Keep Student Loans Affordable Act of 2013--Motion to Proceed--Continued
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, last week I led a bicameral delegation that visited the Syrian border with Turkey. What we witnessed on the ground highlighted the critical nature of events and the desperate need for American leadership and eventually a negotiated resolution to the Syrian civil war.
This civil war is now in its 29th month. More than 100,000 people have been killed, including at least 36,000 civilians, and 1.7 million people have been forced from their homes, fleeing for their lives as the chaos escalates. To describe this conflict as anything less than a regional disaster is to ignore the magnitude of its impact.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the violence has pushed over 400,000 refugees to Turkey, almost 500,000 refugees to Jordan, 160,000 to Iraq, 587,000 to Lebanon, and 88,000 refugees to Egypt--a stunning development. The people of Turkey and Jordan, including Prime Minister Erdogan and King Abdallah, should be specifically applauded for their generous support of these refugees.
I also point out there are now secure locations inside Syria where refugees can be housed within their own country.
There is noted international support to prevent the spillover of violence. At the request of the Turkish Government and in fulfillment of our NATO obligations, the U.S. Patriot missile batteries at Gaziantep are one example of efforts to deter the threat of ballistic missiles beyond the Syrian border. Additionally, the Dutch and Germans have deployed batteries to Turkey.
American troops are working diligently to strengthen our regional security and protect innocent lives in harm's way. Our delegation was able to meet and visit with troops in Gaziantep last week. These highly educated and motivated men and women are proudly serving American interests, and I commend them for their dedication to a critical mission.
Turkey must have the support it needs to defend its population and territory from the raging civil war next door. Without robust cooperation among NATO allies, the stability of this entire region is at risk.
During our visit to a refugee camp in the town of Killis near the Syrian-Turkish border, roughly 40 miles from Gaziantep, we saw firsthand the dire situation facing the countries that have accepted Syrian refugees and the challenges these individuals now face. At the refugee camp, our delegation met with a women's group, children in school, and with the elected camp council. Our conversations were insightful--and heartbreaking. Over and over, the same question emerged: Why aren't the Americans helping to bring down Asad? Why are the nations of the world allowing the slaughter of innocent people to continue? Is there no outrage over the displacement of more than 1.5 million people from their homes?
Frankly, these questions are very difficult to answer.
So far, the Obama administration has been reluctant to help in contrast to the aggressive military and humanitarian aid provided by some of our NATO allies such as Britain, France, and Turkey. I wish to emphasize: No one is asking for American boots on the ground. No one is asking President Obama to put troops in Syria. America is understandably war-weary from Iraq and Afghanistan, but our hesitation to provide adequate arms to the anti-Asad rebels is hard to justify, especially when multiple red lines have been crossed.
Those who share President Obama's reluctance to assist opposition forces point to the uncertainty surrounding those who might assume control of Syria if the rebels win. They ask: Which faction will emerge? The more moderate rebels under the Free Syrian Army or a radical Islamist band of opposition rebels?
While caution is definitely called for in this dangerous and volatile situation, our reluctance to act reminds me of Shakespeare's Hamlet who once observed that men ``rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of.''
I would remind Members--and the administration--that Hamlet's hand wringing and indecision ultimately led to his demise. In bowing to a fear of uncertainty and choosing disengagement, the implication is essentially that the world is somehow better off with a known quantity--even a known quantity in the person of Bashar al-Asad. I disagree.
Here are a few facts about the ``ills'' we know regarding the Syrian dictator known as Bashar al-Asad:
No. 1, Asad is supported by the extreme Islamist regime in Iran, with a supply of Iranian Revolutionary Guards to embolden his rampage.
No. 2, his grip on power has been serviced by Syria's client-state relationship with Russia, which continues to defend its military aid to him. President Vladimir Putin refused to join other nations at last month's G8 Summit in explicitly calling for an end to the Asad regime.
No. 3, Asad has tolerated--if not overseen--the killing of at least 36,000 civilians in his own country, and this is according to numbers from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. More than 3,000 of these have been women and more than 5,000 were under the age of 16.
No. 4, under Bashar al-Asad's rule, the number of refugees has topped 1.7 million, with thousands more seeking safety every day.
No. 5, Bashar al-Asad has targeted the villages of his enemies in a merciless attempt to eradicate any who oppose him.
