Floor Statements

I thank the Senator very much.

Senators McCain, Rubio, and Corker on the Foreign Relations Committee, all have I think revived the committee, along with Senator Menendez. The committee is probably the most effective it has been in a very long time. The committee is doing a lot of work in a bipartisan fashion. I hope one day this becomes a bipartisan piece of legislation. But credit to the three of you all for coming up with this idea. I am glad to be part of it.

I wish to hear from Senator Rubio about his view of why this legislation is necessary.

Well, I would say that if there was a group of people in the world to be suspicious of, I would put Iran very close to the top of that list.

The international intelligence community believes they have tried to militarize their nuclear program in the past. Senator Rubio made a good point. They deny this, but before you go forward, you would want to answer that question: Were they engaged in militarization of what was claimed to be a peaceful nuclear power program?

Second, why would you go through all of this upheaval, build a nuclear powerplant secretly at the bottom of a mountain, if all you wanted to do was have peaceful nuclear power? None of this really adds up. Why do you need an ICBM if all you want to do is produce peaceful nuclear power?

Having said that, suspicion is warranted here. But more than anything else, the final deal that may be reached should come to this body because I would suggest that of all the problems in the world today, this is the top of the list for me.

If they did break out as did North Korea, if a bad deal turned into a dangerous deal just as with North Korea, Sunni Arabs would respond in kind and we are on the road to Armageddon. I cannot think of a much worse scenario for our national security than the ayatollahs with nukes. I cannot think of a much more direct threat to the survival of the State of Israel than ayatollahs in Iran with nukes. I can't believe the Sunni Arabs would allow the Shia Persians to have a nuclear capability unanswered.

The answer, unequivocally to me would be yes, assuming one thing: that those of us in this body would handle this in a mature fashion, assuming that Republicans would not vote no because this is the Obama deal and Democrats would not be tempted to vote yes because their President did this, a Democratic President.

I have confidence in the body that they would not do that. Let me tell you why. There are a lot of treaties out there that affect our national security. I can't think of an event in my life that is going to affect our national security one way or the other greater than the Iranian nuclear deal that I think is coming.

If a Republican scuttled the deal that was good, you would have a very unique place in history because you would have done a disservice to our country and the world at large.

Is it possible to know that it is a good deal? Yes, because the Israelis would comment on it. The Sunni Arab world would comment on it. If it is truly a deal unlike North Korea, which led to a bad outcome, I think you would have a score of people, including me, that would acknowledge that the President did the world a great service.

If it is a bad deal, if Senator Rubio is right that they want to check the box and get a deal for the sake of getting a deal, I hope my Democratic colleagues would stand and say: This will come back to bite us as a nation.

I have confidence the body can do this because I can't think of anything more serious we will vote on other than going to war.

I thank the Senator very much.

Senators McCain, Rubio, and Corker on the Foreign Relations Committee, all have I think revived the committee, along with Senator Menendez. The committee is probably the most effective it has been in a very long time. The committee is doing a lot of work in a bipartisan fashion. I hope one day this becomes a bipartisan piece of legislation. But credit to the three of you all for coming up with this idea. I am glad to be part of it.

I wish to hear from Senator Rubio about his view of why this legislation is necessary.

Well, I would say that if there was a group of people in the world to be suspicious of, I would put Iran very close to the top of that list.

The international intelligence community believes they have tried to militarize their nuclear program in the past. Senator Rubio made a good point. They deny this, but before you go forward, you would want to answer that question: Were they engaged in militarization of what was claimed to be a peaceful nuclear power program?

Second, why would you go through all of this upheaval, build a nuclear powerplant secretly at the bottom of a mountain, if all you wanted to do was have peaceful nuclear power? None of this really adds up. Why do you need an ICBM if all you want to do is produce peaceful nuclear power?

Having said that, suspicion is warranted here. But more than anything else, the final deal that may be reached should come to this body because I would suggest that of all the problems in the world today, this is the top of the list for me.

If they did break out as did North Korea, if a bad deal turned into a dangerous deal just as with North Korea, Sunni Arabs would respond in kind and we are on the road to Armageddon. I cannot think of a much worse scenario for our national security than the ayatollahs with nukes. I cannot think of a much more direct threat to the survival of the State of Israel than ayatollahs in Iran with nukes. I can't believe the Sunni Arabs would allow the Shia Persians to have a nuclear capability unanswered.

The answer, unequivocally to me would be yes, assuming one thing: that those of us in this body would handle this in a mature fashion, assuming that Republicans would not vote no because this is the Obama deal and Democrats would not be tempted to vote yes because their President did this, a Democratic President.

I have confidence in the body that they would not do that. Let me tell you why. There are a lot of treaties out there that affect our national security. I can't think of an event in my life that is going to affect our national security one way or the other greater than the Iranian nuclear deal that I think is coming.

If a Republican scuttled the deal that was good, you would have a very unique place in history because you would have done a disservice to our country and the world at large.

Is it possible to know that it is a good deal? Yes, because the Israelis would comment on it. The Sunni Arab world would comment on it. If it is truly a deal unlike North Korea, which led to a bad outcome, I think you would have a score of people, including me, that would acknowledge that the President did the world a great service.

If it is a bad deal, if Senator Rubio is right that they want to check the box and get a deal for the sake of getting a deal, I hope my Democratic colleagues would stand and say: This will come back to bite us as a nation.

I have confidence the body can do this because I can't think of anything more serious we will vote on other than going to war.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Tennessee.

I know the Senator is supposed to be chairing a hearing here in a moment. But the Senator is the ranking member on Foreign Relations. I wish to compliment the Senator from Tennessee and Senator Menendez. The Senators have been a very effective team. The subject matter is Iran. July 20 will be here shortly.

I ask Senator Corker, what is his view of where we stand with the Iranian nuclear program and what are his concerns?

I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership. We are working together. We hope to make this bipartisan. If there is an agreement reached with the Iranians--and I agree, I hope there will be, that Congress can have a say about that agreement.

President Obama felt as though he needed to come to Congress to get approval to enter into Syria. The Senator led the effort to pass the resolution in the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senator and Senator Menendez working together. The Senator from Tennessee delivered Republican votes to try to help the President. He drew a red line and nothing happened.

So if he believes he needs input from the Congress about going to Syria, I hope the President will understand that the Congress wants input when it comes to the Iranian nuclear program. As a matter of fact, I hope we will demand it, because of all the decisions President Obama will make in his two terms as President, on the foreign policy front this is the most consequential.

Why do I say this? The Iranian regime with a nuclear capability is a nightmare for the world.

Does Senator Corker agree with me, based on his travels in the region, that if we allowed the Iranians to have a robust enrichment capability--and what am I talking about is taking uranium and enriching it to the point where they can use it for commercial fuel to run a nuclear power reactor. The problem with enrichment is you can go beyond making commercial grade fuel. You can actually use that process to make a bomb. Without enrichment capability you can't make the bomb.

So they are demanding the right to enrich and it was given away in March. It was a huge mistake.

If you made a list of countries you would not trust to enrich uranium--based on their behavior and disruptive nature--I would put Iran on the top of the list. My fear is that we are about to do with the Iranians what we did with the North Koreans--that you have a deal on paper that gives them an enrichment capability to be contained by

U.N. inspection. And in North Korea the rest is history.

When it comes to the Iranians, I am not going to turn our fate over, as a nation, to a bunch of U.N. inspectors trying to contain their uranium enrichment program. I know Israel will not.

But this is the ripple effect. Does the Senator agree with me that any right to enrich we give to the Shia Persians in Iran, the Sunni Arabs are going to insist on an equivalent right?

Along those lines, Senator Menendez has been one of the leading voices in the Senate and in the Nation about having a cautious eye toward Iran.

They have an enrichment capability. Over the last decade it has grown moderately.

This idea of moderate voices in Iran--the President of Iran was elected as a moderate. I don't believe that dichotomy really exists. This whole game of good cop/bad cop is going on in front of our eyes-- in this case good president/bad ayatollah.

The ayatollah, the Supreme Leader of Iran, weighed in a few days ago talking about centrifuges 10 times greater than they have today. I am sure what he is trying to do is become the bad guy. When he puts out the number 190,000 and you wind up with 15 or 20, it is like a good deal.

I can promise you one centrifuge in the hands of the Iranians is a risk. Thousands of centrifuges in the hands of Iranians is stupid. We would be crazy to let that happen.

