money to countries that hate us. will these rebels that we're going to vote to give money to, will they tolerate christians or will they pillage and destroy ancient villages? the president and his administration haven't provided good answers because they don't exist. as the former ambassador said, they don't have a clue. shooting first and aiming later, it's not worked for us in the past. the recent history of the middle east has not been a good one. our previous decisions have given results that we should be quite wary of trying to do the same again. i would like president obama to reread the speeches of candidate obama. there's a great disagreement between the two and the candidate obama really seemed to be someone who was going to protect the right of congress to declare war.

but it hasn't been so. our founding fathers understood that the executive branch was the branch most prone to war, and so with due deliberation our founding fathers took the power to declare war and they gave it to congress. exclusively. president obama's new position as president, which differs from his position as candidate, is that he's fine to get some input when it's convenient for us, maybe after the election. but he's not really interested enough to say that it would bind him or that he would say we need attacks now and come to us tomorrow and ask permission. he thinks whenever it's convenient and you guys get around to it. secretary kerry stated this explicitly that his understanding of the constitution is that no congressional authorization is necessary. i say why even bother coming back in december? they kind of like it, they like

the show of it. they understand it might have some practical benefit but it's theater and show. if you're going to commit war without permission, it's theater and show to ask for permission. he said basically article 2 grants him the power to do whatever he wants. if so, why have a congress? why don't we just recess the whole thing? that's right, that's what we're getting ready to do. it's election season. the president and his administration view this vote just as a courtesy but not as a requirement. even if congress votes against it, he's liable to go and do it anyway. he already said he has authority, why would it stop him? article 1, section 8, clause 11 gives congress and congress alone the power to declare war. if congress does not approve this military action, the president must abide by the decision. but it worries me. this president worries me.

it's not obamacare or dodd-frank or these horrific pieces of legislation. people ask me as i travel around the country, what has the president done, what is the worst thing he's done? it's the usurpation of power. the idea that there is no separation of powers or that he is above that separation. if you want to tremble and worry about the future of our republic, listen to the president when he says, well, congress won't act. therefore, i must. think about the implications of that. democracy is messy. it is hard to get everybody to agree to something. but the interesting thing is had he asked, had he come forward and done the honorable thing, we would have approved. i would have approved an authorization of force. it would have been overwhelming had he done the right thing. but he didn't come forward and ask. he didn't come forward and ask when he amended the affordable care act. he didn't come forward and ask when he amended immigration law and he's not coming forward to

ask on the most important thing we face in our country and that's the decision to go to war. our founders understood this and debated this. this is not a new debate. thomas jefferson said that the constitution gave one effectual check to the dog of war, transferring the power to declare war from the executive to the legislative. madison wrote even more clearly the power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature. there was no debate over this. our founding fathers were unanimous. this was our power. to do it when it's convenient after the election is to abdicate our responsibility and is to make a serious discussion really to make it a travesty. there's no debate more significant than this and we're going to stuff it in a bill, in a 2,000-page-page bill and not talk about it, not vote on it

have itly. your leashed must be held accountable. if we don't, there will be no end to the war. the ridiculous and the absurd must be laid to rest. you've all heard it before. toppling qadhafi led to a jihadist wonderland in libya. toppling hussein led to chaos in iraq we're still involved with. toppling assad will lead to more chaos, and greater danger to america -- danger to america from the jihadists. the moss-covered too-long-in-washington crowd cannot help themselves. war, war. what we need is more war. but they never pay attention to the results of the last war. their policies and the combination of feckless disinterest, fraudulent red lines, selective combativeness have led us to this point. yes, we must confront isis in part for the penance of the president's role in their eyes. but while we do so to protect

our interest here and abroad, what we need is someone to shout war, war, what are we fighting for? amidst the interventionists, disjointed and franklin coherent rhetoric, amid the gathering bloom that says friends behind every enemy, the only consistent theme is war. these barnacled enablers have never met what war they didn't like. they beat their chests in red rhythmic ode to failed policies, their drums beat to policies that display their outrage but fail to find a cure. unintended consequences drown and smother the possibility of good intentions. must we act to check and destroy isis? yes. and again, yes. because of the foolishness of the interventionists. but let's not mistake what we must do. we shouldn't give a free pass to forever intervene in the civil wars of the middle east.

intervention created this chaos. intervention aided and abetted the rise of radical islam. intervention has made us less safe in libya and in syria and in iraq. to those who wish unlimited intervention and boots on the ground everywhere, remember the smiling poses of politicians pontificating about so-called freedom fighters and heroes in libya, in syria and in iraq. unaware that the so-called freedom fighters may well have been allied with kidnappers and are killers and jihadists. are these so-called moderate rebels in syria friends or foes? do we know who they really are? the interventionist clamor for boots on the ground, we should remember they were wrong about iraq. they were wrong about libya. they were wrong about syria. when will we quit listening to the advocates who have been wrong about every foreign policy position of the last two

decades? when does a track record of being consistently wrong stop you from being a so-called expert when the next crisis comes up? we should remember that they were wrong. there were no w.m.d.'s, that hussein, qadhafi, and assad were not a threat to us. doesn't make them good but they were not a threat to us. week we should remember that radical islam now roams the countryside in libya and in syria and in iraq. we should remember that those who believe that war is the answer for every problem were wrong. we should remember that the war against hussein, the war against qadhafi, the war against assad has all led to chaos. that intervention enhanced the rise of radical islam and ultimately led to more danger for americans. before we arm the so-called moderate muslims in syria, remember what i said a year ago, the ultimate irony is that

someday these weapons will be used to fight against americans. if we are forced onto the ground, we will be fighting against those same weapons i voted not to send a year ago. we will fight isis. the war i accept as necessary. largely because our own arms and the arms of our allies, saudi arabia, kuwait, qatar, have enabled our new enemy, isis. will we ever learn? president obama now wishes to bomb isis and arm their islamic rebels, allies, at the same time. we're on both sides of a civil war. the emperor has no clothes. let's just admit it. the truth is sometimes painful. we must protect ourselves from radical islam but we should never, ever have armed radical islam and we should not continue to arm radical islam. those who say we're giving to

the moderates, not the radicals, it's going and stopping temporarily with the moderates, and then on to isis. that's what's been going on for a year, somehow they're predicting something different will occur. we have enabled the enemy that we must now confront. sending arms to so-called moderate islamic rebels in syria is a fool's arend and will only make isis stronger. isis grew as the u.s. allies, as the u.s. and her allies were arming the opposition. as we've sent 600 tons of weapons, isis has grown stronger. you're telling me 600 tons of more weapons will defeat isis? the barnacled per various of war should admit their mistakes and not compound them. isis is now a threat. let's get on with destroying them but make no mistake, arming islamic rebels in syria will only make it harder to destroy isis. thank you and i yield back my

time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, the provision in the continuing resolution before us authorizes the president to train and equip friendly forces whose interests and objectives are aligned with ours so that they can fight on their own behalf, much as we've done elsewhere in the world, for example a number of african countries which we have helped support their own freedom and independence, their own effort to go after the terrorists that terrorize them. we've done that pursuant to provisions we've included in previous defense authorization bills. this year as our presiding officer knows, is a very, very important member of our

committee, that when the armed services committee marked up the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2015, we approved a similar syria train and equip provision by a bipartisan vote of 23-3. now, while isis is currently focused on building an islamic caliphate in the middle east, its poisonous ideology is hostile not only to the region but to the world, and there is a real risk that the area that it controls could be could become a launching pad for future terrorist attacks against the united states and its friends and allies. isis is terrorizing the iraqi and the syrian people, engaging in kidnappings, killings, persecutions of religious minorities, attacking schools, hospitals, and cultural sites.

