Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Robert Califf on his confirmation today as Food and Drug Administration, FDA, Commissioner. Dr. Califf is a well-respected cardiologist that hails from Anderson, SC,--very close to where I grew up. He has served our country and its medical needs in a variety of capacities. As a faculty member and professor at Duke University, he founded the Duke Clinical Research Institute and served as vice chancellor for clinical research. In addition to his accomplishments during his tenure at Duke, he is an active member of several professional organizations, including committees of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies and the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Califf was named Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco for the FDA. In this role, Dr. Califf is responsible for overseeing and directing the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, and the Center for Tobacco Products. He also oversees the Office of Special Medical Programs. The broad bipartisan support for Dr. Califf's nomination is testament to his strong, transparent leadership and record of advancing medical breakthroughs. The FDA has been operating without a confirmed Commissioner for the past year, and I applaud the Senate's confirmation of Dr. Califf. I look forward to working with Dr. Califf as he brings his expertise to addressing challenges facing the FDA and our Nation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. If I could, just to wrap this up, I wish we were wrong. When the President decided to withdraw all troops from Iraq against sound military advice, we cautioned--literally begged--the President and the Vice President. We went to Baghdad itself to try to help with this problem. I remember saying that I think all hell will break loose because this is so irresponsible. Iraq is in a good spot, but if we leave now, it will all fall apart. I hope I am wrong. Well, we weren't wrong. When the Syrian people took to the streets to demand more freedom and our response was to ignore their plea, when the people of Iran went to the streets and the Ayatollah shot them down and our President said that he didn't want to discuss negotiations with the regime, when Assad had his back to the wall and President Obama declined to take good advice to arm the Free Syrian Army and the people of Syria to get rid of their dictator, all the things that Senator McCain and I have predicted have come true. The point of being here today is that the worst is yet to come and, God, I hope I am wrong because this is what I think is going to happen. I think there is going to be an attack on our country that is being planned as I speak, coming from Syria. If we went on the ground in the region--not 100,000 U.S. troops but mostly people from the region with some of us--we could destroy the caliphate and we could disrupt their plans against our homeland, but we are not doing that. If we don't change our strategy regarding Syria, we are going to lose one of the best allies America has ever had, and that is the Kingdom of Jordan, because it is being overrun by refugees. The whole seam of the Middle East is splitting wide open. I will say this. Everybody makes mistakes--Bush, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain. The key is to adjust. The problem I have with this administration is that they seem unable and unwilling to adjust. If they don't change their strategy, we are all going to regret it. As bad as it is today, the worst is yet to come.

Mr. GRAHAM. We couldn't have troops on the ground because Iraqis said no. Do we have troops on the ground today, I ask Senator McCain?

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, let's get a little closer to the region. John McCain and Lindsey Graham have been saying for 3 years now that if we don't end the war in Syria--which means requiring the Islamic State, or ISIL, to be destroyed with a ground component and not by the air alone--we are going to get hit here at home and a Paris-style attack is coming our way. This strategy to destroy ISIL will never work. President Obama is trying to pass it on to the next the President. We have been begging the President to change his strategy in Iraq and Syria before we get hit here at home. Another casualty of the war in Syria is the neighborhood itself. There are more Syrian children going to primary schools in Lebanon than Lebanese children. Our friends in Lebanon are being overrun by Syrian refugees because of the Hell-on-Earth nature of Syria. But one of our best allies in the entire world is the King of Jordan. Let me tell you what he has experienced as a result of us as a nation allowing Syria to fall completely apart. This was yesterday: The leader of a key U.S. ally in the Middle East warned Tuesday that his country [Jordan] is so packed with Syrian refugees, many with ties to the Islamic State terror group, that his nation has reached a ``boiling point.'' Sooner or later, I think, the dam is going to burst. The bottom line is I have been saying this for 2 years now, along with Senator McCain: If you don't end this war in Syria, one of the victims is going to be the King of Jordan. And the King of Jordan says that our welcoming nature has to come to an end. Here is the lay of the land. Jordan cannot take any more. Lebanon is overrun. The Europeans are pushing back, and you are going to create a process where people in Syria have no place to go unless we help them. They are going to be slaughtered. They are in between ISIL and Assad. What we are suggesting is to create a safe haven inside of Syria where they can go without being killed, raped, and murdered so they don't have to go to Lebanon, Jordan, Europe or the United States. If John Kerry and Barack Obama do not change their approach to Syria, Syria is going to be the catalyst for a meltdown in the Middle East. Their approach is going to allow the Iranians to control Damascus. Any deal done in Geneva under these circumstances is going to have one certain outcome: The Russians and the Iranians are going to win, and the Syrian people are going to lose. If we don't destroy the caliphate with a ground component soon--not just from the air--we are going to get hit here at home. The center of the caliphate is in Syria. If we don't bring this war to an end soon by getting rid of ISIL and Assad-- which would require both to end the war--Lebanon and Jordan are going to fall. So to the Obama administration, when you were Senators, you really took it to President Bush. He made his fair share of mistakes, but at least he corrected them. Senator Obama and Senator Kerry both opposed the surge in Iraq. On President Obama's watch, he was handed an Iraq that was becoming secure and that was on a glidepath to stability, and he chose to withdraw all of our troops--against sound military advice--to fulfill a political promise. Three years ago, at the urging of Senator McCain and myself, we had Bashar al-Assad on the ropes. His entire national security team advised President Obama to arm the Free Syrian Army while they were intact. That would have been the end of Assad, and Syria would be in the process of healing itself. But President Obama said no to his entire national security team. He drew a redline against Assad a couple of years ago and said: If you use chemical weapons, I will act. Assad used chemical weapons, and nothing of consequence happened. Assad is still in power. He will be in power when Obama leaves. In the meantime, Russia has introduced itself in the Middle East unlike at any time since the early 1970s. Now the Iranians are on the ground, fully behind Assad. The balance of power has shifted. Assad is in a good place. The Syrian people are in a lousy, terrible, horrible place. John Kerry and Barack Obama's foreign policy is in free fall. I will make a prediction--and I hope I am wrong--that if they don't change their policies toward Syria, the region is going to have an imbalance that we have never seen in our lifetime. An attack against this homeland is coming. It is coming from Syria. It is being planned as I speak. We didn't know exactly what they were trying to do before 9/11, but we were worried that we were going to get attacked by Al Qaeda. I can tell you exactly where the attack is coming from. It is coming from Raqqa, Syria. It is being planned while I speak. Every day the caliphate is allowed to exist is another day of danger and peril for the United States. So if President Obama and John Kerry do not change their policies to destroy the caliphate sooner rather than later, we will be hit here at home. If we don't get Syria in a better spot soon, Jordan and Lebanon are going to be victims of this war. To Senator McCain, I just wish to end with that thought.

