Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. I think the foreign policy of nations and the willingness to assist us as a nation is very much up in the air if we don't somehow modify this law because if you are doing business in the United States--let's pick Saudi Arabia. The claims can be brought against the Saudi Government. If there is a judgment, those assets can be attached and they can be taken. If you are not doing business here, you don't have to worry about your assets being taken by a court. I want to stress this. There can be a claim, but that claim has to be able to prove that the nation-state--example, Saudi Arabia--knew or should have known of the attack itself and aided the attack. If you can prove that, we not only should allow all lawsuits, we should rethink our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Here is what the Saudis tell me. If we actually did that, I don't blame you for rethinking the relationship with us. What you say is very true, Senator McCain. If this law stands in the United States--and this is an emotional time in the world. Juries render justice, but Mideastern nations are not very popular right now, for sometimes good reason. The Saudis are helping people in Yemen. They are helping people in Syria. Sometimes they are helping people differently than we are helping because they are more worried about Iran than Assad. It is a complex world, and I think nation-states are going to be reluctant to do business in America if they come from a complex part of the world if we don't modify this law because all of their assets are subject not only to being confiscated through a court process, it would no longer be a safe place to do business. I would stress this. The same thing could happen to us in other countries. If some groups we are helping in Syria somehow want to take on Saudi Arabia because they don't like their government, I don't want us to be sued in Saudi court and the American business assets that lie in Saudi Arabia be seized or attached if we didn't know the people in question were actually going to attack Saudi Arabia and collaborate in that attack.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, that is a really good question because the purpose of this legislation is to hold nation-states responsible for aiding terrorist organizations. The YPG Kurds, in the eyes of Turkey, could be a terrorist group. Al Qaeda is certainly considered a terrorist group in the eyes of everybody. We are now chasing terrorists all over the world. We are receiving information from one organization, taking that information, militarizing it, using it in a lethal fashion, and hitting people we don't intend to hit. Here is what would solve this problem. For a liability to exist on any nation-state, including the United States, the only time you can be sued is if you intended and knowingly engaged in the activity, partnering with a terrorist group or separately, with the knowledge that you meant for this to happen. If we don't have that knowing requirement, we are going to open ourselves up to a lot of heartache throughout the world.

Mr. GRAHAM. Just to make sure.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I just want to attest to Claire and Kelly--if I go to war, I want to go with you all because when the bullets fly, you get tougher. I love all my colleagues, but sometimes the stress of the debate wears you down pretty quickly. The more contentious, the better you were. So, Kelly, the best way we can pay you back is to keep up the fight and make sure that we have a fair military justice system and that commanders are accountable but they are still in charge. An observation: For people with young kids, this has to be a tough job. I don't have any children, but I can't imagine the schedule if you have young kids. I have gotten to know Kelly, Joe, and Kate and Jake, and I can only imagine what it is like for Joe to be a single parent 3 days a week, running a business, trying to get kids off to school. I can tell you from being Kelly's friend--and John and I have traveled all over the world with Kelly--that was a constant strain for her. I am sure it is true of every young mother in America doing any job, but having to be gone and having to balance the needs of her kids and being a mom and a wife and all that good stuff--all I can tell you, for you and Joe--if you meet Kate and Jake, you all did good. If you meet these kids, it has been an enriching 6 years. They are full of life. I think you both handled it very well. You should be proud of the long list of things you have accomplished. But I guess what I saw in you and what I wish more of us would embrace is an attitude that nothing is too hard, nothing is too challenging if you really believe you are here for a purpose. You didn't talk about immigration. I don't blame you. The immigration fight is one of the hardest fights I have ever been in, particularly on our side. It is not easy on your side, but on our side it is really tough. Kelly was there pushing over the line a bill that I think made a lot of sense. The debt. Everybody talks about it, but nobody wants to do anything about it. We have had a couple of sessions with 10 and 20 Senators trying to find a way to get more revenue and do entitlement reform, something like Simpson-Bowles. If you don't do that, the country is going to become like Greece. Every time we had a meeting, every time we had a session about doing hard stuff, Kelly was there. I remember sequestration. Jeanne Shaheen and Kelly Ayotte were two of the six Senators trying to find a way to set aside these defense cuts in a balanced approach without destroying the military. I think what you should be most proud of is that you served for 6 years and your kids are great, that you made a lot of friendships that will last a lifetime, and that your best days are yet to come. You can tell the people of New Hampshire--or I will tell them for you if they can understand me. Apparently they couldn't because I didn't do that well when I ran for President. The bottom line is that Kelly never blinked. She went into the sound of gunfire. She took on the hardest challenges. She did it with style and grace, and everybody in this body is better off for having met Kelly Ayotte. I look forward to working with you for years to come. The three amigos are now two, and there will never be a third amigo like you. I yield.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. If I could add to what Senator McCain said, the language we are talking about putting back into the statute was originally there. Somebody took the discretionary function language out of the original bill. I guess a lot of them missed it. The more you think about what we are trying to do, we are trying to make sure foreign governments that intentionally engage in acts of terrorism are held liable at every level in the courts, the courts of public opinion, and could suffer reprisals from the United States. Let's go back to Libya, the Lockerbie bombing. It is clear to me, the Libyan Government orchestrated the downing of that aircraft. Over time, evidence was developed and lawsuits were brought. I think Qadhafi's people did that. Right now Libya is just a mess. Whatever government they have cannot be held responsible for what ISIL is doing in Libya, unless they knowingly engage in the financing and sponsorship of terrorism. Here is the point. We are supporting the YPG Kurds in Syria to help destroy ISIL. They are a Kurdish group who are sort of the ideological cousins to the PKK inside Turkey who are defined by Turkey and most everybody else as a terrorist organization. With some reservations, I support trying to get the YPG Kurds to help us destroy ISIL, but I don't want that help to expose us if, for some reason, unbeknownst to us, they fall in league with the PKK and attack somebody in Turkey. We didn't knowingly do that. We are trying to sign them up, a discretionary function, to get allies to go after ISIL. I don't want to be responsible for anything they may do in the future unless we were knowingly part of it. This is what I will tell Senators Schumer and Cornyn. I appreciate what you have done on behalf of 9/11 families. This was the original language that I think needs to be put in because here is where we stand right now. As a nation, we are opening ourselves to lawsuits all over the world. It will be not enough in this statute to exempt soldiers and CIA operatives because down the road another country may not do that. Once you expose yourself to liability, who can be sued is in the hands of another country. What I want to do is let the United States be clear in two areas. To any country that engages in acts of terror against us, we are coming after you--not just through the courts but hopefully militarily. To our allies and people around the world who are having to make hard decisions, such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, trying to form alliances to deal with Houthis sponsored by Iran, we don't want to open Pandora's box, that when a country has to make alliances with people--such as we are doing with the Kurds--that we own everything they do. It has to be for a liability, to attach ``knowing.'' In the case of 9/11, if the Saudi Arabian Government knowingly engaged in the financing or sponsorship of terrorism, whether directly or indirectly, they could be held liable under the law we just passed-- if you adopt our language. Without our language, there is no ``knowing'' requirement. That is not fair to them, it is not smart for us, and we need to get this fixed while we still have time because as I speak, people are engaged in combat, diplomacy, and the dark art of espionage all over the world. If we don't fix this, we are going to create a new class of victims. We are going to put people at risk of being captured, killed, tortured, and imprisoned abroad. That doesn't help the 9/11 families. The war started there. It is still very much going on. As we try to make sure that we look backward to address the wrongs of the past and help the 9/11 families, which we should, we also owe it to those who are in the fight today not to unnecessarily expose them. If you want allies--which we desperately need--we need to think long and hard about the exposure they have here at home because we could be in the same boat over there. All we are saying to any ally of the United States is, you can't be sued in the United States for an act of terrorism unless you knowingly were involved, and the same applies to us in your country. Because it could be interpreted that someone from that country or someone in that country committed an act of terror, therefore, the government of that country is held responsible. That is not right. That is not what this should be all about. Certainly, there are a number of government sponsors of terrorism, but the people who are affected by-- the governments that are affected by this legislation are also not worthy, or not necessarily, and certainly they will react in a rather negative fashion. We will be opening a Pandora's box, which we will have to close with great difficulty and certainly with great regret. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to address the body for just a moment. Senator McCain is on his way. We are talking about a problem we are trying to solve that is an important problem for our Nation as a whole and I think eventually for all of those who serve our Nation abroad. Recently, we passed a bill 99 to 1--I cannot remember the number-- that would allow victims of the 9/11 attack to bring a lawsuit under a claims act basically against a foreign entity, a government, for any complicity they may have had in the 9/11 attack. I just want people to understand that basically here is the deal: Sovereign immunity exists for us. It exists for sovereign governments, but it is waived. If you get hurt by a Federal Government employee, even though sovereign immunity is available to the U.S. Government, we have a Federal Tort Claims Act, and you can bring a claim if somebody-- if a postal truck hits you, you can bring a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. We waive sovereign immunity in limited circumstances. The same is true if you are in New York or Washington and someone driving a car, working for a foreign government, hits you. You can actually bring a lawsuit. If there is a tort committed against you or your family by a foreign entity, just as long as the people are within the scope of their employment, you can sue. What about terrorism? We are not talking about car wrecks. We are not talking about slip-and-falls. We are talking about something that nobody really thought of when they created the exception to foreign immunity; that is, an act of terror. So here is where Senator McCain and I come out. We want 9/11 families and other people who may be victims of state-sponsored terrorism to have the ability to take the perpetrator to court. What we don't want is our government or any other government sued for a discretionary planning function, an exercise of sovereignty in the normal course of business. Let me tell you why this is important. We are using drones all