Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank you.

I have been to the Canadian oil sands that I would recommend every person in this body go visit. The Canadians are being very environmentally responsible when it comes to extracting the oil sands product. This is an equivalent to a Saudi Arabian oil find from our Canadian friends.

Here is the choice and here is the debate: They are going to sell the oil to China or they are going to sell it to us. How many people in America really have a hard time figuring out what we should do? It is not as though the oil is not going to be sold and extracted from the ground. It is going to be sold to us or the Chinese. If we buy oil from Canada, it is like buying oil from your cousin. We trade with the Canadians. They are very reliable partners. It is less oil to buy from Russia and Venezuela, and you can go down the list.

What is at stake here is that the people who object to this pipeline--I do not doubt their sincerity--would not allow us to buy oil from anybody or explore for oil here at home. The people objecting to this pipeline do not have an all-of-the-above approach when it comes to American energy. If you left it up to them, we would be doing windmills, solar, no nuclear power.

So the President of the United States has turned this issue over to the most extreme people in the country when it comes to politics. They are trumping the unions. They are trumping the former Presiding Officer. They are locking down developing an energy source that we need as a nation. I really regret that the President has let them take over this issue at a time when we need more oil from friendly people and less oil from people who hate our guts.

Dirty oil to me is buying oil from people who will take the proceeds and share it with terrorists. This oil content from Canada is slightly greater in carbon content than Mideast sweet crude, the same level as oil we find off the coast of California, and has less sulfur. So the environmental argument does not bear scrutiny.

At the end of the day, we are not going to get this oil from our friends in Canada because of the upcoming elections. President Obama is afraid of turning off environmental support so he has turned off the pipeline--very bad for America.

I yield.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize that this is a very important moment for the Senate to speak with one voice at a time when I think it matters to former hostages and their families. We heard you, Senator Cruz heard you, I heard you, and our friends on the other side heard you. So it is good to know that the Senate is listening to people who have suffered in the past from this regime and Iran.

To Senators Leahy, Menendez, and Schumer, thank you very much for working with Senator Cruz so we could reach this moment. I will do everything I can to get the House to act accordingly.

At the end of the day, it is very important that the Iranians not mistake how we view them. We have had our differences about Syria. We have had foreign policy disputes between the administration and Republicans, and sometimes Democrats, regarding how to move forward in the world. But this is a unique moment when all 100 Senators support the following statement to the Iranians: We remember who you are. We remember what you have done to our country and to our fellow citizens, and we are not going to forget. If you are listening in Iran, we have a very clear-eyed view in the Senate of who we are dealing with. So this is a very appropriate time to speak with one voice. I hope the Iranians will understand that we are resolved, Republicans and Democrats, to make sure they never possess a nuclear weapon.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for a few minutes, if I could, as if in morning business.

There is an issue facing this country that needs to be addressed firmly and decisively. I am encouraged there is a bipartisan effort to deal with this issue, and the issue is very simple. The person who has been nominated to be the U.N. Ambassador for Iran is a gentleman who participated in the takeover of our Embassy in Tehran, holding hostage 52 U.S. personnel for 444 days.

This is a slap in the face by the Iranian Government to the American people, to the hostages, and it should not be allowed to stand. Senator Cruz, I believe, will be offering a unanimous consent request potentially dealing with this issue, but I just wanted to rise for a few minutes and speak in support of what he is trying to accomplish in the Senate. I am somewhat encouraged that there is a bipartisan effort forming among our intel folks to deal with this affront to the American people, to all those held hostage, and basically to human dignity. The idea that the Iranians would be appointing someone connected in such an apparently direct way with the Embassy takeover back in 1979 to represent their nation in the U.N. tells us all we need to know about Iran.

This hardline-moderate divide doesn't exist. This is all a game. President Ruhani, when he was the nuclear negotiator for Iran, bragged about how much progress they made when the heat was off. If he were truly moderate

he wouldn't have been on the ballot and wouldn't be serving today at the pleasure of the Ayatollah. Nobody serves in a high position in Iran without the blessing of the Supreme Leader.

So the idea of making this gentleman--I don't want to butcher his name--the Ambassador to the United Nations from Iran when he has actively participated in violating every diplomatic principle involved, the idea of invading a consulate or embassy and taking hostages runs afoul of every principle of international law and diplomatic behavior.

It would be different if in the last 30 or so years the Iranian regime had changed. We have relationships with people today who are some of our strongest allies who used to be our enemies. There is nothing changing in Iran since the Embassy takeover that would place Iran in the column of a friend of America. This regime has been actively involved in worldwide terrorism plots. They have provided equipment to those who were fighting in Iraq to kill our soldiers. They support Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist organizations. They have been designated by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. They are trying to build a nuclear weapon, not a powerplant. So they have actually been no good for a very long time. I hope this body will send a signal to the Iranians that we will not accept on U.S. soil the person who has been designated, because this person was actively engaged in holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, in contravention of every law on the books and human decency. If Iran wants a new relationship with the United States, this is not a good way to start it.

I think there will be a lot of bipartisan objection to allowing this person to come to New York. We have provisions in our laws that give us the right as the host nation to exclude people who have been involved in acts of terrorism against the United States or their neighbors and any security threat. Again, the idea of doing business with former enemies is the way of life. The idea of accepting that the Ambassador to the United Nations from Iran as one of the people intricately involved in the takeover of our Embassy and holding Americans hostage for 444 days is an affront to us as a people and to the United Nations as a whole. He has served in other posts in Europe. That is not the issue. It is our Embassy that was taken over; it was our people who were held hostage, and the surviving hostages are very upset, as they should be. We don't want to reward people for doing bad things. This would be the ultimate reward for somebody who did a very bad thing.

It would be a mistake to engage Iran in this way and not push back. If there is to be a better relationship with Iran, it is worth fighting for. We are going to have to stand up to these people because they will take advantage of us if we allow it.

I look forward to supporting Senator Cruz and others who want to join in the effort to stop this appointment because it is wrong.

With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I believe Senator McCain is on his way to the Chamber. We want to have a colloquy about Ukraine. I ask permission to do that when Senator McCain arrives.

Madam President, as Senator McCain makes his way to the floor, we are trying to figure out what to do as a nation--along with our allies in Europe and throughout the world--about Ukraine and really what to do with Putin.

In my view, this is a symptom of a greater problem. Crimea had been a part of Russia for a very long time, but in 1954, I believe it was, Crimea became part of a sovereign nation called the Ukraine through an agreement. In 1994 the Ukrainians--after the collapse of the former Soviet Union, which was the third largest nuclear power in the world-- agreed to turn their nuclear weapons back over to the Russian Federation as part of the Budapest agreement. In return for receiving the weapons, the Russian Government promised to honor the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, and we were part of that deal.

I guess no one really fleshed out what honoring the territorial integrity of the Ukraine would mean, but clearly, in 1994 when the Ukrainian people gave up the nuclear weapons they possessed to the Russians--and we were part of the deal where we were going to guarantee their territorial integrity for the swap--no one envisioned that Russia would move into Crimea because they don't like the political dynamic in Kiev. If the people of the Ukraine want to move west, that is not a reason to basically abrogate the 1994 agreement.

What is going on around Russia is the following: As the former Soviet Union collapsed, people who had been in the sphere of influence of Russia--the former Soviet Union--have all embarked on a different path for the most part. There are a couple of people who align with Russia but not many.

My goal is quite simple: Allow the people of the Ukraine, Poland, and the former Soviet Union to make their decision about how they would construct their country apart from threats of force or intimidation by Russia.

It is no surprise to me that all those who could choose to move away from Russia because of the experience they had in the past have done so. Ukrainian people will always have a unique relationship with Russia, but they want to be Ukrainian.

There are a lot of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. We have everybody in America. America is an idea, not an ethnic group or a particular religion. Ukraine is multiethnic. They have ethnic Russians with a bunch of other folks--``Ukrainians,'' for lack of a better word.

The bottom line is that they have been debating among themselves about how to move forward and in what direction to move. Yanukovych won an election. He moved the Ukrainian people away from Europe and toward Russia. The President preceding him rode a revolution into power--the Orange Revolution, which some would argue did not produce the results the Ukrainian people were hoping for. It took us a long time as a nation--and we are still trying--to figure out who we are and where we are going. Democracies are messy.

The one thing we should all be doing is aligning ourselves around the concept that choosing one's destiny as an individual within the confines of the law and choosing one's destiny as a nation in international law should preclude having that choice taken away by your neighbor through military force and intimidation.

Entering into Crimea was a breach of international law. It was a breach of the 1994 agreement. Putin has proven to be an antidemocratic force in the world and in Russia.

When you are dealing with somebody, you need to look at their value system and their agenda and their interest. The value system of Mr. Putin is that of a KGB colonel. Most of his adult life he worked for the KGB, so his value system comes from that organization. It is about the ends, not the means. Democracy is about the process. I am not surprised that he snuffed out democracy--as any reasonable person would know it in Russia--and that he has made the Duma almost irrelevant, if not a joke. There is no independent judiciary; if you oppose Putin, you are liable to go to jail. I understand where he is coming from because of his value system; I just don't agree with it.

What we can't do is let him affect those who are living around him who want to go on a different path because the day you begin to do that, it never works out well. In World War II, every time somebody gave Hitler a little of this or a little of that, it never worked out well.

So what do we do? The European community, along with the United States, has a historic chance to reset what I think is a deterioration of world security and order. Having sanctions combined with aid, including sanctioning the Russians in a fashion they will feel, hitting their energy sectors, their oil and gas companies masquerading in this country, and increasing the capability of a gutted Ukrainian Army to defend themselves from further insurgents, would be a combination of hitting the Russians and helping the Ukrainians militarily and economically without any boots on the ground from the United States. I hope that is what the President will do. That is what we are trying to do here--to some extent, at least--on the sanctions side in the U.S. Senate.

I see Senator McCain has arrived. He has been the most consistent voice for the last decade about the role of America, our destiny as a country, with what we should align ourselves, understanding the Arab spring, and he has been a thorn in the side of Putin and Russia for quite awhile. So I wish to, if I could, ask a question of Senator McCain.

Given what we know about Putin's past and what he has done in Crimea, what does the Senator expect in the future and what can we reasonably do as a nation to change the outcome?

The Senator from Arizona is absolutely right.

Mr. President, if people are wondering why Senator McCain's name wasn't on that article--he is on everything else Joe and I did--it is because he was running for President and just got the nomination.

We were very much worried then, the three of us, that the Bush administration wasn't doing enough, and we needed to help the Georgian people as a signal not only to those in Georgia but other people in the neighborhood.

Let's talk about the Ukrainian military. It has been devastated, it has been gutted, because Yanukovych, the Ukrainian President, who won the election by less than 1 million votes--if you take Crimea out of Ukraine electorally, then no pro-Russian candidate inside Ukraine has much of a chance to win. So now they have destroyed the balance of power inside Ukraine politically. So as those left in Ukraine, the Ukrainian people move west, they are going to have the ability to align themselves with Europe. Putin is, in my view, very much likely to take some eastern cities that may ask for his help, because the referendum by the Ukraine to move west they opposed, but they can't stop because of the electoral change.

So watch out for a move by Ukraine to integrating the European Union in April or May when they have an election, and people in the east create a fake fight and Russia uses that as a reason to go further into the east.

But to Senator McCain's point: President Obama has conceded Crimea. There is just no other way we can say it. Our European allies and our President have basically said, If you do any more, we are going to get tougher with you. The Senator from Arizona nailed this. What does that say to Putin? I got Crimea. Seven people and I may be sanctioned, but I have been given Crimea by Europe and the United States.

The sanctions we are talking about get tougher only if he moves further into his sovereign neighbor.

Six thousand troops are combat-ready in Ukraine. Why? Because the pro-Russian President and their Defense Minister, who got fired yesterday, gutted the Ukrainian military, setting up a scenario such as this, making it impossible for the Ukrainians to effectively defend themselves.

Here is the question for us: Do we let the Russians get away with it? They have been planning this for a while. Clearly, the pro-Russian forces inside Ukraine took on the task of neutering the Ukrainian military and they have done a heck of a good job. Should the United States and our NATO partners, at the request of the Ukrainian people, supply them with defensive weapons to rebuild the military, gutted by pro-Russian elements? To me, the answer is yes. Because if we want to make Putin think twice about what he does next, he has to pay a price greater than he has for Crimea. If he gets away with this and he doesn't pay any price, he is going to be on steroids. But if he thinks about moving and he sees on the other side of Crimea a Ukrainian people willing to fight with some capacity, that will change the equation. Because it is one thing to cheer in Moscow for getting something for almost nothing in terms of effort. It will be another thing to talk about Russian soldiers getting killed to continue to be on the aggressive path.