Mr. GRAHAM. What leverage do we have over Assad?

Mr. GRAHAM. Right, that they can test our resolve. They do it all the time. They fired two missile tests in violation of existing U.N. resolutions. The Obama administration did nothing about it. They captured two boats. These are lightly armored naval vessels with two 50-caliber machine guns. One of them became disabled and they drifted into Iranian waters. The Iranians reacted as if it was some kind of invasion by America. They humiliated these sailors. Instead of standing up for our naval personnel, basically we thanked the Iranians for being so nice to people that they captured at gunpoint in violation of international law, but it goes to a deeper point. The Iranians are letting everybody in the region know they are not changing their behavior with this nuclear deal: Don't mistake us having a nuclear agreement with a behavior change. The Ayatollah and his henchmen are still in charge. They are not part of a family of nations. Since the deal has been signed, they fired missiles in violation of international resolutions, they are on the ground helping the ``Butcher of Damascus,'' Iranians are still the largest state sponsor of terrorism, and this is just the cherry on top of all that misbehavior. One thing I do want to talk about--and I will get your view of this because you are so knowledgeable. Syria has literally held on, and 250,000 people have been slaughtered in Syria by Bashar Assad and his regime. Those people who took to the streets during the Arab Spring in Damascus were from all different backgrounds and different sects. They wanted to live in a country not run by Assad in such a brutal fashion. His response to their plea for better transparency, democracy, and economic opportunity was literally to shoot them down. Now we have an all-out war in Syria. The radical Islamic groups have moved into Syria. The caliphate headquarters of ISIL is in Syria. It has been the biggest misjudgment since Munich by this administration. They had Assad on the ropes 3 or 4 years ago and they didn't act, and what you see today is a result of a failure to act. What I find astonishing is that the Syrian people, who are being slaughtered by the thousands, are being asked by the U.S. Government to sit down with Assad and negotiate an end to this war. The Russians and Iranians are all-in for Bashar Assad. The people we have trained to replace Assad have been killed by the Russian President. Our President hasn't lifted a finger. Now we have a Secretary of State basically browbeating the Syrian opposition to go to Geneva and enter into peace talks with Bashar Assad, who is in full control of his part of Syria. I can't believe we would do this to the Syrian people. The Syrian opposition called Senator McCain--this says a lot about you, my friend. They were calling Senator McCain to pass on a message: You have been our best friend. We are not going to sit down and talk with Assad until the U.N. resolutions calling for his removal have been honored. Our government wants a deal in Syria--regardless of the quality of it--to say they stopped the war on their watch. They are now asking the Syrian people basically to kowtow to the man who has killed their families. This deal with Iran is a nightmare for the region. You give the Iranian Ayatollah a pathway to a bomb, even if he doesn't cheat, a missile to deliver the bomb, and money to pay for it all. Now they want to take the same negotiating team into Syria and lock into place Bashar Assad's regime, which has slaughtered the Syrian people, give the Russians and Iranians a foothold in Damascus through negotiations that they could never have dreamed of a year ago. I ask Senator McCain, what do you think the consequence would be of any peace agreement as long as the Russians and Iranians are supporting Assad and we are indifferent to the Syrian opposition in terms of their military needs?

Mr. GRAHAM. I say to Senator McCain, I think it is a disconnection from reality--trying to shape a reality that does not exist. Can you imagine your good friend Ronald Reagan, if he had been President, what the Iranians would have done?

