[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 134 (Thursday, September 18, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5737-S5763]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2015
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 124, which the clerk will
report by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 124) making continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2015, and for other purposes.
Amendment No. 3851
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have an amendment to the joint
resolution that has already been filed at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 3851.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 19, line 15, strike ``30 days'' and insert ``29
days''.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 3852 to Amendment No. 3851
Mr. REID. There is now a second degree amendment which has also been
filed at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 3852 to amendment No. 3851.
The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``29'' and insert ``28''.
Motion to Commit With Amendment No. 3853
Mr. REID. I have a motion to commit H.J. Res. 124 with instructions
which has been filed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to commit the bill
to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to
report back forthwith with the following amendment numbered
3853.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 19, line 15, strike ``not later than 30 days after
the enactment of this joint resolution'' and insert ``By
October 31, 2014''.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 3854
Mr. REID. I have an amendment to the instructions at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 3854 to the instructions of the motion to commit.
The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``October 31'' and insert
``October 30''.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 3855 to Amendment No. 3854
Mr. REID. I have a second degree amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 3855 to amendment No. 3854.
The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``30'' and insert ``29''.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.J. Res. 124, a
joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal
year 2015, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Barbara A. Mikulski, Dianne Feinstein,
Richard Blumenthal, Robert P. Casey, Jr., John E.
Walsh, Mazie K. Hirono, Cory A. Booker, Heidi Heitkamp,
Barbara Boxer, Bill Nelson, Richard J. Durbin, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Amy Klobuchar, Jack Reed, Benjamin L.
Cardin, Carl Levin.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under
Rule XXII be waived.
Mr. REID. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline under rule
XXII for first-degree amendments to H.J. Res. 124 be at 2 p.m. this
afternoon and that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments be
at 3:30 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to table an
amendment to the joint resolution, as provided under the previous
order, be in order during time for debate and, if made during the
debate, the vote on the motion to table occur immediately after all
debate time has been used and yielded back on H.J. Res. 124; further,
that if a budget point of order is made, the motion to waive be
considered made and the vote on the motion to waive occur following the
vote on the motion to invoke cloture on H.J. Res. 124.
[[Page S5738]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. There will be up to 4 hours 30 minutes equally divided
between the two leaders or their designees.
I now suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that
the time be charged equally on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise today to bring to the floor
H.J. Res. 124. It is the continuing funding resolution for fiscal year
2015.
Let me explain where we are. We are in the closing hours before the
Senate takes the recess before the fall elections. In the middle of all
that, on October 1, our fiscal year begins. If we don't have a bridge
between now and December 11 or around that, we could face a government
shutdown. We do not want a government shutdown. We want to make sure we
provide funding and make sure the government will not be shut down and
that after the election we can return and do due diligence and pass
this in a more comprehensive way.
Our job as the Appropriations Committee in Congress is to put money
in the Federal checkbook each year to keep the Federal Government
functioning. The American people want their government to work as hard
as they do. They want us to combat the threats against the United
States of America. They want us to honor our commitments to our
veterans. They want us to meet the compelling human needs of the
American people, and they want us to have an opportunity ladder so the
American people can have a fair shot.
What we do is, we provide funding one year at a time. September 30 is
our fiscal New Year's Eve. October 1 is the first day of the fiscal
year. If Congress leaves before we pass the continuing resolution, the
government could shut down. We don't want another government shutdown.
I believe there is support on both sides of the aisle not to do that.
We know from last year that it was a terrible situation. Thousands of
Federal workers were paid not to work. Other personnel, such as FBI
agents, had to work for IOUs, even using their own money to put gas in
their car as they pursued the people who wanted to undermine us. We
know we don't want a government shutdown.
What is our goal for this continuing resolution? To avoid a
government shutdown but to do more than that. To do no harm to existing
programs so that we can meet our compelling human needs, the national
security needs of the United States of America, and continue those
public investments in innovation that make America the exceptional
Nation and often the indispensable Nation.
It allows us also to lay the groundwork for an omnibus funding bill
in December which will be a comprehensive funding bill including all 12
appropriations.
Also, it gives the President the fiscal resources to protect the
Nation, to deal with ISIL, to make sure we support the needs of Ukraine
and NATO, and also to work on a global basis to stamp out Ebola.
What I want to say to my colleagues, who will look at this bill and
scrutinize it, is the continuing resolution is only from now until
December 11.
Remember, it is a temporary stopgap bill. Also, it is at current
levels of funding. So I want to say that there are no new programs and
there is no new funding. As I said, it meets these needs.
I worked very closely with my House counterpart, the distinguished
gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Hal Rogers, the chair of the
Appropriations Committee in the House. We worked very hard to do bills
where we thought we could bring individual ones to the Nation. Well, it
did not work out that way because one party stopped me from bringing
bills to the floor. I am sorry we do not have that omnibus, but poison-
pill riders kept the Senate from considering appropriations bills on
the floor and also the demand for 60-vote thresholds. That is a debate
for another day.
So where are we in this continuing resolution? As I said, it keeps
the government running through December 11, operating at the same
amount of money as fiscal year 2014, with the same items and the same
programs and the same restrictions. People might say: Have things not
changed since last year? There are some technical adjustments that we
do, but we just simply are extending what we have.
Again, what we do here is help the President, though, with what has
changed--the three alarming threats that are facing us. No. 1, there is
this growing threat of an organization called ISIL. People say: Are you
talking about ISIS? No, I am talking about ISIL, because it goes beyond
Syria--the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. What we have in here
is the authority for the President to use title 10 of the United States
Code.
What that does is allow the President to train and equip, with proper
vetting, the moderates in the Syrian rebel forces. We also are
supporting our President as he works with NATO and tries to deal with
the Russian threat to Ukraine. Then there is another grim and ghoulish
thing going around in Africa and spreading, which is Ebola. What we are
doing here is providing the President with the resources to help Africa
fight this problem. At the same time, while we are fighting in Africa,
we make sure that NIH, FDA, and CDC have the resources to fight the
issues here.
I could elaborate on this bill more. I want everyone to know that the
CR is bicameral. It has already passed the House. It is bipartisan. I
have worked with my counterpart in the other party, Senator Shelby, who
really has worked in a very rigorous way here, bringing the principles
of fiscal conservatism and flexibility so we have this.
But I know there are other Senators who want to debate. I want them
to have the opportunity to debate this bill. I will have more to say
when there are not others waiting.
I want to yield the floor, but before I do, I am going to thank
Senator Shelby for the cooperation of his staff. We have not always
agreed on the content or every line item. He is a very staunch fiscal
conservative. But out of it all, working with civility, due diligence,
and absolute candor, I think we have been able to bring a bill to the
floor. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will pass this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, this afternoon I rise in support of this
continuing resolution which is now before the Senate. Overall, it is a
relatively clean bill that carries forward current levels for
discretionary spending and avoids another government shutdown. It
contains a minimal amount of what we call anomalies or deviations from
a straight continuation of previous-year funding.
The anomalies it does contain are limited in duration and subject to
relitigation when we return after the break. The bill is also
consistent with the total level of discretionary spending enacted in
the Bipartisan Budget Act for the fiscal year 2014. But most
significantly, this legislation will authorize assistance to elements
of the Syrian opposition to help confront the threat presented by the
so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL.
While I believe action against this menace is long overdue, it is
unfortunate, I believe, that the action once again requires the
involvement of our military and our resources. This authority for
training and equipping appropriate moderate elements in Syria is no
panacea. We should remember this. We should not expect quick and easy
progress in turning the tide against this new terrorist threat that has
developed in the region while this administration withdrew and hoped
for the best.
History and our experience in the region tell us that this will not
be the last time Congress will struggle with this issue. Even if we can
identify, train, and equip a large number of fighters in a relatively
short period of time, there will come a time when more will be required
to defeat this enemy. It will not be of a short duration. It is
unfortunate, I believe, that
[[Page S5739]]
the President has chosen to ignore the fact, thereby avoiding an honest
discussion with the American people.
Nevertheless, I believe today it is important that we give the
moderates in the region a fighting chance. If proper training and
equipment can do that, we should support it until it becomes clear that
we must pursue other means to achieve our goals. When that time comes,
I expect Congress to have a full and open debate on that issue. But for
now, Congress, I believe, has the responsibility to carefully track
what the administration is doing with any funds that it reprograms for
this assistance and how this fits into a broader regional strategy
there.
The language in this bill will ensure that the administration
provides the information to the Congress that we need to do our job.
Once again, support for this continuing resolution will achieve two
very important goals: one, avoiding a government shutdown, and
maintaining spending levels currently in the law--very important. For
these two reasons, I will be supporting the bill.
During the break that we are about to go on, and when we return in
November, Senator Mikulski, the chair of the Appropriations Committee,
and I will be working closely on an omnibus bill to put in place
funding for the remainder of the fiscal year. It is my hope that we
will be able to, once again, reach an agreement and complete the work
of the committee before this Congress adjourns. I believe that this is
an achievable goal as long as both sides come to the table with
reasonable expectations. We have done it before. I expect that we can
do it again.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky
Unanimous Consent Request
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, we have before us one of the most
important duties of the Senate and the Congress; that is, to decide
whether we will be involved in war. I think it is inexcusable that the
debate over whether we involve the country in war--another country's
civil war--that this would be debated as part of a spending bill and
not as part of an independent free-standing bill.
It was debated as a free-standing bill yesterday in the House. There
was a free-standing amendment.
It takes 15 extra minutes. One might wonder why the Senate--the most
deliberative body of the world--does not have 15 minutes to debate
separately a question of war. It will be thrown into an amendment or a
bill over spending. Instead of having a debate over war, we will have a
debate over spending. I think this is a sad day for the Senate. It goes
against our history. It goes against the history of the country.
Therefore, I have asked that the amendment that I will set before the
Senate will separate the votes so we will have a debate over war and
then we will have a debate over spending.
I have an amendment at the desk that would cue up the two separate
votes on this legislation and allow the Senate to vote on the inclusion
of the Syria language as a separate question.
I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to call up my
amendment No. 3856.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I want to acknowledge, first of all,
the longstanding views on foreign policy of the Senator from Kentucky
and also on this process. What I want to say is that, No. 1, the Senate
bill and the authorization in title 10 we have here takes us only to
December 11. So this is temporary. What we hope is that the appropriate
committees have additional legislation they are working on so that we
can really look at other matters, such as a greater authorization on
the war and the greater refinement of title 10.
So I acknowledge that there is much to be debated. I say to my
colleague from Kentucky, we have allowed 4\1/2\ hours to debate. Quite
frankly, if the Senator has views on it, I look forward to hearing
those views. So the objection is not meant to be pugnacious at all. But
in the way that the leadership has agreed to move this bill, that is
where we stand. I look forward to hearing the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, if there is a theme that connects the dots
in the Middle East, it is that chaos breeds terrorism. What much of the
foreign policy elite fail to grasp, though, is that intervention to
topple secular dictators has been the prime source of the chaos. From
Hussein to Assad to Qadhafi, it is the same history--intervention to
topple the secular dictator. Chaos ensues and radical jihads emerge.
The pattern has been repeated time and time again.
Yet what we have here is a failure to understand, a failure to
reflect on the outcome of our involvement in Arab civil wars. They say
nature abhors a vacuum. Radical jihadists have again and again filled
the chaotic vacuum of the Middle East. Secular dictators, despots who,
frankly, do terrorize their own people, are replaced by radical
jihadists, who seek terror not only at home but abroad.
Intervention, when both choices are bad, is a mistake. Intervention,
when both sides are evil, is a mistake. Intervention that destabilizes
the Middle East is a mistake. Yet here we are again, wading into a
civil war. I warned a year ago that involving us in Syria's civil war
was a mistake, that the inescapable irony is that some day the arms we
supply would be used against us or Israel. That day is now.
ISIS has grabbed up from the United States, from the Saudis, and from
the Qataris weapons by the truckload. We are now forced to fight
against our own weapons, and this body wants to throw more weapons into
the mix. Even those of us who have been reluctant to get involved in
Middle Eastern wars feel, now that American interests are threatened,
that our consulate and our embassy are threatened. We feel that if ISIS
is left to its own devices maybe they will fulfill what they have
boasted of and attack our homeland.
So, yes, we must now defend ourselves from these barbarous jihadists.
But let's not compound the problem by arming feckless rebels in Syria
who seem to be merely a pit stop for weapons that are really on their
way to ISIS. Remember clearly that the President and his Republican
allies have been clamoring for over a year for airstrikes against
Assad. Assad was our enemy last year. This year he is our friend. Had
all of those air strikes, though, occurred last year in Syria, today
ISIS might be in Damascus. Realize that the unintended consequences of
involving ourselves in these complicated, thousand-year-long civil wars
lead to unintended consequences. Had we bombed Assad last year, ISIS
would be more of a threat this year. ISIS may well be in Damascus had
we bombed Assad last year.
Had the hawks been successful last year, we would be facing a
stronger ISIS, likely in charge of all Syria and most of Iraq.
Intervention is not always the answer and often leads to unintended
consequences.
But some will argue no, no, it is not intervention that led to this
chaos, we didn't have enough intervention. They say if we had only
given the rebels more arms, ISIS wouldn't be as strong now. The only
problem is the facts argue otherwise.
We did give arms and assistance to the rebels through secret CIA
operations, through our allies, through our erstwhile allies. We gave
600 tons--let me repeat that--we gave 600 tons of weapons to the Syrian
rebels in 2013 alone. We gave 600 tons of weapons and they cry out and
say we haven't done enough?
Perhaps they are giving them to people who don't want to fight.
Perhaps the fighters from ISIS are taking the weapons we give to the
so-called moderate rebels. It is a mistake to send more arms to the
Syrians.
According to the U.N. records, Turkey alone, in the space of a 4-
month period, sent 47 tons in addition to the 600 tons of weapons. They
sent 29 tons in 1 month. But there are rumors that the Turks are not
quite that discriminating, that many of these weapons either went
directly or indirectly to the very radical jihadists who are now
threatening us.
If you want to know are there any weapons over there, are there
enough weapons, is it a lack of weapons that causes the moderate Syrian
rebels to be not very good at fighting, well, there are videos online
of the Free Syrian Army, the army our government
[[Page S5740]]
wants to give more arms to. We see them with Mi-8 helicopters, we see
them with shoulder-launched missiles, and yet we see them lose battle
after battle.
We see American-made TOW anti-tank weapons in the hands of Harakat
al-Hazm, a so-called moderate group. The Wall Street Journal reported
that Saudi Arabia has been providing weapons such as this to the
rebels. It also detailed millions of dollars in direct U.S. aid to the
rebels.
We have not been sitting around doing nothing. Six hundred tons of
weapons have already been given to the Syrian rebels. What happened
during the period of time we gave 600 tons of weapons to the moderate
rebels in Syria? ISIS grew stronger.
They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and
over, expecting a different result. We gave 600 tons of weapons to the
rebels and they got weaker and weaker and ISIS grew stronger.
Perhaps by throwing all of these weapons into the civil war, we
actually degraded Assad's ability to counter them. So perhaps Assad
might well have taken care of the radical jihadists and he can't
because of the weapons. Perhaps we have created a safe haven.
The other night the President said in his speech that it will be a
policy of his administration to leave no safe haven for anyone who
threatens America. It sounds good, except for the past 3 years we have
been creating a safe haven for ISIS. ISIS has grown stronger because we
have been arming the resistance that ISIS is part of.
A New York Times article reports that Qatar has used a shadowy arms
network to move shoulder-fired missiles to the rebels. According to
Gulf News, Saudi Arabia has also partnered with Pakistan to provide a
Pakistan version of a Chinese shoulder-launched missile. It doesn't
sound like a dearth of weapons, it sounds like an abundance of weapons.
Iraqi officials have accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of also funding
and arming ISIS at the same time.
Kuwaitis--a Sunni majority country bordering Iraq--have funneled
hundreds of millions of dollars to a wide range of opposition forces
throughout Iraq and Syria, according to the Brookings Institute.
According to the New York Times, over 1 year ago the CIA began
training Syrian rebels in nearby Jordan, thousands of them, delivering
arms and ammunition. Over this period of time, what has happened? ISIS
has grown stronger. Perhaps sending more weapons into the Syrian civil
war is not working.
The New York Times also reports huge arms and financial transfers
from Qatar to the Syrian rebels beginning as early as 3 years ago. No
one really knows where this is all going to end, where are these arms
going to wind up.
Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center noted that the transfer of
Qatari weapons to targeted troops has the same practical effect of
transferring the weapons to al-Nusra, a violent jihadist group.
Let me repeat. Jane's defense analysts say that if you give the
weapons to moderate--the so-called moderate rebels--it is the same as
giving it to al-Nusra.
The New York Times further detailed that even Sudan has been sending
anti-tank missiles and other arms to Syria. It is hard to argue there
are not enough weapons floating around over there.
So the idea that these rebels haven't been armed is ludicrous. It is
also ludicrous to believe that we know where all the money and all the
arms and all the ammunition will wind up or who will benefit from these
arms.
Why? Because we don't even know who these groups are, even if we
think we do. The loyalty shifts on a daily basis. The groups have
become amorphous with alleged moderates lining up side-by-side with
jihadists, not to mention that, guess what, some of these people don't
tell the truth.
Finally, moderates have been now found to sell their weapons. In
fact, there are accusations by the family of Steve Sotloff--who was
recently killed by the barbarians--that he was sold by the moderate
rebels to the jihadists.
The Carnegie Endowment says there are no neat, clean, secular rebel
groups. They don't exist. They reiterate that this is a very dirty war
with no clear good guys on either side.
The German Ambassador to the United States has acknowledged this. The
Germans are arming the Kurds. They are not sending anything into Syria.
It is a mess, and they are concerned that the weapons they send into
Syria will wind up in the wrong hands.
Many former officials are very forthright with their criticism.
According to the former ambassador to Iraq and Syria, our ambassador
says: We need to do everything we can to figure out who the non-ISIS
opposition is because, frankly, we don't have a clue.
Think about this. We are voting or obscuring a vote in a spending
bill to send $500 million worth of arms to Syria, to people who we say
are the vetted moderate Syrian rebels. Guess what. One of the men with
the most knowledge on the ground, who has been our ambassador to Syria,
says we don't have a clue who the moderates are and who the jihadists
are. And even if they tell you they are the moderates, they say: Oh, we
love Thomas Jefferson. Give us a shoulder-fired missile. We love Thomas
Jefferson.
Can you trust these people?
The rebels are all over the map. There are said to be 1,500 groups.
It is chaos over there. We will be sending arms into chaos.
The largest coalition is the Free Syrian Army. I say largest
coalition--really, all the Islamic fronts, al-Nusra, ISIS, Al Qaeda are
all much bigger than the Free Syrian Army--but the biggest group that
we give to is the Free Syrian Army, which currently has three different
people who claim to lead the Free Syrian Army. We don't even know who
is in charge of the Free Syrian Army. They voted out one guy, in
another guy, and he didn't even know they were voting.
There are estimates that half of the Free Syrian Army has defected,
many to al-Nusra, Al Qaeda, and to ISIS. These are the people your
representatives are going to vote to send arms to. Half of them have
defected. Half of them are now fighting with the jihadists. We have
proven time and again that we don't know how to vet these leaders.
Two groups that were initially provided U.S. aid and help last year
are good examples. A top official of Ahrar al-Sham, one of the largest
rebel groups at the time, announced publicly that he now considers
himself to be allied with Al Qaeda.
Just yesterday, our most recent ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford,
said the moderate forces have and will tactically ally with Al Qaeda,
with Al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra.
Listen carefully. Your representatives are sending $500 billion to
people who will tactically ally with Al Qaeda.
I asked Secretary Kerry: Where do you get the authority to wage this
war?
He says: From 2001.
Some of the people fighting weren't born in 2001. Many of the people
who voted in 2001 are no longer living.
We voted to go to war in Afghanistan--and I supported going into that
war because we were attacked and we had to do something about it. But
the thing is, that vote had nothing to do with this--absolutely nothing
to do with this.
