vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the ayes are 93, the nays are zero. the nomination is confirmed.

under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate on the beecroft nomination. without objection all time is yielded. the question occurs on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. there will be two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the dynan nomination. without objection. all time is yielded back. the question occurs on the nomination. all in favor say aye.

all opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the kia'aina nomination. without objection all time is yielded back. the question now occurs on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the logan nomination.

without objection, all time is yielded back. the question occurs on the nomination. all in favor, aye. all opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate prior to the vote on the handelsman nomination. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that time be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. the question now occurs on the nomination. all those in favor, aye. all opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the

senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session.

mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, i rise today to discuss the facts regarding the ongoing i.r.s.

scandal that the obama administration refuses to investigate, refuses to prosecute, refuses to address with honesty and integrity. i want to talk about the facts that we know and the facts that we don't know and how we as the united states senate can demonstrate fidelity to law and the integrity of the united states government. let's talk about what we know. we know that more than one year ago, on may 14, 2013, the inspector general of the treasury department said that beginning in 2010, the i.r.s. had improperly targeted conservative citizen groups, tea party groups, pro-israel groups and pro-life groups. the day that the inspector general's report was made public, president obama described what had occurred as -- quote -- "intolerable and

inexcusable." as president obama put it -- quote -- "americans have a right to be angry about it, and i'm angry about it." well, madam president, if president obama was speaking the truth when he said over a year ago that americans have a right to be angry about this, then today after over a year of obstruction of justice of refusing to investigate or prosecute what happened under president obama's own standard, americans have a right to be far more than angry about it. likewise, that very same day the inspector general report came out, attorney general eric holder said that the i.r.s. targeting of conservative groups was -- quote -- "outrageous and unacceptable." that was more than a year ago. what has happened in the year and two months that have passed since then?

although both the president and attorney general professed outrage and anger, not a single person has been indicted. not a single person. although both the president and the attorney general said they would investigate this matter, it has been publicly reported that no indictments are planned. in fact, president obama went on national television during the super bowl and categorically stated that there was -- quote -- "not even a smidgen of corruption to be found at the i.r.s." how far we had gone from the day the scandal broke when he said he was angry and the american people had a right to be angry. fast forward a few months later, and he goes on television and said there is not a smidgen of corruption. now, that is a remarkable statement for the president to have made because attorney general eric holder four days

earlier had told the senate judiciary committee that there was an ongoing investigation being conducted at the i.r.s. madam president, president obama's comments and eric holder's comments are facially inconsistent. either eric holder was telling the truth that there was in fact a meaningful ongoing investigation or president obama was telling the truth when he said conclusively there is not a smidgen of corruption. one or the other was not telling the truth. or perhaps president obama was simply prejudging the investigation. perhaps president obama was simply attempting to influence his outcome, making clear that the outcome desired from the white house is that there is not a smidgen of corruption. what happened to the american people having a right to be angry?

now the president is instead telling investigators the conclusion they should reach. regardless, it is beyond dispute that the obama administration, the justice department has not held anyone accountable for this gross abuse of power. at a hearing in january of this year, attorney general eric holder refused to answer whether even a single victim of the wrongful targeting has been interviewed. madam president, let me repeat that. the victims who were targeted wrongly by the i.r.s., the citizens for exercising their political free speech rights, the attorney general refused to answer if they have even bothered to interview any of those citizens. we also know that some of the emails that have been made public give the appearance that the department of justice may have been directly involved in

the illegal targeting of citizen groups based on their political views. most stunningly, madam president, we know that the lead attorney investigating this matter is a major democratic donor and a major donor to president obama. indeed, she has given over $6,000 to president obama and democrats in recent years. madam president, no reasonable person would trust john mitchell to investigate richard nixon, and yet the obama administration is telling the american people the investigation into the wrongful targeting of conservatives will be led by a major obama democratic donor. madam president, that is contemptuous. it is contemptuous of the law. it is contemptuous of the american people.

one would think if you appoint a major obama donor to lead the investigation, one would think it is likely that the victims would not be interviewed, that no one would be indicted. and wonder of wonders, what has happened? the victims have not been interviewed and no one has been indicted. but that's not all. we have seen lois lerner, the head of the i.r.s. office that illegally targeted conservative citizens, go before congress and repeatedly plead the fifth. madam president, when a senior government official takes the fifth, that is an action that should be taken very, very seriously. and yet it seems in this town, partisan politics trumps fidelity to law. what lois lerner said in the house of representatives by pleading the fifth is effectively standing there saying if i answer your questions, i may well implicate myself in criminal conduct.

madam president, that's chilling. and let me note with sadness that the democratic members of this chamber seem to have no concern about a senior i.r.s. official pleading the fifth repeatedly because truthfully answering the questions could implicate her in criminal conduct. throughout it all, americans have been told that the obama administration would find out what was -- what happened and would take the necessary actions indeed, the new head of the i.r.s., commissioner john koskinen, promised as much. and now we find out that this new commissioner is also a major donor to president obama and democratic causes. this new commissioner of the i.r.s. has given nearly $100,000 to the democratic party, including $7,300 to president

obama. now, madam president, what fair-minded concern would entrust not one but two major obama donors to investigate how the i.r.s. used political power to go after the enemies of president obama. not one but two. the lead lawyer at the department of justice heading up the noninvestigation that's not interviewing the victims, that is not indicting anyone, and the head of the i.r.s. given nearly $100,000 to democratic causes. and now we receive even more striking news. commissioner koskinen tells us the i.r.s. lost lois lerner's emails. oops, sorry, the dog ate my homework. madam president, if you or i tried that on our i.r.s.

returns, they wouldn't accept that excuse from a citizen. we're told that the hard drive crashed and that the documents are irretrievable under any circumstances. we also know that the i.r.s. didn't follow the law when it failed to report the hard drive crash that we're told occurred. but make no mistakes, these emails haven't just been lost. these emails have been deleted, taped over and the hard drive physically destroyed, according to public news reports. madam president, this is rosemary woods. madam president, when you have federal government officials destroying evidence, in the ordinary parlance, that's called obstruction of justice. the hard drive magically

collapses, magically crashes and is physically destroyed right after the investigation begins. and i would mind you, the investigation that has resulted in lois lerner pleading the fifth twice. we are supposed to believe that the emails from the i.r.s. officials in charge of the division that illegally targeted political organizations and has repeatedly pleaded the fifth to avoid incriminating herself, that her emails have simply vanished. innocuously, just erased. you know, it happens. it happens that people in the middle of illegal acts, their records magically disappear right when the investigators are seeking to discover them. madam president, this is an outrage. this is a scandal. this is an insult to anyone concerned about rule of law, and

no one in the united states senate, regardless of political party, should stand by and accept this. but it doesn't end there. on wednesday, it was reported that lois lerner flagged a speaking invitation for republican senator charles grassley for examination. senator grassley, of course, is the highest ranking republican on the senate judiciary committee who has been a strong and powerful voice for accountability at the department of justice. it's curious that she would be so eager to subject senator grassley for extra scrutiny based on a speaking invitation. madam president, right now today, the white house is in control of democrats. there will come a time when democrats no longer control the white house and the administration. i would ask every democratic member of this body how

comfortable are you with the precedent that the i.r.s. can single out democratic senators who might disagree with the president's political position. the targeting of chuck grassley, the singling out of chuck grassley ought to trouble every member of this body. and on tuesday, it was reported that the i.r.s. agreed to pay $50,000 in damages to the national organization of marriage because the i.r.s. admittedly unlawfully released confidential information of members of that group to its political opposition. let me repeat that. i.r.s. officials have publicly admitted -- this is not inference, this is not suggestion. this is what they have admitted -- that they leaked

personal tax information for the purpose of intimidating a conservative group to the political opposition of that group. madam president, that is textbook abuse of power, and i would note the $50,000 fine -- which, by the way, has been paid by u.s. taxpayers -- the $50,000 fine does nothing to address the partisan political corruption at the i.r.s., the abuse of power, or the cover-up. a fine does not signal that the problem has been fixed. and i would note, by the way, madam president, where are the democratic members of this body standing up and saying it is wrong for the i.r.s. to illegally hand over personal information from individual taxpayers for partisan purposes to their political opponents?

