[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2226-2229]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  AUMF

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, to her high school classmates it was 
pretty clear what kind of person Kayla Mueller was going to turn out to 
be. As a teenager she took up the causes of the disenfranchised and the 
dispossessed, such as when she joined a campaign to stop the city of 
Flagstaff from using recycled wastewater to make snow on a set of peaks 
the Hopi people considered to be sacred. She later went to the most 
dangerous place on Earth because people there needed help. She saw 
suffering on an unimaginable scale, brought on by a vicious civil war 
inside Syria and Iraq, and she wanted to make it better.
  No one is responsible for her death except for ISIL. They killed her, 
as they did James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman, Peter Kassig, 
and thousands of individual innocent Iraqis and Syrians over the course 
of the last year.
  It has been a long time since the world has seen such evil. This is a 
brutal inhuman terrorist organization that today is a threat to the 
region in which they prowl, but without question could pose a threat to 
the United States if their march is allowed to go unchecked.
  Like the Presiding Officer, every time I hear of a new attack or a 
new execution carried out by ISIL, my blood boils, I get furious, and I 
commit myself to doing everything within our power to stamp them out. 
But I also remember that as justified a response as it is, fury is not 
a strategy; revenge is not security.
  If we are going to defeat ISIL, we need to act with our heads, not 
just with our hearts. And that means Congress needs to pass a war 
authorization that includes a strategy for victory--a strategy that 
learns from a small little creature called the planarian flatworm. I 
want to tell you about flatworms for a second. This is going to sound a 
little strange, but I will bring it back here.
  These flatworms are extraordinary little things that live in ponds, 
under logs, and in moist soil. What is amazing about these flatworms is 
that if you split one of them in two, if you cut

[[Page 2227]]

