Military Contruction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today regarding President Obama's most recent, egregious attempt to close the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base detention facilities and relocate enemy combatants, i.e., terrorists, to the United States.

Who are we talking about here when we say enemy combatants with regard to our national security and the problems that this may pose? We still have some high-level terrorists at Gitmo. It reminds me of the five terrorists that we let out sometime ago in exchange for a Sgt. Bergdahl. These are high-level terrorists. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed we know is the mastermind of 9/11. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the USS Cole bomber. I was a member of the Intelligence Committee when that happened, and I was concerned that we didn't connect the dots with regards to our national security and our national safety. That certainly was the case. We have Hambali, who is the Bali bomber. We have four coconspirators with Khalid with regards to 9/11--Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Mustafa Ahmed al Hawsawi, Abd al Aziz Ali, and Walid bin Attash.

These are folks that are still determined to do great harm to the United States. I don't think they changed their minds.

The President's determined effort to close Gitmo began his first days in office when he signed Executive Order 13492, requiring the close of Gitmo within 1 year. Fortunately, for the security of the United States, the Congress stood up to this Executive order and stopped it, and the President's attempt to close Gitmo was also met by strong objections from all across the country, even in his home State of Illinois. Illinois turned its back on a plan to transfer detainees to a state-run prison, the Thompson Correctional Facility.

More importantly, the Congress laid down its first marker on prohibiting the President from transferring or releasing detainees to the United States through the Supplemental Appropriations Act passed in June of 2009. Every year since then--7 years--the Congress has maintained this prohibition.

This year's National Defense Authorization Act continues to enforce the will of the American people and the Congress. Yet just yesterday the President's Press Secretary announced blithely that the President is not bound by Congress--and I would include the American people--and the President will do what he wants to do by another Executive order if he determines that is the best approach.

National Security Advisor Susan Rice has just been quoted as saying: ``I can't say with certainty that we're 100 percent going to get there, but I can tell you we're going to die trying.'' That is a pretty bold statement.

What the President wants to do doesn't equate with national security. I think he wants to fulfill his campaign promise and preserve his alleged legacy and simply close Gitmo, not taking a hard look at what may take place.

Now I have gone head-to-head with this administration on many issues but none are as close to my strong belief and commitment to protect the United States, the people of Kansas, and all Americans. It does not make sense to locate terrorists at Fort Leavenworth, KS, which is the intellectual center of the Army, and to pose a threat to that community. I have often said that the first obligation of any Member of Congress is to protect our national security. Allowing Gitmo terrorists to set foot in the United States is in direct violation, in my view, of that commitment, and we should not stand for this President or any future President to threaten our security by Executive order.

It is regrettable that I have to be here making this speech at all in response to the administration and the news that suddenly appears in the Nation's press that there were people visiting Colorado, Fort Leavenworth, and Charleston, SC.

In September, in response to the administration's visit to Kansas, I placed a hold on the administration's nominee to serve as Secretary of the Army. I don't like doing this. I have no personal bias whatsoever with regard to this person politically or the ability to do the job. I did so with purpose and respect. I articulated this to the Army. I articulated this to my good friend and colleague John McHugh, who was the Secretary of Army, to the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Defense. During my conversations I was reminded that the administration could not implement any parts of this study without explicit authorization from Congress. So if and when a study is produced--if there is a plan, and we don't know if there is a plan--the administration would come before Congress to ask for that authority and the money. Guess what; no money can be spent on that. So it seems to me that is already a violation.

The administration's threat to act by Executive order yesterday speaks to the exact opposite of the understanding that I have. Congress has listened to the American people and done what is necessary to uphold national security and prohibit this administration from behaving in an unleashed fashion.

I know the President is resolute. He reminded us of that fact by signing 223 Executive orders during his Presidency. It is not so much the number of Executive orders but Executive orders that are in direct violation or in opposition to the intent of the Congress.

I just don't think this should be determined by ignoring the Congress and simply issuing an Executive order. That is not the way to go. It just raises all this dust in opposition, and people like me come to the floor extremely worried about what this could bring.

I remember before 9/11, when I made the statement that the oceans no longer protected us. Our threat level remains high today. The threat of ISIS grows, stability in Syria continues to erode, Russia is advancing in the Middle East, and Iran continues to churn its nuclear reactors.

We cannot, it seems to me, we must not act politically. We must not take action simply because of ``legacy'' and a political campaign promise. Instead, we must act conscientiously. The only conscientious way forward on this issue is to maintain detention at Guantanamo Bay. To do otherwise would be a violation of U.S. law, not to mention a bull's-eye on Fort Leavenworth, where we have the intellectual center of the Army and the Army Command and General Staff College. That is not wise. That does not make any sense.

Let me say that there is another issue the President has brought up, and that is the issue of recruitment. We hear this from people who honestly believe that if we close Gitmo, somehow it will take away the incentive for various terrorist groups to recruit other terrorists from this country and all across Europe, all around the world, saying: Oh my goodness, we have terrorists at Gitmo, and when will the United States close that so that we can close our recruiting?

If we have terrorists located in the United States, it seems to me that the recruiting would simply be this: All right, Gitmo is closed, but we have our brothers at Fort Leavenworth, we have our brothers in Charleston, and we have our brothers in Colorado. What do you think would happen with regard to what they would do in response to that, not only to recruit people but to act? This goes back to the welfare of all Americans, not to mention those in Colorado, Kansas, and South Carolina. This is a bad idea--a very bad idea.

I hope those of us in the Congress will maintain our vigilance and make sure that no money will ever be authorized or appropriated with regard to taking terrorists from Gitmo and locating them in the United States. We must not do it. It is the wrong decision. It is a bad decision. I don't know why the President is so stubborn about it.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source