You are a dishonest person if you say otherwise. That sounds pretty
mean-spirited. Hear it again. You are intellectually dishonest if you
argue that something passed in 2001, to deal with the people who
attacked us in 9/11, has anything to do with sending arms into Syria.
It is intellectually dishonest--and to say otherwise, you are an
intellectually dishonest person.
I said it yesterday: Mr. President, what you are doing is illegal and
unconstitutional.
The response from Secretary Kerry was: We have article II authority
to do whatever we want.
It is absolutely incorrect. We give power to the Commander in Chief
to execute the war, but we were explicit that the wars were to be
initiated by Congress.
There was debate over this. There were reports of Thomas Jefferson's
opinion about how this was the legislative function. There were letters
in the Federalist Papers from Madison talking how they precisely took
this power from the Executive and gave it to the legislative body.
We hear: Oh, we will do something in December.
What happens between now and December? An election.
[[Page S5741]]
The people of this body are petrified, not of ISIS, but of the
American voter. They are afraid to come forward and vote on war now. We
should have a full-throated discussion of going to war, but we
shouldn't put it off until December.
Secretary Kerry was asked: Will there be Sunni allies in this war on
the ground, fighting to overturn ISIS? The ones, precisely--maybe who
may have been funding it, which is Saudi Arabia--who should be the
first troops in line, receiving the first volley, should not be U.S.
GIs, they should be Saudi Arabians, Qataris, Kuwaitis, and Iraqis--but
they should not be Americans.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, some of the people we have
been supplying and some of the people we continue to supply arms to
aren't so excited about Israel.
Surprise.
One of them remarked: Their goal is to topple Assad, but when they
are done with Assad, their goal is to return all Syrian land occupied
by Israel.
Mark my words. I said the great irony here would be that someday our
dollars and our weapons would be used against us and Israel. They will.
We will be fighting--if we get over there with troops on the ground--
against arms that we supplied to feckless rebels, that were immediately
snatched and taken by ISIS. We will be fighting our own weapons.
Mark my own words, if these people get a chance, they will attack
Israel next.
These are among the many problems I have in arming the Syrian
opposition. Who are we really arming? What would be the result? Where
will the arms end?
There are too many here who believe the answers to these questions
when all indicators are otherwise--or maybe even when it is
unknowable--they continue to believe something that frankly is not
provable and not true.
I am a skeptic of this administration's policies, but this is a
bipartisan problem. This is not a Republican or a Democratic problem,
this is a bipartisan problem.
I do share the administration's belief that the radical jihadists in
this region are a threat to America, but they need to think through how
we got here. Radical jihad has run amok in the Middle East because
intervention has toppled secular dictators. There weren't radical
jihadists doing much of anything in Libya until Gadhafi was gone. He
kept them in check.
Was Gadhafi a great humanitarian? No. He was an awful despot. But his
terror was on his own people, not the United States.
The people in charge--if we can say anybody is in charge in Libya--
their terror is to be exported. Some of them are fighting in Syria.
Where I differ with this administration is whether to arm the same
side as the jihadists. We will be in a war on the same side as the
jihadists. They said: Oh, no. We can make it a three-way war.
War is very confusing, but imagine: We will be in the middle of a
three-way war where many analysts say when you are in the trenches with
the so-called moderates that our money is going to buy arms for--when
they are in the trenches, they are side by side with al-Nusra; they are
side by side with Al Qaeda. Do we want our money and arms being sent to
support troops that are fighting alongside Al Qaeda?
Here is the great irony. The use of force resolution they predicate
this whole thing upon from 2001 says that we can fight terrorism. They
have interpreted that to be Al Qaeda and associated forces. Guess what.
The moderate rebels are fighting with Al Qaeda. We could use the 2001
use of force authorization, as Secretary Kerry understands it, to
attack the same people we are giving the weapons to.
Think about the insanity of it. We are giving weapons to people
fighting in trenches with Al Qaeda. If we interpret the use of force
resolution as Secretary Kerry does, under that formulation we could
attack the very people we are giving the weapons to. It is absurd. We
shouldn't be fighting alongside jihadists.
This administration and its allies have really been on both sides of
this civil war. It is messy; it is unclear. There are bad people on
both sides. We need to stay the heck out of their civil war. I have
opposed them for reasons that I think are becoming clear and I think
the American people will understand. It is not that I am against all
intervention. I do see ISIS as a problem. ISIS is now a threat to us.
But I see our previous policy as having made it worse.
I supported the decision to go into Afghanistan after 9/11. There are
valid reasons for war, but they should be few and far between. They
should be very importantly debated and not shuffled into a 2,000-page
bill and shoved under the rug.
When we go to war, it is the most important vote any Senator will
ever take. Many on the other side have been better on this issue. When
there was a Republican in office, there were loud voices on the other
side. I see an empty Chamber.
There will be no voices against war because this is a Democratic
President's war. The hypocrisy of that should resound in this nearly
empty Chamber. Where are the voices on the other side who were so hard
on George Bush who, by the way, actually did come to Congress? And we
voted on an authorization of force. Agree or disagree, but we did the
right thing. But now we are going to fight the war for 3 or 4 months,
see how it is going, see how the election goes, and then we are going
to come back and maybe we will talk about the use of authorization of
force, maybe we will have amendments.
Colin Powell wrote in his autobiography:
War should be the politics of last resort. And when we go
to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand
and support.
I think that is well thought out. I think he had it right. America
should only go to war to win. We shouldn't go to war sort of meandering
our way through a spending bill. War should only occur when America is
attacked, when it is threatened or when our American interests are
threatened or attacked.
I spent about a year--and I will probably spend a couple more years--
trying to explain to the American people why Secretary Clinton made
terrible decisions in Benghazi not defending the consulate--not the
night of, not the day after, not the talking points--the 6 months in
advance when security was requested. This is one of the reasons it
persuades me that, as reluctant as I am to be involved in Middle
Eastern wars, we have to do something about it. We either have to leave
Iraq or we have to protect our embassy and protect our consulate. I
think there are valid reasons for being involved, and I think we are
doing the right thing but just in the wrong way.
If we want to have less partisan sniping about war, if we want to
unify the country, think back to December 8, 1941. FDR came before a
joint session of Congress and he said, this day ``which will live in
infamy,'' and he united the country. People who had previously been
opposed to war came forward and said: We can't stand this attack. We
will respond. We will be at war with Japan.
He didn't wait around for months. He didn't wait and say: Let's wait
until the midterm elections, and then we will come back maybe in a
lame-duck--if there is a lame-duck--and maybe we will discuss whether
the Japanese should be responded to.
War is a serious business, but we make it less serious by making it
political, hiding and tucking war around. By tucking war away into a
spending bill we make it less serious. We don't unify the public. Then,
as ISIS grows stronger or they are not quelled by sending arms to
feckless allies in Syria, what happens? Then they come back again and
again. There is already the drumbeat. There are already those in both
parties who insist that we must have American GIs on the ground. I am
not sending American soldiers--I am not sending your son, your daughter
or mine--over to the middle of that chaos.
The people who live there need to stand up and fight. The Kurds are
fighting. They seem to be the only people who are really capable of or
willing to fight for their homeland. The Iraqis need to step up and
fight. It is their country. If they are not going to fight for it, I
don't think we need to be in the middle of their fight.
Am I willing to provide air support? Am I willing to provide
intelligence and drones and everything we can to help them? Yes. We
have been helping
[[Page S5742]]
them for 10 years. We have a lot invested. So I am not for giving up,
but it is their war and they need to fight. And I expect the Saudis to
fight, and the Qataris and the Kuwaitis.
Even our own State Department says there is no military solution here
that is good for the Syrian people and that the best path forward is a
political solution. Is someone going to ultimately surrender? Is one
side going to wipe out the other?
Part of the solution here is that civilized Islam needs to crush
radical Islam. Civilized Islam needs to say to radical Islam: This does
not represent our religion. The beheading of civilians, the rape and
killing of women does not represent Islam.
The voices aren't loud enough.
I want to see civilized Islam on the front page of the newspaper and
international TV saying what they will do to wipe out radical Islam. I
want to see them on the frontlines fighting. I don't want to see them
sipping tea or in the discotheque in Cairo. I want to see them on the
frontlines fighting a war to show the Americans and to show the world
that there is a form of civilized Islam that doesn't believe in this
barbarity.
The United States should not fight a war to save face. I won't vote
to send our young men and women to sacrifice life and limb for a
stalemate. I won't vote to send our Nation's best and brightest to
fight for anything less than victory.
When American interests are at stake, it is incumbent upon those
advocating for military action to convince Congress and the American
people of that threat.
Too often the debate begins and ends with a conclusion. They say:
Well, our national interest is at stake. That is the conclusion. The
debate is: Is the national interest at stake? Is what we are going to
do going to work? I would think we would debate for days and this
Chamber would be full.
Before I came here, I imagined that when war was discussed, everybody
would be at their desk and there would be a discussion for hours on end
on whether we would go to war. Now it seems to be some sort of
geopolitical chess game or checkers: Let's throw some money. What is
$500 million? Which is yet another problem around here.
But when we go to war, the burden of proof lies with those who wish
to engage in war. They must convince the American people and convince
Congress. Instead of being on television, the President should have
been before a joint session of Congress--and I would have voted to
authorize force. But it needs to be done according to the Constitution.
Not only is it constitutional, but there is a pragmatic or a
practical reason why the President should have come to us. It
galvanizes people, it brings people together. Both sides vote for the
war, and it is a war of the American people--not a war of one man.
Until there is a vote--if there ever is one--this is one man's war.
Our Founding Fathers would be offended, would be appalled to know
that one man can create a war. We were very fearful of that. We came
from Europe with constant war, where brothers fought cousins and
fathers fought sons, where everybody was related and they fought
continuously. We didn't want a king. We wanted the people, through the
Congress, to determine when we went to war.
This President was largely elected on that concept. I didn't vote for
the President, but I did admire, when he ran first for office that he
said no President should unilaterally take a country to war without the
authority of Congress. That is what President Obama said. He was
running against the wars of the previous administration. People voted
for him for that very reason, but he became part of the problem. He now
does everything that he criticized. It is what the American people
despise about politics.
When they say we have a 10-percent approval rating--Republicans or
Democrats--it is because of this hypocrisy, because we don't obey the
law, because we don't engage in important debate, and because we stuff
war and shuffle war into a spending bill.
Bashar al-Assad is clearly not an American ally. He is an evil
dictator. But the question is: Will his ouster encourage stability or
will it make the Middle East less stable? With his ouster, will that
mean ISIS replaces him? What are the odds that the moderate rebels, who
have lost every battle they have ever engaged in, will be the rulers in
Damascus? If we succeed in degrading Assad where someone can get to
him, we will have ISIS. We will have ISIS in charge of Syria. It will
be worse. We have to ask: Are these Islamic rebels our allies?
I am reminded of the story of Sarkis Al-Zajim. He lived in a city
called Maaloula, Syria. They speak Aramaic there. It is one of the few
remaining villages in the Middle East where they speak the language
that Jesus spoke.
As the marauding Islamic rebels came into town on the same side of
the war--who knows who funded them or where they got the arms--but when
the Islamic rebels came and marauded into town, Sarkis Al-Zajim stood
up. He is a Christian. He lives and sides with Assad. Most of the
Christians side with Assad. So Sarkis Al-Zajim lives in Maaloula,
speaks Aramaic, stands up, and says: ``I am a Christian, and if you
must kill me for this, I do not object to it!'' And these were his last
words.
I don't know who these rebels were, but they are fighting on the same
side that we are arming and we don't know who they are.
Our former Ambassador to Iraq and Syria says we have no clue who the
non-ISIS rebels are. So for all we know, the rebels that killed Sarkis
Al-Zajim could well be part of the so-called vetted opposition.
When they win, will they defend American interests? Will they
recognize Israel? If we want to have a good question, why don't we ask
the vetted moderate Syrians how many will recognize Israel. I am
guessing it is going to be a big goose egg. There is not one of those
jihadists--there is not one of those so-called moderate rebels that
will recognize Israel. And if they win, they will attack Israel next.
Several of the leaders have already said they would. Will they
acknowledge Israel's right to exist? Will they impose Sharia law?
Sharia law has the death penalty for interfaith marriage, death
penalty for conversion--apostasy--and death penalty for blasphemy.
In Pakistan right now--a country that billions of our dollars flow
to, that the vast majority of the Senate loves and will send billions
more of our dollars to if they can get it from us--in Pakistan, Asia
Bibi sits on death row. She is a Christian. Do you know what her crime
was? They say blasphemy. She went to drink from a well and the well was
owned by Muslims. As she was drawing water from the well they began
hurling insults. Then they began hurling stones. They were stoning her
and beating her to death with sticks. The police came, and she said,
thank God. They arrested her and put her in jail because the Muslims
said that she was saying something about their religion. Heresy is life
in prison, death. These are the countries we are sending money to.
The other side up here will argue: Well, we are only sending it to
the moderates in Pakistan; otherwise, the radicals will take over.
Well, the moderates are the ones with Asia Bibi on death row. I
wouldn't send a penny to these people. Why would we send money to
people who hate us? Maybe we should just have a rule: No money to
countries that hate us.
Will these rebels, whom we are going to vote to give money to,
tolerate Christians or will they pillage and destroy ancient villages
such as Sarkis Al-Zajim's church and village?
The President and his administration haven't provided good answers
because they don't exist. As the former Ambassador said: They don't
have a clue.
Shooting first and aiming later has not worked for us in the past.
The recent history of the Middle East has not been a good one. Our
previous decisions have given results that should cause us to be quite
wary of trying to do the same again.
I would like President Obama to reread the speeches of Candidate
Obama. There is a great disagreement between the two, and Candidate
Obama really seemed to be someone who was going to protect the right of
Congress to declare war, but it hasn't been so.
Our Founding Fathers understood that the executive branch was the
branch most prone to war, and so with due deliberation our Founding
Fathers took the power to declare war and they gave it to Congress
exclusively.
[[Page S5743]]
President Obama's new position as President, which differs from his
position as candidate, is that he is fine to get some input when it is
convenient for us--maybe after the election--but he is not really
interested enough to say that it would bind him or that he would say we
need attacks now and come to us tomorrow and ask for permission. He
thinks ``maybe whenever it is convenient and you guys get around to
it.''
Secretary Kerry stated explicitly that his understanding of the
Constitution is that no congressional authorization is necessary. I
say, why even bother coming back in December? They kind of like it.
They like the show of it. They understand it might have some practical
benefit. But it is theater and show. If you are going to commit war
without permission, it is theater and show to ask for permission. The
President said basically article II grants him the power to do whatever
he wants. If so, why have a Congress? Why don't we just recess the
whole thing? Oh, that is right, that is what we are getting ready to
do. It is election season.
The President and his administration view this vote just as a
courtesy but not as a requirement. Even if Congress votes against it,
he said he would do it anyway. He already has authority; why would it
stop him?
Article I, section 8, clause 11 gives Congress and Congress alone the
power to declare war. If Congress does not approve this military
action, the President must abide by the decision.
But it worries me. This President worries me, and it is not because
of ObamaCare or Dodd-Frank or these horrific pieces of legislation. As
I travel around the country, when people ask me ``What has the
President done? What is the worst thing he has done?'' it is the
usurpation of power, the idea that there is no separation of powers or
that he is above that separation. If you want to tremble and worry
about the future of our Republic, listen to the President when he says:
Well, Congress won't act; therefore, I must. Think about the
implications of that.
Democracy is messy. It is hard to get everybody to agree to
something. But the interesting thing is that had he asked, had he come
forward and done the honorable thing, we would have approved--I would
have approved an authorization of force. It would have been
overwhelming had he done the right thing, but he didn't come forward
and ask. He didn't come forward and ask when he amended the Affordable
Care Act. He didn't come forward and ask when he amended immigration
law. And he is not coming forward to ask on the most important decision
we face in our country; that is, a decision to go to war.
Our Founders understood this and debated this. This is not a new
debate. Thomas Jefferson said the Constitution gave ``one effectual
check to the dog of war by transferring the power to declare war from
the Executive to the Legislative body.''
Madison wrote even more clearly:
The power to declare war, including the power of judging
the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the
legislature.
There was no debate. Our Founding Fathers were unanimous. This was
our power. To do it when it is convenient after the election is to
abdicate our responsibility and is to make a serious discussion a
travesty.
There is no debate more significant than this, and we are going to
stuff it in a bill. We are going to stuff it in a 2,000-page bill and
not talk about it, not vote on it individually. Our leaders must be
held accountable. If we don't, there will be no end to the war. The
ridiculous and the absurd must be laid to rest. We have all heard it
before.
Toppling Qadhafi led to a jihadist wonderland in Libya. Toppling
Hussein led to chaos in Iraq with which we are still involved. Toppling
Assad will lead to more chaos and greater danger to America from the
jihadists.
The moss-covered, too-long-in-Washington crowd cannot help
themselves: War, war, what we need is more war. But they never pay
attention to the results of the last war. Their policies and the
combination of feckless disinterest, fraudulent redlines, and selective
combativeness have led us to this point.
Yes, we must confront ISIS, in part for penance for the President's
role in their rise. But while we do so to protect our interests here
and abroad, what we need is someone to shout: War, war, what are we
fighting for?
Amidst the interventionists' disjointed and frankly incoherent
rhetoric, amidst the gathering gloom that sees enemies behind every
friend and friends behind every enemy, the only consistent theme is
war. These barnacled enablers have never met a war they didn't like.
They beat their chests in rhythmic ode to failed policies. Their drums
beat to policies that display their outrage but fail to find a cure.
Unintended consequences drown and smother the possibility of good
intentions.
Must we act to check and destroy ISIS? Yes--and again yes--because of
the foolishness of the interventionists. But let's not mistake what we
must do. We shouldn't give a free pass to forever intervene in the
civil wars of the Middle East. Intervention created this chaos.
Intervention aided and abetted the rise of radical Islam. Intervention
has made us less safe in Libya and in Syria and in Iraq.
To those who wish unlimited intervention and boots on the ground
everywhere, remember the smiling poses of politicians pontificating
about so-called freedom fighters and heroes in Libya, in Syria, and in
Iraq, unaware that the so-called freedom fighters may well have been
allied with kidnapers and killers and jihadists. Are these so-called
moderate Islamic rebels in Syria friends or foes? Do we know who they
really are?
As the interventionists clamor for boots on the ground, we should
remember that they were wrong about Iraq, they were wrong about Libya,
and they were wrong about Syria. When will we quit listening to the
advocates who have been wrong about every foreign policy position of
the last two decades? When does a track record of being consistently
wrong stop you from being a so-called expert when the next crisis comes
up? We should remember that they were wrong, that there were no WMDs,
that Hussein, Qadhafi, and Assad were not a threat to us. It doesn't
make them good, but they were not a threat to us. We should remember
that radical Islam now roams the countryside in Libya and in Syria and
in Iraq. We should remember that those who believe war is the answer
for every problem are wrong. We should remember that the war against
Hussein, the war against Qadhafi, and the war against Assad have all
led to chaos. That intervention enhanced the rise of radical Islam and
ultimately led to more danger for Americans.
Before we arm the so-called moderate Muslims in Syria, remember what
I said a year ago: The ultimate irony you will not be able to overcome
is that someday these weapons will be used to fight against Americans.
If we are forced onto the ground, we will be fighting against those
same weapons that I voted not to send a year ago.
We will fight ISIS, a war that I accept as necessary largely because
our own arms and the arms of our allies--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar--
have enabled our new enemy ISIS. Will we ever learn?
President Obama now wishes to bomb ISIS and arm the Islamic rebels'
allies at the same time. We are on both sides of a civil war. The
emperor has no clothes. Let's just admit it. The truth is sometimes
painful.
We must protect ourselves from radical Islam, but we should never
ever have armed radical Islam, and we should not continue to arm
radical Islam. To those who will say, ``Oh, we are just giving to the
moderates, not to the radicals,'' it is going and stopping temporarily
with the moderates and then on to ISIS. That is what has been going on
for a year. Somehow they predict that something different will occur.
We have enabled the enemy we must now confront.
