Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week, flags across the country were lowered to half-staff to honor the 49 lives which were lost in the terrorist attack in Orlando. The American flag also flew at half-staff following terrorist attacks in Brussels in March, in San Bernardino last December, and in Paris last November.
The flag is a symbol. It has great meaning and so do words. When we talk about the enemy, the words we use have meaning too, but now is not the time to talk. Now is the time to act. We must take action to stop the terrorists here and abroad.
That is why last week Republicans were eager to get to work on appropriations bills that give the FBI more of the resources they need to stop the threats on American soil. The bill that would give law enforcement officials more tools to help prevent terrorist attacks was brought up and discussed on the floor, but what did the Democrats do? They came to the floor and staged a campaign-style publicity stunt.
When Democrats were talking on the floor, Republicans attended a briefing by the FBI Director to listen--not to lecture, as Democrats were doing--but to listen and to get the facts about the specifics of what happened in Orlando. When Democrats held press conferences and sent out tweets, Republicans were pushing for the Defense Authorization Act that finally passed. This legislation actually does something by helping our military take on terrorist threats. It is directed at organizing the Pentagon to confront new threats. Democrats actually tried to block the legislation, and President Obama has threatened to veto it.
President Obama went out and gave a speech last week in which he said ISIL is on the defense. We remember when he compared ISIL to the JV team. Well, now the President says they are on defense. He bragged about all the success he has had fighting terrorists.
Then, his CIA Director, John Brennan, came to Capitol Hill. He came to speak to the Senate Intelligence Committee about what is happening with ISIS. He said, ``Our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach.''
Does the President not believe his own CIA Director?
The CIA Director said that ISIS is adapting to our efforts, ``and it continues to generate at least tens of millions of dollars in revenue per month.'' He said that ISIL ``will intensify its global terror campaign.''
Why does the President of the United States--the Commander in Chief-- refuse to accept the words of the CIA Director--his own CIA Director? The CIA Director came to the Senate and said that ``ISIS is training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks.''
Why does the President intentionally try to deceive the American people in terms of thinking about what the attacks are and what is happening? Why does the President want to say all is well?
The CIA Director said that ISIL ``has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for further attacks.''
The President seems to suggest the problem is not coming from the terrorists but coming from the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
Whom should we believe, the President of the United States or his CIA Director? Somebody asked the CIA Director at the hearing last week if ISIL would be weaker if they didn't have a safe haven in Syria and in Iraq. The CIA Director replied:
That is a big, big part of it. We need to take away their safe haven.
Terrorists use these safe havens to train, to raise money, and to plot more attacks. That should be the focus of President Obama and the Obama administration in response to Orlando.
The administration and the President want to pretend it is succeeding in getting rid of the safe havens abroad. That is simply not true. The terrorist army of ISIL controls a significant amount of territory across the globe, and it is not just ISIL. There are also additional terrorist groups.
The Director of National Intelligence testified to Congress earlier this year that Sunni violent extremists have more safe havens ``than at any other point in history.'' He added that Al Qaeda affiliates ``are positioned to make gains'' this year. According to the United Nations, the Taliban now controls more ground in Afghanistan than at any point since 2001.
Extremists groups like ISIL need the territory they control because it gives them safe havens and because the territory makes them more powerful. It helps them inspire more of their followers to launch attacks around the world. It makes it seem like the ideology of radical Islam is winning the battle of ideas. So it is imperative that we have a real strategy to defeat ISIL and other terrorist groups abroad.
We need to make sure someone in the United States or France or anywhere else in the world with an Internet connection does not see this radical Islamic ideology as victorious. That is why we need to pass the appropriations act that is on the floor today. Nobody believes that using the term ``radical Islam'' will magically defeat the enemy, but words do matter.
It is interesting. I note that in the New York Times op-ed page last Friday, an editorial written by David Brooks--he is a columnist. The President listens to him. He has him into the White House, and he is someone the President says he turns to.
David Brooks' column last Friday starts like this:
Barack Obama is clearly wrong when he refuses to use the word ``Islam'' in reference to Islamic terrorism. The people who commit these acts are inflamed by a version of an Islamic ideology. They claim an Islamic identity.
But the President will not say it.
Brooks goes on--and I think it is very informative seeing that it is David Brooks who is writing this: ``Obama is using language to engineer a reaction rather than to tell the truth, which is the definition of propaganda.''
The definition of propaganda. That is what we have.
Well, if the President refuses to correctly name our enemy, he can't effectively fight the enemy because Democrats don't understand the enemy, and it seems they just want everyone to get along. The world does not work that way. So the Democrats tried to change the topic from terrorists to going after our Second Amendment rights. When they do this, they are not confronting the real threat, which is the ability of ISIL to inspire terrorists to act.
If you want to stop the terrorist threat, you need to address the real problem. We must give law enforcement the support they need to stop the terrorists here at home. We must give our military the strength to deprive the terrorists of their safe havens abroad. The Defense Authorization Act and this Justice appropriations legislation are important steps toward doing that.
Symbolic acts like lowering our flag matter, and so do words. Words matter.
President Obama seems to want to take a victory lap for his efforts so far. Well, there will be no time for victory until ISIL is no more.
Maybe President Obama really doesn't understand the truth about this threat from radical Islamic terrorists. Maybe he is just not being honest with the American people about it. Either way, Congress has been told the truth by the CIA Director. And it is up to us to do something about it. The CIA Director said it himself to the Senate last week. He said that ISIL ``would have to suffer even heavier losses of territory and money for its terrorist capacity to decline significantly.''
Our response to the Orlando attack should be to step up the fight against ISIS where they live. We need a real strategy to defeat the radical Islamic terrorists and the resolve and the strength to carry it out.
Thank you, Mr. President.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source