The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“FIGHTING TERRORISM” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Senate section on pages S4571-S4572 on June 27, 2016.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
FIGHTING TERRORISM
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, on another matter, the Senate has been discussing the need to respond to terrorist threats within our own borders. To recap, this isn't about people traveling from the United States to the Middle East and returning or people coming from the Middle East to the United States. It is about that, but primarily what we are worried about in Orlando is the radicalization of an American citizen by propaganda, poisonous propaganda being issued by the Islamic State, and that falls in a fertile field with particularly susceptible individuals like the shooter in Orlando.
That is one reason it is so important we complete our work on the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. It keeps many of our counterterrorism efforts going by funding those who are on the frontlines, such as the FBI and other law enforcement. I hope we can get that legislation completed, too, and in so doing underscore our commitment to those public servants who defend the homeland.
We can't lose sight of the heart of the problem: a lack of any coherent plan to defeat ISIS and a foreign policy missing direction and leadership from the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States.
Over the past few days, it has become even clearer that not even those in the Obama administration are onboard with his short-sighted and reckless policies. First, more than 50 diplomats sent an internal protest memo to harshly criticize the President's Syria policy. You can find that draft version of the memo online. It is four frank pages, decrying Obama's failed wait-and-see-approach to Syria, from some of those who have been most involved with the policy.
The New York Times was forced to admit the number of signatures on it, 51, was ``extremely large, if not unprecedented.'' I wish I had time to read the full memo aloud here, but let me quote from a few paragraphs--actually, from the final paragraph. It says:
The status quo in Syria will continue to present increasingly dire, if not disastrous, humanitarian, diplomatic, and terrorism-related challenges. For five years, the scale of these consequences has overwhelmed our efforts to deal with this conflict; the United States cannot contain the conflict with current policy. . . . [W]e firmly believe it is time the United States, guided by our strategic interests and moral convictions, lead a global effort to put an end to this conflict.
What an indictment of the leadership of the White House by people who are part of the Obama administration. I am grateful that these diplomats opted to stand up and be counted and tell the truth for our own security as well as those in the Middle East who are suffering so much. The administration's policies--really, their inaction--have languished for 5 years with all signs pointing to a much needed course correction. Still, even after the redlines were crossed by Syria's murderous dictator and as the supposed JV team of terrorists are exporting deadly violence into our own country, the White House views its policies in a positive light. It is not just these diplomats working in the State Department of President Obama who are raising red flags.
Recently the CIA Director agreed with them while testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee. He admitted we are further away from a diplomatic solution in Syria than a year ago, largely because of Russia's involvement in propping up the regime of Bashar al-Assad. He confirmed that ISIS, the Islamic State, is preparing to conduct further attacks, in part by training and encouraging its followers to carry out attacks in their home countries, such as the United States of America.
Contrary to the narrative the White House is selling, Director Brennan called ISIS a ``formidable adversary'' that is building a global terror network. He stressed that Libya, in particular, is a growing hotbed of Islamic extremism.
Recently I traveled to Tunisia with members of the House Homeland Security Committee, and we met with the Libyan country team--the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and the other members of that country team who had not even been able to go to Libya because it was so dangerous. They were actually working in exile in Tunisia next door.
Director Brennan called the ISIS offshoot in Libya the most developed and most dangerous branch of the terrorist group. How did we get here? President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed in their efforts to stabilize the country after toppling Qadhafi. Didn't we learn anything in Iraq? Apparently, the Obama administration did not. They had no plan for what to do once Qadhafi was gone. Evidently, President Obama opted to lead from behind during the military campaign and then not lead at all after Qadhafi fell.
Unfortunately, recent testimony from the President's nominee to head the U.S. forces in Africa, or AFRICOM, suggested the administration hadn't learned any lessons after this disaster. When asked whether there was a strategy in place for dealing with all the threats emanating from Libya, the nominee, the Marine Corps general who was testifying, said he wasn't aware of any strategy, even though he agreed that ISIS has a significant presence in Libya and constitutes an imminent threat to our country here at home.
Just a few days ago, an article in the Washington Post highlighted the difference between what our military leaders believe is necessary to accomplish the mission and what the White House begrudgingly agreed to give them, which is less than what they need. According to the article, U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq are readying a request to the White House for more troops so we can help the Iraqi Army secure Fallujah and eventually take back Mosul.
The article also notes that military leaders have been regularly highlighting the need for more troops in the region--and quickly--but are concerned the administration will be reluctant to commit more. That is because the President has instituted an artificial troop cap for Iraq and Syria--it is about the numbers, it is not about the mission--
just like he did in Afghanistan, and he doesn't want to add to that no matter what happens.
Apparently, the foolish campaign promises the President made when he was running are more important to him now than actually defeating ISIS abroad. As it stands, his legacy will be leaving Iraq more unstable and more dangerous for U.S. interests than it was when he came into office.
This should be a no-brainer. We don't succeed on the battlefield when we ignore the counsel of the experts, our uniformed military leaders, and we can't succeed on the ground in Iraq when the President will not provide the resources necessary to carry out the operations he has asked them to perform. We don't need a bandaid. We don't need more calls for diplomacy and other hollow talking points in Libya. What we and the world need is American leadership and a commitment from the White House to root out and annihilate ISIS where it lives and breathes.
I doubt the Orlando shooter would have pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State if we had done what our military leadership believes we should have already done, which was to crush ISIS and defeat it. I doubt the Orlando shooter would have pledged allegiance to a leader whose movement had been crushed and destroyed, but he did it because he felt they were winning.
When the watching world sees we lack the will to defeat ISIS, ISIS sympathizers around the world sense weakness, and they are emboldened in their plan to carry out attacks, including on U.S. soil. There is a direct relationship between the battlefield in Iraq and Syria and our neighborhoods and communities here in America. What happens there matters here.
When the request from our military leadership arrives at the President's desk asking for more resources, he should remember Orlando, and he should grant the request. If he refuses or dithers, any resulting failure in Iraq and Syria or further attacks on the homeland will be part of his lasting legacy. From our diplomatic corps to our intelligence community, to the leaders of our military, all have directly or indirectly challenged the President's foreign policy in just the last few days.
If you think about it, it is remarkable. It takes courage and real strength of conviction to buck the leader of your political party or of the administration. I hope the President listens to them because they are trying to help him make the right decision, and they are the real experts here.
If the President will not act decisively against our adversaries abroad, Congress must do all it can do to guard against the enemy here at home. Passing appropriations bills that provide the resources for Federal, State, and local law enforcement is part of our responsibility. We need to make sure our first responders and law enforcement community have the resources they need, and I hope we get that done soon.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
