January 30, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 19 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S755-S756]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  S. 1

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as I have discussed several times, the 
Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act is a 
consequential legislative package that would strengthen vital 
partnerships and reaffirm our active role in matters of global concern. 
I am proud to support it. I was also proud to lay down an amendment 
yesterday that would allow the Senate to speak equally forcefully on 
critical subjects in American foreign policy.
  The United States is engaged in Syria and Afghanistan for one simple 
reason: because our enemies are engaged there. Real dangers to us and 
to our allies still remain in both of these nations. So we must 
continue to confront them there. Fortunately, we are not alone. We are 
joined in the counter-ISIS coalition by 78 other partners, and in both 
Syria and Afghanistan, local fighters are bearing the brunt--the 
brunt--of the work.
  But American leadership is absolutely essential, and that is what 
this amendment is all about. My amendment is not partisan. It expresses 
views and concerns from Senators on both sides of the aisle, and it 
certainly isn't political. I intended it as an opportunity for the 
Senate to debate and vote on some of the more consequential matters of 
the day, and I expected this institution to rise to the occasion.
  I was a Senator on September 11, 2001. I don't want America to ever 
live through another day like that--none of us do.
  I have also been here in the Senate for the 17 years since--17 years 
of American engagement in worldwide efforts to combat terrorism. It 
hasn't been easy navigating American interests through this complicated 
and troubled region. It hasn't been easy adapting to an entirely new 
way of warfare against enemies that have proven adaptive themselves.
  It is understandable that as we get further from September 11, many 
would grow tired of our military efforts a long way from home, but as 
decisions from the Obama administration have made painfully clear, 
leaving too abruptly carries its own grave risks.
  Had President Obama known that ISIS would emerge in the wake of his 
withdrawal from Iraq and flourish in the chaos of the Syrian civil war, 
I suspect he might have done things differently. Perhaps he would not 
have abandoned Iraq so precipitously, ignored the growing terror 
threats in Syria, or allowed Assad to steamroll over his now-infamous 
``red line.''
  We can't undo this unfortunate history, but we certainly cannot 
afford to repeat it. So it has been a welcome contrast to see the Trump 
administration make huge progress reinvigorating our fight against al-
Qaida in Afghanistan and ISIS in Syria. Unshackling our military has 
led to progress on the ground, greater pressure placed on the 
terrorists, and new opportunities for diplomatic and political 
solutions that have opened up as a result of the pressure that we have 
applied.
  So what we must remember is how hard won these gains have been. Our 
response to this progress must not be to take our foot off the gas 
pedal but rather to keep up those strategies that are clearly working.
  Our partnership with Iraqi security forces and the Syrian Democratic 
Forces have stripped ISIS of much territory in those two nations, but 
we have not yet defeated ISIS. We have not yet defeated al-Qaida in 
Afghanistan. Civil wars continue to rage in both Syria and Afghanistan. 
There are still cauldrons--cauldrons--of sectarianism, extremism, and 
terror.
  President Trump is right that this cannot be America's fight alone. 
The threats that ISIS and al-Qaida pose are global. That is why many 
countries are with us in this fight. There is more that those partners 
can and should do to keep up direct pressure on terrorists and on 
outside actors who interfere with diplomatic efforts to resolve these 
wars.
  Putin's Russia and the ayatollahs in Tehran need to pay a real price 
for their attempts to back butchers--butchers--like the Assad regime, 
Hezbollah, and the Taliban.
  We also need to understand that if we withdraw too soon--too soon--we 
will

[[Page S756]]

create vacuums in Syria and Afghanistan. We know from experience that 
Russia and Iran would be only too happy to fill those vacuums.
  If we truly care about containing Russia, the battleground is not 
only on Twitter or Facebook but also in the world of old fashioned 
geopolitics.
  So my amendment would offer Senators the ability to speak on all 
these subjects. I honestly did not expect this would be controversial 
stuff. I didn't expect that my colleagues across the aisle would make a 
partisan stand and try to block this straightforward ``sense of the 
Senate'' amendment when it really just restates--restates--what most of 
us thought was a broad bipartisan consensus about American leadership 
in the world, but that is what our Democratic colleagues did.
  They tried to block it. Democrats objected to a vote on this 
amendment, apparently because it would expose a rift among their own 
membership--a division between those Senate Democrats who still 
subscribe to the vision for America's leadership and their colleagues 
who have abandoned those principles at the urging of the very far left 
or are too afraid to take either position--either one. It is quite the 
split. It shows how caught up my Democratic colleagues are in the 
partisanship of this moment.
  My amendment simply reemphasizes the expertise and counsel offered by 
experts who have served Presidents of both parties. It is a mainstream 
amendment with 19 cosponsors, but apparently a significant portion of 
today's Democratic Party isn't sure--isn't sure--they believe in these 
principles any more. They would rather try to squash the debate and 
dodge the vote altogether.
  Well, that is not going to work. These are exactly the kinds of 
issues the Senate should be debating. The Senate has a special role in 
foreign policy.
  Americans are serving in harm's way in Syria and Afghanistan. The 
American servicemembers, diplomats, and aid workers in those conflict 
zones all deserve to know whether their elected officials support their 
efforts or whether we no longer believe their tireless efforts serve 
our national interest.
  Our constituents deserve to know which Senators welcome a thorough 
debate over Syria and Afghanistan and which are simply trying to duck 
the debate. Well, despite my Democratic colleagues' attempt, I can 
assure the American people that they are going to learn precisely that. 
I filed cloture on the amendment yesterday afternoon, and we will vote 
on it. Regardless of whatever political contortions the far left may be 
demanding from Senate Democrats, the American people are going to learn 
exactly where their Senators stand. Our institution will not shrink 
from this important duty.

                          ____________________