Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I recognize Andrew Shadid, a 2013 summer intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Andrew is a junior at Wheaton College in Wheaton, IL. Currently, he is majoring in interdisciplinary studies. Andrew is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Andrew for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I wish to continue on this topic.

In the last few hours, we have now had word of the potential for ground operations occurring in Gaza.

This is addressed to those who are watching Florida or will watch this message in Florida about what has happened.

I know the world has become a messy place over the last few hours. We have an incident that occurred over the skies of Ukraine with the Malaysian aircraft, and we don't know all the details of what had occurred there. We should reserve judgment until we do. Suffice it to say, that may further complicate our view of the world in this Chamber over the next few weeks, but let me address for a moment what is happening in the Middle East.

When I was elected to the Senate, a few days later, the first trip I took was to Israel. It was a country I had long admired, with strong links to the United States and to Florida in particular. In fact, the current Israeli Ambassador to the United States is from Florida. His brother was the mayor of Miami Beach. So there are strong links between Florida and Israel. I was amazed on that trip by how far that country has come--a nation that doesn't have oil or the kind of massive resources from an energy perspective that other countries in the region do, yet a country that is flourishing because of their investment in technology and innovation.

There is a book called ``Start-Up Nation,'' which chronicles the amazing miracle of Israel and what they have achieved. The one thing that strikes you about Israel as you fly over is how narrow it is. At its narrowest point, it is only 9 miles wide.

This is a country that was forged, by the way, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, with the notion that never again will the Jewish people not have a place to go in the world to call their own. That still remains the guiding principle behind the country and behind its defense forces, and we should view it within that context as we view what is occurring now in that region and part of the world.

Literally, Israel is surrounded by enemies. Certainly they have had the stability in the last two decades of peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt. But look everywhere around Israel and you see them surrounded by people who are intent on their destruction. We know that is the case in Gaza. We know that is the case in Samaria and Judea or what is commonly called the West Bank by some. We know that is the case with Assad and Syria, and many of the elements fighting within Syria. We know that is the case with Hezbollah and Lebanon. We know that is the case with Iran and its weapons programs and its long-term ambitions. This is a country surrounded by elements that want to destroy it.

It is in that context, by the way, that this government in Israel was involved

in an intensive process of negotiation brokered and led by the United States with the Palestinian President Abbas regarding a potential peace deal, some way of forging a solution, an answer to the conundrum of what to do with Palestinian populations that would allow them to live peacefully, coexist side by side with a Jewish State. They entered into this conversation despite the fact that it was never clear that Abbas was able or had the power or the influence to make the sort of tough decisions that were going to be required for peace.

In fact, they entered into the negotiation knowing they would not even speak for all Palestinians, given the fact that Hamas controlled the Gaza Strip. They entered into this negotiation nonetheless. They entered into this negotiation despite the chaos surrounding them in Lebanon and Syria. Despite the fact that Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons to destroy Israel, potentially, they entered into these negotiations. Because I say this to you unequivocally: I know of no nation on Earth that wants peace more than Israel. So they entered into these negotiations.

And what happened? What happens is what always happens with these negotiations. What happened is Abbas eventually withdrew. He once again took himself out of the talks and he tried once again to seek membership--Palestinian membership--into all these sorts of national organisms of the state, as a country of its own, knowing that was a deal breaker and knowing if that occurred, there could be no peace negotiation. That is the route he chose, nonetheless.

But then he did what I believe has triggered this latest round of violence against Israel, and that is deciding to form a power-sharing government with a terrorist group by the name of Hamas that to this day continues to deny Israel's right to even exist.

I want you to think about that for a moment. How could you possibly ever enter into a peace agreement with an organization with its very purpose being your destruction? And yet that is what Israel was being asked to do.

Tragically, within several weeks of that new government being formed, three teenagers, including an American citizen, were kidnapped and they were murdered. Then on July 7 Hamas once again started raining down rockets on Israel. Today more than 1,300 of them have been fired. The good news is that Israel has invested heavily in an air defense system which I was able to see during my second visit to Israel in the early part of 2013. But 1,300 rockets is an extraordinary number, and that is what Israel has faced.

As American policymakers, you ask what is our interest there? And I think it begins with the unique relationship that exists between the United States and Israel. It is the only vibrant democracy in that part of the world. Its alliance with the United States is unquestionable, not just in international forums but all over this planet. Israel is consistently on America's side time and again, in every one of our challenges. The cooperation between our countries is extraordinary, not to mention that Israel as a nation stands for everything that we as a nation believe in: freedom, the ability to speak out. They have a vibrant democratic process. Anyone who is familiar with Israeli politics knows how vibrant their democracy is and how much they engage in open and public debate in bringing their government together to govern the country. So we have this extraordinary alliance with Israel of incredible importance, and that is why we care. That is the political reason.

There is a moral reason behind it, and that is the right of the Jewish people to have a country they can live in peacefully; that truly never again will we face a time when Jews have nowhere to go. This is the commitment we have made to Israel and that we must keep.

I must say that I am and have been deeply troubled at the attitude this administration has adopted toward Israel. Let me be clear. I don't come here today to create this into a partisan issue. I don't want it to be a partisan issue. In fact, one of the great successes of American foreign policy with Israel has been the strong bipartisan support that Israel enjoys in the House and the Senate from almost every American President since Israel's founding at the conclusion of World War II.

But I am concerned about the position this administration is taking. I was concerned about the amount of pressure the Secretary of State was placing on the Israelis to enter into a negotiation with the Palestinian Authority which didn't have the authority or power to reach a peace agreement they could possibly enforce much less deliver on. I was concerned that pressure was being put on them at a time when Israel faced so many other challenges, No. 1 being the ambitions that Iran has to acquire nuclear weapons and long-range rockets that could strike Israel and eventually the mainland of the United States.

