Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. My friend and colleague has very effectively gone chapter and verse into what this law is doing to families in Georgia, to small businesses in Georgia, to potential job creators in Georgia and all across the United States of America. But it is not just families and small businesses, it is also local governments. The Senator from Georgia and I came here after the 1994 elections on a promise, among other things, that we would fight against unfunded mandates on local governments. What we are finding out about ObamaCare is that it is absolutely an unfunded mandate on, for example, small towns and small counties that make up the bulk of the population in my State of Mississippi. Let me just give a couple of examples of what it is doing to municipal governments. A city employee in Batesville, MS, tells me he recently attended a meeting of city workers and their health care provider. They were told their premiums will rise over 9 percent because of the President's health care law. This will be an increased cost of $55,000 to $60,000 that the city will have to cover to provide health care coverage for their employees. Presumably, they do not have a printing press in the back of city hall, so they are going to have to put an extra tax on the people of Batesville, MS, to cover the additional unfunded mandate the Affordable Care Act puts on the city of Batesville. I could also mention, and will also mention, at the other end of the State on the gulf coast the city of Ocean Springs, MS, reported it will see a premium increase for their little budget of $47,000 to provide health care under the new improved ObamaCare. This is a 13 percent increase because of the President's health care law. The city currently covers 100 percent of the employee premiums. The mayor of Ocean Springs, who I know happens to be a Democrat, said: We're going to have to find $47,000 from somewhere. Presumably, it will come from the taxpayers of Ocean Springs, MS, and other small towns and rural counties around the State of Mississippi. We are all human. I have made many mistakes during my life, and some of the mistakes I have made have been in my capacity as a legislator. I served in the State senate for 7 years. I have been in the U.S. House and Senate for some 19, along with my good friend from Georgia. I would hope that when I have seen mistakes that I have made legislatively I have been willing to go back and revisit those decisions and say: We are all human. We didn't get it right this time, and we ought to fix it. That is one of the real disturbing things to me about this ObamaCare law. We see that the rollout was disastrous. We see that the effect on towns, counties, families and businesses is disastrous, and at the end of the day we are still going to have over 30 million Americans uninsured--the same amount we were targeting for coverage, supposedly, with the passage of ObamaCare. I would hope colleagues from both parties at this point would see where this has led us and agree there is a reason Congress meets every year. We can alleviate the problems that have arisen. We can correct the mistakes that have been made. I appreciate people such as our colleague from Montana, Senator Max Baucus, who at least said the law's implementation, he thought, was going to be a huge train wreck, noting that small businesses have no idea what to do, what to expect. I appreciate that sort of candor from one of the architects of the act. It would seem to me, that being the case, it is incumbent on people who feel that way to say that we need to revisit this. We need to pull this law out root and branch and replace it with something that cuts the cost of insurance, that slows the growth rate of health care expenditures and uses market forces and competition, which we use in every aspect of our society except for health insurance. I appreciate our colleague from West Virginia, Senator Jay Rockefeller. He is retiring at the end of this Congress, but he said the health care law was beyond comprehension. I think we would get over 60 percent of Americans agreeing with that. The law is beyond comprehension and the most complex piece of legislation ever passed by the Congress. I appreciate that sort of candor as compared to the position that, as far as I can tell, is still held by the majority leader, the Senator who controls the flow of legislation on the floor of the Senate and who would have to be involved in bringing a corrected bill to the floor. Our majority leader said this earlier this year: ``This legislation is working, and it will be working better once we get the Web site up.'' Boy, how nonprophetic that was. And I love this quote: ``ObamaCare is wonderful for America,'' said the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada. ``ObamaCare is wonderful for America. Get over it.'' I would hope I would be willing, if I had made such an egregious mistake, to say we need to come back and revisit this issue--for the benefit of American families, for the benefit of small businesses that want to create jobs, for the benefit of small cities that having to increase their taxes and do without other services to cover this unfunded mandate. So I publicly implore my colleagues at this moment to agree that this didn't work. I never thought it would work, but some people did. But it hasn't worked. I guess it is the reason we have elections every 2 years. But I would hope that, even before the 2014 elections, Republicans and Democrats could come together and say: We got this wrong. We need to fix it, and we need to do it for the right reasons. We need to do it for the future of this country and for American families.

Mr. WICKER. Or more than have fun; engage in real mischief and real harm to American citizens.