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask Senator McCain, may I read to you an exchange? This is John Kerry 2 days ago: ``[T]here will be a ceasefire,'' Kerry predicted Tuesday in Rome. ``We expect a ceasefire. And we expect an adherence to the ceasefire. And we expect full humanitarian access.'' Two days later, the Russian bombing hasn't stopped and thousands of Syrians remain starving. Not only has the Russian bombing continued, Putin has sent in advanced fighter jets to do the bombing. Kerry said he was assured by the Russian counterpart [Lavrov] the Russians would stop bombing. When asked, Lavrov said, ``Russia's strikes will not cease. . . . I don't see why these air strikes should be stopped.'' Whom is he talking to? The Russians are telling John Kerry to his face: We are going to keep bombing. John Kerry keeps telling the world they are going to stop bombing. In the meantime, Syrians are being slaughtered and starved to death and we are fiddling while Syria burns.

Mr. GRAHAM. This is about lack of respect for the Obama administration, John Kerry, and everybody else in our government. The Iranians did this, Senator McCain, I think for one reason--to show the region they are not intimidated by the United States.

Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, could I interject?

Mr. GRAHAM. Where is the Parliament?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Ms. Cheryl S. Cromwell who will retire on January 3, 2016, after over 42 years of service to our Nation and the United States Air Force as a civilian airman. Ms. Cromwell began her civil service career in 1973 as a clerk in the Office of Programs and Resources for the U.S. Department of the Air Force. In 1974, Ms. Cromwell moved to the Air Force legislative liaison office under the Secretary of the Air Force where she would serve for the rest of her distinguished career. She worked in the Air Force Senate liaison office in the Russell Senate Office Building, but spent the majority of her time in the Air Force congressional inquiry office in the Pentagon. During her many years in the congressional inquiry division, Ms. Cromwell provided responses to over 50,000 inquiries on behalf of constituents and formed a strong working relationship with many on congressional staffs. It is not surprising that staff frequently requested that Cheryl personally work their most important and difficult cases. It is my honor to join many of Ms. Cromwell's co-workers, family, and friends in congratulating her on her well-deserved retirement after over 42 years of dedicated Federal service.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to speak today about Mayor Joe Riley, who is retiring after decades of service to the people of Charleston, SC. Simply put, Joe Riley is one of the best mayors in America and a living legend in South Carolina political history. He is a hard- working, dedicated public servant who has spent most of his adult life serving the people of Charleston. I have never known anyone who loves their job more than he. Years ago, Mayor Riley came into office with a vision for Charleston, but like all great leaders, he understood he couldn't do it alone. He went to work doing what he does best--bringing people together for the common good. Now, as he retires from serving as mayor of the city he loves, the revitalization of this historic city is absolutely stunning. Thanks to his years of service, Charleston is now recognized as one of the best destinations to visit, not only in the United States but in the world. Joe Riley will go down in history as a transformative mayor who turned his vision for Charleston into reality. We are all better because of his service.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I want to thank my friend from Vermont with whom I have worked for years to help improve the lives of small farmers in Africa and elsewhere. The situation facing coffee farmers in the Eastern Congo should concern all Senators, as there is an opportunity, thanks to the Eastern Congo Initiative, the Buffett Foundation, and Starbucks, to significantly increase the income of people who have long struggled to get out of poverty. The Congolese Government should take immediate steps to eliminate this unofficial tax rate and other specious financial charges that are jeopardizing the livelihoods of their own people. The government must be part of the solution--and not the problem--to Congo's myriad challenges.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I just returned from South Carolina. I am sure many Members of the body have been watching this drama unfold on television. I have never seen anything like it. I was in the Charleston area over the weekend. There was 18 inches in about 24 hours, and Columbia, SC, is really under siege. It is a thousand-year historic rain. I am not a meteorologist, but it seems as if everything bad that could happen did happen to send the water and the rain to South Carolina. All 46 counties have received Federal emergency declaration. There has been a verbal request for a major disaster declaration for 11 counties; 1,300 National Guard deployed and 7,000 more on standby; the entire State trooper force is on the road; 1,250 South Carolina DOT maintenance employees working; 550 road closures; 150 bridge closures; 26,000 and climbing without power; 40,000 and climbing without water; there have been 9 deaths. The economic damage--we don't know yet. There will be an insurance component, and there will be a disaster relief component. As we get through this and look at the damages--that comes later--we are not going to ask the Federal Government to do anything beyond the responsibility of the government. We will not turn this into a pile-on party. The bottom line is I really appreciate my colleagues coming up and offering their assistance and their prayers to the people of South Carolina. Our Governor and the entire infrastructure of the emergency management system in South Carolina have done a very good job. More is coming. The rain is about to depart the area, but we will have runoff from upstate of South Carolina that will flow down to the coast and run right through the communities that have been hit the hardest. So there is a second wave of water coming. My sister lives in the Columbia area, and I can say there are very few families in South Carolina not affected by this. Manning, SC, is virtually underwater. ``We are thinking about the people of South Carolina'' is what I have heard from all of my colleagues. Senator Schumer called. The Vice President called. I appreciate all of your concern and prayers. We will hopefully get this behind us soon in terms of the rainfall and start building up some levees and dams that are just about to break. I worry about the bridges and the damage to our bridges. I don't think we really appreciate how extensive it is. This is sort of the worst of nature coming our way, but I think we met it with the best of human nature. From what I can tell, people have been working together trying to slug through this. And I will just echo what the Governor said: Stay in your homes. Get off the roads. It is so dangerous down there. Anybody who has to be rescued because they are out looking around and taking photos is draining resources from the people who are under siege. So on behalf of Tim Scott