I think it is safe to say the relationship of the Israeli Government has never been worse toward an American President for more than 2 decades. And that has an impact on this region, and unfortunately it has had an impact here.

I have also been concerned about some of this moral equivalence that is going on in the press and some of the email I have been getting and some of the public statements I am hearing some make in some corridors--not in the Senate but some other places. The idea that both sides are to blame is an interesting concept, but it isn't true.

It is tragic, unfortunately, that civilians are dying in Gaza, but the reasons why civilians are dying is 100 percent Hamas's fault. This is an organization that puts rockets and military installations right next to nurseries and hospitals and civilian population centers. Why would they do that? Do you know why they do that? They do that because they know when they launch a rocket Israel will respond by hitting that rocket launcher, and when that rocket launcher is destroyed, so are the areas around it. Then they can get the cameras to go in there and say: ``Look what Israel did. They wiped out a nursery or apartment building.''

They do that on purpose. They know exactly what they are doing. They are doing it so they can get the kind of coverage that unfortunately even some American press outlets are buying into now.

Here is the bottom line--and Senator Graham was alluding to this a moment ago. Israel does extraordinary things with regard to this. They drop leaflets into population centers warning: We are going to have to conduct a military operation in your region. Please evacuate. Please go elsewhere where you will be safe.

Hamas doesn't do that. In fact, Hamas deliberately targets population centers to terrorize the people of Israel, and we should condemn it for what it is. There is no moral equivalency.

So now the situation has continued to spiral out of control and it has reached a point where the news today now is that Israel has begun to conduct ground operations and these ground operations they are conducting as early as this morning have to do with a tunnel network in Gaza which was used by Hamas to try to infiltrate terrorists through those tunnels into Israel to conduct terrorist activity and kill Israelis.

Put yourself in the position of this country, small and geographically isolated, surrounded by terrorist groups and some unfriendly countries, threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon and being hit by 1,300 rockets in just the last week. They have no choice but to defend themselves using all the power at their disposal. They have no choice. Not only should no one here be criticizing that, but we should be supporting it and aligning ourselves 100 percent on their side, because what they are fighting for here is not some dispute over borders. This is not some geopolitical dispute about who owns what territory. Israel is fighting for its very survival.

On the other side of this conflict is a terrorist organization bent on their destruction. On the other side of this conflict is a terrorist organization in Hamas and, truth be told, the Palestinian Authority, whose schools teach children not just to hate Israel but to hate Jews.

How could you possibly say you are for peace when your schools are actively teaching your children to hate another people? That is what is on the other side of this conflict.

And so Israel has no choice. They are fighting for their very survival, and I

think that now more than ever what they need from this country is a President and a U.S. Government that aligns itself squarely on their side--no doubletalk, no fancy diplomatic language that you could read between the lines on--a very clear statement: In this conflict we are on Israel's side and we will support them with anything they need to ensure their stability and their survival--very clear language that makes it unequivocal.

Hamas is a terrorist organization, not a legitimate representative of the aspirations of the Palestinian people, but a terrorist organization designed for the very purpose of destroying the Jewish state. We need to make these things abundantly clear, because otherwise we are going to see more of this in the years to come.

If there is any daylight between the United States and Israel, it emboldens Israel's enemies. I would say as bad as this situation is-- and it is terrible--the biggest danger facing Israel today is not just 1,300 rockets that have come over from Hamas, it is the threat of a nuclear Iran. It is interesting that while we are having this conversation here today about the attack Israel is under, this administration is trying to get an extension of these talks with the Iranian regime.

I hope you clearly understand. I said this before and I want to come here and reiterate: If Iran is allowed to retain the ability of enriching uranium or reprocessing plutonium, they will build a nuclear weapon with that capacity. Let me put it in plain English. If you let them keep the machines they use to reprocess and enrich, they may not reprocess and enrich to weapons grade right away, but the fact they have the ability to do it I guarantee you eventually means they will.

Do you know how I know that? One reason is all you have to do is hear the speeches they give. The second reason why we know that is the other issue no one is talking about: Iran isn't just spinning centrifuges, they are not just enriching uranium and reprocessing plutonium. Iran is building rockets--long-range rockets, intercontinental missiles. And there is only one purpose for those missiles. The only purpose they have is to put a warhead on them with a nuclear payload. That is the only reason why you build missiles such as that. These types of missiles are not built to deliver a conventional weapon; they are built for purposes of a nuclear capability.

Additionally, these rockets they want to build aren't just rockets that can reach Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. These are rockets that can reach Washington, DC, and my hometown of Miami, and New York City, and the mainland of the United States. So if they build these missiles with that range and they develop the ability to enrich and reprocess, they are one step away, a half step away from becoming a nuclear power, able to hold our country hostage and to carry out their ambitions of destroying Israel. That is the single greatest threat. As great as this threat is with Hamas, and needs to be dealt with decisively, that is the single greatest security threat facing Israel.

It is ironic to me that even as we are focused on this issue and what is happening, this administration is off in Geneva trying to cut a deal with Iran that allows them to retain an acknowledged right to enrich and reprocess, and that is going to prove to be disastrous.

It is my opinion those negotiations will lead to nothing, because Iran has entered into these negotiations believing they entered from a position of strength. They believe this President so badly wants a deal that they don't have to give on anything. By the way, I don't know how you do a meaningful deal with Iran on nuclear weapons that doesn't involve a conversation about these long-range rockets. Yet that is exactly what they are doing with little to no consultation with the Senate or any other policymakers.

I came to the floor to reiterate my personal support for Israel but to also reiterate how strongly I believe virtually every Member of this body supports the State of Israel, supports Israel's right to defend itself, supports the United States alliance with Israel, supports everything we must and can do to help Israel defend herself. I think that is an important message to send out.