So if the NATO alliance, along with the United States, doesn't help rebuild the Ukrainian military so they can defend themselves without our troops being involved, we have made a historic mistake, because everybody in the world is watching how this movie ends. The Iranians are watching, after Syria, now Russia. Does anybody in their right mind believe the Iranians take us seriously as a nation when it comes to stopping their nuclear program?

So I say to Senator McCain, you have been a voice for realism, understanding Putin for who he is. For years, you have been telling the Senate and the country and the world at large: Watch this guy. There have been a series of foreign policy failures that have added up to make it confident to Putin that he can move forward without consequences.

So I hope we can convince our colleagues in the Senate and the House to honor a reasonable request by the Ukrainian people to help them rebuild the military destroyed by pro-Russian forces.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

There is the Membership Action Plan, MAP--I think that is the acronym--where a country gets ready to enter into NATO. Georgia would like that. I think Ukraine now would like that. Here is the basic tension; don't you agree?

A plurality before Crimea was invaded wanted to move into the European Union and Ukraine. Now, I think clearly a majority, if you take the Crimea out, wants to associate with the European Union. Putin is saying hell no. So the Ukrainian people in the coming months are going to make a move toward the European Union and alliances with NATO, most likely, and the Russians are going to try to stop them.

I fear the way they will choose to stop them is not to try to influence the vote but to try to grab some eastern cities where you will have vocal minority Russian populations saying: Come here and help your fellow Russians. We are being absorbed by a bunch of thugs in Kiev. Senator McCain made a good point while we are talking. The theory of the case for Russia is: We have a legitimate right to go into this area to protect native Russians, ethnic Russians. That has no limit in that region.

If we adopt the theory of the case, ignore international law, let him break the 1994 agreement with no punishment for taking the Crimea, then I hope you understand what comes next. The theory of this case can apply to many countries in the region, not just Crimea and the Ukraine. So we need to reject this theory of the case.

We need to make him pay a price for what he has done, not what he might do. If he does not pay a price for what he has done, I can assure you what he will do. He will do more. The last thought is that Senator McCain and I and Senator Ayotte have been talking about the Al Qaeda buildup in Syria.

The Director of National Intelligence has testified before the country as a whole, before the Congress, that the Al Qaeda elements in Syria are representing a direct threat to our European allies and to our own homeland. There was a press report yesterday: What is your Congress and your Commander in Chief doing about it?

We have been told as Members of the Senate that the 26,000-plus Al Qaeda fighters, many of them European, some American, are amassing in Syria. Al Qaeda leaders from the tribal regions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are moving into Syria to organize this cabal. One of the goals that they would like to achieve is to take this force that is in the fight in Syria and disperse it back to Europe and the United States.

What are you doing about this threat, Mr. President? Members of the Senate, you have been told--11, 12 years after 9/11--that Al Qaeda is thinking about hitting us again. They exist in a certain part of the world. They are amassing capability. Their leaders are moving in to help organize this group. What is our response? What are we doing?

It is just not Ukraine. The whole world is melting down. I would end with this thought. Ronald Reagan had a great slogan. It was not a slogan. It was a world view: Peace through strength. Here is what I will say to the times in which we live, and I will talk about this more later. I want to come with my colleagues and talk about the Al Qaeda threat in Syria and elsewhere.

Peace is an illusion when it comes to radical Islam. It can never be achieved. But here is what can be achieved: security through strength. We need to have as a Nation security policies, national security policies that will deter aggression from nation-states and radical Islamic organizations who do not fear death. We have no such policy. We need to have security through strength. We are cutting our military. We are gutting our ability to defend ourselves through reducing intelligence capabilities at a time when the threats are on the rise.

This is the most dangerous time in American history--since the end of the Cold War, in many ways since the end of World War II--because the enemies of this Nation are getting stronger and we are getting weaker. Somebody needs to change that calculation before it is too late.

So to Senator McCain and Senator Ayotte, both of you have been to the Ukraine in the last couple of weeks. You have done the hard work of traveling away from your constituents and your families to find out first hand what is on the ground. I hope that people in the body will listen to their experiences. There are a lot of Democrats who seem to have the same experience.

That is a very good question. The commander in the military is just not somebody. The man or woman in charge of that unit is the person to whom we give the ultimate authority to decide life- and-death decisions for that unit. So if we deal the commander out, we have a rape in the barracks. The worst thing that could happen in a unit is for the commander to say, This is no longer my problem. It is the commander's problem. Every commander I have met wants it to continue to be their problem, because when we have one member of a unit assaulting the other, it affects everybody in that unit. And the person we as a nation choose to run the finest military in the world--the commander--has the absolute authority to maintain that unit for readiness. If we don't give that commander the tools and hold them accountable, that unit will fall apart right in front of our eyes, because some lawyer somewhere is no substitute for the commander who is there every day.

Madam President, if we wanted to find the definition of leadership in 2014: McCaskill, Ayotte, and the great Senator from Nebraska, three women taking on an issue head on. To those of my Democratic colleagues who are going to stick with making reforms without destroying a commander's role in the military: You deserve a lot of credit because people have been on your butt in the donor community to vote the other way.

To these ladies--and there have been plenty of people helping--they don't know how much it will be appreciated in the military. This is not a legal debate here. How many of my colleagues have done courts- martial? How many of my colleagues have court-martialed anybody in the military? I have done hundreds, as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney. This is not some casual event to me.

What Senator Gillibrand is doing is way off base. It will not get us to the promised land of having a more victim-friendly system to report sexual assaults. That is being accomplished because of the people I have just named: Senators Fischer, Ayotte, McCaskill, and Senator Levin. They have brought about reforms in terms of how a case is reported in the military, allowing a lawyer to be assigned to every victim. I cannot tell my colleagues how proud I am of what they have been able to accomplish. The U.S. military is going to have the most victim-friendly system of every jurisdiction in the land, including New York and South Carolina.

But this is about the commander. How many of my colleagues believe we have the finest military in the entire world? Every Member of this body would raise their hand. The question is why. Because we have the best lawyers in the world? No. Because we have the best commanders--men and women who are given the responsibility to defend this Nation and have power and responsibility that most of my colleagues could never envision. And if this is about sexual assault, why the hell are we taking barracks theft out of the commander's purview?

This is about liberal people wanting to gut the military justice system--social engineering run amok. I want to help victims, but I also want a fair trial. But the one thing I will not say to our commanders who exist in 2014: You are fired, because you are morally bankrupt. You don't have the ability to render justice in your unit because there is something wrong with you; your sense of justice is askew, so we are going to fire you and take away an authority you have had traditionally to make sure that your unit is ready to go to war, because we feel as though you are morally bankrupt. What other conclusion can we come to?

The next time we see somebody in the military who is a senior member of the 3 percent that Senator Gillibrand speaks about--it is only 3 percent who make these decisions. Who are these 3 percent? They are our wing commanders, our squadron commanders, our fleet commanders, our brigade commanders--the people we entrust and hold accountable for fighting and winning the war.

I say to my colleagues, if we care about what military lawyers think, every judge advocate general is begging us not to do this. The people we are going to give the power to don't want it because they understand that the commander is different than the lawyer. The first female judge advocate general of the Army has made an impassioned plea: Do not do this.

This is not a legal issue alone; this is about how to maintain the best military in the world.

I would conclude that if we want to create confusion in the ranks and if we want to tell every enlisted person who has to--should be--looking up to the commander, the Senate just fired your boss when it comes to these kinds of matters, but you should still respect him, that is a very confusing message.

I wish to end my speech with this: We have had some bad commanders. However, to those who command the military, I have confidence in you. You will take this system to a new level. You have to up your game, but I am not going to fire you. Thank you for commanding the finest military in the world. I will do nothing to say you are morally bankrupt, because I don't believe that.

Will the Senator yield for just a second?

Why is it nobody seems to think taking the commander out of the loop is going to help the problem? Because you cannot solve the problem in the military unless the commander buys in. I cannot think of any change in the military that is major and substantial that can happen without the chain of command being held accountable and buying in.

I would like to say this. To those who believe our military is set up where a victim's case is never heard because you have some distant figure called the commander and they just put this stuff under the rug, O-6 commanders--the O-6 level are special court-martial convening authorities. General court-martial convening authorities are flag officers.

It is not rampant in the military, folks, where a JAG will go in to the commander and say: This is a case that needs to be prosecuted, sir, madam; and the commander says: I don't want to fool with this.

The opposite is true, where the JAG will say: Tough; and the commander says: Move forward.

Well, what have we done here. We have said to the command that if your judge advocate recommends prosecution in the four areas in question--sexual assault--and the commander refuses to prosecute, that decision is appealed to the Secretary of the service.

So if you are wondering about rogue commanders--and there are bad commanders--you are indicting the whole chain of command here, folks. That is why I am so emotional about this. You are indicting a class of Americans who deserve praise and a chance to get their act together where they failed.

But the bottom line is, if a commander refuses to--I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute--2 minutes.

OK.

If the commander refuses the JAG's recommendation, it goes to the Secretary of the service. If the JAG and the commander both say this is not a case we want to prosecute, when it is in the area of sexual assault, it goes to the commander's commander. So there are built-in checks and balances.

The key to fixing this problem is the commander. The key to maintaining a well-run military is the commander. The key to fighting and winning wars is the commander. The key to bringing justice to victims is the court-martial panel, the lawyers, the judge and the juries, and the commander. But the key to American military success over time has been the commander.

Madam President, 800 trials in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11. This is a nondeployable military justice system that Senator Gillibrand is trying to create. Please do not change the structure of the military because of this issue. Fix this issue. Preserve the structure of the military that has served us so well, and keep reforming.

To the Senators I have named, you have done those in the military-- victims--a great service. For God's sake, Members of the Senate, do not change the structure of the military at a time we need it the most. Hold it more accountable, not less.

I ask unanimous consent for Senator McCain, Senator Ayotte, and me to engage in a colloquy for approximately 20 minutes.

My colleagues will be here in a moment. I will start. Thank you for recognizing me.

Senator McCain has arrived.

The time has come, colleagues, for us as a body to provide some oversight that is missing when it comes to the death of four Americans at the Benghazi consulate on September 11, 2012. I will try not to get emotional.

The bottom line is all of us very much appreciate those who serve in harm's way in the State Department and in the military. When bad things happen that can cost someone their life, that is sometimes the consequence of service.

But when the system breaks down, it is utter and complete failure, nothing responsible happens to those who allow the failure, and when we really don't know the truth about how the system has failed, then they have died in a fashion that is unacceptable.

I am urging my colleague, the Democratic leader, to form a joint select committee of the relevant committees, the Armed Services Committee, the intelligence committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, and any other committee that is relevant, to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi.

I have come to conclude that this issue is not going away. It will not die out because four Americans lost their lives.

We have compiled an event timeline that I think does the following. The story told by Susan Rice and the President himself shortly after the attack on September 16, and for a couple of weeks later, has absolutely collapsed. It is not credible. It is a fabrication. It was a manipulation of the intel 7 weeks before an election, and I think it is abundantly clear that the information coming from Libya never suggested there was a protest and identified this as a terrorist attack from the very beginning. On September 16, 5 days after the attack U.N. ambassador Susan Rice assured the Nation that the consulate was substantially, significantly, and strongly secured.

There is absolutely nothing in the talking points about that. Clearly that was not the case. Why did she say that?

Her story about a protest caused by a hateful video being the most likely cause of the attack is not based on any facts or any reporting from Libya. We will walk through the timeline, but the head of the CIA in Libya on September 15 sent a message, an email, a cable, to the No. 2, Mike Morell, in the CIA in Washington, saying this was not--not--a protest that escalated into an attack.

That story line about a protest was misleading. It was false, it was politically motivated, in my view. The No. 2 at the CIA, Mike Morell-- his testimony before the House and the Senate is highly suspect. He testified on November 14 or 15, 2012, to the Senate and House intelligence committees.

There was one episode where Mr. Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence said: He did not know who changed the famous talking points. The talking points originally identified Al Qaeda as being involved, identified this as a terrorist attack and were completely changed in the protest story line, not mentioning Al Qaeda at all.

Mike Morell, in May of 2013, admitted to changing the talking points. But when Director Clapper said: We don't know who changed the talking points. Mike Morell was sitting right by him and never said a word.

About 10 days later, Susan Rice asked to meet with me, Senator McCain, and Senator Ayotte to explain her side of the story. This was November 24 or 25; I can't remember the date. But Mike Morell accompanied her, and we had a meeting in the classified portion of the Capitol, the secure portion of the Capitol.

One of the first questions I asked Mr. Morell was: Who changed the talking points?