over the world to go after terrorists. We went inside Pakistan to kill bin Laden. Sometimes these drone attacks are designed to kill terrorists and unfortunately civilians are injured and sometimes killed. The United States is not intentionally trying to kill these civilians. We are not joining with a terrorist organization to kill innocent people. We are actually exercising national security discretion. You don't want countries that are involved in making political decisions to defend themselves to be exposed in court. So what we have done to amend the law that was passed overwhelmingly is to create a caveat to the law. You can sue a foreign state for tortious acts, but when it comes to terrorism, when a terrorist entity takes innocent lives, the only time you can sue that country is if the foreign state knowingly engaged in the financing or sponsorship of terrorism, whether directly or indirectly. Why is that important? That protects us as we go throughout the world trying to kill terrorists who are trying to kill us all, and sometimes we hit innocent people. It protects the United States in its efforts to defend itself in a very dangerous world. We don't want to be sued under those circumstances. We try to do right by innocent people, but we don't want to expose the Federal Government or its employees to being hauled into foreign courts or international tribunals to be accused of war crimes. So we are trying to work with Senator Schumer and Senator Cornyn, who deserve a lot of credit for trying to help the 9/11 families. Here is what we are asking: We are asking that we put a caveat to the law that just passed, saying that you can bring a lawsuit, but if you are suing based on a discretionary function of a government to form an alliance with somebody or to make a military decision or a political decision, the only time that government is liable is if they knowingly engage with a terrorist organization directly or indirectly, including financing. I am OK with that because our country is not going to fall in league with terrorists and finance them to hurt other people. If we don't make this change, here is what I fear: that other countries will pass laws like this. They will say that the United States is liable for engaging in drone attacks or other activity in the War on Terror and haul us into court as a nation and haul the people to whom we give the responsibility to defend the Nation into foreign court. The fix is not the following: The statutes say that military members and CIA officers and other people cannot ever be sued or held liable. That won't work. I don't want any nation state, including ours, to be sued for a discretionary act unless that discretionary act encompasses knowingly engaging in the financing or sponsorship of terrorism, whether directly or indirectly. You can not fix this problem without making this change. Here is the problem: Every time a drone is launched, every time Americans go in harm's way, every time a diplomatic engages in activity abroad, we are subjecting them and our Nation to lawsuits, potential imprisonment. We need to fix this because if we don't fix this, it will come back to haunt us. So the right to sue exists, but when it comes to a discretionary act, such as launching a drone, the only way a country can be sued when terrorism is involved is if you can prove the country knowingly engaged in supporting that terrorist network directly or indirectly. That fixes the problem we face as a nation. That would send a signal to the world that we are not opening a Pandora's box. It would allow the 9/11 families to move forward, but their burden would have to be that any government they sued knowingly engaged in activity with a terrorist who launched 9/11. I think this is the right compromise. If we don't change the law along the lines I have just indicated, we are going to create a new class of victims--those who serve on foreign shores under the banner of the United States--and that is not helping the 9/11 families. I hope that these negotiations will bear fruit and that we can get this fixed this year. If not, next year Senator McCain and I will introduce legislation along the lines I have described. We are not going to stop until we have this problem fixed because it is a real problem for people serving the United States in real time.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I agree. We have over 5,000 troops on the ground in Iraq, and if we count the people who come and go, it is closer to 7,000. So from their point of view, I think that is a pretty offensive statement. We have lost one SEAL, and other people are definitely at risk. We live in an interesting time. It is probably much like the 1930s, when Hitler was building up. I am not saying al-Assad is Hitler, and I am not saying Putin is Hitler. But I am saying there is evil on the march, and most people are not doing anything about it. If you are in Aleppo right now, you feel as the Jewish people must have felt in the 1930s--and other countries who were being overrun by evil--when a lot of people just stood along the sidelines and issued statements. To Samantha Powers, whom I have known and actually personally like her: Do you think anybody listens to you, Samantha? Do you think anybody cares what you say? Because it is just all words. You have been up there for months now, and every ceasefire agreement has been broken. To my good friend John Kerry: You said it would be diplomatic malpractice not to try to get a ceasefire solution. At what point does it become malpractice to misread the person you are talking to? At what point will you understand that the Russians are not interested in a ceasefire agreement? They want to install al-Assad in a military fashion so that he cannot be overtaken by power, which means they win. So to me, the real crime here is that the world, not just Obama, has let this happen, and to the people in this body. Several years ago, we were in an authorization-to-use-military-force debate after al-Assad used chemical weapons in violation of the redline that President Obama drew. To Senator McCain's credit--and I went with him during Labor Day several years ago. The President called us up and said: I want to take action because it is clear to us that al-Assad used chemical weapons. We went outside the Oval Office in the driveway and stood by our President, called the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, who stood with the President. There was a lot of Republican support for the idea that the President must act to put this brutal man back in check. That was early in the week. By Friday, President Obama takes a stroll in the Rose Garden with Denis McDonough, and, all of a sudden, now we are coming to Congress. I have yet to get a call. I read it in the paper. When it came to Congress, it completely melted down. People on our side objected to the use of force, saying we would be the Air Force for Al Qaeda. People on our side did not understand what it meant to draw a red line and not use some force. There is plenty of blame to go around. People on the Democratic side almost never come to the floor and challenge what is going on in Syria. President Obama is getting a complete pass, except from pockets, like Senator McCain and every now and then an editorial. Why? Most people don't care about Syria because it seems distant. When you talk about the young boy, it breaks our heart, and then we move on. Most people think we can't get involved ever again in the Middle East because it is just hopeless over there. Here is what I would suggest to you that we learn: If you let Syria continue to deteriorate, you will regret it. The King of Jordan, one of our best allies, is being overrun with Syrian refugees. One in five children in Lebanon is a Syrian refugee. This war will never end until America leads. Back to Obama--you and your administration are very deceitful when it comes to foreign policy. You are the ones who told us, as to Benghazi, that this was a protest caused by a hateful video rather than an organized terrorist attack, for weeks. In the debate last night, Secretary Clinton said that the reason we had no troops in Iraq was because the Iraqis did not want them and would not agree to leave some troops behind. All I can say is that is a lie. I know that to be a lie because I was called by her before the decision to leave was made, and she asked that I, Senator McCain, and Senator Lieberman go to Iraq to talk to the parties about a follow-on force. We did. We went to Prime Minister Maliki, President Barzani of the Kurds, and Mr. Allawi, who was representing the Shia group--the Iraqiya Party, I believe it is called. The bottom line is that we left there with an understanding that all three groups would work with each other to have a follow-on force because they understood the need for it. This is the moment I will never forget as long as I live. During the meeting with Prime Minister Maliki, when it was my turn to ask him questions, he turned to me before I could speak and said: How many troops are you talking about leaving? I turned to General Austin, who was the commander, and Ambassador Jeffrey, who was the Ambassador at the time, and I said: General, what is the answer to the Prime Minister's question? He said: We are still working on that. Here is the truth. There never was a protest outside the consulate in Benghazi. It was always a terrorist attack. They should never have had the Ambassador there to begin with, and they left him hanging. Here is the truth. The Obama administration wanted to leave. They wanted to get to zero to fulfill a campaign promise. The reason the general could not answer Prime Minister Maliki's question is because the White House was trying to get the numbers down to the point where it wouldn't matter if he left anybody because they were so low. You can say a lot about Trump. You can say a lot about Republicans, and a lot of it is true. You can say a lot about President Obama and Hillary Clinton when it comes to Iraq. But the one thing you can't say is that it was the Iraqis' fault that we left. The reason I will not tolerate that is because too many people fought and died to get Iraq back in a better place. The surge did work, and they held it as a success. Back to Syria, if you don't realize that we have several hundred people on the ground today in Syria, you are dishonoring them. If you don't realize that the strategy Obama has come up with will never work, you are not doing your homework. The people we are training to take ISIL down and to hold Raqqa after they take ISIL down are YPG Kurds. That may not mean anything to you, but it means a lot to the region. The Kurdish element that is being trained cannot hold Raqqa, cannot liberate Raqqa. General Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that. The people we are relying on to destroy ISIL can't take them down and hold the territory because it is an Arab town. As to the people we are training to fight ISIL, the vast majority of the force has no interest in going after Assad. If you leave Assad in power, the war never ends. Some 450,000 people have been slaughtered by Assad's forces--mostly through barrel bombing and brutal tactics. There is no plan to create a military counter push coming from the Syrians themselves to create negotiating space. Without power, there is no diplomacy. The force to destroy ISIL will never be successful in holding the territory. The force we are training to destroy ISIL has no interest in going after Assad. If you leave Assad in power, this never ends. This whole foreign policy approach of the Obama administration is ill-conceived, shortsighted, and deceitful, and they know everything I am saying is true. There are people in the White House who know that the reason we left Iraq was because of politics in the White House. There are people in the White House who know--and the Pentagon who know--that the Kurdish force being trained can't get the job done. They are just trying to buy time until the next President comes along. All I can say about Syria is that it seems to be a faraway place with strange sounding names. It seems to be something we shouldn't get involved in, in the minds of a lot of people. The one thing I would challenge you to think about is that the last time powers gathered up to murder and butcher hundreds of thousands of people, it eventually mattered to us. It is going to matter to you sooner than you think because all of these children who lost their parents and all of these parents who lost their children are looking at us, and they are going to hate our guts, along with the world community at large, because we sat on the sidelines and watched it happen. Come with me and Senator McCain to a refugee camp and look into these kids' eyes. I see broken-hearted children who need somebody to help them and a good investment. The terrorists see a recruiting opportunity, a literal gift from the world at large. You may not think it will affect you, but I promise you that the policies of the Barack Obama administration--when it comes to Syria--are going to haunt the world for generations if we don't do something about it soon and change course.

