American Safe Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am glad I happened to come to the floor when the Senator from Virginia was speaking on this topic. I didn't come to speak on the topic, but I know how passionately he feels about it. I find myself agreeing with much of what he has to say about what our military deserves in terms of the support not only of the President but also of the Congress and thus, through Congress, the American people. Whenever we send our troops into harm's way, our men and women in uniform deserve to know they have the unified support of the U.S. Government and hopefully the American people.

I wish to tell my friend from Virginia, who has been on this topic for some time, that I think there are some practical impediments to what the Senator is suggesting, and maybe we can find a way to work together to address them.

First of all, there is the question of what is the strategy. I think Congress is reluctant to issue an additional authorization for the use of military force until we know what the President's strategy is, not just in Syria, in Iraq, but also with the travel and the movement of people back and forth from those war-torn countries to the United States or to other parts of the world, including the visa waiver countries--the 38 of them--people who can travel freely from that area to those visa waiver countries and then come to the United States. The third part of it, which we have been addressing and which the FBI Director has brought to our attention on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has to do with radicalization of people back here at home through the use of social media or the Internet. I would say to my friend that this is a serious problem, and I find myself in sympathy with what he is trying to do. But, again, the practical problem is the absence of a real strategy.

I fear that with 1 year left for this President in office, one of the goals of some of the proponents--I am not casting aspersions; I am just saying I am concerned about this--one of the goals would be to issue an authorization for the use of military force that would actually tie the hands of future Presidents, because apparently this President thinks he has all the authority he needs. It is true, they just got a draft that they have sent over here for us to consider, but the President seems-- at least to me--to be suggesting by his actions and most of what he is doing that he thinks he has all the authority he needs.

So I want to say to my friend that I don't doubt your sincerity, and I admire the point you are trying to make, but I do see those as practical problems: the absence of a strategy from the Commander in Chief and the proposal--one of the proposals; I think it came out of the Foreign Relations Committee--that would actually limit the options available to the next Commander in Chief were this to be passed. But those aren't insurmountable problems; those are things that, once identified, we can focus on and work a little bit more.

I thank the Senator for his continued advocacy on this issue, and I admire his determination to see this through to a good conclusion.

Mr. President, what I came to the floor to talk about is a bill we are going to be voting on this afternoon called the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act and also called the American SAFE Act.

I wish he was still here. I know he just left, but I want to make one point on the chart the Senator from Virginia had where he suggested that some assert refugees are the enemy. That is not true. That is the opposite of true. The American people are the most generous people in the world when it comes to admitting refugees and naturalizing new American citizens. In the past few years--if my memory serves me correctly, we naturalize between 800,000 and 1 million new citizens a year. America is the most open, welcoming country in the world because we recognize this is a source of our great strength. The brains, the ambition, and the hard work that go together with people who are unhappy with their current circumstance and who are looking to live the American dream and what they have to do in order to come here to America to be a part of that through a legal system of immigration I think is something to be applauded and celebrated.

But this bill is about something else. This is about our national security. This is not an anti-refugee bill. That is immediately where the President went and where some of the other folks on the President's side of the aisle went, was suggesting that somehow, by being concerned about our own national security, we were somehow anti-refugee. That is demonstrably false. All we are asking for and all this legislation provides for--passed by a bipartisan vote of the House of Representatives--is to enhance the screening of refugees so that this system cannot be exploited by terrorists--a tactic ISIS has encouraged. Our adversaries, particularly the Islamic State, recognize the fact that they can't exploit our system to advance their cause, which is to kill innocent men, women, and children in this country.

This legislation doesn't close the door to refugees or go back on America's great traditions and who we are as a people. All it does is add safeguards to our refugee admissions process and updates it in light of the threats we currently face.

The distinguished Presiding Officer was probably in the same hearings I was in or the briefings with Jeh Johnson, the Director of Homeland Security, who said that following some of these threats, the administration unilaterally enhanced some of their screening mechanisms. I applaud them for that. That is important to do. But they can't sit here and tell us with all seriousness that Congress can't weigh in or we can't have a debate and we can't have an amendment process on legislation which is designed to do what they themselves said they are trying to accomplish, which is to protect public safety by enhancing some of the screening process.

All we are trying to do--and it is not a small thing; it is our No. 1 responsibility as part of the Federal Government--is protect our national security. Our chief goal in this legislation is pretty simple. It is to make sure we are doing everything we can to prevent terrorists from entering the country.