Mr. WICKER. If I can underscore that, there is no question that because of the Snowden matter and because of other breaches of confidentiality and security, Americans are more and more concerned about this issue. I note that our colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, said about ObamaCare that it is causing fear, doubt, and a crisis of confidence. And I have to feel that some of the lack of confidence the American people have is the very real concern about security. It is no wonder that a Pew survey released this week shows that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the health care law and only 41 percent are in favor of it. Yet my friend mentioned the former Speaker, the current minority leader in the House of Representatives, who just this year said: The implementation of this law is fabulous. Fabulous. She compared it to the Declaration of Independence guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the former Speaker, this is what this is all about. I think Americans and more Members of this body are concluding that this law isn't fabulous, contrary to what the former Speaker said; that ObamaCare is not wonderful for America, contrary to what the current majority leader of the Senate said. I hope that we could even yet revisit this. I think we only have about 5 minutes to go. If I may comment for one brief moment about the breaking of the rules to change the rules that occurred. One would have thought that hardly any nominations were getting through. To hear our friends on the other side of the aisle justify the reason for changing years and years of precedent and for going back on an agreement we made midyear, an agreement we made back in January, and a Gang of 14 agreement made by some of the most distinguished people ever to have served in the Senate--as a matter of fact, the facts are these: Hundreds of executive nominations on this Executive Calendar have been approved with the slightest blip by this Senate, Republicans and Democrats. Only four nominees were felt to involve such extraordinary circumstances that we were determined to prevent those individuals from taking office for very good reasons, we thought, by the use of the 60-vote rule--only four out of hundreds this year. Yet that was given as an excuse to the American people to break the rules to change the rules. It was a sad day. It is the kind of overreach we are seeing this week, which gets us back to the matter at hand and is the kind of very unfortunate overreach that has visited so much pain and hardship on the American people in regard to their health care and their health insurance coverage.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise at this point to discuss Wicker amendment No. 2185. This is an important amendment. I hope the leadership of this committee is paying attention. My amendment would prohibit foreign governments from constructing, on U.S. soil, satellite positioning and ground monitoring stations. I think many Americans were surprised when, on November 16, the New York Times published an article by Michael Schmidt and Eric Schmitt entitled ``A Russian GPS Using U.S. Soil Stirs Spy Fears.'' I ask unanimous consent a copy of this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. WICKER. This article elaborates on a proposal under review by our own State Department to allow the Russian space agency to construct half a dozen satellite ground monitoring stations on U.S. soil. The article describes these potential sites as ``seemingly innocuous, dome- topped antenna perched atop an electronics-packed building surrounded by a security fence somewhere in the United States.'' Taken at face value, these Russian ground monitoring stations are supposed to improve the accuracy and reliability of Russia's version of the global positioning system. According to the Times article, the Obama administration is actively considering this request by Moscow in an attempt to reset once again the administration's failed reset policy which the President once hailed as the beginning of better U.S.-Russian relations. We have every reason to be skeptical of Russia's intentions to utilize GPS monitoring stations on U.S. soil. Let me repeat this: GPS monitoring stations controlled by Russia on U.S. soil. Time and again, President Putin has shown he is unwilling to cooperate with America. The list of grievances continues to grow. Let's not forget that Russia has granted asylum to Edward Snowden, who is charged with espionage and theft of U.S. government property after releasing up to 200,000 classified documents to the press. Let's not forget that Russia has defended the brutal regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and helped perpetuate the dictator's grip on power with military aid. Let's not forget that Russia, the same Russia that wants to put GPS stations on U.S. soil, has denied Russian orphans a chance at a better life in the United States, with a ban on U.S. adoptions, ultimately victimizing the most vulnerable, in a desperate attempt to distract the world from Russia's human rights failings. It is clear Russia's interests are not often aligned with those of the United States. Accordingly, I am deeply concerned and people within the intelligence community are deeply concerned and people within the Defense Department are deeply concerned about the Russian proposal to use U.S. soil to strengthen Russia's GPS capabilities. These ground monitoring stations could be used for the purpose of gathering intelligence. Even more troubling, these stations could actually improve the accuracy of foreign missiles targeted at the United States. Our national security and foreign policy apparatus is large and widespread. I do not question anyone's patriotism or the intentions of the State Department. But it is clear that there are other parts of the administration that are very concerned about this. This morning I had the opportunity to review a classified report by DOD. I encourage all Members of the Senate to review this classified document and, to me, I think it will reaffirm the need for increased transparency on this very serious matter. Senators Lee, Fischer, and Cornyn so far have joined me in filing an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that would fully inform the American people about the implications of the Russian proposal. My amendment would prohibit the construction of GPS monitoring stations by any foreign government on U.S. soil until the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence jointly certify to the Congress that these stations do not have the capability to gather intelligence or improve foreign weapons systems. My amendment would also require a report to Congress on the use of satellite positioning ground monitoring stations by foreign governments. This amendment is simple and straightforward, and I urge my colleagues to support its inclusion in the Defense authorization bill. I encourage cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for asking that question. What I am hearing from Mississippi, and what I think we are going to be hearing from all across the United States of America, is that this is about to be a disaster for property owners in the United States of America. So I join my colleagues today--and perhaps there will be others besides the three of us on the floor--in saying we need to address the very real problem of increases in flood insurance premiums, which will unfairly hurt homeowners and businesses in my home State of Mississippi and across the United States of America. I appreciate my colleague presenting the map to show that this is indeed a national problem and not just a regional or coastal problem. The severe onset of unaffordable rates--unaffordable rates--could have a devastating impact on the livelihood of homeowners and communities throughout the Nation and on our economy. Moreover, they could jeopardize the long-term solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program, which covers some 5.6 million Americans. There is no doubt that NFIP faces enormous challenges. The damages wrought by storms such as Katrina, Rita, and Sandy have left the NFIP in the red for nearly a decade, amounting to nearly $24 billion at the last count. In the early years of the NFIP, when bad storm years were roughly offset by light storm years, taxpayers effectively carried policyholders through years because of the NFIP's authority to borrow from the Treasury. However, the catastrophic 2004-2005 hurricane seasons put the program more than $20 billion in debt and disproved the notion that the finances would balance out over time. The principles for NFIP reform are worthy goals. Premiums need to reflect risks more accurately, flood risks must be projected and mapped more accurately, and the purchase of flood insurance needs to be encouraged and enforced in order to enlarge the risk pool. We cannot expect the NFIP to continue as a viable program without addressing the huge imbalance between premium revenue and payments for losses. At the same time, Congress cannot sit by in the face of these dramatic unaffordable rate increases facing many Americans. The manner in which these reforms are being implemented is alienating the very people the program is intended to help. The new rates penalize people who have followed the rules, while placing the heaviest burden on those who are only now recovering from recent disasters. In communities still recovering from recent Mississippi River flooding and in communities along the gulf