If they want a nuclear power program for peaceful purposes, sign me up.

As a matter of fact, as far as any deal, I would put in the deal the ability for the international community--Russia, the United States, and China working together or separately--to build a powerplant inside of Iran to give them nuclear power as long as we control the fuel cycle.

Fifteen nations have nuclear power programs that do not enrich. Canada and Mexico have nuclear power programs, but they don't enrich uranium.

As a matter of fact, we are telling our friends in South Korea: Don't begin to enrich. We are telling our friends in the United Arab Emirates: You can have nuclear power, but don't enrich.

I would find it incredible for us to tell allies that we trust them not to enrich because it could set off unintended consequences, but we are agreeing to let one of the enemies of mankind have that capability because they are demanding it.

I hope and I pray a deal can come about that will neuter the nuclear ambitions of the Iranians and give them what they claim to want--a peaceful nuclear power program. But I don't believe that is what they want. I don't think they would be doing all the things they have been doing--lying, cheating, and building plants under a mountain--if all they wanted was a peaceful nuclear power program.

As a matter of fact, our intelligence community tells us the program they have today has been put to military use. They denied that, but we can't get to the bottom of it.

What is the Senator's view about the likelihood of the Iranians lying about the fact that they have tried to militarize their program?

I couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact, dismantling has become something new. They have a big stockpile of highly enriched uranium. We are talking about diluting it, but the U.N. resolution called for its removal, so this deal is to the left of the U.N. resolution. As a matter of fact, this whole agreement is getting to the left of what the United Nations has been.

What about this scenario? It is one thing to have fissile material in the hands of the ayatollah and they could make a bomb, but they still have a lot of highly enriched uranium still inside of Iran. What is the possibility of a dirty bomb, where they turn that highly enriched uranium over to a terrorist organization and it makes its way here without their fingerprints being on it?

Yes, continue.

I know we are going to have a vote in a second, but we will end our thoughts.

The reason 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11 and not 3 million is that the terrorist groups that wish us harm could not find capabilities beyond the airplanes. They are trying. They are trying to get weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, highly enriched uranium, fissile material.

My fear is that if a regime such as Iran is given the capability to enrich,

it will become a North Korea where they break out.

I will not turn the fate of the United States over, with my vote, to a bunch of U.N. inspectors--where the only hope of a breakout is a bunch of U.N. inspectors.

The whole real goal for me is to have a capability that is very small, face-saving in nature, that can't lead to a breakout. Don't have something robust that can lead to a breakout and expect the U.N. to protect us because they can't. They didn't do it in North Korea.

At the end of the day I think the decision we are going to make as a nation--through our President--hopefully with direction and input, will be the biggest decision we have made as a nation on the foreign policy front in decades, because, if we get this wrong, if we allow the Iranian ayatollah to achieve a new nuclear capability, every Sunni Arab is going to want like capability, and we are on the road to Armageddon.

Look at the Middle East and ask yourselves: Is this a good place to give people nuclear capability? Would they use it?

Hamas is firing every rocket in its inventory, and they could care less where it lands; they hate Israel that much.

The Sunni Arabs feel more threatened by the Shia Persians than they do by the Israelis.

It is commonly believed that Israelis have a nuclear capability. Not one Sunni nation has tried to procure a weapon of their own to counter that presumed capability. Every Sunni Arab state has told me, you, and everybody else who will listen, that if the Shia Persians get a capability they are going to match that capability because they see that threat as existential.

Israel sees the threat in Iran--with a nuclear capability in Iranian hands--as existential.

I see it as existential to the United States. We have an opportunity here for negotiations to end this well. But what I hope we will not do is, through negotiations, create a scenario where they break out like the North Koreans.

If I have the choice between a bad deal through negotiations that will lead to a nuclear Iran over time and military force--as distasteful as that might be--I am going to pick military force because we have to stop their ambitions to become a nuclear nation.

If we don't stop them, it would be similar, in my view, to have let Hitler have the bomb when we could have done something about it.

I concur, and I yield back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to comment on the fact that I believe the body has come to agreement on my resolution, along with Senator Menendez, standing behind Israel in its conflict with Hamas.

As I speak, apparently there is a ground action going on by the Israelis in Gaza. From my point of view, do what you have to do to defend yourself.

I can't believe they have actually waited this long. I can't imagine what the American response would have been. If one rocket had come from our neighboring nations toward our country, we would not be so restrained.

A two-state solution seems to be a very reasonable approach. The problem is, as the Presiding Officer knows, Hamas doesn't recognize Israel as an entity. It is pretty hard to negotiate with somebody who doesn't recognize you exist and tells their schoolchildren you don't exist. The hatred that comes from Hamas in their schools toward Israel is not conducive to peace.

The resolution passed unanimously by the Senate the very night Israel decided to use ground force I think is appropriate and very symbolic. The Senate does not see a moral equivalency.

As Prime Minister Netanyahu said: Israel uses missiles, in collaboration with the United States, to produce the technology called Iron Dome to defend civilians. Hamas uses civilians to cover their missile program, making human shields of their own people.

That says all we need to know.

So I am pleased that in a bipartisan fashion, unanimous in nature, the U.S. Senate is on record supporting the State of Israel in this conflict, understanding their justification for defending themselves and that there is no moral equivalency here.

To my Israeli friends and allies, we wish you well. I expect that you will continue to defend yourselves against a terrorist organization.

To the Palestinians who have formed a unity government, you need to break away from Hamas. There will never be peace until you marginalize the terrorist organization called Hamas, until you reject what they stand for and the way they have behaved.

Finally, to those who wish for Israel to give up land and withdraw from territories, please remember, that is exactly what Israel did in Gaza. They withdrew all their forces, and what have they gotten in return? Tens of thousands of rockets.

So to those who are pushing a peace plan in the Middle East between the Palestinians and the Israelis, I hope you remember security for Israel has to be the centerpiece of any peace deal. How can you obtain peace when one of the members of the Palestinian Government--Hamas--has fired thousands of rockets, caring less where they fall? They couldn't care less if it falls on a kindergarten or a military base. They just care to kill Israelis. Israelis have killed civilians, but they go the extra mile in time of war and conflict to minimize casualties. They tell them: We are going to bomb you. They pass out leaflets. They tell people to leave. That says a lot about the Israelis.

So the Senate is in Israel's camp in a bipartisan fashion.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I withdraw my request.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, Senator McCain and I have decided to come down before the Fourth of July break to talk about two issues that are very important to our national security.

The first issue I would like to discuss is the threat we face as a nation from terrorist safe havens in Syria and now Iraq.

The President has indicated in recent days that it is unacceptable to allow terrorist organizations such as ISIS to have safe havens from which to launch attacks against our country.

Mr. President, we agree. What are you doing about it? I understand Iraq is complicated. I understand you would need a new government in Iraq that Sunnis could buy into to probably turn Iraq around. That is a problem, but that is a separate problem from safe havens that can be used to launch attacks against the United States. Please do not turn over to the Iraqi politicians the timeline as to whether we will act to protect ourselves.

This is the FBI Director: ``My concern is that people can go to Syria, develop new relationships, learn new techniques and become far more dangerous, and then flow back.''

Americans are now in Syria. Some 7,500 foreign fighters from 50 countries have gone to Syria. They are now in Iraq. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria was kicked out by Al Qaeda. These are the most extreme people on the planet. They have now gone into Iraq and taken large territories and up to $500 million in resources. They had a $30 million-a-year budget. They have more money than they ever dreamed of. Their desire to hit the homeland is growing. Last week the leader of this group said: We will be coming to America next.

Mr. President, do not use the political problems in Baghdad as an excuse not to act when it comes to denying safe havens to terrorists who have espoused attacking our country. Where is your plan to dislodge these people in Syria and Iraq? Where is your plan to deal with the safe haven issue? Where is your plan to hit a terrorist organization that is desirous of hitting us?

Mr. President, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot alert us as a nation that we are threatened by a safe haven in Iraq and Syria and do nothing about it. I understand the political complexities that exist in Iraq, but I also understand the need to deal with the safe haven issue. What do you envision as a solution to the safe haven problem in Syria and Iraq? When are we going to act? Is there no military component available to the United States to hit a terrorist organization that is operating out in the open in Syria and Iraq, that represents a direct threat to our homeland?