the threat to americans and american interests was dramatically and tragically brought home recently by the brutal beheading of american journalist james foley and steven sotloff and british aide worker david haynes. the president has announced a four-pronged strategy to degrade and ultimately defeat isis. those four prongs are as follows -- first, increase support to iraqi, kurdish, and syrian opposition forces on the ground. second, a systemic campaign of airstrikes against isis. third, improved intelligence and efforts to cut off isis's funding and recruiting. and fourth, continued humanitarian assistance to isis 's victims. our senior military leaders

support the president's strategy. when general dempsey testified before the armed services committee, i asked whether he personally supports the president's strategy, and, of course, i asked the question exactly that way. do you personally support the president's strategy? so that we would get his own answer and not simply the answer which he might feel that he has to give as -- because of his commander in chief's position. and when we ask military officers for their own personal position, that's what they must give us and when we have confirmation hearings we ask them that question. will you give us your own personal opinion when you come before us even though it might differ from the administration in power. that's one of the questions we ask on every confirmation and, of course, if we don't get the answer that they will, there

will not be a confirmation. so we asked and i asked as my first question a few days ago, whether or not general dempsey as chairman of our joint chiefs of staff personally supports the president's strategy and his response was, "i do." he explained that the best way forward runs -- quote -- "through a coalition of arab and muslim partners and not thew ownership of this fight -- through ownership of this fight by the united states." training and equipping the moderate syrian opposition is a critical step. as general devincy explained, we need to build a -- quote -- "a force, a vetted, trained, moderate syrians to take on isil in syria" because -- quote -- "as long as isil enjoys the safe

haven in syria, it will remain a formidable force and a threat." close quote. now, some colleagues have expressed a concern that this new military effort could lead us back into a quagmire that we entered with the iraq invasion in 2003. but what we are voting for -- or on here is virtually the opposite of what was voted on in 2002 in the authorization for the use of military force in iraq. i voted against the iraq authorization in 2002. i'm voting for this train-a -- i'm voting for this train-and-equip authority today. the differences are huge between what was voted on in 2002 and what we are voting on today.

first in 2003, we invaded iraq and threw out saddam hussein's government. this year, by contrast, the iraqi government has requested our assistance against isis. this request has been joined by leaders of iraq's shiites, sunnis, kurds, and other religious minorities. the global community will provide support in response to this request, but isis remains a problem that only iraqis and syrians can solve. they can solve it with our help, but only they can solve it. now, in 2003, the united states and britain -- i'm continuing on the differences, indeed, the contrasts between what we're voting on today and what was voted on in 2002 relative to the same country, but what a difference. in 2003, the united states and britain invaded iraq with token

support from a handful of western partners. there was a unilateral approach, without visible participation or support from arab or muslim nations. it helped spawn the iraqi resistance, including al qaeda in iraq, the predecessor to isis. al qaeda and isis didn't exist before our invasion of iraq in 2003. they are a direct response to our unilateral action in iraq. this year, by contrast -- and what a contrast, we are seeing the participation of key muslim and arab states in the region and their active, visible role will be critical to the effectiveness of any international coalition. our senior military and civilian leaders recognize, as general

devincdempsey testified before r committee, that isis -- quote -- "will only be defeated when moderate arab and muslim populations in the region reject it." close quote. the recent international conferences in jidda and in paris were a good start, with a number of arab states declaring their shared commitment -- and this was a public statement -- dhaird their shared commitment to develop a strategy -- quote -- "to destroy isil wherever it is, including in both iraq and syria" and they joined in an international pledge to use -- quote -- "whatever means necessary" -- close quote -- to achieve this goal.

now, the contrast to the iraq invasion of 2003 is particularly sharp with regard to ground combat troops. in 2003, almost 200,000 american and british combat troops invaded iraq. only after years of relentless ground combat operations were we able to get our troops out again -- get our troops out. this year, by contrast, the president's policy is that ground combat operations in iraq and syria will be carried out not by us but by iraqis, kurds, and syrians. while the united states and a broad coalition of nations, including arab and muslim countries, will support that effort, there is no plan to have

american combat forces on the ground. as general dempsey explained to the armed services committee, u.s. forces -- quote -- "are not participating in direct combat. there is no intention for them to do so." close quote. now, you wouldn't know that if you read the press conference of his testimony. so i'll repeat it in the hope that maybe this time his statement will be covered. general dempsey says, "we are not participating in direct combat. there is no intention for them to do so." -- talking about u.s. armed forces. now, general devinc dempsey adda caveat, that if circumstances change, he made, for instance, recommend to the president that u.s. advisors be authorized to

accompany iraqi security forces into combat. he was clear that these comments were focused on how our forces could best and most appropriately advise the iraqis on their combat operations. and then when senator graham asked -- quote -- "-- and this is a question of general dechcy. he asked whether you think you can defeat isil without us, without us being on the ground. senator graham asked general dempsey, if you think they can defeat isil without us, just say "yes"." and general dempsey responded, "yes." i saw that on all of one newspaper article across the country. our senior military leaders, of

course, reserve the right to reconsider their recommendations based on conditions on the ground. i would expect that general dempsey, like any general, would say, we must be free to change a recommendation to the president, if circumstances on the ground change. that's a very different statement from what the press put into general dempsey's mouth when they said, general dempsey suggested that we may need u.s. combat forces. the direct answer of general dempsey was, we have to plan to do it. we believe they can do it without us. and, of course, if conditions change, i must make a different recommendation or at least might make a different recommendation to the commander in chief. at the end of the day, of

course, it's the president as the commander of chief, not the military, who establishes policy. even if conditions change -- and even if general dempsey decided to recommend a different role for u.s. ground combat troops -- it would just be that, a recommendation. madam president, the struggle against isis in iraq and in syria will be a long and a hard one, and we should give it our support. we cannot take the place of iraqis and syrians. they must purge the poison that they have in their country, these extremist groups like isis and al qaeda must be purged by the people that they plague, but we can help these people get rid of this poison. we're already working now with muslim and arab countries that are openly uniting against this

poisonous strain of islam that threatens them even more than it threatens us. this has got to be an iraqi and a syrian fight, an arab and a muslim fight, not a western fight, if it's going to be successful. it will be highly destructive to our efforts to bring about a broad coalition if congress and the president appear disunited. we are asking arab and muslim countries to openly take on a plague, a cancer, a poison in their midst. that's what we're asking for. there's been too much behind-the-scenes support, too much quiet support or opposition, too much inconsistency from a number of arab and muslim countries. and so what the president and

secretary kerry are doing is not just helping to organize a broad coalition of western and muslim countries with western countries to go after this stain, this threat that is in their midst; what we are asking them to do is to do it openly so that their people see that their governments are threatened by -- indeed, their people are threatened by this terror poison in their midst. that's what's critical. that's what's so hugely different from this in iraq, is that this time it's going to be an international coalition going after terrorists and not just a western invasion of a muslim country. it would be, again, destructive of our efforts to get open support in the muslim and arab

world going after these terrorists, this strand called isis, if congress and the president are disunited. so we should give our support to the provision authorizing the training and equipping of vetted, moderate syrian opposition force. i hope we do it on a bipartisan basis here making it then not only bipartisan but also bicameral. and what an important statement that will be to the very countries that we are seeking to help rid themselves of this cancer. i thank the presiding officer, and i note the absence of a quorum. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. levin: i withdraw that. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you, madam president. madam president, when we head to the floor, we make choices.

we first choose how to get here, whether to take the subway, whenwhether to walk. we choose when edge to sto -- wr to stop tawngdz to a colleague or two on the way. and we also choose whether to talk to the press. there are a number of reporters available to speak to. i and my colleagues are often picky about who we talk to. i like talking to reporters just fine. my staff gets a little nervous. but last week coming out of a secure briefing on the situation in the middle east, i went up to the first reporter i saw. that's because in that briefing no one asked how much this war with isil would cost or how we were going to pay for it. at the end of the briefing, i asked those questions myself. but it's telling, madam president, that no one up to that point in time had voiced their concerns about cost. at least we'd asked, are we putting another war in the middle east on a credit card?

will it be added to our debt? will our grandchildren once again have to pay for our choices today? i also asked what domestic programs are going to be cut if this war is an unpaid war. er improvements to ouimprovemen, head starkts the violence against women act? we're not having a real debate, madam president. we'll be voting on whether to authorize the training of so-called moderate syrian rebels. earlier this year the president told us this would cost about $5 million. you can say this bill contains no specific dollar amount, but that is what this administration is going to spend and that is just a stample start. this discussion will take less than a half a day. we need more information. we've had some briefings and some of the committees up here have had some hearings. but the senate needs a real debate about our involvement in

iraq and syria and with isil. we need more information, and that's why i'm speaking today. and that's why i spoke to the press last week. $500 million is a lot of money. madam president, it would go a long by that a state like montana where we need to update our roadsers bridge roads, brid. this week the president said he will be spending u money on ebi. isil and ebola are both terrible threats in their own rights. i do have questions about how we pay for these kinds of actions and what our long-term strategy is. the president requested $58 billion for additional defense spending for the 2015 fiscal year. that is spending on top of the

$490 billion that is just a part of the normal defense department's budget. but the bill we're voting on today puts the defense budget on autopilot. there's no chance to find other places to cut spending, no chance to raise revenue so that we couldn't dope just put this new spending on the credit card and on the backs of our grandchildren. folks will say this bill is only for two months. they'll say that on december 11 when this bill expires we can pursue the defense budget to cut programs that aren't working to pay for this new military action. but we all know that's a heavy lift in a city where it's easier to spend than it is to save especially when we're already dipping our hands in the pot to fight isil and ebola. over a decade ago we sent american service members to iraq to overthrow saddam hussein. americans lost sons and daughters, husbands and wives, families made great personal sacrifices.