and myself, we are going to do whatever we can, with our House delegation, to make sure our State is taken care of in an appropriate fashion. Hopefully by the end of this week we will begin to survey the damage, but unfortunately there is more coming as the runoff from upstate makes its way to the coast. This was literally a perfect storm of things coming together to take water from the hurricane and create a river of rain. I have never seen anything like it, and I have lived in the State all my life. To the people without power, whose houses are underwater, whose cars have been devastated, those who have lost loved ones, we are definitely thinking about you. We are pulling together in our State. Mr. President, 2015 has been a miserable year for the State of South Carolina. Some of the worst things have happened, and we are still hanging in there. Everybody is clinging to each other in a very heartwarming way. And I am sure there will be exceptions to that rule-- curfews are in place--but the vast majority of South Carolinians are rising to the occasion. I was talking to the Governor last night. We can't wait to get this year behind us. And I cannot tell you, from the Charleston shooting to this, how tough it has been for our State. But when it is all said and done, we are going to be together and come out stronger. To the families who are thinking the world has come to an end, God willing, it will get better. The water will pass, we will start surveying the damage, and we will help those who need help. We are not going to ask for a penny more than we need. This is not about fixing problems unrelated to this event; this is about appropriately dealing with this event and nothing more. I thank the President and the Members of this body who have offered their prayers and wishes for the people of South Carolina. To the people of my State, to the first responders, to all who have been involved trying to take care of your fellow citizens, God bless you. To our Governor and her team, I know you are working so hard. I would end this with a request for prayers. Any money that people can send will be much appreciated because there are people who have lost everything they have worked for all their lives. It is days like this that make you appreciate one another. There is a role for the government to play here, but at the end of the day, it is going to be people helping people, with the government providing some resources, but we will have to help each other. There is no substitute for neighbor taking care of neighbor here. I appreciate the floor time. I will keep the body informed as this disaster unfolds. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to pay special tribute to COL Martin L. Sims on the occasion of his retirement from a long and distinguished career in the U.S. Army. Colonel Sims began his military career through the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps at Vanderbilt University where he was a Distinguished Military Graduate in 1987, was branched as an armor officer, and was granted an educational delay to attend law school at the University of Tennessee where he served as the managing editor of the Tennessee Law Review and graduated with honors in 1990. After being assessed into the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps, he entered into active duty as a first lieutenant, less than 2 months after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. For the next 25 years, Colonel Sims served faithfully as a judge advocate during which time he was stationed overseas four times and deployed on numerous occasions to Afghanistan, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Hungary, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq in support of various contingency operations. A dedicated and talented soldier-lawyer, Colonel Sims held numerous positions of significant responsibility, culminating in his selection as the special assistant for strategy, plans, and capabilities within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. Some of the many other key positions Colonel Sims held prior to his final assignment include service as the staff judge advocate for the 25th Infantry Division in Iraq; the staff judge advocate for Combined Joint Interagency Task Force 435 in Afghanistan; legal advisor to the inspector general of the Army, and deputy chief of the international and operational law branch at the office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army. A recognized master military justice practitioner, COL Sims also served the Army and the Department of Defense as a distinguished jurist, sitting as a senior judge on the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals and as an associate judge on the United States Court of Military Commission Review. I ask that you join me, our colleagues, and Colonel Sims' many friends in saluting this distinguished officer's many contributions and sacrifices in the defense of our great Nation. It is fitting that the Senate today publicly recognizes his service and wishes him; his wife, Stacy; and their daughters, Heather and Rachel, health, happiness, and success in the years to come.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am the author of legislation we will be voting on tomorrow, so I am very proud of the product. I have worked with my colleagues to try to come up with a solution to what I think is a problem that needs to be addressed. To my good friend from Connecticut, I appreciate where he is coming from. He is a fine man. We just disagree on this. He has legislation called the Women's Health Protection Act. He has legislation that will roll back State limitations on abortion that have been proved by the Supreme Court. He disagrees with what the States are doing in light of what the Supreme Court would allow a State to do. He has a piece of legislation that would at the Federal level change all these State laws. I respect his point of view. The point I am trying to make is that he wouldn't have introduced the legislation if he didn't think this was an important topic. To my colleagues on the other side, you have legislation that I would gladly allow you to bring to the floor. I want to have a debate on what we are trying to accomplish here. You have legislation that--I am sure the reason you did it is you would like to change State laws you don't agree with. It is a little bit disingenuous to say we shouldn't be talking about these topics because you drafted legislation on this topic. What am I trying to accomplish? We are one of seven nations in the entire world that allow abortion on demand at 20 weeks, the fifth month of pregnancy. I would like to get us out of that club. Why? Because at 5 months I really don't believe it makes us a better nation to have abortion on demand. There are exceptions in this bill--for the life of the mother and in the cases of rape, you have to tell the physician this pregnancy was as a result of a rape--but there is no reporting requirement to the police or anything else. That is a balance we have tried to achieve. But what I would suggest is that most Americans agree with me, that most Americans believe that at the fifth month, we should not have abortion-on-demand, we should not be in a club of seven nations on the entire planet that allow abortion at this stage in the birthing