BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the solution to this immediate crisis along our Nation's border and our longer term immigration needs necessarily need to begin with the President finally enforcing the law--that set of laws already on the books. There is no amount of money Congress can spend, there is no new law that could solve this crisis, if the President and the leadership of his party continue down their lawless path.
There are several steps the President can take--and he can take those steps immediately--that do not require any action by Congress or another dime from the American people. The most important action he could take would be to stop abusing his ``prosecutorial discretion'' and end the DACA Program which provides administrative amnesty and work permits to those who have entered the United States illegally as minors. He also needs to resist the temptation to further expand DACA to millions of additional adults and send a strong message to respond quickly by returning those who enter the United States illegally back to their home countries.
By announcing to the world that he will not enforce our Nation's laws by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to process and return those who have already come here unlawfully, the President of the United States is encouraging hundreds of thousands of children and adults to make a very dangerous journey to the United States illegally. He is encouraging families to pay coyotes controlled by drug cartels thousands of dollars to smuggle their children into this country. That is truly the humanitarian crisis we now face.
This continuing resolution--the continuing resolution now before the Senate--provides funds for the DACA Program and any other Executive amnesty the President may choose to implement illegally.
I, along with my friends and colleagues from Alabama and from Texas, wish to offer an amendment prohibiting funding to process prospective applications, but the majority has objected, so we will attempt to table the Reid amendment in order to allow that vote.
The President's threat to widen the scope of DACA is only going to make matters worse--matters in this pronounced humanitarian crisis we are facing along our border--which is why I agree with my friends, Senators Sessions and Cruz, that, at the very least, we must take steps to prevent the President from providing any more executive amnesty.
ISIS
Now I wish to speak about some other issues related to the continuing resolution and, in so doing, I wish to point out that one of the most important and solemn duties we have as Members of the Senate is to authorize the use of military force and ask the brave men and women in our armed services to put their lives in harm's way. It is, I believe, a gross dereliction of that duty, and an insult to those same men and women, to tack on a military authorization to this must-pass spending bill just so Members of Congress can hurry back to their home States. If the United States is going to escalate our involvement in a brutal conflict overseas, if we are going to send American troops to harm and train Syrian rebels for their fight against ISIS, we need to debate that decision on its own merits and not take this up simply as a condition of providing ongoing funding for the Federal Government as a whole. That is the only way for this issue to receive the kind of careful attention and robust debate it truly deserves. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to separate any military authorization from this must-pass spending bill to keep the government funded. If that means we do not get home early, so be it. The lives of our troops, the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, and those who support them, and the security of the United States are simply far too important.
I believe, as does the President of the United States, that ISIS is a threat to the Middle East and will take any opportunity it gets to kill Americans. Many of its fighters carry European and even American passports which will offer them easier access to the United States. Tracking and stopping these foreign fighters must be a high priority for the President and for the Congress, and our allies must work to stop the flow of these fighters into and out of the conflict zone half a world away. We must attack their finances, their abilities to communicate and coordinate and access weapons and supplies. The United States can and should act to protect ourselves from this threat.
There is a clearly defined constitutional process for doing that--a process which involves the participation of the President as the Commander in Chief and Members of Congress as representatives of the American people invested with the power to declare war. But are we following that clearly defined process? Are we adhering to this prudent set of procedures we are supposed to follow under our now 227-year-old governing document? No. Instead, we are openly flouting it. Instead, we are considering an authorization of military force almost as an afterthought. We are doing so by attaching it to a continuing resolution which itself reduces, in a very shameless and disgraceful way, Congress's spending authority to another afterthought. Why? Well, because, as far as I can tell, some in Congress want to go home early. They are so anxious to get to their next recess, to get back to their home State, that they are willing to give inadequate attention to this very serious problem that affects every American, that has implications not only for national security but for the security of 300 million Americans. It has especially grave implications for the brave men and women who wear our uniforms, whose lives would be on the line as a result of decisions made in connection with this effort.
This is shameful and it is unconscionable. It is an insult to the men and women we serve, and it is an insult to the men and women who wear uniforms and serve us well.
