American Safe Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a pending legislative matter we will be discussing later in the day, the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015. This is the title of the bill that was passed by the House in November. It is now pending before the Senate, and we will be discussing it later.

I am going to talk for a few minutes, but the punch line is as indicated on this board. We are talking about who are America's foreign enemies. This is a bill that deals with Iraqi and Syrian refugees. I assert that refugees are not our enemy; ISIL is our enemy. Yet, for some strange reason, in the 18th month of a war against ISIL, Congress has been unwilling to debate our real enemy.

First, refugees are not our enemies. The refugee crisis, with refugees coming from Syria and now Iraq, has been called the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II. Four million Syrians have left their native country because of being exposed to the atrocities of being barrel-bombed by Bashar al-Assad and now the atrocities of ISIL and other terrorist organizations. Those 4 million have left to find haven from this horrible violence, just as any family would. Over 200,000 Syrians have been killed by this violence, and now the number is probably approaching 300,000. In addition to the 4 million Syrian refugees who have left Syria to escape violence, there are an additional 8 million Syrians who have left their homes and been displaced within the country and who could leave the country at any moment as the violence continues. These refugees are victims of violence, victims of unspeakable atrocity first perpetrated by the horrible dictator Bashar al-Assad and second by terrorist groups such as ISIL. Yet this bill would say these refugees are enemies.

There is a story that means an awful lot to me personally, and I hope you will indulge me.

A Jewish man was traveling from Jerusalem down to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road.

By chance a priest came along, but when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Temple assistant walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.

Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him. ``Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I'll pay you the next time I'm here.

``Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?'' Jesus asked.

The man replied, ``The one who showed him mercy.''

Then Jesus said, ``Yes, now go and do the same.''

This is a story that was written 2,000 years ago, but it is not a story about yesterday, it is a story about every day of human life on this planet. They are beaten-up people lying by the side of the road, and the choice we have to make as individuals or as a society is do we pass by or do we act as the Good Samaritan did--in a compassionate way?

In fact, I would argue that the Good Samaritan story actually isn't tough enough. If we called the refugees of the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II our enemies, it is as if we were going over to the man and not passing by but kicking the man who had been beaten and robbed by bandits.

Let me move away from Scripture and talk about American values.

The Statue of Liberty that stands in New York Harbor is graced with a powerful poem, ``The New Colossus,'' written by an American poet, Emma Lazarus. Emma Lazarus was a member of a very prominent, multigenerational Jewish family in New York. There was a fundraising campaign to build the pediment upon which the Statue of Liberty stands in New York Harbor. The Federal Government didn't have the money, so the fundraising was done privately. Emma Lazarus wrote a poem about the Statue of Liberty for a fundraising contest to help raise money, and that is why the statue is there now. The poem is called ``The New Colossus.'' The Colossus references one of the wonders of the ancient world, the Colossus of Rhodes. Emma Lazarus wrote the poem about the Statue of Liberty, calling it the ``New Colossus.'' Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. ``Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!'' Cries she With silent lips. ``Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!''

The debate that we will undertake about this bill, about whether we call refugees enemies is a debate about who we are as a nation. Let's honor our history, let's honor our values, and let's do what Americans have always done--been willing to extend a hand to those who are victimized by atrocity in other lands, rather than extend the back of our hand and label them as enemies.

Now, I don't dislike everything about this bill we are about to debate. I actually really like the title. The content, I don't like. The title, ``American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015.'' We have an enemy. We have been at war with ISIL for 18 months. We have spent $5 billion in this war. We have deployed thousands of American troops in this war. Eleven members of the American Armed Services have been killed while on deployment in Operation Inherent Resolve. We have an enemy. The enemy is not refugees from Syria--the enemy is ISIL.

We all know the facts about ISIL, this organization that claims to be inspired to create a worldwide caliphate. They have slaughtered Christians and other religious minorities by the thousands. They have sold women into slavery by the thousands. They have beheaded American hostages, including American aid workers. If there is a modern-day equivalent of a Good Samaritan, it is an American aid worker who is trying to help somebody out. ISIL has kidnapped, captured, and beheaded American aid workers. The number of deaths just this weekend--400 more people kidnapped by ISIL in Iraq and Syria. The number of deaths have been in the tens of thousands by ISIL, and as I have said, beheading American hostages, 11 American servicemembers killed, but it is beyond Iraq and Syria. ISIL has claimed credit for bringing down an airliner, killing tourists in the Sinai. ISIL has claimed credit for bombing and shooting attacks, killing hundreds in Paris. ISIL has claimed credit for a bombing at a peace rally in Ankara, Turkey, that killed hundreds and then a bombing outside the Blue Mosque in Istanbul 2 weeks ago that killed 15 and injured dozens more. The shooters in San Bernardino were inspired by ISIL, even if they weren't directly connected to them. Within the last few days, we saw another attack and explosion in Jakarta that was claimed by ISIL. Now, that is who an enemy is--not a refugee who is fleeing ISIL. ISIL is the enemy. ISIL is the enemy. ISIL must be defeated. Yet we are not debating ISIL--and we haven't been willing to debate ISIL in 18 months. Instead, we are trying to claim that refugees are the enemies of this Statue of Liberty Nation.