process. The theory of the case is pretty simple. Medical science has evolved to the point now that if you operate on a baby at 20 weeks--which you can--to save that baby's life or to help them medically, medical science says you have to provide anesthesia because the baby can feel excruciating pain. We now know scientifically that at the fifth month of the birthing process, at 20 weeks, doctors will not operate on the baby without anesthesia. Here is the question: Should we be allowing abortion-on-demand at that point in time? Should we be crushing the skulls? Should we be destroying the baby's life? Should we be one of seven countries that allow this heinous practice in the fifth month? We do have exceptions--for life of the mother, rape, and incest. I would suggest that we should be talking about this. I suggest that we should have done this a long time ago, that we should have gotten out of this club of seven nations that allow a baby to be aborted in the fifth month. Medical encyclopedias advise and encourage young parents at this stage in the pregnancy to interact with the unborn baby and sing and speak because the baby can associate sound. We are talking about 5 months, folks. We are talking about changing the law so that this country will not allow abortion-on-demand at this late stage in the birthing process. This is something I am proud to be talking about. I am honored to lead the fight, and all I ask is that we have a vote. The vote is whether or not to have a debate. Our Democratic friends are going to deny us a debate as to whether or not this is a good idea. We can't even proceed to the bill. I am willing to allow them to bring up their legislation as an amendment to mine, the Women's Health Protection Act, where they want to repeal State laws that put limits on abortions consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions. I am not afraid of my idea, and they shouldn't be afraid of theirs. This is a debate worthy of a free people. This is a debate worthy of democracy. If this is not worth talking about, what is? When do you become you? When do you have a soul, if you have one at all? What kind of Nation do we want to be in 2015? Roe v. Wade says that for the first trimester, abortions are off limits, but when medical viability is reached, the State has a compelling interest in providing protection to the unborn child. That was 1973. Has anything changed since 1973? I would argue a lot has changed, and all for the better in terms of medical science. We can do things now for patients, including for the unborn, that one could not even imagine in 1973. But the theory of the case here is not medical viability at 20 weeks, but a new concept that I hope most Americans will embrace. Now that we know the baby has developed to the point where it would feel excruciating pain if it were operated on to save its life, is it appropriate for legislative bodies, such as ours, to come to that baby's aid and take abortion-on-demand off the table? Here is what I believe: I believe this is constitutionally sound. I believe this is a debate worthy of a free people. I believe the time has come for America to get out of the club of seven that allows this procedure at 20 weeks, the fifth month of the birthing process. I think this is something we should talk about, and I think it is worthy of our time. To my friends on the other side, you have views about this topic too. You have introduced legislation regarding abortion that would roll back State protections of the unborn. I am not afraid of that debate. I disagree with you. Bring your legislation forward. What are you afraid of? Why won't you let me debate my bill? Why can't we have a discussion as a free people about where we want to be in 2015 regarding the unborn child? To my friends on the other side, the unborn child is not the enemy. The unborn child is something that every American should care about. And here is what I think: In the fifth month of pregnancy an overwhelming number of Americans--not all, but most--are going to side with me and my colleagues who have helped me through this journey and say: No, America will not allow this. We are not going to be one of seven nations that allows abortion-on-demand in the fifth month. We are going to withdraw from that club, and if we do, it will be a good thing. We will be a better people if we stop this practice in the fifth month, knowing that we have exceptions for the life of the mother in cases of rape and incest. This doesn't make us anything other than a caring, better people. This is why I ran for office, to have debates like this--not just this, but like this. I want to talk about creating jobs and growing the economy and stopping radical Islam. There is so much we need to do, but here is the question: Do we need to do this? I think so. I think with all my heart and soul that America needs to get out of this club, that America needs to come to the aid of a baby who is 20 weeks into the birthing process, and we should stand united and stop this practice. I think this makes us a better people. I think at the end of the day, this debate is worthy of our time and, quite frankly, is long overdue. I am very disappointed that we can't even have the debate. But this I promise: As long as I am here--and many others on our side, and hopefully some on that side over there-- this debate will continue until we get the right answer. We came together in a very large vote--bipartisan in nature--to ban abortion in the last trimester, except in rare circumstances. That was the right thing to do. Abortions in the seventh, eighth, and ninth month do not make us a better people. There was bipartisanship to stop that procedure. Here is what I believe: I believe over time the American people are going to side with me and my colleagues, we are going to rise to the occasion, and we are going to say something pretty basic. At 5 months we are not going to allow abortion-on-demand because that baby can feel excruciating pain, and we are not going to put that baby through the process of having their life terminated in such a gruesome fashion. These Planned Parenthood videos and this discussion about harvesting organs from children late in the birthing process have awakened America. I promise this is a debate worthy of this body, worthy of this country, and one that we are going to have over and over again until we can get a vote. I am not going to stop. You have stopped me if we don't get those 60 votes to debate this. If we can't get the bill to the floor for a debate, I think that is a bad thing. I think life is more than just about money. I think the quality of our country is more than our financial situation. I think the quality of our Nation, in many ways, is founded not on our finances, but our character. And here is what I believe: America needs to get out of this club of seven that allows little babies to be aborted at a time when doctors cannot operate on them without providing anesthesia because it hurts so much. Think about what I just said. Medical science will not put the baby through an operation to save its life without anesthesia because it hurts so much. All I am asking is: Just don't crush that baby's skull unless there is a very good reason. Is that too much is ask? I don't think so. Is that worthy of our time? I definitely believe so. Are we going