[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S921-S924]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUMF
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President. I would like to touch on two topics. The
first is that today the President has submitted a request for
authorization for use of military force with regard to ISIL, or ISIS,
as some call it.
First, I think it is good news that the President has made that
submission, and I think he is right when he says the country is
stronger when both Congress and the President act together.
I would say there is a pretty simple authorization he could ask for,
and it would be one sentence, and that is, ``We authorize the President
to defeat and destroy ISIL.'' And that is what I think we need to do.
I look forward to reading through his submission. I understand it
contains a time limitation. It does not contain geographic limitations.
It contains some language that supposedly will make people feel more
comfortable about the use of ground troops.
An authorization to use force that has limitations built into it is
really quite unprecedented. We did some research, and the Congressional
Research Service said that there really were only two previous
authorizations that have limited the President in terms of the use of
force to be used or the duration of the conflict. One was in 1983 in
Lebanon, and one was in 1993 in Somalia. Both of those were
peacekeeping missions, so it made sense to limit the peacekeeping
mission to use of force. But it appears that never before in certainly
modern history has the Congress of the United States authorized the
President to take on and defeat an enemy but has done so with
limitations on the time or geography or anything of that nature. That
is an important point for us to understand because under no
circumstances can ISIL stay. What we need to be authorizing the
President to do is to destroy them and to defeat them and allow the
Commander in Chief--both the one we have now and the one who will
follow--to put in place the military tactics necessary to destroy and
defeat ISIS.
It is important to point out that circumstances on the ground might
rapidly change. They already have. For example, when this began--if you
look back a year and a half ago, if I had stood on the floor and given
a speech about defeating ISIL or ISIS, no one would have known what I
was talking about because at the time most Americans and most Members
of Congress had no idea what that was. That is how quickly this has
developed into a threat.
I would remind everyone that when they actually crossed over from
Syria into Iraq, the President called them the JV team. Even today the
facts on the ground continue to evolve very rapidly. For example, we
now know through open source reports that ISIL has now established a
presence in Derna, Libya, which gives them access to a port facility,
and it is a completely uncontested space. There is no government
shooting at them. There are no airstrikes. There is no one coming after
them there. They can do whatever they want in Libya, and they are doing
it. They are using it as a place to train, a place to recruit, a place
to resupply, a place to raise money, and they have access to a port
that allows them to bring all these things in.
There have also been open source reports of groups in Afghanistan
beginning to pledge allegiance to ISIS. In fact, in at least four
different countries in north Africa, there are now groups who have
pledged allegiance to ISIL. So while we continue to focus on the
conflict with relation to Iraq and Syria, we cannot overlook the fact
that they are sprouting affiliates throughout the entire region.
I think that after the brutal murder of numerous Americans--we saw
last week what happened to the Jordanian pilot--I don't have to spend
much time convincing people how dangerous this group is. What we don't
hear enough about is the atrocities being committed on a daily basis on
the ground, what they are doing to the Sunni population, for example,
of areas they have now conquered, the brutality, the way they enforce
sharia law with brutal tactics, not to mention the brutal stories we
have heard of women being sold off or given away as brides to ISIL
fighters, children trafficked into slavery, entire populations
slaughtered, and fighters who were captured and killed in mass
killings. This is what this group envisions for the world.
The goals of this group are not simply to govern what we knew once as
Iraq or Syria or Libya or any other country; their ultimate goal is for
the entire world--including where we stand today--to one day live under
their mandate, under the rules they have established, under their
radical version of Sunni Islam. You may say that is far-fetched, and it
may be today, but that is their clear ambition--to spread their form of
radical Islam everywhere and anywhere they can. They openly talk about
this.
This group needs to be defeated. I wish we had taken this group on
earlier. I wish, in fact, that we had gotten involved in the conflict
in Syria earlier and equipped moderate rebel elements, non-jihadist
rebel elements on the ground so that they would have been the most
powerful force there. The President failed to do that in a timely
fashion, and as a result a vacuum was created, and that vacuum was
filled by this group who has attracted foreign fighters from all over
the world to join their ranks.