Sending arms to so-called moderate Islamic rebels in Syria is a
fool's errand and will only make ISIS stronger. ISIS grew as the United
States and her allies were arming the opposition. So, as we have sent
600 tons of weapons, ISIS has grown stronger. You are going to tell me
that 600 tons of more weapons will defeat ISIS?
The barnacled purveyors of war should admit their mistakes and not
compound them. ISIS is now a threat. Let's get on with destroying them.
But make no mistake--arming Islamic rebels in Syria will only make it
harder to destroy ISIS.
[[Page S5744]]
Thank you. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the provision in the continuing
resolution before us authorizes the President to train and equip
friendly forces whose interests and objectives are aligned with ours so
that they can fight on their own behalf, much as we have done elsewhere
in the world--for example, a number of African countries which we have
helped support their own freedom and independence, their own efforts to
go after the terrorists who terrorized them. We have done that pursuant
to provisions we have included in previous Defense authorization bills.
This year, as our Presiding Officer knows as a very important member
of our committee, when the Armed Services Committee marked up the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, we approved a
similar Syria train-and-equip provision by a bipartisan vote of 23 to
3.
While ISIS is currently focused on building an Islamic caliphate in
the Middle East, its poisonous ideology is hostile not only to the
region but to the world, and there is a real risk that the area it
controls could become a launching pad for future terrorist attacks
against the United States and its friends and allies. ISIS is
terrorizing the Iraqi and the Syrian people, engaging in kidnappings,
killings, persecutions of religious minorities, and attacking schools,
hospitals, and cultural sites.
The threat to Americans and American interests was dramatically and
tragically brought home recently by the brutal beheading of American
journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff and British aid worker David
Haines.
The President has announced a four-pronged strategy to degrade and
ultimately defeat ISIS. Those four prongs are as follows: first,
increased support to Iraqi, Kurdish, and Syrian opposition forces on
the ground; second, a systemic campaign of airstrikes against ISIS;
third, improved intelligence and efforts to cut off ISIS's funding and
recruiting; and fourth, continued humanitarian assistance to ISIS's
victims.
Our senior military leaders support the President's strategy. When
General Dempsey testified before the Armed Services Committee, I asked
whether he personally supports the President's strategy, and of course
I asked the question exactly that way--``Do you personally support the
President's strategy?''--so that we would get his own answer and not
simply the answer he might feel he has to give because of his Commander
in Chief's position.
When we ask military officers for their own personal position, that
is what they must give us. When we have confirmation hearings, we ask
them that question: Will you give us your own personal opinion when you
come before us even though it might differ from the administration in
power? That is one of the questions we ask on every confirmation, and,
of course, if we don't get the answer that they will, there will not be
a confirmation.
So we asked and I asked as my first question a few days ago whether
General Dempsey as Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff personally
supports the President's strategy, and his response was, ``I do.'' He
explained that the best way forward runs ``through a coalition of Arab
and Muslim partners and not through ownership of this fight by the
United States.'' Training and equipping the moderate Syrian opposition
is a critical step. As General Dempsey explained, we need to build ``a
force of vetted, trained moderate Syrians to take on ISIL in Syria''
because ``as long as ISIL enjoys the safe haven in Syria, it will
remain a formidable force and a threat.''
Some colleagues have expressed the concern that this new military
effort could lead us back into a quagmire that we entered with the Iraq
invasion in 2003, but what we are voting on here is virtually the
opposite of what was voted on in the 2002 Authorization for the Use of
Military Force in Iraq.
I voted against the Iraq authorization in 2002. I am voting for this
train-and-equip authority today. The differences are huge between what
was voted on in 2002 and what we are voting on today.
First, in 2003, we invaded Iraq and threw out Saddam Hussein's
government. This year, by contrast, the Iraqi Government has requested
our assistance against ISIS. This request has been joined by leaders of
Iraq's Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and other religious minorities. The
global community will provide support in response to this request, but
ISIS remains a problem that only Iraqis and Syrians can solve. They can
solve it with our help, but only they can solve it.
I am continuing on the differences. Indeed, the contrast between what
we are voting on today and what was voted on in 2002 is relative to the
same country, but what a difference.
In 2003, the United States and Britain invaded Iraq with token
support from a handful of Western partners. It was a unilateral
approach without visible participation or support from Arab or Muslim
nations. It helped spawn Iraqi resistance, including Al Qaeda in Iraq,
the predecessor to ISIS. Al Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS didn't exist before
our invasion of Iraq in 2003. They are a direct response to our
unilateral action in Iraq. This year, by contrast--and what a
contrast--we are seeing the participation of key Arab and Muslim States
in the region and their active, visible role will be critical to the
effectiveness of any international coalition.
Our senior military and civilian leaders recognize, as General
Dempsey testified before our committee, that ISIS ``will only be
defeated when moderate Arab and Muslim populations in the region reject
it.''
The recent international conferences in Jeddah and Paris were a good
start, with a number of Arab States declaring their shared commitment--
and this was a public statement--to develop a strategy ``to destroy
ISIL wherever it is, including in both Iraq and Syria,'' and joining in
an international pledge to use ``whatever means necessary'' to achieve
this goal.
The contrast to the Iraq invasion of 2003 is particularly sharp with
regard to ground combat troops. In 2003, almost 200,000 American and
British combat troops invaded Iraq. Only after years of relentless
ground combat operations were we able to get our troops out. This year,
by contrast, the President's policy is that ground combat operations in
Iraq and Syria will not be carried out by us, but by Iraqis, Kurds, and
Syrians. While the United States and a broad coalition of nations,
including Arab and Muslim countries, will support this effort, there is
no plan to have American combat forces on the ground.
As General Dempsey explained to the Armed Services Committee, U.S.
forces ``are not participating in direct combat. There is no intention
for them to do so.'' You wouldn't know that if you read the press
coverage of his testimony, so I will repeat it in the wan hope that
maybe this time his statement will be covered. General Dempsey said we
``are not participating in direct combat. There is no intention for
them to do so.'' General Dempsey was talking about the U.S. Armed
Forces.
General Dempsey added a caveat that if circumstances change, he
might, for instance, recommend to the President that U.S. advisers be
authorized to accompany Iraqi security forces into combat. He was clear
that these comments were focused on how our forces could best and most
appropriately advise the Iraqis on their combat operations.
Senator Graham asked General Dempsey whether he thought they could
defeat ISIL without us being on the ground. The question he asked was:
``If you think they can [defeat ISIL] without us being on the ground,
just say yes,'' and General Dempsey responded, ``Yes.''
I saw that in all of one newspaper article across the country.
Our senior military leaders, of course, reserve the right to
reconsider their recommendations based on conditions on the ground. I
would expect that General Dempsey would say, just as any general would
say, we must be free to change a recommendation to the President if
circumstances on the ground change. That is a very different statement
from what the press put into General Dempsey's mouth when they said
General Dempsey suggested we may need U.S. combat forces. The direct
answer of General Dempsey was: We have no plan to do it. We believe
they can do it without us, and, of course, if conditions change, I must
make a different recommendation, or at least might make a different
recommendation to the Commander in Chief.
[[Page S5745]]
At the end of the day, of course, the President, who is the Commander
in Chief, and not the military, will establish policy. Even if
conditions change and even if General Dempsey decided to recommend a
different role for U.S. ground combat troops, it would just be that, a
recommendation.
The struggle against ISIS in Iraq and in Syria will be a long and
hard one and we should give it our support. We cannot take the place of
Iraqis and Syrians. They must purge the poison they have in their
country. These extremist groups, such as ISIS and Al Qaeda, must be
purged by the people they plague, but we can help these people get rid
of this poison.
We are already working with Muslim and Arab countries that are openly
uniting against a poisonous strain of Islam. It threatens them even
more than it threatens us. This has to be an Iraqi and Syrian fight--an
Arab and a Muslim fight--and not a Western fight if it is going to be
successful. It will be highly destructive to our efforts to bring about
a broad coalition if Congress and the President appear disunited.
We are asking Arab and Muslim countries to openly take on a plague, a
cancer, a poison in their midst. That is what we are asking of them.
There has been too much behind-the-scenes support, too much quiet
support or opposition, too much inconsistency from a number of Arab and
Muslim countries. So what the President and Secretary Kerry are doing
is not just helping to organize a broad coalition of Western and Muslim
countries to go after this stain, this threat that is in their midst,
what we are asking them to do is to do it openly so their people see
that their governments, and indeed their people, are threatened by this
terror poison in their midst. What is critical, and what is so hugely
different is this time it will be an international coalition going
after terrorists and not just a Western invasion of a Muslim country.
It would be, again, destructive of our efforts to get open support in
the Muslim and Arab world for going after these terrorists--this stain
called ISIS--if Congress and the President are disunited. So we should
give our support to the provision authorizing the training and
equipping of vetted, moderate Syrian opposition forces. I hope we do it
on a bipartisan basis here, making it then not only bipartisan but also
bicameral. What an important statement that will be to the very
countries that are seeking to help rid themselves of this cancer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, when we head to the Senate floor, we
make choices. We first choose how to get here--whether to take the
subway or walk. We choose whether to stop and talk to a colleague or
two along the way. We also choose whether to speak to the press, and
normally there are plenty of reporters available to speak to. I and
many of my colleagues are often picky about who we talk to. I like
talking to reporters just fine, but my staff gets a little nervous.
Last week, after coming out of the secure briefing on the situation
in the Middle East, I went up to the first reporter I saw, because in
that briefing no one asked how much this war with ISIL would cost or
how we were going to pay for it. At the end of the briefing I asked
those questions myself. But it is telling that no one up to that point
and time had voiced their concerns about costs, which leads me to ask:
Are we putting another war in the Middle East on a credit card? Will it
be added to our debt? Will our grandchildren once again have to pay for
our choices today?
I also asked what domestic programs will be cut if this war is an
unpaid war. Will they cut improvements to our highways, Head Start,
Violence Against Women Act funding?
We are not having a real debate. We will be voting on whether to
authorize the training of moderate Syrian rebels to fight the Islamic
State.
Earlier this year the President told us this would cost about $500
million. We can say this bill contains no specific dollar amount, but
that is what this administration is going to spend, and that is just a
start. This discussion will take less than half a day. We need more
information. We have had some briefings and some of the committees up
here have had some hearings, but the Senate needs a real debate on the
extent of our involvement in Iraq and Syria and with ISIL. We need more
information, and that is why I am speaking today and why I spoke to the
press last week. After all, $500 million is a lot of money. That would
go a long way in a State such as Montana where we need to upgrade our
roads, bridges, fund pre-kindergarten education, and take care of our
public lands.
This week the President said he will spend up to $1 billion to combat
the threat of Ebola in West Africa. I am not going to argue that there
is a strong case for these requests. ISIL and Ebola are terrible in
their own rights, and no one would think twice if we wiped them from
the face of the Earth. But I do have questions about how we pay for
these kinds of actions and what our long-term strategy is.
The President requested $58 billion for additional defense spending
for the 2015 fiscal year. That is spending on top of the $490 billion
that is just a part of the normal Defense Department's budget.
But the bill we are voting on today puts the defense budget on auto
pilot. There is no chance to find other places to cut spending. There
are no chances to raise revenue so we don't just put this new spending
on the credit card and on the backs of our grandchildren.
Folks will say this bill is only for 2 months. They will say that on
December 11, when this bill expires, we can pursue the defense budget
to cut programs that aren't working to pay for this new military
action. But we all know that is a heavy lift in a city where it is
easier to spend than it is to save, especially when we are already
dipping our hands into the pot to fight ISIL and Ebola.
Over a decade ago we sent American servicemembers to Iraq to
overthrow Saddam Hussein. Americans lost sons and daughters, husbands
and wives. Families made great personal sacrifices, but our government
never asked us to sacrifice as a whole. We didn't raise taxes. We
didn't cut spending. We didn't set aside money to take care of our
veterans who returned from the battlefield with wounds both seen and
unseen. As a result, combined with massive tax cuts, our deficit and
our debt exploded.
Now $500 million is a far cry from the hundreds of billions of
dollars we spent in Iraq over the last decade, but this is just a
start. We must stop putting wars on credit cards. I wonder if once we
start an overseas conflict, do we know when and where it will stop? Do
we know what our spending will achieve?
Over the last 5 years, we have actually had some progress on deficit
reduction. We reduced the deficit by two-thirds. But all that is at
risk with the beginning of a new conflict.
We simply have too many unanswered questions.
The President says we are backed by a coalition of nations ready to
join our fight against ISIS, but will it be a real coalition? Violent
extremists are threats to peace-loving societies no matter where they
are, and I agree with the President that we need to contain and destroy
ISIL before it gets stronger. But only a real coalition, one that
includes strong commitments of money, equipment, and manpower from
Middle Eastern, Asian, South American, and European nations will lead
to a long-term stability in that region.
These allies should be footing their share of the bill. As I
mentioned, Americans--whether today's taxpayers or tomorrow's--should
not shoulder a disproportionate burden of the cost. After all, if
countries such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey feel the growth of ISIL, they
should make real commitments to this war-fighting effort. That is what
happened during the first gulf war. In that war, members of the
coalition contributed more than 80 percent of that war's costs. Because
if ISIL is truly a worldwide problem, then there should be a worldwide
response and commitment to addressing that problem. If ISIL is
threatening to upset the balance of power in the Middle East, then
Middle Eastern nations must step up. If terrorists and ISIL are a
worldwide threat, then the world must step up. Anything else is
unacceptable.
Some say that in order to ensure world peace, America must be a world
leader. They say no other country is prepared to be the world's
policeman. World peace is important, but true peace stems from our
ability to rally
[[Page S5746]]
other nations to our cause. When we convince someone of the merit of
our argument, when we form strong alliances that stand the test of
time, when we act in concert with other nations, our word and our acts
become stronger, and the world's respect grows.
We are told today that other countries will respond, that other folks
are joining the fight. But actions speak louder than words. I, for one,
would like to see more of it before I vote to commit America's
taxpayers' money to this fight.
Eleven years ago, we invaded Iraq without a real coalition, and we
built our argument on false pretenses. Moving forward, we must have a
real debate, a sound strategy, and an end game.
This body is historically the world's greatest deliberative body. It
was here that men such as Daniel Webster and Henry Clay deliberated. We
are not having that kind of debate today. We are not gathering more
information. There were committee hearings this week, but the die is
cast, the wheels are in motion. As we say in Montana, the horse is out
of the barn, the cows are out to pasture.
There are 1,600 American troops in Iraq right now who deserve a real
debate. Many of them have husbands, wives, children, families. I do not
know that I can say with certainty to them: Don't worry, we are
training the right people to fight on the ground in Syria. If America
is wrong about who we train and who we arm in Syria, my fear is that
these 1,600 servicemembers will be joined again by tens of thousands
more. For their sake and the sake of the American taxpayer, we need a
fuller debate that will have a real impact on the decisionmaking
process here in this Senate, and more of that debate should have
happened before now.
I serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee. I know we must fund
the government and prevent a shutdown. That is the responsible thing to
do. The cost of last year's shutdown on Montana business was
extraordinary and unnecessary, and I do not want to repeat that fiasco.
That is why I will be voting for that continuing resolution later
today.
I know some folks are opposed to this continuing resolution because
they think we should pass appropriations bills individually. I
appreciate that and I agree. But the fact is, the Appropriations
Committee--under the chairmanship of Chairwoman Mikulski, who is on the
floor right now, and Senator Shelby--has worked hard and worked in a
bipartisan way to try to make that happen. They have tried to
reinvigorate this committee and make sure the Senate fulfills our
constitutional responsibility to make the hard choices about how we
spend taxpayers' money.
Ironically, some of the folks who have said they don't like passing
the CR are the very same folks who have made it harder to pass the
bipartisan bills that come out of that Appropriations Committee. Talk
about playing down to the American people's already low expectations
for Congress.
So we have no choice other than to pass the CR today. But I am tired
of spending without a plan. I am tired of getting caught up in fighting
wars in the Middle East, performing the same actions and expecting a
different result. I am tired of repeating history without learning its
lessons.
We can do better. And for the sake of our troops, for the sake of our
taxpayers, for the sake of our kids, for the fate of our Nation and the
world, we must.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Baltimore Orioles
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, we have had some excellent debate here
today on a very consequential matter of arming these so-called Syrian
moderates. I know the Senator from Maine, Mr. King, will be coming here
shortly to participate in that debate, and I think this is a very good
activity.
While we wait for Senators to come to the floor, I wish to take a few
minutes to speak about the Baltimore Orioles. This in no way minimizes
the debate going on now, but while we have the time for some of the
Senators coming who want to emphasize this topic, I want to take a
little bit of a breather here.
As my colleagues can see, I am wearing the Orioles' colors on the
Senate floor today, and while we must address issues, we have to
remember the kinds of things that make America great. In this
continuing resolution, in addition to dealing with intense foreign
policy needs and intense foreign policy crises, we have to remember
that we are actually funding both our national security and the
Department of Defense and very important domestic programs, including
preschool, NIH to find cures for autism and Alzheimer's, and so on. We
also want to not only keep the government going but remember what is so
great about our country.
Of course, baseball is one of the things that makes our country
great. That is why I rise today to congratulate the Baltimore Orioles
who won the American East title. As I said, I wear their colors today
on the floor and I hope to wear them at Camden Yards.
My home team not only represents the tough, enduring spirit of
Baltimore, but the entire State. This team never quits, and it always
plays hard. Sure, we tip our hats to the rest of the American East,
including the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Rays, the Blue Jays, but this
is our year.
The Orioles are celebrating their 60th anniversary in Baltimore. The
O's, as we affectionately call them, arrived in 1954. I was a high
school girl. I remember the excitement of the team coming, our first
major league team. We played AAA up until then. There was a big parade
up and down Charles Street. Charm City was charmed by this new baseball
team.
There have been many amazing events that have occurred since then,
and, of course, fantastic and legendary players, including Brooks
Robinson, Frank Robinson, Jim Palmer, Eddy Murray, ``Iron Man'' Cal
Ripken, Jr. We remember our coaches such as Earl Weaver, who got the
fans excited, and, of course, we remember Cal Ripken, Sr., who taught
us the Orioles way.
So this year we have a team that, once again, is energized and on its
way to the playoffs.
Anyone who has watched the Orioles this season at Camden Yards knows
this was a true team effort. The American East title was made possible
by clutch hits and home runs, spectacular catches and gutsy pitching.
When the All-Star players weren't on the field, workhorse veterans and
promising young rookies stepped up night after night.
Yes, there is Oriole magic. We have our manager, Buck Showalter, who,
as my colleagues know, is a laugh a minute. I am joking. If my
colleagues have looked at Mr. Showalter, they know he doesn't crack a
smile, but he sure teaches his players how to crack the bat. His
attention to the big picture and to the smallest detail is the way he
has taught his team to function.
We think we are on our way to what is called the battle of the
beltways. It is conceivable that we will be playing the Washington
Nationals who have just won the National League East title, and a tip
of the hat to our friends in the District of Columbia. We are as
excited for them as we are about ourselves, and we can't wait to meet.
I am hoping for this.
Three cheers for the Baltimore Orioles who have earned this fantastic
title. We won't stop until we have a pennant flying high over our
stadium.
I want to congratulate the entire Orioles organization, from the
managers to the front office, and the owner of the team, Peter Angelos,
who rescued our team many years ago from being sold out of town. Peter
Angelos stepped up to the plate and saved it and kept the team in
Baltimore, and he has kept the team on the go. Now that fantastic team,
under great leadership, wonderful players, and the best fans in both
leagues, is looking forward to the playoffs.
We are also looking forward to not only the game, but it is the
spirit of community that is in Baltimore. Our city hall in the evening
is lit up in orange. When we travel the city, we see people wearing the
colors and laughing and giving each other shoulder to
[[Page S5747]]
shoulder and high fives. When people come to Baltimore now to go visit
a great institution such as Johns Hopkins, whether a person is an
orderly or a facilities manager, or whether a person is a Nobel Prize
winner, everybody is wearing the orange. Whether people are Black,
White, Hispanic, Latino, men, women, we are all there. That is because
it is about baseball. It is about a team. It is about America. It is
about the land of the free and the home of the brave.