i want to underscore the i.r.s. has admitted they did this and has paid a $50,000 fine and yet the democratic members of this body are apparently not troubled at all or if they're troubled, they keep their troubles very quiet to themselves. americans need a guarantee that the i.r.s. will never be used again to target an administration's political enemies. madam president, when a republican president, rismed nixon, attempted to use the i.r.s. to target its political enemies, it was wrong, it was an abuse of power and he was rightfully condemned on both sides of the aisle, both democrats and republicans stood up to president nixon attempting to use the i.r.s. to target his political enemies and said this is wrong. the obama administration didn't just attempt to do so. it succeeded. it carried out a concerted

effort targeting those perceived to be the political enemies of the president, targeting individual citizens. the administration then put in charge of the investigation two major democratic donors and covered up the truth, including conveniently losing the emails from the central player in this figure, who has twice pleaded the fifth. it was wrong when richard nixon tried to use the i.r.s. to target his political enemies and, madam president, it was wrong when the obama administration tried and succeeded to do the same. the difference, when richard nixon did so, republicans had the courage to stand up to a member of their own party. it saddens me that there is not a single democratic member of this body who has had the courage to stand up to their own

party and say this abuse of power, using the i.r.s. to target citizens for political beliefs, is wrong. madam president, we need a special prosecutor with meaningful independence to make sure that justice is served and that our constitutional rights to free speech, to assembly, and to privacy are protected. it saddens me to say that the u.s. department of justice under attorney general eric holder has become the most partisan department of justice in the history of our country. i say this as a former alumnus of the justice department, former deputy attorney general at the, i can tell you their alumni of the justice department across this country who are sattened, who are

heartbreaken -- heartbroken to see the i.r.s. become an arm of the democratic national committee. i.r.s. officials have stonewalled at every turn and we should not wade wait a single minute to put an end to the intimidation of the american people. these are not the actions of a government that respects the zenry. we need -- citizenry. we need to restore that respect that government officials work for the people and not the other way around. maptsz the -- madam president, the department of justice has a storied history. there is a history of attorneys general standing up to political pressure even against the presidents who have appointed them. listen, political pressure in this town is nothing new. and attorneys general throughout history have had a special mettle of being willing to look in the eyes of the president who appointed them and being able to say i care more about rule of law than any partisan allegiance i might have.

when president richard nixon faced charges of abusing government power for partisan ends, his attorney general, elliott richardson, a republican, appointed archibald cox as special prosecutor. likewise when president bill clinton faced charges of ethical improprieties, his attorney general, janet reno, a democrat, reported robert fiske as independent counsel. sadly, the current attorney general has refused to live up to that bipartisan tradition of independence, of integrity, of fidelity to law. repeatedly i have called on attorney general eric holder to remove the investigation from the hands of a major obama donor and put it instead in the hands of a special prosecutor with meaningful independence who at a very minimum is not a major

democratic donor. even the very slightest respect for rule of law would suggest that the attorney general should not be part and parcel of a political and partisan cover-up. therefore, i intend in a few moments to ask for unanimous consent to call up a senate resolution expressing the opinion of the senate that the attorney general should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute if the facts support the i.r.s. targeting of americans and its potential cover-up of those actions. when i asked the attorney general whether the department of justice has investigated, the direct involvement of political appointees at the white house, up to and including the president,

attorney general holder refused to answer that question. madam president, that's always the hardest thing for an attorney general to do, to ask the question that raises partisan peril. that's why attorneys general are supposed to be nonpartisan and owe their fe dilt to the constitution and the laws of this united states and to the american people. the house of representatives has passed a similar resolution to the one that i am introducing. it was sponsored by congressman jim jordan of ohio on may 7, 2014 and i will note in the house the resolution passed 250- 168, 26 democrats voted in favor. madam president, why is it in the house of representatives there are democrats who can muster up the courage to stand up to the partisan pressure from

the white house, but yet in the united states senate we hear crickets chirping. this used to be the body praised for its independence, praised for its ability to stand up to abuse of power. just today the u.s. supreme court unanimously reversed the obama administration for the 12th time in the last two years in its assertion of overbroad executive authority. this time when the president unconstitutionally attempted to circumvent the checks and balances of the constitution by unilaterally appointing recess appointments while the senate was not in recess. madam president, the united states supreme court unanimously by a vote of 9-0 said that the president's actions were unconstitutional in that case and once again, as with the i.r.s., my friends on the democratic side of the aisle were silent. how is it that there is no

longer a robert byrd, no longer a ted kennedy, that there are no longer any democrats who will defend the institutional integrity of the senate? how is it when the supreme court concludes unanimously that the president's intrusion on the senate's constitutional authority is unconstitutional, that not a single senate democrat has the courage to stand up to this president? how is it in the face of a senior i.r.s. official repeatedly pleading the fifth, how is it in the face of the i.r.s. admitting it wrongfully handed over private personal i.r.s. tax data to the political opponents of a citizen group and paid a $50,000 fine pour it, how -- for it, how is it not a single democratic senator has the courage to speak up? at what point does it become too much? at what point does it become embarrassing? constitutional law professor

jonathan turley who i might note is a liberal, who voted for president obama in 2008, professor turley has described that president obama has become the embodiment of the imperial president. he has described that barack obama has become the president that richard nixon always wished he could be. and i'm sorry to tell you, he has done so with the active, aiding and abetting of 55 democratic members of this senate, because when democratic members of this senate or any member of this senate stands by and allows the president to trample on rule of law, then any one of us who remains silent is complicit in undermining the constitution. madam president, this resolution should be unanimous. if the tables were turned, if

this were a republican administration, if a republican president and a republican attorney general had appointed a major republican donor who lead the investigation into the wrongful targeting of democrats, if a republican administration had destroyed the emails, destroyed the hard drives, if a republican administration had publicly admitted to leaking private citizen information to political opponents of democrats, madam president, the democratic side of this chamber would rightfully be lighting their hair on fire. madam president, if this were a republican administration, every media outlet would have banner headlines every single day. and, madam president, i can assure you, that at least some republican senators would be doing exactly the same, standing up and saying this abuse of power is wrong.