Mr. President, now is the time for you to come up with a plan to deal with the safe havens. That issue is separate and apart from dealing with the political complications and the meltdown in Iraq. You have said and the Director of National Security Mr. Clapper has said that Syria is an apocalyptic state; it is in a very bad way; that the jihadists in Syria represent a direct threat to our homeland.

The same jihadists in Syria have moved now into Iraq. Three years ago when Senator McCain was urging airstrikes and that a safe zone be established, there were fewer than 1,000 foreign fighters in Syria. Today we think there are up to 26,000 ISIS types in Syria. Now they are moving to Iraq at lightning speed, taking town after town, amassing resources in terms of military hardware and money that will make them not just a terrorist organization but a terrorist army.

Mr. President, there is a terrorist army on the march in Iraq and Syria. They have indicated they want to hit our Nation. They want to strike us in the region, throughout the world, and here at home. You seem to have no plan. We want to help you. We understand this is complicated, but you, as Commander in Chief above all others, have a duty to come up with a solution to this problem. You have defined the problem well, but you have done nothing to solve the problem. We stand ready to help you solve that problem.

Now, as we try to figure out where to go in Iraq and what is the right strategy, the one thing that is important to me is not to rewrite history. I do not want to dwell on the past, but I am not going to sit on the sidelines and let this administration--which, as Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, and Senator Kerry, was all over the Bush administration for the mistakes they made. That is the way the political process works.

When the Iraq war was going poorly on President Bush's watch, Senator McCain called for the Republican-appointed Secretary of Defense to resign. I would argue that Senator McCain above all others has been consistent when it comes to Iraq. It does not matter who is making the mistake; if he believes one is being made, he will speak up.

The line that there were just a few dead-enders in Iraq was not true. The reason we knew it was not true is that Senator McCain and I went to Iraq numerous times. The first time we went, we were in an SUV with a three-car convoy. We went down to Baghdad, had dinner, and went shopping. Every time thereafter, the security was tighter, our ability to leave the base was restricted, and the people on the ground who were fighting the war were telling us: This thing is not going well. Every time we would hear from the Bush administration that the media was misrepresenting the truth and that this was just a few dead-enders, we knew better. We spoke up.

Abu Ghraib was a direct result of being overwhelmed by circumstances on the ground. We thought that once the Iraqi Army disbanded and Saddam Hussein was displaced, we would be able to handle Iraq with a few thousand troops. The Bush administration was wrong in that calculation. Senator McCain spoke up, and the surge did work.

To President Bush's undying credit: You corrected the mistakes that happened on your watch. You kept an open mind. You changed strategy because the strategy you originally pursued had failed.

President Obama, your strategy has failed. The idea of abandoning Iraq, disengaging politically and militarily, has come home to haunt us as a nation.

Senator McCain and I said back in 2011: If we do not leave a residual force behind as an insurance policy for our own national security interests, we will regret it.

Madam President, 10,000 to 15,000 soldiers, well placed, would have given the capacity to the Iraqi Army to allow them to be more effective, and what we see on the ground today would have never happened. I am convinced that ISIS would never be in Iraq the way they are today if there had been an American military component--10,000 to 15,000--providing capacity and expertise to an Iraqi army that is literally falling apart.

I am convinced today that if we had continued to push the Iraqi political system to reconcile, we would not be where we are today. Dave Petraeus and Ryan Crocker--one general and one diplomat--spent hours every day of the week practically pushing the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Kurds to solve their problems with the political process. It was working.

In 2010 we made a fateful mistake. We allowed Syria to go bad. Syria became the supply center for Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was on its back. In 2010 the surge had worked. Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was the predecessor to ISIS, was completely devastated. They are back in the game for three reasons: Syria became a failed state. We had a chance to stop that and did not. They were being resupplied from Syria with equipment and fighters. We decided to disengage from Iraq politically. We had a hands-off approach to the political problems in Baghdad. We withdrew our troops all from 2010 to 2011. Those three things became a perfect storm to lead us to where we are today.

We do want to look forward because looking backward does not solve the problem. But here is what we will not accept. We will not accept a rewriting of history. When this administration says the reason we have no troops in Iraq today is because of the Iraqis, that is an absolutely false statement.

In May of 2011 Senator McCain and I, at the request of Secretary Clinton,

went to Iraq to talk about a follow-on agreement, a strategic partnership agreement that had in its making a military component that would give legal protections to our troops who were left behind.

I remember this as if it were yesterday. We were in a meeting with Prime Minister Malaki. We were talking about leaving troops behind and whether the Iraqis would give us the legal protections we needed because I told Prime Minister Malaki: No American politician is going to allow soldiers to be left behind in a foreign country without legal protection.

If a person was charged with a crime in Iraq, given the inventory in their legal system, I did not feel comfortable allowing that soldier to go into the Iraqi legal system. We would deal with disciplinary problems.

He turned to me and said: How many soldiers are you talking about?

I turned to Ambassador Jeffrey, the U.S. Ambassador, General Austin, the commander, and said: What is the answer?

They replied to me: We are still working on that.

The Prime Minister of Iraq laughed. This was in May of 2011. We could not tell the Prime Minister of Iraq how many troops we were talking about.

We went to the Kurdish portion of Iraq and talked to President Barzani. He would have accepted any amount of troops we wanted to leave behind. He was openly embracing the follow-on force.

We met with Mr. Allawi, one of the leaders of the Iraqiya Sunni bloc, who was very open minded to a follow-on force.

The day after we left Iraq, Prime Minister Malaki issued a statement saying that if the other parties would agree, he would agree to a follow-on force.

On November 15, 2011, we had a hearing with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta in the Armed Services Committee. We asked the following question: Was it the Iraqis who rejected a follow-on force, originally envisioned to be 18,000 or 19,000?

The bottom-line number from the Pentagon was 10,000.

I asked the question. Was it the Iraqis who said: No, we do not want 18,000. That is too many.

The numbers kept going down to finally 3,000.

Senator McCain asked the question.

The answer was: The reduction in numbers that we will be willing to offer to the Iraqis did not come from a rejection by Iraq but by a reduction of the numbers by the White House.

In other words, the cascading effect of the numbers from 18,000 to 3,000 was not because Iraq said no; it was because the White House kept changing the numbers to the point that the force envisioned would be ineffective and fail.

Those are the facts.

Senator McCain will address the statements by the President before, during, and after, but I am here to tell you, without any doubt in my mind, the reason we don't have troops in Iraq after 2011 is because the Obama administration wanted to get to zero. They wanted to honor our campaign promise to get us out of Iraq.

They did so, and now they are trying to blame the Iraqis. They are trying to rewrite history. I can understand why they don't want to own what happened in Iraq. I can't understand why we would let them get away with it, and I am not going to let them get away with it.

Going forward, we have a mess on our hands, and I want to help the President where I can.

But, Mr. President, you were very good at questioning the policies of the Bush administration, and you held nothing back. I am here to tell you I know what you are saying about Iraq is not true.

On October 21, during a conference call with staff, Denis McDonough and Tony Blinken--former National Security Adviser to Biden and now National Security Council--briefing staff members about the problems with legal immunity was asked a question by Senator McCain's staff person: If you could get a legal agreement that we felt was solid, would you leave any troops behind, and they said no.

So we are going to write them a letter. There are several of our staff who were on that phone call and we are going to ask Mr. McDonough and Mr. Blinken: Did you say that, and they can say whatever they want to, but I have people I know and I trust who were on that phone call and they know what was said.

With that, I will turn it over to Senator McCain.

Quite the opposite. If we go back and look at the tape around this debate, the President basically said: We left Iraq and we are not going to be bogged down by Iraq.

There was no regret that I am so sorry we couldn't convince the Iraqis to leave a residual force behind because that would have been the best outcome for Iraq and the United States, and I regret that we could not get there and they will regret their decision.

None of that happened. It was all about the last combat soldier is out. We are done with Iraq. We have given them all the help we can give them. We are going to move on, and we are not going to be bogged down.

Now the place is going to hell. It is a direct threat to the United States, and they are trying to rewrite history--and I think it was October.

The Iraqis did not want to leave a force behind.

If you listen to the people who are launching these attacks, they say they are going to Jordan. What are they trying to accomplish? Bizarre as it may sound to the average American, they have a very specific plan and it sort of goes like this: They want to purify their religion. They are Sunnis. They have a version of Islam, Sunni Islam that is beyond horrific, that is a woman's worst nightmare.