to keep pushing? You better believe it. I thank Senator Portman, Senator Ernst, and others who have helped me so much. I thank Senator McConnell for reserving some time to have this discussion. I hope it turns into a debate. The Senate needs to be on record, and this is an opportunity for all of us to be on record as to where we think the country should be in 2015. Here is what I think: I think in 2015 America needs to withdraw from the club of seven nations that will allow a baby at 20 weeks to be aborted for any reason at all. I look forward to this discussion. I hope we can have a debate. I am not afraid of my ideas, and they shouldn't be afraid of their ideas. But I promise everybody who cares about this that we will not stop, and to me, it has always been about the baby. I think most Americans will side with me and my colleagues and say over time with a very strong and loud voice: We do not want abortion-on-demand in the fifth month of pregnancy unless there is a darn good reason because that doesn't make us a better people. Quite frankly, it is the opposite. I thank the Presiding Officer for his support. To my colleagues over here, and hopefully a few over there, I look forward to this journey until one day when we can withdraw from the club of seven and protect unborn children in a way that I think most Americans would appreciate. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator may proceed.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 15 minutes, and ask the Chair to let me know when my time is close to being up.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I just want to make sure people understand what we are trying to do here this morning. Our Democratic colleagues are filibustering an attempt to have a debate and an up-or-down vote on the most consequential foreign policy decision in modern history. That is what you are doing. Senator Corker, in good faith, got us here in a bipartisan manner. And Senator Reid has come out of nowhere to change what was the common understanding of how we would proceed--get 60 votes, a simple majority, and let the President act as he wishes. But, no, we couldn't do that. They are more worried about protecting Barack Obama from having to veto this than they are about having a debate on the floor of the Senate. Now, let me tell you a little about who you are dealing with here, folks. If I hear one more comment from my Democratic friends about how much they love Israel--with friends like this, you don't need an enemy. This is who you are dealing with. This was yesterday: Iran's supreme leader predicted Wednesday that Israel would not exist in 25 years, and ruled out any new negotiations with the ``Satan,'' the United States, beyond the recently completed nuclear accord. In remarks published Wednesday on his personal website-- At least the Ayatollah has gotten into modern times-- and in posts on Twitter, the supreme leader-- Do you know why they call him the Supreme Leader? Because he is-- Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, responded to what he said were claims that Israel would be safe for that period. . . . Where did those claims come from? It came from this administration, my colleagues on the other side. You are telling the world that this is the best deal for Israel. Guess what. Nobody in Israel who is in the current government agrees with you. It is just not Bibi. Everybody who is in the current coalition government understands this is not a good deal for Israel. Why don't you listen to them? You want it to be a good deal for Israel. Well, it is not, and your wanting it doesn't change it. So let's finish what he said. [The Ayatollah] responded to what he said were claims that Israel would be safe for that period under the nuclear agreement reached in July. ``After nuclear negotiations, the Zionist regime said that they will not be worried about Iran in the next 25 years.'' I repeat. ``After nuclear negotiations, the Zionist regime said that they will not be worried about Iran in the next 25 years.'' Israel didn't say that. People over here said that. The Ayatollah wrote: ``I am telling you, first, you will not be around in 25 years' time, and God willing, there will be no Zionist regime in 25 years. Second, during this period, the spirit of fighting, heroism and jihad will keep you worried every moment.'' Clearly, somebody who is on the course of change, somebody we should give $100 billion to, create a pathway to a nuclear bomb in 15 years and let him buy more weapons in 5 years and build an intercontinental ballistic missile in 8 years--clearly, this is the man who has changed course and you have empowered him. At least--at least--Chamberlain can say Hitler lied. At least Chamberlain can say: I negotiated with the Fuhrer. He told me to my face: If you give me this, I am done. Well, we all know Chamberlain was a chump, and Hitler actually meant what he said when he wrote a book. The question is, Does this man mean what he says when he tweets yesterday that the ink is not dry on the deal? The one thing you can say about the old Ayatollah--who is crazy, who is a religious Nazi--is that at least he is honest. He doesn't want you to be confused as you vote as to what he wants to do to your friend Israel. See, he doesn't want you to misstate what this deal means to him. You obviously are writing him off. You obviously believe he doesn't mean it. I guess he has a polling problem in Iran. He has to get his numbers up. He needs to say these things--because he doesn't mean it. But he has to keep his people happy because they like hearing this stuff. All I can tell you is his people tried to rise up against him in 2009, and our President sat on the sidelines and didn't do a damn thing. The biggest moment for change in Iran came in 2009, when young people and women took to the streets demanding a fair election that was stolen from them by the Ayatollah, and his response was to beat them, shoot them, put them in jail and torture them. This is the guy you are going to give $100 billion to, a clear pathway to a bomb. He doesn't even have to cheat to get there and buy more weapons to attack us. At least Chamberlain lied. This man is telling you what he is going to do as of yesterday, and between these times that negotiations have started until now, has he shown us a little leg about what will change? During the negotiations he has toppled four Arab capitals. During the negotiations he has supported the Houthis in Yemen, who destroyed a pro-American government, and we have lost eyes and ears on Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula--a Sunni extremist group that attacked Paris and will attack us. During the negotiations they have done anything but be moderate. I cannot believe that you don't believe him. I cannot believe you made the biggest miscalculation in modern history by empowering a religious fanatic with the ability to attack our Nation, destroy our friends in Israel, and keep the Mideast on fire for 15 years. What are you all thinking over there? All I can say is that on the last 9/11, 3,000 of us died because they couldn't get weapons to kill 3 million of us. If you let this deal go forward, before too long the most radical regime on the planet will have the most lethal weapons available to mankind. They will share that technology with terrorists