He said: We believe the FBI changed the talking points.

Senator McCain asked him: Why did the CIA not know about the contents of the FBI interviews of the survivors on September 15, 16, and 17? Why didn't the CIA pick up a phone and call the FBI agents interviewing the Benghazi survivors in Germany on the September 15, 16, and 17, days after the attack?

Mike Morell said: The FBI basically would not share that information because it was an ongoing criminal investigation.

My mouth dropped. When the meeting was over I ran back to my office, called the FBI, and reported to them that the No. 2, the acting director at that time, Mike Morell, has claimed

that your agency, the FBI, changed its talking points, deleting all references to terrorism and Al Qaeda.

They went ballistic. They also denied that their agents ever withheld information from the CIA because it was an ongoing investigation. The FBI literally went ballistic on the phone. Hours later we got a call from the CIA saying the acting director misspoke: We may have changed the talking points, but we don't know why.

In light of this, it is now time for a joint select committee to be formed. How can we get to the bottom of the truth of what happened in Benghazi if no one has ever talked to Susan Rice about why she said what she said. Now is the time to recall Mike Morell to ask him questions about the validity of his testimony, the accuracy of his testimony to Congress.

There are a lot of people who think this is no big deal, apparently, particularly in the Congress on the other side. There are a lot of Americans who feel as if their government has not been straightforward and honest with them about what happened in Benghazi.

The role of the Congress is to provide oversight. I will conclude with this thought. When the war in Iraq was going fully, when Abu Ghraib became a disaster, when Guantanamo Bay tactics became exposed and they were outside of our values, Senator McCain and I joined with Democrats to get to the bottom of it. After 9/11, the Bush administration originally did not want the 9/11 Commission to be formed.

Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman led the charge. We are doing no more now than we did then. We just need willing partners.

I cannot say to any family member or anyone who served our Nation in harm's way that we know the truth about what happened in Benghazi at this stage.

I can say this. We know what was told to us as a nation does not hold any water, and we know that people have manipulated the facts 7 weeks before an election.

I am still not comfortable with the fact that nobody could provide help to these people for over 9 hours. Before the attack, not one person who allowed the security to deteriorate to the point of where it became a death trap in Benghazi, to the point it became a death trap-- not one person--has been fired. That is unacceptable.

With that, I will turn it over to my colleague Senator McCain and eventually Senator Ayotte.

Perhaps the Senator from New Hampshire could walk us through some of the reasons we now know the story line of a protest caused by a video doesn't hold water.

I thank my colleagues.

Now is the time for us to move forward to set the stage for a vote; is that correct?

Well, I will say, No. 1, as to the amendment of Senator Burr, it takes care of veterans similar to what Senator Sanders is proposing, but it pays for it in a more responsible way. Unlike the proposal of Senator Sanders, we have an additional element in the Burr amendment that not only takes care of veterans but it deals with a national security imperative, which is the Iran sanctions legislation. This is bipartisan in nature, with 59 cosponsors, including 17 Democrats. This would reimpose sanctions at the end of the 6-month negotiating period if we do not have an acceptable outcome regarding the Iranian nuclear program; we need to dismantle the reactor, remove the uranium, and stop enrichment.

That is the goal of the Iran sanctions legislation, and I am very pleased Senator Burr would bring that before the body. I am urging my colleagues to allow us to vote on Iran sanctions. The sanctions are literally crumbling.

With that, I understand Senator Burr and others on our side have filed an amendment which would impose additional sanctions against the Government of Iran if it violates the interim agreement with the United States, and I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending motion so I may offer amendment No. 2752.

In addition to Burr amendment No. 2752, there are many amendments on our side of the aisle waiting to be offered.

Parliamentary inquiry: Is it correct that no Senator is permitted to offer an amendment to this bill while the majority leader's amendments and motions are pending?

In addition to the Burr amendment No. 2752, there are many amendments on our side of the aisle waiting in the queue to be offered.

Further parliamentary inquiry: If a motion to table the Reid motion to commit is successful, would there be an opportunity to offer a motion to commit the bill to the Veterans' Affairs Committee to be reported back as a fully amendable bill with the Iran sanctions bill included?

Mr. President, in order to offer amendment No. 2752, the Iran sanctions amendment, I move to table the pending Reid motion to commit and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, I would like to be recognized for 10 minutes, if I could.

Madam President, thank you. If the Presiding Officer would let me know when the 10 minutes expire, I would appreciate it.

I wish to rise in support of Senator Burr's alternative to Senator Sanders' veterans bill. We are having a contest here about how best to help veterans. There is a lot of bipartisan agreement over the substance of the bill. The real difference is how to pay for it, but there is one key difference. In Senator Burr's alternative, we have the Iranian sanctions bill. I believe it is imperative for this body, the Senate, to speak on sanctions against Iran before it is too late. I hate the fact that we have lost our bipartisan approach to this topic.

We have been together for a very long time as Republicans and Democrats. We have had 16 rounds of sanctions since 1987, 9 U.N. Security Council resolutions since 2006 demanding the full and sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and full cooperation with the IAEA.

The United Nations, the Congress, in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion, have been imposing sanctions in speaking to the threat we all face from the Iranian nuclear program. Unfortunately, the bipartisanship has come apart in terms of whether we should have another vote. The bipartisan bill that would reauthorize sanctions at the end of the 6-month negotiating period has 59 cosponsors, 17 Democrats.

We believe desperately--at least I do--that the sanctions that have been so effective in bringing the Iranians to the table are literally falling apart, and I will have some evidence to show that.

But here is what Senator Reid, the majority leader, said on November 21, 2013:

I am a strong supporter of our Iran sanctions regime and

believe that the current

sanctions have brought Iran to the negotiating table.

I believe we must do everything possible to stop Iran from

getting nuclear weapons capability, which would threaten

Israel and the national security of our great country.

The Obama administration is in the midst of negotiations

with the Iranians that are designed to end their nuclear

weapons program. We all strongly support these negotiations

and hope they will succeed, and we want them to produce the

strongest possible agreement.

However, we are also aware of the possibility the Iranians

could keep negotiations from succeeding. I hope that won't

happen, but the Senate must be prepared to move forward with

a new bipartisan Iran sanctions bill when the Senate returns

after the Thanksgiving recess. I am committed to do just

that.

I will support a bill that would broaden the scope of our

current petroleum sanctions, place limitations on trade with

strategic sectors of the Iranian economy that support its

nuclear ambitions, as well as pursue those that divert goods

to Iran.

While I support the administration's diplomatic efforts, I

believe we need to leave our legislative options open to act

on a new bipartisan sanctions bill in December, shortly after

we return.

The challenge of the majority leader was to find a bipartisan bill that could speak anew to sanctions. We are able to do that. Senator Menendez has been absolutely terrific, along with Senator Kirk, in making sure that sanctions have worked. The Obama administration deserves a lot of credit for keeping the sanctions regime together and getting Iranians to the table.

But the interim agreement that has been entered into between the P5+1 and the Iranians quite frankly is well short of what we need. My goal, and I think the body's goal--at least I hope--would be to dismantle the plutonium-producing reactor that the Iranians are building; not just stop its construction, but dismantle it; take the highly enriched uranium that exists in Iran today and move it out of the country so it cannot be used for a dirty bomb or any other purposes.

This is what the U.N. resolutions have called for, removing the highly enriched uranium that exists in great number from Iran to the international community so it can be controlled; and, last but most importantly is to dismantle their enrichment capability. If the Iranians truly want a peaceful nuclear power program, I am all for that. I do not care if the Russians are jointly with us, that we build a nuclear powerplant in Iran to help them with commercial nuclear power. We just need to control the fuel cycle. There are 15 countries that have nuclear power programs that do not enrich uranium, Mexico and Canada being two, South Korea being another.

The point I am trying to make here is if you leave enrichment capability intact in Iran, the only thing preventing their abuse of that capability would be a bunch of U.N. inspectors. We tried this with North Korea. We provided foreign aid and economic aid and food assistance to control their nuclear ambitions. Well, they took the money and now they have nuclear weapons. The U.N. failed to stop the desire of the North Koreans to develop a nuclear weapon.

That type of approach is not going to work in Iran. Israel is not going to allow their fate to be determined by a bunch of U.N. inspectors. If that is the only thing between the Iranian ayatollahs and nuclear weapons is a bunch of U.N. inspectors, Israel will not stand for that, nor should we.

So when the Iranians demand the right to enrich, that tells you all you need to know about their ambitions. If they want a peaceful nuclear power program, they certainly can have it. We need to control the fuel cycle.

The interim deal has not dismantled any centrifuges. They have unplugged a few, but all of them exist, the 16,000 to 18,000 of them. Here is what the Iranian Government has been openly saying about the interim deal:

The iceberg of sanctions is melting while our centrifuges

are also still working. This is our greatest achievement.

This is the head of the Iranian nuclear agency. The Foreign Minister said:

The White House tries to portray it is basically a

dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. We are not dismantling

any centrifuges, we're not dismantling any equipment, we're

simply not producing, not enriching over 5 percent.

Pretty clear. This is the President of Iran, Mr. Rouhani, on CNN.

So there will be no destruction of centrifuges--of existing

centrifuges?

No. No, not at all.

Another statement, another tweet:

Our relationship with the world is based on Iran's nation's

interest. In Geneva agreement, world powers surrendered to

Iran's national will.

You could say this is all bluster for domestic consumption. But just keep listening to what I have to tell you. The Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister said of the interconnections between networks of centrifuges that have been used to enrich uranium to 20 percent, so that they can enrich only to 5 percent: ``These interconnections can be removed in a day and connected again in a day.''

So you are not dismantling anything. You are unplugging it. They can plug it right back in. Here is what has happened, the President of Iran again:

We have struck the first blow to the illegal sanctions, in

the fields of insurance, shipping, the banking system,

foodstuffs and medicine and exports of petrochemical

materials.

You are witness to how foreign firms are visiting our

country; 117 political delegations have come here: France,

Turkey, Georgia, Ireland, Tunisia, Kazakhstan, China, Italy,

India, Austria, and Sweden.

The French Chamber of Commerce hosted a delegation to Iran after the interim deal. The International Monetary Fund says the Iranian economy could turn around due to the interim agreement. Prospects for 2014 and 2015 have improved with the agreement. They are getting a stronger economy. The interim deal has done nothing, in my view, to dismantle their nuclear program that is a threat to us and Israel.

India's oil imports from Iran more than doubled in January from a month earlier. China has emerged as Iran's top trading partner, with nonoil trade hitting $13 billion over the past 10 months. U.S. aerospace companies are talking about selling them parts. Thirteen major international companies have said in recent weeks they aim to reenter the Iranian marketplace over the next several months.

The value of their currency has appreciated about 25 percent. Inflation has been reduced substantially. In other words, the interim deal is beginning to revive the Iranian economy that was crippled by sanctions. The international community is lining up to do business in Iran. The sanctions against Iran are crumbling before our eyes, and the Iranians are openly bragging about this.

The only way to turn this around is to pass another piece of legislation that says, we will give the 6-month period of negotiations time to develop, but at the end of the 6 months, if we have not achieved a satisfactory result of dismantling their nuclear program, the sanctions will continue at a greater pace.

Without that threat, without that friction, we are going to get a very bad outcome here. The administration says that new sanctions will scuttle the deal and lead to war. I could not disagree more. The lack of threat of sanctions, the dismantling of sanctions, the crumbling of sanctions is going to lead to conflict. I do believe that if this body reinforced that we were serious about sanctions until the program gets to where the world thinks it should be, then we would be reinforcing our negotiating position.

So to my Democratic colleagues and Democratic leadership, I am urging you, please, to let this bipartisan bill go forward, if not in the Burr alternative, bring it up as a separate piece of legislation. Let's act now while we still can. I am hopeful we can avoid a conflict with the Iranians. But the only way to do that--I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.

The only way to do that is to make the Iranians understand that they are never going to have prosperity and peace until they comply with the will of the international community, which is give them a peaceful nuclear power program, not a weapons capability. Rather than us bending to their will, they need to bend to ours, simply because a disaster is in the making if Iran comes out of this negotiation with their nuclear capability intact.

If you allow the Iranians to enrich uranium, that is the final deal, where they still have an enrichment capability, theoretically controlled by the

U.N., every Sunni Arab state will want an enrichment program of their own, and you have destroyed nonproliferation in the Mideast.

I say again, if this final agreement allows enrichment at any level by the Iranians, Sunni Arab states are going to go down the same road. Then we are marching toward Armageddon, I fear. The last thing in the world we want to do is allow the Iranians to enrich, telling our allies they cannot. That will lead to proliferation of enrichment throughout the Mideast, and you are one step away from a weapon.

