[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 171 (Thursday, November 19, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8116-S8119]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 2302
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2302 and the
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask that the
bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider
be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, moments ago I asked this body to take up and
pass two commonsense pieces of legislation in response to the terrorist
attack in Paris. The first, the Expatriate Terrorist Act, is
legislation I introduced over a year ago--attempted to pass over a year
ago--and that the Democratic Party blocked. That legislation provides
that any American citizen who goes and joins ISIS, who takes up arms
against America and attempts to wage jihad, by doing so, forfeits his
or her U.S. citizenship. Existing Federal law provides for grounds of
revocation of citizenship, and this piece of legislation would add
joining terrorist groups such as ISIS to those grounds.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has just objected to passing that
commonsense legislation. As a consequence, and because of that
objection, it means that Americans--and the estimates are it could be
up to or over 100 Americans--who have gone and joined ISIS right now
are waging jihad against America. As a consequence of that objection,
it means those ISIS terrorists can come back to America using a U.S.
passport and wage jihad against this country--attempt to murder
innocent men and women in this country using a U.S. passport. That is,
I believe, a profound mistake.
The second piece of legislation I just asked this body to pass and
the Democrats just objected to is legislation that would stop President
Obama and Hillary Clinton's plan to bring in tens of thousands of
Syrian Muslim refugees to the United States in light of the declaration
of war from ISIS, in light of the horrific terrorist attack and in
light of the admissions from the Director of the FBI, Director Comey--
who I might note President Obama appointed--who said the administration
cannot vet these refugees to determine whether or not they are ISIS
terrorists. Indeed, he said since they do not have the data on which of
the Syrian refugees are involved with ISIS terrorism, they can query
the database, but with no information in the database, he said they can
query over and over again until the cows come home, but they do not
have the information.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party, the Democratic Senators in this
body have chosen to stand with President Obama and his absurd political
correctness, his unwillingness even to utter the words ``radical
Islamic terrorism.'' The President refuses to say the words ``radical
Islamic terrorism.'' Hillary Clinton refuses to say the words ``radical
Islamic terrorism.'' Not only do they refuse to say the words, but they
are supporting a policy of bringing tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim
refugees into this country knowing full well we cannot vet them to
determine who is coming here to wage jihad. That is a profound threat
to this country, and I hope we will stand as one. This ought to be an
area of bipartisan agreement.
I would note that the legislation I introduced includes an exception
for persecuted minorities facing genocide--Christians, Yazidis, small
minorities facing genocide. In response to my acknowledging genocide as
a different circumstance, President Obama, 2 days ago in Turkey,
attacked me directly. He said it was un-American to want to protect
this country from terrorists and to want to help persecuted Christians.
Then yesterday, President Obama attacked me again from Manila, saying
it was offensive that I, and so many millions of other Americans, want
to keep our children safe.
Mr. President, it is neither un-American nor offensive to believe in
the rule of law, to believe in standing up to radical Islamic
terrorism. And it is an astonishing statement that so many Democratic
Senators choose to stand with a President who will not confront radical
Islamic terrorism.
Indeed, just this week Secretary Kerry rationalized the terrorist
attack on Charlie Hebdo saying it was understandable why they attacked
Charlie Hebdo. We should not be acting as apologists for radical
Islamic terrorists. The very first obligation of the Commander in Chief
is to keep this Nation safe. And I will say that any official
responsible for bringing people in when they do not know if they are
radical Islamic terrorists will bear responsibility for the
consequences of their actions.
ISIS has been plain. They intend to murder as many Americans as
possible and they intend to carry out terror attacks here, such as that
which happened in Paris. This commonsense legislation would have helped
protect this Nation, but I am sorry to say the Democratic Party is
objecting to it.
I believe we should put America first, protecting America first.
Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle are blocking
that effort.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand there is a limited amount of
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7\1/2\ minutes remaining on the
Democratic side.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Chair.
Mr. President, I am worried in this country that we hear rhetoric
that is dangerous, and it is time to stop. It shames the very nature of
what America is. These are ideas that are wrong, and I would say they
are deeply anti-American.
My grandparents--my Italian grandparents, my Irish great-great-
grandparents--heard some of this rhetoric when some in this country
said they shouldn't come here: Don't allow these Papists into the
United States; don't allow these Irish, who are opposed to the rule of
Great Britain on their island, and they actually stood up and fought
against Great Britain.