Now we are dealing with this problem, but I would argue better late
than never. Had we dealt with this a year and a half ago or 2 years
ago, it wouldn't have been easy, but it would have been easier. But it
is important to deal with it decisively now. We can debate the tactics,
but it is the job of the Commander in Chief, in consultation with his
military officials who surround him and advise him, to come up with the
appropriate tactics to defeat the enemy.
For our purposes--very straightforward--ISIL is the enemy. They need
to be defeated, and we should authorize this President and future
Presidents to do what they can and what they must to defeat ISIS and
erase them from the equation.
Venezuela
Mr. President, I also wish to take a moment to talk a little bit
about what is happening in Venezuela. Tomorrow, February 12, will mark
the 1-year anniversary since students and others across Venezuela took
to the streets in peaceful demonstrations and demanded a better
government and a better future than the current one, which is corrupt
and incompetent and provides no leadership to the country.
Tomorrow also marks the 1-year anniversary since the Venezuelan
Government, under Nicolas Maduro, responded with a violent crackdown
that left dozens of people dead, thousands injured, and hundreds in
jail as political prisoners. There have been at least 50 documented
cases of torture by government
[[Page S922]]
forces on peaceful demonstrators, and more than 1,700 individuals await
trial today in Venezuela before a judiciary that is completely
controlled by Maduro's government. This includes Leopoldo Lopez, who
has been languishing in the Ramo Verde prison for almost a year.
In the year since the people took to the streets demanding more
opportunity, accountability, and more freedom, the basic necessities
have vanished from the shelves. It is one of the richest nations in the
hemisphere, and its economy is in shambles.
Venezuela is also plagued with one of the world's highest murder
rates, rampant corruption related to state assets, a 57-percent
inflation rate, a junk rating on the global bond market, and
unprecedented scarcity of goods as basic as toilet paper. Lately,
things have gotten so bad in Venezuela under Maduro that they are no
longer just kidnapping people. As the Diario las Americas, which is a
newspaper in Miami, reported earlier this week, people are now
kidnapping dogs and other pets in Venezuela and holding them for
ransom. That is how bad things have gotten.
Why is this happening? Why has the cradle of Latin American
independence--a country blessed with oil and energy wealth, with
talented and hard-working people--become a failed state?
For starters, because it is modeling its economy after Cuba, which
itself is a failed state.
Second, for years Venezuela has been in the grips of incompetent
buffoons, one after another. First it was Hugo Chavez and now Nicolas
Maduro. They have squandered the nation's riches.
Third, the country is being run by corrupt individuals. Just last
week reports came out alleging that the speaker of the national
assembly, Diosdado Cabello, is himself a drug kingpin.
Fourth, even with all the oil wealth Venezuela has squandered, it
still possesses some of the largest oil reserves on the planet, but oil
prices are dropping. In a country such as Venezuela where innovation
and entrepreneurship are stifled, where wealth and power are
concentrated in the government and its cronies, the entire economy is
the oil industry. Ninety-six percent of Venezuela's export revenues
come from oil.
So I am proud that in December the Senate and the House passed and
the President signed a bill that sanctions human rights violators in
Venezuela. It mandates that their assets be frozen and visa
restrictions be placed upon them if they are involved in human rights
violations. That is going to be critical going forward. As things get
worse, more people in Venezuela will take to the streets, and the
national guard in the country--which is nothing but armed thugs working
on behalf of the Maduro government--will be tempted to crack down on
people violently. So our legislation would impose visa sanctions and
asset sanctions on individuals responsible for these human rights
violations.
The good news is that the President has moved forward with some of
these visa restrictions, and that is a very positive step. America
should not be and cannot be a playground for Venezuela's human rights
violators. But the financial sanctions part of the bill are long
overdue. They are urgently needed because things are only going to get
worse in Venezuela. People are only going to get more desperate. They
are only going to speak out more. They are only going to demand freedom
more. And I suspect, although I hope I am wrong, that the response from
the Venezuelan Government will be more violence and more crackdowns on
the people of their own nation.
