[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 64 (Thursday, April 19, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2313-S2314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 SYRIA

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the magnitude of atrocities and devastation 
in Syria caused by ISIS and the Assad regime, with support from Russia 
and Iran, is appalling. When this calamity began in 2011, I doubt 
anyone predicted it would come to this: hundreds of

[[Page S2314]]

thousands of people killed; half the population of the country 
displaced, many living as refugees in neighboring countries; whole 
cities reduced to rubble riddled with landmines and boobytraps.
  For years, I, like others here, have called for a comprehensive U.S. 
strategy for responding to the Syrian crisis that is grounded in 
cooperation with the international community, to be presented to 
Congress. I have also supported hundreds of millions of dollars in 
humanitarian aid to desperate Syrian civilians. We must at least do 
what is within our power to address the needs of those affected while 
efforts are made to bring the violence to an end.
  I have also defended Congress's sole authority to declare war, which 
should always be based on a clear strategy. I opposed the Obama 
administration's proposal for the authorization for the use of force in 
Syria in 2013 because it was overly broad and would have ceded to the 
White House power reserved to Congress under the Constitution. I have 
also opposed the manner in which President Trump has twice launched 
attacks against Syria without approval from Congress.
  While I recognize and appreciate the considerable precautions that 
were taken in the early hours of April 15 by the U.S. military to 
prevent civilian casualties and avoid targeting Russian assets in 
Syria, whenever military operations are conducted the outcome is never 
certain. Things can go terribly wrong. In this instance, instead of 
demolishing two or three Syrian chemical weapons facilities, we could 
have triggered a shooting war with Russia, and Israel and Iran might 
have quickly followed suit. What began as a missile attack lasting a 
few minutes could have ignited a regional war. That is a risk that 
Congress must be given the opportunity to weigh.
  The use of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity and a 
violation of international law that cannot be tolerated, but it is also 
a fact that conventional attacks by the Assad regime have caused far 
more deaths of innocent men, women, and children. The Assad regime has 
been slaughtering its own people for more than 7 years by dropping 
barrel bombs, laying siege to cities to prevent access to food, water, 
and medicine, and using poison gas. While we all want to act decisively 
in the face of such atrocities, the United States cannot solve this 
crisis using Tomahawk missiles. All such attacks can do, it appears, is 
degrade, most likely only temporarily, Assad's ability to use chemical 
weapons. This was demonstrated in the aftermath of President Trump's 
first military response to Assad's use of chemical weapons in April 
2017. It was conducted with great fanfare, without congressional 
authorization, and it failed to prevent future attacks. President Trump 
has now launched a second attack without the approval of Congress, and 
he has proclaimed ``mission accomplished.''
  Why didn't the President seek Congress's approval? And what is the 
mission? How would we have responded if the attacks had triggered an 
escalation of violence, potentially spinning out of control? Those 
critical questions need answers.
  Perhaps the most fundamental question for this administration is what 
does President Trump seek to achieve in Syria? Is it limited to 
defeating ISIS and punishing Assad for using chemical weapons? Are we 
willing to accept Russia and Iran determining Syria's future? If not, 
what is the strategy for ending the war, if Russia continues to block 
diplomatic efforts in the U.N. Security Council? How does the White 
House explain cutting aid for refugees overseas, withdrawing the United 
States from the Global Compact on Migration, limiting the resettlement 
of Syrian refugees here to only 11 people so far in 2018, compared to 
790 last year during the same period, and suspending $200 million in 
U.S. aid for civilians in Syria? Those funds are intended to help 
improve the livelihoods of Syrians impacted by the war, including to 
provide access to basic services.
  Does the White House believe that it is in the national interest to 
conduct attacks against Syria, at the risk of triggering a wider war 
and after failing to produce the intended results in the past, but that 
it is not in our national interest to provide aid to Syrian civilians 
in areas controlled by our partners?
  I am also concerned about what these attacks against Syria may reveal 
about President Trump's willingness to direct a military attack 
elsewhere without obtaining the consent of Congress, for example, 
against North Korea or Iran.
  The conflict in Syria obviously has no easy solution, and it is 
apparent that it has no military solution. It is the President's job to 
explain what our strategy is, including how we can overcome Russia's 
intransigence at the United Nations amidst mounting concerns that we 
will abandon the Syrian people, before he fires off another volley of 
missiles that do not get us any closer to a solution and which may have 
the opposite effect.

                          ____________________