coast, where the aftermath of Katrina still lingers, a financial burden of this magnitude could force homeowners either to leave their property unprotected or to move away altogether. Ensuring the long-term success of the NFIP means taking an honest look at how the reforms Congress enacted last year are being implemented and whether they are unfairly hurting citizens--and I contend they are. Allowing rates to go from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars is hardly a reasonable approach to reform. Reform should not be unnecessarily painful, unfair, or counterproductive to the goal of solvency. Premium increases that make the coverage literally unaffordable could lead to a net loss in program revenue. Nobody benefits from that. Nobody benefits, neither the homeowner nor the taxpayer, when NFIP premium increases result in foreclosure. I am concerned that NFIP may well have overestimated net revenue increases. They may have underestimated the burden of the program going forward. That alone would be a good reason to delay the increases, if a longer phase-in would result in a net increase in revenue to the program, as I suspect it would. A delay would also allow time to study the effects of premium increases and it would allow us, as policymakers, to look for less harmful approaches to reform. The Federal Emergency Management Agency should be able to complete an affordability study and ensure that its technologies and methodologies accurately assess risk. I thank my colleague from Louisiana and I thank my colleague from Florida for joining us. I urge all of my colleagues to support action that provides immediate relief to Americans facing these steep rate hikes.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, my State of Mississippi will have the third highest premiums in the Nation as a result of the so-called Affordable Care Act. This is unacceptable for my State, and my colleagues can be sure I am hearing from my constituents about this. For example, I heard from a married couple in Long Beach who own a small business. The private insurance plan they have offered to their employees for over 20 years will suffer a 33-percent premium increase on December 1. Their insurance specifically cited the ACA's mandated coverage, fees, and taxes for the increased premiums. The couple will continue to insure their employees because if they were to discontinue the coverage, their employees and families would suffer because they would not be able to afford individual plans. I also heard from a 58-year-old graphic designer from Madison, MS, stating that his insurance premiums will double at the beginning of the year from $355 to $755. This gentleman is understandably angry about this premium increase. He understands that his insurance will now cover mandated benefits such as maternity care and birth control--something he will never use as a 58-year-old male. I also heard from a 51-year-old disabled retired doctor and the father of two high school students. Earlier this week, he was informed by his insurance provider that his family's premiums will skyrocket in January. He says he discovered that the least expensive coverage for his family will result in a 112-percent increase in his premiums. After hours on healthcare.gov trying to enroll his family, a firefighter, a father, and a husband discovered that the cheapest plan, a bronze plan, will be too exorbitant a cost for him to pay. He will opt to pay the penalty, and he and his family will remain uninsured. These are real Americans who are learning that the Affordable Care Act is less affordable and less accessible. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, today I wish to express my support for the Restoring the 10th Amendment Act--S. 1643. This legislation, which I have introduced with nine of my colleagues, represents an effort to ensure that States' rights are protected against further Federal encroachment. Ratified and signed into law on December 15, 1791, the 10th Amendment is integral to the system of checks and balances that our Founding Fathers conceived. The Founders were right to be concerned that the Federal Government would seek to usurp powers belonging to the States. They understood that limitless Federal power was a threat to the future of our democracy. In The Federalist No. 45, James Madison notes the difference between Federal and State power. He describes the powers that the Constitution grants to the Federal government as ``few and defined.'' He calls the powers left to the States as ``numerous and indefinite.'' Today, we can plainly see how wise our Founders were. As we enter into the second term of the Obama administration, Federal regulatory overreach has become an intrusive part of everyday life in the United States. From the President's sweeping health-care law to the extreme rulemaking of the Environmental Protection Agency, there is virtually no aspect of Americans' lives that escapes the creeping reach of Federal regulators. The Restoring the 10th Amendment Act seeks to reverse this trend and to level the playing field by giving States a new tool to challenge Federal overreach. Specifically, it provides special standing in court for State government officials to dispute inordinately sweeping regulations issued by Federal agencies. Any rule proposed by a Federal agency would be subject to constitutional challenges if certain State officials determine that the rule infringes powers reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment. In this way, the bill would reinforce the safeguards in our existing system of constitutional checks and balances. Americans have the right to expect the members they elect to Congress to uphold the Constitution's founding principles. It is our responsibility to ensure that the executive branch is held accountable for any overreach of its constitutionally defined powers. This bill recognizes that the 10th Amendment is as important today as it was on the date of its ratification. It would keep the executive branch accountable and preserve the integrity of our constitutional system of checks and balances. Senators Cochran, Grassley, Isakson, Sessions, Roberts, Thune, Inhofe, Crapo, Risch, Enzi, and Cornyn have joined me as cosponsors. I urge all of my colleagues to support the prompt passage of the Restoring the 10th Amendment Act.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. The distinguished Senator from Ohio is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, the American people are alarmed, actually, at the level of debt this government has run up, particularly in the last 4\1/2\ to 5 years. It has been astounding. We cannot continue to add debt upon debt for the next generation, many of whom are within the sound of our voices and some of whom are employed as our pages. The Senator has already referred to them today. We owe them a government that grows our debt at a much slower rate. We have done it before. When the distinguished Senator and I were in the House of Representatives, we were told we could not balance the budget within 10 years. Actually, with the leadership of my friend from Ohio, we passed legislation. We had the cooperation of the President of the United States who negotiated with us, and that divided government balanced the budget not within 10 years but within 3 or 4 years, and we fulfilled that until the terrorist attacks of 2001. So, yes, the American people are concerned. I think we would be doing a disservice to them, simply to go along with a debt increase without addressing the underlying problems. As my friend from Ohio knows, the President of the United States himself in this budget has proposed very significant changes in the growth rate of certain of our entitlement programs, which would go a long way toward getting us to a bipartisan resolution on this issue.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, the Senator from Ohio mentioned the Budget Control Act of 2011. It wasn't a particularly pretty way to do debt reduction, but it did give us the spending levels we are operating under now. The authors of this opinion piece go on to point out that according to the Congressional Research Service--an independent arm of this government--Congress voted 53 times from 1978 to 2013 to change the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling has increased to about $16 trillion. In at least 53 votes, 29 occurred in a Congress run by Democrats, 17 in split Congresses, and 7 in Republican-controlled Congresses. It goes on to point out time and again how important policy changes were made in connection with this debate. So I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, as far as I am concerned, my distinguished friend from Ohio can still have the floor. I only wanted to take a moment to congratulate him on his remarks and to observe that when it comes to budget matters, he knows whereof he speaks. He not only has a distinguished record in the House of Representatives, but he is a leader in being a budget hawk and was an opponent of additional debt in the House of Representatives, and has had a distinguished career in the Office of Management and Budget. So I thank the distinguished Senator. It may be that he has already asked for an opinion piece from today's Wall Street Journal to be printed in the Record.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this time an opinion piece written by Kevin Hassett and Abby McCloskey on page 23 in today's Wall Street Journal entitled ``Obama Rewrites Debt-Limit History.''