If, God forbid, they use lethal force against their own people--which
is a right they have reserved for themselves, a right the government
has approved and has given authority to the national guard to use--we
cannot simply stand by and watch as innocent people are killed or
injured because the regime believes there will be no consequences.
So today I wanted to come here for a few moments and urge the
President to do what I asked him to do in a letter last week, and that
is to not sit idly by on the Venezuelan sanction law he signed last
year but to use it--to use it immediately and decisively to make clear
that the United States of America will not stand for repression taking
place in Venezuela and that we will use the tools of our economy and
the power we have given the President to punish those responsible for
committing human rights violations in Venezuela against the people of
that great nation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Department of
Homeland Security and the necessity to fund it.
Earlier today the President submitted a document for the
authorization of use of military force to the Congress. I take the
President's request very seriously. I look forward to the analysis that
will be done by the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services
Committee, and debate on the floor.
Why did the President send it and why did so many in the Congress
call for it? It is because everybody says that we have to do something
about ISIL. You know what. I think we do have to do something about
ISIL. What a ghoulish, barbaric terrorist group. There is no doubt
there has to be an international effort to strike them from the planet
and that the United States has to be a part of it.
But what comes out when we talk about ISIL is the need to have a
strong, robust counterterrorism effort. If we are going to fight
counterterrorism, we must fund the agency that has the principal
responsibility for protecting the homeland.
The Department of Defense protects us against foreign invaders, but
we have to also protect the homeland--whether it is against cyber
security threats or other terrorist activity or other dangers that come
to our country.
So why after 2 weeks do we have the Department of Homeland Security
appropriations for fiscal year 2015? We are ready to vote on it. We
have a clean bill. I am speaking now as the ranking or vice chair of
the Senate Appropriations Committee. During fiscal year 2014, I chaired
the committee. At the end of the year, when we worked on our omnibus,
it was the will of the Congress that we would fund all government
agencies except Homeland Security and instead put it on a continuing
resolution until February 27 because there were those in both Houses
who were cranky about the fact that President Obama exercised Executive
authority in certain matters related to immigration.
So now we are holding up the entire funding for the Department of
Homeland Security because some people are cranky with President Obama
over him using an Executive order on immigration. These very people who
are so cranky are criticizing him for being a weak leader. Oh, where is
President Obama? Why doesn't he take strong and decisive action? When
the President takes strong and decisive action, they not only don't
like it, they are willing to hold up the entire funding for the
Department of Homeland Security over this. What is this? Do we have a
new math where 1 and 1 makes 14 or 5?
We created the Department of Homeland Security after the horrific
attack of 9/11, and they need to be funded.
I am here to urge that we pass a clean funding bill to protect the
Nation from terrorism, cyber security threats which are mounting every
day, and so we can also help our communities respond to other threats.
I believe immigration does deserve a debate. I am not arguing about
that, nor would I ever want to stifle a Senator's ability to speak on
topics where they have strong beliefs and deeply held views, but let's
move immigration to a different forum to talk about it.
In the last Congress the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration
bill. It went to the House, and it sat there. Gee, it sat there. After
a while it kind of sat there some more, and then it died as that
session came to an end.
The President, frustrated that the House of Representatives refused
to take up a bill and debate it through its committees and on the
floor, acted through Executive order.
So my view is let's bring up immigration, let's move our
comprehensive bill again with a full and ample debate, full and ample
amendments. Maybe the House will finally get around to talking about
immigration instead of talking about President Obama, and then we can
pass the Homeland Security bill.