If you want to find a world of women, go to Syria, Iraq, and eventually Afghanistan, I am afraid. You would not believe what these people are capable of doing, what they will do to a person who smokes. They will chop your finger off. I mean, they will kill children in front of their parents.

These people represent the worst in humanity. My fear is, the President's fear, that the stronger they get over there the more exposed we are over here.

So, Mr. President, if you believe it is not in our national security interests to allow these folks to have a safe haven in Syria and now in Iraq, what are you doing about it? You have political problems in Iraq, I have got that, but why does that prevent us from attacking these people in Syria where their leadership resides and where their supply depots are? There has to come a time when this country is going to commit to defending itself.

My goal is to keep the war over there so it doesn't come back here.

Senator McCain, 3 years ago now almost, urged us to act in a way that would have allowed the moderate forces of the opposition to be empowered and to avoid where we are today. We chose not to act, at our own peril.

So I make this crystal clear, this area Senator McCain has described in Iraq represents a terrorist safe haven in the hands of people who want to attack us here at home.

I am not making that up. The Director of National Intelligence, the FBI Director, and Jeh Johnson, the head of Homeland Security, have all said Syria represents a threat to the homeland.

Well, if a Syrian enclave and safe haven represents a threat to the homeland, an Iraqi enclave bigger and richer surely represents a threat to the homeland, and the President admitted as much. So I don't want to hear any more discussions about we have to wait until Iraq gets its house in order until we protect American national security interests.

As to Jordan, now is the time in a bipartisan fashion for the Congress to speak with one voice and tell the world and everyone in the region that we will defend Jordan. The King of Jordan is the last moderate voice in the Middle East surrounding Israel. The King of Jordan has been the most faithful ally to America. The King of Jordan has been effectively engaged with Israel. The King of Jordan represents the best hope in the Middle East.

If we allow a terrorist army--not an organization, now, an army of committed jihadists--to invade that country and put the King at risk, that will be one of the great tragedies in modern history. I think it is now time to let the terrorist army know: You are not going into Jordan, and say it in such a fashion as to not give Iraq away. But if we don't reinforce Jordan quickly, it would be a mistake.

I have high confidence in the Jordanian military, but let me say this: It is in our interests for the King to survive; it is in our interests for Jordan to flourish; it is in our interests for ISIS to be stopped in their tracks in Iraq; it is in our interests for them to be wiped off the face of the Earth to the extent possible; it is in our interests to go on the offensive before it is too late.

One thing I can say I have learned from 9/11 is thinking and believing if we ignore them they will ignore us is a very bad mistake. On September 10, 2001, the day before 9/11, we didn't have one soldier in Afghanistan, we didn't even have an ambassador, and we sent no money in terms of assistance to the Taliban. We were completely disengaged from Afghanistan. How well did that work?

Anytime you disengage from people that bloodthirsty and you believe it will not come back to haunt you, you are making a mistake. Anytime a group will kill women in a soccer stadium for sport and we think we are safe if we ignore them, we are making the mistake for the ages.

These people, the ISIS, represent a depraved form of humanity in the category of the Nazis. And what are we doing about it?

I am tired of ceding city after city, country after country to radical Islam. Now is the time to fight back--fight back as if it meant fighting for your home and your family, because it does--fight back over there so we don't have to fight them here. And they are coming here. If you don't believe me, ask them.

The best way to keep them from coming here is to align ourselves with people over there who do not want their agenda for their family and are willing to fight along our side. Right now, who feels comfortable fighting with America? Right now, our enemies are emboldened, our friends are afraid.

Now is the time to turn this around, Mr. President. You are waiting and waiting and thinking and thinking, and they are on the march. I know this is complicated, but the one thing that is not complicated is that the terrorist organization you said could not have safe haven has the largest safe haven in the history of the world. They are richer than they have ever been, they are more powerful than they have ever been, and you are doing nothing about it. You need to do something about it before it is too late, and we stand ready to help you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 4 minutes.

Mr. President, contrary to what may be popular belief, there are plenty of Democrats in this body who are very much worried about Iraq. The question is, What do we do about it? I will be the first to admit it is complicated.

The first thing we have to assess as a nation is, does it really matter what happens in Iraq? Clearly, I think it does. Economically, if Iraq becomes a failed state, the oil production in the south will fall into the hands of the Iranians, and Iraq will become a failed state that spreads economic chaos throughout the region. We will feel it at the gas pump, and we will eventually feel it in our wallets. An economic collapse in Iraq would affect our economy. I think it would throw the world oil market into turmoil. So it matters economically.

Militarily, does it matter? It does in this regard: ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda because Al Qaeda kicked them out. These people now are going to have a safe haven from Aleppo, Syria, to the gates of Baghdad. They have sworn to attack us. Part of their agenda is to strike our homeland. Their goal is to create an Islamic state--a caliphate--that would put the people under their rule into darkness. I don't want to hear any more war-on-women stories unless we address Iraq and Syria. Do we want to see a war on women? I will show my colleagues one. Can we imagine what little girls are thinking today in the Sunni part of Iraq and in Syria? Can we imagine the hell on Earth? The people who will do that to their own--what would they do to us?

I don't mean to be an alarmist, but I am alarmed. I am just telling my colleagues what they are saying they will do. Our Director of National Intelligence has said that the safe haven for ISIS in Syria, and now in Iraq, presents a great threat to our homeland. The mistake President Obama is making is not to realize we need lines of defense.

Why did we want to leave a residual force behind in Iraq? Ten thousand to 15,000 would have given the Iraqi military the capacity they don't possess today, the confidence they don't possess today. It would have given us an edge against ISIS we don't have. A Toyota truck doesn't do very well against American air power. But when we have no American air power and when the intelligence capability of the American military leaves, the Iraqi Army goes dark. We have seen a collapse of the Iraqi Army that I think could have been prevented.

We can't kill all the terrorists to keep us safe. Our goal in this trying time is to have lines of defense, to keep the war over there so it doesn't come over here. It is in our national security interests to partner with people in Iraq. There were many who wanted a different life than ISIS would have. There are many Shias who want to be Iraqi Shias, not Iranian Shias. I have been there enough to know.

So this fateful decision to look for ways to get out totally has come back to haunt us, and we are on the verge of doing the same thing in Afghanistan. I promised my colleagues the Taliban would be dancing in the streets--they just do not believe in dancing--when they heard we were leaving in 2016. Can we imagine how the Afghan people feel who have fought these thugs by our side believing we would not abandon them and now to hear we are going to pull all of our troops out but for a couple of hundred. Can we imagine how a young woman in Afghanistan feels. Can we imagine how people in Pakistan feel--a nuclear-armed nation that could be in the crosshairs of the people trying to take Afghanistan down.

But it is not just about the people in Afghanistan. What about us? President Obama is going back to a pre-9/11 mentality. On September 10, 2001, we had not one soldier in Afghanistan, not one dollar of aid, not even an ambassador. So those in America who think if we leave these guys alone they will leave us alone, you are not listening to what they are saying. The only reason 3,000 Americans died on September 11 and not 3 million is they can't get the weapons to kill 3 million of us. If they could, they would, and they are very close.

So, Mr. President: Recalculate your decision on Afghanistan. If you pull all of our troops out, the Taliban will regroup, the Afghan National Army will meet a terrible fate, and the people who wish us harm will be coming back our way. The region between Afghanistan and Pakistan is a target-rich environment for the world's most radical terrorists, radical Islamists. So at the end of the day, Mr. President: Your job is to protect us. You are destroying the lines of defense that exist. The Afghan people are willing to have us stay there in enough numbers to protect them and us. Mr. President: Before it is too late, change your policies in Afghanistan. Mr. President: Do not take this country back to a pre-9/11 mentality where we treat terrorists as common criminals when we read them their rights rather than gathering intelligence.

We are letting our defenses erode all over the world. The enemies are emboldened and our friends are afraid. I can tell my colleagues this. If we continue on this track, it will come here again.

With that, I yield the floor for Senator Chambliss.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I am sorry I was late. Actually, I had an exchange with General Dempsey about this very topic.

Does the Senator from Arizona see any scenario where ISIS is militarily stopped and that the Iraqis can retake ground lost to ISIS without U.S. air power being involved?