The words back then, like some of the words today, come from a place
of fear and hatred. I do not want to stand by quietly and see the
victims of terrorism and torture be demonized just so people will have
talking points for the local evening news. We are better than this.
The bill my colleague, the junior Senator the from Texas, introduced
an hour ago would prevent refugee protection for virtually all
nationals of Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, regardless of how
much they have suffered at the hands of terrorists and despots. Women
fleeing gang rapes and children fleeing horrors we cannot even imagine
would be closed off.
A few weeks ago the world came together, stunned and heartbroken over
the image of a 3-year-old Syrian child's lifeless body washed up on a
Turkish beach. His tragic death focused our attention on the desperate
plight of so many Syrians who have fled the horror of ISIS and Bashar
al-Assad.
We called it the humanitarian issue of the day. We called forth
images of our Statue of Liberty and our proud history as a land of
refuge for those fleeing persecution. I heard so many on this floor as
well as from commentators in the news. Those who call now for us to
slam our doors on even properly vetted Syrian and other refugees should
remember that the people we will shut out are those very children who
touched our hearts just weeks ago.
Of course, we are horrified by what happened in Beirut and Paris, and
we need an effective, thoughtful strategy for countering ISIS and other
terrorist organizations. That is what we should be debating. What we
have done so far is not working, and we should be talking about how
more countries should be involved in this fight. ISIS is our enemy; the
people fleeing ISIS are not.
In fact, we have had discussions about other things that could be
done. Somebody who is on a terrorist watch list but who is in this
country legally can go to a gun show and buy all the automatic weapons
they want, and they break no law. They can buy all the ammunition they
want, and they
[[Page S8117]]
break no law. They can go to the store, as did one of the greatest
terrorists this country faced--the man who did the Oklahoma city
bombing--and buy the components of a bomb, and they break no law. These
are the things we ought to be discussing.
I do not understand why Senator Cruz is on the Senate floor seeking
unanimous consent to pass this bill. This very bill is on the Judiciary
Committee agenda, and the committee is currently considering it and
needed improvements to it.
When the Senate Judiciary Committee debates this bill, we will have a
lot to discuss. This legislation affects constitutional rights, and
should be carefully vetted by the judiciary committee. Serious
constitutional concerns have been raised by voices from across the
political spectrum--from the National Review to the ACLU.
Just yesterday I received a letter from former NRA president David
Keene and Georgetown Law professor David Cole, in their roles with The
Constitution Project. They urge opposition to this bill because it
``serves virtually no practical purpose, raises serious constitutional
concerns, and would do nothing to keep America safe.'' These are strong
words, and I take these concerns seriously. Rushing a bill to the floor
when that very bill is already scheduled for consideration by the
committee of jurisdiction is not a responsible approach to legislating.
And when legislation involves something as fundamental as citizenship,
we should give the judiciary committee an opportunity to consider and
debate this bill before it is brought to the Senate floor.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
several articles relating to the topic at hand.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Constitution Project,
Washington, DC, November 18, 2015.
Hon. Chuck Grassley,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Hart Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, Russell Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Leahy, and Judiciary
Committee Members: On January 22, 2015, Senator Ted Cruz (R-
TX) introduced S. 247, the Expatriate Terrorists Act (ETA).
Representative Steve King (R-IA) simultaneously introduced
companion legislation in the House. According to the bill's
sponsors, the ETA is a common sense counterterrorism tool
that would strip U.S. citizenship from Americans who fight
with or support foreign terrorist organizations working to
attack the United States. The ETA would also purportedly
``fill . . . statutory holes'' in the Secretary of State's
``authority to revoke a terrorist's passport.''
In fact, the ETA serves virtually no practical purpose,
raises serious constitutional concerns, and would do nothing
to keep America safe. We urge you to oppose it.
Like previous iterations of the same idea, the ETA would
amend 8 U.S.C. 1481(a), which sets out limited circumstances
under which U.S. citizens can be denaturalized or
expatriated. The bill would add the following to the short
list of predicate acts that can result in loss of
citizenship: 1) taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign
terrorist organization; 2) joining a foreign terrorist
organization's armed forces while they are fighting the
United States; and 3) ``becoming a member of, or providing
training or material assistance to,'' a foreign terrorist
organization.