this resolution should be unanimous because everyone should agree that an investigation should be beyond reproach, should not be handed over to major democratic donors. if the allegation which the inspector general's report of treasury has already confirmed in significant respect, if the allegation is of a buys of government power at the i.r.s. to target citizens for their political beliefs, then you cannot entrust the investigation to a partisan whose political interest is protecting the party in power. madam president, if attorney general eric holder continues to refuse to appoint a special prosecutor, he should be impeached. madam president, when an attorney general refuses to enforce the law, when an attorney general mocks the rule of law, when an attorney

general corrupts the department of justice by conducting a nakedly partisan investigation to cover up political wrongdoing, that conduct by any reasonable measure constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors. attorney general eric holder has the opportunity to do the right thing. he could appoint a special prosecutor with meaningful independence who is not a major obama donor. and yet every time the attorney general has been called on to do this, he has defiantly said no, and, in fact, he has said in writing in his discretion, no. if attorney general eric holder continues to refuse to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the abuse of power by the i.r.s., he should be impeached. i agree with president obama the day this scandal broke

bureaucracy, the american people have a right to be angry. if the american people had a right to be angry over a year ago, the fact that it has been covered up, that a partisan investigation has refused to begin to scratch the surface of what happened, should make the american people more than angry, it should move them to action. it should move them to accountability, it should move them to hold the officials of our government responsible. accordingly, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 487. i further ask consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, as the chairman of the finance committee that oversees the

i.r.s., i have to question whether bringing in a special prosecutor would be a good use of taxpayer money in this case. i'm just going to spend a very few minutes laying out what is actually going on with respect to this matter. there are already five i.r.s. investigations, either concluded or ongoing. there was the original treasury inspector general audit. in addition to ongoing investigations by four congressional committees. the senate finance committee, the house ways and means committee, the house oversight and government reform committee and the senate permanent subcommittee on investigations. the senate finance committee, the committee that i chair, madam president, has been conducting a bipartisan

investigation for more than a year. and i'd just like to repeat that. this is a bipartisan investigation, madam president. in fact, the committee's report was essentially ready to be released last week when the i.r.s. informed us that some emails were missing because of a hard drive crash. and so that colleagues understand just how bipartisan our effort has been, senator hatch and i -- and we have worked closely on this every step of the way, every step of the way, madam president, since i had the honor of becoming the chair of the finance committee. when we heard of the hard drive problem, the two of us, a democrat and a republican, immediately, immediately asked

the i.r.s. commissioner to come to my office where we asked pointed questions of commissioner koskinen. we didn't wait ten days, we didn't wait a week. the two of us, a democrat and republican, because we felt it was an important part of our committee's bipartisan inquiry, we had mr. koskinen come to our office. and this has just been one example. it happens to be very recent, of the bipartisan efforts that have been made looking into this matter. the finance committee staff, democrats and republicans, have reviewed over 700,000 pages of documents and interviewed 30 i.r.s. employees. madam president, those interviews were done jointly. we had democrats and republicans doing them together.

and now, as we continue to look at how this is going to unfold, the treasury department inspector general -- that's mr. mr. russell george -- has agreed to investigate the most recent matter, and they briefed our staff just yesterday on their work plan for getting their investigation done promptly. once the committee determines what happened with the hard drive crashes, then the committee will again on a bipartisan basis move forward with releasing our report, the report that was almost done -- almost ready to be released when the i.r.s. informed us that the emails were missing because of the hard drive crash. and that's when senator hatch and i together brought mr. koskinen in immediately to my office. now, i heard my colleagues

say -- colleague say that things would be different if this would be a republican administration. well, i want it understood, i want every united states senator to understand this -- senator hatch and i would be doing exactly what we're doing now, with the same diligence, if it was a republican administration. that, in my view, is the bottom line because that's what bipartisanship is all about. that's the way an important inquiry ought to be handled. and there is nothing of value that a special prosecutor would bring to the table, and it certainly would involve significant costs to american taxpayers. in fact, many of us can remember special prosecutors abusing their power, spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money and going on for years and years without concluding their investigations. too often, special prosecutors have turned into a lawyer's full

employment program. they ought to be reserved for where there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing inside the government. it would be premature to appoint a special prosecutor with the bipartisan finance committee report almost finished. and i will just close, madam president, by saying i'm a pretty bipartisan fella. in fact, i sometimes get a fair amount of criticism for being too bipartisan. i want it understood this is a bipartisan inquiry that is being done by the book. senator hatch and i are looking at these matters together. we talk about it frequently. those witnesses were interviewed together. we brought mr. koskinen in immediately. and my view is that it would be premature to appoint a special prosecutor with the bipartisan finance committee report almost finished. if we look at this in terms of

what is at issue now, we can bring those facts to light with our own investigators and our own bipartisan inquiry and avoid some of the special prosecutor disasters of the past. i object to the senator's request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, i thank my friend from oregon for his impassioned comments. i would note for the record a few things that he did not say. my friend from oregon chose not to say a word about the fact that lois lerner, a senior i.r.s. official, has twice pleaded the fifth in front of the house of representatives. to that, he had not a single response. my friend from oregon chose to say not a word to the fact that the i.r.s. singled out senator chuck grassley for special

scrutiny. to that, he said not a word. my friend from oregon chose to say not a word to the fact that the i.r.s. has now admitted to illegally handing over private personal information from a citizen group to its political opponents for partisan political purposes and has paid a $50,000 fine. madam president, that is not an allegation. that is not a theory. that is what the i.r.s. has admitted and paid a $50,000 fine with taxpayer funds. i'm sorry to say my friend from oregon had not a word to say about that abuse of power. i mentioned before that from the democratic members of this chamber, when it comes to the abuse of power from the obama administration, there are crickets chirping. now, i am pleased that my friend

from oregon and the finance committee has engaged in an investigation of what occurred. we don't know what that investigation will conclude. but i find it interesting that he said it's premature for a special prosecutor. 14 months ago was when president obama said i am angry and the american people have a right to be angry. 14 months ago. 14 months, not a single person has been indicted. 14 months, most of the victims haven't been interviewed. 14 months, they have publicly announced they don't intend to indict anyone. and yet, it's premature. if the american people had a right to be angry 14 months ago, which is what president obama told us, what should we feel 14 months later after partisan stonewalling and obstruction of justice? the american people had a right to be angry. i would note a senate committee

is conducting an investigation and will issue a report, but yet the senate committee can't indict anyone. the senate committee can't prosecute anyone. my friend from oregon says it's premature to have a special prosecutor because apparently holding people who break the laws, who commit criminal conduct to abusive i.r.s. power to target individual citizens based on their political views, apparently holding them accountable is not a priority for a single democratic member of this chamber. that saddens me, madam president. it saddens me that we don't have 100 senators in this room saying regardless of what party we're in, it is an embarrassment to have this investigation -- and i put that word in quotes because a real investigation involves interviewing the victims.