Why would our friends across the aisle want to filibuster this legislation by voting no this afternoon at 2:30 and deny us an opportunity to actually debate the legislation? Under the rules of the Senate, they are free to offer suggestions, by way of amendment, about how we can improve the legislation. I have heard a number of them, including from the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein, among others, who said that what she would like to see us do is to beef up our protections to prevent people from exploiting the visa waiver system and coming into the United States without going through an adequate screening mechanism. I think there would be a lot of support on this side of the aisle and on a bipartisan basis to modify this legislation to include some of her ideas. At least we ought to have that debate. We shouldn't shut it down by a filibuster on the other side.

This bill would ensure that the FBI and other national security intelligence agencies have actually certified to the security of the refugee screening program. It is called accountability--something that people don't think we have enough of here in Washington, DC. Something bad happens, and there is some nameless, faceless bureaucrat who is blamed. What this would do is put the responsibility and accountability where it belongs.

There is no doubt that we live in turbulent times. Our national security experts tell us that they have never seen a more diverse, a more complex array of threats around the world. Our Refugee Admissions Program should be examined and updated to respond to those threats, and that is what this legislation attempts to do.

Unfortunately, we don't have to look very far to see examples of why this legislation is necessary. Earlier this year in Houston, a man born in Iraq entered the country as a refugee and was later charged with providing material support to ISIS. That is one example. I am sure it is not the only example of why this legislation is important. We are still learning more about that particular case, but what we already know is alarming.

According to media reports, he was associated with members and sympathizers of ISIS. We know that investigators found an ISIS flag at his home in Houston, TX. Just last week it was reported that his plans included setting off bombs at two popular malls in Houston, TX. Houston is one of our most populous metropolitan areas--certainly in Texas--in the country. Can you imagine what kind of carnage two bombs going off at shopping malls could wreak? According to reports, this individual was communicating with another man, also born in Iraq, who entered the United States in 2012 as a refugee and who had ties to terrorist groups and fought twice in Syria and allegedly was trying to go back to Syria to fight alongside Islamic militants. This individual was communicating with another person with terrorist ties, and it certainly should raise all of our suspicion and concern.

Both of those men were refugees from Iraq. That doesn't mean the refugee program should be dismantled or abandoned entirely. What it should tell us is that we better be darned sure that whoever comes in through the refugee system has been adequately vetted to protect innocent potential victims here in the United States. Fortunately, in this instance, our law enforcement officers acted effectively and quickly to prevent a tragedy, but they can't be right 100 percent of the time. If they are right only 99 percent of the time and innocent people are hurt or killed, if we don't do everything in our power to stop it, then I think we are partially responsible. This is not a theoretical problem, and Congress has the opportunity to act to try to enhance public safety. So knowing all of this, it is baffling to hear the discussion among our Democratic colleagues that they may not even allow us to get on the bill this afternoon.

I have seen some news reports suggesting that the Democratic leader is saying: Well, if there is some sort of an amendment process that could be agreed to, then maybe they would allow us to do that. I would encourage those discussions to go forward, but we shouldn't just say: Well, you get three or four amendments on your side and we get four or five on our side. We ought to invite and welcome all constructive legislation to make this as good as it can be. We don't need a backroom deal to do that. We need to bring it to the floor and allow an open amendment process under the rules of the Senate.

This is a debate worth having, and this is one our constituents deserve to hear. I hope the latest news reports are some reason for encouragement that our Democratic colleagues are going to allow us to get on the legislation. Again, this is not a partisan issue--or it shouldn't be.

Last fall several Obama administration officials testified about their concerns about radicalized individuals and what threat they could pose, as a refugee, if they gain entry into the United States. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified before the Senate and House Homeland Security Committees and said: ``I am concerned that we do the proper security vetting for refugees we bring into the country.'' I agree with him. That is what this legislation addresses.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. He went on to say: ``It is true that we are not going to know a whole lot of the Syrians that come forth in this process, just given the nature of the situation.'' That is understandable. Syria has been engaged in a civil war over the last few years, and it is hard to imagine that we know a lot about those who want to come here as refugees. It doesn't mean they shouldn't come here, but we do need to enhance the security screening and make sure we are confident that the ones who do come will not be a threat to the public.

The Director of the FBI also shared his concerns by saying: ``We see a risk there.'' So if you have the FBI Director and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security saying there are risks and concerns about refugees coming from Syria to the United States, I would say we ought to listen to them.

I hope our colleagues across the aisle will reconsider their purported plans to block this legislation. We vote on it at 2:30 p.m., so there is plenty of time to talk more about it and have discussions about how there is maybe a path forward. If, in fact, there is ultimately a filibuster and our friends across the aisle decide to block the American SAFE Act--and, again, I hope they don't do that--I don't think we are doing our job or doing everything in our power to enhance the public safety.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source