it in half, both halves regenerate into new flatworms. In fact, if you 
cut it into four pieces, all four pieces can regrow into new flatworms. 
It means if for whatever reason you are trying to get rid of flatworms, 
cutting them into pieces does more harm than good. If you take a knife 
to it, you actually create more flatworms than you destroy.
  So why am I talking about this? Because they are a perfect object 
lesson of the simple truth that if you attack a problem the wrong way, 
you might not just leave the problem unsolved, you might actually make 
it worse. If you use the wrong tool to try to eradicate flatworms, you 
just end up with a lot more of them.
  In the wake of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, we were told we were going 
to be treated as liberators. We were told we would be out of Iraq in a 
few years. When that failed, our invasion turned the one-headed monster 
of Saddam Hussein into a two-headed monster
of competing Sunni and Shiite insurgencies.
  Then we were told more troops would do the trick. And it worked, for 
only as long as tens of thousands of Americans were patrolling the 
sands of Iraq. But ultimately our occupation was quietly breeding a new 
brand of an even more lethal insurgency, one that turned into the 
terrorist group we are fighting today.
  Put simply, ISIL in its current form would not exist if we had not 
put massive ground troops into the region in the first place. Our 
presence in Iraq, our mishandling of the occupation, became bulletin 
board material for terrorist recruiters. Iraq became, in the CIA's 
words, the ``cause celebre'' of the international extremist network. We 
killed a terrorist, and the next day two more showed up.
  Let me be clear, because I don't want people to twist my words here. 
America is not responsible for this evil ideology, and our troops are 
not to blame for ISIL. No one forgets that Al Qaeda attacked us and 
killed 3,000 of our people before we invaded Iraq. But do we believe 
having hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers occupying territory in 
the Middle East since then has succeeded in making us safer?
  We have killed a lot of terrorists over the last 13 years, and yet 
there are more of them, in more places, with an even more radical 
agenda today than ever before.
  Former Defense Secretary Bob Gates understood the lesson of the 
flatworm when he said, upon his departure from the Department of 
Defense, any future Secretary who proposed putting ground troops back 
into the Middle East should ``have their head examined.''
  So for me, as we debate this new war authorization against ISIL, I 
have a bottom line: We cannot authorize a strategy that could result in 
American combat troops going back to the Middle East.
  If this President or the next President puts our soldiers into the 
Middle East to fight ISIL, they would serve with bravery and honor. But 
an intervention of this scale would ultimately create more terrorists 
than it destroyed. And to the extent we drove back ISIL, it would only 
be temporary, lasting only as long as our troops were there.
  Why? These extremist groups such as ISIL exist not because of a 
military vacuum but because of a political and an economic vacuum. They 
prey upon disenfranchised young men who see no future for themselves in 
societies with massive, crippling hunger, poverty, and destitution.
  These groups work best when autocratic or sectarian governments 
marginalize and dispossess specific ethnic or religious groups, pushing 
them into the arms of extremists who pledge to fight the corrupt and 
dehumanizing status quo.
  Foreign ground troops do nothing to address these underlying issues. 
But worse, more often than not, foreign ground troops exacerbate these 
motivating forces. Bloody ground wars make more economic dislocation, 
not less. Foreign occupations often empower divisive local leadership, 
such as the former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki, who pushed 
people toward--not away from--extremist groups. Then groups such as Al 
Qaeda and ISIL use this misery to brainwash young men into believing 
America is to blame, that we are the enemy they are yearning to fight.
  That doesn't mean there isn't a role for military force in the Middle 
East. I have voted for an authorization in the Foreign Relations 
Committee that allows for the United States--our military--to go in and 
kill terrorists, but we simply need to understand that ultimately what 
military force is in the Middle East is a shaping mechanism to give us 
space in order to achieve the political and economic reform on the 
ground with our local partners such that those root causes of 
terrorists disappear.
  American military force is useful in this fight, but it has limits. 
There is a decreasing marginal return and then a point where it 
actually flips on its head and begins to actually create more of the 
people we are seeking to destroy.
  I have heard two arguments over the past few days as to why this AUMF 
shouldn't have a limitation on ground troops. First, some of my 
Republican friends say this kind of prohibition on ground troops would 
be unwise because it would telegraph to our enemies a critical tactical 
limitation. My response: Good.
  Why do we think ISIL puts up these execution videos? Because they 
know the best long-term play for their desired caliphate is predicated 
on the United States making a mistake and rejoining a ground war in the 
Middle East. Recent history has taught ISIL that the best tool by far 
to recruit terrorists--and estimates are there are as many as 20,000 
foreign fighters who have joined ISIL--is the U.S. Army in the Middle 
East. Thus, I have no problem being transparent with our enemy by 
signaling this to them; that we are going to learn from our mistakes 
and we are going to fight this war with tools that result in victory, 
not defeat.
  The second argument I hear is that Congress would be overstepping our 
constitutional bounds by limiting the power of the President to 
prosecute a war. But first let's note that over and over again, 
starting with Congress's very first authorizations of military force 
passed in early American times, we have put restrictions consistently 
on war declarations and AUMFs. Most recently, Republicans and Democrats 
in the Foreign Relations Committee voted to put some pretty serious 
limitations on our authorization for the use of military force in Syria 
in the wake of chemical weapons usage. Frankly, regardless of the 
precedent, I would argue Congress has a constitutional responsibility 
to help set the strategy for war, to help guide the Nation's foreign 
policy.
  Let's be honest. This AUMF is going to go on for 3 years, according 
to the limitations the President proposed, well into the next 
President's term. As someone who believes combat troops in the Middle 
East would be a mistake, I simply can't rely on President Obama's 
promise that he will not use ground troops against ISIL because he only 
has 2 more years left, and many leading Republicans have made it 
perfectly clear they would push a President from their party, if that 
is who comes next, to put troops back into the fight against ISIL. As 
an elected representative of the people I serve, I should get a say as 
to whether we have learned from our mistakes of the past 10 years.
  I remember my first visit to Iraq. I was there in the bloody spring 
of 2007. I remember being absolutely blown away by the capability and 
the bravery and the capacity of the young U.S. soldiers whom I met in 
places such as Baghdad, Tikrit, and Baiji. So I can understand why it 
is easy for some people to believe there is no enemy our soldiers can't 
beat, that there is no challenge they can't meet, that there is no 
threat they can't eliminate. I believe in American exceptionalism in my 
heart, but I don't think it allows us to ignore history, to avoid 
facts, to deny reality, and the reality is extremists in some parts of 
the world are like flatworms. If we come at them with the wrong weapon, 
we may kill one, but we will create two more.
  I am pleased the Senate is finally able to debate a new war against 
ISIL.

