Natural Resources Management Act--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RISCH. Thank you, Mr. President.

First, let me thank Senator Kennedy. I think he has articulated a number of things that are important to us, and it is important that we do debate these things. When the Founding Fathers put the Constitution together, they were very clear on article I rights, legislative rights, and some on the executive branch rights. On foreign policy, I think that was a work still in progress with them, and they left it with both branches to have a role in both crafting the foreign policy of this country and also in execution of the foreign policy of this country. In essence, that is what we are doing with S. 1.

S. 1 is a work that has been going on for a considerable period of time, and it addresses the relationships we have with a number of our friends in the Middle East. I think I heard the Senator say he did agree with S. 1 and the things that are in there, trying to help our friends the Israelis, trying to help our friends the Jordanians, and also trying to help what friends we have in Syria to help them shed the yoke of Bashar al-Assad, which is the Caeser bill, which is included in this. This is a conglomeration of about four different bills. It is bipartisan, not something that is common around here these days, but it is bipartisan in almost all respects, and it does do a lot of the things we want it to do. So I appreciate hearing his support for S. 1. I want to talk for just a minute about a couple of issues he raised.

No. 1, talking about the debate that has been going on within the executive branch on certain issues. This is the way it is supposed to work. Most of the time, this is done in the Intelligence Committee and in the Foreign Relations Committee in closed hearings. Occasionally, it bubbles over, as it has recently, where there were some statements made by the intelligence community that the President didn't necessarily subscribe to, but the intelligence community was doing its job.

There are 17 committed intelligence Agencies of the United States. Every day, they gather a massive amount of information which they try to boil down and understand where we are headed. Their job is to gather that and to submit it to policymakers--this body, to the Foreign Relations Committee, to the Intelligence Committee, this entire body, and, most importantly, to the President of the United States and all policymakers throughout government. They do that, and they do a good job doing it. Not everyone agrees.

The intelligence communities--I think I can say without breaching confidences--from time to time have a different level of confidence as to a conclusion they reach regarding a certain situation. Sometimes we debate these things publicly. The vast majority of times, we don't. As policymakers, we do have to make decisions.

The President of the United States has recently talked about the military activities we are doing both in Syria and in Afghanistan, and it has properly spawned a debate as to what we are doing there, as the Senator suggested, what we have accomplished there, and what our continuing work there should be. I think that is a work in progress today.

I think everyone agrees that no matter what, the nation-building we did after World War II in Germany and Japan and after the Korean war in South Korea was incredibly successful. We spent a lot of money there, we imported American values there, and we did a great job. Over the last few decades, we have tried to use the same model in the Middle East, and it has been very unsuccessful. Before you can be successful, people have to want what you are giving them. That has not been unanimously accepted in the Middle East, and I think the President is right that we need to examine the nation-building and, for that matter, standing up our fighting forces that again have not been particularly competent in the Middle East.

In any event, it is a good debate to have. We are in the middle of that debate right now. I think everyone agrees that, no matter what, we have to maintain a sufficient military presence in the Middle East in various places. I think the military people are better making that decision than we are, but we have to have a military presence in certain places so that when we get a threat to America, we can respond, and we will respond. I don't think there is anything the President has said that backs us away from our commitment to respond, when necessary, to threats to the United States by terrorists. We are going to continue to respond. I think he has rightly identified that we should reexamine our nation-building efforts and expenditures in some areas, and I think he is right there.

I want to touch on, for just a minute, what the Senator said about the situation between the Turks and the Kurds, and then yield to my friend from Texas. You are absolutely right. The Kurds have been a great friend of ours for a long time. They have stood by our side. They have helped us in Syria and in other places when we have been fighting over the recent decades in the Middle East. They are good people. I met with them yesterday, and as I always do, I thanked them for their commitment to us and the sacrifices they have made. I realize they are there in their homeland and protecting their homeland. They have been magnificent fighters, and they are great people to have alongside us.

Some elements of the Kurdish people have had issues with Turkey. Turkey has been a long ally of the United States. We have a significant military presence there and a significant base there. This has been going on for a long time. They are a member of NATO. They are an official NATO ally of ours, which gives us certain responsibilities and gives them certain responsibilities.

The fact that the Kurds and the Turks are having issues with each other should very much concern us. No matter what happens, as the Senator mentioned, we have American values, and both the Turks and the Kurds have to understand that they need to respect human rights, they need to respect the rule of law, and we have to stand by and watch that this occurs. There have been conversations going on--I don't think it is a secret to anyone--about how this is going to play out and what role the United States plays in this regard, but it is a difficult situation, as the Senator referred to.

At this time, I am going to oppose the amendment the Senator has proposed. I do so reluctantly because I think he is trying to speak to the fact that we need to stand by our friends, and we do need to stand by our friends. Our relationship with the Turks, I don't think it is a secret to anyone that it has hit a rough patch, but simply because we are in a rough patch doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We are going to have to continue to keep our commitments. We are going to have to, as the Senator suggested, see that we stand by our friends. It is going to be difficult. It is difficult in the situation we are in, but we can do this, we are committed to do this, and we are going to continue to work at it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RISCH. I would like to ask Senator Menendez, is it your understanding that your amendment does not affect any existing legal authorities governing the use of military force?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RISCH. I thank Senator Menendez. Based on our understanding of your amendment, I will be supporting it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source