Why has Congress been silent about ISIL for 18 months? Our President has asked Congress: Congress, do your job and declare war against ISIL. He even sent us a proposed authorization 11 months ago. Eleven months ago, the President sent to Congress a proposed authorization against ISIL. There has not been a vote on the floor in the House. There has not been a vote on the floor in the Senate. There has not been a debate on the floor of the House or Senate. There has not been a debate or vote in committees in the House or Senate. For 11 months, since the President asked us, ``Let's get involved and take action against ISIL,'' there has been no action. And it is not just the President. General Dunford, the Marine general, who is now head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Armed Services Committee. I asked him: Should we do an authorization against ISIL? He said it would send a strong message to ISIL. It would send a strong message to our allies. But here is what he said that really grabbed me, coming from a heavily military State. He said: Our troops deserve it. There are thousands deployed away from home risking their lives.

I asked General Dunford: Would it be good to have an authorization against ISIL? How would our troops respond? Here is what he said: What our young men and women need--and it is virtually all they need to do the job we asked them to do--is the sense that what they are doing has purpose, has meaning, and has the support of the American people. Our troops think Congress is indifferent to this.

Virginia is very military. We are very closely connected to it. I have a child in the military, one of my three kids. I know what our troops are thinking about Congress right now, which is, while we are deployed overseas, fighting this battle and risking our lives, Congress doesn't care and would rather not talk about it. Secretary Panetta has recently given a speech saying Congress should act.

So our President, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary Panetta, and others have said: Congress have this debate. There is an enemy out there. Have the backbone to name it as an enemy and authorize action against this enemy.

Constitutionally, Congress should act. One of the most important powers in the Constitution is article 1, in the definition of the roles of Congress. It is Congress that declares war, not the President. That was put in the Constitution by the Framers--Virginians like James Madison--who knew that, before 1787, war was a matter for the Executive, the Monarch, the Emperor, and the Sultan. But he said, ``In America, it is going to be different.'' We are not going to make a declaration of war for the Executive. We are going to make a declaration of war for Congress. Once declared, the President can implement, but it is Congress's job. Congress is not doing what the Constitution commands.

Imagine one of the family members of the 11 servicemembers who have been killed while deployed in Operation Inherent Resolve--killed in combat, killed when their jet was taking off of an aircraft carrier and crashed into the ocean or otherwise killed during deployment. Imagine, our best and brightest are sent, as they volunteered for our American military. They were sent overseas to fight an enemy--who we all agree is an enemy, who we all agree is conducting atrocities--and that pride of your life is killed while serving our country, and yet Congress will not even have a debate about whether ISIL is an enemy and whether we should declare war against ISIL and instead wants to have a debate about whether refugees from ISIL should be called our enemies. Imagine how you would feel if you were one of those families, and Congress was even unwilling to dignify the loss of your loved one by 2 minutes of debate or vote on the floor of either the Senate or the House.

David Ignatius wrote a piece yesterday in the Washington Post, ``The ugly truth: Defeating the Islamic State will take decades.'' The last line of his article says this:

The next President is going to inherit an expanding war against a global terrorist adversary. The debate about how best to fight this enemy hasn't even begun.

After 18 months, after deaths of American troops, after all these atrocities, after bombings in cities all over the world, the debate hasn't even begun because we refuse to have it in this Chamber.

As I conclude, why has Congress been silent about this, since we began military action against ISIL on August 8 of 2014? We will hit the 18-month anniversary in a couple weeks, in February.