No. 6, following in his father's ruthless footsteps, he has shown that he is willing to use every tool at his disposal to hang on to power, and that includes the use of chemical weapons, a development President Obama once called a red line, as well as rocket attacks on his own people.
No. 7, we have every reason to conclude that Bashar al-Asad is a calculating strategist and student of history who has learned from what he views as the mistakes of Iraq's Saddam Hussein or Libya's Muammar Qadhafi.
With Russian and Iranian assistance and arms, Asad has succeeded in stopping the momentum of the rebels. But with sufficient military support, the pendulum can, in fact, swing back toward the rebels.
I strongly disagree with those who suggest that the opposition rebels could somehow turn out to be worse than the nightmare that has unfolded.
Increasing America's assistance to Syrian rebels, short of boots on the ground, must be decisive and strategic in order to be effective. That does not mean we send arms freely to all rebels. I challenge the notion that in sending military aid, we forfeit the authority to choose which rebel leaders to support. I would also point out to Members that both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that within the administration, they argued in favor of arming the rebels.
General Salim Idris, chief of staff of the U.S.-backed Supreme Military Council, has emerged as anything but a radical Islamist in presiding over the armed opposition and serving as a conduit for military aid. A New York Times profile described him as ``soft-spoken and humble compared with many military men.'' He defected from the Syrian military after an attack on his village last year--the same village where he and his eight siblings were raised by a grain farmer.
In a recent letter to the United Nations Security
Council, General Idris's pleas for the Syrian people were clear and simple: ``Syria should not be allowed to become the Rwanda of the 21st century.''
As I emphasized when speaking with Syrian refugees at the camp in Killis, a negotiated settlement will ultimately require reconciliation by representatives of all factions of the Syrian society--Alawites, Sunni, Shia, and Christians. They must be prepared to negotiate with and eventually forgive their fellow Syrians who have made war against them. But I do not believe that can happen as long as Asad and his Russian and Iranian backers see the momentum going their way. Russia will never agree to back a meaningful peace negotiation if the Russian leadership thinks Asad can win outright. A leading-from-behind strategy will not expedite the overthrow of the Asad regime. There is still an urgent need for American leadership.
There is no peaceful future for the Syrian people if Asad remains in power--only one of more violence, oppression, and regional instability. Should he prevail, the impact could have drastic implications on America's national security interests, including the prospect of increased sectarian violence in the region, the rise of al-Qaida-affiliated groups in Syria, and the expansion of Iran's extremist influence. The United States must not shy away from our potential to make a meaningful difference.
Our Nation led an international coalition to act in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we did so with success. We did not do so, regrettably, in Rwanda--a mistake President Clinton has called his greatest regret.
I do not suggest that one visit to a refugee camp is by any means a comprehensive assessment of U.S. foreign policy in Syria. Military assistance would be fraught with difficulties, and it produces a host of conflicting viewpoints among people for whom I have great respect. But my visit to the refugee camps does have a profound effect, and my observations of what is happening on the ground certainly bring home the enormity of human suffering and devastation this conflict has caused.
Most of those unfairly caught in the crossfire just want to get on with their lives and protect their families. Instead, they have been forced from their homes and from their livelihoods--their entire way of life ripped apart by the bloodshed that no human should endure.
I invite the American press to visit Gaziantep and the refugee camps nearby. The American people are entitled to know what is happening to 1.7 million people. After more than 100,000 deaths, with so many people left without a home, we should not stand by as the horrors continue to mount. The administration's hesitation leaves the fate of Syria's war-torn people to a regime willing to kill and destroy to stay in power.
In summary, we know too much about Bashar al-Asad to maintain the status quo. Backed by Russia and Iran, he has overseen the massacre of innocent lives, boldly crossed red lines, and violently suppressed any who challenged him. To suggest we cannot do any better--that Asad is somehow more acceptable than the opposition forces--falls short of taking an honest, realistic look at what is happening.
The question now is not whether America puts boots on the ground. We should not and will not do that. The question is whether the administration will strengthen the capabilities of Asad's adversaries. The question is whether the administration will trade its reluctance for resolve and--like that of our NATO allies--respond with robust military aid. So far, efforts in Geneva have failed to bring about a consensus among major world powers that outlines a lasting political transition. Without changing the momentum back to the rebels, the current situation will not change, and the threat to regional stability and to American interests will continue.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source