National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this morning I voted against the
Feinstein-McCain amendment No. 1889 because I believe it represents
shortsighted national security policy.

The central provision of this amendment would limit the interrogation
of detainees by any U.S. Government employee or agent to techniques
that are listed in the publicly available Army Field Manual on human
intelligence collection (FM 2-22.3), essentially codifying a portion of
Executive Order No. 13491, issued by President Obama on January 22,
2009. Due to the wide public availability of this manual, this policy
enables our enemies to study and dissect the methods we use to try to
elicit sensitive information from them, giving them the opportunity to
train against these techniques and prepare for them.

Quite simply, the effect of this policy is to hand our entire
interrogation playbook to groups such as the self-declared Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant, ``ISIL,'' Al Qaeda, and the Taliban,
which is a profound mistake. Moreover, this limitation is unnecessary,
because Congress has already taken action to prohibit interrogation or
other treatment of detainees that is ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment'' by enacting the Detainee Treatment Act of
2005.

In the past, other interrogation techniques that were not publicly
disclosed to our enemies, known as enhanced interrogation techniques,
proved their worth in numerous instances. In the wake of the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, these enhanced techniques were deemed
necessary for use with certain hardened Al Qaeda leaders and operatives
who possessed valuable intelligence that could save American lives,
including knowledge of planned attacks against our Nation. There is
strong evidence to believe that EITs, in desperate situations, helped
protect our country from terrorist attacks. In addition, intelligence
obtained through these interrogations helped locate Osama bin Laden and
enabled the operation to kill or capture him in Abbottabad, Pakistan,
on May 2, 2011. The Obama administration cannot deny that intelligence
gleaned through the use of enhanced techniques played a role in
tracking down bin Laden.

In recent months, the threat of terrorism has been increasing in both
intensity and complexity. The rise of the terrorist army of ISIL makes
this a challenging time in the fight against terrorism. While it is
clear that President Obama has no intention of authorizing the use of
enhanced interrogation techniques while he is President, this amendment
would unwisely and tightly restrict the tools available to future
Presidents to protect this country. I cannot support such a policy.

Working Across The Aisle

Mr. President, for the past several weeks we have been debating the
National Defense Authorization Act, which performs one of our most
important and significant functions, which is to make sure the people
who fight our Nation's wars have the resources they need in order to do the job and
to keep the American people safe.

This bill that started in the Armed Services Committee passed out
overwhelmingly, and that is because this is not or should not be a
partisan issue. Our duty to protect our troops so they can protect us
should be a no-brainer. You would think partisan politics would be the
furthest thing from this debate.

I am glad the Senate has now taken a big step forward to help move
this legislation along, but I have to admit there are some ominous
signs on the horizon. Initially, Senate Democrats on the Armed Services
Committee threatened to block this bill in the committee unless there
was some deal cut on spending. That is troubling, although I am
grateful that only four Democrats voted against this bill in the
committee. Then there is some suggestion from the President of the
United States that he might consider vetoing this legislation. Why?
Because he disagrees with some of the content of this legislation?
Well, no. The reason he threatened to veto it is because he said we
haven't agreed to his demands to increase spending--by the way,
spending money we don't have, adding to our national debt.

It concerns me a great deal when something that should enjoy broad
bipartisan support, such as our national defense, somehow becomes a
potential hostage to take in the spending wars here in Washington, DC.

Now we have learned that the strategy among our Democratic friends is
not to block this bill. Candidly, I think that is because they realized
they didn't have the votes to do it, and it would have been a momentous
decision if they had blocked it for some extraneous reason. But now we
are told that the next bill we turn to, which will probably be the
Defense appropriations bill--that our friends across the aisle are
threatening to block that in another continuing effort to do what they
call prepare for their filibuster summer.

The great thing about our friends across the aisle is that you don't
have to wonder necessarily what they are planning to do; all you have
to do is read the newspapers because they will tell you. There, Senator
Schumer, one of the senior Democrats in leadership, said they plan to
block every appropriations bill until they get a negotiated deal to
raise spending limits that have been in effect since 2011.

Well, I have to think this is why the minority leader, the Senator
from Nevada, initially when we were starting debate on this bill,
suggested it would be a waste of time. I can't think of any other
reason why he would say debating and voting on and passing the Defense
authorization bill would be a waste of time unless there was some
implicit threat there that it would never actually see the light of
day.

But there has been a casualty along the way. You will remember that
last Thursday we had a vote on a bill that would effect commonsense
improvements in our cyber security at a time when more and more
Americans are undergoing cyber attacks. Of course, these take different
forms, but many nation states have active cyber attack efforts against
our intellectual property--let's say the people who have labored long
and hard and make big investments in weapons systems and airplanes and
the like. Well, our adversaries are actively trying to steal the design
information so they can copy that, of course at a much cheaper cost,
and they can learn what the capabilities are of our weapons systems and
our airplanes.