[[Page 2228]]

This debate is past due. ISIL needs to be defeated, and we deserve to 
honor the U.S. Constitution and step up to the plate and debate an 
authorization.
  Make no mistake, we should pass an AUMF. ISIL is evil personified, 
but for us to beat them, we need an AUMF that makes it totally clear we 
will not simply repeat the mistakes of the past that got us into this 
mess in the first place.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, what is the status of the floor debate 
and how much time might I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrats have 8 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor, with just 16 
days left until the Department of Homeland Security shuts down, to 
again call for Congress to pass a clean full-year bill to fund the 
Department of Homeland Security. With our Nation facing very real and 
very dangerous threats--Senator Murphy was just on the floor talking 
about the ISIL threat and pointed out what the risks are--it is time 
for us to put politics aside and do what is right for the security of 
our Nation.
  If we don't pass a full-year bill to fund the Department of Homeland 
Security, we will not be able to make critical investments in border 
security, maritime security, and in nuclear detection activities.
  If we don't pass a full-year bill, grants to protect our cities and 
our ports from terror attacks would be halted, and new grants to police 
and firefighters will not be awarded. If we don't pass a full-year 
bill, we are shortchanging counterterrorism efforts, and we will put 
our Nation's cyber networks at risk.
  Senator Mikulski and I have filed a clean, full-year funding bill 
that is on the Senate calendar and ready for action. Our bill fully 
funds these key security priorities, but if our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle don't want to support a bill that Senator Mikulski 
and I have filed, certainly we can support a clean Republican bill that 
includes the funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
  Our bill--our clean bill--is based on the bicameral, bipartisan 
agreement that was reached in December by Senator Mikulski and 
Congressman Hal Rogers. The legislation was agreed to by Democrats and 
Republicans, and it was the result of bipartisan, compromised 
negotiations. Not everyone got what they wanted in the bill, but it is 
a good budget that strengthens our Nation and protects against the many 
threats we face.
  Appropriations bills are only possible because of the art of 
compromise. Senators from both parties identify priorities important to 
them or their States. They work with Members of the Appropriations 
Committee on bill language, funding priorities. Everyone works together 
to influence the final product. All Senators have the opportunity to 
participate in crafting appropriations bills.
  In fact, there doesn't seem to be any disagreement about the funding 
and how it is allocated in the appropriations bill before us, in the 
funding bill for Homeland Security. Senator Cochran, who chairs the 
Appropriations Committee, came to the floor and touted all of the 
benefits in the funding bill for Homeland Security. Senator Hoeven, who 
chairs the Subcommittee on Homeland Security that I am the ranking 
member of, came to the floor and, similar to Senator Cochran, touted 
what is on the bill. I have been on the floor, Senator Mikulski has 
been to the floor many times to talk about what is in the funding bill 
for the Department of Homeland Security and why we need to pass it.
  This morning I wish to highlight a few more of the priorities in a 
clean, full-year bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, 
priorities that will be at risk if we can't pass a clean bill.
  There is bipartisan support that the Homeland Security appropriations 
bill includes strong funding for fire and SAFER grants. I know the 
Presiding Officer understands these programs because he has been the 
Governor of his home State. So he knows how important those fire and 
SAFER grants are to local fire departments, to first responders because 
they help purchase new equipment, they help with training exercises, 
and they can help fire departments cut down response times and save 
lives.
  There is also bipartisan support that the Homeland Security funding 
bill include grants to help our Nation's largest cities protect against 
terror attacks. There is funding for port security grants, State and 
local law enforcement grants, emergency preparedness grants. There is 
bipartisan support for funding to upgrade the FEMA Center for Domestic 
Preparedness in Anniston, AL.
  There is a compromise most of the people on the Democratic side of 
the aisle didn't agree with, to deny President Obama's request to 
increase air passenger fees and reinstitute the air carrier security 
fee.
  The Coast Guard needs to continue the acquisition of its eighth 
national security cutter, which is so important for our maritime 
security. Republicans and Democrats secured $627 million in the bill 
for the cutter.
  We have all seen how devastating the attacks were against Sony when 
it was hacked. Cyber attacks are an area of security that former 
National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft called ``as dangerous as 
nuclear weapons.'' That is why Republicans and Democrats pushed for 
full funding for DHS cyber security activities.
  The increase to the southwestern border of unaccompanied children and 
families last year is a major concern for States along our southern 
border--States such as Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. It has been a 
key priority for a number of my Republican colleagues, and for all of 
us who are concerned about border security, to meet the statutory 
mandate of 34,000 detention beds for undocumented immigrants that is 
required for the Department of Homeland Security.
  The clean funding bill includes support for those 34,000 detention 
beds, and it also includes funding to meet Republican requests to build 
3,000 new family detention beds in Texas.
  The National Bio and Agro-Defense facility construction in Manhattan, 
KS, which is an effort to help us deal with threats against our food 
supply and other bioterrorism threats--in a clean funding bill will 
receive the final amount needed to begin construction.
  Senator Roberts and I talked about this today. One of the things he 
pointed out is he has been working on this project for 16 years. There 
is $300 million in this clean, full-year bill. If we don't pass this 
bill, if the Department of Homeland Security shuts down, if we are in a 
continuing resolution, then this funding is at risk and they may have 
to rebid the project, which will drive up costs. That makes no sense.
  There was bipartisan agreement to include $12 million for the 
National Computer Forensics Institute in Hoover, AL, to support the 
expansion of basic and advanced training for State and local law 
enforcement personnel, judges, and prosecutors to combat cyber crime.
  These important investments in counterterrorism and cyber and border 
security are not controversial. That is not what we are arguing about 
here. We are arguing about whether we are going to debate what the 
President did with respect to immigration, and we should not be having 
this debate on the Department of Homeland Security's funding bill. We 
can have that debate. I am all for it. I was happy to have that debate 
when this body passed comprehensive immigration reform 2 years ago, but 
we should not be having this debate on this bill. The House should 
understand, just as the Senate understands that. We should not be 
having