but our government never asked us to sacrifice as a whole. we didn't raise taxes, we didn't cut spending, we didn't set aside money to take care of our veterans who returned from the battlefield with wounds both seen and unseen. as a result, combined with massive tax cuts our deficit and our debt exploded. now, $500 million is a far cry from the hundreds of billions that we spent in iraq over the last decade but this is just a start. we must stop putting wars on credit cards. and i wonder if once we start an overseas conflict do we know when and where it will stop, do we know what our spending will achieve. madam president, the last five years we've actually had some progress on the deficit reduction. we've reduced the deficit by two-thirds. but all that is at risk with the beginning of a new conflict. we simply have too many unanswered questions.

the president says we are backed by a coalition of nations ready to join our fight against isil. but will it be a real coalition? violent extremists and threats to peace-loving societies no matter where they are, and agree with the president that we need to contain and destroy isil before it gets stronger, but only a real coalition, one that includes strong commitments of money, equipment, and manpower from middle eastern, asian, south american and european nations will lead to a long-term stability in that region. these allies should be footing their share of the bill. as i just mentioned, americans whether today's taxpayers or tomorrow's, should not sold a disproportionate burden of the cost. after all, if countries like saudi arabia or turkey feel the growth of isil, they should make real commitments to this war-fighting effort. that's what happened during the first gulf war and that war

members of the coalition contributed more than 80% of that war's cost. because if isil is truly a worldwide problem, then there should be a worldwide response and a commitment to addressing that problem. if isil is threatening to upset the balance of power in the middle east, then middle eastern nations must step up. if terrorists from isil are a worldwide threat, then the world must step up. anything else, madam president, is unacceptable. some say that in order to ensure world peace, america must be a world leader. they say that no other country is prepared to be the world's policeman. world peace is important, but true peace stems from our ability to rally other nations to our cause. when we convince someone of the merit of our argument. when we form strong alliances that stand the test of time. when we act in cons certificate with other nations. our word and our acts become stronger and the world's respect

grows. we're told today that other countries will respond, that other folks are joining the fight. but actions speak louder than words. i for one would like to see more of it before i vote to commit america's taxpayers' reason to this fight. 11 years ago we invaded iraq without a real coalition. and we built our argument on false pretenses. moving forward, we must have a real debate, a sound strategy, and an end game. madam president, this body is historically the world's greatest deliberative body. here men like daniel webster and henry clay liberated. we're not having that kind of debate today. we're not gathering more information. there were committee hearings this week but the die is cast. the wheels are in motion. as we say in montana, the horse is out of the barn, the cows are out to pasture.

there are 1,600 american troops in iraq right now who deserve a real debate. many of them have husbands, wives, children, families. i do not know i can say with certainty to them, don't worry, we're training the right people to fight on the ground in syria. and if america is wrong about who we train and arm in syria, my fear is that these 1,600 service members will be joined again by tens of thousands more. for their sake and the sake of the american taxpayer we need a fuller debate that will have a real impact on the decisionmaking process here in the united states senate. and more of that debate should have happened before now. i serve on the senate appropriations committee. i know we must fund the government and prevent a shutdown, that is the responsible thing to do. the cost of last year's shutdown on montana's business was extraordinary and unnecessary and i do not want to repeat that fiasco. that's why i'll be voting for

that continuing resolution later today. i know some folks are opposed to this continuing resolution because they think we should pass appropriations individually. i appreciate that, i agree with that. but the fact is the appropriation committee under the chairmanship 6 chairwoman mikulski who is on the floor right now, and senator shelby, have worked hard and worked in a bipartisan way to try to make that happen. they have tried to reinvigorate this committee and make sure that the senate fulfills our constitutional responsibility to make the hard choices about how we spend taxpayers' money. ironically, some of the folks who said they don't like passing the c.r. are the statement folks who made it harder to pass the bipartisan bills that come out of that appropriations committee. talk about playing down to the american people's already low expectations for congress. so we have no choice. other than to pass the c.r. today. but i'm tired of spending without a plan, i'm tired of getting caught up in fighting wars in the middle east,

performing the same actions, expecting a different result. i'm tired of repeating history without learning its lessons. we can do better, madam president, and for the sake of our troops, the sake of our taxpayers, for the sake of our kids, for the fate of our nation and the world, we must. and with that i yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: thank you very much mr. president -- madam president. we've heard some excellent debate here today on really very

consequential matter of arming these so-called syrian moderates. i know that the senator from maine, senator king, will be coming here jointly -- shortly to partnership in that debate, and i think this is a very good thing. but while we're debating war, i'm going to ask unanimous consent to go into morning business for seven -- i'll use this against my time. i'm going to talk about the orioles. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: i will use my seven minutes here. so this is in no way to minimize the debate that's going on now, but while we have the time for some of the senators coming who really want to emphasize this topic, i just wanted to take a little bit of a breather here. as you can see, i'm wearing the

orioles' colors on the senate floor today and while we have such -- these issues, we have to remember the kinds of things that make america great. you know, this continuing resolution in addition to dealing with really intense foreign policy needs and really intense foreign policy crises, we have to remember we are actually funding the -- both our national security, our department of defense, and very important domestic programs, preschool, n.i.h. to find cures or autism and alzheimer's and so on, and we also want to not only keep the government going but remember what's so great about our country and, of course, baseball. and that's why today i rise to congratulate the baltimore orioles who won the american east title. as i said, i wear their colors

today on the floor, and i hope to wear it at camden yards. my home team not only represents the tough enduring spirit of baltimore but the entire state. this team never quits and it always plays hard. sure, we tip our hats to the rest of the american east, the yankees, the red sox, the rays, the blue jays, but this is our year. madam president, the orioles are celebrating their 60th anniversary in baltimore. the o. as we affectionately call them arrived in 1954. i was a high school girl. i remember the excitement of the team coming, our first major league team. we had played triple a up until then, a big parade down charles street. charm city was charmed by this new wonderful baseball team. there have been many omazing events that have occurred since

then and fantastic and legendary players. brooks robinson, frank robinson, jim palmer, eddie murray, iron man cal ripken jr. jr. we remember our coaches babe earl weaver and of course we remember cal ripken senior who taught us the oriole way. this year we have a team who once again is energizing and on its way to the playoffs. anyone who has watched the orioles this season at camden yards knows this was a try true team effort. the american east title was made possible by clutch hits and home runs, spectacular pitches and spectacular catches and gutsy pitching. when the all-star players weren't on the field, work was veterans and promising young rookies stepped up night after night. yes, there's oriole magic. we have our manager, buck

showalter, who as you know is a laugh a minute. i'm joke. -- i'm joking. if you look at mr. showalter he doesn't crack a smile but teaches his players to crack a bat. his attention to the big picture and the smallest detail is the way this team functions. and now we think we are on our way to something called the battle of the beltways. it is conceivable that we will be playing the washington nationals, who have just won the national league east title, and our tip of the hat to our friends in the district of columbia. we're as excited for them as we are about ourselves and we can't wait to meet. i am hoping for this. three conspiracy for the baltimore orioles, who have earned this fantastic title. and we won't stop, we won't stop until we have a pennant flying high off of our stadium. i want to congratulate the

entire orioles organization, from the managers to the front office people, the owner of the team, peter angelos, who really rescued our team many years ago from being sold out of town. peter angelos stepped up to the played and staved saved it and kept the team in baltimore and he's kept the team on the go, and now that fantastic team under great leadership, wonderful players, and the best fans in both leagues are looking forward to the playoffs. and you know what we're looking forward to? it's not only the game, but it's the spirit of community that's in baltimore. our city hall in the evening is lit you were in orange. you travel the city, people are wearing the colors and laughing and giving each other shoulder to shoulder and high five. if you came over to where -- in baltimore now and you saw -- if you went to like a great

institution like johns hopkins, whether you're an orderly or a facilities manager or whether you're a nobel prize winner, everybody is wearing the orange. black, white, hispanic, latino, men, women, we are all there. and you know why? because it is about baseball, it is about a team, it is about america, it is about the land of the free and the home of the brave, so let's keep our government open. let's be on the playing field in competition for jobs and opportunity, and i'll be back at the lame duck gloating. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. martin luther king madammr. kini rise today to talk about isis.