Mr. GRAHAM. You have been a fighter pilot in combat, flying for your Nation, and you know what it is like to risk your life. I would say this. If we had an American President who would tell the Russian President that we are going to train forces inside of Syria to replace Assad because Assad must go for the benefit of the region and the world at large, and if you come after the forces we trained, then you put your own people at risk, they wouldn't come. If you shot down one Syrian jet that was trying to bomb innocent people or the people we are training, it would be hard to get the next pilot to fly. That is the fact. That is a fact, I think. Here is the other fact. We are doing none of that. We are watching people get slaughtered. Here is the question for those who want to be President and for this body. You are never going to win in Iraq again unless you have some troops left behind this time. Here is the question. Let's say we liberate Mosul, and that is going to be hard to do with the number of troops we have on the ground, because every American soldier is a force multiplier--a trainer, an adviser bringing capability to the fight that the Iraqis don't have themselves. So everyone we have over there, within reason, ensures the demise of ISIL and accelerates the chance of destroying ISIL and not having to rely on the Shia militia from Iran. If you are worried about Iran being the big winner in Iraq, you should be because they are. The only way you are going to stop this dynamic is to have more American forces--somewhere around 10,000, and we are getting close at about 7,00 now--and they have to stay behind to keep Iraq from falling apart again. That is my humble opinion. John McCain has been far more right than he has been wrong. Everybody tells us that every time we suggest something, that would create a lot of problems. All I can say is this: At what point do you realize we have a lot of problems? This thing is going to get worse if it doesn't get better, and the only way for it to get better is to do something different. The 5,000 troops are appreciated. Incrementally, they are doing what we suggested 3 years ago. We are still not there. But look at Syria. Here is my warning to the American people and to the world at large. What we have on the ground in Syria cannot possibly destroy ISIL and hold the territory. You are going to need a lot more troops from the region who would be welcomed in the area in question. The Kurds cannot liberate Raqqa. They cannot destroy ISIL. They cannot hold the territory. Until you get regional forces involved, this will never work. You will never have any diplomatic solution until there is military pressure put on Assad. Currently, if you are joining the American effort to destroy ISIL, you are prohibited from going after Assad. The people in Syria and the region want two things--the destruction of ISIL and the removal of Assad, who has been the butcher of Damascus. We are not providing the second. The Russians and the Iranians are all in behind Assad. We have abandoned the people who joined our cause years ago. Four years ago Assad was on the ropes. Obama blinked; the rest is history. Going forward, if we don't have a different ground component in Syria, we will never destroy ISIL and hold the territory, and we will never end the war without putting military pressure on Assad, and that is going to require a regional commitment with an American component. If you don't do that, another 9/11 is coming here because they have the ability to plan and project force. We have seen it in Paris and other places. I am not talking about one or two people; I am talking about a group of people who can do a lot of damage to the United States. Every day that we let Syria get worse, every day that ISIL enjoys the ability to operate, the longer it takes to get them destroyed will put us more at risk. This strategy will not work. Secretary Clinton's approach is no different than Obama's. She is for a no-fly zone, and I give her credit for that, but if you don't realize we need a new ground component in Syria, then you are giving ISIL the time they need to send their forces throughout the world, including here. If we don't stop them over there, they are coming here, and our plan to stop them over there will never work unless we change it.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his passion and caring for the people of Aleppo and Syria. History will judge Senator McCain well. I am proud to be by his side. But let's be honest with each other. It is not just the Obama administration that is the problem here. Where is the United Nations? A convoy carrying aid to Aleppo was bombed, and we all believe it was by the Russians. What has the U.N. done? What about the countries in the region that border Syria? What do they know? Our friends in France have been attacked several times based on ISIL's ability to project wars by having the caliphate in Syria. They have dropped bombs. All of us have used air power. Where is Trump? If you can understand what he would do differently, I would love to hear it. I don't understand it. I can tell you this, Secretary Clinton really disappointed me when she said ``no ground forces in Iraq and Syria.''

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I wish to speak for 10 minutes, and I request that the Presiding Officer let me know when that time expires. This body, the Senate, is going to have a vote in a couple of hours about whether we should approve an arms sale to our friends in Saudi Arabia. I use the term ``friends'' because that is what I think they are when it comes to the efforts to win the war against terror. Internal problems in Saudi Arabia are real. They need to modernize the way they do business. They have had double-dealing in the past of helping terrorist organizations. At the end of the day, the Mideast is a very complicated place, but here is what is not complicated: Saudi Arabia has shared intelligence with us that has made Americans safe. They have allowed us to use their air bases in times of conflict. They are all in against ISIL, and they are great allies against the ambitions of the Iranians. When you add up the pluses and the minuses of the relationship with Saudi Arabia, in my view, it is not close--the pluses outweigh the minuses. To those who wish to sever this relationship, be careful what you wish for. Saudi Arabia is the center of gravity of the Islamic world. Most holy sites in Islam are in Saudi Arabia. I have met with the King, the Crown Prince, and the Deputy Crown Prince. They have shown a willingness to work with us at a time when we need partners. If you drive this good partner, Saudi Arabia, away, you will one day regret it. This is what is going on in the Mideast. Iran is marching through the Mideast with terror. They are destabilizing the entire region. The Saudi Kingdom is not perfect, but they are aligned with us on the big issues when it comes to terrorism and pushing back against Iran. The Iranian regime is controlled by a radical Ayatollah who openly chants and tweets that the State of Israel must be destroyed. This regime is in the hands of a religious Nazi. The Ayatollah in Iran controls everything. There are no moderate voices left there. Since the deal with Iran has been signed regarding their nuclear program, they have test-fired four missiles in violation of U.N. resolutions. One of the missiles basically had in Hebrew ``Israel must be destroyed.'' They constantly threaten our ally Israel. They have taken over four Arab capitals. The Houthis, who threw out a pro-American government in Yemen by force of arms, is being supplied arms by the Iranians. The $150 billion the Iranian regime will receive in sanctions relief is finding its way into the hands of terrorist organizations. Hezbollah, a mortal enemy of Israel, has been provided up to 300 new missiles with precision-guided technology by the Iranians to threaten the Jewish State. Assad wouldn't last 5 minutes without Iranian support. They have disrupted all of our gains inside of Iraq. They are influencing Baghdad in a very bad way. When it comes to Yemen, when it comes to Iraq, and when it comes to Syria, Iran is creating havoc. This body has a choice. We are talking about a $1 billion package of armaments that will upgrade the Saudis' capability to fight common enemies such as Al Qaeda and ISIL more aggressively, and it will give them the military capability to challenge the increased threats to the region from of Iran. If we say no to the Saudis, not only will that be seen as a sleight by the Saudis, they will buy their arms somewhere else. And if you want to talk about a body that would have things ass backwards, this would be the moment in history where you will be seen in history as not understanding the world. There are some of my colleagues on the other side who are worried about how the Saudis are using military force inside of Yemen to protect their borders from an Iranian intrusion that is being basically carried forward by the Houthis. There is an effort to bring about peace in Yemen, but Iran has empowered the Houthis to displace a pro-American, pro-Western government, creating havoc for the Saudis. They have dropped bombs on civilians. There is no way to conduct war without mistakes being made. We are trying to sell them new equipment, precision-guided weapons that will lessen civilian casualties when Saudi Arabia has to defend themselves. I think it would be pretty odd for Members on the other side of the aisle, who almost unanimously supported the Iranian nuclear agreement, to give sanctions relief to an Ayatollah who on the day of the vote said he hopes to destroy Israel in 25 years and deny a weapons sale to somebody who is in the fight with you. Talk about ass-backwards: flush the Iranian regime with capabilities they have dreamed of to pursue a nuclear deal that I think is a nightmare for the region, and in the same context, within a matter of months, start denying Arab allies who are willing to fight the capability to fight. If you want to send a signal to the Ayatollah that America is out of the fight and we no longer are a reliable ally, stop helping Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab States, who have been helping us, as imperfect as they may be. What a world we live in, where this body wants to be tough on Saudi Arabia because they are in a shooting war in Yemen, sponsored by the Iranians, right on their border, that we want to cut off military aid to them because of human rights violations, when the people on the other side are watching Iran destroy the Mideast, threaten us, and create the possibility of a second holocaust for the Jewish people. Not one person on the other side has risen their hand to say: You know, maybe we should revisit sanctions on Iran based on what they have done since we signed the deal. So here is the answer. The Iranians have test-fired four ballistic missiles, after signing the Iranian nuclear agreement with us, in violation of U.N. resolutions, and our response is to cut off weapons to Saudi Arabia. We haven't done a damn thing to send a signal to the Ayatollah: Hey, man, you are going to pay a price if you keep doing this. The Iranians are shipping weapons to the Houthis, who have destroyed a pro-American government, creating havoc in the region inside of Yemen, and our response is to cut off weapons to the Saudi Arabians. If you want to change the Mideast forever, do this. If you really want to tell everybody who has fought with America you are no longer a reliable ally, do this. If you want to tell the Russians we are going to cede authority and power to them, do this. The Russians are pulling for us. The Russians would like nothing better than for America to cut off arms sales and alliances with the Gulf Arab States, particularly Saudi Arabia, because that would give them the opportunity of a lifetime. If you care about the American homeland, you better put Iran in a box as soon as you can. Here is my belief about the Iranians. Not only are they trying to take over four Arab capitals--and they have--they are developing ballistic missiles to deliver something. They are not going to put the Ayatollah in space, though I would like to do that myself. They are going to put something on top of that missile and I know exactly what it is and all the Arabs know what it is and the Israelis know what it is. So at a time of great and clear conflict--and it is clear to me the Iranians are the bad guys and our allies in the Arab world, though imperfect, are still our allies--that we are going to send a signal to the radical regime in Tehran that we are going to roll back supporting our allies and do nothing about their provocative behavior would be a mistake for the ages. I wish the body would have a different debate than we are having today. I wish somebody would come and talk about reimposing sanctions on the Iranians. They have captured American sailors and humiliated them. They are allies of Bashar Assad, who has butchered 450,000 of his own people. They are empowering Hezbollah, the mortal enemy of Israel. They are humiliating every force of good, and our response is to stand up and undercut an ally. What a world we live in, where the United States Senate is considering stopping selling arms to somebody who would fight with us at a time when we are doing nothing to a country that has called us the Great Satan--and if they could, they would destroy us--and have killed American soldiers by providing radical groups inside of Iraq with IEDs that have killed hundreds of American soldiers. Talk about a body and an idea that is ass-backwards, this is one for the ages. To my friends inside of Saudi Arabia, I will push you to do better, and you need to look in the mirror about who you are, but I understand there are more pluses than there are minuses. To our enemies in Iran-- who are not the Iranian people, it is the Ayatollah--as long as I am here with my colleagues, we are going to push back against you more, not less, we are going to help our Arab allies more, not less, as long as you are doing what you are doing. To those who want to vote today to suspend this aid to Saudi Arabia, people in Iran will cheer you on. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with everything my friend said. Here is our dilemma. There are two forces inside of Syria that are a threat to us, the region, and the people in Syria-- ISIL, al-Nusra, and the other radical Sunni groups are certainly a threat to the United States. Raqqa, which is the capital of the ISIL's caliphate, is in Syria. They planned the attacks in Paris and Europe out of Raqqa, and they communicate with sleeper cells throughout the world. Thousands of westerners have gone to Syria for training under ISIL's control. The bottom line is, it is in our interest to destroy this caliphate because the next 9/11-type attack is being planned in Syria. If you take the land away from ISIL, then you are doing a lot of damage to them, and they become a terrorist organization rather than a terrorist army. The plan to destroy ISIL is beyond ill-conceived. I had dinner last night with the Turkish Ambassador. What is the ground force we are relying upon to go take Raqqa away from ISIL? You are clearly not going to win the war from the air. We have done a lot of damage, but the air campaign will not destroy the caliphate. Somebody has to go in on the ground and actually liberate Raqqa, take Mosul back, and all the other stuff. Inside Syria, the main fighting force is a Kurdish force called the YPG. The Kurdish force inside Syria is the mortal enemy of Turkey. On two occasions, you have seen where Turkey used military force against the coalition we are training to destroy ISIL because in the eyes of Turkey, substituting ISIL for YPG Kurds is not a good trade. Most Members of the body--I don't know if you are following this, but you should. The whole goal is not to destroy ISIL. It is to do as much damage to ISIL as possible and pass this problem on to the next President. For a couple of years, Senator McCain and I have made the argument that the liberating force--if it is made up of Kurds--is doomed to fail. The Arabs in the region are going to have a hard time turning over more of Syria to the YPG Kurds, and it is a nonstarter for Turkey. This ceasefire is brought on by the fact that Aleppo is Hell on Earth. The administration's goal was to destroy ISIL and replace Assad. Assad will be in power and Obama will be gone, and this failure of the Obama administration to act effectively has changed the balance of power. Four years ago, Senator McCain and I and others argued to help the Free Syrian Army while it was intact. The entire national security team of President Obama advised him to aggressively train the Free Syrian Army to take Assad out because he is a puppet of Iran. The one thing I can tell you is, no Arab country in the region is going to recognize Assad as the legitimate leader of Syria because his main benefactors are the Iranians, their mortal enemy. Instead of helping the Free Syrian Army, President Obama blinked and took a pass. That vacuum was filled. Hezbollah sent in 5,000 fighters. They are also a puppet of Iran. Their Hezbollah militia, which is supported by the Iranians, came to Assad's aid as we backed off of helping the Free Syrian Army, and then Russia came in for Assad. So now the Russian President has been bombing forces trained by the American President, and we are not doing a damned thing about it. All of the training we provided to the Free Syrian Army has been basically neutered by the fact that Russia and Iran are now firmly in Assad's camp. When we were trying to train Syrians to go take out ISIL, we also wanted them to take the fight to Assad. Obama's refusal to do anything about Assad has created a vacuum. Very few Syrians are going to go fight ISIL and not turn their attention to the ``Butcher of Damascus,'' the person who has killed 250,000 to 400,000 of their family. This whole Syrian strategy is flawed. The ceasefire is an opportunity for Assad and Russia to retrench. Here is what will happen. We are going to have a ceasefire. Hopefully, some of the humanitarian aid will get to Aleppo, but as Senator McCain said, when it is all said and done, they are going to gobble up more territory. This idea of the United States partnering with Russia to go after the al-Nusra group, which has changed its name, to me, is very dangerous. Our military is very reluctant to share with the Russian military targeting and how we know where people are. Sharing information with the Russians is very dangerous to do in Syria because their goal is not to just destroy radical Islamic groups, their goal is to keep their puppet Assad in power. This whole idea of a joint operation center, where the United States and Russia will focus their attention on al-Nusra elements, is doomed to fail because in the eyes of Assad, everybody who opposes him is a terrorist. All the people we are training to liberate Syria from Assad, in the eyes of Assad, are no different than ISIL. So to expect Assad and Russia to limit their military activity to radical Islamic groups and not go after the opposition in general defies the past. Russia has dropped more bombs on people we have trained than they have on ISIL. Russia has hit more targets aligned with opposition to Assad than they have al-Nusra targets. Why? Russia is using their military might to give Assad military superiority and at the same time helping on the margins with radical Islam. The biggest mistake of all was to not help the Free Syrian Army when they were intact and allow Russia and Iran to fill this vacuum. I will say this to anybody on the other side who believes this strategy is going to result in Assad leaving, you are completely out to lunch. Why would Assad leave when he is winning? Why would Assad leave when Russia and Iran are firmly in his camp? Why would Assad leave when the Russians can bomb the people the Americans are training to take Assad out and America will do nothing about it? This whole idea that there is some plan coming that will replace Assad is a complete fantasy. This ceasefire is not going to bring about the results we all would hope for, which is the destruction of ISIL and the removal of the ``Butcher of Damascus,'' Assad, who is an enemy of the Syrian people, who helped send fighters into Iraq to kill American soldiers as we were trying to help Iraqis, who is a puppet of Iran and a proxy of Russia. To the administration, most people are not paying any attention. You are literally getting away with national security malpractice because most people are not paying much attention, and there is a war over there involving people we can't relate to. All I can tell you is, you should be worried about what is going on in Syria because it will affect us here at home. We are about to give yet another Arab capital to the Iranians. This will be the fourth Arab capital that Iran has basically had to fight their control over, and that is not good for our interests because our Arab allies will be put in a spot one day where they will have to fight back. If you want to create a bigger war in the Middle East, we are on track to do it. We are about to create a conflict for our Turkish allies and the people we are trying to liberate--Raqqa from ISIL inside of Syria. In the effort of destroying ISIL, we have created a nightmare for Turkey. In the effort of destroying ISIL, we are giving Assad a pass, which is nightmare for Jordon and Lebanon and all of our Arab allies. In other words, in our effort to destroy ISIL, we are empowering Iran. In our effort to destroy ISIL, we are making Russia more effective in the Middle East than they have been since the early 1970s. In our effort to destroy ISIL, we have created an imbalance of power in the Middle East that will come back to haunt us. The bottom line is, Obama and his administration wanted this nuclear deal with the Iranians so much that he would not challenge their proxy in Syria. They want cooperation with the Russians so much when it comes to Iran and other issues, they will not challenge Russian aggression inside Syria. Here is what will come back to bite us all. In the future, nobody in the Middle East will rely upon us. Every Arab government I have talked to has asked: Where has America gone? Why should we join with you? You are an unreliable ally. The stain on our honor is very great. All those young Syrian men who were brought to the fight and trained to fight ISIL and get rid Assad, many of them have been killed by Assad and Russia and we haven't done a damned thing about it. What are the consequences of this? It is going to be harder for people to work with us in the future, and it is going to be easier for our enemies to peel off people in the region. The vacuum we are creating today will grow over time. I hope the next President, whomever he or she will be, will revisit our strategy in Syria because it is on a collision course.

Mr. GRAHAM. All with families.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the memory of LTG John Bruce Blount, United States Army, Retired, who passed away peacefully on August 23, 2016, surrounded by his loving family. He was 88. Lieutenant General Blount was born in Pawtucket, RI, on April 22, 1928, the son of Joseph Hagen Blount and Loretta Moody Blount. He played basketball in high school and set a school record that still stands today, scoring 66 points in a single game. During his collegiate years at the University of Rhode Island, John excelled in sports, scoring more than 1,000 points in basketball and serving as captain of both the basketball and baseball teams. He was selected for the All Yanks Conference and the All East Team and was named ROTC cadet colonel in his senior year. As a distinguished military graduate, in June of 1950, John was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Army Infantry. On June 17, 1950, he married Joan Adele Garrett of Belmont, MA. Lieutenant General Blount's long career was distinguished as he rose through the ranks of the U.S. Army, with distinguished combat tours in Korea and Vietnam. Among the many highlights of his career were his testimony at the Army-McCarthy hearings and his command of Fort Jackson, SC, one of the U. S. Army's most important and strategic training centers. John was promoted to brigadier general on September 1, 1974. He was promoted to major general in October of 1977, and on June 30, 1983, John was promoted to lieutenant general and became chief of staff of the Allied Forces South, a large NATO command consisting of units from five countries, including Greece, Italy, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. Upon completion of this appointment, John retired from active service in Columbia, SC, near Fort Jackson, but did not discontinue his service to the Army that he loved. From 1985 to 1988, he served as director of defense study programs at the University of South Carolina. From 1988 to 1994, he served as chairman of the Army Retiree Council. For many years, he served as national vice president of the Association of the U. S. Army and as the retiree representative on the board of directors of the Army Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Association and headed the National Military Retirees Golf Tournament at Myrtle Beach, SC. He also served as the president of the South Carolina Korean Veterans War Memorial Committee and was instrumental in establishing the memorial in downtown Columbia, SC. In recognition of his integrity, exemplary leadership, and outstanding service, the University of Rhode Island proudly conferred upon Lieutenant General Blount the honorary degree of doctor of laws in June 2000. Lieutenant General Blount is a highly decorated soldier whose awards include the Army Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Silver Star and Purple Heart earned in Vietnam and Korea, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Korean Campaign Service Medal with Four Campaign Stars, Vietnam Service Medal with Four Campaign Stars, and others too numerous to mention. In a rare distinction, he was twice awarded the Order of the Palmetto, the highest civilian honor in South Carolina, first by Governor James Edwards and again by Governor Carroll Campbell. Lieutenant General Blount is survived by his wife and beloved partner of 66 years, Joan Adele Garrett Blount; by his children, Gail Leslie Blount of south Florida, Carol Linell Blount of Columbia, John Bruce Blount, Jr., of Washington DC, and Garrett Christopher Blount and his wife, Martha Ivey Blount, of Chicago; and by his grandchildren, John Bruce Blount III, Elizabeth Blount, Christopher Blount, Frances Blount, and Caroline Blount. Mr. President, I ask that you and our colleagues join me in saluting Lieutenant General Blount's many contributions and sacrifices made in the defense of our great Nation. A true American hero, LTG John Bruce Blount will be sorely missed.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I want to thank the senior Senator from Delaware for raising this important issue. I would be happy to work with him on this issue because, as my friend and colleague from Delaware knows, my State of South Carolina is already seeing firsthand the benefits these advanced energy technologies are having on the local economy. As my friend from Delaware mentioned, this is a bipartisan and bicameral effort, and I believe we can find a way to get this done.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I also want to congratulate the people of Talkeetna. I wish I could go myself to the moose-dropping thing, and I want to see that before I die. Mr. President, I thank Senator Whitehouse for giving me this time. College World Series Mr. President, in 3 minutes, the final game of the championship round of the College World Series takes place. Coastal Carolina is playing the University of Arizona. Coastal Carolina is a relatively small school in Myrtle Beach. Dustin Johnson is a graduate and won the U.S. Open. But if you have been watching the College World Series, this baseball team is inspiring. Arizona and Coastal Carolina have had two great games. Tonight is the rubber match, winner takes all. I don't know what is going to happen. If Coastal Carolina falls short, we have won in every way we could win. It has been the most exciting World Series I can remember: South Carolina won back-to-back world championships. Coastal Carolina, I know everybody in South Carolina is very proud, all the fans are very excited, and the best pitchers are on the mound tonight. So go Chanticleers. I am going to go home and watch the baseball game. I thank Senator Whitehouse for letting me say that.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in 2011, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, OLC, issued a legal opinion reversing 50 years of interpretation of the Wire Act. Lawyers there concluded the act does not ban gambling over the Internet, as long as the betting is not on the outcome of a sporting event. In effect, this opinion means the Justice Department has stopped enforcing a law it had consistently enforced for five decades. Left on its own, the DOJ opinion could usher in the most fundamental change in gambling in our lifetimes by turning every smartphone, tablet, and personal computer in our country into casinos available 24/7. The FBI has warned online casinos are susceptible to use for money laundering and other criminal activity, and online casinos are bound to prey on children and society's most vulnerable. It took Congress a decade to develop the Wire Act. It took Congress 7 additional years to enact the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, the 2006 law giving law enforcement new tools to shut down online casinos. DOJ's opinion gutted both laws. Despite the wide-ranging implications of this opinion, there was no solicitation of public comment, nor any input sought from State and local officials. There is also no indication the Department considered the very significant law enforcement, social, and economic issues raised by Internet gambling. We note that a number of States have authorized Internet gambling, despite the fact the DOJ opinion does not carry the force of law, a fact confirmed by our Attorney General, who, in response to questions posed during her confirmation proceedings, wrote, ``I am not aware of any statute or regulation that gives OLC opinions the force of law.'' The Attorney General is absolutely correct. Only Congress can change the Wire Act, and only the courts can interpret the act's reach. To make clear that the Wire Act still bans all Internet gambling, the committee report accompanying the CJS appropriations bill includes the following statement: Internet Gambling.--Since 1961, the Wire Act has prohibited nearly all forms of gambling over interstate wires, including the Internet. However, beginning in 2011, certain States began to permit Internet gambling. The Committee notes that the Wire Act did not change in 2011. The Committee also notes that the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that ``criminal laws are for courts, not for the Government, to construe.'' Abramski v. U.S., 134 S.Ct. 2259, 2274, 2014, internal citation omitted. I was pleased to join with my colleague from California, Mrs. Feinstein, in offering this language. I appreciate the chairman and the ranking member having agreed to have it included with this legislation. Any jurisdiction considering authorizing Internet gambling--and any entity seeking to participate in offering online casinos in this country--is well advised to consider that the Justice Department decision of 2011 did not change the Wire Act. The question of whether there should be online casinos in this Nation has been polled widely over the past few years. It seems that no matter where one goes, Internet gambling is opposed by the public by wide margins, even in States where there is significant support for land- based casinos. The public recognizes that there is something fundamentally different between having to go to a destination to place a bet and having a casino come to you, in your own home or office on an electronic device. Regardless of how Senators may feel about this issue, I hope we can all agree that whether Internet gambling should be permitted in this country is a question for Congress to determine, not unelected Federal bureaucrats.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Isn't it kind of odd that we have not 4,500, we have over 5,000 troops. They are playing with the numbers again. I know this. There are over 5,000 troops. About 1,000 are off the books. They are there; they are just not being counted. This incessant desire by the President to say we are not in combat offends the heck out of me. Tell that to the family of the Navy SEAL who was killed. They don't want to admit we are in combat because that means we are at war. They don't want to admit we are at war, and I don't know why because this guy in Orlando certainly was at war with us. We have a presence in Iraq, and isn't it unusual that no one is saying that we need approval from the Iraqi Government now? This was never the problem. The problem was that President Obama sincerely wanted to end both wars. He saw an opportunity in 2011 to fulfill a campaign promise because America is war weary, and I understand that. But at the end of the day, he ignored sound military advice, and everything that Senator McCain and I and others have said has come true in spades. Let me tell you about a comment by the President yesterday that our military strategy regarding ISIL is hitting on all cylinders. Mr. President, you need to get out of the White House and take a new look at what is going on in the world. Yesterday there was testimony by a Yazidi woman in the Homeland Security Committee. Last week the U.N. issued a report that ISIL is engaged in genocide against the Yazidi people. This is a people who mix Christianity and Islam, and they have a unique religion. ISIL is in the process of destroying the Yazidi community that has been in existence for thousands of years. Yesterday this woman testified that eight members of her family, including her mother, were killed by ISIL. She was gang-raped. She said: Don't feel sorry for me; they are doing this to girls as young as 8 years old. So, Mr. President, go tell that young woman that your military strategy when it comes to ISIL is working on all cylinders. The U.N. Special Envoy to Syria estimates that 400,000 people have been killed in Syria, where ISIL's headquarters exist. Mr. President, go tell the people, the families of the victims of ISIL in Syria, that your military strategy is working on all cylinders. How do you explain the fact that there are now up to 8,000 ISIL fighters in Libya? I had a conversation yesterday with AFRICOM Commander Waldhauser, who is an incredibly gifted man. I asked him: Is ISIL in Libya? He said: Yes. Are they a threat to our homeland? He said: Yes. Are we doing anything militarily to engage them? He said: Virtually nothing. I asked him: How many airstrikes have there been against ISIL soldiers in Libya? He said: Zero. The bottom line, Mr. President, is we are not hitting on all cylinders. We are making some gains, but you don't have an overall strategy to secure these gains. Leaving Assad in power is the worst possible outcome for the United States because the Sunni Arabs see him as a puppet of Iran, and he is the one who has killed most of the 400,000, not ISIL. The Syrian people are never going to accept him as their leader. Russia and Iran have come to the aid of the Butcher of Damascus, Assad. They have bombed the people we have trained to fight not only ISIL but Assad. The Russian people have killed the people the American President tried to recruit to our cause, and we are not doing a darn thing about it. Mr. President, your military strategy is not working. Tell that to the King of Jordan, where there are more Syrian refugees today than there has ever been in the history of Jordan. Two weeks ago there was a report that there were more refugees in the world now than there were post-World War II. Tell it to the people of Lebanon, where one out of five children in the primary schools is a Syrian refugee child. Tell that to the people of Turkey. Mr. President, the bottom line: You always underestimate the threat. You try to undersell what is going on, and you oversell our successes. I hope the people in this body will realize that some of the votes we are going to take in the coming weeks will correct this course, and I hope you realize that the war is not going as well as the President says it is. I want it to go better. I want to destroy ISIL. I promise you this: The strategy we have in Syria will never lead to ISIL's destruction. The people we are training to fight ISIL are mostly Kurds, and the Kurds do not have the ability to go into Raqqah, Syria, which is an Arab town, and take it away from ISIL and hold it. And the people we are training are Communist, Marxist Kurds. Their acronym is YPG. They are associated with the PKK, which is a terrorist organization in Turkey. I appreciate their help, but the future of Syria should not lie in the hands of a bunch of Communist, Marxist Kurds who could never ever bring about stability in Syria. We don't have a game plan to end this war. We don't have a diplomatic strategy. If you don't believe me, ask the 50-plus Foreign Service officers who wrote a letter publicly urging the President to change his strategy in Syria because it is not working. You can discount Senator McCain and me if you would like, but these are 50 people who dedicated their lives to understanding the Middle East. They said in an open letter that we should be taking the Assad regime on because if he stays in power, this war will never end. He is literally getting away with murder. And our strategy of appeasing Assad because of Russia and Iran's involvement is going to lead not only to the destruction of Syria but also to a change in the power balance in the Middle East that is harmful to us. It is not just us saying it is not working. Mr. President, your military strategy is not working on all cylinders. The Yazidi community is being decimated on your watch. Some 400,000 people have been murdered on your watch, and we haven't even gotten to the mistake you made in Syria yet. As we withdrew our forces from Iraq against sound military advice, the people of Syria rose up against Assad, demanding the freedom all of us take for granted. There was a moment in time when Assad was on the ropes. The people of Syria rose up as part of the Arab spring. Every person in the administration advised President Obama to help the Free Syrian Army while they were intact, and he said no. When he said no, Hezbollah, which is an agent of Iran, the Shia militia, sent 5,000 troops to support Assad. Russia eventually got in on Assad's side, and the entire mess in Syria has exploded. His unwillingness to help the Free Syrian Army take Assad out created the vacuum inside of Syria that ISIL filled. So to those who look at Orlando as a gun control problem, I think you are missing the story of Orlando. Orlando is about ISIL being seen as a winner by people over here who are sympathetic to their cause. ISIL is being seen throughout the world as a winning team, not a JV team. What we see in Orlando is someone who was recruited to their cause and our intelligence systems failed. I am not blaming the FBI, but the fact of the matter is we interviewed this guy a couple of times, he was on our watch list, and he fell through the cracks.

Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, just to wrap this up, 50 diplomats who served in the Mideast wrote an open letter to the world to say that we have let Assad get away with murder. Assad will be in power when Obama is gone. Russia and Iran have gone to Assad's aid. The biggest winners of Obama's strategy in Syria have been Russia and Assad. The biggest losers have been our allies--Arab allies, in particular and the people in Syria. About our willingness to help, I was in a multiperson primary back in 2014. The President basically reached out to Senator McCain and myself after Assad had crossed the redline the President drew regarding chemical weapons. It was Labor Day. I will never forget it as long as I live. I flew up with Senator McCain, and we met with President Obama in the Oval Office and Susan Rice. They informed us of what Assad did, and were seeking our support to basically hit him militarily as punishment for crossing the redline. The goal was to degrade Assad's capability on the battlefield, upgrade the ability of the opposition to fight him and change momentum on the battlefield. Senator McCain and I went out in front of the Oval Office in the driveway and said: We stand with the President in his efforts to deal with Assad for crossing the redline, to upgrade the opposition, degrade Assad, and change the momentum on the battlefield. This was right around Labor Day. It was supposed to happen in a couple of days--airstrikes from the sea and land. Nothing happened. By the end of the week, the President decided to go to Congress, and, unfortunately, Congress didn't respond well. So there is some blame in the body. But President Obama has yet to call us and tell us that. Now, I am in the middle of a primary and people are war weary, and I just really thought the President was doing the right thing to hold Assad accountable. So I want to help him where I can. I have tried to put money in the budget to help secure the gains we have achieved in Iraq. I hope Fallujah falls, and I think it will, but I said 8,000 to 10,000 U.S. soldiers would be necessary to destroy ISIL inside Iraq. We are over 5,000, and we have to go to Mosul, which is a city of a million people. If we don't have more American ground components, then we are not going to retake Mosul, and the Shia militia, which are controlled by Iran, are going to have way too much to say in terms of the future of Iraq. So inside Syria there is no strategy to destroy ISIL. I think President Obama is passing this on to the next President, not wanting to break his promises, not recommitting troops, and he is just ignoring good sound military advice. The bottom line is--and I hate to say this--if there is a JV team on the field in the War on Terror, it is in the White House. The bottom line is they are at war with us, but we are really not at war with them. We can't even say ``combat.'' So I want to help this President where we can. We have had a very contentious debate about guns. Things have been said on both sides of the aisle that I think are, quite frankly, out of bounds. I don't want to sell guns to ISIL; I want to destroy them. I think we have several choices here. We are going to fight them in their backyard or ours. I choose to fight them in their backyard--with partners. The Arabs want to help us because they are in the crosshairs of ISIL. But they are not going in to fight ISIL in Syria and wind up giving the whole country to the Iranians by keeping Assad in power. They have told us. The King of Saudi Arabia told us: You can have our army. But they want to make sure that when we finish the job in Syria, the Iranians are not in control of Syria. They are dominating four Arab capitals and the Arabs are tired of this. The bottom line is Iran is running wild, ISIL is a growing threat to the homeland, and we don't have a strategy to destroy ISIL and secure the gains and stabilize Iraq and Syria. When it comes to Iran, we have empowered the most tyrannical regime on the planet, I think, by giving them $150 billion to put in their war machine. They will have a pathway to a bomb and a missile to deliver it even if they do not cheat under this agreement. So the next President of the United States is going to have a mess on their hands, but we still have a long way to go with this President. So, Mr. President, send a couple thousand more troops into Iraq and make sure we liberate Mosul and can hold the place. Up your game in Syria. Work with our Arab partners who will go in on the ground with you. Tell Assad he has to go, and tell the Russians, if you want to fight for the Butcher of Damascus, you are welcome to do so--and they won't. Let the Syrian people rebuild Syria, pick their leader, and not have the Russians or the Iranians pick their leader. There is a way forward. It is going to take more effort on our part but not 100,000 troops. We are talking less than 10,000 to get this job done. But we do need a different approach to Syria particularly or this will never end. Here is what I worry about the most. The thousands of foreign fighters who have joined the jihad have Western passports, and people on my side of the aisle were saying some pretty crazy things, quite frankly. You can't seal America off from the world. People do travel, and they do trade. So the ability to penetrate the homeland exists. The bottom line is that the sooner we can destroy ISIL, the safer we will be and the quicker we can live in peace in the region--and we don't have a plan to do it. I hope the President will make an adjustment. President Bush adjusted. It is not easy for a President to adjust. I can get that. But he made a decision to listen to his commanders and he adjusted. This President is making some adjustments, but they are incremental in nature. He downplays the adjustments he is making. He downplays the threats we face. When the Attorney General says: I really don't understand what motivated this man, that really breaks my heart because I think most of us do. Here is what I worry the most about. It is taking too long to take these guys out over there. They are reaching into Libya, and another 9/ 11 is on the way if we don't put these guys on the defensive. I want to hit them before they hit us. I want partners. I don't want to fight this war alone. I want to keep the war over there. It is coming here. No matter what you do, it may come here anyway, but we are allowing them to come here quicker and faster than they should be allowed to come here. We are allowing them to stay stronger--longer than they should. In the wake of this foreign policy debacle, we have lost an entire group of people called the Yazidis, who have been basically wiped off the face of the planet. There have been hundreds of thousands of people displaced--millions displaced--and they are going to look at America and say: You can't count on America. Every young child in a refugee camp who was driven to that camp because of our failure to deal with ISIL, allowing Assad to barrel-bomb his or her family, is going to grow up not liking us. One day we are going to have to confront them. The effects of this strategy of failed foreign policy are going to be generational. Mr. President, there is still time to adjust, if you will adjust your strategy and not just listen to us but listen to the 50 people who wrote the letter and listen to your military commanders. If you make these adjustments, we will be there with you.