So let's keep our government open. Let's be on the playing field and
in the competition for jobs and opportunity. And I will be back for the
lameduck, gloating.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise today to speak about ISIS--the
threat, what we can do about it, and what we must do about it.
Why are we having this debate? Why are we conducting airstrikes? This
is a clear and present danger to the United States of America. This
group has done everything but send us an email saying we are coming for
you. They have made comments: We will see you in New York. They
brutally murdered two of our citizens.
If they have free rein in the area that is as big as the State of
Indiana, I suppose, between eastern Syria and western and northern
Iraq, there, undoubtedly, will come a time when they will strike here
and in Europe and in other parts of the world.
I am here today to support the provision of the continuing resolution
that will allow us to begin the arming, equipping, and training of the
Syrian moderate opposition.
Why do we even have this discussion? Because the most fundamental
responsibility of any government anywhere, any time is to protect our
citizens. The preamble of the U.S. Constitution says that one of the
fundamental purposes listed in the preamble is to ``provide for the
common defense'' and ``insure domestic tranquility''--a basic function
of any government. This is why we are having this debate today.
This arming and equipping provision is not a panacea. It is not going
to end the war. It is not going to be easy. It is no sure thing.
A friend said to me this morning: It is the least worst option. It is
one that we must undertake. It has to be part of the solution because
to root out ISIS, whose headquarters are in Syria--not Iraq--there are
going to have to be troops. There are going to have be combat troops.
There is no such thing as a surgical war.
Where are those troops going to come from? Not from the United
States--they have to come from within the Syrian opposition itself.
This is also important as a gesture to the coalition we are building
to confront this threat. Having a credible coalition--which I will
expand upon in a moment--is an incredibly important part of this entire
strategy. Without a functioning real coalition, it is impossible, it is
an impossible task. This cannot be a U.S. war. This cannot be a war of
the West against this so-called Islamic State. It has to involve
particularly the neighbors in the region.
I am also supportive of the general strategy the President outlined,
but I think there are several points that need to be absolutely
emphasized. One is the importance of the coalition. We cannot have a
coalition that just holds our coat while we do the fighting. They have
to be engaged in an active way--not just writing checks.
If we try to do this ourselves, not even if we were inclined to do
this with our own troops, it wouldn't work. These have to be local
faces on the ground. There are going to be boots on the ground, but
they are not and should not and cannot be ours.
The second thing that is so important in this strategy the President
outlined the other night is a trustworthy, inclusive government in
Baghdad. The reason ISIS was so successful in this sweep through
northern Iraq and into Mosul was that they were swimming in friendly
waters. They were swimming in the Sunni regions of Iraq where the local
tribes and Sunni leaders have been alienated and systematically
excluded from the government in Baghdad.
If the government in Baghdad cannot build credibility with that
group, this is a hopeless enterprise. Prime Minister al-Abadi needs to
channel his inner Mandela. He has to be inclusive of even the people
who were his enemies and the enemies of his sect at a prior time.
This has to be a government that can be trusted. Really what is going
on is a battle for the loyalty of the Sunni population of Iraq to see
whether they are going to be loyal to this brutal so-called Islamic
State or to the government of the country in Baghdad. That is the
challenge that is before that government today.
So far the signs are positive, but we are still in the very first
weeks of this regime. But that has to be a crucial element of our
strategy. So these are two pieces that are largely out of our control.
We can try to build a coalition. We can put pressure on the
government in Baghdad, but these folks have to do it themselves. We
cannot be the policemen of the Middle East.
The third piece is building the Syrian opposition. The same goes for
Al-Raqqa, the headquarters of ISIS in Syria. There are going to have to
be people on the ground, and they are not going to be Americans. They
have to come from the Syrian opposition, and that is why that is an
important element of the strategy.
I think there is another discussion we have to have. Unfortunately,
the calendar doesn't allow us to have it today. I believe there must be
a new authorization for the use of military force. The authorization
that was passed right after September 11, 2001, has been stretched and
strained to the point where if it is allowed to become the
justification for anything, there is nothing left of the clause of the
Constitution that says Congress shall be the one to declare war.
I have gone back and looked at the history of that clause. Very
interestingly, the original draft of the Constitution said Congress
shall make war. At the time, the Framers realized that Congress would
not be the right entity to execute the war itself, to make the
battlefield decisions. The Framers were adamant that the momentous
decision of entering this country into war had to be in the branch of
the government most representative of the people.
They went through history--in the 49th Federalist they talk about how
throughout history unfettered executives, princes, kings mischievously
and often on weak grounds got their countries engaged in war. They made
a conscious decision that this responsibility was left with the
Congress. Unfortunately, over the years, going back to the late 1940s,
we allowed that clause to atrophy. We allowed the Executive to take
more and more responsibility and power and unilateral authority. People
are saying: Well, this President is acting unilaterally. This is
nothing new. This goes back to Harry Truman and the Korean war. This
isn't something that Barack Obama invented.
Presidents naturally want more authority. They do have the power to
defend our country when the threat is imminent and real, but they don't
have the power to commit American armed forces in any place, at any
time, under any circumstances.
I believe we have a constitutional responsibility to consider this
matter, to debate it, to argue about the terms of what the
authorization should be--how it should be limited in duration,
geography, target, in means of confrontation with the enemy. That is
what we must do.
Finally, beyond this AUMF, beyond ISIS, assume for a moment we are
tremendously and utterly successful over the next 6 months, a year, 2
years, and ISIS is gone, the problem is history has taught us someone
will take their place.
The real issue is radical jihadism. We have to have a strategy to
deal with that in the long term that doesn't involve trying to just
kill them as they come forward. It was characterized recently as
geopolitical Whac-A-Mole. We stop them in one place, and it comes up
somewhere else, and we all know about al-Shabaab, al-Nusra, Al Qaeda,
Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and Boko Horam.
We have to be talking about and developing a strategy to deal with
this threat to our country and to the rest of the world on a more long-
term basis than simply having continuous--what amounts to--battles
against elements of these people.
[[Page S5748]]
Why are they doing this? What is attracting young people to this
destructive philosophy, and how can we best counteract that? I believe
we have to make a decision today.
As I said, I also think we have to make a decision before the end of
the year as to what the scope, limits, and authority of the President
are in this matter. We can try to avoid it, but I don't believe we can.
On December 1, 1862, Abraham Lincoln sent a message to this body, and
the conclusion of that message was that we cannot escape history. It
will light us down from one generation to the next. I believe that we
need to stand and debate, argue, refine, and finally reach a conclusion
so that the American people can understand what we are doing and why.
The Executive will have clear authority. The rest of the world will
know that this is the United States of America taking this position--
not a President and not a few Members of Congress. That is a
responsibility I believe we are ready to assume. This is a threat. It
must be met, and we must participate in the decision to meet it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ukraine
Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I come to the floor to, first of all,
thank President Poroshenko for the speech he gave to a joint session of
the Congress today. It was a very moving speech. I think it was a very
direct speech, and it really showed how important it is that we stand
with the people of Ukraine during this trying time with the aggression
they are facing from Russia.
I come to the floor to say a couple of things. At the end of his
speech, he used the motto of my home State--the State of New Hampshire:
Live Free or Die. In New Hampshire we are very proud of that motto. It
came from a statement during the American Revolution from General John
Stark, and it really does not only have meaning to my home State of New
Hampshire but also to the people of Ukraine with what they have been
facing--those who stood in the Maidan and gave their lives for freedom
and democracy in Ukraine.
I have had the privilege of going to Ukraine twice, both in March and
also to oversee their presidential elections. In both instances, I was
very struck by the patriotism, by their love for America, and their
gratefulness for our support.
As we heard President Poroshenko say to all of us today, now more
than ever they need American support. There is something I have been
calling for--for a while, in fact. When I went there in March--and also
I had the privilege of traveling with Senator Donnelly--it was a
bipartisan codel--and also in May, in both of those instances we had
the request for lethal assistance so that the Ukrainian military would
have the arms they need to defend themselves against this Russian
aggression.
So today we also heard President Poroshenko call upon us again to
provide the support for the Ukrainian military. They have fought and
continue to fight and die for their own independence, freedom, and
territorial integrity. The least we can do is provide them lethal
assistance.
As President Poroshenko rightly said today: Blankets and night vision
goggles are important, but one cannot win a war with a blanket.
I would hope all of us stood together today, both Democrats and
Republicans, to say we stand with the people of Ukraine.
I know this afternoon the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has come
together and marked up a very important aid package to Ukraine which
contains lethal assistance for their military.
I would hope our President would see that on a bipartisan basis we
stand with the people of Ukraine and we must provide them with this
assistance they need.
Finally, I would say that the Budapest Memorandum that President
Poroshenko mentioned today is very important.
We were a signatory to that memorandum, as was Russia. In that
memorandum, the signing of it, Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in
exchange for our assurances that we would respect their sovereignty,
security assurances, and their territorial integrity. Obviously, Russia
has trampled all over this. But I would say the least we can do is
provide this lethal assistance they have asked for given that they gave
up their nuclear weapons.
We signed on to that agreement. We should support them in their time
of need so that they can defend their sovereignty. What country ever
again is going to give up their nuclear weapons if we will not even
give them basic military assistance when their country is invaded the
way Ukraine has been invaded by Russia?
Now is our time and our moment. We all stood together in the House
Chamber today for the people of Ukraine. What matters is our actions,
not just our words and our standing ovations.
I hope we will stand with the people of Ukraine. I call upon our
President to provide lethal assistance to the people of Ukraine and to
provide the support and tougher sanctions on Russia--economic
sanctions--for their invasion and their total disrespect for the
sovereignty of the country of Ukraine.
I would defer to my colleague, Senator McCain from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I always appreciate it when the Senator from New
Hampshire defers to me--a rare occasion, I might add.
I rise today to speak in support of the continuing resolution on
which we will vote. I do not do so because I approve of the bulk of the
CR. I certainly do not approve of the process that got us here. It is a
broken, dysfunctional process that deserves and has received the scorn
and disdain of the American people. Long ago we should have been taking
up these bills one by one. But that is not why I come to the floor
today
I am voting for this CR for one particular reason: It would help the
Department of Defense train and equip moderate, vetted Syrian
opposition forces to fight the barbaric terrorist army that calls
itself the Islamic State, commonly known as ISIS. I will support it. It
is long overdue support for the brave Syrians who are fighting on the
frontlines against a common terrorist enemy.
The current plan could have been decisive 2 years ago. Two years ago
it could have been decisive. It is not now. We are talking about 5,000
whom we are going to train over a period of a year or more. They are
going to be fighting against an estimated 31,500 fighters.
There are many seminal events that have taken place in this conflict.
One of the main ones was when 2 years ago the President overruled the
major players in his national security team when he overruled their
unanimous and passionate argument to arm and train the Free Syrian
Army.
The administration says that U.S. forces will not have a combat role.
Why does the President insist on continuing to tell the enemy what he
will not do? Why is it that the President of the United States keeps
telling the people who are slaughtering thousands: Don't worry, we
won't commit ground troops. Why does he have to keep saying that?
Obviously--at least one would draw the conclusion--because of political
reasons.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had this to say. I do not know of a
man who is more respected than former Secretary of Defense Gates under
both Republican and Democratic Presidents. He said:
The reality is, they're not going to be able to be
successful against ISIS strictly from the air or strictly
depending on the Iraqi forces or the Peshmerga or the Sunni
tribes acting on their own.
Gates continued:
So there will be boots on the ground if there is going to
be any hope of success in the strategy. I think that by
continuing to repeat that--
That the United States will not put boots on the ground--
the President, in effect, traps himself.
That is the opinion not of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, it is the
opinion of Robert Gates and every military expert I have talked to,
ranging from the architects of the surge, to former Chairmen of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and, confidentially, leaders in uniform today.
The President said he will expand airstrikes in Syria, but they have
testified that the President will not have
[[Page S5749]]
forward air controllers on the ground to direct airstrikes, which makes
them obviously effective.
As we read today in the Wall Street Journal--this is remarkable, my
friends--President Obama will be personally signing off on every
airstrike in Syria. I say to my colleagues: I saw that movie before--it
was called Vietnam--many years ago when President Lyndon Johnson used
to select the targets in the Oval Office or the Situation Room. Now we
have a President of the United States who is selecting targets of which
he has no fundamental knowledge whatsoever. It is really remarkable.
We are going to train and equip these people to fight. Yet we are not
going to take out the assets Bashar Assad uses to kill them--the air
attacks, the barrel bombs; the indiscriminate killing of innocent
women, men, and children; 192,000 dead in Syria; 150,000 languishing in
his prisons. We are not going to take out or even give these people,
the Free Syrian Army, the weapons with which to counter these air
attacks which are so brutal and outrageous.
I would like to yield for my friend from South Carolina to make a
couple of comments. One, the argument I have heard made here is that
there are no moderates in Syria. Well, I think arguably one of the most
important and impressive individuals I have run into is Ambassador
Ford, who has really been a hero in this whole exercise. He says there
are moderates in Syria. They can fight. They have been fighting. They
have been doing incredible work with incredible sacrifice. I am trying
to find his quote from when he testified before the Foreign Relations
Committee yesterday. He did a magnificent job in doing so, as usual, in
my view.
I cannot seem to find it, but I would point out that he says not only
can they fight, but they have been fighting, and they have been doing a
heroic job in doing so. That is also the opinion of people who know. So
there are moderates. If we train and equip them, they can be effective.
The problem is that we have not done too little, it is we have done too
much. We have weakened Assad and hurt his ability to fight ISIS. ISIS
is a problem for the Middle East.
If ISIS is a problem for the Middle East, I wonder what the
Australians think today? Australian police detained 15 people Thursday
in a major counterterrorism operation, saying the intelligence
indicated that a random violent attack was being planned in Australia.
We know what their object is. It is to strike the United States of
America.
I say in response to these uninformed colleagues of mine who say the
Free Syrian Army cannot fight: Syrian forces are seen stepping up
attacks on rebels as U.S. sets site on ISIS.
Time after time there have been places ISIS has controlled and the
Free Syrian Army has come in and then Bashar Assad attacks because they
want to defeat them.
The fact is I see the critics come here on the floor of the Senate
and talk about why everything is wrong, why nobody will fight, why we
cannot arm the right people. Well, what is their solution? Do they
reject the premise articulated by ISIS that they want to attack the
United States? Do they contradict Mr. Baghdadi, who, when he left our
prison camp, Bucca, said: I will see you in New York. Is that what this
is all about? Of course it is a threat to the United States of America.
For us to do nothing obviously will be a serious mistake.
I yield 5 minutes for my colleague from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Do we have time remaining?
Mr. McCAIN. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans currently have 67 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GRAHAM. I will be very quick.
I will vote for the continuing resolution because I do not want to
shut the government down. I agree with Senator McCain that this is not
the right process, but we are where we are. I think the issue people
are focusing on about the continuing resolution is the changing of the
training of the Free Syrian Army from title 50, a covert program, to
title 10, the Department of Defense, where it will be out in the open.
The reason I support the appropriation and the change in title 10--I
think this is a long-overdue effort on our part to build up Syrian
forces that can confront both Assad and ISIL, enemies of the United
States.
To my colleagues who worry about the people we train and the arms we
give falling into the wrong hands, I would say that there is nothing we
can do in this area without some risk. But when you tell me there are
no Syrians that you believe exist who would fight against Assad and
ISIL, I do not believe you quite understand what is going on in Syria.
I would say that the vast majority of Syrians have two things in
common: They want to overthrow Assad and they want to get ISIL out of
their country.
ISIL is mostly non-Syrians. They came from the vacuum created by a
lack of security. When Hezbollah and Russia doubled down to protect
Assad, who was just about knocked out several years ago, the Free
Syrian Army was abandoned by us and the rest of the world and ISIL was
able to fill in that vacuum. These are foreign fighters.
So to my colleagues who talk about how they worry, I worry too. I
worry about doing nothing. I worry about finding an excuse not to do
anything. It bothered me when Republicans embraced the position of
President Obama just a few weeks ago that it was a fantasy to train the
Syrians to fight for Syria. I do not think it is a fantasy to train
Syrians to fight for Syria because they want to. This whole revolution
against Assad was not to overthrow him and replace Assad with ISIL.
The people who think the average Syrian wants to be dominated by ISIL
instead of Assad, really, I do not think they appreciate what is going
on in Syria. That is selling the Syrian people short.
Having said that, the limitations of what the Free Syrian Army can do
at this point are real, but training as many as possible makes sense to
me. My goal is to keep the war over there so it does not come here.
From an American point of view, I think it would be a huge mistake not
to provide training and resources to those people in the region--in
Syria--to do the fighting because we have common enemies.
Those who say this is too risky, what is your alternative? If we do
nothing, ISIL will continue to grow and the threat to our homeland will
continue to increase.
It is long past time to blunt the momentum of this vicious terrorist
organization. A Free Syrian Army component makes perfect sense to me.
Whatever risk is associated with that concept is well worth it at this
point.
When we talk about Iraq, I hope the Iraqi Government can reconstitute
itself. Their military is in shambles. The Kurds are hanging on in the
north with our help. But to dislodge ISIL from Iraq and take back
Fallujah and Mosul and other cities, as General Dempsey indicated,
would be a very difficult military endeavor. From my point of view, the
last thing America wants to do is take ISIL on in Iraq and Syria and
fail.
If you do believe that it is about our homeland and that it is not
just about the Mideast, allowing ISIL to defeat any force we throw at
it makes them larger and more lethal over time. So the worst possible
outcome is to form a coalition in Syria of Arab countries and they are
defeated by ISIL because we do not provide them the capabilities they
lack.
President Obama's insistence of no boots on the ground is the
Achilles' heel to his strategy. This is a military strategy, I believe,
designed around political promises. This is not the military strategy
you would create to destroy or devastate ISIL. President Bush made many
mistakes in Iraq, but to his credit he changed the strategy in a
fashion that allowed us to succeed.
One thing I have learned over the past 13 years, you can have a lot
of troops doing the wrong thing and it will not matter. When you leave
no troops behind, that is a mistake. And if you have too few troops
doing the right thing, it will not matter.
The President is right about this. We don't need to reinvade Iraq or
Syria. We don't need the 82nd Airborne to go in with 100,000 troops
behind it, but we do need to provide capacity to the Iraqis and any
future coalition to deal with Syria that is lacking in that part of the
world.
[[Page S5750]]
Like it or not the American military is second to none. The special
forces capability we have can really be decisive in this fight. To
every American, this is not only about them over there, this is about
us here.
The better and the sooner that ISIL is defeated, the more decisive
ISIL is defeated, and the sooner that day comes about, the safer we are
at home.
I urge the President to not take options off the table.
I am voting for this change in strategy regarding the Free Syrian
Army because I think it is long overdue. When the President does the
right thing, I want to be his partner. Mr. President, if you will come
up with a strategy to destroy and defeat ISIL that makes sense, I will
be your best ally and try to help you on this side of the aisle. This
is a first step in the right direction, but when you play out this
strategy, which you are trying to do, I think it will not work unless
you embrace American assistance in a greater level to the Iraqi
military and to any coalition you could create in Syria.
The last thing I want this body to understand, this is the last best
chance we will have to put ISIL back in a box so they can't wreak havoc
in the Mideast and grow in strength. The stronger they are over there,
the more endangered we are over here.
It is in our interests to help our Arab allies and our Iraqi allies
destroy ISIL. It is not just about those people over there. Lines of
defenses in the war on terror make perfect sense to me.
The best way to keep this fight off our shores is to engage the
people who will help us carry the fight to the common enemy. ISIL is
not only an enemy of Islam, it is an enemy of mankind, and failing to
defeat these people will resonate here very quickly.
We have a chance. Let's take advantage of it. There is nothing we can
do in a war on terror without risk, but now we are fighting an Army,
not an organization. If we defeat ISIS, the war is not over. This is a
generational struggle. But if you do defeat ISIL, as a turning point in
our favor--if they survive our best attempt to defeat them--God help us
all.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I wish to add, again I found a quote from the testimony
of Robert Ford, an unusual man, our Ambassador to Syria and a man who
literally risked his own life. In his report he said: Many Americans
questioned whether there are any moderates left in the Syrian armed
opposition. There are. They are fighting the Islamic State and the
Assad regime both. They are, not surprisingly, hard pressed, and they
could very much use our help.