But other cyber attacks are more straightforward. It is just crime.
It is stealing people's identity. It is stealing their money. It is
stealing their resources. There are criminal networks all around the
world that are actively engaged in trying to steal from the American
people online.

So you would have thought that this amendment, dealing as it did with
cyber security--that a good place to park this would have been on the
Defense authorization bill, as important a role as cyber security plays
in our national security. Of course, the purpose was to help the
government and private businesses work together to protect Americans'
personal information and their privacy, which is a pretty
straightforward goal. Protecting the personal information of the
American people is very important. And it was noncontroversial. This
particular bill that was offered as an amendment to the Defense
authorization bill passed out of the Senate Intelligence Committee 14
to 1. But since this is filibuster summer, the minority leader, Senator
Reid, decided the Democrats were going to vote as a group to block that
amendment.

Not even 24 hours later, though--their timing could not have been
worse--the need for this critical legislation became even more urgent.
On Friday--1 day after the Democratic leader urged his colleagues to
block this important cyber security measure--media reports began
confirming that hackers had accessed government networks and obtained
incredibly sensitive background information used for security
clearances in a second breach to the personnel management systems. This
information, which one former NSA official described as the crown
jewels and a gold mine for foreign intelligence services, was
reportedly stolen en masse and includes many personal details of job
applicants. As a matter of fact, the people who actually applied for a
security clearance, which is processed by the Office of Personnel
Management, the people who fill out these forms fill out extensive
background information, including birth dates, names, telephone
numbers, and the like, but it also includes things such as passport
information, Social Security numbers, private identification and
background details, extensive information about background places of
residence and addresses, and the names and contact information of close
friends and family members. So you can see why there would be concern
when state actors penetrate the network at the Office of Personnel
Management to steal information about that background and security
clearance process. This stolen information could be used not only
against our intelligence officers and military officials but also their
family and friends who may well now be exposed.

That same day, last Friday, it was reported that the first Office of
Personnel Management data breach--a breach that was initially reported
2 weeks ago--actually compromised the records of as many as 14 million
current and former government officials. That is more than three times
the original estimate.

While our Nation's public servants were having their sensitive
personal information stolen, the Democratic leader led nearly all of
his colleagues to block sensible, bipartisan legislation which was
focused on that specific threat and which would provide for greater
information sharing between the private sector and government in order
to address this very problem.

I am pleased to say that the minority leader was not able to convince
all Democrats to block this legislation. In fact, seven Democratic
members voted to promote security over partisanship. Good for them for
joining us in doing that.

As I said before, but it is worth noting again, the American people
have rejected this idea that the Senate and the Congress should do
nothing. They did that last November during the election. They made
crystal clear that they wanted their elected representatives, whether
the House or the Senate, to come here to Washington on their behalf and
to actually take steps to make their lives better and to work on their
behalf, not to use this Chamber for partisan political games.

We have heard the accusations in the past. The Democratic leader has
loudly and routinely criticized this side of the aisle for obstruction.
But threatening to block all funding bills unless you get 100 percent
of what you want, after spending money we don't have and while looking
at an escalating debt in the tens of trillions of dollars, is, to me,
the height of hypocrisy.

By pledging to filibuster upcoming appropriations bills, including
the Defense appropriations bill, he and his Democratic colleagues have
made their priorities very clear. They are willing to jeopardize the
paychecks and the security of our men and women in uniform so they can
give more taxpayer dollars to sprawling bureaucracies such as the IRS
and the EPA. Unfortunately, the leadership on the other side of the
aisle is using these very same troops who put their lives on the line
every day to score a few partisan points and to leverage their insatiable appetite for tax dollars. There
is never enough. There is never enough.

I don't know that everyone on that side of the aisle is comfortable
with this strategy. I am somewhat encouraged in a strange sense of the
word by the fact that seven Democrats refused to follow the Democratic
leader down this path to blocking the cyber security legislation. To
their credit, they voted on the merits of the legislation. But,
unfortunately, not enough did in order for us to get it considered and
voted on.

In light of this almost contemporaneous occurrence at the Office of
Personnel Management and the recurring daily stories about how cyber
attacks are stealing personal property, represent an intelligence
threat, and are stealing the money of the American people, I hope our
colleagues will work with us to do what the American people elected us
to do, which is to work together to move forward sensible, bipartisan
legislation that is important to the country.

I hope our friends across the aisle will listen to the American
people instead of their misguided leadership. Over the past few months
under Republican majorities, this Chamber has demonstrated that we are
willing to work across the aisle to get the Senate functioning again
for the American people.

Do you know what? The irony is that our friends who are now in the
minority who used to be in the majority--I think they kind of like it
because they actually can offer amendments, they can get votes on
amendments, and they can represent their constituents in this body,
which they came here to do.

I hope we can keep the Senate working and avoid this filibuster
summer that was touted in one of the newspapers just last week. I know
the people of my State expect me to come up here and represent their
interests, and I know all of our constituents expect us to do better by
them.

Mr. President, I yield the floor

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source