[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18582-18583]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST FRANCE AND GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the French 
Government for taking aggressive and appropriate action to arrest and 
kill the terrorists responsible for last Friday's vicious attack in 
Paris that resulted in 129 killed and over 300 wounded. We all pray for 
the full recovery of those wounded and note that everywhere within our 
country we see the American flag at half staff, along with many 
displaying the flag of our ally France.
  The good news today is that the mastermind of several terrorist plots 
and the plot that killed so many last Friday is dead. Abdelhamid 
Abaaoud is dead in the same fashion as his victims. So be it. Viva la 
France! Continuer le combat! Keep up the fight.
  As our Nation memorializes those who perished in France, it is the 
absolute wrong time for President Obama and this administration to be 
putting forth a plan to relocate Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. 
mainland--the absolute wrong time.
  Now we learn that the administration has delayed the much-publicized 
but secret plan to close Guantanamo and bring terrorists to the United 
States. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, ``I don't have any 
additional guidance for you but the plan will come relatively soon.'' 
He has been saying that for some time. Others think the plan could even 
be released while the President is gone for the G20 meeting in Turkey. 
As a personal aside, I might suggest he try to move the terrorists 
there. The reason President Obama delayed the plan is that we had a 
terrorist attack in France. France has gone to war. The United States 
is on high alert. Apparently he has tossed this decision and public 
announcement regarding the plan to the Department of Defense, which has 
stated there is nothing imminent. Thank goodness for that.
  Now, beyond the security threat this poses to our communities in 
Kansas and in South Carolina or Colorado--the sites which this 
administration has surveyed for potential relocation--there has been no 
intelligence assessment regarding the danger of moving enemy combatants 
from Guantanamo to the United States. That is amazing. The question is, 
How can the administration ask Kansans or Coloradans or South 
Carolinians or any Americans to paint a bull's-eye on their community 
without providing assurances that moving detainees to the United States 
will not pose a threat to them or our national security? It seems 
unfathomable, yet this President is proposing to do just that.
  This President's unending affinity for Executive orders risks 
overriding his Attorney General's view of the law, the advice of those 
at the Department of Defense, especially those close to Fort 
Leavenworth, and military law enforcement. It goes against the will of 
the Congress, which voted in this body 91 to 3 to maintain a 
prohibition on moving detainees to the mainland.
  There is absolutely no intelligence to support the move--none. In 
short, the Senate, Congress, Department of Defense, the Attorney 
General, and the American people have spoken.
  Yesterday I wrote Department of Defense Secretary Carter to ask 
whether an intelligence report has been done to support the 
administration's claims that Guantanamo Bay is a recruiting tool for 
ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Some people believe that. 
Common sense tells you, however, that moving detainees to the mainland 
would be a greater recruiting tool for ISIS and other terrorist 
organizations. I asked if an assessment showed detainment in the United 
States would decrease recruiting or did an intelligence product show 
that national security threats would decrease if any enemy combatants 
are held in the United States. From my discussions with Members of this 
body on the Senate Intelligence Committee, the answer is that they have 
no comprehensive intelligence assessment.
  Simply put, an assessment regarding the transfers of detainees to the 
mainland has not been done. So I have asked Secretary Carter and the 
Department of Defense to ensure that an assessment is completed. To do 
otherwise would be irresponsible and reckless. How can the President of 
the United States allow ISIS to paint a target on those who live near 
what would become Gitmo North? No community in the United States wants 
that label.
  Fort Leavenworth, in particular, is not a suitable replacement for 
Gitmo. It is the intellectual center of the Army. It hosts our Nation's 
best and brightest warfighters at the Command and General Staff 
College, which also hosts 100 international officers every year.
  I want to remind my colleagues just how important Fort Leavenworth's 
mission is to the Army and to our national security and of the risk 
that this entire mission would be endangered by making it a terrorist 
prison.
  Fort Leavenworth is home to the U.S. Army's Training and Doctrine 
Command Combined Arms Center. The Combined Arms Center oversees 13 
schools, including the Command and General Staff College. Most 
recently, Fort Leavenworth was named the ``Army University,'' giving 
our intellectual center of the Army an official title. Since 1881, the 
Command and General Staff College and the Combined Arms Center have 
been engaged in the primary mission of preparing the Army and its 
leaders for war.
