetted, moderate syrians how many will recognize israel. i'm guessing it's going to be a big goose egg. there is not one of those jihadists, not one of those so-called moderate rebels that will recognize israel, and if they win, they will attack israel next. several of the leaders have already said they would. will they acknowledge israel's right to exist? will they impose shiria law. do you know what's in that law? the death penalty for interfaith law, death penalty for aversion, death penalty for blasphemy. in pakistan right now, a country that wls of your dollars flow to, that a vast majority of this

senate loves and will send billions more of your dollars if they can get it from you, in pakistan, asia bibi sits on death row. she is a christian. do you know what her crime was? they say blasphemy, but she went to drink from a well and the well was owned by muslims. as she began to draw water from the well, they hurled insults and then they began to hurl stones. they began beating her to death with sticks. the police came and she said thank god. and they arrested her and put her in jail because the muslims said that she was saying something about their religion. hearsay, life in prison, death. these are the countries that you're sending money to. and the other side up here about argue well, we're only saying it to moderates in pakistan. otherwise, the radicals would take over. the moderates are the ones with asia bibi on death row. i wouldn't send a penny to these people. why would we send money to people who hate us.

maybe we could have a rule -- no money to countries that hate us. will these rebels that we're going to vote to give money to, will they tolerate christians or will they pillage and destroy ancient villages? the president and his administration haven't provided good answers because they don't exist. as the former ambassador said, they don't have a clue. shooting first and aiming later, it's not worked for us in the past. the recent history of the middle east has not been a good one. our previous decisions have given results that we should be quite wary of trying to do the same again. i would like president obama to reread the speeches of candidate obama. there's a great disagreement between the two and the candidate obama really seemed to be someone who was going to protect the right of