Finally, I would say this: I would ask those who have watched this speech or who will hear these words later to take the time over the next few days to pray for Israel. They need our support there as well, that God will provide her the safety and security of her people, now and in the years to come.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, first of all, let me thank the Senator from Texas for raising this issue of the IRS. I have commented over the last few days that if this was, in fact, a Republican administration that had been engaged in this issue, this would have led every newscast in America. It would have been leading every newscast in America for the last week. It would have been compared to Watergate. Instead, what we have seen is the American news media, by and large, has largely ignored it.

One of the commentators last night on television added up all the minutes they dedicated to a soccer player who bit some other competitor compared to the amount of time they have dedicated to the fact that one of the most powerful agencies of the U.S. Government not just destroyed records, potentially--but even now we have been given news they tried to target a U.S. Senator for an internal audit--and the soccer player won. He got a lot more attention. There was a lot more news coverage paid to the guy who bit somebody than to the issue of the IRS.

So I thank the Senator from Texas for raising it here today before we head to our respective States for the Fourth of July because it is an issue that deserves our attention.

There is another issue that deserves our attention. By the way, on the subject of soccer, since I am on it, I will confess I am not an expert on soccer, nor have I, frankly, historically been an enormous fan. To me football means you wear a helmet and some shoulder pads and you run into

each other pretty hard. But I have grown in admiration of the game given the following it has internationally and given the performance of our team, and I wish to congratulate Team USA. Despite losing today's game, they have achieved the honor of advancing into the round of 16 in the World Cup as we all watched and are excited about those prospects and are encouraged about the future of U.S. soccer and our prospects in the world cup.

So congratulations to them, to their families and to all fans of U.S. soccer all over the world and here in Washington cheering them on. If there is one thing that brought us together here this week, it is that, and we are grateful for it.

Madam President, there is a topic I would like to discuss before we leave for the Fourth of July recess and return to our States. One is an enormous story in my home State and, in particular, in my hometown of Miami, and that is the ongoing crisis in Venezuela. I have been talking about it for the better part of 3 months with regard to what is occurring there. It is pretty straightforward. There is an authoritarian government in Venezuela that has cracked down on the people in Venezuela, has crushed any sort of political dissent or tried to crush any form of political dissent. If a person is an outspoken critic of the Venezuelan government, they either wind up in jail or in exile.

In fact, the President of Venezuela, someone who won a fraudulent election just a year and a half ago, has now begun to turn on people in his own party when they dare to criticize him.

But the evidence is clear. First of all, the Venezuelan economy today is a disaster. The state of the Venezuela economy today is increasingly reminiscent of what is happening in Cuba: shortages of basic items, the inability to buy a bar of soap or toilet paper or toothpaste. The shortages are extraordinary.

We are talking about one of the richest countries in the hemisphere-- a nation blessed with a talented and educated population and with natural resources, and particularly oil--and this guy in charge of that country has ruined Venezuela and its economy. That in and of itself is worthy of condemnation.

But what is even more apparent is how he has cracked down on political dissent in Venezuela. We have documented how over 40 people have now lost their lives in protests on Venezuela--by the way, protests that began when a student was sexually assaulted at a university. They protested the lack of security, and the security forces of Venezuela responded--not by going after the assailants but by going after the student protesters. Since then, opposition leaders have been jailed, Members of the opposition in the Parliament have been removed from their seats, and Venezuela continues to spiral out of control.

There have been gross human rights violations in Venezuela at the direction of the Venezuelan Government by organisms of the Venezuelan Government and extragovernmental organizations as well.

So in light of what is happening in Venezuela, and in light of the fact that so many people who live in Florida are impacted deeply by what is happening in Venezuela--because they are originally from there, because they have family there or because they conduct business there or because they care about what happens in our hemisphere--because of all of these things, not only have I been talking about this issue on the Senate floor but we began to take action.

The first thing we did was we passed a resolution from this Senate-- and I thank my colleagues; it passed unanimously--condemning these human rights violations. I know sometimes we sit around here and wonder: What is the point of these resolutions?

They matter. I cannot tell you how many people are aware of what we have done here in the Senate, just speaking out and condemning these violations and making it very clear whose side we are on. We are on the side of the democratic aspirations and the rights of the people of Venezuela.

The second thing we did is we worked through the process here because unlike the way Maduro runs his government in Venezuela, here we have a republic and this Senate is an important part of that republic. We filed a bill to sanction individuals--not the government, not the country--individuals in the Venezuelan Government responsible for these human rights violations. In fact, in the committee I named 25 of them. That piece of legislation--that law--sanctioning the leaders in Venezuela passed the committee almost unanimously with bipartisan support.

Let me take a moment to thank Senator Menendez, the chairman of that committee, for his leadership on this issue and my colleague from Florida Bill Nelson for his leadership on this issue, even though he is not on the committee. When we held a hearing on the issue of Venezuela, he went to the hearing and he attended an event we did in Miami with the Venezuelan community to talk about this reality.

That bill passed out of our committee. In addition to passing out of this committee, a very similar bill passed out of the House under the leadership of Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen. Both the Senate and the House--and they passed it off the floor of the House.

So the Venezuelan sanctions bill is ready for action here on the floor of the Senate. Knowing that it was a noncontroversial issue, that there is almost unanimous support for it, I have attempted to pass this bill by something we call unanimous consent, which basically means that the cloakrooms call the respective offices and they ask all of the Members: We are going to try to pass this bill. Do you have an objection? The reason why we do it that way is so we can save time so we have the time available to debate these other issues that are before us--especially on an issue that is not controversial. We pass a lot of law around here that way.

Unfortunately, there have been some objections--one from each side. I am happy to report that one of those two objections has been removed. It came from the Democratic side. The majority removed their objection. So it appears this bill is ready to move forward, but for the objection of one colleague of ours, who has the right to object, and who, quite frankly, has objections to it that he believes strongly about and we are respectful of.