mr. king: first, is it a threat? why are we having this debate? why are we conducting airstrikes? this is a clear and present danger to the united states of america. this group has done everything but send us an e-mail saying "we're coming for you." they've made comments, we'll see new new york. they've brutally murdered two of our citizens. if they have free reign in the large area that's as big as, why know, the state of indiana, i suppose, between syria -- eastern syria and western and northernorthern iraq, there undy will come a time when they will strike here and in europe and in other parts of the world. so i'm here today to support the provision of the continuing resolution that will allow us to begin the arming and equipping and training of the syrian moderate opposition. why do we even have this

discussion? because the most fundamental responsibility of any government anywhere, anytime is to protect their citizens. the preamble of the united states constitution says that the fundamental purpose -- one of the fundamental purposes listed in the preamble is to provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquilli tranquillity, a basic function of any government. this is why we're having this debate today. this arming and equipping provision is not a panacea. it is not going to end the war. it is not going to be easy. it is no sure thing. it is no sure thing. a friend said to me this morning, it is the least worst option. it is one that we must undertake. it has to be part of the solution, because to root out isis, whose headquarters is in syria, not iraq, there is going to have to be troops. there are going to have to be

combat troops. there's no such thing as a surgical war. where are those troops going to come from? not from the united states. they have to come from within the syrian opposition itself. this is also important as a gesture to the coalition that we're building to confront this threat. having a credible coalition -- which i'll expand upon in a moment -- is an incredibly important part of this entire strategy. without a functioning, real coalition, it's impossible -- it's an impossible task. this cannot be a united states war. this cannot be a war of the west against this so-called islamic state. it has to involve particularly the neighbors in the region. i'm also supportive of the general strategy that the president outlined, but i think

there are several points that need to be absolutely emphasized. one is the importance of the coalition. we cannot have a coalition that just holds our coat while we do the fighting. they have to be engaged. they have to be engaged in an active way, not just writing checks. if we try to do this ourselves, if we tried to do -- even if we were inclined to do this with our own troops, it wouldn't work. these have to be local faces on the ground. there are going to be boots on the ground, but they are not and should not and cannot be ours. the second thing that's so important in this strategy that the president outlined the other night is a trustworthy, inclusive government in baghdad. the reason isis was so successful in this sweeping through northern iraq and into mosul was that they were swimming in friendly waters. they were swimming in the sunni

regions of iraq where the local tribes and sunni leaders had been alienated and systematically excluded from the government in baghdad. if the government in baghdad is -- cannot build credibility with that group, this is a hopeless enterprise. the prime minister needs to channel his inner mandela. he has to be inclusive of people, even the people who were his enemies and enemies of his sect at a prior time. this has to be a government that can be trusted and really what's going on is a battle for the loyalty of the sunni population of iraq to see whether they're going to be loyal to this brutal so-called islamic state or to the government of the country in baghdad. and that's the challenge that is before that government today.

so far the signs are positive, but we're still in the very first weeks of this regime. but that has got to be a crucial element of our strategy. so two pieces that are largely out of our control -- we can try to build a coalition, we can put pressure on the government in baghdad, but these folks have to do it themselves. we cannot be the policemen of the middle east. the third piece is building the syrian opposition. the same goes for the headquarters of isis in syria. there's going to have to be people on the ground, and they're not going to be americans. they have to come from the syrian opposition. and that's why that's an important element of the strategy. but i think there's another discussion that we have to have. unfortunately, the calendar doesn't allow us to have it today, but i believe that there must be a new authorization for the use of military force.

the authorization that was passed in 2001 at the beginning -- right after september 11 has been stretched and strained to the point where if it's allowed to become the justification for anything, there's nothing left of the clause of the constitution that says congress shall be the ones to declare war. i've gone back and looked at the history of that clause. very interestingly, the original draft of the constitution said congress shall make war. and people realized at the time -- the framers realized that congress would not be the right entity to execute of the war itself, to make the battlefield decisions. but the framers were adamant that the decision, the momentous decision of entering this country into war had to be in the branch of the government most representative of the people. they went through history in the 49th federalist, they go through and talk about how throughout history unfettered

executives, princes, kings, mischievously and often on weak grounds got their countries engaged in war. they made a conscious decision that that responsibility was left with the congress. unfortunately, over the years, going back to the late-1940's, we've allowed that clause to atrophy. we've allowed the executive to take more and more responsibility and power and unilateral authority, and people are saying, well, the president -- this president is acting unilaterally. this is not new. this goes about back to harry n and the korean war. presidents naturally want more authority and they do have the power to dwn our country when -- to defend you our country when the threat is imminent and real but they don't have the power to commit american armed forces in any place at any time under any circumstances.

i believe we have a constitutional responsibility to consider this matter, to debate it, to argue about the terms of what the authorization should be, how it should be limited, in duration, in geography, in target, in means, in manner of confrontation with the enemy, but that is what we must do. finally, beyond this aumf, beyond isis -- assume for a moment we're tremendously and utterly successful over the next six months, year, two years, and isis is gone. the problem is, history has taught us someone will take their place. the real issue -- the real issue is radical jihaddism. and we have to have a strategy to deal with that in the long term that doesn't involve trying to just kill them as they come forward. it was characterized recently as

geopolitical whack a mole. we stop them in one place and it comes up someplace else. and we all know about al qaeda, el use in a, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. we have to be talking and developing a strategy to deal with this threat to our country and to the rest of the world on a more long-term basis than simply having continuous, what amount to battles amongst elements of these people. why are they doing this? what is attracting people to this destructive philosophy? and how can we best counteract that? i believe that we have to make a decision today, but as i said, i also think we have to make a decision before the end of the year as to what the scope and limits and authority of the president are in this matter.

we can try to avoid it but i don't believe we can. on december 1, 18612, abraham lincoln sent a message to this body. "we cannot escape history. it will light us down from one generation to the next." and i believe that we need to stand and debate, argue, refine, and finally reach a conclusion so that the american people can understand what we're doing and why. the executive will have clear authority, the rest of the world will know that this is the united states of america taking this position, not a president, not a few members of congress. and that is a responsibility i believe that we are ready to assume. this is a threat. it must be met, and we must

participate in the decision to meet it. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: madam president, i rise -- i come to the floor to, first of all, thank president poroshenko and the speech that he gave to a joint session of the congress today. it was a very moving speech. i think it was a very direct speech, and it really showed how important it is that we stand with the people of ukraine during this trying time. with the aggression that they are facing from russia. and i come to the floor just to say a couple of things. first of all, this: at the end of the his speech, he

used the motto of my home state, from the state of new hampshire, "live free or die." new hampshire -- we're very proud of that motto. it came from a statement during the american revolution from general john stark, and it really does not only have meaning to my home state of new hampshire but also to the people of ukraine with what they have been facing. those who stood in the midon and gave their lives for freedom and democracy in ukraine, i've had the privilege of going to ukraine twice, both in march and also to oversee their presidential elections. the and in both instances, i was very struck by the patriotism, by their love for america, and their gratefulness for our support. as we heard president poroshenko say to all of us today, now, more than ever, they need

american support. and there's something that i've been calling for for a while. in fact, when i went there in march and also i had the privilege of traveling with senator donnelly there -- it was a bipartisan codel -- and also in may, both those instances we had the request for lethal assistance so that the ukrainian military would have the arms that they need to defend themselves against this russian aggression. so today we also heard president poroshenko call upon us again to provide the support for the ukrainian military. they have fought and continue to fight and die for their own independence and freedom and territorial integrity. and the least we can do is provide them lethal assistance. as president poroshenko rightly said today, "blankets and night-vision goggles are

important, but one cannot win a war with a blanket." and so i would hope all of us stood together today, both democrats and republicans to say we stand with the people of ukraine. i know this afternoon that the senate foreign relations committee has come together and has marked up a very important aid package to ukraine, which contains lethal assistance for their military. and i would hope that our president would see that on a bipartisan bays we stand -- bipartisan basis we stand with the people of ukraine and we must provide them with this assistance that they need. finally i would say that the budapest memorandum that president poroshenko mentioned today is very, very important. we were a signatory to that mum dumb as was -- to that memorandum as was russia a signatory to that memorandum. in that memorandum and the signing of it, ukraine gave up

their nuclear weapons in exchange for our assurances that we would respect their sovereignty, security assurances and their territorial integrity. obviously russia has trampled all over this. but i would say the least we could do is provide this lethal assistance that they have asked for given that they gave up their nuclear weapons. we signed on to that agreement. we should support them in their time of need so that they can defend their sovereignty. and what country ever again is going to give up their nuclear weapons if we won't even give them basic military assistance when their country is invaded, like ukraine has been invaded by russia? so i thank you, madam president. now is our time and our moment. we all stood together in the house chamber today for the people of ukraine. what matters is our actions, not just our words and our standing

ovation. so i hope that we will stand with the people of ukraine. i call upon our president to provide lethal assistance to the people of ukraine and to provide the support and tougher sanctions on russia, economic sanctions for their invasion and their total disrespect for the sovereignty of the country of ukraine. thank you, madam president. i would defer to my colleague, senator mccain, from arizona. mr. mccain: i thank you, madam chairman. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: always appreciate it when the senator from new hampshire defers to me. it is a rare occasion, i might add. i thank you, madam president. i rise today to speak in support of the continuing resolution that we'll vote on. i don't do so because i approve of the bulk of the c.r., and i certainly don't approve of the process to get us here. it's a broken, dysfunctional

process that deserves and has received the scorn and disdain of the american people. long ago we should have been taking up these bills one by one. but that's not why i come to the floor today. this c.r. i'm voting for for one particular reason. it would help the department of defense train and equip moderate vetted syrian opposition forces to fight the bar barbaric army that calls itself the islamic state known as isis. the current plan could have been decisive two years ago. two years it could have been decisive. it's not now. we're talking about 5,000 that we're going to train over a year or more period. and they're going to be fighting against an estimated 31,500 fighters. there are many similar events that have taken place in the

conflict. one of the main ones was when the president two years ago overrode the major players in his national security team, when they overruled his unanimous and passionate argument to arm and train the syrian, the free syrian army. the administration says that u.s. forces will not have a combat role. why does the president insist on continuing to tell the enemy what he won't do? why is it that the president of the united states keeps telling the people that are slaughtering thousands, don't worry, we won't commit ground troops? why does he have to keep saying that? obviously at least one would draw the conclusion because of political reasons. but the fact is that secretary gates, secretary of defense robert gates had this to say. i don't know of a man who is more respected than former secretary robert gates, secretary of defense, under both

republican and democrat presidents. he said "the reality is" gates said "they're not going to be able to be successful against isis strictly from the air or strictly depending on the iraqi forces or the peshmerga or sunni tribes acting on their own." gates continued, "so there will be boots on the ground if there's going to be any hope of success in the strategy. and i think that by continuing to repeat that, the, that the u.s. won't put boots on the ground, the president in effect traps himself." that's the opinion not of john mccain and lindsey graham. it's the opinion of robert gates and every military expert i have talked to ranging from the architects of the surge to former chairmen of the joint chief of staffs and confidentially leaders in uniform today. the president said he'll expand

airstrikes in syria but they testified the president will not have controllers on the ground which directs airstrikes which makes them obviously effective. as we read today in the "wall street journal," and this is remarkable, my friends, that president obama will be personally signing off on every airstrike in syria. i saw that movie before. it was called vietnam. many years ago when president lyndon johnson used to select the targets in the oval office or in the situation room. now we have a president of the united states who is selecting targets of which he has no fundamental knowledge whatsoever. it's really remarkable. finally, we're going to train and equip these -- not finally. we're going to train and equip these people to fight. and yet we're not going to take out the asset that bashar assad uses to kill them. the air attacks, the barrel

bombs, indiscriminate killing of innocent men, women and children. 192,000 dead in syria. 150,000 languishing in his prisons. and we're not going to take out or give, even give these people the free syrian army, weapons with which to counter these air attacks which are so brutal and outrageous. i would just like to say and i'd like to yield to my friend from south carolina just to make a couple of comments. one, the argument that has been made here, there are no moderates in syria. there are no moderates in syria. well, probably the most, i think, arguably one of the most important and impressive individuals that i've run into is ambassador ford who has really been a hero in this whole exercise. and he says that there are

moderates in syria. they can fight. they have been fighting. they have been doing incredible work with incredible sacrifice. and i'm trying to find his quote here, that he testified before the foreign relations committee yesterday, and he did a magnificent job in doing so, as usual, in my view. i can't seem to find it, but i would point out that he says that the, not only can they fight but they have been fighting and they have been doing a heroic job in doing so. and that is also the opinion of people who know so. so there are moderates. if we train and equip them, they can be effective. the problem is we haven't done too little. it's we've done too much. a weakened assad, we've weakened

assad and hurt his ability to fight isis. isis is a problem for the middle east. if isis is a problem for the middle east, i wonder what the australians think today. australian police detained 15 people thursday in a major counterterrorism operation saying the intelligence indicated that a random violent attack was being planned in australia. we know -- we know what their object is, and it is to strike the united states of america. and i say in response to these uninformed colleagues of mine that say that the free syrian army can't fight, syrian forces are seeing stepping up attacks on rebels as u.s. sets sights on isis. time after time there have been places where isis is controlled, the free syrian army has come in and then bashar assad attacks because they want to defeat them. the fact is i see the critics come here on the floor of the

senate and talk about why everything is wrong, why nobody will fight, why we can't arm the right people. what's their solution? do they reject the premise articulated by isis that they want to attack the snuns do they contradict mr. baghdadi who with when he left our prison camp buka and said i'll see you in new york? is that what this is all about? of course it's a threat to the united states of america, and for us to do nothing obviously would be a serious mistake. i'd like to yield five minutes to my colleague from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you very much, senator mccain. mr. mccain: how much time remains? the presiding officer: the republicans currently have 67 minutes remaining. mr. graham: well, five minutes. thank you very much. very quickly, i will vote for

the continuing resolution because, one, i don't want to shut the government down. two, i agree with senator mccain this is not the right process but we are where we are. and i think the issue people are focusing on about the continuing resolution is the changing of the training of the free syrian army from title 50, a covert program to under title 10, the department of defense where it will be out in the open. the reason i support the appropriation and the change in title 10, i think this is a long overdue effort on our part to build up syrian forces that can confront both assad and isil, enemies to the united states. to my colleagues who worry about the people we trained in the arms and are falling into the wrong hands, i would say there's nothing we can do in this area without some risk. but when you tell me there are no syrians that you believe exist that would fight against assad and isil, i don't believe

you quite understand what's going on in syria. i would say that the vast majority of syrians have two things in common. they want to overthrow assad and they want to get isil out of their country. isil is mostly none-syrian. they came from a vacuum created by lack of security. when hezbollah and russia doubled down to protect assad, who was just about knocked out several years ago, the free syrian army was abandoned by us and the rest of the world, and isil was able to fill in that vacuum. these are foreign fighters. so to my colleagues who talk about you worry, i worry too. i worry about doing nothing. i worry about finding an excuse not to do anything. it bothers me when republicans embrace the position of president obama just a few weeks ago that it was a fantasy to train the syrians to fight for syria. i don't think it's a fantasy to train syrians to fight for

syrians because they want to. this whole revolution against assad was not to overthrow him and replace assad with isil. the people who think that the average syrian wants to be dominated by isil instead of assad really, i don't think they appreciate what's going on in syria, and that's selling the syrian people short. having said that, the limitations of what a free syrian army can do at this point are real. but training up as many as possible makes sense to me. my goal is to keep the war over there so it doesn't come here. and from an american point of view, i think it would be a huge mistake not to provide training and resources to those people in the region, in syria to do the fighting because we have common enemies. so those who say this is too risky, what is your alternative? because if we do nothing, isil continues to grow and the threat to our homeland continues to increase. it's long past time to blunt the

momentum of this vicious terrorist organization. a free syrian army component makes perfect sense to me, whatever risk is associated with that concept is well worth it at this point. now, when you talk about iraq, i hope the iraqi government can reconstitute itself. their militaries' in shambles. the kurds are hanging on in the north with our help. but to dislodge isil from iraq and take back if a lieu shah -- take back fallujah and mosul and other cities would be a dedicated military endeavor. from my viewpoint the last thing we want to do is take on iraq and fail. if you believe it is about our homeland and just not about the mideast, allowing isil to defeat any force we throw at it makes them larger and more lethal over time.

so the worst possible outcome is to form a coalition in syria of arab countries and they are defeated by isil because we don't provide them the capabilities they lack. president obama's insistence of no boots on the ground is the achilles' heel to a strategy. this is a military strategy, i believe, designed around political promises. this is not the military strategy you would create to destroy or devastate isil. president bush made many mistakes in iraq, but to his credit, he changed the strategy in a fashion that allowed us to succeed. one thing i have learned over the last 13 years -- you can have a lot of troops doing the wrong thing and it will not matter. when you leave no troops behind, that's a mistake. and if you have too few troops doing the right thing, it won't matter. the president is right about this -- we don't need to

reinvade iraq or syria. we don't need the 82nd airborne to go in with 100,000 troops behind it. but we do need to provide capacity to the iraqis and any future coalition to deal with syria that's lacking in that part of the world. like it or not, the american military is second to none. the special forces capability we have can really be decisive in this fight, and to every american, this is not just about them over there. this is about us here. and the better and the sooner that isil is defeated, the more decisive isil is defeated and the sooner that comes about, the safer we are here at home. and so i would urge the president to not take options off the table. i am voting for this change in strategy regarding the free syrian army because i think it's long overdue. and when the president does the right thing, i want to be his partner. mr. president, if you will come up with a strategy to destroy and defeat isil that makes

sense, i will be your best ally and try to help you on our side of the aisle. this is a first step in the right direction, but when you play out this strategy, what you're trying to do i think will not work unless you embrace american assistance in a greater level to the iraqi military and to any coalition you could create in syria because the last thing i want this body to understand, this is the last best chance we'll have to put isil back in a box so they can't render havoc in the middle east, grow in strength. the stronger they are over there, the more endangered we are here. it is in our interests to help our arab allies and iraqi allies destroy isil. it is just not about those people over there. lines of defenses in the war on terror make perfect sense to me. the best way to keep this fight off our shores is to engage with people who will help us carry the fight to the common enemy.

and isil is just not an enemy of islam. it is an enemy of mankind. and failing to defeat these people will rest nature here very quickly. we have a chance. let's take advantage of it. there is nothing we can do in a war on terror without risk, but now we're fighting an army, not an organization, and if you defeat isil, the war's not over. this is a generational struggle. but if you do defeat isil, as a turning point in our favor, if they survive our best attempt to defeat them, god help us all. with that, i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i'd like to just add, again i found a quote from the testimony of robert ford, an unusual man, our ambassador to syria, a man who literally risked his own life. in his prepared statement, he said many americans question whether there are any moderates left in the syrian armed

opposition. there are. they are fighting the islamic state and the assad regime both. they are not surprisingly hard pressed and they could very much use our help. i want to assure my colleagues from our many visits there and knowing these people, there are moderates in iraq today who will -- in syria today who will fight and are fighting, and unfortunately they are being attacked both from isis and from bashar assad, and that which brings me up, we need to negate bashar assad's air attacks and capability. otherwise, we're going to train and equip these young people and send them into death which would be needless. there are several articles, one of the new republic entitled we can't destroy isis without destroying bashar assad first. another one, assad's policies aided the rise of islamic state militant group.

another one, blame assad first for isis's rise. you cannot -- the thing that was most disturbing yesterday about secretary of state's statements was when he said well, isil first. you cannot sequence them. they are too closely tied, and you cannot defeat isil in syria if you leave bashar assad with his air capabilities. madam president, there are no good options. a series of decisions have been made which led us to the point wherein today all based -- we are in today all based on the fundamental belief that the united states could leave the area and everything would take care of itself. what happened was that we left a vacuum that was filled by bad people. now there is a threat to the united states of america. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution, but i also believe that it is also an act of cowardice that we didn't take up the bill separately, debate, amend, vote on an issue of this

utmost seriousness where one way or another, whether the president wants to admit it or not, we're again sending americans into harm's way. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: thank you very much, madam president. i wasn't planning on speaking on the floor. i will just take a couple of minutes, but i appreciate my colleagues who just spoke and their conversation as well as many others who have spoken on the floor. let me first make it very clear, this conversation i'm going to have right now is not about the c.r. it's going to pass. it's going to move forward. the government will keep operating. this kind of artificial threat that it might be shut down if we don't vote in a certain way in regards to the government is just not factual. the c.r. is going to pass. the house passed it. people don't want to see a

problem like they had a year and a half ago. i feel real confident of where we're going with regards to the c.r. but i want to agree that the comment with regards to this issue with what's going on in syria should be a separate issue, should be debated separately. it shouldn't be shoved into a continuing resolution for the purpose of getting all this done because we all think we have to leave by thursday night or friday morning. it's a pretty significant issue, one that i have already made my statement very clear after the president spoke that despite my colleagues on the other side who were just down here that i want to make sure i want to correct what they said, we just have difference of opinions and views. when you hear a statement that people aren't informed or they don't want to do nothing -- they don't want to do anything, that's just not a factual basis here. we have different views when it comes to the issues of conflict in this world and where america should sit and what we should be doing and how we should be acting and who our partners should be and what they should

be doing. it has nothing to do with shutting down the government or the c.r. or being uninformed. i think everyone in this body is well informed. we have had many briefings, many discussions. the question is just our view of where we stand on the issue of do we arm the rebels in syria to do something we hope they will do? that's the question, and that's the debate we're in right now. and i appreciate at least the limited time we have on this. so let me make my position very clear on this. i have made it clear before but i want to say it again. i do not support the arming of rebels in syria. in the appropriation committee, we had an amendment on this which i voted for not to make sure the funding. it didn't pass, but it was a statement i think was important. this is not a newfound. i support the air strikes. those are international, combined efforts and strategic and moving in the right direction. as a matter of fact, yesterday or i think it was the day before, baghdad was being moved on by isil. let me make it clear, isil,

isis, the i.s., whatever you want to call them, they are a terrorist group. to say that they're called the islamic state, they're not a state. they are a bunch of terrorist thugs. let's be honest about this. when they made a move on baghdad, we came in at the request of the government of iraq to give air support. we did. we pushed them back. then we continued to follow. that seemed to work in that situation. here we are on a situation of do we arm the rebels, do we believe in combat troops, humanitarian aid? what is our role in this endeavor? again, i disagree with my president. when i say that, i mean the president of the democratic party. there are times when we disagree on quite a few issues. arming the rebels or who they are or where they might be 12 months from now, i don't know. the bigger issue to me is also their countries. i understand we have seen in the last few days they are starting

to have conversations and wanting to participate, but this is their country, their region. what do they do? where are they stepping up to the plate more? here we are once again going to have to solve some civil war issues in the middle east. instead the countries in the region are stating maybe we'll help a little here. they need to put troops on the ground. they need to step up to the plate. as well as the faith leaders and the religious leaders of that region, because these terrorists are a threat to the region and to our country. the photos we have seen of the beheadings are horrific, outlandish, outrageous. don't get me wrong. this is a bad organization and should be dealt with in such a way, but we need the countries there to assist us in a much more aggressive way. today we heard from the president of the ukraine. he came to the joint congress. why did he come here? because he believes in his country. he is fighting for his country.

he needs our help and is asking for our help. he is not hiding behind closed doors meetings and trying to negotiate ways they can't be seen and asking for help. he is asking because he wants us to believe in democracy, what is right for his country. he's fighting for his homeland. i remember in his speech he gave today, a line was you don't have to create the democracy. you just have to defend it. but here we are in the middle east with unusual now allies because it's a convoluted situation. in some ways, we participated, but we also have to have the iraqi government be more sustainable. that means inclusion, which they haven't done. they're trying because we had to put pressure on because isil has now moved into their country. as we know, some of those arab countries through some of those well-financed people funded isil. now the beast has grown so big it's out of control. now they say whoops, we might have made a mistake. now we need the u.s. to come in

again. what is the long-term plan here for sustainability in the middle east to get rid of these terrorist organizations that every single one of those countries know is bad for them? they know it. but they don't step up to the plate enough. every time we have to step up, and america -- my wife and i have been to i don't know how many funerals, how many hospitals. are we asking -- i heard some of my colleagues here now talk about combat troops. absolutely not. absolutely not. it is time for the arab countries to step up, get over their regional differences and know that this is one organization, this terrorist organization, isis, isil, whatever you want to call them today, it's bad for them and bad for this world, and they need to step up and be more aggressive. that means combat troops on the ground for them, for them to do it, for them to step up to the plate.

madam president, you know, i think about this. and here are the -- isis is -- again, this terrorist organization, isis, they are making money off of oil. they are making money off of oil. oil wells they have captured. shipping it out through one of our -- quote -- allies. why don't we just dismantle through air strikes these oil wells? stop their cash flow like that. probably because we're not going to do it because we're hearing from people because well, that's not really their oil. we'll take them out, get our oil back. they own the oil now because they are using it to fund their operation $3 million a day, take out the oil wells, take out their cash flow and they get the arab countries to step up and do not arm with u.s. dollars and weapons the rebels of today who might not be the rebels of tomorrow. madam president, i thank you for the opportunity to let me come down here, say my piece. it's going to be an interesting vote. i know the c.r. will pass, i'll

be in the minority, but i think it's important that we put on the record where we stand on this issue. and don't get me wrong. don't get me wrong. i believe they are a threat to this u.s., and when they threaten our assets, our people, we will be on it and we will deal with them. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: i ask unanimous consent that jennifer winkler, a member of my staff, be given floor privileges during the consideration of h. resolution 124. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: and, madam president, i know the distinguished senator from illinois is scheduled to speak. i just want to make clear that the threat of a shutdown is not an idle threat. i respect the views of the gentleman from alaska. a member of my own committee who now says he's going to vote against the c.r. because he says, oh, it will pass, it's an artificial threat. the gentleman is entitled to his views and certainly his vote on

what he thinks is in the best interests of the nation, but we've got to pass this c.r. or it will -- it is not an artificial threat. the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: these are moments when members of the senate have to reflect on the responsibility we're given. extraordinary moments, unlike other votes that you cast, because at least part of this important spending bill relates to u.s. military involvement in the middle east, and reality tells us people will die if there is conflict. of course you hope it will be the enemy, but you know better. even some of our people are at risk to die in any military undertaking. so every member of the senate should take this vote seriously, and i'm sure they do.

madam president, i remember october 11, 2002, as if it were yesterday. i was here in the senate weeks away from an election, and we were asked to vote on the invasion of iraq. the buildup to this vote was overwhelming. the president and others, secretary of state, secretary of defense, head of the c.i.a., a long list, had made the case to the american people that there were weapons of mass destruction in the hands of saddam hussein and that if we didn't move in, strike and stop him, they could threaten our allies, friends and even the united states. and we debated that and voted on it. it was late at night. october 11, 2002. i remember that vote as if it were yesterday. at the end of that vote, 23 of us had voted no against the invasion of iraq.

one republican, senator chafee of rhode island, 22 democrats. i went down to the well of this chamber and there were two of my colleagues there, paul wellstone of minnesota and kent conrad of north dakota. and i said to paul wellstone, who was up for re-election, i hope this doesn't cost you your seat, because he had voted no as well, and he said it's all right if it does. this is what i believe and this is how i'm going to vote. and i thought to myself he may not return to the senate, and tragically, he did not. he was involved in a plane crash just days later that took his life and the life of his wife and staffer. but it's an indication of the gravity and importance of this job, of this chamber and of this vote. now, what we're being asked to do by the president is much different than what we were asked to do in 2002 when it came to the invasion of iraq.

the president has identified a threat to the united states. it's called the islamic state, isil. it is an emerging group that has broken out of extremist groups in the middle east and it's on a rampage. it is marching through syria and iraq in a way we've not seen extremist groups act. it is capturing territory which extremist groups seldom do. and it's doing several other things. it is taking all of the tangible assets of cities like mosul, raiding their banks, breaking into the vaults, taking their money, taking over oil and gas fields, produce, if you will, a small economy in budget that is growing by the day. thithis is want your not your tr rest group which we've seen in the -- terrorist group which we've seen in the century. and in their wake, they are killing people right and left. the butchery, the savagery of

this group is really unheard of in modern times. it hearkens back to barbarism of sentries ago. to behead two -- centuries ago. to behead two innocent emergencies, can you imagine to do it with a camera running? it is unthink -- it's just unthinkable what that poor family -- those poor families are going through, even today as they think about this. and that is part of their tactics, to intimidate the united states. now they've done it to a british captive and they promise to do even more. they're serious. they want to take over syria and iraq. and should we care? of course we should. but what did we learn from the invasion of iraq? what did we learn, after spending eight years there, that would bring us back in any -- in any way? well, here's what we learned. we learned that putting american military on the ground, the best military in the world, was no guarantee of victory. we lost 4,476 american lives in

iraq. over 30,000 came home with serious injuries that still need to be cared for to this day. and we added a trillion dollars to our national debt, because under the previous administration, wars present paid for, they were just added to the debt. and we have chaos in iraq today. here's what the president has suggested, and i think he's on the right track. we're not going to put ground forces, combat troops in. instead, we will rely on the iraqi army to fight for the future of iraq. we'll help them, we'll support them, logistics, equipment, direction, air support, but they have to be on the frontline risking their lives. secondly, he said we're going to put together a coalition. you know, the united states ought to think twice in this century about how many more muslim countries we want to be involved in invading. and what the president has said, that is my starting point.

we will be part of a coalition that includes arab and muslim countries who believe, as we do, that isil is reprehensible and needs to be fought back. i think the president's premise is sound, not putting in combat troops is essential, putting the burden on the iraqis is absolutely critical. and i support him in those three things. then comes our vote today, and it's not about iraq, it's about syria and what are we going to do in syria. syria has just been ben a free-for-all -- been a free-for-all of violence and terrorism and deceit and carnage for three years. three million people have been displaced. 300,000 have been killed. and the fighting is so intense, it is hard to tell who's on what side. oh, we know assad, the leader, has his army. he's fighting off all the resistance to his government. we have no use for him but he has some military power,

obviously. he's still there. we also know that there, in addition to isil, this terrorist group, there are up to 1,500 other militia groups. they have neighborhood militias protecting families and neighborhoods. what the president has called for is i think a challenge. find moderate opposition forces that do not align with assad, that are willing to fight isil and stop them in syria. that's our vote. that's what title 10 authorization does, allows the united states to train and equip moderate opposition in syria to fight, to fight these forces. and we have some pretty strict language in here. just took a look at it again. i've read through it a couple times now about reporting back to congress, back to the committees. let us know your progress on this. so here's where we are. this continuing resolution will be the law of the land if it

passes until december 11, if i'm not mistaken. the appropriations committee chair, senator mikulski, nods in the affirmative. until december 11. so what we are doing now is setting up a course of action in syria to work with the moderate opposition to train and equip them to fight off this isil group. we'll be back after the election. we'll be back. we'll be able to measure the progress that has been made. and then -- and then come december 11, we have a much larger question to ask: what will we do from that point forward? we will continue the strategy? assuming we do, i believe and many of my colleagues share the belief, we have a special responsibility given to us by the constitution that says the american people declare war, not the president. and the american people do it through members of congress. so we will come back and start the debate on what's known as an authorization for the use of

military force, modern version, new version applying to this situation. and it will be through the senate foreign relations committee and the armed services committee. it's a debate that's long overdue. the president has invited us to do this. he believes he has the authority to go forward but he said to congress, if you want to be part of this, i welcome your participation. well, let's accept that challenge. so i will be supporting this continuing resolution. i will be supporting the title 10 authorization. until december 11, to start seeing if we can form a force of moderate opposition groups in syria to fight back on isil while we are work not guilty -- we are working in iraq to do the same. i think that we have no choice but to do this, but to do it thoughtfully, without combat troops, with clear accountability and reports and behind a coalition that has many arab and muslim nations that agree with us, that isil is

reprehensible. secretary of state john kerry told us yesterday they've had meetings with the russians and the chinese and the iranians have spoken up and said, we've got to stop this group. they are going to destroy the middle east. and i think we've got to take that seriously. and that's why i'll be supporting this effort. madam president, i know some of my colleagues disagree. i remember my thinking on that october night 2002 that we should hold back, not get involved in iraq, and i think i was right. i think history proved me right. that's why i've looked at this with a critical eye and with the understanding that this is not the end of the debate, this is not the end of the conversation, this is our first step forward in ridding the world of this savage group that is killing so many innocent people. and we're going to do it as part of a coalition and alliance. that, to me, is a thoughtful and sensible way to address this. we will have time to review our

decision on a regular basis, as we should, to hold this president and any president accountable as we move forward. but this is something we absolutely must do as a nation at this moment in time. so i will be supporting this resolution, house joint resolution 124, and urge my colleagues to do the same. i would also like to say, how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: 52 minutes for the majority. mr. durbin: i thought i had 15 minutes of my time. the presiding officer: four minutes left. mr. durbin: thank you very much. madam president, i also want to say a word about secretary kerry, who has been working night and day since he left the senate as secretary of state, and he testified yesterday. and i know what he is trying to achieve here. i salute him for that. and, of course, the president as well. let me hope that one thing emerges from this.

