- American SAFE Act passes House 289-137, with only two Republicans opposed to it — Steve King was one
- The vote is veto proof in the House only if enough of the 47 Democrats who voted for it do not fold in the face of an Obama veto – we predict enough would decide to “support their president.”
- Loebsack and Bustos were among the 47 Democrats voting for it. Iowa’s Rod Blum and Dave Young voted for it.
- Pushing a stand-alone bill will just result in more failure theater
- Walter Jones of North Carolina was the other Republican – statement below
Congressman Steve King’s explanation of his vote:
“I voted against the American SAFE Act because it fails to restore Congress’ Article I authority over admissions of migrants to the United States. How can we trust this Obama Administration who will not utter the words ‘radical Islamic jihad’ to accurately screen Syrian and Iraqi refugees as required in this bill? For that reason, I submitted an amendment to rules, which was ultimately not adopted, that would create international safe zones for refugees in their homeland. The safety and security of the American people is paramount. I respect the House trying to find a solution but I do not believe this was the right or strong enough one.”
We support Congressman King’s actions on this stand-alone bill
Congressman Steve King is not going to risk American security. No objective observer will now think Congressman King supports laxity in the vetting of Syrian refugees or that he is being picayune or prickly. His vote was at no risk to the House bill and to no adverse effect to the bill’s actual prospects because it will not likely get past Harry Reid in the Senate (a pledge made by him). Even if it did get to Obama’s desk Reid and his minions will be there to sustain a veto.
We believe Steve King anticipates such a scenario. His vote was principled for the reasons he stated, and more. It was cagey. His vote was something the media finds unexpected, and by that hook Congressman King gets to point out the false sense of security the SAFE Act entails. As the bill’s summary states:
H.R. 4038 prohibits the admission to the United States of refugees from Iraq and Syria unless the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) certifies to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) that such an alien has received a background investigation sufficient to determine whether the alien is a threat to the security of the United States. The bill requires the DHS Secretary, FBI Director, and DNI to certify to Congress that each refugee is not a security threat prior to his or her admission to the United States.
The bill also requires the DHS Inspector General to conduct a risk-based review of all certifications for admission of Iraqi or Syrian refugees made by DHS, FBI, and DNI each year and provide an annual report to Congress detailing its findings. The bill further requires the DHS Secretary to provide a monthly report to Congress on the total number of applications for admission of Iraqi and Syrian refugees for which certifications were made and the total number for whom a certification was not made, including the concurrence or non-concurrence of each required official.
Sounds good except that besides it being unlikely that the bill will emerge from the Senate, all of those pencil whipping agency heads are under Obama’s executive control. True, FBI Director Comey testified before the House Committee on Homeland Security in October that “we can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database til the cows come home, but … nothing will show up, because we have no record on that person.” But then he can be replaced.
Besides agreeing that the bill is insufficient, and believing that the agency heads have questionable integrity, (always and increasingly an issue with Obama appointees) a stand-alone bill is not the way to go. In order to get something passed, a better bill hopefully, the power of the purse needs to be employed.
In our opinion the American SAFE Act is shaping up as more failure theater with 47 Democrats getting the chance to pretend how security conscience they are (including locally, Loebsack and Bustos ) and for Republican leadership to show they are doing something. This stand-alone bill should not be their measure because it does not have much chance of being made into law.
In the case of Loebsack and Bustos you can almost hear them checking with Harry for his assurance that “this won’t really happen, will it?” — which he assured him it would not.
The real “safety” test will be as regards support for any available avenue to defund Obama’s intentions or attach a good bill to “must pass” funding bills.
If Obamacrats want to “shut down” government to help along importation of thousands of poorly vetted Syrians, well let them and see how that pans out, they will fold, if Republican leadership holds firm. Regrettably, more likely Republican leadership will decide to take responsibility and fold first. In the first case we will see that “shutting down” — pausing some aspects of government — is not such a big deal when 80% of it churns along — and which Democrats have opted to do more times than Republicans. In the more likely situation, given current Republican leadership, they will accept “blame” and proceed to cower, hyperventilate and give up. But we have been through all this before in these pages. Using the power of the purse is the only serious way for Republicans to go with the current government make-up .
By the way, the amendment Congressman Steve King tried to attach but that was turned down reads:
Expresses a sense of Congress that an international safe zone should be established by liberators, specifically Kurds and Sunni Arabs with U.S. support, in the Ninevah Plains region for victims of genocide, particularly Assyrian Christians, Chaldean Christians, and Yezidis, in their ancestral homelands.
The proposal indicates King is attentive and knowledgeable of the situation and those most desperate for help. Also see our previous post regarding the Syrian refugee matter.
The “constitutional” clarification regarding Article 1 prerogatives that King makes is well taken. There was no danger in trying to insert it. Not raising it arguably perpetuates the presumption of such powers exclusive to the Executive branch.
Walter Jones of North Carolina had this to say about his vote in opposition:
“Congress can defund the program in the appropriations bill, which will come to the floor in early December,” Jones continued. “To ensure our safety, Congress must seize that opportunity and use its constitutional power of the purse. Short of that, even if today’s bill were to pass the Congress and be signed into law, the president would still retain the power to let in whoever, and however many, refugees he pleases. And given the president’s unwavering support for open borders, unchecked illegal immigration, and mass importation of foreign refugees, we know he can’t be trusted with that authority.”
R Mall and DLH