What I am asking for at this point is--given that objection--when we come back from the recess, I am hoping that one way or another we will get a chance to vote. This is an issue that virtually every Member of the Senate but for one or two--at this point it appears one--is supportive of. I hope we can pass it because it is important. It will matter. This is not sanctions, for example, like the ones we have seen in the past on other countries. These are extremely targeted. These are targeted against individuals in the Venezuelan Government who have directed or carried out gross human rights violations.

They will be impactful because many of these people in the Venezuelan Government who are conducting these human rights violations actually spend their weekends in the United States. They fly on the private jets they bought with stolen money to the United States to stay in their fancy condominiums or their mansions. They shop at our stores. They parade up our streets. And then Monday morning they go back to work full time violating human rights.

So these sanctions will matter. These human rights violators in Venezuela have investments in the United States. In fact, when they steal money from Venezuela, often times they use straw companies and straw purchasers to invest that money in our economy--predominantly in Florida, but also in other places.

There is no reason in the world why they should not be sanctioned for what they have done. There is no reason in the world why we should not be going after these individuals for what they have done.

One of the cornerstones of our foreign policy must always be the protection of human rights anywhere in the world where they are challenged or oppressed. This gives us an opportunity to speak in a clear voice in a part of the world that, quite frankly, both parties have been guilty of neglecting. I have spent plenty of time around here talking about what is going on in Syria and what is going on in Iraq, and that

is a very dangerous issue that is occurring there. The counterterrorism risks that are posed by ISIL in Iraq and Syria are dramatic and deserve a lot of attention. We have spent time on the floor talking about what has happened in Ukraine and Russia's illegal actions with regard to Crimea, and they deserve attention. We have spent some time even talking about the Chinese ambitions in the Asian-Pacific region and their illegitimate territorial claims.

The only thing I am saying is that what happens in the Western Hemisphere matters too--that human rights violations in Venezuela are just as important as human rights violations in Africa or Europe or Asia or any other part of the world. Sometimes I feel as if they do not get the attention they deserve around here.

This is our opportunity to show that this hemisphere is important and that what happens in our hemisphere matters. I want you to know that the people of Venezuela--particularly those students and those who desire a democratic and respectful future--they are watching. Every single time we do something on Venezuela here, we hear it in phone calls, on Twitter, on Facebook, in visits to our office and in emails and in letters. They are watching, they are listening, and they are aware.

What I want people in the world to know and people in the hemisphere to know is that America does not simply care about stability; we also care about democracy and freedom and about human rights. This is our opportunity to put action where our words are.

So I sincerely hope that when we return here in about 8 or 9 days we can find a way forward to get a vote on this. If we are unable to do this through the unanimous consent process, which they call a hotline, my intentions are to come to this floor and offer it as what they call a live unanimous consent, where I will stand here and do what the Senator from Texas just did--or tried to do--with regard to the IRS issue.

I intend to come to this floor and propose this bill and ask for unanimous consent. If someone objects, then we will have a debate about that objection. Should that fail, then I hope we can have a vote scheduled. I promise it will not take any more than 15 minutes--or 10 if you want to limit the vote to 10 minutes. But let's get this done.

This is important. We have worked this the appropriate way. Often times, people come to the floor in the Senate and they pull a bill out of their pocket and say: Let's file it for messaging purposes. This is real. This is impactful. The House has already passed a version of this. Doesn't this issue at least deserve 10 minutes of the Senate's time?

So we are going to try to get this done one more time through unanimous approval. And we are going to work over the next 10 days to hopefully get everyone's support. But if we cannot do it that way, I hope we can schedule a vote on the Senate floor on this bill so we can go after and sanction those criminals in Venezuela who are stealing the money of the Venezuelan people and using the strength and the power of that government to attack their own people. I hope that will be a priority for us when we return. It deserves that attention.

I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue today, and I wish for all my colleagues the next 10 days will be fruitful in your return to your home States, and I look forward to working with you on these issues when we return.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, we all continue to follow the events in Iraq that have significant national security implications for the United States now and in the years to come. The President spoke on this issue a few moments ago, and I wish to share a few thoughts before we return to our States for the next few days and then come back to Washington early next week to continue our work.

The first thing I wish to say about this issue of Iraq is, while I certainly respect those Members who have served in this body and those commentators who have either served in government and now are out and others who have strong opinions about the decisions that were made regarding Iraq in the past, I would say I hope what we spend our time around here doing during this process is focused on what is happening now and what lies ahead. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a debate about the decisions made in 2003 and beyond. Those are important debates to have, primarily because we learn from history. We learn from the successes and the mistakes, but I think we are spending a lot of time around this process these days talking about the past. We have the rest of history to debate who was right and who was wrong with regard to the war in 2003 or the surge thereafter. I have strong opinions about it, and we should certainly spend time talking about that so we can learn from it and so we can apply it to new decisions that are being made, for example, in Afghanistan, but I would hope that 90 to 95 percent of what we spend our time on is talking about how to deal with this threat now--the one that is right before us.

The President today announced--and it is going to be covered--that they are going to send close to 300 additional American trainers and advisers into Iraq. I have no direct objection to that decision. I am hopeful, however, that it is but the first step in a multistep process in this counterterrorism risk we now face. I am hopeful what this is designed to do is set the framework for the United States to achieve a number of important goals that directly impact the national security of the United States.

The first, of course, is I believe the United States, working in conjunction

with others in the region, needs to do everything we can to cut off ISIL's supply lines. Many people may not be fully aware of this, but ISIL or ISIS--the same group involved in Syria--is not simply a bunch of Sunni Syrians or Sunni Iraqis; these are foreign fighters, including hundreds who are estimated to have come from the West, who have flocked to Syria and now Iraq to participate in this fight.

In addition, this group, in order to make the advances and the gains it is now making in Iraq, requires--as any force would--distinct supply lines that allow them to transport individuals and weapons and ammunition, in addition to, by the way, the things they are now getting their hands on as they make these advances. So one of the goals the United States must have, working in conjunction with others, is to sever those supply lines so they cannot continue to make these gains.