I assure my colleagues, from my many visits there and knowing these
people, there are moderates in Syria today who will fight and are
fighting. Unfortunately, they are being attacked both from ISIS and
from Bashar Assad. This brings me to we need to negate Bashar Assad's
air attacks and capabilities. Otherwise, we are going to train and
equip these young people and send them into death, which would be
needless.
There are several articles, one in the New Republic entitled ``We
Can't Destroy ISIS Without Destroying Bashar al Assad First;'' another
one, ``Assad Policies Aided Rise of Islamic State Militant Group;''
another one, ``Blame Assad First for ISIS' Rise.''
What was most disturbing yesterday about the Secretary of State's
statements was when he said: Well, ISIL first. You cannot sequence
them. They are too closely tied, and we cannot defeat ISIL in Syria if
we leave Bashar Assad with his air capabilities.
There are no good options. A series of decisions have been made which
led us to the point we are today, all based on the fundamental belief
that the United States could leave the area and everything would take
care of itself. What happened was that we left a vacuum that was filled
by bad people. Now there is a threat to the United States of America.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, but I also believe
it is an act of cowardice that we didn't take up the bill separately,
debate, amend, and vote on an issue of this utmost seriousness where,
in one way or another--whether the President wants to admit it--we are
again sending Americans into harm's way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. BEGICH. I wasn't planning to speak on the floor. I will speak for
a couple of minutes, but I appreciate my colleagues who have just
spoken and their conversation, as well as many others who have spoken
on the floor.
Let me make it very clear. This conversation I am having right now is
not about the CR. It is going to pass. It is going to move forward. We
have to keep operating. The artificial threat that it might be shut
down if we don't vote in a certain way with regard to the government is
not factual.
The CR is going to pass. The House passed it. People don't want to
see a problem as they had a year and a half ago, so I feel very
confident with where we are going with the CR. But I agree with the
comment that this issue, regarding what is going on with Syria, should
be a separate issue, should be debated separately. It shouldn't just be
shoved into a continuing resolution for the purpose of getting all of
this done because we all think we have to leave by Thursday night or
Friday morning. It is a very significant issue, one I have already made
my statement very clear after the President spoke that despite my
colleagues on the other side--two of them who were just on the floor--I
want to make sure I correct what they said--we just have differences of
opinion and views.
We hear statements that people aren't informed or they don't want to
do anything, that is not the factual basis here. We have different
views when it comes to the issues of conflict in this world, where
America should sit, what we should be doing, how we should be acting,
who our partners should be and what they should be doing. It has
nothing to do with the government being shut down, the CR or being
uninformed. I think this body is well informed. We have had many
briefings, many discussions.
The question is just our view of where we stand on the issue of do we
arm the rebels in Syria to do something we hope they will do. That is
the question, and that is the debate we are in right now. I appreciate
at least the limited time we have on it.
Let me make my position very clear. I have made it clear before, but
I want to say it again. I do not support the arming of rebels in Syria.
In the Appropriations Committee we had an amendment on this, which I
voted for--not to make sure the funding didn't pass, but I think it was
a statement that was important. This is not a newfound belief. I
support the airstrikes. This is an institutional effort, strategy, and
things are moving in the right direction.
As a matter of fact, yesterday or the day before Baghdad was being
moved on by ISIL. Let me make it clear, ISIL, ISIS, whatever you want
to call them, they are a terrorist group.
To say they are called the Islamic State, they are not a state. They
are a bunch of terrorist thugs. Let's be honest about it. When they
made a move on Baghdad, we came in at the request of the Government of
Iraq to give air support. We did and then we pushed them back and
continued to follow up. That seemed to work in that situation.
Here we are in a situation of do we arm the rebels, do we believe in
combat troops, humanitarian aid? What is our role in this endeavor?
Again, I disagree with my President, and when I say that, the
President of the Democratic Party. It doesn't mean I agree with him
that often. There are times when we disagree quite a bit on many
issues, but on this one I disagree. Arming the rebels and who they are
today and who they might be 12 months from now--I don't know.
The bigger issue to me is also the Arab countries. I understand we
have seen in the past few days they are starting to have conversations
and wanting to participate, but this is their country, their region.
What do they do? Where are they stepping up to the plate more?
Here we are, once again, going to have to solve some civil war issues
in the Middle East. Instead, the countries in the region are saying,
well, maybe we will help a little here, help a little there. They need
to put troops on the ground. They need to step up to the plate, as well
as the faith and religious leaders in that region because these
[[Page S5751]]
terrorists are a threat to the region and to our country.
The photos we have seen of the beheadings are horrific, outlandish,
and outrageous. Don't get me wrong. This is a bad organization and
should be dealt with in such a way, but we need the countries there to
assist us in a much more aggressive way.
Today we heard from the President of Ukraine. He came to a joint
session of Congress. Why did he come? Because he believes in his
country. He is fighting for his country. He needs our help and he is
asking for our help. He is not hiding behind closed-door meetings and
trying to negotiate ways that they can't be seen asking us for help. He
is asking because he wants to believe in democracy, what is right for
his country. He is fighting for his homeland. His line--and I remember
in his speech that he gave today, this morning--was you don't have to
create the democracy, you just have to defend it.
But here we are in the Middle East with unusual allies because it is
a convoluted situation. In some ways, we participated, but we also have
to have the Iraqi Government be more sustainable. That means inclusion,
which they haven't done. They are trying, but we have had to put
pressure on them because now ISIL has moved into their country. As we
know, some of those Arab countries, through some of those well-funded
people, funded ISIL. But now the beast has grown so big it is out of
control, and now they say: Whoops. We might have made a mistake. Now we
need the United States to come in again.
What is the long-term plan for sustainability in the Middle East, to
get rid of these terrorist organizations that every single one of those
countries knows is bad for them? They know it.
But they don't step up to the plate enough. Every time we have to
step up, and America--my wife and I have been to I don't know how many
funerals, how many hospitals.
Are we asking--I heard some of my colleagues here now talking about
combat troops. Absolutely not--absolutely not.
It is time for the Arab countries to step up, get over their regional
differences, and know this is one organization, this terrorist
organization, ISIS, ISIL--whatever you want to call them today--it is
bad for them, bad for this world, and they need to stand and be more
aggressive. That means combat troops on the ground for them, for them
to do it, for them to step up to the plate.
ISIS is this terrorist organization, and they are making money off of
oil, oil wells they have captured, shipping it out through one of our
``allies.'' Why don't we just dismantle these oil wells through
airstrikes--stop their cash flow like that.
Probably we are not going to do it because I am sure we are hearing
from people: Well, that is not really their oil. We will take them out,
and then we will get our oil back. They own the oil right now because
they are using it to fund their $3 million-a-day operation. Take out
their oil wells, take out their cash flow. Then get the Arab countries
to step up and do not arm with U.S. dollars and weapons the rebels of
today who may not be the rebels of tomorrow.
Thank you for the opportunity to let me come to the floor and say my
piece. It is going to be an interesting vote. I know the CR will pass.
I will be in the minority, but I think it is important we put on the
record where we stand on this issue.
Don't get me wrong. I believe they are a threat to the United States,
and when they threaten our assets, our people, we will be on it and we
will deal with them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I know the distinguished Senator from Illinois is
scheduled to speak.
I just want to make clear that the threat of a shutdown is not an
idle threat. I respect the views of the Senator from Alaska, a member
of my own committee, who now says he is going to vote against the CR
because he is saying: Oh, it will pass. It is an artificial threat.
The Senator is entitled to his views and certainly his vote on what
he thinks is in the best interests of the Nation, but we have to pass
the CR, and I would note it is not an artificial threat.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
Mr. DURBIN. There are moments when Members of the Senate have to
reflect on the responsibility we are given--extraordinary moments,
unlike other votes that we cast--because at least part of this
important spending bill relates to U.S. military involvement in the
Middle East. Reality tells us people will die if there is conflict. Of
course we hope it will be the enemy, but we know better. Even some of
our people are at risk to die in any military undertaking. So every
Member of the Senate should take this vote seriously, and I am sure
they do.
I remember October 11, 2002, as if it were yesterday. I was here in
the Senate, weeks away from an election, and we were asked to vote on
the invasion of Iraq. The buildup to this vote was overwhelming. The
President and others--the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense,
the head of the CIA, and a long list--had made the case to the American
people that there were weapons of mass destruction in the hands of
Saddam Hussein; and that if we didn't move in, strike, and stop him,
they could threaten our allies, friends, and even the United States. We
debated that and voted on it. It was late at night on October 11, 2002.
I remember that vote as if it were yesterday. At the end of that
vote, 23 of us had voted no against the invasion of Iraq--one
Republican, Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, and 22 Democrats.
I went down to the well of this Chamber and there were two of my
colleagues there, Paul Wellstone of Minnesota and Kent Conrad of North
Dakota. I said to Paul Wellstone, who was up for reelection: I hope
this doesn't cost you your seat--because he had voted no as well.
He said: It is all right if it does. This is what I believe, and this
is how I am going to vote. I thought to myself: He may not return to
the Senate. Tragically, he did not. He was involved in a plane crash
just days later that took his life and the life of his wife and a
staffer. But it is an indication of the gravity and the importance of
this job, of this Chamber, and of this vote.
What we are being asked to do by the President is much different than
what we were asked to do in 2002, when it came to the invasion of Iraq.
The President has identified a threat to the United States. It is
called the Islamic State, ISIL. It is an emerging group that has broken
out of extremist groups in the Middle East, and it is on a rampage. It
is marching through Syria and Iraq in a way we have not seen extremist
groups act. It is capturing territory which extremist groups seldom do,
and in capturing territory it is doing several other things. It is
taking all of the tangible assets of cities such as Mosul, raiding
their banks, breaking into the vaults, taking their money, taking over
oil fields and gas fields--producing a small economy and budget which
is growing by the day. This is not the typical terrorist group which we
have seen in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and, in the
process, in their wake, they are killing people right and left.
The butchery, the savagery of this group is really unheard of in
modern times. It hearkens back to the barbarism of centuries ago. To
behead two innocent Americans--can we imagine to do it with a camera
running? It is just unthinkable what those poor families are going
through even today as they think about this. That is part of their
tactics, to intimidate the United States. Now they have done it to a
British captive, and they promise to do even more. They are serious.
They want to take over Syria and Iraq. Should we care? Of course we
should.
But what did we learn from the invasion of Iraq? What did we learn
after spending 8 years there that would bring us back in any way? Well,
here is what we learned.
We learned that putting American military on the ground--the best
military in the world--is no guarantee of victory. We lost 4,476
American lives in Iraq; over 30,000 came home with serious injuries
that still need to be cared for to this day. We added $1 trillion to
our national debt because under the previous administration wars
weren't paid for, they were just added to the debt. And we have chaos
in Iraq today.
Here is what the President is suggesting, and I think he is on the
right
[[Page S5752]]
track. We are not going to put in ground forces and combat troops.
Instead, we will rely on the Iraqi Army to fight for the future of
Iraq. We will help them, we will support them with logistics,
equipment, direction, air support, but they have to be on the frontline
risking their lives.
Secondly, he said we are going to put together a coalition.
The United States ought to think twice in this century about how many
more Muslim countries we want to be involved in invading, and what the
President has said that is my starting point; we will be part of a
coalition that includes Arab and Muslim countries that believe, as we
do, that ISIL is reprehensible and needs to be fought back.
I think the President's premise is sound. Not putting in combat
troops is essential. Putting the burden on the Iraqis is absolutely
critical, and I support him in those three efforts.
Then comes our vote today. It is not about Iraq; it is about Syria.
What are we going to do in Syria? Syria has just been a free-for-all of
violence, terrorism, deceit, and carnage for 3 years. Three million
people have been displaced, 300,000 have been killed, and the fighting
is so intense it is hard to tell who is on what side. Oh, we know Assad
the leader has his army, and he is fighting off all the resistance to
his government. We have no use for him, but he has some military power,
obviously. He is still there. We also know that, in addition to ISIL,
this terrorist group, there are up to 1,500 other militia groups. They
have neighborhood militias protecting families and neighborhoods.
What the President has called for is a challenge: Find moderate
opposition forces who do not align with Assad that are willing to fight
ISIL and stop them in Syria. That is our vote. That is what the title
10 authorization does. It allows the United States to train and equip
moderate opposition in Syria to fight these forces. We have some pretty
strict language in here--I just took a look at it again and I have read
through it a couple of times now--about reporting back to committees:
Let us know your progress.
So this is where we are. This continuing resolution will be the law
of the land, if it passes, until December 11, if I am not mistaken--the
Appropriations Committee chair, Senator Mikulski, nods in the
affirmative--until December 11.
So what we are doing now is setting up a course of action in Syria to
work with the moderate opposition to train and equip them to fight off
this ISIL group. We will be back. After the elections we will back. We
will be able to measure the progress that has been made.
Then, come December 11, we have a much larger question to ask: What
do we do from that point forward? Will we continue the strategy?
Assuming we do, I believe--and many of my colleagues share the belief--
we have a special responsibility given to us by the Constitution that
says the American people declare war--not the President--and the
American people do it through Members of Congress.
So we will come back and start the debate on what is known as an
authorization for the use of military force--a modern version, a new
version applying to this situation--and it will be through the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee.
It is a debate that is long overdue. The President has invited us to
do this. He believes he has the authority to go forward, but he said to
Congress: If you want to be part of this, I welcome your participation.
Well, let's accept that challenge. So I will be supporting this
continuing resolution. I will be supporting the title 10 authorization
until December 11 to start seeing if we can form a force of moderate
opposition groups in Syria to fight back on ISIL while we are working
in Iraq to do the same. I think we have no choice but to do this--but
to do it thoughtfully, without combat troops, with clear accountability
and reports, and behind a coalition that has many Arab and Muslim
nations that agree with us that ISIL is reprehensible.
Secretary of State John Kerry told us yesterday they have had
meetings with the Russians, with the Chinese, and with the Iranians who
have spoken up and said: We have to stop this group. They are going to
destroy the Middle East. I think we have to take that seriously, and
that is why I will be supporting this effort.
I know some of my colleagues disagree. I remember my thinking on that
October night in 2002, that we should hold back and not get involved in
Iraq, and I think I was right. I think history proved me right. That is
why I have looked at this with a critical eye and with the
understanding that this is not the end of the debate, this is not the
end of the conversation. This is our step forward in ridding the world
of this savage group that is killing so many innocent people, and we
are going to do it as part of a coalition and alliance. That to me
is the thoughtful and sensible way to address this.
We will have time to review our decision on a regular basis, as we
should, to hold this President and any President accountable as we move
forward. But this is something we absolutely must do as a Nation at
this moment in time.
So I will be supporting this resolution, H.J. Res. 124, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. I also wish to say a word about Secretary Kerry, who has
been working night and day since he left the Senate, as Secretary of
State, and he testified yesterday. I know what he is trying to achieve.
I salute him for that and of course the President as well.
Let me hope that one thing emerges from this. I remember serving in
the House of Representatives, and we voted on the invasion of Kuwait
under President George H.W. Bush. I had my questions about that. I
voted no. The House voted yes to go forward with that foreign policy.
The Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, if I am not mistaken, followed
that vote, where we decided to go forward with the invasion of Kuwait,
with a resolution saying that now the foreign policy had been decided
by this country, we should stand together in a bipartisan fashion to
support our men and women in uniform who were engaged in this conflict.
That happened, and we all voted for it--even those of us who disagreed
with the policy.
Even after this vote on Iraq where 23 of us had voted no, virtually
all of us voted for the resources that our military needed. My thinking
was: Durbin, even if you disagree with the Iraqi invasion, what if that
were your son over there? Wouldn't you want him to have everything he
needs to come home safe? You bet.
What I hope will emerge, even after the heat of debate over this
whole question of ISIL and how we deal with them, is this coming
together--a bipartisan coming together behind our troops, behind our
pilots, behind those advisers on the ground. Let us show them
solidarity behind their effort if we decide to vote to go forward.
There is too much partisan division, and it certainly ought to stop at
the water's edge when it involves support for our men and women in
uniform.
So at the end of this vote today, I hope we will see emerging a
bipartisan consensus that we are going to work as a Nation to
accomplish our goal to end this terrorism as best we can or slow it
down in this part of the world and stand behind the men and women of
our Nation who are willing to risk their lives in service to that
cause.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Executive Amnesty
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, in a few moments Senators in this
Chamber will cast one of the most important votes they will ever cast
in the Senate.
With this vote, Senators will make a simple but vital decision. It is
a decision that will steer the future course of our country and our
Congress--and particularly the Senate.
With this vote, Senators will decide whether their allegiance is to
President Obama and his agenda, Majority Leader Reid and the open
borders lobby, or whether their allegiance is to the American worker,
the constitutional order, the American people, and this Nation's
sovereign laws.
The choice could not be more clear. Do we as a Nation have the right
to control our borders? Do we? That is the question every Senator will
be answering today.
[[Page S5753]]
President Obama has announced to the entire world that he will
implement a sweeping unilateral Executive amnesty--only after the
midterm elections, not before, as he promised, because there is concern
among his Members that it wouldn't be politically popular. This amnesty
by Executive order will give work permits--contrary to law--and Social
Security numbers--contrary to law--to as many as 5 to 6 million people,
the White House tells us, to people who are here illegally, illegally
entered the United States, illegally overstayed their visas or
defrauded U.S. immigration authorities.
With a casual stroke of a pen, the President is preparing to nullify
the immigration laws of the United States. He is preparing to wipe away
the lawful protections which every American worker in this country is
entitled to. He is preparing to assume for himself--himself alone--the
absolute power to decide who can enter our country, who can work in our
country, who can live in our country by the millions, regardless of
what the law says, what the citizenry says, and what the Constitution
says. These immigration rules--who can come, work, and live in the
country--are the bedrock of any Nation's immigration laws and
sovereignty. The President has already erased much of these rules--
erased them. And his planned Executive action would remove much of what
remains of them. It would establish for people all over the world the
principle that if you can get into America, you can stay in America,
and work in America.
Let's consider the current state of immigration enforcement.
Immigration officers already tell us--people who do this every day--
that they have been barred from fulfilling their oaths to follow the
law. They filed a lawsuit claiming they were required to violate their
oath. The president of the ICE officers' council warned: ``ICE
agents''--Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers--``are now
prohibited from arresting illegal aliens solely on the charges of
illegal entry or visa overstay--the two most frequently violated
sections of immigration law.''
The policies of this administration represent an open invitation to
millions who enter the United States on visas each year. People come
lawfully on visas for certain periods of time. It encourages them to
unlawfully overstay. And why not? If no one is going to deport you, why
would you return if you choose not to return to your home country?
And what about the border? We know from the substantial influx of
illegal immigrants from Central America that all you have to do is show
up at the border, demand entry, and you will likely be released into
the United States. You may be asked to return for some sort of hearing
in the future. But people are not tracked as to where they will go and
not one of those people will be looked for if they fail to show up.
That is not happening anywhere in the system.
Consider this recent report from the Associated Press: ``As of early
September, only 319 of the more than 59,000 immigrants who were caught
traveling with their families have been returned to Central America.''
That means that more than 99 percent of those apprehended with their
families have so far been allowed to stay. That is in addition to the
tens of thousands who have entered without their families and who have
been promptly released also into the United States on some sort of bond
or promise to show up for court, and many adults from Central America
who have been released as well.
As President Obama's former ICE Director, John Sandweg, explained:
``If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of
getting deported are near zero.''
And who picks up the tab? Local school districts, local police
departments, local taxpayers.
No nation can have a policy where people can simply show up at the
border and demand to be released into the country, especially since the
policy is never to seek to apprehend persons who don't show up so they
can be deported. But that is what is happening right now under the
policies of this administration. It simply is. The American people need
to understand that. They need to know more fully how serious this
situation is.