The ETA also amends the Passport Act of 1926 to require the
Secretary of State to deny a passport to, or revoke one from,
anyone who the Secretary has determined is a member, or is
attempting to become a member, of a foreign terrorist
organization.
Senator Cruz has said repeatedly that the ETA works a
``formal'' or ``affirmative'' renunciation of U.S.
citizenship. To the extent he means to suggest that, under
the bill, a person would automatically lose citizenship
simply by engaging in the above conduct, he is wrong. The ETA
does not and could not achieve that result.
Citizenship is a constitutional right, and the Constitution
prohibits the government from revoking a person's citizenship
against his will under any circumstances. As the Supreme
Court has explained, ``the intent of the Fourteenth
Amendment, among other things, was to define citizenship . .
. [and] that definition cannot coexist with a congressional
power to specify acts that work a renunciation of citizenship
even absent an intent to renounce. In the last analysis,
expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than
on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct.''
As a constitutional right, citizenship can be knowingly and
voluntarily waived, but it cannot be taken away from an
individual absent such a waiver. Thus, to revoke a person's
citizenship the government must prove not only that he
committed an expatriating act prescribed in section 1481(a),
but also that he did so voluntarily and with the specific
intent to relinquish his citizenship.
Given these requirements, the ETA will almost certainly
result in no additional expatriations. Unless Senator Cruz
expects citizens subject to expatriation proceedings freely
to admit that they joined or supported a foreign terrorist
group specifically intending to renounce their U.S.
citizenship, no one will in fact be expatriated. We doubt
that government officials would believe it an efficient use
of resources to try, especially given the broad reach of
existing laws that already provide harsh penalties for U.S.
citizens who engage in acts of terrorism.
The bill's passport revocation provisions are similarly
unnecessary. There is no ``statutory hole'' to fill--the
Secretary of State already has the authority to deny a
passport to anyone whose ``activities abroad are causing or
are likely to cause serious damage to the national security
or the foreign policy of the United States,'' and to revoke a
passport on the same grounds.
Not only is the bill practically useless, it also raises
serious constitutional concerns. The ETA makes membership in
or ``providing training or material assistance to'' certain
foreign terrorist organizations a predicate act to
expatriation. There are two constitutional problems with this
provision. First, neither ``training'' nor ``material
assistance'' is defined. Similar language in 18 U.S.C. 2339B
was ruled unconstitutionally vague until Congress added
specific definitions. Because Congress has not done so here,
this provision of the ETA suffers from the same
constitutional flaw.
Second, unlike other crimes currently listed in section
1481(a) that can result in loss of citizenship (see section
1481(a)(7)), Senator Cruz's addition does not require proof
of a conviction as a prerequisite. That omission undermines
the constitutional right of due process. As the Constitution
Project's Liberty and Security Committee explained in
opposing similar past attempts to amend section 1481(a):
[T]he language of 1481(a)(7) expressly requires a
conviction as a necessary prerequisite to denaturalization or
expatriation proceedings. This requirement protects the
constitutional right of due process, since one cannot
actually be said to have committed the acts specified in
1481(a)(7)--each of which are crimes against the United
States--until and unless those acts have been proven to a
jury beyond a reasonable doubt. As the Supreme Court
expressly held in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, Congress
cannot deprive an individual of his or her citizenship as a
``punishment'' absent the procedural safeguards of a criminal
trial.
The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
and the United States' response to date raises a critical
question for Congress to consider, but it is not the ETA. For
well over a year, the United States has been at war with ISIL
and Congress has still not weighed in, notwithstanding its
constitutional responsibility to do so. Members should spend
their time debating and voting on this grave question, not
preoccupied with needless and likely unconstitutional
legislation.
We urge you to oppose the Expatriate Terrorists Act.
Sincerely,
David Cole,
Hon. George J. Mitchell, Professor in Law and Public Policy
at Georgetown University Law Center; co-chair of the
Constitution Project's Liberty and Security Committee
David Keene,
Opinion Editor, The Washington Times; Former Chairman,
American Conservative Union; co-chair of the Constitution
Project's Liberty and Security Committee.