Mr. WICKER. I thank the Presiding Officer. This article points out in a very detailed and annotated way a number of times when this Congress has made policy changes, important, far- reaching policy changes, in connection with negotiations on the debt ceiling increase. So I join my friend from Ohio in saying it is absolutely incumbent on this Senate--Republicans and our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle--as well as Members of the House of Representatives and the President of the United States, our Commander in Chief, to, once again, negotiate in good faith. The President may feel we are entirely unreasonable in our position. Frankly, there have been times during my 19 years in the House and now in the Senate when I felt the Chief Executive was completely wrong in his viewpoint on how we should address our national debt. But at no time in my recollection have the parties been simply unwilling to sit down and talk at all or to have meetings in the White House and in those meetings to basically say we are not going to make counterproposals or to say publicly: Why should I offer them anything at all? I think the American people see that is an unworkable approach. So I point out to my colleagues, and I thank the Senator from Ohio in pointing out that very important fiscal decisions, very important debt- related decisions have absolutely been made in our Nation's history, and I am glad they have been made in connection with this debate on the national debt. I yield back to my friend from Ohio and thank him for allowing me to intrude on his time.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. If the Senator would yield for a moment. I think the distinguished majority leader is going to make a procedural motion which will take only a moment, and then I have a question for my distinguished friend from Ohio.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I thank the Senator. We believe this amendment is a step forward to ensure GSA and DOE's green building policies support domestically sourced wood. I look forward to working with the Senator and committee leadership as this legislation moves forward.