Secondly, I hope what the President announced today as the beginning of a process will, in part, also focus on the command and control areas they currently operate from within Syria. Without those safe havens, they would not possibly be able to expand the reach they now have. So I hope, again, that what the President announced today is but a first step toward a multistep process that allows us to address those two issues.

In addition, I think it is important to continue to revisit the issue of the opposition in Syria. When people read about the opposition in Syria, it is important to note there is no such thing as the opposition. There are a handful of groups operating within Syria against the Assad regime, but these groups also fight each other, and there is a group of nonjihadists, nonradical terrorists who are fighting in Syria to topple Assad, but this group also takes on the al- Nusra Front and ISIS. I have for many months now been calling on the administration to do more to capacitate these groups, the nonjihadists. I felt it was a mistake not to do so early on because that actually created the possibility or the eventuality that now we face; that is, that the best organized, best equipped, best trained groups in Syria happen to be the most radical ones. That includes ISIL and of course al-Nusra. By the way, al-Nusra and ISIL fight each other, which adds further complexity.

Last but not least, I think it is important to spend a significant amount of focus on helping our allies in Jordan. If we play out what is happening--if, in fact, ISIS is able to erase this border between Syria and Iraq and establish this Sunni caliphate, their next move logically will be to threaten the Kingdom of Jordan, an incredibly important ally to the United States, to the stability of the region, to Israel, and to others. So we should continue to provide assistance to Jordan in protecting their borders and their future.

These are four goals I hope we will continue to move toward, and I am hopeful that with the announcement the President made today, it is a first step as we work toward those goals.

A couple of points are important to make, and I do so every time I address this issue of Iraq. The first is this is not about the United States taking sides in a Sunni-Shia civil war. The future of Iraq depends on the people of Iraq. It is up to them to establish a government that functions. It is up to them to provide a secure and safe country where people can prosper. It is up to them to create a political system and a social system where both Sunni and Shia feel as though they have a voice in the governance of their country. This is not about the United States stepping in and saying, We are on the Shia side. In fact, I can tell my colleagues that while this is not uniform, there are many Sunnis within Iraq who do not necessarily sympathize with ISIL and what they are doing. So this is not about the United States engaging itself in a civil war.

This is also not about the United States trying to build a country. This is not about the United States going into Iraq and saying, We have to rebuild Iraq. This is about counterterrorism and this is about the future security of the United States.

Every time I come to the floor, I remind everyone that the reason 9/ 11 was possible was because Al Qaeda was able to establish a safe haven in Afghanistan, under the protection of the Taliban, and from that safe haven they raised money, they recruited, they plotted, they planned, and they ultimately carried out the most devastating terrorist attack in U.S. history, and we can never allow another similar safe haven to take root.

This is especially true when the group trying to establish such a safe haven--in fact, not just a safe haven but a caliphate run by a radical government--is a group whose expressed goal is to establish that caliphate, to use it to terrorize the people of the United States by attacking us in the United States, in the hopes of driving us out of the Middle East and then destroying Israel and establishing their brand of Islam and forcing it on all the peoples and countries of the region.

We cannot allow such a safe haven to take root. If they are successful in their goal of creating a new country, a new State, this Islamic radical caliphate, we will have in the future grave risks and potentially severe and devastating terrorist attacks against Americans both abroad and here in the homeland. This group has a very clear mandate. They have been very clear about what their goals are, but in order to carry that out successfully, they need an operational space, and we cannot allow them to create one in Iraq. That is what this issue is about. That is why this issue matters.

I know when I say what I have said, I open myself to those voices that say there are warmongers and people who want to go back to war. Absolutely not. On the contrary. What has happened is, after looking at this issue, studying the lessons of the past 20 years and what we have learned after 9/11 especially, it becomes evident to me that we are going to have to deal with this group. That is not what we are debating. The issue before us that we have to decide is when do we deal with them? Do we deal with them now, when they still have not created that caliphate, or do we deal with them 5 or 10 years down the road when they have established a safe haven and significant operational capacity? It is going to cost a lot more money, potentially many more lives and, in the process, significant terrorist attacks and terrorist risks if we deal with it later. It will cost less money, be more effective, and be a lot less dangerous if we deal with it now.

That must be our goal, to not allow this group ISIS to establish a safe haven of operation in Iraq, or in Syria for that matter, and then give the people of Iraq the opportunity to decide a future for themselves. That is important, which is why this issue of Iran is important.

I have been asked by reporters and others: Should we be working with Iran? My opinion, based on all I have learned regarding this situation and based on factors that are obvious for anyone to see, is we do not share the same goal Iran does. We don't have the same goal. Iran's goal is not simply to defeat ISIL. Iran's goal is to establish a Shia government that oppresses Sunnis and that is responsive to them. That is their goal. What they want to set up in Iraq is a public government under the control of Iran. That is not our goal, that should not be our goal, and it never has been our goal.

Our goal is to ensure that a terrorist organization cannot establish a safe haven, and our hope is that the Iraqi people can create for themselves a government and a country where both Shia and Sunni can live in peace and harmony among each other. That is up to them. We can help them do that, but we can't make them do that. What we can do is everything we can to ensure that this terrorist group doesn't take root. So I think our goals are completely incompatible with Iran.

The other point I would make is we should not do anything to legitimize that regime. That regime is the world's greatest State sponsor of terrorism. In virtually every continent on this planet, Iran has a hand in sponsoring terrorism. So I am not sure how we could possibly work side by side to wipe out terrorism with a government that sponsors terrorism more than any other government on the planet. I caution against that approach as well.

To close the loop, I hope we will spend most of our time focused on what we need to do now and in the future. We have forever to debate who was right and who was wrong about the war in 2003 or the surge in 2007.