a real investigation involves following the evidence where it lies. i would note that my friend from oregon in describing the senate committee's investigation mentioned that they interviewed some i.r.s. employees but noticeably absent from what he said they interviewed was anyone in the white house, anyone political. apparently, they were not interviewed. we don't know. but he didn't mention them if they were. it is an embarrassment that this so-called investigation is led by a partisan democratic donor who has given over $6,000 to president obama and the democrats. it is an embarrassment that the i.r.s. obstruction of justice is led by a major democratic donor who has given nearly $100,000. every one of us takes an oath to the constitution. every one of us owes fidelity to

rule of law. when you have the department of justice behaving like an arm of the d.n.c., protecting the political interests of the white house instead of upholding the law, it upped mines the liberty of every american. i am saddened that democratic members of this chamber will not stand up and say i have a higher obligation to the constitution, to the rule of law and to the american people than i have to my democratic party. that is the sad state of affairs, but it is also the state of affairs that is outraging the american people, that is waking up the american people. you know, president obama had it right when he said 14 months ago the american people are right to

be angry about this. he was correct. and when elected officials, when appointed officials in the obama administration mock the rule of law, demonstrate contempt for congress and abuse their power against the individual citizenry, against we the people, the people have a natural and immediate remedy that is available in november every two years. this november, i am confident that the american people will follow the president's advice and demonstrate that they are angry about the abuse of power and even angrier about the partisan cover-up in which all 55 democratic senators have actively aided and abetted. if attorney general eric holder is unwilling to appoint a special prosecutor, if he

insists on keeping this prosecution in the control of a major obama donor, then attorney general eric holder should be impeached because the rule of law matters more than any partisan political party. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: thank you, madam president. first of all, let me thank the senator from texas for raising this issue of the i.r.s. i have commented over the last few days that if this was, in fact, a republican administration who had been engaged in this issue, well, 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 and it would have -- 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 that they dedicated to a soccer player that bit some other competitor to the amount of time they have dedicated to the fact that one of the most powerful agencies of the united states government, not just destroyed records potentially but even now we have been given news that 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 that guy who bit somebody than to this issue of the i.r.s. 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's an issue that deserves that attention. there is another issue that deserves attention. by the way, on the subject of soccer, since i'm on it, i will confess i am not an expert on soccer, more quite frankly have been historically been an enormous fan. for me football means you wear a helmet and shoulder pads and you run into each other pretty hard.

but i have grown an admiration of the game given the following it has internationally and given the performance of our team. i want to congratulate team u.s.a., despite losing today's game, has achieved the honor of advancing to the round of 16 in the world cup, and 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 family and to their fans -- all fans of u.s. soccer all over the world that have been watching and cheering them on. if there is one thing that brought them together this week was that and we're grateful for it. there is a topic i'd like to discuss before we leave for the 4th of july recess and return to our states. one is an enormous in my home state and in particular in miami and that is the ongoing crisis in venezuela. i have been talking about it for the better part of three months with regard to what's occurred there. you have an authoritarian government in venezuela that has cracked down on the people of venezuela, has crushed any sort of political dissent.

if you are an outspoken critic of the venezuelan government you wind up in jail or in exile. in fact, the president of venezuela, someone who won in a fraudulent election a year and a half ago, has begun to turn on people in his own party when they dare to criticize him. the evidence is clear, first of all, the venezuelan economy today is a disaster. the state of the venezuelan economy today is increasingly reminiscent of what's 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're talking about one of the richest countries in the hemisphere, a nation blessed with a talented population and with natural resources, in particular oil. this guy in charge of that country has ruined venezuela and its economy. that in and of itself is worthy of condemnation. what is more apparent is how he has cracked down on political

dissent in venezuela. we have documented how over 40 people have lost their lives in protest over venezuela, protests that began when a student was sexually assaulted at a university and they protested the lack of security and the security forces 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 conducted in venezuela at the direction of the venezuelan government by organisms of the venezuelan government and extra governmental organizations as well. in light of what was happening in venezuela and in light of the fact that so many people who live in florida are impacted deep by by what's happening in venezuela because they're originally from there, because

they have family there, because they conduct business there, or because they care about what happens in our hemisphere, because of all of these things, not only did i begin talking about this issue on the senate floor but we began to take action. the first thing we did is we passed a resolution from the senate -- and i thank my colleagues. it passed unanimously condemning these human rights violations. i know sometimes we wonder what's the point of these resolutions. they matter. i can't tell you how many people are aware of what's happened, what we've done here in the senate just speaking out and condemning those violations and making it very clear whose side we are on. we are on the side of the democratic aspiration 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, we have a republic and this senate is an important part of that republic. we filed to sanction individuals, not the government, individuals within the government responsible for these

human rights violations. i came to the floor and named 25 of them in the committee. and that piece of legislation, that law sanctioning 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's not on the committee. we held a hearing on the issue in 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, and in addition to passing out of this committee a very similar bill passed out of the house under the leadership of congresswoman ross lay continue. both the house and the senate -- 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 that we call unanimous consent, which basically means that the cloakrooms, they call the respective offices and they ask all the members, we're going to try to pass this bill. do you have an objection? and the reason why we do it that way is so that we can save time, that we have the time available to debate these other issues that are before us especially on an issue that's not controversial. we pass a lot of law around here that way. unfortunately there have been some objections. one from each side. i'm happy to report that one of those two objections has been removed. and the democratic -- it came from the democratic side, the majority removed their objection. and so it appears that 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'm 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 on this. this is an issue that virtually every member of the senate but for one or two at this point appears one, is supportive of. and i hope we can pass it, because it is important. it will matter. this is not sanctions, for example, like the ones we've 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. and they will be impactful because many of these people in the venezuelan government that are conducting these human rights violations, they actually spend their weekends in the united states. they fly on the private jets that 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, they have investments in the united states. when they steal money from venezuela oftentimes, they use straw companies and straw purchasers to invest that money in our economy, predominantly in florida but in other places. there is no reason in the world why they shouldn't be sanctioned for what they've done. there is no reason in the world why we shouldn't 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 the in the world where they are challenged or oppressed. and 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 spent plenty of time around here talking about what's going on in syria and what's going on in iraq and that's a very

dangerous issue going on there. counterterrorism risks by isis in syria and iraq are dramatic and deserve a lot of attention. we spend time on the floor talking about ukraine and russia's illegal actions with regard to crimea. we spent is some time talking about the chinese ambitions in the asia pacific region and their iljitter toarl claim. the only thing i'm saying is 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. and sometimes i feel like they don't get the attention they deserve around here. and this is our opportunity to show that this hemisphere is important and that what happens in our hemisphere matters. and i want you to know that the people of venezuela, particularly those students and those who desire a democratic and respectful future, they're

watching. every single time we do something on venezuela here, we hear it in phone calls, in twitter, on facebook, in visits to our office, in e-mails around in letters. they are watching, they are listening and they are aware. what i want people in the world to know, people in the hemisphere to know is that america doesn't simply care about stability. we also care about democracy and freedom and about human rights. and this is our opportunity to put action where our words are. and so i sincerely hope that when we return here in about eight or nine 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 what they call a live unanimous consent, where i will stand up here and do what the senator from texas just did, or tried to do with regard to the i.r.s. issue. i intend to come to this floor and propose this bill and ask for unanimous consent.

