"I am very pleased that the president has listened to the suggestion we and many others have made to bring this authorization to Congress. At this point in our country's history, this is absolutely the right decision, and I look forward to seeing what the administration brings forward and to a vigorous debate on this important authorization. Further, now that the president has decided to use force and seek authorization, it is imperative that he immediately begins using every ounce of his energy to make his case to the American people."
U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn.
"Under our Constitution the president should seek authorization from Congress before his proposed military action. I'm concerned about the consequences of a military strike in Syria, and what happens with step two, three and four after that. There may be a variety of ways, some military and some not, to show our disgust with the Syrian government's apparent use of chemical weapons against its own people. Since the president's proposed action appears not to be for the purpose of overthrowing the Assad government, during the congressional debate I will assess whether a military strike would do more harm than good by setting off a chain of consequences that could involve American fighting men and women in another long-term Middle Eastern conflict."
U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
"I believe the evidence is clear that the president's redline was crossed long ago, and the United States must respond. However, while I appreciate the president seeking congressional approval, he should have already presented Congress with a strategy and objectives for military action, including what impact this will have on our allies and enemies alike in the region. Leadership is about reacting to a crisis, and quickly making the hard and tough decisions. The president should have demanded Congress return immediately and debate this most serious issue."
U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.