Natural Resources Management Act--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to continue talking about a subject that I talked about yesterday, and that is our situation in the Middle East--specifically, but not exclusively, with respect to Syria.

To focus my thoughts, I want to begin talking about S. 1, which we are considering and will be considering shortly. We have been considering the procedural matters.

S. 1 is the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act. Its sponsor is the senior Senator from the Presiding Officer's State, Senator Rubio. He has done an extraordinary job with this bill. We both know Senator Rubio. He is whip-smart, as I said yesterday. Speaking for me, he has forgotten more foreign policy than I will ever know.

This is a good bill. I will just mention a couple of things. Senator Risch has worked very hard on it as well. He is, of course, the chairman of our Foreign Relations Committee.

There is a lot to like in S. 1. I just made a list walking over here. No. 1, S. 1 is going to reaffirm our commitment to protecting Israel. Israel is easily our most important ally in the Middle East and is easily our most important friend in the Middle East. On some days, I think they are easily our only friend in the world, and we should support our friends. Let me say that again. We have to support our friends, and Israel is a friend. This bill will support Israel, and I like that. So I am going to vote for the bill.

No. 2, Senator Rubio's bill strengthens our bond with Jordan, another key ally. Jordan is a key ally in fighting terrorism and the humanitarian catastrophe caused by Assad's butchering of his own people in Syria, along with the help of Vladimir Putin in Russia.

No. 3, Senator Rubio's bill will combat a radical economic welfare campaign against Israel. That is very important. You either support Israel or you don't. It is time for everybody to stand up and be counted. I do.

Finally, Senator Rubio's bill creates new sanctions on the Government of Syria. I am not sure they are going to be enough, but it is a start. It targets those who have been laundering money to help the Assad regime.

I support all of these things. I support S. 1, sponsored by Senator Rubio. I thank him, Senator Risch, and everybody who has worked so hard on S. 1.

There is a way to make S. I have heard some of my colleagues correctly say that S. 1 is about standing with our allies, and that is important. Certainly, America's foreign policy is centered, in part, around interests but not exclusively around interests. Values are important too. If you have a foreign policy just based on your nation's interests, all you do is go from deal to deal to deal, and everything becomes expendable, depending on what day it is.

America's foreign policy has never been based exclusively on interests. I am not saying interests aren't involved, but it has been based on values. One of our values in America is that we stand with our allies. That is what S. 1 does. It stands with our friend Israel. It stands against our enemy Assad. It stands with Jordan.

I will tell you who it doesn't stand with--the Syrian Kurds. The Kurdish people are one of the largest--if not the largest--minorities in the world that is stateless. There are Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. They don't have a caliphate. They don't have a country. They are occupying northeast Syria right now, and I believe they want peace. I believe--some of my colleagues disagree with me--that they believe in democracy, and that they, in large part, embrace Western values.

I understand that is debatable, but I will tell you one thing that is not debatable. We would not have defeated ISIS without the help of the Syrian Kurds. That is just an actual fact. You can write that one down and take it home to Mama.

Before somebody starts saying, well, we haven't defeated ISIS, I say: You never defeat the terrorist group. They will just change their names. Has every jihadist in the world been eliminated in the Middle East? No. Duh. We will never eliminate all of them, but that doesn't mean the President was wrong to say a couple of years ago, when he became President: I don't know how many jihadists are calling themselves members of ISIS.

There were 100,000. There sure aren't 100,000 today. I know they had a capital in Raqqa. I know they had a caliphate in the Middle East. I know there were at least 100,000 of them, but there aren't 100,000 of them now.

We wouldn't have beaten back ISIS without the help of the Syrian Kurds.

The President has announced that he is going to pull American troops out of Syria, and he is talking about pulling American troops out of Afghanistan. I know there is a lot of debate about that. To be truthful, I don't know who is right and who is wrong.

Senator McConnell has a vote on his amendment to S. 1 today. I am not sure I am going to vote for it. It is not because I think he is wrong, but it is because I am not sure he is right. I am not sure who is right. The President says one thing, his intelligence community says another, and Members of the Senate say a multitude of things, as we always do.

We have to get this one right. There is a lot of talk, not by Senators, but I have seen the opinions in the press. They say that this is all just a bunch of cynical politics, that the whole purpose of S. 1--and I don't believe it, but I have heard people say it, and I guess I can see their point--is about making somebody take a tough vote; that is all it is about.

Well, I don't care about tough votes or easy votes or the politics of this. I think what the American people are looking at is that we have been in Syria, and we have been in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have spent trillions of dollars. Why are we there? Have we accomplished why we are there? And if not, when are we going to accomplish it? And, by the way, how much more will it cost?

I think the President makes a very valid point about nation-building and about mission creep. I have listened to this debate, and I honestly don't know, and I don't think the American people know. I know the intelligence community may be split, but we in the Senate, all of us--I have met every Member of the Senate--all have brains above a single cell organism. We can have experts come over here and brief us and tell us the pros and the cons. We haven't done that, and that really bothers me.

I am not here to criticize Turkey or President Erdogan. I am not saying I agree with everything President Erdogan does or everything Turkey does, but Turkey is a NATO ally, and that means a lot to us. Turkey is supposed to be a friend. I wish we could have better relationships with Turkey. I would like to have a trade deal with Turkey, but I also want to protect our friends the Syrian Kurds.

It is no secret and it is no understatement to say that President Erdogan, his administration, and Turkey have had some pretty harsh things to say about the Syrian Kurds and about some of the things that Turkey might do if we pull out and the Syrian Kurds are left exposed. I know that puts us in a very difficult situation. It puts the Senate in a very difficult situation. It puts the President in a very difficult situation. Well, that is why we are here.

The purpose of this amendment, which I hope the Senate will support-- I hope I will be allowed to bring it up--is not to make anybody take a tough vote or an easy vote. It is not about the 2020 elections. It is not about trying to get back at the House. It is about trying to allow us to focus and, hopefully, resolve a problem coming down the pike, like thunder on a summer night, that we are going to have to face: What are we going to do if we pull out or minimize our presence in Syria, and our friends the Turks attack our friends the Syrian Kurds? What are we going to do?

I don't want to see us wait until that happens and have us all running around like a bunch of sprayed roaches trying to figure it out. We need to deal with it now. We don't need to deal with it on the politics, and we don't need to deal with it in terms of who we are trying to make take a tough vote.

I would like to see the Senate have a briefing. I would like to bring experts over to talk to us--those who believe we ought to remain in Syria, those who believe we ought to leave. While we are at it, let's do the same thing about Afghanistan.

Then let's talk to the American people straight up: Here is what we have decided, and here is why. Here is the game plan. Here is when it is going to be completed, and here is what it is going to cost.

I am going to go back to where I started. I am not naive, nor is the Presiding Officer. A country's foreign policy always has involved with it interests--your own interests--but it is not interests alone. There has to be a moral component to a nation's foreign policy, and our moral principle is that we stand by our friends.

I am glad we are standing by Israel. I am going to vote for the bill. I am not sure I am going to vote for the amendment this afternoon, but I am going to vote for the bill. I just wish we would stand by our friends the Syrian Kurds.

Thank you.

I yield to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source