and if someone objects, we will have a debate about that objection. should that fail, then i hope that we can have a vote scheduled. i promise it won't take any more than 15 minutes or 10 if you want to limit the vote to 10. but let's get this done. this is important. and we have worked this the appropriate way. oftentimes people come to the floor here 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. let's give this -- doesn't this issue at least deserve ten minutes of the senate's time? so we're going to try to get this done one more time through unanimous approval and we're going to work over the next ten 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. and i hope that that will be a priority for us when we return. it deserves that attention. so i appreciate the opportunity to address this today and i wish all my colleagues the next ten days will be fruitful when you return to your home states and look forward to working with you on these issues when we return. with that, i yield the floor. mr. markey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, madam president. since 1973, when the supreme court decided that a woman's right to choose was constitutionally protected, women's health clinics across the country have been targeted by violence and other criminal activities by extremists. the crimes are alarming. harassment, arson, acid attacks, obstruction, violent threats and even murder. women's safety has been repeatedly put at risk simply for exercising a constitutional

right. in the past ten years there have been approximately 75,000 incidents of violence against abortion providers in the united states. and that is unacceptable. we should always remember that each of these victims of violence has a name, a family, a story. in 1994, a gunman killed two people and wounded five others at a clinic in massachusetts. one of these victims was 25-year-old shannon lowny, daughter of a public school teacher, beloved sister and volunteer who worked domestically and internationally with poor families and children. shannon worked as a receptionist and spanish translator at planned parenthood in brook line, massachusetts. she worked there not for the pay but because she fundamentally believed women had a right to affordable health care. she wanted to do her part to ensure that patients at a vulnerable, stressful time in

life were greeted with a smile. five days after christmas in 1994, she was fatally shot in the neck at planned parenthood by an extremist protester. shannon's story is just one of the many tragedies caused by violence against women exercising their rights. in 2007, after the laws on the books provided inadequate, massachusetts ensured that there would be fair and balanced laws that create add buffer zone of 35 feet around the entry of reproductive health care facilities. this law was intended to protect people like shannon and the thousands of women and staff who visit and work at clinics. the buffer zone law worked. massachusetts women could exercise their fundamental right to health care without running a gauntlet of abuse. according to a survey of reproductive health care centers

across the country, a majority of facilities with buffer zones experienced a decrease in criminal activity after the buffer zone was instituted. today the supreme court of the united states took away those buffer zones of safety when it struck down the massachusetts buffer zone law, effectively undoing the historic pro grez we have made in en-- progress we have made in ensuring that women are protected when accessing reproductive health care and exercising their constitutional rights. today's supreme court ruling puts women at risk simply for exercising their constitutional rights. shannon's brother liam visited me on the day that this case was argued before the supreme court. their family is representative of what has happened across this country in terms of the endangerment of women when they seek to exercise their

constitutional rights. so today is a sad day. not just a sad day for america, but in particular for shannon's family, because they put a lot on the line to ensure that this case was brought before the supreme court of the united states. the court's decision makes it more difficult for states to guarantee women's reproductive rights, more likely that acts of violence and intimidation against women seeking reproductive health care will occur. with reproductive rights under attack, it is imperative that we assure the basic safety of all women and staff at planned parenthood and other health facilities. we should be expanding access to safe reproductive health care for women, not restricting it. and that is, unfortunately, what today is gh going to represent n the history of health care for

women in our country. you, madam president, are a national leader on these issues, fighting for the rights of women. and i stand with you and i stand with the other members of the senate but, more importantly, just ordinary families across this country who, along with planned parenthood and all women in massachusetts and this country, who believe that every woman seeking reproductive health should be safe and protected. and i'm proud that all massachusetts law enforcement officials will continue to use every legal tool available to ensure the safety and the privacy of women and clinic staff. today is an historic day. unfortunately, it is one that our country should not be proud of. and i yield back the balance of my time.

and, looking around, i doubt the presence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. graham: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i believe senator mccain an i have some fipple -- some time for a colloquy. is that correct? officer sphe yes, butter were in a quorum. mr. graham: i ask that the quorum call be vermont terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: senator mccaning and myself have decided to come down before the 4th of july break to talk about two michigans that are very -- to

issued thaissues that are very t to our national security. the first issue is the threat we face as a nation from terrorist safe havens in syria and now iraq. the president has indicated in recent days that it is unacceptable to allow terrorist organizations like isis to have safe havens from which to launch tax against our country. mr. president, we agree. what are you doing about it? now, i understand iraq is complicated. i understand that you would need a new government in iraq that sunnis could buy into to probably turn iraq around. that is a problem. but that is a separate problem from safe hey havens that can be used to launch attacks against the united states. please do not turn over to the iraqi politicians the time line as to whether or not we will act to protect ourselves. this is the f.b.i. director:

"my concern is that people can go to syria, develop new relationships, learn new techniques and become far more dangerous than flow back. americans are mao in syria. 7,500 foreign fighters from 50 countries have gone to syria. they're now in iraq. the islamic state in iraq and syria was kicked out by al qaeda. these are the most extreme people on the planet. they have now gone into iraq, taken large territories and up to $500 mammogram in resources d. shall $5@million in resources. think of more money than dreamed of. their desire hit the homeland is growing. last week the leader of this group said that we will be coming to america next. mr. president, do not use the political problems in baghdad as an excuse not to act when it comes to denying safe havens to terrorists. where is your plan to dislodge

these people in syria and iraq? where is your plan to deal with the safe haven issue? where is your plan to hit a terrorist organization that's desirous of hitting us? mr. president, you cannot have it both ways. you cannot alert us as a nation that we're threatened by a safe haven in iraq and syria and do nothing about it. i understand the political complexities that exist in iraq, but i do understand the need to deal with the safe haven issue. what do you envision as a solution to the safe haven problem in syria and iraq? when are we going to act? is there no military component available to the united states to hit a terrorist organization that's operating out in the open in syria and iraq, that represents a direct threat to our homeland? mr. president, now is the time

for you to come up with a plan to deal with the safe havens. that's a separate and apart issue from dealing with the political complications and the meltdown in iraq. you have said the director of national security mr. clapper has said that syria is an apocalyptic state. it is in a very bad way, that the jihadists in syria represent a direct threat to our homeland. the same jihadists in syria have moved now into iraq. three years ago when senator mccain was urging airstrikes in and a safe zone be established, there were less than 1,000 foreign fighters in syria. today we think there's up to 26,000 isis types in syria. now they're moving through iraq at lightning speed, taking town after town, amassing resources

in terms of military hardware and money that will make them not just a terrorist organization but a terrorist army. mr. president, there is a terrorist army on the march in iraq and syria. they've indicated they want to hit our nation. they want to strike us in the region, throughout the world, and here at home, and you seem to have no plan. we want to help you. we understand this is complicated, but you, as commander in chief, above all others,you have a duty to come up with a solution to this problem. you have defined the problem well. but you have done nothing to solve the problem. and we stand ready to help you solve that problem. now, as we try to figure out where to go in iraq and what's the right strategy, the one thing that's important to me is not to rewrite history. i don't want to dwell on the past, but i'm not going to sit on the sidelines and let this

administration, who is a president obama, president kerry were all over the bush administration for the mistakes they made. that's the way the political process works. senator mccain, when the iraq war was going poorly on president bush's watch, called for the republican-appointed secretary of defense to resign. i would argue that senator mccain, above all others, has been consistent when it comes to iraq. it doesn't matter who is making the mistakes if he believes one is being made. he will speak up. the line that there was just a few dead enders in iraq was not true. the reason we knew it wasn't true, that senator mccain and myself went to iraq numerous times. the first time we went we were in an s.u.v. with a three-car convoy. we had dinner and went shopping. every time thereafter the security was tighter.