  In order to accomplish critical missions, Fort Leavenworth develops 
and integrates Army leader development, doctrine education, lessons 
learned, functional training, training support, training development, 
and proponent responsibilities in order to support mission command and 
to prepare the Army to successfully conduct unified land operations in 
a joint, interagency,

[[Page 18583]]

intergovernmental, multinational environment--a lot of words. It is a 
big mission, an important mission. To degrade Fort Leavenworth to a 
terrorist prison would have ominous repercussions to our professional 
military and the value it serves every American and our national 
security.
  In addition, we must consider how our allies will respond to having 
enemy combatants so close to their top military leaders training at 
Fort Leavenworth. In my effort to reach out to Embassies tied to the 
school, all have expressed their deep support for the International 
Military Officers Division, its value to their military and security, 
and the importance of maintaining the program at Fort Leavenworth. 
There is every possibility that the countries that participate in the 
Command and General Staff College would reconsider their participation 
given the relocation of terrorists. This would bring negative 
consequences and represent a terrible detriment to the partnership 
building that takes place during their course work. It would mean a 
loss of international cooperation for American military education and 
our national security.
  There are so many imperative factors that must be examined at Fort 
Leavenworth, in Colorado, and in South Carolina, factors that we cannot 
ignore. The fact that the FBI has nearly 1,000 investigations into ISIS 
activity within the United States and all 50 States, that ISIS released 
a video right after the attacks in Paris stating that the United States 
was next, and, most important, the fact that we are not dealing with 
everyday criminals--the detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay are 
enemy combatants, terrorists, individuals with no remorse, and with a 
recidivism of 30 percent and a strong desire to return to the 
battlefield. The reality is, these individuals and the organizations 
they support pose the greatest risk to national security we face today.
  This administration should not obstruct the will of Congress 
reflecting the voice of the American people, which has prohibited this 
White House from transferring detainees from Gitmo to the United States 
every year since 2009 when we first won this battle. We won the battle 
back then. Why do we have to repeat it now?
  If the President believes he can act without consequences, he is 
wrong. Again, 91 Senators voted in favor of this prohibition just last 
week when we passed the National Defense Authorization Act. That is not 
just a majority, that is a veto-proof majority. Article II of the 
Constitution does not provide this President--any President--with the 
power to ignore the law.
  Just the other night in a tele-townhall meeting, caller after caller 
asked if the President's actions are constitutional. The question was, 
How can the President do this when Congress has prohibited funding? In 
my view and that of the President's own Attorney General, if the 
President acts by Executive order, he is acting unconstitutionally.
  I agree with our Founding Fathers such as George Mason who said 
``When the same man, or set of men, holds the sword and the purse, 
there is an end of liberty'' and James Madison who said it is 
``particularly dangerous to give the keys of the treasury and the 
command of the army, into the same hands.''
  I have mentioned the Congress, the merits of Ft. Leavenworth, the 
Constitution, but what I have not mentioned yet are our servicemembers. 
We have asked so much of our men and women in uniform over the past 14 
years. We have asked them to go into harm's way before every bit of 
equipment was ready. We have asked them to deploy and redeploy with 
almost no dwell time. We have asked them to extend their stays, and we 
have put them in more places across the globe than any period in 
history. They have done it all without hesitation or complaint because 
we have the best fighting force in the history of the world.
  I am unwilling to ask them to take on the challenge of guarding enemy 
combatants in the United States and put their families at risk for 
harassment, kidnapping, or other tactics homegrown terrorists and 
foreign fighters have used or will use. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
and marines do not live anonymously when their families are stationed 
with them, as is the case at Ft. Leavenworth.
  I believe, along with many who have worn the uniform, that the 
attacks in Benghazi may have broken the Nation's promise to never leave 
a man in harm's way. On a personal note, when I signed up to enlist in 
the U.S. Marine Corps, I was told that if I was in harm's way, I would 
never be left behind. That is what the Marine Corps could do for me. 
The Corps would have my back either by squad--if I got in harm's way--
or they would send the platoon or the company or the battalion or the 
regiment or the division or the whole Marine Corps, and I believed 
that. I still believe it as the senior marine in the Congress. The 
Marines would have my back.
  It has been the same for generations before me and hopefully 
generations after--that is, until now. If we are going to ask our men 
and women to fight ISIS or to put their families at risk, they have to 
know that we have their backs.
  Until that bond is restored and we have a President who is willing to 
lead instead of following, our Nation remains vulnerable to every 
terrorist organization and cell in the world. We must put national 
security back as our top priority. It must be our first duty in 
Congress and by the Commander in Chief.
  I stand on the floor because America's national security is my top 
priority. Bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States is not 
putting our Nation's security above politics, campaign promises, or 
anything else.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________