[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 171 (Thursday, November 19, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8113-S8114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   GUANTANAMO BAY DETENTION FACILITY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, years ago, then-candidate Obama made a 
campaign promise that has not withstood the measure of time or the 
realities brought by terrorism. He said he wanted to close the secure 
detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Ever since, he has pursued 
policies that willfully avoided the targeting chain of capture, 
interrogate, build intelligence, and target. It turns out that the 
reality of closing the secure detention facility is a lot harder than 
making promises on the campaign trail. It is an incredibly complex 
issue with grave national security concerns for the citizens of our 
country and for our allies.
  The fact that the President has never been able to present any kind 
of serious plan to Congress seems to say quite a lot. We hear he is 
working on one now. We will, of course, give consideration to what the 
President says. We

[[Page S8114]]

will, of course, keep an open mind. It doesn't mean Congress is going 
to agree with him. It is going to be a very tough sell because it is 
hard to understand why indefinite detention for terrorists on U.S. soil 
is preferable to detaining terrorists who cannot be released in 
Guantanamo. This is especially true when one considers the fact that 
bringing terrorists here presents serious risks that simply do not 
exist if we keep the terrorists in the secure facility down there in 
Guantanamo Bay.
  This much is crystal clear though: If the President wants to be able 
to import Guantanamo terrorists into Americans' backyards, he is going 
to have to persuade a majority in Congress to change the law. The law 
prevents that.
  Just last week, big bipartisan majorities in Congress voted twice to 
underscore the point. We overwhelmingly passed a defense authorization 
bill with a clear bipartisan prohibition on the President moving 
Guantanamo terrorists into our country. We overwhelmingly passed a 
veterans funding bill with a clear bipartisan prohibition on the 
President improving military facilities for the detention of Guantanamo 
terrorists in our country.
  The Senate has voted many times in recent years to enact these 
bipartisan protections. We enacted them in Congresses with split party 
control. We enacted them in Congresses with massive Democratic 
majorities. The President signed them all into law. So if the President 
wants to bring Guantanamo terrorists into the United States, he has to 
change the law. That is the opinion of the President's own Attorney 
General. She was asked directly this week if the President should 
ignore legislation passed by Congress that prohibits him from 
transferring Guantanamo detainees to American soil. This is what 
Attorney General Loretta Lynch said: ``The law currently does not allow 
for that.'' Let me repeat that. ``The law currently does not allow for 
that.'' That is Attorney General Lynch of this administration. That is 
what the Nation's chief law enforcement officer, a woman appointed by 
President Obama himself, had to say on his ability to import Guantanamo 
terrorists into our country.
  This isn't exactly a revelation to anybody. The fact that the 
President is now contemplating flouting the law in pursuit of a 
campaign promise from years ago means that it is apparently necessary 
for his own Attorney General to remind everybody that the law is the 
law, even for President Obama.
  There are a multitude of other reasons not to bring these individuals 
into our country. I plan to continue reminding my colleagues of them 
here on the floor from time to time.
  If the President ever presents some kind of plan we can actually 
debate, I am sure there will be several different views on it. I am 
sure we will each have a lot to say. I am sure the President will make 
his pitch to convince Congress that moving terrorists into American 
communities is a good idea. As I said, it will be a hard sell. But the 
President should make his case if he feels passionately about it. For 
now, though, we should at least be able to agree with what one of our 
Democratic colleagues recently said of the President: ``He is going to 
have to comply with the legal restrictions.''

                          ____________________