If you had to make a list of countries based on the behavior that you should not trust with enriching uranium, Iran would be at the top. For the last 30 years they have sown destruction throughout the world, a state sponsor of terrorism. They have killed our troops in Iraq; they are supplying weapons to the enemies of Israel; they have been up to just generally no good. Why in the world we would give them this capability I cannot envision.

So the sanctions are crumbling. We see it before our eyes. The threat of military force against the regime I think has been diminished after the debacle in Syria. Do you really think the Iranians believe after the Syrian debacle that we mean it when we say we would use military force as a last resort? I do not want a military engagement against the Iranians. I just want their nuclear ambitions to end and give them a nuclear powerplant that is controlled to produce power and not make a bomb.

The Israelis will not live under the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. They will not allow this program to stay intact, unlike North Korea, where the South Koreans and the Japanese did not feel they needed a nuclear program to counter the North Koreans.

The Mideast is different. The Sunni Arabs will not be comfortable with an enrichment capability given to the Iranians. Israel will never accept this, because it is a threat to the Jewish state unlike any other. So I will urge the body, before it is too late, to take the earliest opportunity to pass the bipartisan legislation that would reimpose sanctions if the agreement does not reach a satisfactory conclusion in the next 6 months.

We have 59 cosponsors. If we had a vote, I am confident we could get an overwhelming vote. It would be the right thing to send to the Iranians. It would tell the Western World: Slow down. The idea of giving this 6 months to continue at the pace it is going, it would be impossible to reconstruct sanctions if we do not do it now. Six months from now, if the deal falls apart, President Obama says he would impose sanctions in 24 hours. By then, the regime will have been broken. Western Europe will have been basically out of the game; they have a different view of this than we do. So the idea you can wait for 6 months and the damage not be done, I think is unrealistic. You can see where the world is headed. Sanctions as a viable control device seems to be in everybody's rearview mirror unless the Congress acts, and acts decisively.

What I hope we can do, in a bipartisan fashion, is let our allies and the Iranians know that sanctions are going to be in place as long as the nuclear threat continues to exist. I hope the President will reinforce to the Iranians: Whatever problem I had in Syria, I do not have with you.

I hope the Congress could send a message to the Iranians that we do not want a conflict, but we see your nuclear ambitions as a threat to our way of life. While we may be confused about what to do in Syria, we are not confused about the Iranian nuclear program. We want a peaceful resolution. Sanctions have to be in place until we get the right answer. But if everything else fails, then we are ready to do what is necessary as a nation as a last resort to use military force. I say that understanding the consequences of military force. It would not be a pleasant task. But in a war between us and Iran, we win, they lose. They have a small navy, a small air force. I do not want war with anyone. But if my options are to use military force to stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon, I am picking use of military force. Because if they get a nuclear weapon, then the whole Mideast goes down the wrong road. You would open Pandora's box to attack the Iranians. They could do some damage to us, but it would not last long. They lose, we win. If they get a nuclear capability, you have created a nuclear arms race in the Mideast and you will empty Pandora's box and put Israel in an impossible spot.

So, my colleagues, we have a chance here to turn history around before it is too late. But the way we are moving regarding this negotiation with Iran and the outcome, I have never been more worried about. I do not want to allow the last best chance to stop the Iranian nuclear program to be lost through inaction.

If we misread where Iran is actually going, it will be a mistake for the ages.

I am urging the majority leader, if not on this bill, as soon as possible, to allow the bipartisan Iranian sanction legislation to come to the floor for debate and a vote. I think it can change history before it is too late.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Madam President, one, I would like to compliment Senator Burr for trying to find a way to improve veterans health care. I think the comment he made is pretty accurate. Before you expand a system that is clearly broken, it looks to me like you would want to fix it.

There is a bipartisan view that it is broken. A lot of solutions have bipartisan support. But we are where we are. I know Senator Sanders is very genuine about wanting to expand veterans' benefits. I certainly understand where Senator Burr is coming from. We want to, one, pay for whatever we do, because we are $17 trillion in debt. But, two, we have to look at the broken system. If you include another 14 million veterans, people who are not service connected and make them overnight eligible for VA health care that is in short supply, you will frustrate the ones who need it the most and take a weak system and completely break it. It seems to me that is not helping veterans at all.

But part of the package that Senator Burr has authored also deals with another problem of great and immediate concern: imposing sanctions on the Iranian nuclear program if the negotiations fail to deliver the desired result.

This is an unfortunate moment for me. Senators Menendez and Kirk have been a team for a long time working to impose sanctions on the Iranian government as they march toward a nuclear weapon. We have imposed 16 rounds of sanctions since 1987; 9 U.N. Security Council resolutions since 2006, demanding the full and sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment related and reprocessing activities and its full cooperation with the IAEA.

This body has been bipartisan when it comes to the Iranian nuclear program and our support for Israel. Senator Menendez has been one of the leading voices in the entire Congress. He deserves lots of credit. He is my friend. We have a new round of sanctions that are bipartisan. We have 17 Democratic cosponsors. We have all but two Republicans. So we have 59 cosponsors that would allow sanctions to be available and in place if we do not reach a final deal in this round of negotiations in the P5+1.

Why is it important that the Congress reimpose sanctions through new legislation if there is failure? No. 1, the sanctions are designed to get the end game right. I believe that the only successful outcome through negotiations would be to dismantle the plutonium-producing reactor. The Iranians do not need a plutonium-producing reactor for a civilian nuclear power program to comply with the U.N. resolution that requires the removal of all highly enriched uranium. A lot of highly enriched uranium is now in the hands of the Iranian government. The U.N., of all bodies, has asked for it to be removed and turned over to the international community.

I worry that if you leave this highly enriched uranium in place in Iran, we will live to regret it. A dirty bomb becomes a real possibility. The other aspect of a final deal that has to be accomplished, in my view, is that the Iranian regime should be out of the enrichment business.

There are 15 nations that have nuclear power programs that do not enrich uranium. Mexico and Canada are two of those nations. We are objecting to the South Koreans who want to go into the enrichment business. I do not mind South Korea having a nuclear power program, but we really have to watch the spread of nuclear proliferation through the enrichment of uranium.

It is imminently possible to have a nuclear power program and have the fuel cycle controlled. You do not need to enrich to have commercial nuclear power. If you were going to make a list of countries that are unreliable and dangerous, and you would not want to give the right to enrich, I think Iran would be at the top. Just look at how this regime has behaved over the last 30 years. I do not have to time to go into all of the ``list of horribles,'' but our resolutions regarding the Iranian nuclear program list them very well.

So we are at an impasse now. The Republican position is that we should have a new sanctions vote on the bipartisan sanctions bill now while the negotiations are going on to reinforce to the international community that we are very serious about pressure being applied to the Iranians until we get the deal that we all can live with. I think it is fair to say that the Iranians would not be in negotiations without crippling sanctions.

I want to give credit to the Obama administration for implementing a sanctions regime that really did cripple the Iranian economy, and it has gotten them to the table. Unfortunately, the interim deal has absolutely undercut all of our gains. I will give you some details as to why all we have accomplished has been undercut and the sanctions regime that got the Iranians to the table is crumbling before our eyes.

Here is what our allies in Israel say. The prime minister of Israel said: ``Iran got the deal of the century, the international community got a bad deal.'' I think he is absolutely right. Under the interim deal, not 1 ounce of highly enriched uranium is required to be taken out of Iran. Some of it would be chemically altered, and you can reverse that chemical process so that it could be processed for weapons use later down the road.

Not one centrifuge has been destroyed. Of the 16,000 to 18,000 centrifuges, not one has been destroyed. The plutonium-producing reactor is not being dismantled. It has been mothballed, for lack of a better word. I am not so sure it is even in a mothball status.

So the prime minister of Israel says: ``Iran got the deal of the century, the international community got a bad deal.'' Again, I would agree. Nothing has been accomplished in the interim deal. The interim deal is so far away from a final deal, I do not see how you get there.

We have to dismantle the plutonium reactor completely, not just stop its construction or delay its construction. We should remove all of the highly enriched uranium out of the hands of the ayatollahs because it is too dangerous to leave it there. The U.N. agrees with that. That is the end position. They should not be allowed to enrich. If the Iranians want a peaceful nuclear power program, I will be the first to say: That is fine. Build a reactor in Iran. Build a couple of reactors if you like. Have the Russians help the Iranians construct their reactor, as long as the international community can control the fuel cycle.

There is no need to enrich in Iran for a peaceful nuclear power program. We would be crazy as a nation and a world to give this regime the right to enrich uranium and have a breakout, to go from low-level enrichment to 90 percent, to make a nuclear weapon. I think that is what they are trying to do. I would like every Senator to be able to answer a question from their constituents about this issue. Do you believe the Iranians have been trying to build a nuclear bomb rather than a nuclear power program?

It is clear to me they have been trying to build a nuclear bomb for a very long time. They get right up to the edge. They have one of the most sophisticated enrichment programs in the world. I do not think it is designed to produce peaceful nuclear power.

Here is what the head of Iran's nuclear agency said last night:

The iceberg of sanctions is melting while our centrifuges

are also still working. This is our greatest achievement.

He is right. I mean, what more can I say? The head of the Iranian nuclear agency, said on Iranian state television:

The iceberg of sanctions is melting while our centrifuges

are also still working. This is our greatest achievement.

This is what the foreign minister said:

The White House tries to portray it as basically a

dismantling of Iranian's nuclear program.

The interim deal--

We are not dismantling any centrifuges, we're not

dismantling any equipment, we're simply not producing, not

enriching over 5 percent.

They are telling us and the world, with this interim deal, they are not dismantling a damn thing.

President Rouhani, the new moderate--if you believe that, I have some property I want to sell you--said on CNN: ``So there will be no destruction of centrifuges--of existing centrifuges?'' President Rouhani said: ``No. No, not at all.''

Well, if you believe, as I do, they should be out of the enrichment business, then all the centrifuges should be dismantled and destroyed. Because to allow this regime to continue to enrich is dangerous and, quite frankly, will lead to a military conflict between Israel and Iran and maybe others.

President Rouhani tweeted:

Our relationship with the world is based on Iranian

nation's interest. In Geneva agreement, world powers

surrendered to Iran's national will.

Well, maybe that is bluster. When you look at the evidence, it's not so much bluster. The Deputy Foreign Minister said of the interconnections between networks of centrifuges that have been used to enrich uranium to 20 percent, so that they can enrich only to 5 percent:

These interconnections can be removed in a day and

connected again in a day.

So he is basically saying all we have done is basically pull the plug and we will just put it back in if we need to.

Here is what has happened since the interim deal with the sanctions regime. President Rouhani declared:

We have struck the first blow to the illegal sanctions, in

the fields of insurance, shipping, the banking system,

foodstuffs and medicine and exports of petrochemical

materials.

He tweeted:

You are witness to how foreign firms are visiting our

country; 117 political delegations have come here.

France, Turkey, Georgia, Ireland, Tunisia, Kazakhstan, China, Italy, India, Austria, and Sweden. The French chamber of commerce led a delegation to Iran not long ago with the head of Michelin Tire Company. I have been talking to the Michelin Company. They are not going to violate the sanctions, but they do believe that after this interim deal the smart money is that the sanctions are behind us.

The International Monetary Fund predicted Iran's economy could turn around due to the interim agreement. Listen to this:

The economy in Iran that was crippled because of the

sanctions could turn around based on the interim agreement

that doesn't dismantle or remove anything. Prospects for 2014

and 2015 have improved with an interim P5+1 agreement. Real

GDP growing by 1 to 2 percent in 2014-2015. Inflation would

potentially climb 15 to 20 percent. India's oil imports from

Iran more than doubled in January from a month earlier. China

has emerged as Iran's top trading partner, with nonoil trade

hitting $13 billion over the last 10 months. U.S. aerospace

companies are seeking permission to sell airline parts to

Iran for the first time in three decades. Iran has signed a

deal to sell Iraq arms and ammunition worth $195 million,

according to documents seen by Reuters. At least 13 major

international companies have said in recent weeks they aim to

reenter the Iranian marketplace over the next several months.

These sanctions, my friends on the other side, are crumbling. If we do not reset what is going on, the leverage we have gained is being lost. We are marching toward a disaster. Having a new round of sanctions passed by Congress would tell the international community from our point of view this is not behind us, we are not going to take the pressure off until we get a result that makes our country and our allies in the region safe, particularly Israel. If we do not act now, it will be too late.

To our friends at the White House: When you threaten to veto legislation and you accuse people who want to impose sanctions if the deal fails as wanting to going to war, I am afraid you completely misunderstand the situation as it really exists. I am willing to give you credit for imposing the sanctions in a forceful way, but you are naive and dangerous in your thought process if you think we can now negotiate with the sanctions crumbling and get the right answer.