[[Page S923]]
Three times last week the Senate rejected a procedural vote to take
up Homeland Security. People can ask: Senator Barb, why did you do
that? I voted not to delay but to move on. We Senate Democrats tried to
move a clean Homeland Security funding bill. What does that mean? We
focused only on the money. We said we did not want to have the five
poison pill immigration riders that are in the House bill. We wanted to
be able to take that out.
The President has been very clear. If we send him a bill that
includes funding plus five poison pill riders on immigration, he will
veto it. What is the consequence? We become a public spectacle in the
world's eyes. We play parliamentary ping-pong with the President of the
United States. We pass a bill because we want to have a temper tantrum.
He vetoes it. It comes back. We have another debate where we huff and
puff and hope problems will go away. We then try to override a veto and
all the while we are eating up time.
The world is watching us. Our treasured allies are not the only ones
asking about what is going on with the United States and how the
greatest deliberative body has become the greatest delaying body. Our
enemies say we can't get our act together internally to pass the very
money to take them on, so they are going to try to bring it to us.
In the end, when all is said and done, more is getting said than
done. Before we go out for the Presidents Day recess, I urge the Senate
to pass this bill.
Tomorrow we are going to vote to confirm the Secretary of Defense,
Dr. Ashton Carter. He has gone through the process and was reported out
of committee. I look forward to voting for him.
Why are we going to move so fast to confirm Dr. Carter? Because we
need a Secretary of Defense. We have to fight for America. We have to
stand up for America. We have to be muscular and ready to deal with
those bad guys. I agree with that.
I salute our military every day and in every way. They are out there
on the frontlines, and their families are there to lovingly support
them.
We are going to have a Secretary of Defense. Let's not forget we also
have a Secretary of Homeland Security, Mr. Jeh Johnson. Instead of
America having deep pockets to fight terrorism, the Secretary of
Homeland Security will have empty pockets.
What is this? We are going to rush to confirm Dr. Carter, and I think
we ought to. There is no dispute from me on that. Shouldn't we also
rush to complete our work and fund Homeland Security? I think we
should. We could do it tomorrow. We could do it tomorrow and pass this
clean bill.
The Department of Homeland Security's mission is to protect America
from terrorism and help communities respond to all threats, from
terrorism to natural disasters. We are talking about the TSA, which
protects our airports. We are talking about the Border Patrol and ICE,
so if we are talking about immigration, don't we want to fund the
agents out there protecting our borders? Don't we want to continue to
have cyber warriors securing our networks? We need to support the
people who are dealing with bio and nuclear threats. We need to also
continue supporting State and local first responders, firefighters, and
EMS personnel in the different States so they can be ready--whether
they are responding to a local disaster or something that has been
caused by a despicable attack. We need to be able to pass this bill.
The Department of Homeland Security funding runs out on February 27,
and my view is that instead of running the clock we should move this
bill. I believe it could pass tomorrow and that we could get our job
done. But, no, we are all going to go back to our home States and tell
everybody how they have a government on their side and how they can
count on us to fight for America. But the way to fight for America is
to stop fighting with each other.
Let's try to find a sensible Senator and move this bill forward. I
believe people on both sides of the aisle are patriots. I believe
people on both sides of the aisle want to defend America. Let's come
together on both sides of the aisle, right down the middle, and let's
find a way to move this bill forward and have a debate on immigration.
I don't want to stifle or stiff-arm it, but let's move this forward,
and let's stand shoulder to shoulder doing our job to fund the agency
that has the principal responsibility for protecting the homeland.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I am here to also talk about the DHS
funding bill. I will say from the outset that I don't think the
President did the right thing by taking this unilateral action. I think
he has made it more difficult to pass immigration reform in this body.
Having said that, to attempt to use the spending bill in order to try
to poke a finger in the President's eye, in my view, is not a good
move. I believe that rather than poke the President in the eye, we
ought to put legislation on his desk, and we ought to use this time--we
have already used up 2 weeks trying to attach measures to a funding
bill when we could have used this time to move actual immigration
legislation.