I have a lot of criticisms of the administration's strategy. I think they waited too long to send the authorization to us. I don't think the authorization is particularly well-drafted, but that is no obstacle to us acting. Presidents send authorizations frequently and Congress redrafts them. So I am not light on criticism for the administration, but I am asking this question in this Chamber, where I am a Member, and so my question is actually critical, but it is also self-critical: Why has Congress been silent in the 18-month battle against ISIL? It is because of fear. Fear of not ISIL but fear of accountability. A war vote is hard. It is the hardest vote we will ever cast--and it should be. It should be.

How much easier is it to criticize the President and say: We don't like your strategy. You are doing it wrong. Why don't you do more airstrikes here or put more boots on the ground there? That is much easier for Congress to do than to actually have a debate about ISIL and craft a strategy, and then say we, Members of Congress, individually, are putting our names on this.

Members of Congress have been looking actively to avoid a vote on this for 18 months because a war vote is tough. Under the best of circumstances, there are going to be consequences that will be painful and tragic. There will be American lives lost, and that is under the best of circumstances. War isn't always fought under the best of circumstances. There will be surprises. There will be twists and turns. We will go down a path such as trying to train and equip a moderate Syrian opposition and find it doesn't work out the way we hope.

I think in Congress both Houses, both parties, have had a sense that, well, maybe if we don't vote and we just criticize the President and we just kind of turn our eyes while we are essentially forcing people to risk their lives in a war that we are not willing to declare, people will not hold us accountable. I have seen that tendency throughout my 21 years in elected service, when a tough vote is on the table, when something is hard and complicated--and this certainly is--if I can avoid it, well, I would like to avoid it, but that is so disrespectful to the oath we took, where we pledged to live up to the laws, including article 1 responsibilities of Congress. It is so disrespectful to the volunteer military deployed overseas, risking their lives, and the families of those who have already lost their lives.

After all, what is our fear of a tough vote, in the grand scheme of things, as against the sacrifice our troops are making overseas? Now, that is something that is really hard. Having to cast a tough vote is not that hard. It is not that hard. We can do this. We can do this.

The only action that has been taken since this war started 18 months ago was on a bill I introduced, an authorization for military force against ISIL. I introduced it in September of 2014, 1 month after the war started. It got a 10-to-8 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sadly, it was a partisan vote. It was right at the end of the previous Congress and expired with no action. A number of those who voted against it said: Look, the majority is about to change. Why do this now with 2 weeks left in the session? When the majority changes, we can take it up. Some said the President hasn't even sent a draft authorization yet. It is premature to do it.

Now we have the President's draft authorization. We have had it for 11 months and done nothing. Now we have seen--and there can be no doubt at this point--the evil nature of this threat we face and the expanding and complicating nature of this threat we face. Now is the time, finally, for Congress to step up to our responsibility and do our job.

I have used a couple of literary references, so let me close with one. A great Irish poet--I am biased--William Butler Yeats, wrote a poem at the end of World War I. He surveyed the wreckage of World War I, about 100 years ago.

In a lot of historians' views, World War I was kind of one of the most needless wars in some ways. It was unclear what it was about, but what it was really about was decaying monarchies that wouldn't change. Instead of changing, they let a terrorist action in the assassination of a nobleman--a leader in the Balkans--trigger the start of World War I. It was mechanized slaughter, and millions lost their lives. The United States came in and played a very important role, and at the end of the day, they were the peacemaker who had to come in to resolve it.

Yeats wrote a poem after World War I surveying this wreckage of these societies. It is called ``The Second Coming.'' He expressed a real concern about the state of society at the time because what he noticed at that time was that ``the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity.''

We have an enemy, ISIL, and I think we can all agree that they are filled with a passionate intensity. They are the worst in their human rights violations, their atrocities, and their complete disrespect for human life. They are the worst. They are the enemy. We should be debating about them.

The best lack all conviction. We are the best Nation in the world. I firmly and deeply believe that. I have believed it every day of the 58 years that I have been alive. We are the best. We have the best system of government in the world. While that system of government is often described as three coequal branches, there is a reason they put the legislative branch in article I, the executive in article II, and the judiciary in article III. This is the first among the coequal branches because we are direct representatives of the people. That is how it was structured so that we would be the best of the best--the best branch in the best government in the best Nation in the history of the world.

Do we lack all conviction? If we are willing to call refugees fleeing from violence our enemies but we are afraid to take up a debate about whether ISIL is an enemy to support our troops in harm's way--that is the question I am asking today. I know we are the best. Where is our conviction?

So I ask my colleagues, in connection with this bill, let's keep the title to it. Let's secure America against foreign enemies. Let's secure America against ISIL. But let's not turn our backs on the victims of the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source