The Iranian monetary unit, the rial, has appreciated by over 25 percent. The Iranian economy is rebounding after the interim deal. They are back in business. Inflation is down, the value of their currency is up, people are lining up to do business in Iran, the sanctions are crumbling, and the U.S. Senate sits quiet.

All I can say is that we have a chance to turn this around before it is too late. I believe the best thing we could do as a body is for Republicans and Democrats to pass a new round of sanctions that would only take place at the end of the 6-month period if a final deal is not achieved that results in the things I have outlined.

The bipartisan sanction bill reinforces the end game of basically dismantling the ability of the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon. We have specific language in the sanctions bill that would get us to a good outcome. I am afraid by the time the 6 months is up, the economy in Iran will have rebounded and the will of the international community to go through this process again will have been lost.

Right now the smart money is that Iran is a place you can soon do business, the sanctions are history, and our European allies, I am afraid, will accept a deal with the Iranians that is not in our national interest and will certainly not be good for our allies.

I am very worried the P5+1 has already conceded in their own mind some

enrichment capability in the hands of the Iranian regime for the purpose of face saving, supposedly. We should not worry about allowing the Iranians to save face, given what they have done to our soldiers in Iraq, the amount of terrorism they have spread throughout the world, and the way they have behaved. I am not in the face-saving business when it comes to Iran. I am in protecting America's national security interest business.

I do not mind the Iranians having a nuclear power program for peaceful purposes, as long as you control the fuel cycle. But if they want more than that, that tells you all you need to know about what their ambitions are.

I say to my colleagues on the other side: If you allow any enrichment capability left in the hands of the Shia Persians in Iran, the Sunni Arabs are going to insist on a like capability. And I am here to tell you if you want to turn the Mideast into the ultimate powder keg, allow the Iranians to have an enrichment program. Because every Sunni Arab nation that can afford one will want a like program. If you think you can allow the Iranians to enrich uranium and the Sunni Arabs will sit on the sidelines and do nothing, you don't understand the Mideast. If you want to set the world on the road to Armageddon, that will be the end of nonproliferation in the Mideast. The interim deal is a bad deal for the world, according to the Prime Minister, and a great deal for Iran. The Prime Minister of Israel is right.

If this administration is contemplating a final agreement that does not remove all the highly enriched uranium in Iran, consistent with the U.N. resolution, it is making a mistake for the ages. If this administration is going to sign on to a deal that allows enrichment to continue in Iran, where they now have a class of centrifuges that can take less than 5 percent uranium and spin it up to 90 percent, that will be a mistake for the ages.

This is North Korea in the making. But unlike North Korea, where they eventually went nuclear after the international community, through inspections and sanctions, tried to stop their program, Japan and South Korea have yet to feel the need to obtain a nuclear weapon to counter the North Koreans. I can assure you the Sunni Arab nations in the Mideast will not put themselves in that position. All you have to do is ask them.

I challenge every Member of this body to get on the phone and call the major Sunni Arab states and ask them a simple question: If the Iranians are allowed to enrich, will you insist on the same right? See what they tell you.

We have a chance here, if we are smart, to reset the table before these sanctions completely crumble, and they are. If you think you can wait 6 months, have them completely crumble and reimpose sanctions, you are kidding yourself, because the world is not going to go down that road.

What will happen if this negotiation with Iran fails to deliver what I think is the right outcome--a peaceful nuclear power program without any capability to make a nuclear weapon--I think the people throughout the region are going to respond forcefully and in kind and our friends in Israel and the world are hurt.

Can Israel tolerate the ayatollahs in Iran having the ability to develop a nuclear weapon and the only thing between the State of Israel's security is a bunch of U.N. inspectors? Now think about that. Would you put America's national security at risk, and the only thing between a hostile nation having a nuclear weapon and threatening to wipe us off the map and success is a bunch of U.N. inspectors? How well did that work in North Korea? That is not a viable outcome.

We have to stop this program completely. It must be dismantled, not mothballed. It has to be dismantled. If the Iranians want a nuclear powerplant for peaceful purposes, they can have one as long as somebody responsible controls the fuel cycle.

We are headed toward a disaster if we don't act pretty quickly. I don't mean to be so dire, but look at the Mideast. Look at the Syrian effort to contain the Syrian chemical weapons program. These thuggish regimes are not going to turn over the advantages they have until the regime itself is threatened. I believe the Iranians, after Syria, do not believe anymore that our country has the will to use military force as a last resort to stop their nuclear program. No matter what President Obama says, his actions speak far louder than his words. We could change things if the Congress would impose new sanctions, bipartisan in nature. It would actually allow the administration some leverage they do not have today.

The reason for the bipartisan bill, as in the Burr alternative to the Sanders bill, is that many of us believe now that time is not on our side. And to my friends on the other side, I hate the fact we have now split on what to do about Iran and how to impose sanctions. I have enjoyed, as much as anything in my entire time in the Senate, working with my Democratic and Republican colleagues to craft policies designed to get the right answer when it comes to the Iranian nuclear threat. But we are now in a different spot.

As much as I hate it, I feel compelled, from my point of view, to use every opportunity this body presents to bring up the issue. If you do not believe the sanctions are crumbling, I would love to hear your explanation as to why they are still working, given the information that is overwhelming.

So I hope in the coming days we can regain that bipartisanship. The majority leader, several months ago, promised a vote on Iran sanctions if we could find a bipartisan bill. He made that promise, and I will quote that later in the week. What has happened between then and now is the President has weighed in. He has tried to lock his party down and he has threatened to veto this sanctions bill.

Now is not the time to turn the Senate over to the Obama administration, which does not have a very good track record when it comes to policing the Mideast. Actually, we are helping them, whether they believe it or not. The last thing I want is a conflict anywhere in the world that can be avoided, but here are our choices: If the negotiations fail, Israel will not stand for a nuclear-capable Iran. If you attack Iran, you open Pandora's box and many bad things can happen.

I can tell you this, if there is a war between us and Iran, they lose, we win. This is not much of a debate militarily. But it is always a terrible thing to go to war unless you absolutely have to. So if the Iranians believe we are serious about sanctions and we are serious about using military force as a last resort, we may actually still get the right answer.

If they don't believe that, we are putting Israel and our allies in a terrible spot. If the Iranian program survives these negotiations and they march toward a nuclear weapon as the North Koreans did, if the U.N. inspections fail and they achieve their goal of a nuclear weapon, then we have emptied Pandora's box, because every Sunni Arab state will follow in kind. Then only God knows what happens next. We have a chance to avoid that.

But Israel will never stand for the proposition that the only thing between the ayatollahs having a nuclear weapon and the State of Israel's survival is a bunch of U.N. inspectors trying to control a program with a live capability; and Sunni Arab states will not allow the Iranians to enrich without them claiming an equal right. All this can be avoided if we act decisively. But if we continue to wait and allow the sanctions to crumble, God help us all.

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

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I thank the Chair.

Does the Senator agree with me, if the budget deal had not been paid for it would never have passed?

Most Republicans, and I am sure some Democrats, would not have voted for a budget deal unless it was deficit-neutral and paid for. I know it wouldn't have passed the House. So now, after the fact, if you fix the COLA problem without paying for it, haven't you basically blown the budget deal apart?

And their response was: We can fix it later. Our response was: Well, will you pay for it later? And everybody said yes.

So here we are. I appreciate Senator Pryor and Senator Hagan from North Carolina wanting to fix it. The good news is everyone in the body wants to undo the damage done to our military retirees. That is the good news. The bad news is we are doing it in a fashion that would break the budget agreement, and I don't think that should be our choice.

In order to right a wrong done to the military retirement community-- which was a $6 billion taking from them, unlike anybody else in the country--can we not find $6 billion over the next 10 years to make up for it? Because if we don't, we have broken the budget agreement and put a burden on the next generation. So, really, to help the military retiree, do you have to turn around and screw future generations by adding $6 billion of debt on top of the $16 trillion? I guess that is the question. And I would say no. That is why I appreciate the Senator's offset.

What is the Senator proposing here?

Let me see if I have this right. There is an earned income

tax credit you can receive based on need; is that right?

We are not going to get it. You are not going to get it for your kids because you make too much money.

I think this is a Ronald Reagan idea. If you are working, even though you may not have any income tax liability, we are going to give you an earned income tax credit. I think it is $500 per child; is that right?

Yes, I know. But under the earned income tax credit----

I think it is $500. But the point is, do you have to have a Social Security number?

Ok. If the argument is that by adding a Social Security number requirement to the additional credit you are somehow burdening people, why isn't that an argument made against the EITC? Because to get the earned income tax credit you have to have a Social Security number.

This new additional tax credit, on top of the earned income tax credit, doesn't have the same requirements. So those who come to the floor to say we are destroying families, why wouldn't you come down here and propose to do away with the Social Security number on the earned income tax credit? That would make perfect sense to me.

If requiring a Social Security number is a bad thing for families, why do you tolerate it for the EITC? The reason you wouldn't propose that change is because people in Treasury would say you would be crazy, because now you have an additional tax credit, something new on top of the EITC, that Senator Ayotte has found without a Social Security number you have $19 billion in fraud.

So I am curious. If you think requiring a Social Security number for a child to get an additional tax credit is destroying the family, why don't you come down here and suggest changing the law for the EITC? If you did that, you would get blistered by the auditor saying you are opening a new line of fraud.

So could the Senator tell us what would happen to the American taxpayer, what benefit would inure to the American taxpayer if we followed the Senator's proposal and accepted her amendment of requiring a Social Security number?

Senator McCain is absolutely right.

I thank him for showing such an interest in this topic. He has been so helpful in making sure we get this detention issue right. Having been incarcerated in a war, I think Senator McCain knows the difference between a system that works and one that doesn't. It has always been helpful to have Senator McCain travel with me and make a point to the Afghans that he knows what doesn't work.

General Dunford called this morning with a lot of sadness and, quite frankly, anger in his voice. We have captured thousands of Afghans and some third-country nationals during the 12-year war in Afghanistan. Our confinement facility at Bagram Air Base has improved a thousand percent. We have made our fair share of mistakes, but the prison now called Parwan I would put up against any prison in West Virginia, South Carolina or Arizona. It is a state-of-the-art prison. It is being transferred over to the Afghans.

As we take this prisoner population and turn it over to the Afghans with a collaborative process where we work together to determine what force to take, they have what is called an Accountability Review Board, which is an Afghan board looking at the disposition of this prison population. They were about ready to release about 88 about whom our commander felt the evidence in question deserved criminal court disposition.

The Afghan criminal court at the prison, which is attached right to the prison--the JSAF--has heard 6,000 cases with a 70-percent conviction rate. I am very proud of the judges and lawyers who run that facility.

All we are asking is that they not let 65 of the 88 walk out the door because of an administrative review board which is not recognized under Afghan law. The guy in charge of it is openly against the Bilateral Security Agreement. I think he is a corrupt individual.

General Dunford has basically said: You are going too far here. I cannot in good conscience not object.

We have lodged our objections, and we thought this would be fixed, and they were going to turn these cases over to the attorney general. I received a phone call Sunday night. There was a caveat which nobody told us about. They turned the 88 files over to the attorney general we thought for prosecution, but apparently President Karzai told the attorney general to release 65 of the 88.

If you believe in the rule of law, the President of the country does not have the authority under Afghan law to tell the judiciary or the attorney general what cases to dispose of. This is an extrajudicial exercise of legal authority by the President of Afghanistan. The people in question, the 88, are responsible for killing 60 Americans and coalition forces and 57 Afghans, and the Afghan population does not like the idea that these people are going to walk out of the jail.

I will read the statement issued by our commander in Afghanistan right after the phone call:

United States Forces-Afghanistan has learned that 65

dangerous individuals from a group of 88 detainees under

dispute have been ordered released from the Afghan National

Detention Facility at Parwan.

The U.S. has, on several occasions, provided extensive

information and evidence on each of the 88 detainees to the

Afghan Review Board, the Afghan National Directorate of

Security and the Attorney General's office.

This release violates the agreements between the U.S. and

Afghanistan.

The agreement is called the Memorandum of Understanding, and this violates the spirit and the letter of the agreement we have negotiated.

We have made clear our judgment that these individuals

should be prosecuted under Afghan law. We requested that the

cases be carefully reviewed. But the evidence against them

was never seriously considered, including by the Attorney

General, given the short time since the decision was made to

transfer these cases to the Afghan legal system.

So within 24 hours they decided to let 65 people go. Clearly, they didn't spend much time.

The release of the 65 detainees is a legitimate force

protection concern for the lives of both coalition troops and

Afghan National Security Forces.