Also, I hope the announcement the President made today was the first

step in a multistep process that will allow us to prevent ISIL from establishing the kingdom, the caliphate, and the safe haven they seek. I hope we make clear to the American people what the stakes are for us, that the reason we care about what is happening in Iraq is not because we want to nation build or because we want to force any sort of government on the people of Iraq. Their future belongs to them. It is because we cannot allow a terrorist group that has the stated goal and the increasing capacity of attacking the United States to establish an operational space such as Afghanistan was for Al Qaeda before 9/11.

I hope we will continue to play the important role the Senate plays in speaking out and hoping to give guidance and advice to the Commander in Chief. But as I said yesterday, ultimately, the role of leading on this matter corresponds to the President. Only the President of the United States can come up with a plan that hopefully all of us can unite behind because it is that important for our country and for our future and for our security.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded, and that I be recognized to speak as if in morning business.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the Senate to speak about the situation in Iraq. A moment ago I was

joined by some very close friends from South Florida, including the former mayor of West Miami, and now the chair of the county commission in Miami-Dade County, Rebecca Sosa. She actually got me started in politics.

When she was mayor of West Miami, I told her I was interested in public service. We walked door to door in the small city called West Miami which has 5,000 residents. She taught me how to campaign one on one with real people and their real lives.

Now I return home every weekend--when we are done here and with my work throughout the State--to the same community that I still live in, and increasingly people there are asking me about the situation in Iraq. The question I get from many people is--and I want to be blunt about how they say it--I understand this is a problem, but why is it our business? Why do we care about what is happening in another country when it seems to be a fight among themselves?

That is a very legitimate question. I know Americans are watching the issues that are happening abroad, and they ask themselves: Why does America need to be the world's policeman?

I want to take a few moments to explain why this matters--why it matters to people not just in the Middle East but even people in the small city of West Miami where I still live. The situation in Iraq is, to some extent, a civil war between Sunni and Shia, as we see in other conflicts such as Syria and other places. That is a real aspect of it. I would say the current government of Iraq has contributed greatly to it--by the way, spurred on by Iranian influence--to further exacerbate that divide between Sunni and Shia.

While it is fair to say that much of what is happening in Iraq is a civil war between two sects, it is not fair to say that is all it is, because what is happening in Iraq has a direct bearing on the future security of every American, even those Americans who live in the small city of West Miami where I live. Here is why.

Imagine for a moment if we could go back in time to the year 1997 or 1996 or 1998 or 1999 and had known about Al Qaeda then what we knew by September of 2001. We would have realized this is a dangerous group that had the capacity and the deep willingness to attack and kill Americans in order to terrorize so that we would leave the Middle East and turn it over to people such as them. If we had known that and taken that seriously--and I would say some did know this--if we had done something about it, it is fair to say that eventually there would have been some sort of terrorist attack, but maybe there wouldn't have been one on September 11, 2001. If we had actually targeted this group and degraded their capabilities while they were still in their safe haven in Afghanistan--or even before that--we potentially could have saved the lives of thousands of Americans and, more importantly, avoided the rise of Al Qaeda in the region and in the world. But we did not. While this is not a time to point fingers or throw blame around, I certainly think it is a time to learn the lessons of that history and apply them to the challenges of our time.

What is happening today in Iraq and in portions of Syria is in many ways the exact same thing: A radical group--ISIL--which, by the way, rose through the ranks of Al Qaeda until they now have a split from Al Qaeda, believe it or not, because Al Qaeda thinks that ISIL is too brutal to their fellow Muslims. This group has been growing in strength ever since the United States left Iraq. This group has been fed and its strength has been given to them by foreign fighters who have spilled into the conflict in Syria where they have established a foothold and have used it as a staging and operational ground to take their brand of ruthlessness now into Iraq.

We saw over the weekend images and photographs and videos of the mass assassinations, executions of Shia members of the Iraqi military. They have grown in strength over this time and they have begun to grow in their influence in Iraq. Their goal is simple: They want to establish the premier Islamic caliphate in all the world--the premier Sunni Islamic caliphate in the region. Caliphate basically means Islamic kingdom. They don't care about existing borders. The kingdom they envision is a vast safe haven that encompasses portions of Syria they already have under their control and portions of Iraq they are now gaining control of.

What is their goal for this place they are trying to set up? Their first goal is to institute Sharia law, and they have a particularly brutal brand of Sharia they have forced upon people both in Syria and now increasingly in Iraq.

Their second goal is to establish an Islamic caliphate state--a safe haven from where they can plan and train and ultimately carry out terrorist attacks against the United States and other countries, including attacks here in our homeland.

We must learn the lessons of before 2001, and we must say to ourselves: Under no circumstances will we ever again allow a safe haven or for this kind of terrorist group to ever gain a safe haven anywhere in the world. We will never allow this to happen again.

That is why it is so critical for us to be engaged here. The reason why we should care about this issue is not because we want to force upon Iraq democracy or force upon Iraq the type of government we think they need. The reason why we care is because we cannot allow a safe haven to develop there, that can be used to carry out attacks that can kill Americans, including here in our homeland. This is why we should care. This is why it is so important that the Commander in Chief of the United States--the President--come as quickly as possible before the American people and before this Congress with a plan to address this risk.

I know the President likes to go around saying the war is over, but no one told ISIL that. No one told Al Qaeda that. No one has told these terrorists that. They don't think the war is over. In fact, in their minds, this war will go on for hundreds of years. The only person who can rally this country behind a plan to address this is not a U.S. Senator or a Member of Congress, not the majority leader or the Speaker of the House, not the countless people who write very well-informed opinion pieces in our newspapers. The only person in this country who can rally us around a plan to address this is the President himself.

So while I understand he doesn't want us engaged in another conflict, and neither do most Americans, he knows--he must know--that we are going to have to do something about this. That is not the issue before us. The issue before us is whether we do something about it now or we do something about this later when the problem will be much harder and more costly to address.