Mr. WICKER. The amendment I have introduced with Senator Landrieu addresses a number of issues that are important to America's forest products industry. In particular, the amendment specifies that the Department of Energy and the General Services Administration must allow the use of multiple green building rating systems. A voluntary standard endorsed by the Federal Government can wield immense influence over green building specifications in the Federal sector and broader commercial marketplace. DOE and GSA must support competition and allow the free market to produce the best energy-efficient buildings at the lowest costs. The intention of section 406(3)(G) of our amendment is to direct GSA and DOE to adopt a policy that provides equitable treatment to all domestic sources of sustainable wood. It is simply unacceptable for the Federal Government to endorse a standard that discriminates against domestically sourced, sustainable U.S. wood. Wood is an ideal green building material because it is renewable, stores carbon, and is energy efficient. According to objective criteria, the majority of the domestic wood products industry is sustainably managed and endorsed internationally. In addition, the forest products industry employs nearly 1 million men and women in well-paying jobs, including more than 123,000 in my home State of Mississippi. There is no reason to shut out the wood products being produced in our own backyard in favor of imported substitutes. Our intention is to provide an equal playing field that keeps Mississippi wood--as well as wood from other states--a vital component of federal green building policy.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I would ask the majority leader, in an hour or so Democrats are going to have lunch with Democrats, and Republicans are going to go to another room and have lunch with Republicans and talk to each other about what the other side is doing. This is such a serious matter. It may be the wise thing to do. I totally disagree. But I think the majority leader will agree that this is a watershed moment. Could it be that early next week, just once we could all meet together, perhaps in the Old Senate Chamber--every Democrat and every Republican--for a caucus where actually Republicans listen to Democrats as to what they perceive as the grievances and rank-and-file Democrats listen to our side? People are off in classified briefings right now. People are in committee meetings. People are doing the work of the Senate whether the public realizes it or not. We are not listening to each other as rank-and-file Members. I would implore the leadership of this body, next Tuesday let's clear the Old Senate Chamber and get every Republican and every Democrat who wants to be there and actually quit talking past each other and see if there is a way for us to avoid this pivotal watershed moment in the history of the Senate.

Mr. WICKER. Would the distinguished majority leader yield for 30 seconds?

Mr. WICKER. And that the EPA Administrator is likely to go forward almost immediately? So we really are down to the three positions where there has been a U.S. appeals court decision, which arguably could be viewed as an extraordinary circumstance.

Mr. WICKER. Just to understand, is that a yes on trying to get us together, as Republicans and Democrats, as early as lunch Tuesday to see if there is some way we can talk about this?

Mr. WICKER. Did the majority leader understand, as I did, Leader McConnell saying just a few moments ago that the Secretary of Labor nominee is likely to go forward very soon?

Mr. WICKER. Would the distinguished leader yield on simply one further matter?

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.