The American people are beginning to understand that these policies
represent in truth a collapse of immigration enforcement.
What about our asylum system? Here is what the House Judiciary
Committee reports on asylum, which is when we accept people from around
the globe who are subjected to serious oppression.
Asylum approval rates overall have increased dramatically
in recent years. The vast majority of aliens who
affirmatively seek asylum are now successful in their claims.
At the same time, an internal Department of Homeland Security
report shows that at least 70 percent of asylum cases contain
proven or possible fraud.
Seventy percent contain proven or possible fraud. Still they are
being approved overwhelmingly for entry, and once approved for asylum,
they are entitled to all social welfare benefits.
What about our visa screening process, the people who come on visas?
Here is what Kenneth Palinkas had to say on that. Mr. Palinkas is the
president of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council,
representing 12,000 immigration caseworkers and adjudications officers
at the USCIS. Here is just a fraction of his dramatic report
delineating and detailing the problems they are facing today.
USCIS adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp
applications instead of conducting diligent case reviews and
investigations. The culture at USCIS encourages all
applications to be approved, discouraging proper
investigation into red flags and discouraging the denial of
any application. USCIS has been turned into an ``approval
machine.''
This is the man who represents the officers doing this everyday, and
what he says is true.
He goes on to say in this letter: ``The attitude of USCIS management
is not that the Agency serves the American public or the laws of the
United States, or public safety and national security, but instead that
the Agency serves the illegal aliens and the attorneys which represent
them.''
Surely this cannot be what is happening in our legal system.
He goes on to say this:
Large swaths of the Immigration and Nationality Act are not
effectively enforced for illegal immigrants and visa holders,
including laws regarding public charges as well as many other
provisions, as USCIS lacks the resources to adequately screen
and scrutinize legal immigrants and non-immigrants seeking
status adjustment. There is also insufficient screening and
monitoring of student visas.
So the contention that this administration is deporting record
numbers of illegal aliens is plainly false. Removals have dropped
dramatically.
Now consider what will happen to our system if the President goes
through with his plan that he has announced after the election to
provide unilateral Executive amnesty by Executive order to illegal
workers and visa violators here today. What immigration law will be
left after that?
The government is not enforcing the law with respect to visa
overstays, illegal entry, illegal work, asylum fraud, document fraud,
workplace fraud, and on and on and on. We ignore immigration law for
young people, for older people who came with younger people, for the
parents of older people who came as younger people, for people with
relatives, for people traveling alone, for people traveling with
families, for people who entered before a certain date, for people who
entered after a certain date, people who entered through an airport or
seaport, for people who do show up in court, for people who don't show
up in court. We have made a million excuses for not enforcing the law.
And when millions more enter illegally asking for their amnesty in
the future, asking for their amnesty now that others got before them,
will the President print work permits for them, too? What moral basis
will remain to deny future unlawful immigrants work authorizations,
jobs, and amnesty in the future?
I am sure this will make the activists, the politicians and certain
billionaire executives who enjoy dinner parties at the White House,
very happy that the President is doing these things. But what about
what is good for America? What about what is in the interest of the
American people? America is not an oligarchy. The masters of the
universe don't get to meet at the White House and decide how to run
this country.
[[Page S5754]]
When the American people learned what was in the Senate amnesty and
guest worker bill that doubled the number of guest workers for which
every single Senate Democrat voted, the people said no, no, no, and the
House stopped the plan. But now the same groups that wrote this bill
are working with the White House to extract the same benefits by
Executive fiat, by Executive order. They had at least 20 secret
meetings in July and August alone with the White House to plan this
strategy. These measures, we are informed, would include a massive
expansion in the admission of new foreign workers, including more
workers for information technology giants who are laying off Americans,
in fact, more than they are hiring. We learned from Rutgers Professor
Hal Salzman that two-thirds of all new IT jobs are now already being
filled by foreign guest workers. Can you imagine that? We are turning
out thousands of IT graduates, but two-thirds of the jobs are being
filled by foreign workers, and wages are falling.
Americans wish to see record immigration levels--these high lawful
levels of immigration that we have--reduced, not increased, by actually
a 3-to-1 margin. But the proposal they are pushing and advocating would
double the number of lawful workers while not dealing effectively with
the unlawful flow.
Yet Senate Democrats are colluding with the White House to support
the surge of these numbers. Studies show wage declines among all wage
earners since 2009. There is a wage decline among all American workers.
Wages have fallen since 2009, but the declines on a percentage basis
are the greatest for our lower income workers. The people having the
hardest time getting by have received the biggest percentage drop. Does
this not concern our leaders? Has no one paid any attention to this
fact?
So far our Senate Democratic Caucus has enabled the administration's
lawless scheme every step of the way. Not one Senate Democrat has
supported the House plan that would stop this Executive amnesty.
The House-passed legislation would stop it. It is waiting on the
floor of the Senate to be called up for a vote. Not one Member of the
Democratic leadership has even demanded that Mr. Reid bring it up for a
vote. Not one has pledged to stay here in Washington every day until
this Executive amnesty is stopped.
But it is not too late. We are going to have a vote soon.
Where is the courage? Where is the independence that Senators should
show? Where is the willingness to stand up to the political class, the
lobbyists, the party bosses, the elite set in the Nation's Capital, and
to stand by the side of the American people--indeed, to defend the
institutional powers of Congress which alone has the power to make law,
not the President. He cannot make law. He cannot give someone the right
to work in America when the law says they are not able to work if they
entered the country unlawfully. Until that happens, I have to say that
every Senate Democrat is the President's partner in this scheme as
surely as if they wrote the Executive orders themselves and as surely
as if they were sitting right next to the interest groups huddling with
White House aides to craft these orders.
So I have a message today for all the special interests, the
globalist elites, the activists, and the cynical, vote-counting
political plotters who are meeting in secret at the White House, and
the message is this: You don't get to sit in a room and rewrite the
laws of the United States of America. No, sir. Congress writes the
laws. You may not be used to people telling you no, but I am telling
you no today.
It is critical that our Senate Democrats be willing to say no today
when we vote.
I also have a message for the American people: You have been right
from the beginning. You have justly demanded that our borders be
controlled, our laws enforced, and that at long last immigration policy
serve the needs of our own people first. For this virtuous and
legitimate demand, you have been demeaned, even scorned by the
governing class, the cosmopolitan elites. They know so much. They want
you to believe that your concerns are somehow illegitimate, that you
are wrong for being worried about your jobs or your schools or your
hospitals or your communities or your national security.
These elite citizens of the world speak often of their concern about
people living in poverty overseas. Yet they turn a blind eye to the
poverty and suffering in their own country. They don't want you to
speak up either. They don't want you to be heard. They don't want you
to feel you have a voice. But you do have a voice, American people, and
your message is being heard. I am delivering that message to the Senate
today.
This is a moment of choosing for every Senator. Where will history
record that you stood in the face of the President's promise to
unlawfully nullify immigration law in America?
There will be a motion made soon that will allow the Senate to block
the President's planned Executive amnesty. This is simply to pass the
legislation the House has already passed. This is a commonsense Senate
action.
If you believe we are a sovereign nation with a right to control our
borders--and don't we have that right?--then you must vote yes. Let's
bring it up before this unlawful Executive order for amnesty occurs.
If you go along with the idea that America is an oligarchy run by a
group of special interests meeting at the White House to rewrite the
immigration laws of America, then vote no.
The Nation is watching today. This is an issue of extreme importance
for the American people and for the rule of law. Will you at long last
break from your majority leader, Democratic colleagues, or will you
once again surrender your vote to Mr. Reid and the groups meeting in
secret at the White House to thereby enable their lawless actions?
In its almost 2 years of existence--this Congress that has been in
existence here going on 2 years now has failed to pass a single
appropriations bill on time, and now we are facing another CR. Pass
everything--one vote to fund the entire government and not a single
amendment is being allowed.
This Senate has violated the laws that limited spending that we voted
for and spent more than allowed. It has blocked amendments to such a
degree that the entire heritage of free debate and free rights to amend
laws has been violated and damaged substantially in this Senate.
If we leave town without having passed a bill to block this Executive
amnesty, then it will be a permanent stain on the Senate, the
constitutional order, and this entire Democratic caucus.
I know the pressure is to stay hitched and stay in line, but Senate
Democrats do have the power to vote differently. Senator Manchin voted
differently last time, and others can also. It is time to stand up and
be counted for the working people in this country and enact legislation
in their interest.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator from Texas wish to speak?
Mr. CRUZ. I intend to, yes.
Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Alabama finished his speech and didn't
suggest the absence of a quorum, so I was going to speak. But since the
Senator from Texas has been waiting, please go ahead and proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, we have a crisis in this country. We have a
crisis at our southern border that is producing some 90,000
unaccompanied children coming into this country. These kids are being
victimized. These kids are being physically and sexually abused by
violent coyotes and drug cartels.
The American people understand we have a crisis, and the American
people want action. The House of Representatives understands we have a
crisis. The House of Representatives has acted. Yet I am sorry to say
the majority leader and the Democrats in this body refuse to allow any
action to address this crisis.
The crisis at the border is the direct consequence of President
Obama's lawlessness. Just 3 years ago, in 2011, there were roughly
6,000 unaccompanied kids coming into this country, and then in 2012, a
few months before the election, President Obama unilaterally granted
amnesty to some 800,000 people who entered the country illegally as
children. The predicted consequence is that if
[[Page S5755]]
you grant amnesty to those who enter illegally as children, it creates
an enormous incentive for more and more children to enter illegally. As
a result, we have seen the numbers go from 6,000 unaccompanied kids 3
years ago to approximately 90,000 this year, and next year, the
Department of Homeland Security predicts, there will be 145,000 little
boys and little girls illegally smuggled, victimized, and brutalized.
This needs to stop. We need leadership in Washington. We need
leadership in both Houses of Congress. We need leadership from both
Republicans and Democrats. Yet not only do President Obama and the
Senate Democrats refuse to do anything to solve this problem, but, I am
sorry to say, it is even worse.
In recent weeks President Obama told the American people he intends
to grant even more amnesty. The first illegal amnesty of some 800,000
people was not enough, so in his view we need more. He intends to
illegally grant amnesty to 5 or 6 million more people. Mark my words:
The President of the United States intends to illegally grant amnesty.
Amnesty is coming. Yet we heard in recent days that the President has
decided to delay that action until just after the election.
There are a lot of cynical policies in Washington, DC. Yet this has
to rank very near the top. For the President of the United States to
say he understands the American people don't want amnesty, but since
there is an election coming up, he intends to pass the policy which
they don't want, don't believe in, and which subverts the rule of law
just after the election so that the Senate Democrats can campaign and
say they had nothing to do with it--what does that say about what the
President thinks about the American people? That he thinks they are not
paying close enough attention to understand that this election is a
referendum on amnesty? That he thinks they won't remember by the time
the next election happens?
Well, here is the bottom line: Amnesty is the wrong approach that
created the crisis. The only way to solve this crisis and protect and
prevent those little boys and little girls from being physically and
sexually abused is to end President Obama's amnesty and prospectively
stop the promise of amnesty that is causing these kids to come here
illegally.
I introduced legislation in the Senate to do exactly that, and the
House of Representatives, to their credit, stood up and led. They
stayed in session an extra day before the August recess to come
together and pass the legislation I had introduced in the Senate. They
passed it by a vote of 216 to 192, with 4 Democrats joining the
Republicans to stop President Obama's amnesty in order to actually
solve the crisis at the border. Yet what happened in the Senate? In the
Senate the majority leader refused to allow a vote on the provision and
sent the Senators home for August while doing nothing to address the
problem.
The reason is simple: Although President Obama and Senate Democrats
are afraid of the voters holding them accountable for amnesty, it
should be lost on nobody watching that what is happening in the Senate
is that the 55 Senate Democrats serving in this body affirmatively want
amnesty.
If only this body would just do its job. If we would simply pass the
legislation the House has already passed, prospectively taking amnesty
off the table--and by the way, this bill does nothing, zero, to the so-
called DREAMers who are already here. It doesn't address that issue.
This issue addresses the promise of amnesty in the future. As long as
these children believe they will get amnesty, they will keep coming
here illegally. They will keep being victimized and abused.
Unfortunately, the majority leader has employed a procedural trick
called filling the tree. It is a trick this body is now quite familiar
with because it is what the majority leader has done over and over to
shut down every single amendment from every Member of this body.
To be fair, majority leaders in both parties have used this trick in
the past. The previous six majority leaders used the procedural trick
of filling the tree a total of 40 times. The current Democratic
majority leader has used it almost 90 times since 2006. The current
majority leader has used it more than double what his six previous
predecessors did. Roughly two-thirds of the time this procedural trick
has been employed, it has been by the majority leader of this body.
What does that do? What that does is it says legislation in this body
will shut down the right of amendments for every Senator. What it says
to the 26 million Texans is that their views don't matter because
neither Senator Cornyn nor I will be allowed to offer any amendments.
It says to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State
of Maryland, the States of New York and California: Your views don't
matter. Why? Because the majority leader has stripped your Senators of
the right to offer any amendment on any topic whatsoever.
The majority leader has done that nearly 90 times--including on this
continuing resolution, including on the basic bill that funds the
government because the Senate has failed to appropriate the funds that
we should be doing otherwise.
This is wrong. It is fundamentally wrong. The American people deserve
a vote. If Senate Democrats want to embrace amnesty, let them do so
openly and in daylight. Stop hiding. People are frustrated with
Washington because they recognize politicians say one thing here and
one thing at home. How many Senate Democrats, particularly in red
States, go home to their States and say amnesty is a terrible thing and
then come back here and facilitate the President illegally granting
amnesty. How about we have some honesty. How about we have elected
Members of this body say and do the same in Washington that they say
and do back home. Don't hide. How about we all tell the truth. And the
truth is the 55 Senate Democrats want amnesty, but they don't want the
voters to know. They are celebrating that President Obama has said:
Fear not, the amnesty is coming, but we will wait until after the
election. That cynicism is fundamentally inconsistent with the
obligation every Member of this body owes to our constituents.
So I am pleased we will get a vote--despite the majority leader's
best efforts--on amnesty, because momentarily this body is going to
have the opportunity to vote, and I predict most, if not all, Senate
Democrats will vote in favor of President Obama's amnesty.
I have a lot higher opinion of the American people, of the voters,
than it seems the President does. I think the American people
understand what is going on and I don't think they are going to be
fooled by the President delaying his illegal amnesty until after the
election. So we are going to get a vote on this matter.
Amendment No. 3852
For that reason, I move to table Reid amendment No. 3852 for the
purposes of offering the Cruz-Sessions amendment No. 3859, and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Executive Amnesty
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the solution to this immediate crisis along
our Nation's border and our longer term immigration needs necessarily
need to begin with the President finally enforcing the law--that set of
laws already on the books. There is no amount of money Congress can
spend, there is no new law that could solve this crisis, if the
President and the leadership of his party continue down their lawless
path.
There are several steps the President can take--and he can take those
steps immediately--that do not require any action by Congress or
another dime from the American people. The most important action he
could take would be to stop abusing his ``prosecutorial discretion''
and end the DACA Program which provides administrative amnesty and work
permits to those who have
[[Page S5756]]
entered the United States illegally as minors. He also needs to resist
the temptation to further expand DACA to millions of additional adults
and send a strong message to respond quickly by returning those who
enter the United States illegally back to their home countries.
By announcing to the world that he will not enforce our Nation's laws
by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to process and return
those who have already come here unlawfully, the President of the
United States is encouraging hundreds of thousands of children and
adults to make a very dangerous journey to the United States illegally.
He is encouraging families to pay coyotes controlled by drug cartels
thousands of dollars to smuggle their children into this country. That
is truly the humanitarian crisis we now face.
This continuing resolution--the continuing resolution now before the
Senate--provides funds for the DACA Program and any other Executive
amnesty the President may choose to implement illegally.
I, along with my friends and colleagues from Alabama and from Texas,
wish to offer an amendment prohibiting funding to process prospective
applications, but the majority has objected, so we will attempt to
table the Reid amendment in order to allow that vote.
The President's threat to widen the scope of DACA is only going to
make matters worse--matters in this pronounced humanitarian crisis we
are facing along our border--which is why I agree with my friends,
Senators Sessions and Cruz, that, at the very least, we must take steps
to prevent the President from providing any more executive amnesty.
ISIS
Now I wish to speak about some other issues related to the continuing
resolution and, in so doing, I wish to point out that one of the most
important and solemn duties we have as Members of the Senate is to
authorize the use of military force and ask the brave men and women in
our armed services to put their lives in harm's way. It is, I believe,
a gross dereliction of that duty, and an insult to those same men and
women, to tack on a military authorization to this must-pass spending
bill just so Members of Congress can hurry back to their home States.
If the United States is going to escalate our involvement in a brutal
conflict overseas, if we are going to send American troops to harm and
train Syrian rebels for their fight against ISIS, we need to debate
that decision on its own merits and not take this up simply as a
condition of providing ongoing funding for the Federal Government as a
whole. That is the only way for this issue to receive the kind of
careful attention and robust debate it truly deserves. We owe it to our
men and women in uniform to separate any military authorization from
this must-pass spending bill to keep the government funded. If that
means we do not get home early, so be it. The lives of our troops, the
lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, and those who
support them, and the security of the United States are simply far too
important.
I believe, as does the President of the United States, that ISIS is a
threat to the Middle East and will take any opportunity it gets to kill
Americans. Many of its fighters carry European and even American
passports which will offer them easier access to the United States.
Tracking and stopping these foreign fighters must be a high priority
for the President and for the Congress, and our allies must work to
stop the flow of these fighters into and out of the conflict zone half
a world away. We must attack their finances, their abilities to
communicate and coordinate and access weapons and supplies. The United
States can and should act to protect ourselves from this threat.
There is a clearly defined constitutional process for doing that--a
process which involves the participation of the President as the
Commander in Chief and Members of Congress as representatives of the
American people invested with the power to declare war. But are we
following that clearly defined process? Are we adhering to this prudent
set of procedures we are supposed to follow under our now 227-year-old
governing document? No. Instead, we are openly flouting it. Instead, we
are considering an authorization of military force almost as an
afterthought. We are doing so by attaching it to a continuing
resolution which itself reduces, in a very shameless and disgraceful
way, Congress's spending authority to another afterthought. Why? Well,
because, as far as I can tell, some in Congress want to go home early.
They are so anxious to get to their next recess, to get back to their
home State, that they are willing to give inadequate attention to this
very serious problem that affects every American, that has implications
not only for national security but for the security of 300 million
Americans. It has especially grave implications for the brave men and
women who wear our uniforms, whose lives would be on the line as a
result of decisions made in connection with this effort.
This is shameful and it is unconscionable. It is an insult to the men
and women we serve, and it is an insult to the men and women who wear
uniforms and serve us well.
We should strike this section to arm and train Syrian rebels from the
continuing resolution and instead have full debate and a separate vote
on authorizing the President's strategy to address the ISIS threat.
Forcing an authorization for our military to act in any manner through
a continuing resolution up against a government shutdown does not meet
the standards for this process and it does not afford the American
people, many of whom are servicemembers, a voice regarding our Nation's
most important affairs. We have ample reason to take the needed time to
consider this decision on its own merits and not on the merits of a
continuing resolution to keep the government funded.
The idea of arming Syrian rebels has drawn serious concern from
Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle but, so far, only
Members from certain key committees have been able to debate and
discuss openly and in an official Senate forum the specifics of the
President's plan. And even those of us who sit on those committees are
still in need of much more information. I have had concerns for the
past year as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee with the
proposed tactic of arming the Syrian rebels after hearing testimony
from our own intelligence and defense leaders that what we refer to as
the ``moderate rebels'' are, in fact, fragmented and decentralized.
Their memberships are fluid and often lacking in common goals,
leadership, and levels of moderation.
This is borne out in press reports from the region almost weekly. In
fact, a few months ago I asked General Austin, the commander of
CENTCOM, if the United States would guarantee that the assistance we
are supplying to moderates in Syria--the then-nonlethal aid--is not
being used by or to the benefit of extremist groups that want to attack
the United States.