[[Page 2229]]

that debate on this funding bill for Department of Homeland Security.
  We need to come together to pass a clean bill--a bill that was the 
result of bipartisan negotiation and bipartisan compromise. We have a 
bill on the Senate calendar to do just that.
  I am hearing from communities all across New Hampshire--we are 
hearing from communities across the country--about the need to pass a 
full-year funding bill.
  Last week the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of 
Counties, the International Association of Emergency Managers, and the 
International Association of Firefighters joined our call for a clean, 
full-year funding bill because they understand, as I know we all do, 
how disastrous failing to fund this agency would be. Three previous DHS 
Secretaries, two Republicans and one Democrat, have done the same.
  Earlier this week, the National Fraternal Order of Police joined that 
call for action.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter from the 
National Fraternal Order of Police printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          National Fraternal Order


                                                    of Police,

                                Washington, DC, February 10, 2015.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry M. Reid,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell, Mr. Speaker, Senator Reid and 
     Representative Pelosi: I am writing on behalf of the members 
     of the Fraternal Order of Police, and probably most 
     Americans, to express our frustration and outrage that what 
     used to be two greatest legislative bodies on the planet will 
     allow a policy dispute to compromise the safety and security 
     of our country.
       The previous Congress made a conscious, political decision 
     to defer action of funding for the U.S. Department of 
     Homeland Security (DHS) until the end of this month. I would 
     also point out that is five months since the start of the 
     current fiscal year and that some of our nation's largest and 
     most vital law enforcement agencies and functions are 
     operating without FY15 funding in place. The House passed 
     legislation in spite of a veto threat and the Senate is now 
     paralyzed and cannot even pass a motion to begin debating the 
     bill. The entire process has become farcical and no amount of 
     political spin or blaming the other side is reason enough to 
     jeopardize the integrity of our nation's borders or the 
     safety of the public.
       What kind of message does this send to the men and women in 
     DHS who put their lives on the line in defense of our 
     homeland--three of whom fell in the line of duty over the 
     past two years?
       What kind of message does this send to our enemies? Our 
     current threat level is ``Elevated'' as threats from 
     terrorists and other hostile organizations plan attacks on 
     the United States and our allies. Our Border Patrol and 
     Customs and Border Patrol officers, not yet recovered from 
     last year's surge of minors unlawfully entering our country 
     by the thousands, now must redouble their vigilance against 
     more sinister penetrations. Yet our great democratic 
     institutions are unable to complete their most basic 
     function--providing funding for the protection of our 
     national security. Just more than a decade has passed since 
     the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and today 
     political partisanship holds hostage its operational 
     integrity. This is a political obscenity.
       I urge you all, as the leaders of this Congress, to work 
     together and to fund fully the Department of Homeland 
     Security. This is what the American people elected you to do 
     and this is your obligation as Members of Congress. If you 
     cannot, you may as well put out a welcome mat for our enemies 
     and others who would do us harm.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
                                               National President.

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Their letter expresses frustration with the fact that a 
policy dispute over the President's immigration actions ``could 
compromise the safety and security of our country.''
  The letter continues:

       What kind of message does this send to the men and women in 
     DHS who put their lives on the line in defense of our 
     homeland--three of whom fell in the line of duty over the 
     past two years?
       What kind of message does this send to our enemies?

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 60 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Congress's most basic function is to provide for the 
Nation's security. It is time to stop playing politics, to get to work, 
do our jobs, and pass a clean full-year bill to fund the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.

                          ____________________