____
[From the National Review, Jan. 28, 2015]
How Not To Fight Terrorism
(By Gabriel Malor)
Representative Steve King and Senators Ted Cruz and Chuck
Grassley have reintroduced the Expatriate Terrorist Act, a
bill to strip U.S. citizenship from terrorists. The proposal
sounds nice in theory, but it is also unconstitutional and
unnecessary, the latest in a sad line of civil-liberties
infringements justified by politicians trying to look tough
in the war on terrorism. Even if the bill did not have these
fatal infirmities, it would put the determination of who will
retain their citizenship in the hands of unelected
bureaucrats at the Departments of Justice, State, and
Homeland Security. On that ground alone, all Americans should
unite in opposition.
The idea to strip citizenship from terrorists is not a new
one. In 2010, Senators Joe Lieberman and Scott Brown
introduced similar legislation, dubbed the Terrorist
Expatriation Act. Their bill would have amended the list of
expatriating acts in the Immigration and Nationality Act to
include material assistance to foreign terrorist
organizations. Legal scholars and civil libertarians pointed
out that the bill was neither necessary nor constitutional,
and ultimately it died.
[[Page S8118]]
The new bill put forward by King, Cruz, and Grassley goes
further, adding membership, training, and oaths of allegiance
to the list of expatriating acts. They claim that this
legislation is necessary to protect the homeland from
radicalized citizen-terrorists returning from abroad.
But citizenship is not a mere privilege. It is a right
specifically protected by the Constitution. Congress cannot
simply decide that individuals lose their citizenship when
they commit certain acts. Rather, to strip a person's
citizenship requires that the government prove not only that
he committed an act deemed expatriating by Congress but that
he did so knowingly and voluntarily and with the intent to
relinquish his citizenship. In the words of Justice White,
writing for the Supreme Court when this issue was settled
decades ago, ``in the last analysis, expatriation depends on
the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress
and its assessment of his conduct.''
Senator Cruz's claim that his bill would make the act of
becoming a terrorist an ``affirmative renunciation'' of
citizenship is deeply misleading. To be constitutional,
expatriation can be accomplished only by intent to
relinquish, something that Cruz, a lawyer and litigator of
great skill, should already know. And if he doesn't mean what
he is saying, he owes it to the American public to tell us
how he believes the law would operate or if it would even be
practicable at all.
On the issue of deception, King, Cruz, and Grassley say the
statutory change targets dangerous terrorist fighters who try
to return to the United States from abroad. The plain
language of the proposed legislation, however, is not limited
to those who actually take up arms. It applies to anyone who
merely claims membership in a terrorist organization or gives
an oath, training, or material assistance to terrorists,
regardless of whether he actually fights. And it is not
limited just to terrorists abroad; any of those actions taken
inside the United States would also trigger the citizenship-
stripping provision under the express terms of the
legislation, leading to the deplorable circumstance of
creating stateless terrorists within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the United States.
This is assuming the courts actually credit King, Cruz, and
Grassley's stated security purpose for proposing the law. If
the courts were to decide that the expatriation of terrorists
was intended to be a punitive act rather than a security
measure, a different and more stringent series of
constitutional prohibitions come into play, including the
Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections for criminal
defendants.
King, Cruz, and Grassley are selling fear to justify an
unconstitutional deprivation of rights, and they are doing it
for no good reason. If the U.S. government has enough
information to identify citizen-terrorists abroad and
intercept them on their attempted return, it has enough
information to bring criminal prosecutions against those
individuals for terrorism when they try to reenter the United
States. The authority to intercept and detain such
individuals has already been granted by Congress to the
Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Justice,
of course, also has the authority to prosecute such
individuals. And so the stated purpose for the proposed
legislation is dubious, since the government's responsibility
for intercepting returning terrorists is settled law, which
has a side benefit of being constitutional.
Even if this legislation were passed into law, because of
its constitutional infirmity it would never work as billed by
its proponents. Instead, it would mobilize an army of
bureaucrats at Justice, State, and Homeland Security to start
sniping away at Americans' rights of citizenship and travel.
For example, the Justice Department gets to designate or
decline to designate foreign terrorist organizations and so
controls the determination of who is subjected to losing his
citizenship. State Department officials have the authority to
determine who gets sent expatriation certificates. And
Homeland Security customs and border officers are responsible
for detaining and paroling or removing non-citizens,
including expatriated former citizens, who attempt entry to
the United States.