I hope the President does bring us together to solve this problem. This doesn't need to be--and it should not be--a partisan issue. The national security of the United States should never be a partisan issue, for if terrorists carry out an attack on our homeland they will not attack Democratic sites but Republican sites; they will not target conservatives but leave liberals alone; they will target Americans. Americans from every political persuasion died on 9/11. I fear that may happen at some point again. So we should all care about this.

The only person who can bring us together to do something about it is the President, and so far he has failed to do it. I don't know if it is because it runs counter to his political narrative that the war is over and he got us out of Iraq. I don't know why it is, but so far he has not done that, and he must.

Mr. President: On this issue, you must lead. You must put aside all of these domestic, political debates that are going on in your office about how this is going to poll or whether this runs contrary to what you said on the campaign trail. This is too important, it is too vital, it is too serious, and it is too dangerous.

I have my own ideas, as do others, about what that plan should look like, but we want there to be a plan. We are not asking the President to come forward with a plan to go looking for something to attack. We want him to come forward with a plan because only he can, and he must. In my opinion, that plan has to be we must do whatever we can and everything we can to prevent this group, ISIL, from gaining operational long-term control of these territories in Iraq. To me, that means going after their command-and-control structure, which involves their ability to transit fighters and weapons and fuel and food and ammunition from

their safe havens in Syria to their increasingly new spaces they have now carved out for themselves in Iraq.

I think all of us in this Chamber, when it comes to issues of national security, understand we should not be a part of the back-and- forth of partisan politics.

I guess my plea here today on the Senate floor is this: Mr. President, you must lead on this issue. You must come forward with a plan that we can rally this Congress and our people behind, because if we fail to do so, I fear our Nation will pay a terrible price down the road. Never again can we allow an Al Qaeda-style group to establish a safe haven where they can plot against us anywhere on this planet. The choice before you, Mr. President, is you either deal with it now or some future President and future Congresses and future Americans will deal with it later. I hope you will deal with it now. I hope we will remember the lessons of our recent history. The only one who can lead us in that direction is you, Mr. President. I hope you will, because the consequences of failing to do so would be dramatic and, in my opinion, will be condemned by history.

I hope over the next few hours, the next few days, we will have the opportunity to come to this floor and advocate on behalf of a concrete plan of action that most, if not all, of us can support, so we can ensure we can say that during our time here we did everything we needed to do to keep America safe.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about an emerging issue of the highest order for our country's national security. I say that because I believe the coverage in the news over the last few days about Iraq has missed the greater point about the importance of the issue we are now facing.

Much of the attention--and I understand why--has been paid to the fact that the United States invested a tremendous amount of money and unfortunately lost many, many lives in the efforts to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein. These views we now see of Al Qaeda-linked groups taking over cities in Iraq rightfully trouble us. We hear the question being asked of why did we do all of this. This is without a doubt a legitimate concern and one I will touch upon in a moment, but the issue of what is happening in Iraq at this moment is much deeper and more serious than simply just that.

Let me begin by describing the emerging situation. There is a radical Islamic group by the name of ISIL, as it is called, or ISIS according to some. It has different terminologies. But it is a group linked to Al Qaeda that emerged in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein in western Iraq. They were involved in efforts against Americans after we liberated Iraq. They killed and maimed countless Americans. However, thanks to the assistance we provided, the Iraqis were able to put that group on a defensive posture.

After the United States left Iraq, however, many of this group were able to reorganize. They did so increasingly with new leadership, and they were able to do it in parts of Syria that became largely ungoverned after the Assad regime began to lose control over large swaths of land in Syria, and they grew stronger. They grew stronger still when foreign fighters from all over the world, who sympathized with their Islamic jihadist cause, began flowing into Syria, providing them new fighters.

Over the last few months, as I warned, by the way, in a hearing that we had late last year when we debated the issue of the use of force in Syria, this group, based largely now in Syria, began to conduct operations in Iraq, initially to limited success, and then limited operations that had some success. But now, over the last 72 hours, they have begun to make dramatic gains in Iraq. In fact, they have overrun the second largest city, and there are expectations that they are on the way toward Baghdad.

The goal of this group is pretty straight forward: to establish what would be known as an Islamic caliphate, basically an Islamic fundamentalist area, country--a terrorist government. By the way, this group does not necessarily respect any borders. They are looking to carve out pieces of land that they can use to train terrorists and to plan operations.

If we look at the situation in Iraq over the last 72 hours, we have legitimate concerns that, in fact, that is what they are on the verge of doing, if they have not done so already. When you add up the land they now control in Syria and the land they now control in Iraq--by the way, in many parts of the towns they are now taking over in Syria, they have already began imposing Sharia law. They have banned music; they have forced women to wear full veils. This is a radical Islamic group. It has shown what it is capable of in its conflict in Iraq when Americans were there and thereafter. This is a brutal and murderous group that has shown what they are capable of doing to those who oppose them. Unfortunately, this is a military-capable group that has made dramatic gains over the last few years in Iraq.

Most startling of all, by the way, has been what has happened with the Iraqi military, which we spent money to train and equip. In many instances the reports are they just abandoned their posts. They took off their uniforms, they put on civilian clothes and just walked away. Our fear should be that even as I speak to you now, emerging in the center of the Middle East, emerging in this area of the world is an Islamic caliphate controlled by the most radical group in that area of the world today. That is saying a lot.

Why should this matter? Well, first, as was pointed out earlier, Americans sacrificed greatly so that Iraq could be freed from tyranny. Now those gains seem to have evaporated almost overnight. But the most concerning long-term aspect of this is that in this part of the world, using territory in what was Syria and now Iraq, is the emergence of a safe haven. A safe haven is what made 9/11 possible. Al Qaeda was able to go into Afghanistan, then controlled by the Taliban, another radical Islamic group, and use it as a place to

train and plan 9/11 and other terrorist acts against the United States.