It goes to Senator McCain's question, and I have spent a lot of time looking at every file. This is our own ground commander, General Dunford, who I think is doing a great job, telling us: If you let these people go, it represents a force protection problem.

He further goes on to say:

The primary weapon of choice for these primary individuals

is the improvised explosive device, widely recognized as the

primary cause of civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

And quite frankly, the death of our own troops. Senator McCain made a good point. Twenty-five of the 65 are directly linked to planting IEDs against our forces. We have fingerprints on these people. I have literally seen the evidence where there is biometric identification, where we can look at the pressure plate and the tape and all the material around the making of the IED and pick up fingerprints. When we do that, they match to the biometric data. We have identified the person by fingerprint, and they are going to let that person go. Some of

these people have been captured previously. The recidivism rate is growing in Afghanistan.

This is the final paragraph:

The release of these detainees is a major step backward for

the rule of law in Afghanistan. Some previously-released

individuals have already returned to the fight, and this

subsequent release will allow dangerous insurgents back into

Afghan cities and villages.

Back into the Afghan cities and villages to kill our troops and kill innocent Afghans.

I thank Senator McCain so much for his interest in this subject matter.

We are drafting a resolution condemning the actions of the Afghan government, President Karzai, in the strongest terms possible. We are suggesting that, in light of the breach of this agreement, putting our troops at risk, letting killers go, that we suspend all economic aid until after the election.

I want to let this body know that the troops are watching this. Can you imagine being one of the soldiers--Afghan and American--who risked their life to capture these people to have them walk right out the door and never face justice for killing one of your comrades? They are watching us. We have to prove to the troops on the ground in Afghanistan--both Afghan and American and coalition forces--that the Congress of the United States will not accept this; that we have their back; and that we should push back as hard as humanly possible to make the message clear to President Karzai and the Afghan government how much this displeases us. They are due to walk out of the jail Thursday.

I hope I don't have to come back on the floor of the Senate and read about the death of an American caused by one of the people President Karzai released.

Senator McCain and I have been to Afghanistan more times than I can think of. I have not found anybody more attuned to the idea that we need a sustaining permanent relationship with the Afghan people than the Senator from Arizona. He understands a follow-on force is necessary, and that we can win this conflict and end it well with honor if we have a follow-on force, and the Senator from Arizona wants to stay involved.

But does Senator McCain agree with me that the actions of President Karzai defying our commander, his own judges, his own legal system has done enormous damage to public support for this war effort--which is already low--and has hurt the relationship between the Congress and the Afghan government?

We are not asking to bring these people back to the United States for trial. We are asking that they go through the criminal process under Afghan law where Afghan judges will decide their fate. Afghan prosecutors and defense attorneys will take over the case, not us. We agreed to 550 people being released under this administrative review board, but these 88--according to General Dunford, and my own review--represent a different case of detainee.

The evidence in some cases is overwhelming. With some investigation, I think a case could be made against all of them. Many of the people who are part of the NDS, which is basically their FBI and CIA rolled into one, lost their lives capturing these folks.

All we ever asked the Afghans to do is basically follow their own rule of law. The accountability review board was never meant to be a release mechanism. General Dunford did the right thing by lodging a complaint.

I talked to the President of Afghanistan personally about how this is against the letter and spirit of the memorandum of understanding we have regarding detainees and how this will play back in America. Apparently what we think doesn't matter to him anymore. I understand being upset with this administration for the uncertainty and a lot of mistakes they made.

We may be the last two in the whole Senate who understand that we need a relationship with Afghanistan post Karzai. I believe a lot of my colleagues understand that too.

I hope every U.S. Senate Member will agree, no matter what they may think about what we should be doing in the future in Afghanistan, that we need to make a clear statement and agree to this resolution. If there are any Members who have any ideas to enhance it, I welcome those ideas.

I want this body to speak with a single voice--Republicans and Democrats--and stand behind our general and tell the President of Afghanistan that we will not let this happen without a push-back. We owe it to those who have died, we owe it to those who are in harm's way, we owe it to our own value system, and now is the time

for the Congress--and particularly the Senate--to speak with one voice and let President Karzai know that he doesn't understand what is going on in America. He is detached from reality when it comes to Afghanistan and America. No President of Afghanistan who understood this issue at all would ever do this. He is making it impossible for an American political leader and an American general to not respond forcefully.

I look forward to working with Senator McCain on this resolution.

I thank the Senator from Arizona.

To conclude, this is not Lindsey Graham or Colonel Graham saying this. This is what General Dunford is saying. I know he is right. I clearly understand what he is telling us. I have seen it firsthand.

To the folks at 435, who are in charge of the detainee population-- they lost two yesterday. An IED killed two of our civilian contractors, Paul and Michael, who were working out of the Pul-i-Charkhi prison. I know them well. I met them a bunch of times. They have been over there as civilian contractors for years trying to improve the Afghan detention facilities and legal system, and they gave their lives for a very worthy cause.

All I am saying is we need to suspend aid. We are taking hundreds of millions of dollars of American taxpayer money and investing it in Afghanistan in a way that is inappropriate.

After President Karzai's decision to release these detainees, we should cut off the money. Not a dime should go to economic development. No more money. I can't go to a taxpayer in South Carolina and say that they should write a check to a government that is being led by Karzai. Hopefully, as Senator McCain said, when somebody new comes along, reason will prevail.

I thank my colleagues and need their support. I urge every Member of this body to speak out with one voice.

I will conclude with recognizing my good friend from Connecticut. His son is a marine who served in Afghanistan, and he has been there many times. I want Senator Blumenthal to know that we are doing this today to let our marines know that their sacrifice will not go unnoticed, and we will not let these guys walk out of jail without a fight.

I thank my colleague for the question. I finally got to interview a survivor about a month or so ago with Senators Menendez and Corker. I have only been able to interview one witness after all of these years and months.

If I could, I wish to thank the Intelligence Committee for doing a lot of hard work, but let's not lose sight that this is not just about the State Department. My focus is going to be comprehensive, and Senator McCain has called for a joint select committee, along with myself and Senator Ayotte, for over a year now. Why? You don't want to stovepipe this. The Intelligence Committee tells us in pretty good detail about the failures of the State Department, but here is my question: In the September 14 White House meeting where the Intelligence Committee prepared talking points for the White House that clearly established that this was a terrorist attack with Al Qaeda people involved--who changed those talking points in that White House meeting?

I have an email--which I hope will be here in a moment--from General Petraeus. Basically, somebody in that meeting or before the meeting is saying to General Petraeus that the White House wants to take references to Al Qaeda out and basically sanitize the talking points. He is upset, but he says: Well, go ahead and do what they want. Nobody admires General Petraeus more than I do, but, quite frankly, somebody needs to revisit that.

Where was the intelligence community for 2 weeks when the President of the United States--not Susan Rice--was telling the entire world: We think this was a protest caused by a video, when the intelligence community knew differently? To my friends in the intelligence community, you need to answer that question. What input did you give? Did anybody pick up a phone and call somebody at the White House? They need to tell the President to quit doing that because it is not accurate.

Another question: On September 15, 16, and 17 of September, all the survivors were interviewed by the FBI in Germany. I have talked to one survivor. I can tell you, in a quick summary, the man was brave and the people on the ground in the State Department deserve medals for going through what they did. But let me tell you this: He said there was no protest. There was not one report from Benghazi about a protest around the Embassy.

The Turkish Ambassador left not too long before the attack. Do you think he would have walked out in the middle of a protest? Do you think the Ambassador would have gone to bed if there was a protest? The people in charge of security never reported a protest because there was not one, and he said there wasn't one. He said: I saw on my screen--and he was in charge of security at the time--16 to 20 heavily armed people running through the gate and carrying a banner in Arabic. At the time, I didn't know what it said. I now know it was the banner of Ansar al-Sharia, the Al Qaeda affiliate.

And to my friends the New York Times, journalism has died at that paper. Do you really believe this wasn't a preplanned terrorist attack with Al Qaeda affiliates in charge? The gentleman said there were four gun trucks around the compound. It was a coordinated military attack, and they were lucky to have survived.

Who started this? Who planned this? The man's name was Qumu, the former Gitmo detainee. I can't say his last name, but I think it is Qumu. The man who started Ansar al-Sharia came from Gitmo. He was a former Gitmo detainee, a Libyan who went back to Libya and started this group. The ``60 Minutes'' report identified him and a Mr. Khattala as the organizers of this attack. All I can say is that there is no mystery about who planned this. It was an Al Qaeda affiliate in Libya.

On August 16 a cable was sent back from Chris Stevens to Washington at the State Department saying: We can't defend the consulate because 10 training camps of Al Qaeda exist in Benghazi; the Al Qaeda flag is flying.

By the way, the Red Cross had left Benghazi and the British had left Benghazi because of attacks by terrorist groups. This was long before September 11.

Don't tell me we don't know. We do know. It was terrorists. It was a former Gitmo detainee who was bin Laden's bodyguard. What did he have to do--have a card? The guy who was in Gitmo whom we let go was core Al Qaeda. He was bin Laden's bodyguard. They caught him in Pakistan. He fought in Afghanistan.

Now, what we don't know from this report is who in the White House changed the talking points.

You want to know what Chris Christie did? Fine. Absolutely fair game. We know what he did when he found out what his people did about the traffic jam. He fired them. He got up in front of the whole world and said: I am embarrassed. It is my fault. I am going to fire the people who did this bad thing.

Name one person who has been held accountable for this bad thing called Benghazi. Name one person at the State Department who has been fired for ignoring repeated requests for additional security on the consulate coming from people in Libya.

By the way, the Accountability Review Board--what did I learn in my interview with the survivor? I found out for the first time that villas B and C--the places that were attacked in Benghazi, the State Department consulate--had their lease renewed in July for an entire year for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I didn't know that. It was leased for well over half a million

dollars. So you are going to tell me they were going to close the consulate in December? That was the conclusion of the Accountability Review Board. That is not accurate.

I will tell you what I think they were going to do. I think Hillary Clinton was going to go down in December and announce that the permanent facility would be open in Benghazi.

To Hillary Clinton's and Susan Rice's credit, these two women pushed the President to keep Benghazi from being overrun during the war with Qadhafi. They got involved, and to their credit they pushed the President to get involved militarily to prevent the slaughter of everybody in Benghazi.

I have been told that the plan for Benghazi was to have a permanent footprint and for Secretary Clinton to go down there as one of her last acts to say: We are here, and we are here to stay. The problem with that scenario is that the security had deteriorated because we had absolutely no plan to fall on after the fall of Qadhafi.

I think the White House, in my view--this is a reasonable conclusion but not a fair conclusion because we don't know exactly what happened yet. But I can tell you this: Somebody at the White House on September 14 pressured the intelligence community to change the story of Benghazi. And on September 15, why did they pick Susan Rice? She said that Secretary Clinton was tired and had gone through a lot of trauma. I am sure that is true, but I know Secretary Clinton pretty well. I think she is tough.

Let's put it this way: She could not be on TV to talk about what happened at the State Department because she was distraught? I don't buy that. Does anybody believe that about Secretary Clinton? And if it is true, it is something the American people need to consider. I don't believe it is true. I don't believe she was incapable of going on television, as Susan Rice says. I believe they picked a person very loyal to the President who would say whatever needed to be said. What she said was so far away from the truth that it needs to be investigated. What she said was so beneficial to the President's reelection that it needs to be investigated.

She was speaking definitively about Benghazi on September 15 while the FBI was interviewing survivors on the 15th, 16th, and the 17th. Why would any administration go on national television and tell the world what happened in Benghazi while the FBI is still interviewing people who were in the attack? And where did the FBI's interviews go?

I talked to the Deputy Director of the FBI who is now retired. He said not one person interviewed by the FBI in Germany ever said there was a protest; all of them said it was a terrorist attack. So how could the FBI have interviews from every person on the ground in Benghazi who worked for the State Department saying that there was no protest and it was a terrorist attack, and that not get into the system? Did the FBI just sit on these interviews? Who did they give those interviews to? How could Susan Rice tell the American people and the world we know what happened in Benghazi before the interviews were over? She went on television to spin this story. How could the President of the United States, after the interviews were taken, go before the American people time and time again for weeks and tell a story about a protest that never occurred? This may not be a big deal to my colleagues, but it is a hell of a big deal to me.

When Abu Ghraib blew up, Senator McCain and myself said: This is not a few rotten apples; this is system failure. Before the surge, when Iraq was falling apart, we said: This is not working, no matter what people in the Bush administration are telling us. We know better. We have been there. When Gitmo was a mess, we didn't sweep it under the rug. We worked with Senator Levin and Senator Feinstein, two great Americans, to get the definitive truth as best we could about failures at Abu Ghraib, about Gitmo, and we spoke truth to power when it came to Iraq.