All of these bureaucratic acts are subject to abuse. For
that reason they are also subject to various types of
administrative and judicial challenge, which typically drag
on for years at great cost. Such litigation and the
bureaucratic infrastructure to support it would be for
questionable benefit in light of the alternate means already
in place to intercept terrorists.
In short, the Expatriate Terrorist Act is a
constitutionally suspect law. Well-established programs for
intercepting terrorists attempting to enter the United States
already exist. At best, the proposed bill would greatly
increase the power of government to use and abuse its
discretion to meddle with American lives. It does not
represent a genuine attempt to better our national security.
On the contrary, it is merely the latest in a series of
questionable infringements of civil liberties proposed by
politicians eager to exploit the public's fear of terrorism.
____
American Civil Liberties Union,
Washington, DC, November 18, 2015.
Re Oppose Senator Ted Cruz's Request for Unanimous Consent on
S. 247, the Expatriate Terrorists Act, which Strips U.S.
Citizenship without Due Process and based on Suspicion
Vote ``No'' on S. 247 as Unconstitutional
S. 247 STRIPS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP BASED ON MERE SUSPICION BY AN
UNNAMED GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL
Dear Senator: The American Civil Liberties Union strongly
urges you to oppose S. 247, the Expatriate Terrorists Act,
which is sponsored by Senator Ted Cruz. The bill would strip
U.S. citizenship from Americans who have not been convicted
of any crimes, but who are merely suspected by an unnamed
government official of wrongdoing.
S. 247 is dangerous because it would attempt to dilute the
rights and privileges of citizenship, one of the core
principles of the Constitution. As the Supreme Court
explained in 1967 in Afroyim v. Rusk, ``the Fourteenth
Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of
this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of
his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race . . . [It
creates] a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free
country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that
citizenship.'' The bill is also unnecessary because existing
laws already provide significant penalties for U.S. citizens
who engage in acts of terrorism.
An already unconstitutional federal statute, 8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1481, provides that an American can lose his or her
citizenship by performing either of the following broad
categories of acts with the intention of relinquishing his or
her nationality:
acts that affirmatively renounce one's American
citizenship, such as taking an oath of allegiance to a
foreign government or serving as an officer in the armed
forces of a foreign nation; or
committing crimes such as treason or conspiracy to
overthrow the U.S. government, or bearing arms against the
United States, ``if and when [the citizen] is convicted
thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent
jurisdiction.''
S. 247 would add a new category of expatriating acts--
``Becoming a member of, or providing training or material
assistance to, any foreign terrorist organization designated
under Section 219.'' This implicates several constitutional
concerns.
First, the material assistance provision added by the bill
would treat suspected provision of material assistance as an
act that affirmatively renounces one's American citizenship.
Thus, unlike treason or conspiracy to overthrow the U.S.
government, this provision would not require a prior
conviction. It would only require an administrative finding
by an unspecified government official that an American
citizen is suspected of providing material assistance to a
designated foreign terrorist organization with the intention
of relinquishing his or her citizenship.
Second, this provision would violate Americans'
constitutional right to due process, including by depriving
them of citizenship based on secret evidence, and without the
right to a jury trial and accompanying protections enshrined
in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In sum, the bill turns the
whole notion of due process on its head. Government officials
do not have the power to strip citizenship from American
citizens who never renounced their citizenship and were never
convicted of a crime.
Third, the material assistance provision suffers from the
same constitutional flaws that plague other material support
laws, and goes far beyond what the Supreme Court has held is
constitutionally permissible when First and Fourth Amendments
rights are at stake. In 2010, the Supreme Court
disappointingly ruled in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
that teaching terrorist groups how to negotiate peacefully
could be enough to be found guilty of material support. Even
if that logic might apply to criminal conduct, it should not
cause an American to lose his or her citizenship.
For these reasons, the ACLU urges you to oppose S. 247.
Please contact Chris Anders at [email protected] or (202) 675-
2308, if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Karin Johanson,
Director, Washington Legislative Office.
Christopher Anders,
Senior Legislative Counsel, Washington Legislative Office.