Mr. GRAHAM. I wish we were wrong too. The worst is yet to come. I hate to be saying this all the time, but as they are losing territory in Iraq, which they are, and they are being hurt some in Syria, which they are, they are becoming a lethal terrorist organization. They are a terrorist army now holding territory. All I can say is that you could see this coming a mile away if you spent any time looking. The biggest flaw of the President of the United States, I believe, is that he doesn't think we are at war. He thinks this is a counterterrorism problem, that these are wayward souls or religious fanatics, and he doesn't embrace the fact that radical Islam is loosely associated throughout the globe. They have an agenda to destroy our way of life, to purify their religion, to destroy the State of Israel. It is on the Sunni and the Shia side. It represents a small minority of the Islamic faith. When you talk about radical Islam, you are not slandering those who are fighting radical Islam. They don't feel slandered. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan with Senator McCain over 37 times. I have yet to have one leader in that part of the world tell me: Would you quit using the term ``radical Islam.'' They appreciate the fact that we understand the threat and that what we have been proposing would actually work. The JV team here is in the White House. I really don't mean to slander JV teams. The bottom line is that the people in the White House have proven they are not up to the task of defending this Nation, destroying radical Islam, and coming up with a plan to make us safe and protect our allies. How much more has to happen before you realize the people running this war, No. 1, don't realize we are at war. It is hard to win a war when you don't realize you are in one. What happened in Orlando breaks your heart, but the Attorney General went down yesterday--and I like her very much--to offer sympathy to the victims, and she made a statement: We will never know what motivated this man. Excuse me. We do. All you have to do is listen to what he said. He pledged allegiance to al-Baghdadi in the middle of the slaughter. He went to the other side. In every war America has been in, we have had Americans side with the enemy. It is an unfortunate event, but it happens in all wars. Radical Islamic groups like ISIL are trying to turn American citizens against us. This man joined their cause. He called 911 and said: I am now a soldier in the army of ISIS. I pledge allegiance to al-Baghdadi--not to the citizens of the United States and the country in which he was a citizen. And he slaughtered a bunch of people. Madam Attorney General, I know why he did it. The fact that you cannot understand why he did it bothers me as far as your view of the fight we are in. But let's go back to the time ISIL was created. Al Qaeda in Iraq was decimated by the surge. It is fair to criticize the Bush administration. President Bush did make mistakes. Senator McCain called for the removal of the Secretary of Defense under President Bush's watch, Secretary Rumsfeld, because he believed Secretary Rumsfeld did not appreciate the deteriorating security environment in Iraq. As the Middle East deteriorates, I don't remember anybody on this side of the aisle standing up and saying: President Obama, you need to reconsider what you are doing. Senator McCain, when the Republicans were in charge, President Bush was Commander in Chief, challenged the construct that all things were going well in Iraq when they were not. So I want to give some credit to Senator McCain. It is not just Obama; when he sees a problem, he speaks up. The bottom line is that President Bush made an adjustment. He doubled down on the surge. He sent more troops into Iraq under General Petraeus. Guess what. The new strategy worked. By 2011, President Obama was claiming this to be a successful operation, that we could leave Iraq whole, free, secure, and stable. Vice President Biden said it may be the biggest accomplishment of the Obama administration, to withdraw our forces from Iraq because we are in such a good spot. The New York Times held the security environment in Iraq as a major achievement. What we were trying to say, along with our military commanders, was that if they pull out now, the gains we fought for are going to be lost. This is what I said on April 3, 2011, as this negotiation was going on: If we're not smart enough to work with the Iraqis to have 10-15,000 American troops in Iraq in 2012, Iraq could go to hell. I'm urging the Obama Administration to work with the Maliki Administration in Iraq to make sure we have enough troops, 10 to 15 thousand, beginning in 2012 to secure the gains that we have achieved. . . . This is a defining moment in the future of Iraq . . . and in my view they are going down the wrong road in Iraq. When the administration tells you that the Iraqis would not accept a residual force, they are lying. I don't use that word lightly because it is a harsh word. They are intentionally misleading you. They are lying. Let me tell you why I know. I was there. I got a phone call from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking me--along with Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman--to go to Iraq to see if we could talk to the Iraqis about a residual force. We met with Barzani, the President of the Kurdish element of Iraq. Not only would he have accepted 15,000, he would have accepted 250,000. Anybody who knows anything about the Kurds, they are not resistant to American troops in Iraq. They would put them all in Kurdistan if we would let them. Then we went to Maliki, who was a Prime Minister, head of a Sunni block. He said the Sunni members of this political block realize that without an American follow-on force, Iran will come in, fill the vacuum, and the Sunnis will feel threatened because the political achievements will all be at risk because the balance of the military power will change. Then we went to Maliki. I can remember it like it was yesterday. It was Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, and I. It was always us three, and I am at the end of the line, as I should be. There was Ambassador Jeffries and General Austin, who was the commander of our forces in Iraq. When it was my time, I looked Maliki in the eye and said: Would you support a residual force to maintain the gains we have achieved jointly? He looked me in the eye and he said: How many troops are you talking about? I turned to General Austin and Ambassador Jeffries, and General Austin said: We are still working on that number. We went back to talk to the Vice President. The military had recommended 18,000--General Austin had--and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said we could get by with 10,000, but they wouldn't go below 10,000. According to General Dempsey, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the administration kept reducing the number below 10,000, and it got to almost 1,500. This cascading of numbers of troops did not come from the Iraqis saying that was too many; it came from the White House, which really wanted to get to zero. So when you try to blame the Iraqis for your mistake, you are lying.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you very much.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Scott for his eloquent words on behalf of our State and the leadership he has provided since this horrible tragedy a year ago. What can I add? I will just remind people who might not remember why he did it that his goal was to start a race war. Well, he failed miserably. Quite the opposite happened in my State. I have never seen anything quite like it. We have had our fair share of problems in South Carolina, and still do, but churches all over the State were filled. Black, White, rich, poor--all came together to help each other. So this young man's dream of starting a race war was a miserable failure. I am sure this guy who attacked the nightclub in Orlando wanted to break our will and try to get us to kowtow to a radical form of religion. Well, you are not going to break a will. We will all stand behind the folks in Orlando and come together as a nation as best we can. Senator Scott said it is hard to understand the hate that someone has to do what these two people did. What blows my mind is how someone can go and sit in a Bible study for an hour, after being welcomed in off the street to discuss the Word of God, and then get up and shoot the people you have been praying with. I don't know how you get there. Only God knows that. And what this man did in Orlando was beyond vicious. Here is a question that I have asked myself a thousand times, and I am beginning to understand the answer: Why was it different in South Carolina? We have had shootings throughout the country where people took to the streets. There were riots, sores were exposed, and scabs were pulled off old wounds. What was it about South Carolina that was different? I promise you that we are not a perfect people. I promise you that under the right circumstances, what you saw in other places in the country would have happened in South Carolina. Here is the difference: We were all in such a state of shock that somebody could come into a church and just randomly kill the people they prayed with. It was hard to get our heads around the thought of somebody being able to do that. But what woke us up was the way the families behaved. Senator Scott indicated that within 48 hours of the killing, there was an arraignment of the accused, and all the family members appeared in court. Instead of taking to the streets and showing their frustration with a system that I am sure can always be made better and is far from perfect, they decided to channel their grief into something constructive, not destructive, and I promise you I could not have done this. If this had been one of my family members, I know Lindsey Graham well enough to know I could not have done this. I consider myself person of faith but lacking when it comes to folks at Mother Emanuel AME Church. Nadine Collier, the daughter of Ethel Lance, who was 70 years old, said the following, as her voice was breaking: You took something very precious from me. I will never talk to her again. I will never, ever hold her again. But I forgive you. And have mercy on your soul. That is what is different. That is why the people of South Carolina followed her lead. She and the victims touched our hearts. They appealed to our better nature and reminded us of what humanity is all about. It is about love and forgiveness. Politicians--we can take all the credit we want, but if these people had not done this, it would have been a different result. I could have talked until I was blue in the face. If people had chosen to be angry, there was no way in hell I could have talked them into not being angry because they have every right to be angry. But because these people did what they did in open court, the rest of us followed behind and followed their lead. A year later I am here to tell you that the reason South Carolina handled this so well, in my view, is that the people in that church chartered a path for the rest of us, and we were smart enough to follow their lead. It would be nice if, in the future, when we get mad at each other here in this body and other places throughout the country over something maybe not as important as losing a loved one, we could slow down for just a moment and try to imagine how things would be different if we could draw upon the example of the families of the fallen. Look what we argue about. Look how we interact in America today over things not quite as significant as having your loved one gunned down. If you really want to honor what happened in South Carolina, as an individual and a society, whenever you can, remember what the people in that church did after losing their loved ones, and try to follow their lead. That would be the greatest respect you could pay to those families and the greatest honor you could give to those who died for no good reason. I need to follow my own advice. There is no better feeling in the world than being petty and thinking of a reason you were wronged. It feels good. But every now and then I catch myself. I go back to last year and wake up and realize that there is a better way. To those who showed us that better way, I know your pain is as real as it was on the day this happened. I know you will never get over it, but I hope you realize that your loved ones did not die in vain because, through their tragic deaths, you gave us--not just in South Carolina but throughout the world--the way forward. Whether we choose it or not is up to us. You have done all you could do and then some. To the people of South Carolina: I am proud of the way we handled this tragedy, but we have a long way to go. This weekend will be tough throughout our State, and as we look back, let's make sure that we learn from the past and apply it to the future. If we can take that love and forgiveness and apply it in a constructive way to future problems in South Carolina, then we will have honored these victims and their families. If we go back to our petty ways, they will have died for nothing. Here is my bet: South Carolina is never going to go back because the people of Mother Emanuel AME Church showed us the way. It is up to us to follow them, and I will do my best to follow their lead. To the people throughout the country who have been generous to this church, thank you for the dollars that have been raised. It is appreciated. Thank you for your prayers and the support you have given. It was essential. You helped us in our time of greatest need. On behalf of the people of South Carolina to the people of this great land, thank you for having us in your prayers and for your support and for being there for us a year ago when we needed you the most. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Arizona. I want to put this issue and what we are trying to do in the context of what has happened in the last couple of days and what I think is going to happen in the future. No. 1, there is strong bipartisan support to increase the number of visas available to Afghans who have actively helped us in the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The reason this is so important is that it is impossible for America to defend herself without partners. To those who suggest you can win the war against radical Islam without partners, you have no idea what you are talking about. To those who suggest we can't let people come to our country after they risk their lives protecting our soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan and who are protecting us, then you don't understand the war at all. This is radical Islam against the world, not just the Islamic faith. The world should be at war with radical Islam. As to what happened in Florida, there is no doubt in my mind that these young people were killed by a radical Islamic sympathizer because they were gay. In a radical Islam world, gay people are sentenced to death just simply for being gay. They are thrown off the roofs of homes by ISIL inside of Syria and Iraq. So don't make any mistake about it, the reason these people were killed is because radical Islam judges them to be unworthy of life. Please make no mistake about it, radical Islamists would kill everybody in this Chamber because we will not bend to their will in terms of religion. Please make no mistake about it, most people in the faith are not buying what these nut jobs are selling. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan 37 times, and I can tell you thousands have died fighting radical Islam in Iraq, in Syria, and in Afghanistan because they don't want to live under the thumb of religious Nazis. So the thousands who have helped us as interpreters and who have gone outside the wire with us to make us a more effective fighting force, they have literally risked their lives and their families' lives, and if we don't give them an out, an exit, they are going to get killed, and it is going to be hard to have anybody help us in the future. I have told Senator Lee, whom I have a strong disagreement with about his approach to the war--basically saying an American citizen has to be treated as a common criminal, not an enemy combatant, for collaborating with the enemy--we have our differences, but I have removed my objection to his amendment with the understanding that I get a vote on my amendment--the Heitkamp amendment--about the Ex-Im Bank, where thousands of jobs are being lost. I want to put on the record that I am ready to let Senator Reed move forward if we can get a vote on Ex-Im Bank, where thousands of jobs are at stake. But we are not voting on any of this. The managers' package is not being voted on. So this is a low point right now. There is very serious business that is being conducted in the Senate that can't move forward because individuals have decided: If I can't have everything I want, nobody is going to get anything. The bottom line is, the managers' package should move forward. There are a lot of good things in that package. There is a sense-of-the- Senate resolution in that package, coauthored by Senator Jack Reed and me, urging President Obama to keep the 9,800 American troops in Afghanistan until conditions warrant their withdrawal; that if he decides to keep the force in place, we support him; if we go to 5,500, Afghanistan is going to fall apart. That is a really big statement in a bipartisan fashion. As to what happened in Orlando and why it is so important, I have been trying to fight a war, not a crime. For years now, I have been suggesting that the difference between a war and a crime is important. The FBI closed the file on this man because they didn't have enough evidence to charge him with a crime. My goal is to prevent terrorist attacks, not respond to them. Here is the world I would like to construct; that if by your actions--not by being a Muslim or being this or being that--if by the way you behave and the way you act and the way you talk and the way you engage, you should be treated differently. If you are expressing sympathy to ISIL and other radical Islamic groups, if you threaten your coworkers, telling them that your family is a member of Al Qaeda, if you are associated with a known terrorist and you attend a mosque that is trying to radicalize people, the FBI should never close the file until they are sure you are not a threat, in terms of attacking our homeland. That is the difference between fighting a war and fighting a crime. I am trying to prevent the next attack, not respond to it. This is not a gun control issue, folks. If gun control could protect the country from attacks by radical Islamists, there would be no Paris. The French have the strongest gun laws on the planet and over 100 French citizens died at the hands of Islamists using weapons: bombs, planes, guns. It is not the instrumentality, it is the attitude. So this is not a gun control problem. We are at war and we are treating it like a crime. On the Republican side, this is not about banning all Muslims. This man was an American citizen born in Queens. This idea of shutting America off to everybody in the Muslim faith makes it harder to win the war, not easier. We need partners in the faith to destroy radical Islam. It is through that partnership that we will make America safe. So when people call for gun control, you don't understand what is going on here. This is not a gun control issue. If it were, there would be no attacks in Europe. This is a radical Islamic effort--sometimes individually, sometimes collectively--to break our will, destroy our way of life, and we are not dealing with it sufficiently. We should have an approach to this problem as though we are at war. We should follow people who are sympathetic to the enemy, monitor their behavior to prevent what happened in Florida, gather intelligence. We should never close a file against a suspected sympathizer to ISIL because we can't prove a crime. We should keep the file open as long as they are a threat. I appreciate all Senator McCain has done to strengthen the military. To those who voted against increasing military spending by $18 billion at a time that the military is being gutted, you made a huge mistake. If you want to deal with radical Islam, destroy it over there before it continues to come here, and to do that we need a stronger military. Our Navy and Army are going to be the size of 1940 and 1950, respectively. We are cutting the Marine Corps. We are cutting our ability to defend ourselves, and this $18 billion amendment would restore money to help the military more effectively deal with radical Islam over there so we don't have to fight it here. To those who look at this as a gun control issue, you are missing the point. To those who think we should not restore spending, you are not listening to our commanders. Our commanders are begging for more money to more effectively support the force in a struggle we can't afford to lose. To those who think we should declare war on the Islamic faith itself, you have no idea how dangerous that model is. To those who want to close a file because we can't prove a crime when we know the person we are looking at has weird, strange beliefs and is actually acting on these beliefs, then you are making a huge mistake. Until America gets our attitude adjusted, until we change our policies, until we restore our ability to defend ourselves, this is going to continue. The President continues to marginalize this, downplaying the threats. This was directed. I don't have any idea that al-Baghdadi called this guy up and said: Go to a night club and shoot on this day, but I know al-Baghdadi has called on everybody sympathetic to his cause to attack during the holy month of Ramadan; attack in place, don't come to Syria. So that is a direction. It was clear to me, this man had been interviewed on three separate occasions by the FBI, that he was expressing sympathy and allegiance to radical Islam, and that he was associated with a man who went from Florida to Syria, back to Florida, back to Syria, who became a suicide bomber for al-Nusra. There is no way in hell this file should have ever been closed because of political correctness. It should have stayed open until we were sure he was not a threat to us. The goal is to prevent these things, not react to them. I want to tell you right now that the things we are not talking about in this bill and we can't vote on in this bill are making us less safe. Not allowing these Afghan interpreters--who have risked their lives to protect us by helping us over there--to come to America in larger numbers is going to make it harder to have partners. By insisting that these budget cuts stay in place and not increasing military spending at a time of desperate need is a huge mistake. To my friends on the left and the Libertarians who want to turn the war into crime, it is the biggest mistake of all. So this is very sad that the U.S. Senate seems to not be able to adjust to the reality that exists and that we all have our petty grievances and we can't move forward as one to strengthen the military, to give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect us, and to have a game plan to win a war we can't afford to lose. In my opinion, we are not having votes that are very important, for no good reason, and this will come back to haunt us. Last week--and I will end with this--Senator McCain and I were talking about the threats we face. I have been trying the best I can to articulate the difference between fighting a crime and fighting a war. I know what the enemy wants. They want to destroy our way of life and everything we hold near and dear. They want to kill anything that is different. They want everything that America refuses to give them. We are never going to give them what they want, which is the ability to be yourself, the ability to worship God the way you choose, if at all, the ability to be different, the ability to speak your mind and to elect your leaders. That is what they want. We can't afford to give it to them, and we don't have the right attitude or the policies to end a war. It will end one day. People are not buying what radical Islam is selling within the faith. But the longer it goes on, the more endangered we are, and our policies are not working. I am trying my best to change them in a responsible way, consistent with our Constitution, consistent with our values. I find myself on the floor of the Senate 48 hours after the largest attack since 9/11 unable to move forward on things that matter.