Did my colleague hear President Obama say it is unacceptable for Iraq or Islamists to have safe havens in Iraq and Syria? Did my colleague hear him say that?

My point is, does my colleague agree he is right? It is not acceptable for our national security interests for ISIS to have a safe haven in Syria and Iraq that could run from Aleppo to Baghdad; that that is not a good thing for us?

Well, if it is not a good thing for us, how do we change it? Give me a scenario where we put these folks on the run in Syria and in Iraq without American air power. Give me a scenario of political reconciliation in Baghdad where that has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding as long as they are losing on the battlefield. Give me a scenario where the battlefield turns our way without U.S. air power.

I can give my colleagues a scenario where it begins to turn on the battlefield: Iran comes in with great numbers. The most likely scenario to stop ISIS is Iranians getting involved with Shia militia. Does that bother the Senator from Arizona?

Is it fair to say the Air Force in Iraq is grounded for all practical purposes?

So, to the President: We agree with you that Iraq matters. We agree with you that it is not in our national security interests to have ISIS occupy territory from Aleppo to Baghdad. But here is what is a mystery to me: How do we turn this around unless we stop their advance inside of Iraq and we go after them in Syria?

As to political reconciliation, I completely agree that is the ultimate change that needs to occur, that air strikes alone will not get us to where we want to go, but it is a chicken-and-egg concept for me. Can my colleague from Arizona imagine a scenario where we can get all the parties together when ISIS is winning on the battlefield?

Here is the problem with that: To go to a meeting in Baghdad, you are likely to get killed trying to get there. Who is going to sit down in Baghdad when everybody is getting killed based on sectarian differences? So my advice would be to use American air power before it is too late as part of a coordinated, diplomatic effort. That American air power is part of diplomacy. That may sound counterintuitive, but it makes perfect sense to me. Diplomacy cannot succeed unless we change momentum on the battlefield. But when you drop a bomb, you need to have a game plan beyond the bomb falling, and that would be a regional conversation.

Can my colleague see how Maliki can put Humpty Dumpty back together again?

I would not send $1 to Iraq. I would not send one soldier to Iraq, one airman to Iraq until we understand that over the arc of time Maliki has to go. I have been there more times than I can count. Maliki did some good things on his watch, but he has become a political leader who cannot bring the country together. But that, to me, is a concern that is addressed after we stop the momentum on the battlefield.

Does the Senator from Arizona believe it is still possible that the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shias, that we know fairly well, can regroup and reconcile with themselves if we act decisively?

Yes, I will be glad to. And to put it in context, in 2008 we signed a strategic framework agreement. It was envisioned that we would negotiate a follow-on force with advisers and some special forces units to secure our Nation as well as to protect our gains. In the process of trying to get the Iraqis on board, Hillary Clinton called me to ask if my colleague, the Senator from Arizona, and I think Senator Lieberman--maybe he didn't go; I can't remember--would go over there and talk to Barzani, Allawi, and Maliki, and we said, Sure, we would be glad to.

Here is what I found. I found in the meeting with Prime Minister Maliki, who was very openminded about a follow-on force--Barzani said, I will take 250,000 Americans; that was never in doubt about where the Kurds were--Allawi understood, the Sunnis understood the need for a follow-on force. It really was about the Shia politics.

After we got back, Maliki said, If the other groups will do it, I will do it. But he says, What kind of force are you talking about, Senator Graham?

This was in a meeting in his office. He asked me, What kind of force are you talking about? I turned to General Austin and Ambassador Jeffries and I asked them, What is the number? Answer the Prime Minister's question. They said, We are still working on that. The Prime Minister looked at me and said something to the effect, Well, I don't know what I am supposed to be agreeing to.

We come back to Washington. We go to the Vice President's house. We talk to Mr. Donilin, saying they need a number--sometime--and they said they would get back to us about the number. I am still waiting on that phone call.

During my questioning of General Dempsey about the follow-on force, I asked him--General Austin recommended somewhere in the 18,000 to 20,000 range, the Pentagon got down to 10,000, and below that they felt very uncomfortable. I asked him directly, Did the number cascade down or did the number go down because the Iraqis said, That is too many Americans; we don't want that many Americans on our soil. He said, No, sir; the numbers kept cascading down because the White House kept changing the number.

So I want the record to reflect that in a meeting with the Prime Minister of Iraq, when he asked me how many troops we are talking about, we could not give him an answer. I want the record to reflect the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said the numbers went down and down and down not because the Iraqis were saying no but because the White House kept lowering the number--to the point that it got to be absurd, and we will prove that over time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 10 minutes to 15 minutes, as if in morning business.

I ask unanimous consent to speak until 11:30.

Senator McCain was on the floor, and I am sorry I missed him. I was in a briefing.

To the American people, the situation in Iraq is dire. Syria has become a launching pad for attacks against the Iraqi people.

The ISIS--we don't know who these people are, but we are going to get to know them--are Islamic jihadists based in Syria and Iraq. They are an army, and they are not a bunch of hoodlums.

They have a very specific game plan. They want to create an Islamic caliphate and basically dominate Iraq and Syria. Some want to go to Lebanon and want to create an Islamic state that will be ruled under the most extreme version of Islamic law one could imagine--hell on earth for women, not good for us, the end of modern thought in that part of the world. The people of Iraq and Syria are not by their nature radical Islamists. The people who are beginning to win the day on the battlefield come from all over, and they truly are radical Islamists who would put the world in darkness if they could.

The next 9/11 is in the making as I speak. These people are using Syria and now Iraq as a training ground for international jihad. There are European jihadists and American jihadists over in the Syria as I speak. Over 2 weeks ago, the largest truck bomb explosion by a suicide bomber in Syria was by an American citizen. And, I hate to say it, but there are more over there today.

The question for the United States is: Does it really matter if the ISIS dominates Syria and Iraq or any part thereof? I think it does. I think it is a very bad scenario for us. I think it directly impacts our security here at home, and it will throw the region into chaos.

It is clear to me, after the briefing, there is no scenario by which the Iraqi Security Forces can stop the advancement of this group toward Baghdad. I don't think they go much beyond Baghdad, because then they get into the Shia areas of Iraq. That would be one hell of a fight. But Mosul has fallen, Tikrit has fallen, Fallujah has fallen. Now they are marching to Baghdad. Unless something changes, they will be successful.

They are sending the military equipment they are seizing into Syria to help their cause there. This is a very dangerous situation.

I urge President Obama to go on national television, explain what is going on in Iraq and Syria, and make the case to the American people why we should stay out or why we should do something.

I think American air power is the only hope to change the battlefield equation in Iraq. I know no American wants to set boots on the ground, and I don't feel that is a solution worthy of consideration at this point. But I have been told by our military commanders the Iraqi army is in shambles, and without some kind of intervention, Baghdad is definitely in jeopardy, most of the Sunni areas of Iraq will be run by ISIS, and they will join forces with their colleagues over in Syria.

I worry about the King of Jordan. I worry about Lebanon being next. God knows, if we lose the King of Jordan, the last moderate force in the Middle East surrounding Israel, what a calamity that would be.

I end with this thought. I remember discussing Iraq with President Bush as if it was yesterday. I went over on numerous occasions with Senator McCain early on after the fall of Baghdad and every trip it was worse.

I remember the Bush administration telling us: These are just a few dead-enders. Everything is fine. The media is hyping all the problems because they don't like President Bush.

The soldiers on the ground were telling us: I am driving around every day. I don't know why I am driving around, but I am getting my ass shot off--pardon my French here--without purpose.

I remember sitting down with President Bush, his administration and his team, and Senator McCain, and we candidly told President Bush: If you don't adjust your strategy, if you don't reinforce Iraq, we are going to lose.

To his credit, he did, and the surge actually worked. We left Iraq in a very good spot. The security forces had won the day. We had driven out Al Qaeda. Politics was beginning to take over. Violence had been reduced tremendously. The surge worked. Our military did their job, fighting alongside their Iraqi counterparts.

But the decision to withdraw from Iraq created a crisis of confidence, a capability crisis. When there is a vacuum in the Middle East, people go back to their corners--and that is exactly what has happened in Iraq with the lack of an American presence.

Here is what is so heartbreaking. Some 10,000 or 15,000 U.S. soldiers strategically placed would have held this together and politics would have taken over. But it is hard to do political agreements when you are subject to being killed by people on the other side. You need a certain level of security to advance society.

