[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 17, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Page S2198]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 Syria

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to offer some remarks 
on the decision of the President of the United States to order 
precision missile strikes on three facilities in Syria last Friday 
night.
  This action demonstrates American leadership in the face of gross 
human rights violations and, as we all recall, President Obama's 
redline, which was not enforced, which indeed is a provocation in and 
of itself.
  I am glad this President has seen fit now, not just once but on two 
occasions, to punish the Syrian regime for such gross human rights 
violations. These actions are consistent with our values and legal 
authorities provided to the President under the Constitution. They are 
similar to decisions made by Presidents Clinton and Obama in Kosovo and 
Libya.
  While not unprecedented, clearly what occurred is very serious. So I 
want to take just a few moments to explain why I think the strikes were 
justified and were the appropriate course of action taken against the 
Assad regime.
  What we now know is, the Syrian government, on April 7, attacked 
civilians in the city of Duma, killing at least 70 and injuring 500 
more. To carry out the attack, the regime used chlorine and sarin gas 
against its own people. We know this because credible medical 
personnel--including the World Health Organization--reported physical 
symptoms that indicated these substances had been used. People were 
convulsing in the streets, their nervous systems were attacked, their 
pupils were constricted, all telltale signs of these chemicals.
  When civilians suffer in this way, there is nothing normal or 
acceptable about it--even in a country grappling with a brutal civil 
war. That Bashar al-Assad inflicted these crimes on his own people 
makes them even darker and more insidious.
  Chemical weapons have long been the kind of redline in the realm of 
armed, international conflict. After World War I, the 1925 Geneva 
Protocol banned chemical and biological weapons because they are 
different in kind from guns, sabers, and bombs.
  One reason they are different is because of the suffering they 
inflict on their victims. Another reason is because of their 
indiscriminate nature. Gases, by their very nature, are impossible to 
control. They spread in the atmosphere. You can't quarantine gas inside 
of a defined battlefield, which means civilians can't and will not be 
spared. In other words, there is nothing surgical or targeted about 
these weapons. The use of them can't be tailored to avoid harming 
children and innocent bystanders. They are instruments of terror, short 
and simple, and their brutality and lethality are stunning.

  A third reason these weapons are so atrocious is because of the 
slippery slope they provide. If gas attacks are tolerated in the 
international community, what comes next--biological, radiological, or 
nuclear weapons? That is not an unreasonable question. The free world 
must therefore stand unified against the use of chemical weapons. The 
failure to do so sends a signal of idleness or even complicity to the 
dictators of the world.
  The Geneva Protocol that eventually led to the Chemical Weapons 
Convention has been ratified by more than 190 nations. This means there 
is a near global consensus that the kinds of gas attacks perpetrated by 
Bashar al-Assad are completely out of bounds, even in war zones.
  As I stand here today, I want to offer my support for both the 
mission that was carried out and the underlying objective, which was to 
degrade Syria's capability to research, develop, and deploy chemical 
weapons--ones that have clearly done tremendous amounts of harm.
  The targets of our Syrian missile strikes were a research center and 
two storage facilities used in the production and testing of chemical 
and biological weapons. We hope that now that these facilities are 
destroyed, Assad will be perhaps persuaded not to use chemical weapons 
once and for all. There is reason to be skeptical, as we know, since he 
has before. We all remember last year when we struck Syrian airfields 
after similar provocations. Bashar al-Assad ignored our warning, gassed 
his own people, and has now paid a higher price. Will it be enough? Who 
can know, but I hope so. The consequences of his cruel and repressive 
tactics were swift and circumscribed airstrikes ordered by the 
President of the United States. They protected against the loss of 
innocent life and avoided sparking a larger regional conflict.
  We are grateful to our allies, Great Britain and France, which played 
a pivotal role in the mission. We are also grateful to our uniformed 
military for their meticulous planning, flawless execution, and 
courageous leadership.