Mr. LEAHY. I reserve my time, and I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 minutes on the Democratic side and
2 minutes on the Republican side.
The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset the initial
unanimous consent request made by the junior Senator from Texas was a
bill which he had pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee today.
He did not attend that meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I
wish he had. I think we should have all been there if we wanted to take
this up and debate it. I objected on behalf of Senator Leahy and
myself, and the Senator has spoken to the reasons for that objection.
Let me address the second part of this bill relative to refugees. We
will reflect in years to come about what happened in this world in the
last week and 10 days. We will reflect on the terrible tragedy that
occurred in Paris,
[[Page S8119]]
France, and in Beirut and other nations, which was led by the ISIS
terrorists. We will reflect on those poor victims who died as a result
of their terrorist acts. And we will also reflect on acts of heroism
and wisdom that emerged from this terrible tragedy, heroism on the
ground in Paris and other places by those who defied these terrorists
and those who risked their lives to bring those responsible to justice,
and the wisdom and compassion shown by leaders around the world not to
exploit this situation.
When President Hollande of France announced that his country would
receive 35,000 refugees after this attack, he made it clear that he
would not hold those innocent, helpless refugees accountable for the
terrible misdeeds of these terrorists. When the nation of Canada said
they would accept thousands of refugees, even after the Paris attack,
they showed the wisdom and good sense to differentiate those helpless
victims of terrorism around the world who are seeking refuge on our
shores from those who perpetrated these terrorist acts. Then listen to
the debate on Capitol Hill. Listen to the unanimous consent requests
made this morning by the junior Senator from Texas. It is not
consistent with that ethic. It is not consistent with those values.
To say we will accept only refugees who are the victims of genocide
would close the doors to Cuban refugees who came to the United States,
trying to escape all of communism and what it meant to their families.
It would have closed the doors to Soviet Jews persecuted in that
country who were looking for freedom and came to the United States as
refugees. I can list countless others who were not the victims of
genocide, but they were the victims of persecution, they were from war-
torn countries, and they were the victims, as Senator Leahy has said,
of gang rape and terrorism.
Listen to what has been said on the other side of the Rotunda and in
this Chamber today. It does not merit the kind of appreciation of
American values that we insist on when we make these critical
decisions. In time of war, in time of attack, sometimes rash decisions
are made. I predict that in the course of history, as people in the
future reflect on what happened in the Senate and the House of
Representatives this week, they will hope that saner voices will
prevail.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont spoke against
overheated rhetoric and in the very next breath accused me of being
anti-American, echoing the attack President Obama gave standing on the
soil of Turkey. Let me say that speaking the truth is not terrorism.
My Democratic friends invoked their Irish and Italian grandparents.
Well, when my Irish and Italian grandparents came to this country, they
did not pose a terrorist threat because they were not seeking to murder
innocent citizens. When my Cuban father came as a refugee, he was not a
terrorist threat seeking to murder innocent citizens. This is an
example of the Democratic Party's refusal to acknowledge the
qualitative difference. Perhaps if they cannot see it, they can hear
it, because in 2009 the Obama administration released Abu al-Baghdadi,
the leader of ISIS. As he was being released, Abu al-Baghdadi turned to
Army COL Kenneth King and said: See you in New York.
ISIS intends to murder Americans, and if the Democratic Party cannot
distinguish between ISIS terrorists and Irish and Italian and Jewish
and Cuban immigrants, then they are ignoring reality.
I would note that the Expatriate Terrorist Act is very, very similar
to legislation that was introduced in 2010 by Democratic Senator Joe
Lieberman and Senator Scott Brown, both of whom apparently, under the
view of the Senator from Vermont, are un-American as well. I would note
that at the time, then-Senator Hillary Clinton said about legislation
virtually identical to my legislation:
United States citizenship is a privilege. It is not a
right. People who are serving foreign powers--or in this case
foreign terrorists--are clearly in violation of the oath
which they swore when they became citizens.
Yet President Obama and the Senator from Vermont apparently now
consider Hillary Clinton's statement to be un-American. It is the
essence of being American to say the Commander in Chief should protect
the safety and security of this country.
I would note that the assistant Democratic leader invoked President
Hollande in France. President Hollande said he would support stripping
French citizenship. We should protect ourselves every bit as much as
the other nations on Earth.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________