That security has completely been lost in Iraq, and Syria is a contagion for the entire region.

Our indecision and indecisive action in Syria--it was bipartisan, by the way. Plenty of Republicans said: Stay out of Syria; it is none of our concern. What Senator McCain and I have been worried about in Syria for about 3 or 4 years is that Iran and Russia were behind Assad. It is not in our interest for Iranians to be in Syria because it is very hard to get them to abandon their nuclear program if they think we are weak in Syria, and it is in our national security interest for Syria not to become an Islamic state.

About 3 years ago there were 500 foreign fighters. Today there are 26,000. So to those Republicans and Democrats who said stay out of Syria, don't use airstrikes or air power, I am sad to say that I think you were wrong. I think Syria has become an absolute breeding ground for radical Islamists, and the next attack against our country could very well originate from the people who are fighting in Syria today. And I have never been more worried about another 9/11 than I am right now.

So, Mr. President, if you are willing to adjust your policies, we will sit down with you. If you are willing to sit down with your generals and get some good, sound military advice, we will stand with you because what happens in Iraq and Syria does matter. I don't think we need boots on the ground. I don't think that is an option for consideration. But if our military leaders say that we need to stop ISIS because it is in our national security interests through the use of our air power, count me in if that is what our generals say.

I will stand with you, Mr. President, if you correct your policies. If you continue to be delusional about the world, I will be your worst critic.

With that, I yield back.

Senator Scott and I would ask the membership to vote aye for Bruce Howe Hendricks. She is a former U.S. magistrate. She is a former U.S. attorney from the State of South Carolina. She has received numerous awards for a scholarship. She is well respected by both Republicans and Democrats. She has a rich judicial background and will be a great choice to assume the Federal bench in South Carolina, and she was rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the ABA. I strongly support her nomination.

I yield back the remainder of our time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss the state of play in Benghazi. Senator Boxer came on the floor this morning and talked about the investigations and all the things that have been done to find out about what happened in Benghazi.

No. 1, to those serving in Libya today, you are definitely in our thoughts and prayers. My advice to the administration is get those folks out as quickly as you can, because this thing is going downhill very quickly in Libya. So let's not have another Benghazi on our hands. I feel as though the security environment in Libya is deteriorating as I speak.

Let me, if I can, set the stage for my concern. One, I think most people on this side of the aisle, rightly or wrongly, believe that if the names were changed, this whole attitude toward finding out what happened in Benghazi would be different; if it had been the Bush administration, Condoleezza Rice, not Susan Rice, that we would be on fire as a nation to find out how the President could have 2 weeks after the attack--mentioned a video as the cause of the attack--that all the information coming from the intelligence community to the White House and others, there was never a protest. If Secretary Rice had gotten on the national news or Mr. Hadley or John Bolton, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations had gotten on television 5 days after the attack and told the story about the level of security: We believe it was a protest caused by video, not accordingly a terrorist attack--if that had all been said by the Bush people, there would have been definitely a different approach about this issue. That to me is very sad. You may not agree with that observation, but almost everybody over here I think believes that.

Mr. Zucker today--I know him from CNN; fine man--said he would not be bullied into covering the select committee. Nobody is asking any outlet to be bullied. But I have some questions I want CNN to answer, or somebody who would answer questions that I think are very relevant.

What is the state of what? As far as the Senate goes, we have had the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issue a report on January 15, 2014. I think they did a very good job covering their lane. They did not have jurisdiction over the State Department so their report was limited. There was a minority report inside the report by

Republicans taking some issues with some of the findings. But the bottom line was, the Senate intel committee, in a bipartisan fashion, looked at Benghazi and said it could have been prevented. So that is something to be positive about.

The Armed Services Committee has done nothing. They have not issued any reports. This is the report of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate looking at DOD's responsibility that night.

The Foreign Relations Committee--this is their report. Nothing looking at the State Department's behavior that night.

We have had hearings, but the relevant committees have not issued reports.

The Homeland Security Committee on December 30, 2012--Senators Lieberman and Collins did a good job talking about Homeland Security's role in Benghazi, a very good report. But a lot has happened since then.

I want people in the country and the Senate to know the reason I want a select committee in the Senate. We are not the House. Two of the committees very relevant to oversight of Benghazi have not issued any reports.

The Armed Services Committee has done nothing, nor has the Foreign Relations Committee, and I think this is worthy of our time.

This is a bipartisan report issued in 2008 by the Armed Services Committee about detainee abuse. I participated in this report in the Bush administration. We had some serious system breakdowns when it came to detainees in U.S. custody.

Senator McCain and I worked with Democrats to issue this report. I thought it was important to get to the bottom of system failure in the Bush administration. But I would argue that four dead Americans are worthy of a report, and we have not had one. There are a lot of things that could be done, should be done in the Senate, and have not been done.

What would I like to find out about Benghazi that we did not know? This is the Accountability Review Board, an internal investigation by the State Department. Two fine men led this investigation--appointed by Secretary Clinton. This thing has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. They missed a lot. They didn't talk to Secretary Clinton or Ambassador Rice.

In this report they talk about the reason that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi was that they were looking at closing the consulate in Benghazi in December. I finally got to talk to one survivor after 18 months of trying.

I found out from that survivor, the person in charge of security in Benghazi on the night of the attack, that they had renewed the lease on the consulate in July for 1 year. So that makes no sense. The report says he went there to look at closing the consulate, and they just renewed the lease in July before he went there in September. So it is not by any means an exhaustive review of Benghazi.

This is a readout on September 10, 2012, the day before the attack. This is a readout of: ``President's Meeting with Senior Administration Officials on Our Preparedness and Security Posture on the Eleventh Anniversary of September 11th.''

Apparently the President had a meeting--in the White House, I assume--with all of our national security folks talking about what we can expect on September 11 because it was the 11th anniversary of 9/11. It states:

During the briefing today, the President and the Principals

discussed specific measures we are taking in the Homeland to

prevent 9/11 related attacks as well as the steps taken to

protect U.S. persons and facilities abroad, as well as force

protection.

I have one simple question: Did they bring up Libya? Did they talk about the security situation in Benghazi and Libya? If not, why not? Based on this statement--it is a reassuring statement to the American people that the President and his team are on top of the situation.

They were not on top of it when it came to Libya. So I want to find out if that meeting had any discussions about the deathtrap called Benghazi.

This is the security situation in Benghazi pre-9/11. On March 28 there was a request for additional security which was denied.

Our security footprint was very light. We had an agreement with a militia in Benghazi that was supposed to be our primary reaction team-- a Libyan militia that proved to be less than reliable.

On April 6 an IED was thrown over the fence of the U.S. post in Benghazi. Did the President know about this? Did Secretary Clinton know about it? I assume they did, but nobody in any of these investigations ever told us that the President was aware of this.

On June 6 a large IED destroyed part of the security perimeter of the U.S. post in Benghazi, leaving a whole ``big enough for 40 men to go through.'' They commissioned a study or some kind of review. Where is it? It has been attacked in April and June. Did the President know about these attacks. They blew a hole in the wall large enough for 40 people to go through.

On June 11, 5 days later, the British Ambassador's motorcade is attacked--very close to the Benghazi facility, our facility--and U.S. personnel go help the British ambassador. After this attack, the British closed their consulate in Benghazi. Why did we leave ours open?

On July 9, there was a request from Ambassador Stevens for additional security. No response.

On July 1, Lieutenant General Neller sends an email to Under Secretary Kennedy offering additional security. Kennedy responds saying no additional DOD support is needed.

There is a 16-person Special Forces National Guard team that was ready to volunteer for an extra year to help our folks in Benghazi, and the State Department folks said: No, thanks.

On August 6, the International Committee of the Red Cross has been attacked four times. They finally close up shop and leave town on August 6. The British leave and the Red Cross leaves.

Lieutenant Colonel Wood was a National Guard soldier trying to help security doing a site security team investigation. Instead of being extended--and he volunteered to stay for 1 additional year--he was sent home in August.

On August 16--this is the most damning of all--there was a cable that was sent from Benghazi by our Ambassador telling the people in Washington that the consulate could not withstand a coordinated terrorist attack and the Al Qaeda flag is flying all over town, basically begging for additional security, letting people in Washington know: We cannot withstand a coordinated terrorist attack. Al Qaeda flags are flying all over the place.