We should strike this section to arm and train Syrian rebels from the continuing resolution and instead have full debate and a separate vote on authorizing the President's strategy to address the ISIS threat. Forcing an authorization for our military to act in any manner through a continuing resolution up against a government shutdown does not meet the standards for this process and it does not afford the American people, many of whom are servicemembers, a voice regarding our Nation's most important affairs. We have ample reason to take the needed time to consider this decision on its own merits and not on the merits of a continuing resolution to keep the government funded.
The idea of arming Syrian rebels has drawn serious concern from Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle but, so far, only Members from certain key committees have been able to debate and discuss openly and in an official Senate forum the specifics of the President's plan. And even those of us who sit on those committees are still in need of much more information.
I have had concerns for the past year as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee with the proposed tactic of arming the Syrian rebels after hearing testimony from our own intelligence and defense leaders that what we refer to as the ``moderate rebels'' are, in fact, fragmented and decentralized. Their memberships are fluid and often lacking in common goals, leadership, and levels of moderation.
This is borne out in press reports from the region almost weekly. In fact, a few months ago I asked General Austin, the commander of CENTCOM, if the United States would guarantee that the assistance we are supplying to moderates in Syria--the then-nonlethal aid--is not being used by or to the benefit of extremist groups that want to attack the United States.
His answer was:
No, we cannot guarantee the assistance we provide doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Undoubtedly, some weapons and funds flowing into Syria wind up in the hands of extremists . ..... The extremists work closely with all factions of the opposition and is often aware of the logistics and humanitarian shipments into Syria. At times, they even acquire and disseminate these shipments to the local populace. This, in turn, benefits in the propaganda war.
That is probably why hardly a month ago--just a little over a month ago--President Obama called the idea of arming Syrian rebels a ``fantasy''--a fantasy that was, as he put it, ``never in the cards.'' Now he is seeking authorization for it. In less than a month, what was once a fantasy is now apparently the strategy. What was never in the cards is now not only in the cards but is a card that he is actually playing--and doing so as an afterthought, thrown on to a must-pass bill with an entirely different purpose and function.
On Tuesday in the Armed Services Committee hearing, when I asked Secretary Hagel why the President changed his mind on arming and training Syrian rebels, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel could not provide an explanation. This is troubling, to say the least. If there has been some change over the last month in national security threats or the capabilities and composition of a Syrian opposition group, why has the President not shared this with our Secretary of Defense? Or if there hasn't been a change, then is there some reason other than American national security that may have caused the President to reverse course. The American people deserve answers to these and other related questions.
Another important issue that deserves full and open debate is that this is about more than just arming rebels to fight terrorists. It became clear through answers from administration officials in our Senate Armed Services hearing Tuesday that the Administration believes that a new government and political structure in Syria is needed for these rebel groups to be successful.
No one doubts that President Assad is a tyrant, one who has exacted terrible measures on his very own citizens, but our constituents need to understand--I want to be very clear here--that the idea of arming Syrian rebels to fight ISIS and Assad, while also standing up and supporting a new government in Syria, is more like a long-term nation-building mission than a counterterrorism mission.
The administration has not been clear on this point. If we are indeed taking steps towards a nation-building exercise in Syria, we must also debate both the financial and the tremendous human costs of such an endeavor.
The ISIS threat to the United States is serious. Our response should be given equally serious consideration here in the Senate. When my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Senator Fischer from Nebraska, mentioned how important she thought it was that this authorization be separate from the CR, Secretary Hagel stated that he agreed that it should have a ``more thorough airing with the American people,'' but that it couldn't receive such an airing because Congress was rushing home for a recess. This is not good enough for the Senate.
This is not good enough for the United States or for the American people. It is shameful. Our constituents expect us to do our jobs. If that means staying here a few more weeks, so be it. If that means staying here for a month or two months--however long it takes--then so be it.
If this plan is the right one, fine; if we need to adjust it or reject it, fine; but there is no such thing as a must-pass vote of conscience--not here, not on this topic. The American people deserve to have a debate about how and why we are sending their sons and daughters into danger. We should not set this precedent of sending Americans into harm's way as an afterthought, on our way out of town, like some kind of political out-of-office reply email. Congress used to be better than this, and I submit the American people still are.
I respectfully and strongly urge my colleagues to pull this section from the CR and have a full debate to give authorization for the President's actions in the Middle East. To this end, I am proposing we remove this language from the continuing resolution so that it may be considered separately and adequately.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT