Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes following the first vote in the series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to recognize Senator Scott. We all know Senator Scott is a man of quiet faith. He does it when no one is looking, by the way. I remember being in the cloakroom watching a basketball game, which is consistent with me, and the Senator was over in the corner with headphones on. I said: What are you listening to or what are you doing? He said very sheepishly: I am doing my Bible study. Senator Scott has been a great comfort to our State because he is truly a man of God. To the rest of you, I want to tell people in South Carolina that in the Senate we have a lot of differences and we display them a lot. I wish you could have heard what was said to me and Senator Scott. Everybody in this body has come up to us in one way or another and said the most kind things. In the Senate we have our problems, but we are still a family. Thank you all, from all over this country, for the kindness you have shown during these difficult times. Very quickly, I don't know how you can sit with somebody for an hour in a church and pray with them and get up and shoot them. That is Mideast hate. I didn't think it was something we had here, but apparently we do. I just can't imagine what it takes of an individual to be welcomed in a church--here is what happened. He went to Charleston with a plan. The people in the church had no idea who he was or what he had in mind. He came into the church, and he was sitting in the pews by himself and they invited him up for the Bible study and spent an hour with him. And he said: They were so nice, I almost backed out. That says a lot about them. It says a lot about him. But Senator Scott mentioned something that I cannot get over. Within 48 hours of having your family member murdered, to appear in a public setting, looking at the guy in the eye and to say: You ruined my life but I love you and I forgive you--that is a level of love and understanding that can only come from some higher authority. I don't have that within me. When it comes to representing South Carolina, Senator Scott and I will do our best. But on our best day, we are nowhere close to these people. There is no politician in America who can represent their State better than the people of Mother Emanuel AME Church when they went to a public place, looked the killer in the eye and said: I forgive you; I am praying for you. I wish we could muster that kind of love for each other, just for a little bit. What would America be like? Thank you all for your kindness.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. No, I did not. We talked specifically about his statements. But I understand the concern of the Senator from Arizona about the idea of doing an agreement with the Iranians that would give them money to fund what I think has been a very destructive war machine. From my point of view, we need to look at the Iranian behavior holistically and understand the consequences of flooding this administration with cash--the Iranian administration with cash--given the fact that what they are doing today is using whatever resources they have under sanctions to destabilize the Mideast. I doubt if any additional funds, if sanctions were relieved, would go to build hospitals or roads. I think they would go into the activity you just described. But this conversation was limited to the statement attributed to him yesterday. I think all of us should be very attuned to what is going on with these negotiations, as it is the most important decision any administration will make probably in modern history. The consequences of a bad deal are enormous. You could start a nuclear arms race in the Mideast. At the end of the day, the behavior of the Iranians, apart from their nuclear ambitions, is at best disturbing and should be, in my view, part of any negotiating package. But we are where we are, and I am glad to hear from the Secretary himself that possible military dimensions have to be fully explored and understood before you move forward with an agreement. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. He indicated that the statement that was attributed to him was taken out of context, and he reaffirmed to me on the phone that possible military dimensions are an essential part of the deal, as he indicated on April 8, 2015. I think he is issuing a statement or his office is right now. I think it is important for the body to understand that Secretary Kerry wants to clear up the record. I applaud him for that. I hope we can get a deal we all can live with. But at the end of the day, you have to remember who we are dealing with in terms of the Iranians. They have lied. They have cheated. When it comes to the military dimensions of their program, it is essential we know every detail before we can move forward with confidence.

Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to inform the body that I had a very good conversation with Secretary Kerry just a few minutes ago. Many of you may have been following the news. There was a statement attributed to Secretary Kerry that the possible military dimension of the Iranian nuclear program was no longer a priority in terms of reconciling what they have been doing in a military fashion with their nuclear program. Some of the words were to the effect that there will be no mea culpa required. I just got off the phone with him, and he indicated to me that possible military dimensions of the program in terms of the Iranian past behavior are very much on the table and essential to any agreement. April 8, 2015, here is what Secretary Kerry said. When asked in April if Iran must disclose past military-related nuclear activities as part of an agreement, Secretary Kerry said: They have to do it. It will be done. If there is going to be a deal, it will be done. Secretary Kerry reaffirmed to me that statement. I appreciate his calling me. I want the body to understand that a good deal with Iran would be a blessing. A bad deal would be a nightmare. The IAEA has not had access to the sites they need in terms of evaluating the possible military dimensions of the Iranian program and have not been allowed to go to Parchin, where we suspect that high explosive detonation was being tested as part of their nuclear weapons ambition. There are three things that the IAEA wants to look at before it can pass judgment over how far the Iranian nuclear program has gone down the military road. I can't imagine any deal that does not fully and completely answer every question about possible military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear program, because if you don't understand what they have done in the past, you don't know where you are in terms of going forward, and you can't have a meaningful inspection regime until you understand what they try to do in terms of our military dimension. I really do appreciate Secretary Kerry calling me. The one thing we learned about the Iranians and their nuclear program is that they cannot be trusted. They have lied, and they have cheated at every turn. There can be no wiggle room when it comes to the Iranians and a nuclear deal. Anytime, anywhere inspections are absolutely a must. Understanding their possible military dimensions is an absolute ingredient along with others. I am glad to have received this phone call from Secretary Kerry. But all of us need to be aware of whom we are dealing with when it comes to the Iranians and get every i dotted and every t crossed before you would even entertain a deal with the Iranians.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this effort. If you care about our military commanders, listen to them. Every one of them opposes this. If my colleagues believe that the military legal community knows what they are talking about, listen to them. Every JAG of every service opposes this. A 29-percent decrease in sexual assault incidents, a 70-percent increase in reporting. Senator McCaskill, Senator Ayotte, Senator Fischer, and many others, along with Senator Reed--we have reformed the military justice system in an appropriate manner. But here is what we should never allow to happen: Commander, last night there was an alleged rape in the barracks. Oh, I don't care about that anymore; send that over to the lawyers. Let's never let that happen. Never let a commander avoid responsibility for what happens in their unit. It is their job to make sure we have good order and discipline. Don't let them off the hook. Reinforce good commanders and fire bad ones. Do not disenfranchise the best military leadership in the history of the world. And that is exactly what this does. We will solve the sexual assault problem. We are not going to dismantle the infrastructure that has given us the finest military in the history of mankind. That is why everybody who knows what they are talking about opposes this.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, very briefly. Senators Ayotte and Kirk's amendment is coming up. There will be a motion to table. What we are trying to do is basically show support for the Ex-Im Bank, which is due to expire in June. We are trying to find a vehicle, a must-pass piece of legislation, to keep the Bank afloat. I think it is very important to the American economy that American manufacturers not be disadvantaged. The Ex-Im Bank makes money for the American taxpayer. China's Ex-Im Bank is larger than France, Germany, the United States, and England's combined. What does this mean to the average person? When a product is made in the United States and sold into the developing world without the Ex-Im financing mechanism available to American manufacturers, we are going to lose market share to other countries like China, France, Germany that produce wide-body jets and other products. Eighty-nine percent of the people who get help from the Ex-Im Bank are small businesses. This is an attempt to show the investor community and those who are watching this issue that the Senate is in support of the Bank. So I am urging a ``no'' vote on tabling. We had to do this procedurally. So this will be a signal to the markets that the Senate is in support of the Bank. I urge everyone who believes the Bank is vital to American exports and not against unilateral surrendering of market share to the Chinese and other competitors to vote no. There will be another vote of our choosing on a vehicle that will have to get to the President's desk. This is not the last vote we will take on Ex-Im Bank. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Amari Williams, a student from Camden Middle School in South Carolina, and his essay titled What Does Freedom Mean to My Family? I ask that the essay be printed in the Record. The essay follows. What Does Freedom Mean to My Family? Freedom has many meanings. For my family, freedom is living without fear and restrictions. Being fearless gives courage to make decisions that are not liked by everyone, but will help everyone. With no boundaries, help can be given to the less fortunate, those in bondage, and those in need of some other assistance. Each day, my family practices freedom by living in a neighborhood where we can fellowship with others no matter what they look like, how they sound, or what they believe. My parents work to make a difference in the world for my sister and me. My sister and I are able to go to school and learn so that one day we can help change the world. Freedom allow my family to worship God, be thankful for life, seek medical attention that helped save my life, and to be kind and patient with others. My family understands that freedom does not come without a cost. Bravery is an important part of freedom. For freedom to be achieved, men and women put their lives and personal freedom at risk each day. Many of my family members have served in the military and fought for this freedom. Facing dangerous situations to help stop those who try to take away the freedom and liberty of others, make the freedom we have more special. As I have lived and began to learn more about freedom, I know that no matter what someone does to me, my family, or country, I can still have freedom in my heart. For my family, freedom starts from within and goes outward. No one can take our freedom away. Each day it is important to try and help others get that same freedom.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, it wasn't that stuff happens; it was that we had it wrong. The strategy we had in place up to 2006 was failing. And the way you know it was failing is that if you go there often enough--I remember the first trip we took in Iraq after Baghdad fell. We were in three SUVs. We went downtown, shopping, and met with some leaders. And every time we went thereafter, it was always a bit worse, to the point that we were inside of a tank, virtually, to go outside the wire. It was clear to anybody who was paying attention at all in Iraq that it was not working. I remember talking to a sergeant at one of the mess halls and asking: Sergeant, how is it going over here? And his answer was: Well, not very well. We just drive around getting our ass shot off. About 1 year later, maybe 2 years later, we went back to the same unit, to different sergeant, after the surge, and I asked another sergeant: How is it going? Sir, we are kicking their ass. So the bottom line here is that I think Senator McCain and I have been more right than wrong. But we were willing to tell our own President it wasn't working. He did make mistakes. We all have. It is not about the mistakes you make. It is how you correct your own mistakes. This President--President Obama, you are at a defining moment in your Presidency. If you do not change your strategy regarding ISIL in Iraq and Syria--because it is one and the same--then this country is very likely to get attacked in another 9/11 fashion. You need to listen to the people in the intelligence community and those who have been in the military in Iraq for a very long time. You are about to make a huge mistake if you don't change your strategy. I know Americans are war weary, but let me just say this to the American people. The current strategy is going to fail, and one of the consequences of failure is the likelihood of our country or our allies getting hit and hit hard. We don't have enough American forces in Iraq to change the tide of battle. We need American trainers, advisers, Special Forces units, and forward air controllers to make sure the Iraqi Army can win any engagement against ISIL. If we keep the configuration we have today, it is just going to result in more losses over time. Why do we need thousands of soldiers over there? To protect the millions of us here. And the only reason I would ever ask any soldier to go back overseas for any purpose is if I believed it was important to protect our homeland--and I do. So this strategy that we have in place is a complete failure inside of Syria, particularly, and it is not working inside of Iraq. We are on borrowed time, Senator McCain. President Obama, you need to listen to sound military advice. You need to build up the Iraqi military by having more of us on the ground to help them and turn the tide of battle before ISIL gets even stronger and they hit us here. If you don't adjust, the price that we are going to pay as a nation is, I believe, another attack on the homeland. So at the end of the day, you can blame Bush, you can blame Obama, you can blame me, and you can blame Senator McCain. We are where we are. And I am convinced, if we had left a residual force behind in Iraq, we would not be here today. President Bush, like every other leader in the world, had certain information--some of which proved to be faulty. He made his fair share of mistakes, but he adjusted. President Obama had good, sound advice in front of him to leave a residual force behind. He decided to go in a different direction. When they tell you at the White House that the Iraqis didn't want us to stay, that is a complete, absolute fabrication and a rewriting of history. President Obama, Vice President Biden got the answer they wanted. They made a campaign promise to end the war in Iraq. They fulfilled that promise, but what they have actually done is lost the war in Iraq. And the war in Iraq and what happens in Syria is directly tied to our own national security. I hope the President will seize this opportunity to come up with a new strategy that will protect the homeland and reset order. Radical Islam is running wild in the Middle East, and as it runs wild over there, as they rape and murder, plunder and kill and crucify, to think those people will not eventually harm us I think is naive. The only way we are going to stop ISIL and people like ISIL is to come up with a strategy that will allow us to win. The strategy we have in place today will ensure the existence of ISIL as far as the eye can see, the fracturing of Iraq and Syria, and one day will inevitably lead to an attack on this country. All of this is preventable with a new strategy.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I remember very vividly going to the White House after multiple visits to Iraq and telling President Bush: When your people tell you this is just a few dead-enders, and this is the result of bad reporting by our media, they are wrong.

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, we should understand that the direct threat of the homeland is growing by the day. If you want to be indifferent to what is going on in Iraq and say that people are dying all over the world and that is no reason for us to care or get involved, because we can't be everywhere all the time doing everything for everybody, I would suggest to you that ISIL in Syria and Iraq represents a growing threat to our homeland. But you don't have to believe me. Ask our intelligence community. Over 10,000 foreign fighters have gone into Syria in support of ISIL over the last few months. Their goal is to hit the American homeland, so this JV team is becoming an existential threat--maybe not existential, maybe that is an overstatement--a real threat to the American homeland. Ramadi is a big victory for them. It is a recruiting tool. They have been able to take on the Iraqi Army. They have been able to stand up to constant air assault by the American forces. They are surviving, and they are thriving. So if you want to stop the flow of foreign fighters into the arms of ISIL, you have to deliver stinging defeats on the battlefield. Not only are they stronger today in Iraq and Syria than they have been in quite a while, but they are expanding their influence to Libya, Afghanistan, and throughout the region. All I can tell you is their agenda includes three things--the purification of their religion, which means 3-year-old little girls are executed. Just hear what I said: They executed a 3-year-old little girl. They are enslaving women by the thousands as sex slaves under some twisted version of Islam. What they are doing to people we can't really talk about on the floor, because I think it would be just beyond our ability to comprehend. The second thing they want to do is to drive out all Western influence and create a caliphate where our allies have no place. The King of Jordan would be deposed. All the friends of the United States and people who live in peace with Israel, they fall. And then their place becomes the most radical Islamic regime known in the history of the world, which will destroy Israel if they can--purify their religion, destroy Israel, and come after us. President Obama, President Bush made mistakes. He adjusted, you have not. President Bush had a defining moment in his Presidency in 2006. The Iraq war was going very poorly. We had just gotten beaten on the Republican side, and the Iraq war was one of the reasons we lost at the ballot box.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, and I will wrap it up. To my colleagues who have been raising money off of this, you can raise all the money you want to, but you will have to debate your ideas against my ideas. You will not be able to shut this Bank down without a vote. If you feel that good about your position, let's have a vote on the floor of the Senate and on the floor of the House. The one thing we will not do is let the Bank die without a debate and a vote, and that debate and vote must come before June 30 because the damage will have been done. I will not sit on the sidelines and watch jobs in my State be lost because of some ideological crusade, the biggest beneficiaries of which would be China and our European competitors. If you really do care about China's effect in the world marketplace, shutting the Ex-Im Bank down in America and allowing China to keep theirs open is a deathblow to American manufacturers that sell in the developing world. With that, I yield the floor and look forward to a positive outcome so my colleagues can have their bill passed and have votes on amendments they care about and get the bill up and passed if the votes are there, as long as I get a chance, along with the Senator from Washington, to vote on what I care about and what I think is essential to the economy--and not just to South Carolina but to the manufacturing community that sells in the developing world. I yield back.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to echo what my colleague from Washington said. To those who negotiated this trade package, well done. I am going to vote for the Portman amendment because I think currency manipulation should be addressed more forcefully. If trade deals in the future are going to be like trade deals in the past, we need to look at what we are doing because some of the trade deals in the past have not worked out so well. On this currency issue, I want to vote. On the bank, I am telling my leadership the following: I have talked with you and talked with you. I have forgone taking votes on the Ex-Im Bank because I did not want to rock the boat on the budget and other things. I am tired of talking. You are not going to get my vote for cloture or anything else this year until I get a vote--we get a vote--on the Ex-Im Bank. There are over 60 votes in this body. To the chairman, whom I admire greatly, you mentioned China. Let me mention China. China makes wide-body jets. They are getting into the wide-body jets business big time. China makes about everything we make. Boeing makes 787s in South Carolina and Washington. GE makes gas turbines in Greenville, SC, mostly sold through Ex-Im financing to the developing world. If you are worried about China stepping in if we do not have this great trade deal, here is what I am worried about: If our Bank expires, then the market share we have today because we have competitive financing goes away, and the biggest beneficiary of closing down the Bank will be China. I am not going to subject American manufacturers to trying to sell their products overseas without ex-im financing while all their competitors have an ex-im bank. As a matter of fact, China's bank is bigger than the banks of the United States, France, England, and Germany combined. Airbus is a great airplane. France and Germany have an ex-im bank. An American manufacturer, when it comes to a wide-body aircraft or any other product trying to be sold overseas in the developing world--this Bank makes money for the taxpayers and makes them competitive. To all of those who really do believe in trade, the fact that you would let the Bank expire because of some ideological jihad on our side makes absolutely no sense to me. I will not be a part of that anymore. To the people who are trying to make this the scalp for conservatism, I think you lost your way. This Bank makes money for the taxpayers. This Bank doesn't lose money. This Bank allows American manufacturers who are doing business in the developing world to have a competitive foothold against their competitors in China and throughout Europe and have access to Ex-Im financing. All we are talking about is an American-made product sold in the developing world where they cannot get traditional financing. The Ex-Im Bank has been around for decades. Ronald Reagan was for the Ex-Im Bank. The Ex-Im Bank is directly responsible for helping to sell Boeing aircraft made in South Carolina. Seventy percent of the production in South Carolina is eligible for Ex-Im financing. There are thousands of small businesses which benefit from manufactured products sold in the developing world through Ex-Im financing. Would I like to live in a world where there were no ex-im banks? Sure, but the world I am not going to live in is where we shut our Ex- Im Bank down and China keeps theirs open. I am not doing that. That is not trade. That is just idiotic. That is unilateral surrender. Come to South Carolina and tell the people at Boeing and all of their suppliers--and go to the Greenville GE plant that hires thousands of South Carolinians and all of their small business suppliers--why it is a good idea for America to shut down a bank that makes money for the taxpayers that allows us to be competitive. Tell them how you think that is a good way to grow our economy. Tell those people who have good jobs in South Carolina--and who will surely lose market share because we closed our Bank down--how proud they should be of your ideological purity. I welcome this debate in South Carolina down the road. But I promised my leadership and friends on the other side that I am a reasonable guy. I vote for issues give-and-take, but the one thing I will not do is allow the Bank to expire without a vote. If my colleagues can beat me on the floor, that is fine. I am not asking anyone to vote for the Bank. I am asking them to allow me to vote for the Bank because it is critical to the economy in my State and I think the Nation as a whole. The only reason we are having this debate is because some outside groups have made this the conservative cause celebre--in my view, without any rational reason. I have no problem helping the chairman and ranking member move this bill because they talk about how it will make it harder on China to take market share in Asia. The only thing I ask of this body is to allow me and my colleagues who care about the Ex-Im Bank--it is a small piece of the puzzle that has a gigantic impact. It made over $3 billion for the American taxpayers. This Bank is essential for American manufacturers to be competitive in the developing world, and I will not let this Bank expire without a vote. I will not give market share to China or the Europeans. I will not do that. I am willing to work with my colleagues, but they have to be willing to work with me. And if they are not willing to honor their word that they have been giving me for the last 6 months, then they have nobody to blame but themselves. To the Senator from Washington, all we are asking for is a vote on the Ex-Im Bank--that has been around for decades, that Ronald Reagan said was a good idea and that has overwhelming bipartisan support-- before June 30 on a vehicle that must become law if we can pass that amendment. I ask the Senator from Washington, is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the pending business before the Senate. Of all the things we will do, probably in our political lifetime, I can't think of anything more important than getting the Iran nuclear ambitions right. I stand in two camps. I would love a good deal, and a bad deal would be a nightmare. What is a bad deal? A bad deal would be one that would result in a North Korean outcome, where you lock in a capacity in the hands of the Iranians to be monitored by the international community. And one day they break out, you wake up, and you have a bomb. A bad deal would be too much capacity in the hands of the Iranians. That would spook the Sunni Arabs who want to go buy a bomb of their own. I cannot tell you the consequences to the world and to our Nation if you have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. That is what a bad deal leads to. A good deal allows us to wind down a hotly contested dispute between Iran and the world over the last 20 years without firing a shot. A good deal would be allowing the Iranians a peaceful nuclear power program, what they claim they want, with no real capability in a year--or any time--to make a bomb. If all they want is a peaceful nuclear power program, I do not object. I