our ability to leave the base we restrict and the people on the ground fighting the war were telling us this thing was not going we will. and every time we heard from the bush administration, the media is misrepresenting the trunnel and this is just a few dead enders, we knew better and we spoke up. abu ghraib was the direct result of being overwhelmed by circumstances on the ground. we thought that once the iraqi army disbanded, saddam hussein was displaced that we would be able to handle iraq with a few thousand troops. the bush administration was wrong in that calculation. senator mccain spoke up and the surge did work. to president bush's undying credit, you corrected the mistakes that happened on your watch. you kept an open mind, and you changed strategy because the strategy that you originally pursued had failed. president obama, your strategy has failed. the idea of abandoning iraq,

disengaging politically and militarily, has come home to haunt us as a nation. senator mccain and myself said back in 11, if we do not leave a residual force behind as an insurance policy for our own national security interests, we will regret it. 10,000 to 15,000 soacialtion well-placed, would have given capacity to the iraqi a army to allow them to be more effective than what you see on the ground today would never happen. i am convinced that isis would never be in iraq the way they are today if there had been an american military component, 10,000 15,000, providing capacity and expertise to an iraqi army that is literally falling apamplet i am convinced today that if we'd continued to push the iraqi political system to reconcile, we would not be where we are today. david patraeus and ryan crocker, one general, one diplomat, spent

mors every day of the week practically pushing the sewn neerks the sh shias and the kurs to solve their political process and it was working. in 2010 we made a fateful mistake. we allowed syria to go bad. syria became the supply center for al qaeda in iraq that was on its back. in 2010, the surge had worked, al qaeda in iraq, which is the predecessor to ey ayatollah sis, was completely -- to isis, was completely devastated and they are back in the tbaim for three reasons. syria became a failed state and we had chance to stop that and did not. they were being resupplied from sear why with equipment and fighters. we decided to disengage from iraq politically. we had a hands-off approach to the political problems in baghdad. and we withdrew our troops all from 2010 to 2011. those three things became a perfect storm to lead use it

where we are fade. we do want to look forward because looking backward doesn't solve the problem. but here's what we will not accept: we will not accept a rewriting of history. when this administration says that the reason we have new troops in iraq today is because of the iraqis, that is an absolute false statement. in may of 2011, senator mccain and myself, at the request of secretary clinton, went to iraq to talk about a follow-on agreement, a strategic partnership agreement that had in its making a military component that would give legal protections to our troops who were left behind. i remember this like it was yesterday. we were in a meeting with prime minister maliki and we were talking about leaving troops behind and whether or not the iraqis would give us the legal protections that we needed.

because i told prime minister maliki, no american politician is going to allow soldiers to be left behind in a foreign country without legal protections. that if a person was charged with a crime in iraq, given the inventory -- the inventory of their legal system, i did not feel comfortable allowing that soldier to go into the iraqi legal system. we would deal with disciplinary problems. he turned to me and said, how many soldiers are you talking about? i turned to ambassador jeffries, the u.s. do general austin the commander, and said, what's the answer? and they replied to me, we're still working on that. and the prime minister of iraq laughed. this was in may of 2011. we could not tell the prime minister of iraq how many troops we were talking about. we went to the kurdish portion of iraq and talked to president

barzani. he would have accepted any a troops we wanted to leave behind. he was openly embracing a follow-on force. we met with mr. allowi, very open minded to a follow-on force. the day after we left iraq, prime minister maliki issued a statement saying that if the other parties would agree, he would agree to a follow-on force. november 15, 2011, we had a hearing with general devincy and secretary panetta in the armed services committee. and we asked the following question: it was the iraqis who rejected a follow-on force? originally envisioned to be 18,000 or 19,000, the bottom bottom-line number for the pentagon was 10. was it the iraqis who said no,

that's too many and the numbers kept going down until finally 3,000. senator mccain asked the question and the answer was, the reduction in numbers that we would be willing to offer to the iraqis did not come from ajection by iraq but by a reducing of the numbers by the white house. in other words, the cascading effect of the numbers from 18,000 to 3,000 was not because of iraq saying "no"; it was because the white house kept change the numbers to the point that the force envisioned would be in effective and fail. those are the factses. and senator mccain will address the statements by the president before, during, and after. but i'm here to tell you without any doubt in my mind, the reason we don't have troops in iraq after 2011 is because the obama administration wanted to get to

zero. they wanted to honor a campaign promise to get us out of iraq. they did so and now they're trying to blame the iraqis. they're trying to rewrite history. i can understand why they don't want to own what happened in iraq. i can't understand why we would let them get away with it. and i am not going to let them get away with it. going forward, we've got a mess on our hands and i want to help the president where i can, but, mr. president, you are very good at questioning the policies of the -- you were very good at questioning the policies of the bush administration and you held nothing back. i'm here to tell you that i know what you're saying about iraq is not true. on october the 21st, during a conference call with staff, dennis mcdunn thadunnah and tony blankly, the former national security advisor to vice

president biden, now on the national security council, briefing staff members about the problems with legal immunities, was asked a question by senator mccain's staff person, if you could get a legal agreement that we felt was solid, would you leave any troops behind? and they said no. so we're going to write them a letter. there are several of our staff was on that phone call. and we're going to ask dennis mcdunnah, mr. blankly, and say, did you say that? and they can say whatever they want to. but i have people that i know and i trust that were on that phone call and they know what was said. so with that, i would turn it over to senator mccain. mr. mccain: i would just ask my colleague one question before we go on and that is, in addition to this overwhelming information of which you and i were deeply involved that proves

conclusively that the president of the united states did not want to leave a single troop member behind in iraq and succeeded in doing so, did the president -- did the senator from south carolina ever hear the president of the united states either before the decision was made, during or after say, did you ever hear any record of him saying that he wanted to leave a residual force behind? mr. graham: quie the opposite. graham: quite the opposite. if you go back and look at the tape around this debate, the president basically said, we left iraq, we're not going to be bogged down by iraq. there is no regret, that i am so sorry that we couldn't convince the iraqis to leave a residual force behind because that would have been the best outcome for iraq and the united states and i regret that we could not get there. and they will regret this decision. none of that happened. it was all about the last combat soldier is out, we're done with iraq, we've given them all the help we can give them. we're going to move on. we're not going to be bogged

down. now the place has gone to hell. it's a direct threat to the united states. and they're trying to rewrite history. and i think it was october the 21st -- mr. mccain: and the president of the united states in the last couple of days, please correct me, it's the first time he said it was the iraqis that wanted to leave a force behind. the first time in the last couple of days. mr. graham: the iraqis did not want to leave a force behind. mr. mccain: yeah. he was saying that they did not. and, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the following -- the quotes be included in the record, including 2012, october t 2012 - i quote the united states -- "what i would not have done is left 10,000 troops in iraq as candidate romney proposed." that quote. "that would tie us down. that certainly would not help us in the middle east." jay carney said on october 1, 2012, "when president obama took office, the iraq war had been going on for years and he had campaigned with a promise to end that war and he has done that."

