In a significant vote Wednesday that has both national security and 2016 campaign ramifications, senators will decide whether to take up a controversial bill that would curb the flow of Syrian and Iraqi refugees to the United States in order to prevent terrorists from slipping in.
Concern about the refugees is a dominant political issue in the presidential campaign, with Republican front-runner Donald Trump leading the charge against the Obama administration refugee program to provide a safe haven for thousands of people fleeing those war-ravaged countries.
In fact, Democratic leaders who warned last week they would try to force votes on many of Trump’s controversial policy proposals — such as banning all Muslims from entering the U.S. — are considering doing so on this bill.
GOP presidential candidates Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas are expected to return to Washington for the vote, the outcome of which remains uncertain, according to senators and top aides in both parties.
On the Senate floor Tuesday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged his colleagues to advance the measure.
“It’s clear that many Americans are concerned about the administration’s ability to properly vet thousands of individuals from Syria and Iraq. Elected officials in both parties have expressed concerns too, as have administration officials,” he said. “That’s why many Americans are asking us to take a step back and press ‘pause’ on the program so we can ensure we have the correct policies and security screenings in place.”
The bill requires the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence all to certify that individuals from Syria or Iraq — or a refugee who has visited one of those countries in the last five years — is not a security threat and can be admitted to the U.S.
The Obama administration threatened to veto the bill when it passed the House in November with the support of 47 Democrats, which means it could have enough support to override a veto in that chamber. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said at the time he expected his caucus to block the Senate from debating the bill. But as the vote nears, Democratic senators and leadership aides admit they don’t know how it will turn out.
Complicating matters for Democrats — many of whom defend the refugee program as safe and necessary — are recent developments that heightened voters’ concerns about terrorists crossing the border. For instance, the San Bernardino mass shooting was carried out by ISIS sympathizers and two Iraqi refugees were arrested in recent weeks on terrorism charges in California and Texas.
“We cannot allow America’s welcome mat to be turned into a door mat for radicalized Islamic extremists who are hard-wired to kill innocent people and destroy our way of life,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who chairs the Judiciary Committee.
“Unless and until the United States can figure out a foolproof screening process to prevent terrorists from masquerading as refugees to infiltrate our neighborhoods and communities, President Obama needs to listen to the concerns voiced by more than half the nation’s governors, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle on both sides of Capitol Hill, and the American people from across the entire country,” he said.
Many Democratic aides and senators Tuesday were reluctant to discuss how their bosses might vote on the proposal. Some said they were hopeful discussions between Reid and McConnell about amendments could lead them to support taking up the bill. Democratic leaders are expected to gauge caucus support at the weekly policy lunch scheduled for Wednesday just before the 2:30 p.m. ET vote.
“I’ll have more to say about that tomorrow,” Reid said Tuesday about the bill.
Democrats are considering voting to take up the bill so they can try to improve it through amendments. But they are also weighing whether to use it to force votes on Trump’s proposals. If successful, such a move could put GOP senators and Trump’s fellow presidential contenders on the spot as to whether they support his controversial policy prescriptions.
“I assume most of the senators would not vote to ban all Muslims, but it might be interesting to smoke out those that would,” said Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, who said he hasn’t decided if that’s the right approach.
With many Democrats quiet, advocates from the refugee program conducted a conference call Tuesday with reporters during which some national security and diplomatic heavyweights defended the program and urged lawmakers not to kill it.
“That process is the most thorough and rigorous of any vetting process that we apply to any groups of travelers who are seeking to enter the country,” said Matt Olsen, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center. He explained multiple U.S. agencies are involved in vetting the refugees who undergo extensive background checks, including fingerprints, biomedical screening, and in-person interviews during a process that can last up to two years.
Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria, Iraq and other Mideast countries, warned lowering the number of refugees could feed the sense in that region that the U.S. has turned on Arabs, and Sunni Arabs in particular.
While he was there to express confidence in the vetting process, Olsen acknowledged he couldn’t guarantee a bad actor wouldn’t slip through.
“No process is absolutely perfect and there is no way to guarantee that every person who enters the country poses no threat. That’s not realistic,” he said. “The bottom line, from my understanding of the process now, is that if there is a doubt about the security of a person, then that person is not going to be admitted.”