His answer was:
No, we cannot guarantee the assistance we provide doesn't
fall into the wrong hands. Undoubtedly, some weapons and
funds flowing into Syria wind up in the hands of extremists .
. . . The extremists work closely with all factions of the
opposition and is often aware of the logistics and
humanitarian shipments into Syria. At times, they even
acquire and disseminate these shipments to the local
populace. This, in turn, benefits in the propaganda war.
That is probably why hardly a month ago--just a little over a month
ago--President Obama called the idea of arming Syrian rebels a
``fantasy''--a fantasy that was, as he put it, ``never in the cards.''
Now he is seeking authorization for it. In less than a month, what was
once a fantasy is now apparently the strategy. What was never in the
cards is now not only in the cards but is a card that he is actually
playing--and doing so as an afterthought, thrown on to a must-pass bill
with an entirely different purpose and function.
On Tuesday in the Armed Services Committee hearing, when I asked
Secretary Hagel why the President changed his mind on arming and
training Syrian rebels, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel could not provide
an explanation. This is troubling, to say the least. If there has been
some change over the last month in national security threats or the
capabilities and composition of a Syrian opposition group, why has the
President not shared this with our Secretary of Defense? Or if there
hasn't been a change,
[[Page S5757]]
then is there some reason other than American national security that
may have caused the President to reverse course. The American people
deserve answers to these and other related questions.
Another important issue that deserves full and open debate is that
this is about more than just arming rebels to fight terrorists. It
became clear through answers from administration officials in our
Senate Armed Services hearing Tuesday that the Administration believes
that a new government and political structure in Syria is needed for
these rebel groups to be successful.
No one doubts that President Assad is a tyrant, one who has exacted
terrible measures on his very own citizens, but our constituents need
to understand--I want to be very clear here--that the idea of arming
Syrian rebels to fight ISIS and Assad, while also standing up and
supporting a new government in Syria, is more like a long-term nation-
building mission than a counterterrorism mission.
The administration has not been clear on this point. If we are indeed
taking steps towards a nation-building exercise in Syria, we must also
debate both the financial and the tremendous human costs of such an
endeavor.
The ISIS threat to the United States is serious. Our response should
be given equally serious consideration here in the Senate. When my
colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Senator Fischer from
Nebraska, mentioned how important she thought it was that this
authorization be separate from the CR, Secretary Hagel stated that he
agreed that it should have a ``more thorough airing with the American
people,'' but that it couldn't receive such an airing because Congress
was rushing home for a recess. This is not good enough for the Senate.
This is not good enough for the United States or for the American
people. It is shameful. Our constituents expect us to do our jobs. If
that means staying here a few more weeks, so be it. If that means
staying here for a month or two months--however long it takes--then so
be it.
If this plan is the right one, fine; if we need to adjust it or
reject it, fine; but there is no such thing as a must-pass vote of
conscience--not here, not on this topic. The American people deserve to
have a debate about how and why we are sending their sons and daughters
into danger. We should not set this precedent of sending Americans into
harm's way as an afterthought, on our way out of town, like some kind
of political out-of-office reply email. Congress used to be better than
this, and I submit the American people still are.
I respectfully and strongly urge my colleagues to pull this section
from the CR and have a full debate to give authorization for the
President's actions in the Middle East. To this end, I am proposing we
remove this language from the continuing resolution so that it may be
considered separately and adequately.
Unanimous Consent Request
Accordingly, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order for me to offer my amendment No. 3845.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. MIKULSKI: I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I have heard a good part of the afternoon: Why can't we
stay and debate this, and so on? I don't minimize the seriousness of
the issues, whether they are about arming Syrian rebels, the potential
for new kinds of military action, certainly the ongoing saga in Ukraine
or also what is going on in our own country. Students are not being
able to afford college, families are not being able to afford to buy a
home, and work is not worth it because wages are frozen. We are pushing
people to a standard of living less than what they had.
The people of the middle class are fighting hand-to-hand to stay
middle class. Those who might want to get there are seeing the
opportunity ladder sawed down. When we wanted to bring bills to the
floor in a regular order and bring up regular appropriations that had
both money and policy where people could have debated them in an
orderly way, we had cluster bombs of parliamentary procedure thrown on
where people hid behind votes on motions to proceed.
Some of the biggest critics today saying, why don't we stay here and
debate, have been some of the biggest obstacles in insisting on
bringing bills up in regular order. So here we are today in the closing
hours of the CR. We have had much enlightened conversation that was
actually to hear leaders talk about this and differences of opinions in
the most civil way, with intellectual rigor and firmness of conviction.
That is what we should be doing. I would like to do more of it. This
is why we need to reform ourselves. We like to talk a lot about
reforming the country, changing Barack Obama, but we need to reform
ourselves. We need to stop hiding behind cloture votes and motions to
proceed, where you need 60 votes to just barely come up and salute the
flag. So I am not going to go into this today, but I think we need to
go into this. We need to take a look at ourselves and examine
ourselves--how we can keep the traditions the same, protect the rights
of the minority. But when all is said and done, the American people are
fed up that more gets said than done and more gets said about saying
things, and so on.
I am telling you, as I travel in Maryland, my constituents feel
Washington means less and less relevance to them. They are also
wondering: What is it that you do to get things done? They are asking
these questions. You know what, they ought to ask these questions.
I am not going to take up the time. I know that other colleagues are
coming to speak on the floor.
This whole thing about we have to stay and we have to do it--we have
to do our business during the whole year. We can't do it in the last 3
hours, coming up on the crunch of the end of the fiscal year. All year
long we have an opportunity to debate. All year long we have the
opportunity to debate issues in our committee process and on the floor.
I feel pretty strongly about this.
I hope that others who feel strongly, too, join a reform effort so we
can honor the traditions of the Senate and protect the rights of the
minority. But, hey, let's get back to the majority rules, regular
order, and a debate that occurs all year long on issues and not just in
a crisis environment.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Executive Calendar
consent agreed to Wednesday, September 17, 2014, be modified to include
Executive Calendar No. 925 following 1031, with all other provisions of
the previous order remaining in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI: Mr. President, what that means is that we have now
confirmed Alfonso E. Lenhardt to be the Deputy Administrator of USAID.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S5757, September 18, 2014, in the third column, the
following language appears: The PRESIDING OFFICER: Without
objection, it is so ordered. The nomination considered and
confirmed is as follows: UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT Alfonso E. Lenhardt, of New York, to be Deputy
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development. Ms. MIKULSKI: Mr. President, what that means is that
we have now confirmed Alfonso E. Lenhardt to be the Deputy
Administrator of USAID.
The online Record has been corrected to read: The PRESIDING
OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered. Ms. MIKULSKI: Mr.
President, what that means is that we have now confirmed Alfonso
E. Lenhardt to be the Deputy Administrator of USAID.
========================= END NOTE =========================
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come first to support the
distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee in her endeavor to
pass a continuing resolution. I, specifically, want to speak to support
the President's request for authorization to stand up a title 10 overt,
train and equip mission for vetted moderate Syrian opposition. The
hearing I held yesterday in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee laid
out specifics of how the President is moving forward in building the
anti-ISIL coalition.
We will undertake targeted airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria.
We will train and equip a Syrian opposition force committed to a
pluralistic, free Syria.
This is a multifaceted plan, and we heard both from Secretary Kerry
and a second panel of regional experts that coalition partners are
ready to contribute in real terms and not just empty words.
The ISIL threat is grave and it is urgent. We must stand with our
partners in the region to confront this barbarism in the interests of
all of the individuals being brutalized by ISIL but also because
regional stability and U.S. Security demand it.
[[Page S5758]]
Training and equipping a fighting Syrian force is one urgent element
in the broader plan.
We in the Senate must provide this authority, as our colleagues in
the House did yesterday. In Iraq we have the Iraqi security forces and
Kurdish Peshmerga forces committed to combating ISIL and partnering
with us to do so. At this point in time we do not have such a force to
partner with inside of Syria.
Let's be clear-eyed about what this challenge is. It is messy and
complicated and not at all easy. There is no silver bullet. But without
a trained, equipped, and capable moderate opposition force to fill the
void, as we conduct airstrikes against ISIL, we would essentially be
opening the door to Assad and his Russian- and Iranian-backed regime
forces to regain lost territory.
Imagine how our adversaries will celebrate if we fail to build a
force that is equipped, trained, and committed to defeating the
barbarism of ISIL and Assad.
The administration was posed with the question yesterday: Why now?
Why train these forces now, 4 years into this civil war?
There are several answers:
First, we have been working with these moderate armed groups for over
2 years now. We know them.
Second, there is no real alternative to building a local opposition
force to take the fight on in Syria unless you are talking about
American boots on the ground. That is not in play here.
Third, the region is standing with us in training and creating the
ability to assist these Syrian rebels. It is truly a remarkable
development that Saudi Arabia, for example, is willing to publicly
discuss its support and publicly disclose that it will host and
contribute to our train-and-equip mission. Other gulf countries are
willing to fund this mission and help with recruiting efforts. No
longer are our partners willing to quietly support from the shadows.
They view the threat coming from Iraq and Syria with ISIL with such
urgency that they are going public loudly and assertively.
I am clear-eyed about the enormity of the challenge. There is risk.
But at this point, given the rapidity of ISIL's advance and the
savagery of its actions, we must be willing to take some risk to
degrade this brutal, barbaric organization. The fact is that Sunni
neighbors across the region are lining up to join this mission.
The moderate Syrian forces we will train can pressure ISIL in Syria,
the Iraqis from Iraq, and we pressure ISIL from the air. The question
is, Why now? The response to the question is this: Yesterday I held--as
the Presiding Officer knows, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
passed legislation last year to increase lethal assistance to the
moderate rebels battling Assad in a bipartisan way. We do not get do-
overs, so we cannot change what was not done. We cannot change what has
already happened. But we can change what exists on the ground in Syria
today. We can influence what happens going forward and work together to
set conditions for how it ends.
Yesterday Robert Ford--our exceptional former U.S. Ambassador to
Syria, probably our greatest expert on Syria and the rebels
particularly, and until recently our senior State Department official
working with the moderate opposition--could not have had more
compelling testimony. In response to questions I posed to him about
whether a moderate armed opposition still exists for us to train and
arm, he said: Yes, they exist. Yes, they are already fighting ISIL.
Yes, they share our view that a radical, extremist Islamic State should
not be imposed on Syria. That conflict will only end with a political
deal or negotiated settlement.
In response to questions about whether there is recruitment
potential, whether we can find enough fighters who are moderate who
will pass our vetting standards to receive our training, he said: Yes.
We know them. We have provided them with nonlethal assistance, which
they have used responsibly.
By the way, he described them as being pretty resilient in the face
of being outgunned, that they are still engaged and fighting for their
own future.
He also said: We have talked politics with them, meaning
understanding where their mindset is as it relates to the future.
In fact, Mr. Ford said that the problem has always been that there
were more willing fighters than there were guns and ammunition.
In response to whether the moderate armed Syrian opposition shares
our goal of degrading ISIL, the answer was also affirmatively yes.
The force we train and arm will fight ISIL because ISIL is
threatening their supply lines and has butchered hundreds of members of
the moderate Syrian opposition. In Syria, the moderate opposition has
been mired in a two-front war--one against ISIL and the other against
Assad and his regime backers--for years. The language in the amendment
to the CR reflects this reality. We are training and arming a force
that will defend the Syrian people from ISIL attacks and also promote
conditions for a negotiated settlement to end the conflict in Syria--in
other words, going after Assad's security forces.
Finally, Ambassador Ford lamented that if we do not go forward with
this proposal to train and equip the moderate armed opposition, Assad
will likely become even more convinced that his strategy all along has
worked. His strategy is to convince the world that he is the only
viable alternative to ISIL and radical extremists and that we will
eventually resolve ourselves to working with him.
Let me conclude by saying that the only course of action at this
point in time is for us to commit to the grinding work of building a
viable alternative, which is the moderate armed Syrian opposition.
Again, this is not going to happen overnight, but it certainly will
not happen if there is not a moderate, capable alternative to Assad, a
group that is neither radical nor has the barbarism of ISIL, nor the
nihilistic, barrel bomb-dropping of Assad.
We must be realistic if we are going to degrade and destroy ISIL.
Frankly, I still have many questions about the way forward beyond this
issue. I intend to work with the administration to ensure that the plan
is sound and the strategy is effective. We will continue to vet that
through a series of both hearings and intelligence briefings. But I
have no question that this particular action is needed now.
I fully intend for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to explore,
vet, and ultimately craft what a possible authorization for use of
military force should look like. In that regard, we need to get it
right, not just do it fast. I do not want an AUMF that ultimately--as
of September 2001--finds us 13 years later in a host of different
countries that were never envisioned as being the authorization for it,
to send the sons and daughters of America without the authorization of
the Congress.
We will work on all of that in a determined, studious, and detailed
way to make sure that we understand the strategy and all of its
dimensions, that we can provide for that, and at the end of the day
that we can defeat ISIL, but without an open-ended check.
With that, I urge support for the CR.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to express my disappointment about a
matter of great importance to Wyoming and many other Western States.
The continuing resolution before us does not include critical funding
that nearly 1,900 counties in 49 States rely on.
Local governments are responsible for providing fire protection, law
enforcement, sanitation, public health, and education, to our
constituents. They provide these services largely by raising local
revenue, including property taxes. In States where there is little
federally owned land, local communities have a large number of private
homeowners to help provide these services. But in States such as my
home State of Wyoming, the Federal Government owns much of the land.
The problem is that these Federal lands cannot be taxed. The Payment in
Lieu of Taxes program, or PILT, has been in place for decades and is,
essentially, the Federal Government's property taxes.
Last year's omnibus appropriations package did not fund PILT.
Instead, the Farm bill provided 1 year of PILT funding. And since
Congress has not
[[Page S5759]]
passed appropriations bills through regular order this year but is
leaving fiscal year 2014 funding on autopilot, PILT isn't addressed in
the legislation we are considering today. Yet local governments must
still provide critical fire, law enforcement, and health services in
these areas and for the people who work on them. What are we supposed
to tell our communities that rely on this money for 40 to 80 percent of
their budgets?
This body cannot fail to address this issue this year. To do so would
break a promise we have made and would force communities to reduce or
even eliminate the vital resources upon which their citizens rely. But
we should not just address the issue for this year. We need to stop
playing games with PILT and find a way to ensure it is adequately and
fairly funded for years to come in a way that does not rob Peter to pay
Paul.
Yes, the Federal Government is out of money. We are going to have to
prioritize. But I would submit that PILT needs to be one of those
priorities. PILT represents a promise the Federal Government made to
counties and local governments all across the Nation, and they are
looking to us to see how we will keep that promise. If we fail to do
so, it will have an impact on almost every one of our States.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express
support for the continuing resolution which funds the government
through December 11.
One provision in the bill I would like to focus on relates to our
fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL.
I believe there is an urgent need to confront this terrorist group,
and Congress can help this effort by supporting President Obama's plan
and voting for the continuing resolution.
The CR includes a provision to provide the Defense Department with
the authority for the U.S. Armed Forces to train and equip an
opposition force capable of confronting ISIL.
I believe we must come together in large numbers--Democrats and
Republicans--to pass this provision as quickly as possible. A strong
bipartisan majority would give the Obama administration and the
American people a strong sense of unity and purpose as we all grapple
with the threat of ISIL. We must give the President the tools he needs
to succeed. Providing the Defense Department with this authority is
just one part of the comprehensive strategy, but it is an important
one.
The President has said he has the legal authority to conduct
airstrikes in Iraq and Syria and has laid out his strategy. After the
election there will be ample time to debate the strategy further and
potentially vote on a new authorization of military force, but in the
short-term we must pass this authorization--at this time the only
authority the administration has asked Congress to approve. If ever
there were a time to unite behind President Obama, that time is now.
ISIL is like no other terrorist organization we have seen. It has
become a ruthless terrorist army that occupies territory and controls
civilian populations through fear, intimidation, and brutality.
It controls large swaths of land in two nations. In Syria it controls
nearly one-third of the country, and in Iraq it effectively controls as
many as 14 cities.
According to a recent CIA estimate, ISIL may have as many as 30,000
fighters--and separately there may be up to 25,000 Sunni tribesmen who
have associated themselves with ISIL forces.
ISIL has looted heavy weaponry--including artillery, tanks and
armored vehicles--from the battlefield. Much of that equipment is now
being used against innocent civilians and our partners on the ground.
ISIL has killed tens of thousands of people. They kill with abandon,
including the brutal massacre of hundreds of Iraqi and Syrian soldiers,
stripped, bound and buried in shallow graves. ISIL is also well-funded
through criminality, ransom payments, extortion and the sale of oil.
Its control of territory and resources is topped only by its level of
brutality.
Over the past few weeks, I have personally reviewed photos, videos
and personal stories of ISIL's countless victims. I have seen the
beheading of American and British hostages and pictures of the
crucifixion of many innocent civilians, including a girl as young as 6
years of age. I have seen photos of heads staked on fence posts and
films of the mass-execution of Iraqi and Syrian army units. In one gory
report, after ISIL took control of two oilfields in eastern Syria from
the al-Sheitaat tribe, they summarily executed 700 tribesmen. I have
read stories of women bound to trees and forced to be sexual prizes for
ISIL fighters who performed well in battle. There are reports that
thousands of Yazidi women have been taken as slaves and I have read the
testimonials of the few who were lucky enough to escape. They describe
being confined, eating only once a day, being given away as wives,
raped and abused at the hands of ISIL fighters. I have seen devastating
footage of Yazidis and Christians literally running for their lives
from approaching ISIL forces, faced with the choice of converting to
Islam or death. When one Yazidi girl was surrounded by ISIL fighters,
she said, ``I've never felt so helpless in my 14 years. They had
blocked our path to safety, and there was nothing we could do.''
The lack of humanity is shocking and despicable. It is pure evil and
it should haunt the world. And while ISIL is now limited to Syria and
Iraq, it has made clear its intentions are to bring the fight to the
United States and our allies.
In Iraq, a major concern of mine is that their next attack will be
our Embassy in Baghdad. I have no doubt that ISIL leaders also intend
to hit us here in our homeland.
In July 2012, ISIL leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi said: ``The mujahidin
have also sworn they will make you suffer more pain than that caused by
Usama [bin Laden]. You will see them in your own country, God
willing.''
In January of this year, during his radio address, Baghdadi added:
``Our last message is to the Americans. Soon we'll be in direct
confrontation, and the sons of Islam have prepared for such a day. So
watch out for us, for we are with you, watching.''
Finally, in a video posted on August 19, 2014, the executioner of
James Foley stated: ``So any attempt by you, Obama, to deny the Muslims
their rights of living in safety under the Islamic Caliphate will
result in the bloodshed of your people.''
We have no specific information that ISIL is planning an attack
against the United States, but we also had no clear understanding of
al-Qaeda's specific plotting in the days before 9/11 an attack that
would claim nearly 3,000 American lives.
ISIL's territorial control, resources, brutality and intention to
broaden their attacks make it clear that we must act. I support the
President's actions to confront and ultimately destroy ISIL.
As he has said, we will expand airstrikes against ISIL targets,
including in Syria; maintain a united international coalition--with
Arab countries--that will contribute to the fight in meaningful ways;
encourage continued political reconciliation in Baghdad to diminish
ISIL's support from Sunni tribes; halt the flow of foreign fighters and
resources to ISIL; and provide weapons to the Kurdish peshmerga, Iraqi
security forces and moderate forces inside Syria.
Action is currently underway in many of those areas. Air strikes have
helped defend key infrastructure such as the Mosul Dam and protected
civilians in Amirli and Mt. Sinjar. More recently, the President has
expanded the air campaign by going on the offensive and attacking ISIL
on the outskirts of Baghdad.