and they will come here. Why do they need an ICBM, folks? What are they going to do with it? They are not going to send people to space. What are you thinking? What are you all thinking over there? You are taking the most radical regime on the planet, a theocracy--this is not a democracy. The moderates were shot down in the streets. They were begging: Are you with us or are you with him, President Obama? President Obama is absolutely the poorest champion of freedom and the weakest opponent of evil in history. Evil is flourishing on his watch. President Obama said you would have to be crazy not to support this deal. Let's walk through whether we should follow his advice about radical Islam. This is the President who was told to leave troops in Iraq to make sure our gains would be maintained, and he pulled everybody out because he wanted to get to zero. He turned down every commander's advice to get to zero because he made a campaign promise. This is the President who was told by his entire national security team 3 years ago to establish a no-fly zone and help the Free Syrian Army because Assad was on the ropes, at a time when it would have mattered, when there was a Free Syrian Army to help and Assad was about to fall. Obama said: No thanks. This is the President who drew a redline against Assad, after he backed off, and said: If you use chemical weapons and you cross that redline, there will be a price. Here are the facts. Assad is going to be in power and Obama is going to be gone. The last man standing is going to be Assad. So all I can tell you is this is the man who said: Don't worry about ISIL. They are the JV team. I killed bin Laden; Al Qaeda is decimated. At what point in time do you realize President Obama has no idea what he is talking about? At what point in time is it obvious to anybody in the world who is paying attention that when it comes to radical Islam he has no clue? So this is the guy we are going to send in to negotiate with a radical ayatollah--a guy who, in the eyes of the world, is a complete weak defender of freedom and a very poor adversary of evil. If that is not enough, the Iranians are rubbing this in John Kerry and Barack Obama's face by tweeting this out hours before you vote on this deal. Just to remind you that no matter what you say on this floor about Israel, nothing has changed in his mind about Israel. When you claim Israel is safe, he is telling you: No, they are not. But you are not listening because you don't think he really means it. Well, I can tell you right now, you better be right. How about this idea. When it comes to the Ayatollah, assume the worst, not the best. To our friends in Russia, John Kerry said one of the big benefits of this deal is that we will bring Russia in and Iran will be a better partner in the Mideast, and we will have a major breakthrough where Iran begins to help us with problems like Syria. Well, here is Russia's response, before you vote. They are sending Russian troops--maybe fighter planes--into Syria to prop up Assad before you vote. They are taking everything John Kerry said about what would happen if you do this deal and rubbing it in his face. Tell me how you fix Syria with Assad in power? What the Russians are doing is ensuring he will stay in power longer, and the longer he stays in power, the more refugees the world will have to deal with and the more Hell on Earth will occur in Syria. The Syrian people want two things; they want to destroy ISIL and they want Assad gone because he has destroyed their families. So Secretary Kerry, how well is this working, with this new engagement of Iran and Russia. Things are really changing. Look at the tweet yesterday. What are you going to tell the American people this means? Interpret the Ayatollah for me. This is just all talk? He has to say these things? He doesn't get elected. He doesn't have to worry about the next election. He says these things because he believes them. He is a religious fanatic, compelled by his version of Islam to destroy everything in his religion that he doesn't agree with--to destroy the one and only Jewish State and attack democracies such as ours, and you are giving him more to do that with. This is, over time, a death sentence for Israel, if it is not changed. If I had $100 billion to negotiate with, for God's sake, could I get four people out of jail? I could get people out of jail here with $100 billion. Who is negotiating with Iran? This idea we are going to separate all of their bad behavior from their nuclear program was the biggest miscalculation in modern foreign policy history. To suggest we don't need to look at Iran as a whole unit; that we are going to ignore the fact that they have four hostages, U.S. personnel held in sham trials, a Washington Post reporter; that they are the largest State sponsor of terrorism; that they destabilize the region; that they have driven our friends out of Yemen; that they are supporting Hezbollah, a mortal enemy of Israel; and that they have taken over the Lebanese Government--we are not going to worry about all that? What do you think they are going to do with the $100 billion? Do you really think they are going to build roads and bridges? The best indication of the next 15 years is the last 35. When you separated their nuclear ambitions from their destructive behavior, giving them access to more weapons and $100 billion, you made a huge mistake because you are damning the Mideast to holy hell for the next 15 years, and you are giving the largest state sponsor of terrorism more money and more weapons to attack us--and you couldn't get four people out of jail. The only reason they are not dancing in Iran is the Ayatollah just doesn't believe in dancing. I have friends over there whom I respect and admire. I have no idea what you are thinking. I have no idea why you believe the Ayatollah doesn't mean what he says, given the way he has behaved. If they would shoot their own children down in the streets to keep power, what do you think they will do to ours? And the only reason 3,000 people died on 9/11 is because they couldn't get the weapons to kill 3 million of us, and they are on course to do it now. I have never been more disappointed in the body than I am today, a body known to be the most deliberative body in democracy in the history of the world. Yet you will not let us have a vote. You will not let us have a debate. Please stop saying this deal makes Israel safer. That is cruel. Your response to this deal is to give them more weapons because you know they are not safer. I find it a bit odd that in response to this deal we are selling the Arabs every kind of weapon known to man and we are promising Israel every kind of weapon we have. If you truly thought this was such a good deal, why do you have to arm everybody who is in the crosshairs of the Ayatollah? When they write the history of these times, they are going to look back and say that President Obama was a weak opponent of evil and a poor champion of freedom. They are going to look and say that the United States Senate refused to debate the most consequential foreign policy agreement in modern times, and the people in Israel are going to wonder where did America go. Has it ever crossed your mind that everybody in Israel who is in power, who is running the government today, objects to this agreement?