Coming from the State of Arizona, we desperately need immigration
reform. We desperately need to have more resources and better security
on our border. We have needed that for a long time. We have had
situations where part of the border gets better and then falls back. As
soon as the economy ramps up again, we can expect a lot more flow
across the border. We don't have sufficient border security in the
State, and Arizonans pay the price in terms of the cost of health care,
education, criminal justice. We bear the brunt of the Federal
Government's failure to have a secure border and to provide for a
secure border.
We need to pass that kind of legislation. There has been a bill that
has been introduced in the House and the Senate. I happen to be a
cosponsor of the bill in the Senate which would help us to get a more
secure border. That is one piece of legislation we could be moving
right now so it could be put on the President's desk.
Second, we all know we need better interior enforcement. We need to
make sure employers who employ illegal aliens are not able to do so. We
need to make sure employers have the tools to find out if those they
are hiring are here legally. That has been needed for a long time. It
has been provided in other pieces of legislation. We could do a bill
just on interior enforcement. We could be doing that now rather than
simply making a statement on a spending bill.
We also need legislation to expand the guest worker plans and
programs we have now. There has been legislation introduced in this
body already to deal with high-tech workers. We need to make sure those
who are educated in our universities and receive graduate degrees in
the STEM fields are encouraged to stay. They ought to be encouraged to
stay to help create jobs in this country rather than returning to their
home country and competing against us. That has been needed, and that
is recognized on a bipartisan basis. We could move legislation right
now with regard to high-tech visas.
We also need to expand other visa categories. We need an ag worker
bill to make sure areas where we simply don't have enough labor to deal
with the needs we have on our farms--we need to pass legislation to do
that. Legislation has been introduced and could be moved through now.
We could be doing that.
We also obviously need to move legislation to deal with those who are
here illegally now--the so-called DREAMers. They are here through no
fault of their own. They were brought to this country when they were 2,
10 or 12 years, and they are now as American as you or I. They ought to
be given a path where they can stay and have some kind of certainty
moving ahead, but that needs to be done by Congress. It cannot simply
be done by the President in Executive action. That kind of legislation
could move here now as well.
We obviously need to deal with legislation for the broader class of
those here illegally. We dealt with it in S. 744, which was introduced
and passed in the Senate in the last Congress. It provided a way for
those who are here illegally to get right with the law and to deport
those who are in a criminal class but also allow those who are here and
want to adjust their status to find a way to do so and to be able to
stay.
[[Page S924]]
Legislation such as that could move as well but instead we are spending
weeks trying to make a statement on a spending bill.
So I hope we will actually do what this Senate is prepared to do and
is ready to do again, which is actually to legislate--to move
legislation through the committee process to the floor and on to the
President's desk. That is how we ought to respond to the action the
President has taken. I hope we will do so.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, over the last two weeks Republicans in
Congress have insisted on playing political games with funding for the
Department of Homeland Security. The same agency that supports States
such as Massachusetts when disasters hit, the same agency that provides
grants for equipment to keep firefighters safe when they rush into
burning buildings, the same agency that helps train and fund local
police, the same agency that tracks down weapons that terrorists can
use to threaten our safety here at home, the same agency that keeps our
borders and airports safe--this is the agency the Republicans are
willing to shut down. Why? Why put America at such risk? Because
Republicans want to protest the steps President Obama has taken to try
to address our country's immigration challenges.
This is not a responsible way to govern. This is a dangerous way to
govern. There are real threats out there, from ISIS in the Middle East
to cyber threats, to acts of terror such as the one in Paris earlier
this year.
DHS gives funding to State and local governments to help them prevent
terror attacks. Massachusetts received over $30 million in these grants
just last year alone. If DHS shuts down, that funding dries up, leaving
our firefighters, our police, and our EMTs hanging, putting the safety
of every American at risk.