Perhaps one of the greatest successes in the post-9/11 efforts has been the denial of safe havens where terrorists could do this. But suddenly, rapidly a new safe haven is emerging where radical jihadist fighters from all over the planet are able to go and be trained. They will not simply be satisfied with conducting efforts in that part of the world. Rest assured that their targets and ambitions include us, including right here in the homeland, right here in the United States.

If, in fact, they are able to hold on to this territory, Jordan, an extraordinary ally of the United States in the region and an ally of Israel, is directly threatened. They are the next country--right next door. Already Jordan is facing tremendous challenges because of the conflict in Syria. Beyond Jordan, you can foresee where Israel could be threatened by the existence of the safe haven for a terrorist organization right next door--but ultimately us here in the United States.

The goal of these groups is to carry out Western operations. The goal of these groups is to attack Americans here, to terrorize. They believe and know that perhaps the most effective way to terrorize Americans is to not strike us in remote areas of the world, although they will do that as well, but to strike us right here in the United States. If they have an area where they are able to do this, a piece of land where there is no government to drive them out, where in fact they are the government, where they can attract the most radical people on the planet to come, to train, and to prepare to carry out these attacks, it puts in grave danger the security of every American living here in the United States.

This is the risk before us now emerging in Iraq. It is not simply the fact that we have lost the gains that were once made. That is important and worthy of outrage, but what is most startling and concerning of all is the emergence of this safe haven and what it can mean to the long- term security of every single one of us.

What can we do about it is the next question? I must say that while national security issues should never be of a partisan nature, I am concerned that despite this emergence, we have yet to hear a cohesive policy pronouncement from the White House. In fact, a number of my colleagues on the other side of aisle--Democrats--have shared the same frustration.

I want to make a couple of brief points with regard to the sorts of measures we should be thinking about in outlining a response to prevent the creation of a safe haven. The first good news is that this group is not invulnerable. This group is vulnerable. No. 1, they have not proven to be very good at controlling territory for long periods of time. This creates a vulnerability. Here is the other point. This is a Sunni Muslim group. But they are not popular among the Sunni population in Iraq. Sunnis feel terrorized by them, and they certainly do not like the Maliki government. But this is not a group that is popular among them.

Beyond that, I would say the first action we need to take is to make sure our personnel are protected, particularly in Baghdad and in the Green Zone in Baghdad, the international area, which is vulnerable to suicide attacks. We must ensure that our personnel there are protected. I understand that steps have been taken and continue to be taken to do that. I am encouraged by that. We need to make sure that happens, that the men and women who are representing us and are working on our behalf in Baghdad are protected.

One of the reasons why this is happening is because the Maliki government has been so terrible. It is not just corruption. It is the way this government has created no space for Sunnis living in Iraq that has created the possibility of this occurring. This Maliki government must be worth saving. Right now the Maliki government is a dysfunctional government as evidenced by the collapse of their military forces, but also as evidenced by the way they treated their Sunni population, giving them no space or voice in their government. That must change. That must change.

The third step is that if in fact that begins to change and conditioned upon that change, the United States must continue to provide lethal assistance, to the extent possible, to help these Iraqi forces, particularly those concentrated in Baghdad, to repel and push back against this group. Right now it is my opinion, based on everything I know that they are not capable of doing that and in many instances are not willing to do that. Without our assistance, they will have no chance of doing that.

Ultimately, while the use of force is never popular around here, I want to be blunt and clear about something. We are going to have to take some sort of action against this radical group. That is not the choice before us. The choice before us will be whether we take action now or we take action later, because what we can never allow is for another safe haven like pre-9/11 Afghanistan to emerge anywhere in the world, where terrorists can plan, practice, and ultimately conduct attacks against us here in the homeland or on our interests around the world.

Therefore, I believe that we should not rule out and, in fact, conduct, to the extent they are effective, military actions from the air against this group wherever they are located.

I do not take that lightly. I am not one to come to this floor and call for military engagement as a response to every conflict. I have opposed them in the past when they have made no sense or there was no clear plan moving forward. But this issue rises to that level of urgency. We must never forget the lessons of September 11, 2001, where a group of radical jihadist terrorists used a safe haven in Afghanistan to murder innocent Americans and carry out the most devastating attack in the history of our Nation.

It was not that long ago that this happened. There are groups around the world that aspire to that now. What they need is a place to do that from. We cannot allow that place to emerge. There is no greater responsibility on the Federal Government than to provide for the security of our people. The choice before us will be whether we prevent it now or whether we deal with the consequences of it later. I urge the White House to take this matter with the importance that it deserves and to come to this Congress as soon as possible with a clear and concrete plan on how we are going to deal with it and engage in this emerging emergency situation that we now face and that threatens the national security of the United States and places a grave threat to the national security of our country in the years to come.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I recognize Adriana Alvarez, a 2013 press intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Adriana is a sophomore pursuing a major in Public Relations at Florida International University. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Adriana for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize Rachel Crew, a 2013 intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Rachel is a senior at the University of Central Florida, where she is majoring in political science pre-law. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Rachel for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize Chris Dellaporta, a 2013 intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Chris is a sophomore at the College of Southern Maryland where he is majoring in Business Administration. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Chris for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize Richard Kinkoff III, a 2013 intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Richard is a graduate of the University of South Florida, where he received a degree in finance. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Richard for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize Stephen Patrick, a 2013 intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Stephen is a senior at Georgetown University majoring in government. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Stephen for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize Bradley Puffenbarger, a 2013 intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Bradley is a graduate of Georgetown University in Washington, DC, where he majored in English. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Bradley for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize Stephanie Rivera, a 2013 intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Stephanie is a rising junior at American University in Washington, DC. Currently, she is a public communication and Spanish double major. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Stephanie for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.