Yes, we did.

Now here we are, years later, and the families have no clue as to what happened to their loved ones. Quit blaming the dead guy. This suggestion that Chris Stevens had fault for his own death--Chris Stevens was in Benghazi because that is where he was supposed to be doing what America wanted him to do: Try to hold Libya together. So there is not going to be any blame on the dead guy.

I wish to ask a question of Senator Ayotte. The Senator from New Hampshire has followed this as well as anybody. Can the Senator describe for us from her point of view the unanswered questions and whether she thinks there is evidence that this was a preplanned terrorist attack versus a protest?

If the Senator will yield, I am trying to find the press statement of the White House official that says the President has consulted with his national security team--I am paraphrasing--about the threats we face throughout the world and that we are ready. This is on September 10. What does this report tell us about September 11? We were so far away from being ready that it is unnerving. So there is a lot to be asked. Why would somebody in the White House issue a statement on 10 September talking about being ready for any contingency anywhere and basically assuring the American people the President is on top of this when, clearly, he was not?

If I could follow along with that thought, because it is a very good question, No. 1, if the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff publicly testified they knew it was a terrorist attack from the moment it started and told the White House, how did that get lost? How can they start talking about a protest and video when our own Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in real time tell the White House, but they only spoke to the President once with a prescheduled meeting just when the attack started? The Secretary of Defense----

We know he has answered one question. He said he wanted to be transparent and open and let everybody read the story of Benghazi. We have deployed a small force asking questions, and the answer to one question, finally: Did you call anybody in Libya, Mr. President, that night? No. We have a rescue team held up at the Benghazi Airport for 2\1/2\ hours.

If I may, who was the person who decided to approve a year's lease on this piece of property in July after it had been attacked in June? They blew a hole in the wall that 40 people could go through on June 10. So somebody said: Hey, this is a great site; let's extend the lease for another year, to July 2013. They never reinforced it, never added any appreciable security, and denied all the security requests. This goes on and on.

If we want to know about the bridge, that is great. If we want to know about what Chris Christie knew when and what he should have known, great, go for it. All fair. Does anybody care about what our President did that night? Does anybody really care if the President of the United States, for two weeks, talks about a protest that never happened, while all of the evidence suggests otherwise? Does anybody really care that the consulate was a death trap and nobody in Washington ever responded? Does anybody care that nobody has been brought to justice? Does anybody in this country care that somebody in the White House, on September 14, obviously for political reasons, took the intelligence and turned it upside down? Does anybody care that Susan Rice, who has nothing to do with Benghazi, was the spokesman for the country, telling a story not founded in fact, founded in political advantage? I think Americans do care.

How can the Secretary of Defense know about the security environment in the Benghazi Consulate and the Secretary of State not know? All I can say is it does matter.

I would be glad to respond to the Senator's comments.

No. 1, I understand the average American thinks of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as having been long and difficult wars costing a lot of money and a lot of American lives. But the point of the war is to make sure that radical Islam is contained and eventually defeated, and that is going to take an effort on our part.

Does it matter that the Al Qaeda flag flies over Fallujah and Ramadi? I think it does. I think when Al Qaeda occupies a city anywhere in the world, it potentially affects every city throughout the world. Imagine the Nazis having come back in Germany and occupying part of Germany. We didn't let that happen. We had a following force in Japan and Germany to make sure the transition from totalitarian and dictatorial states to functioning democracies would occur. We are still in Japan and Germany. We are not taking casualties.

To go into the Mideast and replace dictatorships and think you can do it in a matter of months or even a decade is probably not going to hold water, quite frankly. The good news is we were in a position in Iraq in 2010 where if we had left behind a residual force not to be in combat but to provide the logistical, air support, training, intelligence capabilities missing in the Iraqi Army, this would have been a very different outcome.

And it does matter to my fellow citizens here in the United States. If Al Qaeda is on the rise anywhere, it does affect us. Remember Afghanistan? Remember when the Russians left and the Taliban took over and they invited Al Qaeda and bin Laden in to be their honored guests? The rest is history. The reason 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 and not 3 million is the terrorists, the radical Islamists, Al Qaeda and their affiliates can't get the weapons to kill 3 million of us. If they could, they would.

So the goal is to create stability and marginalize Al Qaeda throughout the region. Unfortunately, as Senator McCain has predicted for a very long time, the absence of a following force allows security to break down and the vacuum was filled by the emergence of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

I would like to go over some testimony from June of 2010, when General Austin was about to take over from General Odierno the command of our operations in Iraq. General Austin told me during my questioning that we were inside the 10-yard line when it came to being successful in Iraq. In other words, the surge had worked. The surge Senator McCain supported during his Presidential campaign worked.

President Bush made his fair share of mistakes in Iraq, but to his undying credit he adjusted policies. We were all in. He gave General Petraeus all the troops we had to give and he stood behind General Petraeus, and over a 2- or 3-year period there was a phenomenal turnaround in the security situation in Iraq. The surge started in late 2007, early 2008.

Here is what had existed in 2010 in June. Basically, we were inside the 10-yard line, and General Odierno said: I think the next 18 months will determine whether we get to the goal line or give the Iraqis an opportunity to hit the goal line beyond 2011.

So we were in a good spot. The surge had worked, and we needed to close this thing out. I asked this question back in 2010: What would happen if Iraq had become a failed state? Let's say we are inside the 10-yard line but we are not smart enough to get in the end zone. What would happen? Here is what General Odierno said:

. . . if we had a failed state in Iraq, it would create

uncertainty and significant instability probably within the

region. Because of the criticality of Iraq, its relationship

to Iran, its relationship to the other Arab states in the

region, if it became unstable, it could create an environment

that could continue to increase the instability.

I don't believe we are close to that. I believe we are very far away from that happening. I think we are definitely on the right path. But those are the kinds of things which would happen if we had a complete breakdown inside Iraq. Here was a quote:

The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, has

said repeatedly that Iraq is not yet fully capable of

defending its own air space or land borders, and that it

needs help in other areas such as intelligence and logistics.

Our military commanders were telling us that the surge had worked, but we were not there yet.

Here is what I would like to say to the administration: If you believe Iraq was the wrong war to fight and we shouldn't be there, own your decision. Don't blame the Iraqis.

The truth is the administration, led by President Obama, had absolutely no desire to leave one person behind in Iraq because this was Bush's war and America was tired, and he ran on the idea of ending the war in Iraq. When it came time to make that fateful decision about a small 10,000 or 12,000, whatever the number was, residual force to maintain the gains we fought so hard and to keep Iraq stable, he now wants to tell the world it was the Iraqis. I know differently.

I know, and so does Senator McCain, that this administration made it impossible for the Iraqis to say yes because this administration would never give the Iraqi Government a troop number from the White House as to the size of the force.

I remember General Austin saying publicly we needed 18,000. The bottom line from the Pentagon was somewhere slightly north of 10,000. I remember the discussions in the White House got down to 3,500 and it was cascading down.

I remember General Dempsey answering my question as to how the numbers were reduced: Was it as a result of the Iraqis saying, no, that is too many troops to leave behind in Iraq or were the numbers reduced because the White House did not want to have that many people left behind? He said the cascading down from 18,000 all the way to 3,500 had nothing to do with the Iraqis. It was the uncertainty and unwillingness of the White House to commit to a number.

So what happened? We left the country with 200 U.S. troops advising and assisting, no capability. Everything they talked about happening if we do not get Iraq right and get into the end zone from the 10-yard line in 2010 is happening on steroids. Everything our generals told us about what would await Iraq if we didn't get this right is coming true at an accelerated pace.

So I turn it back over to Senator McCain.

As to the future of how to move forward, Prime Minister Maliki with all thought did go to Basra and take on the Shia militia.

The political gains we made in Iraq are being lost by lack of security. If we would have had a residual force, the political momentum toward reconciling Iraq would have continued. Without security, people go back to their sectarian corners. I would argue that the Sunnis need to up their game too.

But the immediate problem is how do you repel Al Qaeda from Fallujah and Ramadi? The way it worked before is you had the Sunni awakening, where the Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar had a taste of the Al Qaeda agenda and said: No, thank you. They were literally killing children in front of their parents for smoking. The stories coming out of Anbar Province about the abuse the people of Anbar suffered under Al Qaeda control would break your heart. So the Sunni leaders married with American military personnel to drive the Al Qaeda elements out of Anbar.

We are not there now. So how do you get Al Qaeda dislodged from Anbar Province, Ramadi and Fallujah? You are going to have to get the Sunni tribal leaders to work with the Iraqi Army.

I think now is a good time to send a former military commander of the U.S. forces--someone who is retired if that is what is required--to see if they can bring these parties together to form a military alliance between the Sunni tribal leaders and the Iraqi Army so the weight of the Iraqi Army can be brought into this fight. The distrust is high. But the way Al Qaeda was defeated in the past was the U.S. military working with the Sunni tribal leaders. We are not there.

The bottom line is we have to change the momentum. We are not there. But Senator Menendez, to his great credit, is willing to release his hold on the sale of Apache helicopters to allow the Iraqi military an advantage over Al Qaeda. I think Senator Menendez did the right thing.

So supplying arms in a smart way is part of the strategy to move forward. But we have to get the military in Iraq working with the Sunni tribal leaders.

I would ask Senator McCain this question: On the other side of the border in Syria is complete chaos, is hell on Earth. I don't know how we stabilize Iraq long term until we deal with the dismantling of Syria where Al Qaeda occupies the region right across the Iraqi border. How does a breakdown in Syria affect Iraq?

If I may just conclude. I have a quote from Speaker Boehner, who said he would support the Obama administration if it decides to leave troops in Iraq beyond 2011.

I remember Senator Obama and Senator Clinton not being particularly helpful to the mistakes made in Iraq during the Bush administration. In fact, the entire election in 2008 and the primary was about Iraq. I remember the politics of Candidate Barack Obama, who basically used the Iraq war to win the nomination, for lack of a better word. I remember during the campaign he talked about Afghanistan being a good war. We will talk about Afghanistan later. It is not a happy story either, I am afraid.

But the bottom line is that there was bipartisan support for troop presence beyond 2011, a residual force. This administration chose to ignore the advice of the commanders, and they created the situation where the Iraqis could not say yes. Yet they want history to record this being a problem created by the Iraqis for not giving legal immunity to U.S. soldiers. History is going to be written about our times. How this ends, nobody knows. But I know this: It is not fair to say that the reason we have nobody left behind in Iraq is because of the Iraqis. It is fair to say that the administration got the result they wanted, and they should own that--good, bad, or indifferent. Don't create a straw person for the situation that you drove and you created.

As to Syria, please understand that this whole conflict started when people went to the streets peacefully to ask for more political freedom after the uprising in Egypt; that this war in Syria did not start with a Sunni uprising or Al Qaeda invading the country. The conflict in Syria started when the people of Syria, from all walks of life, started demanding more from their government, from this dictatorship, and the response they received from their government was to use lethal force.

It has broken down now to a regional conflict where the Iranians are backing Assad and you have Sunni Arab States backing parts of the opposition and you have Al Qaeda types coming from Iraq and other places filling in the vacuum created by this breakdown in Syria.

At the end of the day, what Senator McCain had been talking about for 3 years is that once you say Assad has to go--no President should say that unless they are willing to make it happen. Assad was on the ropes. With just any effort on our part, a no-fly zone to boots on the ground, any assistance at all in the last couple of years and Assad would be gone, the transition would be well underway. It would have been bloody at first, but we would have behind us now a Syria moving toward stability because the good news is the average Syrian is not a radical Al Qaeda Islamist. Syrians have been living peacefully with each other--Christians, Sunnis, and Alawites--for hundreds of years. Now Syria has become the central battle for every radical Islamist in the region, and it is just sad and sorry to witness.

But what does it mean to us? It means that if this war continues--our friend the King of Jordan is under siege. The Lebanese Ambassador testified a couple of weeks ago in our committee that the country is saturated. Almost 1 million refugees from Syria have gone to Lebanon. There are over 5 million in Lebanon today. They have added almost 1 million refugees from Syria. They didn't plan to get to 5 million people until 2050. The Kingdom of Jordan--the Jordanians have received over 600,000 refugees, with no end in sight.

Syria is not a civil war. Syria is a regional conflict where you have proxies backing each side in Syria that are taking the entire region into chaos. It is killing Iraq. It is destabilizing Lebanon and Jordan. It has to be addressed in an effective way.