That is the state of play. That is the background in terms of security regarding the consulate in Benghazi.

Fast forward. These are statements by the Regional Security Officer who was asking for additional security. He was so frustrated by the response he had received in Washington he said the following: ``For me the Taliban is inside the building.''

What Eric Nordstrom was talking about is that the people in Washington seemed to be completely deaf as to his needs for additional security. He thought the people in Washington were working against him, and he was very worried about what would happen if there was an attack, and he believed that one was coming.

Lieutenant Colonel Wood, a Utah National Guard Special Forces soldier who left in August, said:

It was instantly recognizable to me as a terrorist attack.

. . . Mainly because of my prior knowledge there, I almost

expected the attack to come. We were the last flag flying; it

was a matter of time.

This had gone up DOD channels as well as the Department of State. So that is the history of the security situation in Benghazi.

Now, to the people at CNN, to my Democratic colleagues, to anybody and everybody, please explain to me how on September 16, 5 days after the attack, Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations was chosen to appear on five Sunday talk shows to talk about the attack in Benghazi on our facilities. But I can assure you, she was very worried about what was going to happen--the questions regarding Benghazi-- because we had four people killed.

This is what she said about the level of security on September 16:

Well, first of all, we had a substantial security presence

with our personnel . . . with our personnel and the consulate

in Benghazi.

I have a question. Who told her that. Nothing could have been further from the truth. When you look at the history of the security footprint in

Benghazi, it was begging and pleading by the people in Libya to have more help and everything was denied. It was to the point that the person in charge of security felt like the Taliban were all inside the building in Washington. Lieutenant Colonel Wood said:

We were the last flag flying. It was a matter of time.

On August 16, before the September 11 attack, there was a cable from Ambassador Chris Stevens saying: We cannot defend this compound against a coordinated terrorist attack.

Those are the facts. This is what Susan Rice told the world:

Well, first of all, we had a substantial security presence

with our personnel . . . with our personnel and the consulate

in Benghazi.

I have a simple question. Who told her that, who briefed her about security in Benghazi, because the person who told her that needs to be fired because they are completely incompetent or they lied to her.

If she made this up, she needs to resign because nothing could have been further from the truth. If she just made this up to make the administration look good in light of all of the other evidence about security, then she is not an honest person when it comes to conveying national security incidents.

So, please, after all of these investigations, after all of these hearings, can somebody tell me from where Susan Rice got this information? How could she conclude, based on what we know now, that we had a substantial security presence with our personnel in the consulate in Benghazi. She went on to say: ``Well, we obviously did have a strong security presence.''

She said this on ABC and this on Fox. If you listened to her on September 16, you would believe we were well prepared for this attack and we had secured the consulate in a reasonable fashion.

If anybody had looked at the actual record--the information available to our own government in our own files--you could not have said that honestly. I am sure this was a good thing to say 6 weeks before an election. The problem is it is not remotely connected to the truth.

To this day, nobody can answer my question. Where did she receive information about the security level in Benghazi? She has never been interviewed by anybody 20 months later.

Why was she chosen? If John Bolton had taken Condoleezza Rice's place to talk about a consulate--not under his control but under her control--people would want to know where the Secretary of State was. Ambassador Rice was the U.N. Ambassador--U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. She had no responsibility for consulate security.

The person responsible for consulate security and our footprint in Libya was Secretary Clinton. I have always wondered why they chose her. To this day, no one has answered that, but Susan Rice said on 12/13/ 2012:

Secretary Clinton had originally been asked by most of the

networks to go on. . . . She had had an incredibly grueling

week dealing with the protests around the Middle East and

North Africa. I was asked. I was willing to do so. It wasn't

what I had planned for that weekend originally, but I don't

regret doing that.

And she further said she had no regrets about what she told the American people.

I ask for 5 minutes more if I could.

Am I into the Senator's time? If the Senator is next, may I have 1 minute?

To be continued--I can't do this justice in 15 minutes, but this is what I am suggesting. If it is true that the Secretary of State could not go on television and talk about the consulate under her control and tell us about how four Americans died at that consulate--the first ambassador in 33 years--because she had a grueling week--if that is true--and I don't believe it is, but if it is--then we need to know because that will matter to the country as we go forth. If it is not true, why would Susan Rice say it?

To be continued--there is so much about this incident called ``Benghazi'' that we don't know and that makes no sense to me that I am not going to give up until I can tell the families what I believe to be the truth. And what I have been told is nowhere near the truth.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that I will make in a moment to kind of set the stage for what I am asking the Senate to consider. We will be asking that we schedule a vote on two pieces of legislation: the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, S. 1670, which is my legislation; and S. 1696, the Women's Health Protection Act, by Senator Blumenthal.

Very briefly, what I am trying to do is to have an opportunity for the body to talk about two pieces of legislation that relate to the abortion issue, the role of the Federal Government. Very quickly, my legislation would ban abortion at the 20-week period--the fifth month of pregnancy--based on the theory that the child can feel pain at that point in the pregnancy and that the standard of care for the medical community is that you cannot operate on an unborn fetus at the 20-week period without administering anesthesia, and the reason for that is because the child can feel pain.

There have been individuals born at the 20-week period who have survived. But the theory of the case is not based on the medical viability under Roe vs. Wade; it is a new theory that the State has a compelling interest in protecting an unborn child at this stage of pregnancy. The partial-birth abortion ban, which applies at 24 weeks, is backed up to 20 weeks.

Here is what medical journals tell parents to do at 20 weeks: An unborn child can hear and respond to sounds. Talk or sing. The unborn child enjoys hearing your voice.

It is a whole list of things about the unborn child in the 20-week period.

We are one of seven countries that allow abortions at this stage in the pregnancy, along with China, North Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, Canada, and the Netherlands.

So I would ask the body to consider having a debate on my legislation about whether we should limit elective abortions at the 20-week period and also a debate on Senator Blumenthal's legislation that basically would allow the courts to set aside several State restrictions on abortion. We are going to present a series of actions at the State level. I think his legislation would allow the courts to have a literal construction in terms of being able to strike down these provisions. I disagree with my good friend. We are good friends, although we have a different view. The Senator from Connecticut made a statement when he introduced the bill that every Senator should be on the record when it comes to this legislation. I agree. I hope every Senator would be on the record when it comes to my legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to consideration of S. 1670, the Pain- Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and S. 1696, the Women's Health Protection Act; that there be up to 8 hours of debate equally divided in the usual form, to run concurrently; that there be no amendments, points of order, or motions in order; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote on S. 1670; that following the disposition of S. 1670, the Senate proceed to vote on S. 1696; and that both bills be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for passage.

We already have laws in this country banning elective abortions at the 24-week period. It is called the partial-birth abortion ban. It has been through the Supreme Court, it went through this body, it went through the House, and it got overwhelming support. That bill has exceptions for rape and incest and cases that involve the life of the mother; so would this. We are just backing it up 4 weeks, and the reason we are backing it up 4 weeks is because at 20 weeks people have been born and survived. I know twins who were born at 20 weeks.

But the theory of the case is that the government should have the right to protect an unborn child, and most of the abortions are so far along that the medical science requires anesthesia before you operate. The question is, If we are going to require a doctor to provide anesthesia to the baby before they operate to save its life, should we authorize abortions at that point?

The Washington Post poll showed just a few months ago that by 56 to 27 percent, people supported the 20-week pain-capable bill--60 percent women.

At the end of the day I hope we can have a debate on this issue. The reason I brought it up today is because this is the anniversary of the Dr. Gosnell case, which was one of the most horrendous cases in American jurisprudence, where a doctor received life sentences for three counts of murder. He was an abortion doctor aborting babies at the latest stage of pregnancy. If the babies survived the abortion, he would cut the spinal cord. Three women died as a result of the care given by him. It was a chamber of horrors. It was a year ago today.

I hope people will not forget what Dr. Gosnell did, and if we can prevent occurrences such as that, we should, and that is what this bill is designed to do--to make sure the unborn child at this stage of the pregnancy has a chance to continue on. There are only seven countries in the world that allow abortions at this stage, and I hope that when this debate is over, the United States will not be in the seven.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank my colleague.