one of my favorites is a december 2011, "in the coming days, the last american soldier will cross the border out of iraq with honor and with their heads held high after nearly nine years, our war in iraq ends this month." does anybody believe that -- the presiding officer: without objection. without objection, that will be entered in the record. mr. mccain: i thank the president. anyway, the list goes on. in fact, the president campaigned for reelection in 2012 for -- on the premise that he gotten us out of iraq. and the senator from south carolina and i predicted that this would happen if we didn't leave a residual force behind. and i say to my colleagues again today, if we repeat this same total pullout of afghanistan, we're going to see this same movie in afghanistan. so i plead with the president of

the united states, please revisit your decision that every american troop be pulled out. the afghans do not have the capability, whether air assets or intel or other capabilities to defend themselves against an enemy that has a sanctuary in pakistan. so i plead with the president of the united states, do not make the same mistake in afghanistan. and i -- i want to point out again, at the end of the surge, we had won the conflict in iraq. the conflict was won. and instead, obviously we blew it. now, i'd like to just talk for a few minutes with my colleague from south carolina because we need to understand what's happening in iraq. in the last three to four weeks, this whole part of iraq has been taken over by the forces of

isis. the second-largest city, mosul, in all of iraq has been taken over, which triggered 500,000 refugees. 500,000 refugees left mosul. the telafar, a major city. kirkuk, where kirkuk, the -- the kurdish forces came in and took over kirkuk and made it now part of the kurdish part of afghanistan. excuse me, of iraq. now, what's really most concerning, i say to my colleagues -- and i know that the senator from south carolina and i have been focusing on this -- this is the jordanian-iraq border. the border crossings from iraq into jordan have been taken over by isis. now, as you know, jordan's a

small country. it's overburdened now with hundreds of thousands of refugees. it has got significant problems on the syrian side of its border. this -- this can be a terribly destabilizing factor to our probably outside of israel, our strongest and best ally in the entire middle east. ramadi, fallujah, every -- every iraq veteran will remember ramadi and fallujah. every iraq veteran will remember the second battle of fallujah, where we lost 96 brave soldiers and marines and over 600 wounded. now the black flags of al qaeda fly over ramadi and fallujah. the border to syria no longer exists, my friends. if you look at syria here all the way to aleppo, all wait aroun -- all the wayaround heree middle east that's larger than the state of indiana is now

overtaken by the richest and most powerful terrorist organization in history and that's isis. and we cannot address iraq. if we do without addressing syria as well, as the movement of men and equipment move back and forth -- and by the way, the sunni don't like these people. these are the most radical form of islam. they don't like them but they prefer them to the government, the shiite-run government by malaki, which has been systematically discriminating against them. so what do we need to do? as the senator from south carolina said, what we want malaki to be in a transition government that transitions him out of power but we cannot wait until that happens because of the tremendous -- by the way, they've also taken a place just north of baghdad, where the -- where the largest oil refinery

is, bajji. that provides energy to the 7 million people in baghdad. and they've also come to a place called hadetha where a dam is which holds water supply. if they get ahold of both of those places, they basically have a stranglehold on baghdad itself. this is serious. so what has the president of the united states and the administration decided to do? send 90 or 200 or 250 people over there to iraq and with the stated purpose of -- quote -- "assessing" -- "assessing the situation." now, those of my friends and colleagues who have been to iraq know that it is a flat desert area, including very hot now and these people, these isis forces are moving in convoys of 100, 200, 300 vehicles. they can be taken out by air power.

right now the president of the united states has refused to do that. but they can be taken out by air power. air power is -- does not determine conflicts but air power has a profound psychological effect on your adversary. and we have drones and we have the air capability to -- to take out a lot of these forces. remember, they're probably at a maximum of about 10,000, and as the senator from south carolina said, they started out with about a thousand. but don't forget that they are moving back and forth between syria and iraq in this now huge area. they're moving on baghdad. i don't know exactly what's going on. i'm not -- i don't believe that they can take baghdad with a frontal assault. i do believe it's possible that they could cause assassinations, bombings, breakdowns in electricity, breakdown in law and order. in other words, this place where

we've sacrificed 4,450 roughly american lives is now in the hands of the largest terrorist organization in history. so i say to the president of the united states, we can't wait. if the next two weeks that the administration says they're going to use to assess the situation is wasted in assessment, i don't know what's going to happen here in iraq. i don't know what's going to happen to jordan. i don't know what's going to happen as far as the continued increasing influence of the iranians. published reports today indicate that there are iranian forces, iranian assistants all throug through -- iran is secretly sending -- "the new york times," iran is secretly sending drones and supplies into iraq, u.s. officials say. general kasim sulamani, the head of iran's paramilitary quds

force has visited iraq at least twice to help iraqi military advisors plot strategy. iran has deployed about a dozen other quds force officers to advise and help mobilize more than 2,000 shiite mama english amen. iranian transport planes have been making two daily flights of military equipment and supplies to baghdad, 70 tons per flight, for iraqi security forces. while the president of the united states is assessing, the iranians are exercising more and more influence. i've also been told -- and i cannot verify it -- i've also been told that the russians are now offering to provide assistance to malaki. there's got to be a transition government. there's got to be a transition of malaki out of government. but to wait until that happens, it may be too late. so i would ask my colleague from south carolina, are you concerned about the iranian

influence? and what do you believe is the situation that could evolve on the jordanian border? mr. graham: well, if you listen to the people who are launch these attacks, they say they're going to jordan. what are they trying to accomplish? as bizarre as it may sound to the average american, they have a very specific plan and it sort of goes like this. they want to purify their religion. they're sunnies. they have a version of islam, sunni islam, that is beyond horrific, that is a woman's worst nightmare. if you want to find a world of women, go to syria and iraq and eventually afghanistan, i'm afraid. you would not believe what these people are capable of doing. what they will do to a person who smokes. they will chop your finger off. i mean, they'll kill children in front of their parents. these people represent the worst in humanity.

and my fear is, the president's fear that the stronger they get over there, the more exposed we are here. so, mr. president, if you believe it's not in our national security interest to allow these folks to have a safe haven in syria and now iraq, what are you doing about it? you've got political problems in iraq, i got that, but why does that prevent us from attacking these people in syria where their leadership resides and where their supply depots are? there has to come a time when this country is going to commitments to defending itself. my goal is to keep the war over there so it doesn't come back here. senator mccain three years ago now almost urged us to act in a way that would have allowed the moderate forces of the opposition to be empowered and to avoid where we are today.

we chose not to act at our own peril. so i want to make this crystal clear, that this area that senator mccain has described in iraq represents a terrorist safe haven in the hands of people who want to attack us here at home. now, i'm not just making that up. the director of national intelligence, the f.b.i. director and jeh johnson, the head of homeland security, have all said that syria represents a threat to the homeland. well, if a syrian enclave and safe haven represents a threat to the homeland, an iraqi enclave bigger and richer surely represents a threat to the homeland and the president admitted as such. so i don't want to hear any more discussions about we've got to wait till iraq gets its house in order before we protect american national security interests. as to jordan, now's the time in a bipartisan fashion for the congress to speak with one

voice, tell the world, everyone in the region, that we will defend jordan. the king of jordan is the last moderate voice in the middle east surrounding israel. the king of jordan has been the most faithful ally to america. the king of jordan has been effectively engaged with israel. the king of jordan represents the best hope of the middle east. if we allow a terrorist army, not an organization now, an army, of committed jihadists to invade that country and put the king at risk, that will be one of the great tragedies in modern history, and i think it is now time to let the terrorist army now, you're not going into jordan, and say it in such a fashion as to not give iraq away. but if we don't reinforce jordan quickly, it would be a mistake. i have a high confidence in the jordanian military, but let me

tell you this -- it is in our interests for the king to survive. it is in our interests for jordan to flourish. it is in our interest for isis to be stopped in their tracks. in iraq. it is in our interests for them to be wiped off the face of the earth to the extent possible. it is in our interests to go on the offensive before it's too late. the one thing i can tell you, i have learned from 9/11, thinking and believing that if you ignore them, they will ignore you is a very bad mistake. 2010 -- excuse me in september 10, 2001, the day before 9/11, we didn't have one soldier in afghanistan, we didn't have one -- we didn't even have an ambassador and we sent no money in terms of assistance to the taliban. we were completely disengaged in afghanistan. how well did that work out?