If you want to be President of the United States, certain requirements come with the job: having a vision, making tough calls at the time when it would matter. On President Obama's watch, you had the Arab spring come about and you had a desire by this administration to leave the region at any and all costs. Now you have absolute chaos. The only way we are going to fix this is for America to get reengaged. We do not need boots on the ground, but we need leadership.

It just breaks my heart to see how close we were in 2010. The surge did work in spite of opposition from President Obama as Senator and Secretary Clinton as Senator. In spite of their vehement opposition, the surge did work, and on their watch we are about to lose everything we fought for. Al Qaeda is the biggest beneficiary of our withdrawal from Iraq. Al Qaeda is the biggest beneficiary of our indifference in Syria. Al Qaeda is thriving, and our allies and our friends are in retreat.

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

I ask unanimous consent to be able to engage the Senator from New Hampshire in a colloquy for about 20 minutes. I would appreciate it if the Presiding Officer would let us know when the 20 minutes has expired. I would like to discuss the military retiree position and the budget with Senator Ayotte when she gets here.

The Presiding Officer is from Virginia, and I know he understands military men and women very well. It is a very patriotic State when it comes to their military footprint. I am confident that he and I--and others--will be able to fix the problem that occurred in the budget agreement.

Let me say about the agreement itself that I do appreciate the fact that we were able to find a bipartisan way forward to relieve sequestration from the military and nonmilitary for a couple of years. That is just a drop in the bucket as far as what we have to do to repair the military. GDP spending on the military is moving toward an alltime low over a 10-year period with sequestration. The historical average has been well over 4 percent, and we are going to hit below 3 percent if we continue sequestration. That is an issue for another day.

The budget agreement called for relieving sequestration in the pay- fors. Quite frankly, they were not big. They did not change the course of the country. They are not what the Senator from Virginia and I hoped for. We would have liked to have done entitlement reform. I would like to do Tax Code simplification. I am willing to eliminate deductions in the Tax Code and take some of the money to pay down the debt, even though some folks on my side say we have to put it all in tax reductions. And I think the Senator from Virginia would be willing to engage in commonsense entitlement reform to keep us from becoming Greece.

This was the best deal we could get. It didn't do the big deal, but it did provide some budget relief for a 2-year period, and it was about $60-something billion; I can't remember the number.

The bottom line is that one of the ways you paid for relieving pressure on the defense budget and nondefense spending was there was a provision that will affect military retirees, which nobody will own, that got into the budget agreement.

I am on the Budget Committee. I was not consulted about the agreement; I read about it in the paper. There is a fine line between having a bunch of people involved who kind of keep things from never developing to produce a product and having a handful of people doing something in a small room, not vetted.

So the bottom line is that $6.3 billion of the pay-fors came from adjusting military retirement cost-of-living allowances for those who have served our military for 20 years and are therefore eligible for retirement. What they did was they took the COLA and reduced it by 1 percent for every military retiree until they reach the age of 62.

The President, to his credit, has called for an adjusting CPI, the way COLAs are calculated, for everybody--for civilians, military, Social Security--to make it more consistent with sustainable inflationary increases. This didn't adjust the COLA, it left the formula as it is; it just reduced the military retiree's COLA by 1 percent until the military retiree reaches age 62, and that is the only group in the country that had that happen. So $6.3 billion is taken away from men and women who have served for 20 years, and no one else had the pleasure of that experience.

Civilian employees, new hires, had to contribute additional funds to the Federal retirement system to help pay for the deal, but it only affected new retirees; the people who are in the system were grandfathered. The only group that Congress found fit to single out for the retroactive application was the retiree community.

All I can say is that military pay--retirement, pension pay, health care benefits are going to be subject to being reviewed and they will be subject to reform, because a larger portion of our budget in DOD is personnel costs. The Congress, in its wisdom, set up a commission to look at this issue. They are supposed to report back in 2014--now maybe it is as late as 2015--about how to reform military pay and benefits as part of an overall restructuring of the Pentagon.

One thing Congress put into the commission's charter was that they had to grandfather people who are currently in the system. In the budget agreement we singled out military retirees for a 1-percent reduction of their COLA and nobody was grandfathered--$6.3 billion coming out of the pockets of those who have served. For an E-7 who is going to retire at 40 and has his or her COLA reduced to age 62, it is between $71,984 or $80,000, depending on who you talk to, in loss and benefits. And the E-7 receives in retirement pay after 20 years of faithful service about $25,000 a year--not exactly becoming independently wealthy.

We have one of the leading voices on this issue, Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire, who took up this challenge and came up with some solutions early on and has been a great voice about how unfair this is. So I will yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

This applies to disabled retirees as well, right?

Senator Ayotte mentioned this Washington Post editorial. The Washington Post is, in my view, a very good newspaper. I like the editorial board. They have been right on Syria and a lot of other issues. Sometimes we disagree, that is for sure. But this one editorial has gotten my attention to the point that I have to respond and, quite frankly, ask my friends at the Washington Post to reevaluate their position and think a little bit about what they are saying in their editorial when it comes to military retirees.

Yes. Reserving the right to object, to my good friend from Illinois, all I can say is that the normal way the Senate has operated for a couple of hundred years has been destroyed this year, and asking that normalcy come about now is beyond the pale, but we are where we are. So I object.

However, I urge the Senate to act to confirm the many military nominations pending for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard. So I object, with that understanding.

Senator McCain is absolutely right. The interim deal does not dismantle the centrifuges. They are spinning as we talk. They disconnect, not dismantle, some advanced centrifuges that have been installed.

What people need to realize is that the Iranians, over the last decade--particularly the last 3 years--have developed a very mature enrichment program: 18,000 centrifuges. They do not need 20-percent enriched uranium anymore for these new centrifuges to get to 90 percent, which would produce a uranium-based bomb; they can do it with a 3\1/2\-percent stockpile.

So I guess this is the basic question for us as a nation and the world at large: Do you believe the Iranians when they say that they are not trying to develop a nuclear weapon, that they are only trying to develop peaceful nuclear power? Do you believe them when they make that claim given the reality of their enrichment program, their lying, and their cheating? If their goal is to enrich not for peaceful nuclear power purposes but to make a bomb, how do you get them to change their goal?

I think what Senator McCain is pointing out is very important. The interim deal, like it or not, has legitimized enrichment in Iran. How do you go from not dismantling the plutonium reactor--complete dismantling, shutting down and dismantling the centrifuges--and turning the stockpile over to the international community after the interim deal--how do you go from there to the end game? We are so far away from an acceptable outcome.

I hope people understand what the French are saying. The French are telling us they do not believe that the Iranian negotiators and the Iranian regime are serious about abandoning an enrichment program that could break out and produce a nuclear weapon.

I appreciate Senator McCain's leadership on these issues. Syria, Iran--you name it, he has been there.

I would like to ask this question to Senator McCain: Does the Senator believe the Iranians when they say they are not trying to acquire a nuclear weapon? From the U.S.-Israel point of view, what would happen to our nations if they had that capability?

Well, the Senator is right. This interim agreement has not been implemented yet. They have 6 months to reach a final agreement but also an additional 6 months beyond that--a year, basically--to drag out these negotiations.

The Senator asked the ultimate question. Does the Senator not believe sanctions are the only reason the Iranians are at the table?

I compliment the administration for putting together an international regime to take the sanctions that Congress has passed--over their objections, I might add--to really inflict pain on the Iranian regime-- unfortunately, the people too. But that is the only reason they are at the table.

But here is the analysis, as I understand it. People in the administration believe there is a moderate element and a hard-line element. Iran is telling the United States and the P5+1: If you threaten us with any more sanctions, we will walk away. We are not going to negotiate with a gun to our heads.

Now, these are the people who have been using a lot of guns and have put a lot of guns to people's heads and actually pulled the trigger, killed hundreds of soldiers in Iraq, and have created chaos and mayhem in Syria. They are one of the biggest supporters of state terrorism. But that is an odd thing for them to say, when I believe the only reason they are at the table to begin with is because of sanctions.

So my belief is that new sanctions tied to the end game--and this is what we have been working on in a bipartisan fashion. It is not just keeping the sanctions alive for the next year; it is tying their relief to an outcome that we all want.

I want a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear program. If they want a peaceful nuclear power program, they can have it; just control the fuel cycle. That has been my position.

If they want an enrichment capability that has to be monitored by the U.N. and it is robust and the only reason they will not break out to get a nuclear weapon is because of U.N. inspectors, that is North Korea.

The movie the Senator talked about is the movie called North Korea, where you would impose sanctions, you would relieve them, you would give them money, you would give them food, you would reinstate sanctions, and you would have U.N. inspectors to control the progress. The program was never dismantled.

Don't repeat the mistakes in Iran that were repeated in North Korea. Dismantle this program before it is too late.

To the administration, we are trying to help, not hurt. I do not believe there is a moderate element when it comes to the Iranian nuclear power program. I think that is a facade. The new President is a charming fellow on television, but he was a nuclear negotiator in 2004 and 2005 for the Iranian regime and openly bragged about how much advancement they made during his time

negotiating toward an enrichment program that could produce a bomb.

So this idea that there are hard-liners and moderates when it comes to the Iranian nuclear program is a miscalculation. So we are working on bipartisan sanctions, to continue them, and they can only be relieved when we dismantle the enrichment program, when we dismantle the plutonium reactor, the heavy water reactor that has nothing to do with producing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and remove the stockpile as the U.N. has recommended. The U.N. resolutions are in force today, are on the books today. This agreement is to the left of the U.N.

So the reason we are pushing sanctions in a bipartisan fashion is we want to avoid a conflict. The Iranian nuclear program has to be stopped one way or the other--through diplomacy and sanctions or through force, unless--that is the option. I cannot imagine a world with Ayatollahs with nukes. It would create a nuclear arms race. The Senator just got back from Saudi Arabia. Sunni Arab nations would want their own nuclear weapon, and we would be on the road to Armageddon. Israel--my God, how could they sit on the sideline and watch a nuclear weapon be produced by people who threaten every day to wipe them off the map?

We are hoping we can produce sanctions that would enable and enhance the administration's opportunity to get a peaceful resolution. Sanctions and diplomacy end the program in a peaceful way. This is our last chance. If we get this wrong, history will judge us poorly. They are trying to get a nuclear weapon. They are hellbent. The only thing that will stop them is pressure.

I want to ask the Senator a question. Why are Japanese banks and other business entities rushing to do business with Iran when the interim deal--relief and sanctions--do you believe that the international community is of the mindset that the sanctions are breaking down, that they are trying to jump ahead of each other to do business with Iran, and that if Congress passed a new round of sanctions, it would stop that breakout? Do you think that makes sense?

Well, I think the point Senator McCain is making is dead- on. Is it not true that our government has designated the Iranian regime--their government--as one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the world? Is that correct?

Now, here is the question. It is a good question. If they had a nuclear weapon, would they be likely to end such activity or would they be more effective in expanding it?

I think what the Senator has just described--the litany of chaos and mayhem spread by the Iranian regime that he knows probably better than anyone because he spent so much time there--it is Hezbollah but also Hamas. They are all in. The people who create the biggest upheaval for Israel are all in for their buddy Assad, the butcher of Damascus. Without Iran's support, one of the most evil people on the planet would not have a chance.

Doesn't the Senator believe we are in a proxy war between us and the Iranians in Syria? That if we don't--and our actions towards whether we are going to use force or we are not going to use force, with Assad winning--that our policies toward Syria are affecting the regime's belief about what we may do about their nuclear program?

One thing that might reset our resolve as a nation is for the Congress to impose additional sanctions so the Ayatollahs will not be confused about our lack of will in Syria when it comes to their nuclear program. The bottom line is, after our debacle in Syria, doesn't the Senator think we have a problem with the Iranian regime of taking us seriously?

The international community is now breaking the sanctions. If new sanctions were imposed in a bipartisan way, that is the best way to reset the debate.

I think the whole Middle East is going in the wrong direction at warp speed. Congress has some obligation to speak up, to do something about it, and to try to help the administration when we can.

No. 1, a new round of sanctions, if we could muster bipartisan support, would send a great message to the Iranians: We don't see you the same as we do Syria.

There was a lot of confusion and differences in the body about what to do in Syria.

The Senator has been right for 3 years on this whole topic, but we are where we are. So a new round of sanctions, bipartisanly passed, would tell the Iranians that the American Congress and people look at them differently than the problem in Syria.

It would also be a statement in the international community: We are resolved to get this program dismantled by using sanctions. We are not backing off, so stop this breakout.

Finally to our friends, to the Israelis, to the Sunni Arab States, wouldn't it be welcome news to be tougher on Iran and to have the Congress reinforce the message to the Iranians that we are going to keep in place sanctions until they dismantle their program? Wouldn't that be some welcome news in a region that is absolutely desperate for some good news from America?