To remind the body of what we are talking about, this email was released as a result of a lawsuit, and not voluntarily by the White House. In August of last year, the House of Representatives and the committees of jurisdiction subpoenaed all documents related to Benghazi and basically were stiff-armed.

Senators McCain, Ayotte, and I have written enough letters to destroy a small forest to the White House with virtually nothing to show for it. A private organization called Judicial Watch sued under the Freedom of Information Act, and an independent judiciary--thank God for that-- ordered this White House to disclose this email just days ago. Knowing the email was going to come out, the White House provided it to the Congress a few days ago.

What does that tell us? That tells us they did not want anyone to know about this email. They talk about 25,000 documents they have provided. It doesn't matter the number of documents they provided to the Congress. They could have provided us with the Benghazi phone book. It is the relevance of the documents and the significance of the documents. The reason they did not want anyone--me and anyone else--to know about this email is because it is the smoking gun that shows that people at the White House level--these are people who work at the White House for the administration--were very intent on shaping the story about Benghazi away from what they knew to be the truth.

Here is the problem for the White House. This was 7 weeks before an election. President Obama had said repeatedly: Bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is on the run, the war is receding, my foreign policy is working. Many of us were critical of President Obama's foreign policy, particularly in Libya, because after Qadhafi fell, we really did nothing to secure the country.

Senator McCain, myself, and a couple of other Senators--Rubio--went in 2011 to Libya. We said in an op-ed piece if we don't get rid of these militias, Libya is going to become a safe haven for terrorists.

You have to understand this about the Benghazi consulate. It had been previously attacked in April of 2012.

The British Ambassador had been attacked in June of 2012. The British closed their consulate. The Red Cross closed their office because they had been attacked. And we have email traffic coming from Libya to Washington at the State Department level saying on August 16: We cannot secure the Benghazi consulate from a coordinated terrorist attack, and Al Qaeda flags are flying all over Benghazi.

What they did not want you to know is that the consulate in Benghazi was very unsecure, that everyone else had left the town, and that the numerous requests for security enhancements going back for months had been denied. They didn't want you to know because it would make the American people mad that the facility was so unsecure in such a dangerous area and people in Washington constantly ignored requests for additional security.

Here is what they wanted you to know:

. . . to convey that the United States is doing everything

we can to protect our people and facilities abroad . . .

That, to me, is the worst of the whole email because they are trying to convey to the American people and the families of the fallen that: These things happened, but we did all we could to protect your family and those who served this Nation.

Nothing could be more untruthful about Benghazi than this statement that they did everything they could to secure the facility.

The question as to whether this email relates to Benghazi was the most offensive thing coming out of the White House in quite a while. No one else died. There was an attack on our Embassy in Cairo with property damage.

What did we think Susan Rice was going to be asked about on Sunday, 16 September? Everybody in the Nation wanted to know how our Ambassador and three other brave Americans died. To suggest they weren't trying to prepare her to talk about the deaths of 4 Americans is insulting to our intelligence, but the document itself tells us it was directed toward explaining Benghazi.

To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who

harm Americans to justice . . .

That was part of what they wanted her to convey. No one else was hurt other than in Benghazi. So within the document itself, they are talking about reinforcing the view that we will go after those who harmed Americans. The only people who were harmed--the four people killed-- were in Benghazi. So that is just a bald-faced lie. That is insulting our intelligence, and it really is disrespectful to those who died in the line of duty to suggest this email--which they would not give us without a court order--had nothing to do with the death of four Americans.

The bottom line is the goals set out in this email are to try to convince the American people 7 weeks before an election: We had done everything possible to protect our people and facilities; ``to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.''

I am here to tell you--and I dare anybody to show where I am wrong-- there is no evidence of a protest outside the compound that led to an eventual attack.

I have talked to the man in charge of security at Benghazi--the only survivor I have been able to talk to. He told me that when the Ambassador went to bed shortly after 9, there was nobody outside the compound. They would not have let him go to bed if there had been protesters, and they would have reported a protest up the chain of command.

That was the 15th. So this is in real-time that people are reporting a coordinated terrorist attack. There was no protest. The video had nothing to do with this because there was no protest. And why would they suggest that? They would be far less culpable in the eyes of the American people and myself if, in fact, this was caused by a video we had nothing to do with, a protest we could not see coming. The truth is that this was a coordinated terrorist attack that you could see coming for months, and it was the result of a broader failure of policy. Why didn't they want to admit that? They were 7 weeks out. It undercuts everything they were trying to tell the American people about their foreign policy.

This is the smoking gun that shows they were consciously trying to manipulate the evidence to steer the story away from a coordinated terrorist attack of an unsecured facility and toward the land of an Internet video causing a protest. That, to me, is unacceptable and is clear as the Sun rises in the east, for those who care.

I will end with this and turn it back over to Senator McCain.

After this attack, President Obama said the following:

But everything that--every piece of information we get, as

we got it, we laid it out for the American people.

I am here to tell you that statement has not borne scrutiny. The administration did not live up to this statement.

Here is another statement from Jay Carney:

I can tell you that the President believes that Ambassador

Rice has done an excellent job as the United States

Ambassador to the United Nations, and I believe that--and I

know that he believes that everyone here working for him has

been transparent in the way that we've tried to answer

questions about what happened in Benghazi . . .

If they were trying to be transparent about what was happening in Benghazi, why would they fail to provide the relevant information?

The information that we provided was based on the available

assessment at the time.

I am here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, they have not provided the relevant information. Why? Because the relevant information crumbles the story Susan Rice told on 16 September, crumbles the story of the President himself when weeks later he talked about a protest caused by a video that never happened. The reason they haven't shared this with us is because it exposes the lie of Benghazi.

I will end with this thought. We would not know today about an email on 14 September setting goals for Susan Rice to meet on 16 September to change the whole narrative if it were not for an independent judiciary and a private organization.

This White House has stiffed the Congress. Mostly, the media has been AWOL. But the reason we haven't stopped is because we met the families.

To any Member of the Congress who thinks Benghazi is a Republican conspiracy designed to help Lindsey Graham or anyone else get elected, why don't you go to the family members and explain to them what happened. Why don't you tell the family members that the government was up front and honest and see if they believe you.

This email that came from a court requiring the White House to disclose is devastating. It is devastating because it shows that 3 days after the attack, their goal was not to inform the American people of what happened but to shape the story to help the President get reelected. I hope and pray that matters to the American people, and I believe it does. And I hope and pray our friends on the Democratic side will start taking a little bit of interest.

I can tell you this about Senator McCain and myself: When President Bush's policies in Iraq were crumbling, we did not have enough troops, and John McCain, to his credit, said that publicly and asked for the resignation of President Bush's Secretary of Defense because of failed policy.

When we discovered the abuses at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib when it came to detainee policies, both of us said: The system failed. Don't believe it when they tell you this was a few bad apples.

Why did we do that? I have been a military lawyer for 31 years. It means a lot to me to adhere to the conventions we have signed up to.

Senator McCain--if there were ever an American hero in the Senate, it is he. He has lived through a country that practices torture, and he did not want us to go down that road.

When we did those things, we were ``great Americans holding the system accountable and doing the country a service.'' Now, all of a sudden, we are ``just party hacks.''

I am here to say that what drove us then drives us now. When we ask people to serve in faraway places with strange-sounding names and to go out on the tip of the spear, we owe it to them to help them, to give them the best ability to survive. And if something bad happens, we owe their families the truth.

Just as in Iraq, they tried to shape the story in a fashion that did not bear scrutiny. It wasn't a few dead-enders; it was system failure that led to the collapse of Iraq. And thank God we changed tactics and we overcame our problems.

This Benghazi story is about a foreign policy choice called the light footprint that caught up with this administration. It is about an administration that said no to additional security requests because they didn't want to be like Bush. It is a story about an administration that is too stubborn to react to facts on the ground, that kept a consulate open when everybody else closed theirs, unsecured, believing that ignoring the problem would solve the problem.

We have now found evidence of their willingness and desire to change the narrative from a coordinated terrorist attack of an unsecured facility--something they really couldn't control, and they did the best they could 7 weeks before an election.

All I can say is if the shoe were on the other foot and this had been the Bush administration, it would be front-page news everywhere and our colleagues on the other side would be screaming. It is sad that it hasn't been news everywhere. It is sad that my Democratic colleagues in the House in particular have disdain for trying to find out what happened in Benghazi.