Secretaries Kerry and Hagel have been building a coalition with
international partners, including much of Europe and at least 10 Arab
nations. New Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is in the process of
finalizing the Cabinet and has made sincere efforts to bridge the
sectarian divide. These are all steps in the right direction. Today,
the necessary action before us is to pass this CR, which provides
limited authority to train and equip a military force to fight ISIL on
the ground. The President has ruled out putting U.S. ground forces in
combat roles for now, so we must have partners that can take the fight
to ISIL. Without such a force, ISIL will continue to enjoy a safe haven
in eastern Syria and once ISIL is pushed out of territory, the Assad
regime or other extremists could fill the vacuum.
[[Page S5760]]
Bolstering this fighting force is critical to our goal of degrading
and destroying ISIL. While it is just one part of the President's plan,
it will work in conjunction with our ongoing diplomatic, intelligence,
military and economic efforts.
The continuing resolution includes the authority the Defense
Department needs to begin training such a force. The provision also
requires the administration to produce a plan to explain how arming the
moderate opposition fits within the President's larger regional
strategy to defeat ISIL. It also requires regular reports to Congress
to keep us informed of the training activities.
We already know Saudi Arabia is prepared to host a training program,
and I suspect other Arab states will help fund it. But without this
authority in this CR, U.S. troops and trainers will not be able to
participate in this essential program.
Regardless of whether we waited too long to confront ISIL, we now
have a strategy that we need to support to turn the tide. U.S.
airstrikes in Iraq have protected our people and prevented a
humanitarian catastrophe. As we now take the fight directly to ISIL,
Congress needs to give the President the tools he needs to ramp up the
battle.
This is a matter of national security and I hope members of both
parties will come together to support the President's request.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on a continuing
resolution to fund the Federal Government from October 1 to December
11. This vote should not be necessary. There is no good reason why we
are not voting on fiscal year 2015 appropriations bills to fund the
government the way we used to rather than a continuing resolution that
keeps the government on autopilot despite many new and compelling
needs.
Chairwoman Mikulski of the Appropriations Committee and her
counterpart in the House, Chairman Rogers, have made this argument as
well as any two people could. It is unacceptable that the Congress,
which has the power of the purse, fails to use that power in a
responsible manner. Passing annual appropriations bills should be a
priority for both parties, and I hope that between now and when this
short-term CR expires, we can do our job and finish work on those bills
which were reported by the Appropriations Committee months ago--and
send them to the President.
Nine months ago, when the fiscal year 2014 omnibus was enacted, no
one anticipated the Ebola epidemic which has infected thousands of
people and today threatens all of Africa, thus, there is little funding
available to combat it. The Defense Department, USAID, CDC, and others
are scrambling to reprogram funds from other important programs.
Nine months ago, no one envisioned the surge in young migrants from
Central America, and so the Departments of State, Homeland Security,
Justice, Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Agency for
International Development are reprogramming funds. But it is not nearly
enough to address the horrific gang violence and endemic poverty in
those countries that are contributing to the flood of refugees across
our border.
Nine months ago, did anyone here predict that ISIS would be routing
units of the Iraqi army, beheading Americans, and seizing control of
territory? Did anyone foresee Russia's intervention in Ukraine? Did
anyone foresee that we would be sending U.S. military advisors to
Nigeria to help track down hundreds of school girls kidnapped by Boko
Haram? There is no money in the budget for any of this, so we are
robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Fiscal Year 2015 appropriations bills have been reported out of
committee with strong bipartisan support. Let's debate them. Senators
can offer amendments. We can vote. That is what we should be doing
instead of kicking the ball down the road for another 2\1/2\ months.
Obviously, we all recognize the need to keep the Federal Government
operating. As much as I disagree with this approach, I would vote for
the continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown. But this vote
does far more than that. It authorizes the President under title 10 of
the U.S. Code to provide training and weapons to Syrian rebel forces.
In other words, we are authorizing U.S. military intervention in
Syria's civil war which for the past 2 years the administration has
strongly advised against and doing so by tacking that authority onto a
short-term spending bill to keep the government operating.
As much as I believe the United States should support the fight
against ISIS and as much as I commend the President and Secretary Kerry
for their efforts to build a coalition to that end, I am not convinced
that the President's plan to intervene in Syria can succeed. There are
too many unanswered questions about the composition, intentions,
allegiances, and capabilities of the so-called ``moderate'' Syrian
rebels who, like the Iraqi militias that openly admit to atrocities,
are accountable to no one.
There is too little clarity about the White House's intentions,
particularly when there is talk of unilateral air attacks against ISIS
by U.S. forces inside Syrian territory. There has been too little
discussion of the potential consequences of this strategy for the
brutal Assad regime which also opposes ISIS, for the anti-ISIS
coalition, or for Iran's or Russia's ability to expand their influence
in that region.
We have been assured that recipients of U.S. military equipment are
vetted and that the use of the equipment is monitored. Yet we have seen
U.S. military vehicles and weapons worth millions of dollars in the
hands of ISIS and other anti-American groups in Iraq and Libya. Who can
say who else has gotten their hands on them, or that the weapons we
provide the Syrian rebels will not be used against innocent civilians
or end up in the hands of our enemies?
The House resolution we are voting on addresses this issue narrowly,
requiring vetting only as it relates to association with terrorists or
Iran. It says nothing about vetting for gross violations of human
rights, as would be required for assistance for foreign security forces
under the Leahy Amendment.
The administration says we need to defeat ISIS. I don't disagree.
ISIS is a barbaric enterprise that has no respect for human life and
poses a grave threat to anyone it encounters, including Americans. Yet
that is what the previous White House said about Al Qaeda. A dozen
years and hundreds of billions of dollars and many American lives
later, Al Qaeda is a shadow of what it once was but is far from
defeated.
Since 9/11, numerous offshoots of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups
have proliferated not only in South Asia but throughout the Middle East
and into east and north Africa. And one of those groups, formerly
affiliated with Al Qaeda, is ISIS. Some say ISIS is worse than Al
Qaeda. If ISIS is defeated, who comes next?
Not long ago the President said the sweeping 2001 authorization for
the use of military force against those responsible for the 9/11
attacks should be repealed. Yet the White House recently cited it as a
basis for attacking ISIS. Alternatively, the White House says the
President has the authority he needs under the 2002 authorization for
the use of military force to defeat Saddam Hussein. No objective
reading of those resolutions supports that conclusion. Yet here we are
about to embark on another open ended war against terrorism, albeit,
thankfully, without U.S. ground troops.
We can help combat ISIS, and we must, but the Governments of Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, and others in that region--some of which have vast
wealth--need to show they share that goal at least as much as we do,
not just by their statements but by their actions.
They should take the lead. We can support them, although Saudi
Arabia, besides being a major oil supplier, has one of the world's most
repressive governments and Saudi charities have been a steady source of
revenue for extremist groups. One has to wonder whether such alliances
help or hurt us in the long run.
I have thought hard about this. It is far from black and white. I
deeply respect the President. In the end, he may be right. But I worry
about the slippery slope we may be starting down in the thick of a
sectarian civil war. I am not prepared--on a stop-gap, short-term
spending bill containing authority drafted by the House of
Representatives, in the waning hours of the day of
[[Page S5761]]
adjournment, and with no opportunity for amendments--to endorse a
policy that will involve spending hundreds of millions and almost
certainly billions of dollars over multiple years to train and arm
Syrian fighters who may or may not share our goals or values, not in a
part of the world where past U.S. military interventions with similarly
vague goals involving similarly questionable allies have consistently
turned out very differently from the Pollyannaish predictions of former
Pentagon and White House officials. Time and again we have been assured
of relatively quick and easy success, only to pay dearly over the
course of protracted, costly wars that fell far short of their lofty
goals and unleashed forces of hatred that no one predicted.
Year after year, the administration asked Congress for billions of
dollars to support former Iraqi President Malaki's government. Yet the
White House now concedes that his sectarian policies and the widely
reported abuses of the Iraqi army that the U.S. trained and equipped
were a cause of the resentment and divisions that contributed to the
rise of ISIS and threaten to break Iraq apart.
The Iraq war was a disaster for this country. The families of
Americans who gave their lives or were grievously injured will suffer
the consequences for many years to come. It caused lasting damage to
our national reputation and to the image and readiness of our armed
forces. Yet I worry that other than trying to avoid another costly
deployment of U.S. ground troops, we have learned little from that
fiasco. The Middle East is no place to intervene militarily without a
thorough understanding of the history and the centuries-old tribal,
religious, and ethnic rivalries that have far more relevance than
anything we might think we can achieve.
Does that mean there is no role for the United States in that part of
the world? Of course not. But rather than set goals that may or may not
be realistic but will almost certainly have profound and potentially
dangerous unintended and unanticipated consequences, let's have a real
debate that thoroughly considers all the options, all the costs, all
the pros and cons. This is far too important a decision to be dealt
with in such a cursory manner.
So I will vote no, with the hope that in November or December we will
revisit this issue and have the real debate we are avoiding today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I know that the hour is late and that my
colleague from Oklahoma wishes to speak as well. I know Senators are
eager to vote. I will not be long, but I will try to be concise in what
I am about to say.
I came to the Senate primarily motivated by many different things,
but one of the things that truly motivated me was the fiscal state of
our country, the fear that our current spending patterns are not just
unsustainable but threaten our future and impede our ability to achieve
what I believe is our destiny--another American century.
That is why each time I have been here and I have had an opportunity
placed before me to vote on a short-term spending matter, I have voted
against it--because I felt they ignored our long-term problems of
spending in this country and did not deal with them in a responsible
way.
Once again, today we are confronted with a short-term spending bill
that we are asked to approve; otherwise, the government will shut down
and the world will stop spinning. But today's question is a little
different from the ones that have been posed to us in the past. The one
before us today has deeply imbedded in it an issue of national
security.
For the better part of 3 years, I have argued that what is happening
in Syria is in our national interest. Many, quite frankly, in my own
party but also in the White House disagreed with my view. They felt
that it was a regional conflict or one that could be handled by leading
from behind. So from that time until today we have largely watched as
events have unfolded in Syria without carefully explaining to the
American people why we should care.
But I believed then--and I think I have been proven right by recent
events--that what happened in Syria and what was happening in Syria was
in our national interests because if we failed to influence the
direction of that situation, it would leave open a space for radical
jihadists from all over the world to establish an operation space from
which they could carry out their plots not just against us but all free
and freedom-loving people and peace-loving people in the world.
Sadly, that is what has happened in Syria. A protracted conflict has
left open spaces, and foreign radical jihadists from everywhere on this
planet have flowed to the deserts of Syria, where they set up
organizations not just designed to topple Assad but to establish an
Islamic caliphate that oversees multiple countries in the Middle East
and ultimately will target us. I say ``target us'' because that
caliphate cannot exist unless they drive America from the region. The
way they intend to drive us from that region is by terrorizing us.
Those efforts began recently when we saw the brutal murder of two brave
young Americans--including one from my home State--for doing nothing
other than being present and being from America.
Now we find ourselves in this situation. I feel the President and, as
I said, people in both parties have taken too long to realize what a
threat this is. I recognize that the options before us now are not as
good as they would have been had we dealt with this 2 years ago, 3
years ago, or even 6 or 9 months ago. We have plenty of time in the
weeks and months and years to come to debate what should have been
done. I anticipate I will be involved in that debate because there are
lessons to be learned from that. But today, as leaders of this country,
we are called on to decide what we do now. What do we do now when
confronted with a very real threat that, left unconfronted, will become
a very real danger for the people we represent here in this country?
The President has come forward with a plan--a plan that I wish he had
come forward with 6 months ago, that I called for 3 months ago. But I
suppose, as in most things, better late than never. Even if late means
our chances of success have been minimized, even if it will cost more
money, and even if it will now take longer, better late than never.
That is the question before us now. I wish we had a separate debate
on this issue. I wish we had a separate debate on this issue with
regard to arming moderate rebel elements in Syria because there are
real reasons to be concerned not just about whom we are arming but
whether it will work.
I wish we had more time to debate the broader plan and come before
this body and ask for an authorization for the use of force, although I
think there is a compelling argument to be made that for immediate
action, the President, as the Commander in Chief, does not need that
authorization. We were not given that opportunity. What they are
cheating is not just the political process, for in that debate we would
have been able to inform the American people so they too would have
learned more about this, but as a nation we could have come to a
consensus about what the right thing to do is. But in the end, that is
not the opportunity before us now. We are asked to decide things in
this Chamber that are in the best interests of our country even if they
did not work out the way we wanted them to or did not develop the way
we wanted them to. That is what is before us here today.
I say this to you without a shadow of a doubt, as I said weeks ago:
If we do not confront and defeat ISIL now, we will have to do so later.
It will take a lot longer. It will be much costlier and even more
painful. We will confront ISIL one way or the other--I believe the
sooner, the better.
What we are asked to do now is approve funding to arm moderate rebel
elements in Syria. There is no guarantee of success. There is none. But
there is a guarantee of failure if we do not even try. Try we must for
one fundamental reason: If we fail to approve this, the nations of that
region will say that America is not truly engaged, that Americans are
willing to talk about this but are not willing to do anything about it.
So despite my concerns about the underlying bill and the budgeting it
entails, I will support this resolution because I think it is in the
best interests of our national security.
[[Page S5762]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for the minority has expired.
Mr. COBURN. I have an inquiry of the Chair. It was my understanding
that I had 4 minutes remaining on our side and that Senator Rubio had
time granted to him by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Is
that not correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is unaware of that arrangement.
Mr. COBURN. What I would simply do is ask unanimous consent that I
have 7 minutes to make a statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator can stick to 7 minutes, we have no
objection.
Mr. COBURN. I can stick to 7 minutes. I will hear the gavel come down
and I will quit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion of the Senator
from Oklahoma is accepted and the Senator is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. First, I give praise to the chair and the ranking member
of the Appropriations Committee for the cooperative nature of the
committee this year in terms of inserting good government amendments
into appropriations bills. It was a real pleasure to be able to work
with them and to put some of the oversight results that we have done
over the past few years into appropriations bills.
The bill we have on the floor, even though the chair is supporting
the bill, is not her bill. It is a bill that came to her from House
Republicans. So any criticism I might have of the bill is certainly not
directed toward the chair of the Appropriations Committee. But it is
important to be reminded of what the Congress told the American people
less than 2 years ago, that we were going to go on a diet, and then 1
year ago when we had the Ryan-Murray agreement.
I will outline where we are with what we are getting ready to vote
on, because we are about $47 billion above what we agreed to in the
Ryan-Murray budget, and that doesn't include emergency funding.
Appropriators didn't write this bill. This bill came out of the
House. We understand the timing of it, we understand the process. But
this bill doesn't keep our word to the American public that we said we
were going to keep. That is No. 1.
No. 2 is the chair of the Appropriations Committee attempted to put
bills on the floor, and she was open to an amendment process. One bill
was pulled because there was no agreement to allow any amendments to
$3.6 trillion worth of spending--none, zero. That wasn't her desire.
She is a fair broker in this body for what needs to be done when it
comes to spending.
So I would make the point on the fiscal aspect of this bill.
When criminals in this country hurt other people, judges throughout
the country--and Federal judges--impose a penalty, and criminals who
are convicted end up paying into a Crime Victims Fund. The Crime
Victims Fund isn't Federal tax dollars, it is individual payments by
felons to make amens for damage and injury to people upon whom their
crime was cast.
In this bill is $20 billion worth of false savings, but the way we
calculate it is since we are not going to spend the money that is due
to the crime victims, we are going to say that is going to save us
money and, so, therefore, we can spend that money somewhere else.
If you did that on your income taxes or if you were a corporation and
filed that with the SEC, it wouldn't take long for you to be in jail.
But that is what the appropriators in the House did and we just got
through doing this last December, the same amount of money on the same
fund.
What I want the American people to see is regardless of whether you
think we ought to pass this bill, shouldn't there be some clarity about
the integrity of our numbers? Shouldn't we, if we can't meet the
guidelines, just admit it and say we can't meet it rather than saying
we are meeting it and create a false set of numbers? Shouldn't we at
least do that? Aren't the American people worth that?
But instead, we have $11.8 billion from the Crime Victims Fund and
$6.3 billion from the Children's Health Fund, which are false savings.
They are not real savings.
So we are not going to be honest.
Well, I am going to be honest. The American public, the Senate, and
the authors of this bill in the House will be lying to you if you
believe the numbers in this bill. They are not true.
That is not the chair of the Appropriations Committee who made that
decision, it was the House appropriators who made that decision to use
false numbers to create a false set of achievements.
Finally, and I think I am about out of time, I would say there is one
other aspect that disturbs me about this bill.
We have a mess in the Middle East today. Sitting on the Intelligence
Committee and sitting on Homeland Security, I don't disagree we ought
to be involved in terms of going after ISIS, but I think we ought to
recognize that we created the problem in the first place. We created
the vacuum that allowed that to flourish.
I will state my assessment of where we are. We now have recognized
this threat and we have a political plan but no real policy plan to
confront ISIS.
Having just heard from both the head of the CIA and also the Defense
Department in response to the President's plan, what I can tell you is
we know that something needs to be done, but your government doesn't
yet know what to do.
I know there is authorization for monies in here. We need it. We are
going to have to fight it. But let's be very clear, as Members of this
body, to ask the important questions so that we don't go down a road
that is made even worse. We have the brain power in the Senate, the
experience, and the gray hair to do that.
I ask my colleagues to be very careful--not with this; this is going
to happen. This CR is going to happen. It is a terrible way to run the
government. The appropriations chair doesn't want to run it this way,
but let's be very careful on the questions we ask in the future.
I thank the chair of the Appropriations Committee for her kindness in
yielding me the time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I hope to say a few words to the Senator from Oklahoma
before he leaves the floor. We are in the closing hours of not only
this debate but of this session of Congress. I say to the Senator from
Oklahoma on the brink of his retirement from the Senate how much I have
enjoyed serving with him. Although we have different views from time to
time, he has played a very important role in this institution relating
in terms of focusing on so many aspects of folly, fraud, stupidity, and
duplication. I could go on.
I thank you. I know how we joined shoulder to shoulder on no more
lavish spending at some of those conferences where it was $4 for a
Swedish meatball. But seriously, as we worked on this year's
appropriations, he and I actually met on how we could improve
government and keep a careful eye, with some of us saying just get rid
of some of the things that cost money and add no value to the
government or its compelling needs.
I thank the Senator for his service in the Senate.
Also, hopefully, when we return, we can work on an omnibus to
incorporate the very reforms around waste, duplication, and folly that
we worked together on on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. COBURN. I thank my colleague.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, we are in the closing hours of debate.
There are two other Senators who will be coming to speak. I hope they
will be here sooner. There is a lot going on, and I want to encourage
colleagues, as we get ready, to urge a vote on passage of the
continuing resolution.
This measure will keep government going through December 11. But make
no mistake, this is government on auto pilot.
I hope to be back in December, shoulder to shoulder with Senator
Shelby, where we will work on a comprehensive funding legislation--in
other words, an omnibus.
This is Washington speak. I mean, really, we use words nobody
understands: continuing resolutions, omnibus, motions to proceed. But
in plain English, it would mean taking all 12 subcommittees that are in
charge of funding the government through due
[[Page S5763]]
diligence and putting together a comprehensive funding bill that can be
debated, scrutinized, debated, and voted on.
We have done our work over the year. I am very proud of my
subcommittee chairmen, the ranking members who have worked on a
bipartisan basis, and their staffs. We can do an omnibus when we come
back that will enable us to make the choices we need to do, meet our
national security needs, the compelling human needs of the country, and
make sure we have an opportunity ladder for our people who are middle
class to stay there or those who want to work hard to do better to be
able to get there, and to also make those investments in innovation,
research, and development that create the new ideas for the new jobs
that keep us as an exceptional Nation.
I do hope we get final passage. I do hope also when we return after
the election, we can do this comprehensive funding bill.
Again, I thank Senator Shelby of Alabama and all of the other members
of the Appropriations Committee who worked so hard with the ranking
members. We had a series of debates and votes. We worked very hard. Yet
I wish people would come to our committees, as they were categorized by
civility, intellectual rigor, and scrutiny of IG and GAO reports. We
worked very hard to accomplish the mission of these agencies to keep
our government strong and to get value for the taxpayer.
Again, thanks to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, led by
Senator Shelby of Alabama.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________