any time you disengage from people that bloodthirsty and you believe it will not come back to haunt you, you're making a mistake. any time that a group will kill women in a soccer stadium for sport and think that you're safe if you just ignore them, you're making a mistake for the ages. these people, isis, represents a depraved form of humanity in a category of the nazis and what are we doing about it? i am tired of succeeding -- ceding city after city, country after country to radical islam. now's the time to fight back. fight back as if it meant fighting for your home and your family, because it does. fight back over there so we don't have to fight them here. and they are coming here. if you don't believe me, ask them.

and the best way to keep them from coming here is to align ourselves with people over there who do not want their agenda for their family and are willing to fight along our side and right now who feels comfortable fighting with america? right now, our enemies are emboldened, our friends are afraid and now is the time to turn this around, mr. president. you're waiting and waiting and thinking and thinking and they're on the march. i know this is complicated, but the one thing that is not complicated is that the terrorist organization that you said could not have safe haven has the largest safe haven in the history of the world, they're richer than they've ever been, they're more powerful than they've ever been and you're doing nothing about it and you need to do something about it before it's too late and we stand ready to help you. mr. mccain: i want to emphasize with my colleague from

south carolina, continuously we hear from the president of the united states that those of us who are in strong disagreement with his strategy -- there is none. the fact that there is no strategy. we keep being accused of wanting to send, -- quote -- ," thousands of troops on the ground in syria or in iraq." that is patently false. i know of no one, i know of no one who share our concern that wants to send ground combat troops into iraq. so i wish the president of the united states would stop saying that. second of all, but what we do want is we want some people in who can be forward air controllers as some of our special forces people to direct these airstrikes against what is movement of these hundreds of vehicles and convoy across open desert. it can be done.

the second thing that i want to emphasize is how dangerous it is becoming, particularly the most holy shiite shrines of samala and karbala. those are the holiest shrines of the shias. if isis comes into those sites, those holy sites and destroys them, you're going to see this thing explode even more. there's many other things i'd like to say but i don't want to continue too far, longer on this. but to also point out again, this is not just an iraq problem. this is the border, runs along here, between syria and iraq. you cannot address just the iraqi side. and right now lately, interestingly, bashar assad has been using his air power to

attack isis. if the united states does not become involved, then people like bashar assad, people like the iranians, will fill that vacuum. it's time for us to act. what do i mean by that? first of all, why don't we send ryan crocker and david petraeus back to baghdad? they're the smartest people i've ever known and everybody agrees with that. send them back to bag and sit down with maliki and also some military planning teams that can assess the situation and address the needs of the iraqi military. those that can still function effectively. go ahead and orchestrate the airstrikes, and understand that the problem in syria is going to have to be addressed as well. so there are concrete steps that every military leader that i know advocates as a way of

turning this around. there is no good opposite option. because the situation we're in, there is no good option but the worst option is what the administration is doing today, which is nothing. except sending a few advisors over to give some assessment of the situation. no one, no one wants to get back into any conflict. no american wants to do that. i'm the last one that wants to do that. but we have to understand what our director of national intelligence has told us, what our secretary of homeland security as has told us, what our common sense and eyes will tell us. if you have a terrorist organization that has hundreds of millions of dollars, that has control of an area the size of the state of indiana, where they are consolidating power and they have promised they will attack us, the united states can't afford another 9/11. we can't afford to see these

jihadists pouring out of syria and iraq into europe and into the united states of america because these extremists have flowed in from all of these countries. and the president of the united states can make the american people aware of this threat. and that we have to take action without sending ground combat troops into the conflict, and i am confident, because the memory of 9/11 is not faded in the memory of the people of this country. we remember that tragedy graphically. all of us remember where we were that day. but this is a clear and present danger, and it's time, long time overdue, for the united states to react as the strongest and most powerful nation in the world. madam president, i would ask that the article from "the

atlantic" entitled obama's disastrous iraq policy, an autopsy, be included in the record, and i would ask an op-ed piece by dennis ross, one of the most respected individuals on the entire middle east, op-ed says to contain isis, thinking iraq but also think syria, that those be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: thank you and i appreciate my dear friend, senator coons' patience at this time. i yield the floor.

mr. coons: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: madam president, something important, something unusual, something worth noting happened today -- excuse me -- happened this week, happened yesterday in this chamber that i don't want to let pass without a few moments of comment. yesterday a broad bipartisan majority of this senate came together to pass the work force innovation and opportunity act. and first i'd like to congratulate senators murray and isakson, harkin and alexander, who led so capably on this bill. senators murray, democrat of washington, and isakson, republican of georgia, spent years working through the details of policy and of language and months making sure that they got this bill to a point where the senate and the house in a bipartisan, bicameral way could adopt legislation. what's this about?

it's about something simple, important, and powerful. investing in america's workers. so we can compete with anyone around the world in the 21st century. this is an area that i focused on a lot here in the senate, that i believe is critical to our nation, our competitiveness, to strengthening our middle class and broke growing good jobs. in manufacturing, it's a core challenge for us to enshoe your that our workers have the training that employers are looking for and that our manufacturing companies are globally competitive. manufacturing is important to america, to our future, to our middle class, to our communities and to our families because it pays well, it drives innovation, it crcts greatly to -- contributes greatly to other sectors in our communities and a few months ago i launched the manufacturing jobs for america initiative that has brought together dozens of senators. we initially pulled together democrats from across my caucus to introduce 34 bills, some of the best and broadest ideas we

could bring to the table about how to accelerate america's recovery of employment and steady growth in manufacturing. and roughly half of these bills are bipartisan. part of the goal of this manufacturing jobs for america initiative was to put good ideas out on the floor and get them in the mix as we debate things going forward. so i just wanted to take a moment today and celebrate that the ideas of many of our partners in this campaign, ideas drawn from many of the bills that are part of this initiative, ended up being important parts of the work force innovation and opportunity act that was passed this week. let me briefly touch on the five most important that contributed ideas that were embedded in this bill that passed. first the adult education and economic growth act which was sponsored by senators reed and brown. in our rapidly changing economy ensuring we can train americans for all jobs is critical.

senator reed's bill takes an important step by investing in adult education, expanding access to digital literacy skills and improving the coordination of state and local programs. another bill endorsed by the national association of manufacturers is the america works act sponsored by senators hagan and heller.÷ another challenge we face is ensuring that employers can quickly recognize whether a worker has the skills they really need. so senator hagan's bill helps solve this by ensuring that we prioritize programs that invest in training that has portable, national and internationally recognized credentials. this encourages job-training programs to match the skills of workers with the needs of local employers, training individuals for the jobs currently available in their communities right now. a third bill that contributed importantly to this bill that was enacted here yesterday adopted by the senate yesterday was the community college to career fund a