Mr. GRAHAM. Senator Corker, thank you for trying to have the debate we need. To my Democratic friends: You own this. You own every ``i'' and every ``t'' and every bullet, and you own everything that is to follow and it is going to be holy hell.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have two very brief comments. One involves our national security and the world at large and the other involves our Nation as a whole. First, as to the Supreme Court ruling. I am surprised. I am disappointed. But the ruling is now in. Senator McConnell said it well: This doesn't mean ObamaCare is fixed; it means it is going to continue until somebody finds a better way or we are going to be left with ObamaCare for the rest of our lives and children's lives and those who follow. The 2016 race domestically will be centered on health care as the most dominant domestic issue in the country. If you are running for the House, if you are running for the Senate or if you are running for President, here is what this Supreme Court ruling means: If the public wants to continue ObamaCare--which I think would be a huge mistake-- vote Democrat. If you want to repeal and replace ObamaCare with something better for you and your family, bipartisan, vote Republican. Hillary Clinton, the most likely Democratic nominee, will make ObamaCare her own. Whomever the Republican Party may nominate, the one thing I can assure you is that they will repeal and replace ObamaCare with something better. So to the people of the United States: You finally have a chance to have your say. This election in 2016 for the House, the Senate, and the White House will give you a chance to stop ObamaCare and replace it with something better for you and your children. Take advantage of this opportunity. Because if we fail to have the people in place in 2016 to change course, ObamaCare becomes cemented in terms of the American health care system and our economic future. I think it would be a mistake for the ages.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as I speak, Secretary Kerry is on his way to Geneva to try to conclude nuclear negotiations with the Iranian regime. To Secretary Kerry: I urge you to suspend negotiations until we clear up two matters. No. 1, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini said on state-run television in Iran, yesterday and the day before, ``All economic, financial and banking sanctions, implemented either by the United Nations Security Council, the United States Congress or the administration, must be lifted immediately when the deal is signed.'' Secretary Kerry, would you please tell the Ayatollah that is unacceptable and repudiate that statement before you negotiate any further. The Iranian Parliament, several days ago, passed draft legislation prohibiting the international community from having access to Iranian military facilities to determine the state of the Iranian nuclear program. Secretary Kerry, please suspend negotiations until the Iranian Government repudiates this concept. The P5+1 should be firm in these areas: There will never be a deal signed with Iran that does not allow for anytime, anywhere inspections of nuclear sites, particularly military sites. How can you negotiate any further until they repudiate the actions they have taken? Please tell me--and I will send you a letter--what to tell my constituents who are very worried about this. I am being overwhelmed by questions: Does the Iranian Parliament action represent the position of the Iranian Government? My answer would be yes. Nothing happens in Iran unless the Ayatollah wants it to happen. So Secretary Kerry and the P5+1, please tell the Iranians that the action of the Parliament--the statement they have made that we will not be allowed to inspect military facilities as part of a deal--is a nonstarter and walk away until they repudiate that. Please send a message to the Ayatollah through the negotiators that we will not lift sanctions until there is full compliance, until the IAEA has a chance to tell us about the possible military dimensions of their nuclear program. How can you lift sanctions and go forward and give them money until you know exactly what they have been up to in the past? Secretary Kerry, now is a time for you and President Obama to send a clear message to the Iranians: repudiate these two statements or we will not negotiate any further. This is the most important decision any President of the United States will make, and we are about to go into negotiations in the final stages with two thought processes on the table coming from the highest level of the Iranian Government: You will not be allowed to inspect military facilities, and we will demand immediate sanctions relief before there is verification. Those two statements coming from the Iranian leadership must be repudiated--and repudiated now. Walk away, Secretary Kerry, until they repudiate these statements. No more negotiations until we understand, is this a red line for the Iranians. Because if this is their red line, I will now ask you in public: Secretary Kerry, are these positions red lines for the Iranian Government? Have they now adopted a red line that you will never be allowed to inspect military facilities as part of an inspection regime to determine the past development of nuclear weapons in Iran? Secondly, is this now a red line by the Ayatollah; that they will never agree to a deal that doesn't allow for immediate sanctions relief? I need to know the answer to that question. Are these red lines? And if they are red lines, walk away. And if they are not red lines, have these statements repudiated because this is the most important decision the world will ever make. God help us all if we enter into a deal with this regime that is not sound, with every i dotted and every t crossed, because the Iranians have been cheating and lying about their nuclear ambitions for well over a decade, and at the end of the day, you can't trust the Iranians. I urge as strongly as possible that the P5+1 suspend negotiations until the Iranians set the record straight and repudiate these statements about denying us access to military facilities and requiring immediate sanctions relief as part of any deal. I yield the floor.