Think about the Customs and Border Protection agents, who screen
people traveling into the United States through our airports, and the
men and women of the Coast Guard who patrol our waters. They will still
have to work those tough, sometimes dangerous jobs, but if the
Republicans shut down the Department of Homeland Security, these people
just won't get paid. Tens of thousands of workers nationwide could be
working to help keep us safe and not get a paycheck to cover their
groceries and rent. That is no way to treat the people who protect this
country.
The solution is simple. Last year Democrats and Republicans agreed on
a bipartisan bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. That
bill was ready to go until the Republicans decided they wanted to play
politics. They decided to hold the Department of Homeland Security
hostage to try to force the President to reverse an Executive order on
immigration. That Department of Homeland Security funding bill is still
ready to go. We could vote on it today and be done with all of this.
Everyone who works to protect our safety would keep on working and keep
on getting paid.
A few days ago the Boston Globe wrote an editorial about this, and
they said:
The game of political chicken has to end with the
Republicans blinking. It's one thing to disagree with a
President's executive actions, but it's another thing
altogether to hold crucial funding for a wide range of
security programs hostage.
I couldn't agree more.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the editorial be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Boston Globe, Feb. 7, 2015]
GOP Should Focus on Fixing Immigration, Not Compromising Security
(Editorial)
In the latest political show vote on Capitol Hill,
Republicans are protesting President Obama's executive orders
on immigration, enacted in November, by trying to attach
language undoing them to a bill that funds the Department of
Homeland Security. The attempt is going nowhere: Earlier this
week, Democrats in the Senate blocked the bill from reaching
Obama's desk. At the same time, the president has vowed to
veto any legislation that reverses his immigration measures.
This game of political chicken has to end with the
Republicans blinking. It's one thing to disagree with the
president's executive actions, but it's another thing
altogether to hold crucial funding for a wide range of
security programs hostage.
Republicans who believe Obama's executive orders are an
abuse of power should instead look for remedy in the courts.
If Obama overstepped, the surest way to reverse his orders
would be through a judicial ruling. Meanwhile, Congress
should pass a ``clean'' Homeland Security funding bill that
funds the agency without the immigration language.
Obama enacted the executive orders only after the House
refused to vote on a Senate-passed bill that would have
overhauled our current immigration system. In retaliation,
the GOP decided to attack the president's orders at the
funding source: DHS. The Republican bill included so-called
``poison pill'' amendments that prevent the use of DHS funds
or fees to enforce Obama's executive actions, which will
benefit about 4 million undocumented immigrants by shielding
them from deportation while also allowing them to apply for
work permits. The amendments also prevent the use of any
funds to continue implementing a 2012 order that protected
some undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as
children.
Along with some Republicans who voted against the bill in
the House and the Senate, three former secretaries of
Homeland Security have also urged the GOP to stop using the
agency's budget as a political weapon. Republicans Tom Ridge
and Michael Chertoff, and Democrat Janet Napolitano, wrote to
Republican leadership: ``DHS's responsibilities are much
broader than its responsibility to oversee the federal
immigration agencies and to protect our borders . . . Funding
for the entire agency should not be put in jeopardy by the
debate about immigration.'' They called for a clean funding
bill for the rest of the year, like the one Maryland Senator
Barbara Mikulski and New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen
filed last week.
Obama has said he would be happy to see Congress pass a law
that would make his executive orders unnecessary.
Republicans, instead of engaging in quixotic budget tactics,
should get to work on a new immigration bill and stop
compromising national security.
Ms. WARREN. Let's be clear. If Republicans in the Senate don't change
course, they will shut down the Department of Homeland Security and
compromise the safety of the American people, and they will have done
it because a handful of extremists in the Republican Party are angry at
the President because he is trying to fix what we all know is a broken
immigration system. Well, if they are angry about the President's
immigration policy, let's debate the President's immigration policy.
Last Congress the Senate passed a bipartisan bill to address
immigration. Let's debate that bill again. Or if they want to propose a
new bill, let's vote on that. But don't play games with the safety of
the American people.
The way forward is clear. We need to pass a bill to fund the
Department of Homeland Security.
I yield the floor.
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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________