i remember serving in the house of representatives and we voted on the invasion of kuwait under president george h.w. bush. i had my questions about that. i had voted "no." the house voted "yes" to go forward that foreign people. speaker of the house, tom foley, if i'm not mistaken, speaker of the house, tom foley, followed that vote where we decided to go forward with the invasion of kuwait with a resolution saying that now the foreign policy had -- now that foreign policy had been decided by this country, we should stand together in a bipartisan fashion to support our men and women in uniform who were engaged in this conflict. that happened. and we all voted for it, even those of us who disagreed with the policy. and even after this vote on ir iraq, where 23 of us have voted "no," virtually all of us voted for the resources that our military needed. my thinking was, durbin, even if you disagree with the iraqi invasion, what if that were your son over there? wouldn't you want him to have everything he needs to come home

safe? you bet. what i hope will emerge from this, even after the heated debate over this whole question of isil and how we deal with them, is this coming together, bipartisan coming together behind our troops, behind our pilots, behind those advisors on the ground. let us show them solidarity behind their effort if we decide to vote to go forward. there is too much patterson division and it's certainly going to stop at the water's edge when it involves the support for our men and women in uniform. so, madam president, at the end of this vote today, i hope we will see emerging a bipartisan consensus that we are going to work as a nation to accomplish our goal to end this terrorism as best we can, or slow it down in this part of the world, and so stand behind the men and women of our nation who are willing to risk their lives in service to that cause. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: in a few moments, senators in this chamber will cast one of the most important votes they'll ever cast in the senate. with this vote, senators will make a simple but vital decisi decision. it's a decision that will steer the future course of our country and our congress and particularly the senate. with this vote, senators will decide whether their allegiance is to president obama and his agenda, majority leader reid and the open borders lobby, or whether their allegiance is to the american worker, the

constitutional order and the american people and this nation's sovereign laws. the choice could not be more clear. do we as a nation have the right to control our borders? do we? that is the question every senator will be answering today. president obama has announced to the entire world that he will imelement a sweeping unilateral executive order amnesty after only the midterm elections, not before as he promised. because there's concern among his members that this wouldn't be politically popular. this amnesty by executive order will give work permits, contrary to law, and social security numbers, contrary to law, to as many as five million to six million people, the white house tells us. people who are here illegally, illegally entered the united states, illegally overstayed

their visas or defrauded u.s. immigration authorities. with a casual stroke of a pen, the president is preparing to nullify the immigration laws of the united states. he is preparing to wipe away the lawful protections which every american worker in this country is entitled. he is preparing to assume for himself, himself alone, the absolute power to decide who can enter our country, who can work in our country, who can live in our country by the millions, regardless of what the law says. what the citizenry says. and what the constitution says. these immigration rules, who can come, work, and live in a country, are the bedrock of any nation's immigration laws sovereignty. -- sovereignty. the president has already erased much of these rules, erased

them and his planned executive action would remove much of what remains of them. it would establish for people all over the world the principle that if you can get into america, you can stay in america, and even be given lawful right to work in america. let's consider the current state of immigration enforcement. immigration officers already tell us, people who do this every day, that they have been barred from fulfilling their oaths to follow the law. they filed a lawsuit claiming they were required to violate their oath. the president of the i.c.e. officers council warned -- quote -- "i.c.e. agents" -- these are immigration customs enforcement officers -- "i.c.e. agents are now prohibited from arresting illegal aliens solely on the

charge of illegal entry or visa overstay, the two most frequently violated sections of u.s. immigration law" -- close quote. the policies of this administration represent an open invitation to millions who enter the united states on visas each year. people come lawfully on visas for certain periods of time. it encourages them to unlawfully overstay. and why not? if no one is going to deport you, why would you return if you choose not to return to your home country? and what about the border? well, we know from the substantial influx of migrants from central america that all you have to do basically is show up at the border, demand entry, and you'll likely be released from -- into the united states. maybe asked to return for some sort of hearing in the future. people are not tracked as to

where they go and no one of those people will be looked after and looked for if they fail to show up. that is not happening anywhere in the system. consider this recent report from the associated press. quote -- "as early -- as of early september this year, on a 319 of the more than 59,000 immigrants who were caught traveling with their families have been returned to central america" -- close quote. that means that more than 99% of those apprehended with their families have so far been allowed to stay. that is in addition to the tens of thousands of migrants who have entered without their families, who have been promptly released also into the united states on some sort of bail or promise to show up for

court, and many adults from central america who have been released as well. as the president's former i.c.e. director, president obama's i.c.e. director, explained, john sandweg, -- quote -- "if you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are near zero clothe. and --" -- close quote. and who picks up the tab? local school districts, local police departments, local taxpayers. no nation can have a policy where people can simply show up at the border and demand to be released into the opportunity, especially since the policy is never to seek the apprehended persons who don't show up so they can be deported. but that's what is happening right now under the policies of this administration. it simply is. the american people need to understand that. they need to know more fully how serious this situation is. so the american people are beginning to understand it,

that these policies represent in -- policies represent in truth a collapse of immigration enforcement. what about our asylum system? here's what the house judiciary committee reports on asylum. which is when we accept people from around the globe who are subject to serious oppression. quote -- "asylum approval rates overall have increased dramatically in recent years. the vast majority of aliens who affirmatively seek asylum are now successful in their claims. at the same time, an internal department of homeland security report shows that at least 70% of asylum cases contain proven or possible fraud" -- close quote. 70% contain proven or possible

fraud. still, they are being approved overwhelmingly for entry and once entered under the asylum policy they are entitled to all social welfare benefits. and what about our visa screening process, people who come on visas? here's what kenneth polinkas, the i.c.e. -- had to say on that. he is the president of the national citizenship and immigration services council, representing 12,000 immigration case workers and ajude case -- adjudication officers at the i sunday ces. here is just a fraction of his dramatic report delineating the problems they are facing today. quote -- "uscis adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp applications instead of

conducting diligent case review and investigation. the culture at uscis encourages all applications to be approved. discouraging proper investigation into red flags and discouraging the denial of any applications. uscis has been turned into an approval machine." this is the man who represents the officers doing this every day. and what he says is true. he goes on to say in this letter, "the attitude of uscis management is not that the agency serves the american public or the laws of the united states or public safety and national security, but instead that the agency serves the illegal aliens and the attorneys which represent them" -- close quote. surely this can't be what's

happening in our legal system. he goes on to say this -- quote -- "large swaths of the immigration and nationality act are not effectively enforced for illegal immigrants and visaholders, including laws regarding public charges as well as many other provisions. as uscis lacks the resources to adequately screen and scrutinize immigrants and nonimmigrants seeking legal status adjustment. there is also insufficient screening and monitoring of student visas" -- close quote. so the contention that this administration is going record -- deporting record numbers of illegal aliens is plainly false. removals have dropped dramatically. consider what will happen to our system if the president goes through with his plan that he's announced after the election to provide unilateral executive

amnesty by executive order to illegal workers and visas violators here today. what immigration law will be left after that? the government is not enforceing visas overstays, illegal entry, illegal work, asylum fraud, document fraud, workplace fraud, and on and on. we ignore immigration law for young people, for older people who came with younger people, for the parents of older people who came as younger people, for people with relatives, for people traveling alone, for people traveling with families, for people who entered before a certain date, for people who entered after a certain date, people who entered through an airport or a seaport or people who do show up in court, for people who don't show up in court, we have made a million excuses for not enforcing the law. and when millions more enter

illegally asking for their amnesty in the future, asking for their amnesty now that others got before them, will the president print work permits for them, too? what moral basis will remain to deny future unlawful immigrants work authorization, jobs, and amnesty in the future? i'm sure this will make the activists, the politicians, and certain billionaire executives who enjoy dinner parties at the white house very happy that the president is doing these things. but what about what's good for america? what about what's this the interest of the american people? america is not an oligarchy. the masters of the universe, they don't get to meet at the white house and decide how to run this country.

when the american people learned what was in the senate amnesty bill and guest worker bill that doubled the number of guest workers, for which every single senate democrat voted, the people said no, no, no. and the house stopped the plan. but now the same groups who wrote this bill are working with the white house to extract the same benefits by executive fiat fiat, by executive order. they had at least 20 secret meetings in july and august alone with the white house to plan this strategy. these measures, we are informed, would include a massive expansion in the admission of new foreign workers, including more workers for information technology jobs who are laying off americans in fact more than they're hiring.

we learned from rutgers professor hal salzman that two-thirds of all new i.t. jobs are now already being filled by foreign guest workers. can you imagine that? we're turning out thousands of i.t. graduates, but two-thirds of the jobs are being filled by foreign workers. and wages are falling. americans wish to see record immigration levels, these high lawful levels of immigration that we have, reduced, not increased. it's actually by a 3-1 margin, but the proposals they have and are pushing and advocating would double the number of lawful workers, while not dealing effectively with the unlawful flow. and yet senate democrats are really colonel you'ding with the -- colluding with the white

house to surge these numbers. studies show wage declines among all wage earners since 2009. wage decline among all american workers, wages have fallen since 2009. but the declines on a percentage basis are the greatest for our lower-income workers, the people having the hardest time getting by have received the biggest percentage drop. does this not concern our leaders, has no one paid any attention to this fact? so far, our senate democrat caucus has enabled the administration's lawless scheme every step of the way. not one senate democrat has supported the house plan that would stop this executive amnesty. the house-passed legislation would stop it. it's waiting on the floor of the senate to be called up for a

vote. not one member of the democratic leadership has even demanded that mr. reid bring it up for a vote. not one has pledged to stay here in washington every day until this executive amnesty is stopped. but it's not too late. we're going to have a vote soon. where is the courage, where is the independence that senators should show, where is the willingness to stand up to the political class, the lobbyists, the party bosses, the elite set in the nation's capital and to stand by the side of the american people? indeed, to defend the institutional powers of congress, which alone has the power to make law; not the president. he cannot make