do object to the capability to enrich the uranium in a fashion that one day they could break out, as North Korea did--because I don't trust the Iranians. So to Senator Cardin and to Senator Corker, you have navigated this very well. You have a Democratic President, who I think wants the deal way too badly, and we have a Congress who I think wants to have a say. We created the congressional sanctions, and we should have a say as to whether they are waived based on the deal and the quality of the deal that they may negotiate with the Iranians and the P5+1. Since we created the sanctions, I don't think it is unfair to this President or to any other President to say: You need our vote. You need a debate to occur before we will agree to do that. Now, is it a treaty? I don't think so. I would love it to be a treaty, but it is not. The one thing I don't want to do, in the process of dealing with a very dangerous situation in the Middle East, is to turn the rules upside down in the Senate because I like a particular outcome. Senator Johnson sincerely believes this is a treaty. I do not doubt his motivations at all. But I have come to conclude, right or wrong, that it doesn't meet the definition laid out by the Supreme Court and the precedents of the past. When we did a deal with North Korea, it wasn't a treaty. Maybe it should have been, but it wasn't. So I don't think we are going to change the rules just because we have a very dangerous moment in American history, in world history, and a President some of us don't trust or like. Condoleezza Rice says it is not a treaty. I don't think she would have said that if there had been any doubt in her mind. I have had discussions with other Republicans who have served in prior administrations, and they have come to the same conclusion. So we had a vote, which was a good thing, and the concept of it becoming a treaty was voted down. The debate was worthy of the Senate, and I applaud all those who were involved. There are aspects of amendments that are pending that I would embrace in a New York minute, but I believe that some of these amendments--no matter how much I support the concept--would break apart a bipartisan coalition that has taken a year to form. To Senator Cardin and Senator Corker, you have struck a balance that I think makes sense to me. A Democratic minority, I don't believe, is going to turn all the power regarding this deal surviving or being struck down to the Republican majority. If I were in your shoes, I would not do that. And to my colleagues who ask that the Democratic minority with a Democratic President cede the entire process to us, as Republicans, that is probably a bridge too far. I don't think a Republican President would like that outcome. I don't think a Republican minority would turn over to a Democratic majority the ability to act unilaterally on something of this consequence. So what have Senators Corker and Cardin been able to do? They have brought the bill to the floor without a filibuster, allowing the debate and, hopefully, more votes. To my Democratic colleagues, don't shut my Republican friends out. They all have a say, and I will vote with you against some of the amendments that I like but that I just think would break the deal apart. Let's get the Senate back in business in a reasonable fashion. What I would say is that the construct of this bill makes perfect sense to me. You need 60 votes to disapprove the deal. Sixty votes are required for any major action in the Senate. That has been the historical precedent of the Senate. So the Democrats are not asking us to do something that hasn't been around as a concept for a long time. What does it require? It requires the 54 Republicans, if we are together, to convince 6 Democrats that this is a bad deal. I think, if it truly is a bad deal, our Democratic colleagues--for the good of the Nation--and the consequences of a bad deal are understood by them--would join with us and say: This is not what we want, Mr. President; try harder. Rejecting a bad deal does not mean that we want to end diplomatic efforts. It means that we believe the deal in question falls short. To Senator Corker, you did a good job, because I don't think anybody in your shoes could have convinced the Democratic Party basically to deal themselves out. To Senator Cardin, you made it possible, along with Senator Menendez, for us to have this debate and create, I think, a standard of disapproval consistent with the traditions of the Senate. There may never be a deal, but if there is one, it has to come back here, and every American will get to hear the contents of the deal-- while some think it is good, and while others think it is bad--and you will not have to wonder what we are doing with regard to the Iranians. If the Republican Party cannot convince enough Members of the Democratic Party that it is a bad deal, then we will be disappointed, but that is democracy. Israel is very worried about the framework. The Sunni Arab States are very worried about the framework. It is not a final deal yet. Three things, I think, have to be there for me to be on board: anytime, anywhere inspections in Iran by international organizations of our choosing, including military facilities; no upfront signing bonus in terms of money until the Iranians comply with the initial phases of the deal, because they will take the cash and put it in their war machine; and whenever the inspection regime is supposed to terminate-- 10 years, 15 years or whatever date you pick--at that moment, the then- existing President, whoever he or she may be, has to certify that Iran is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism, because you would not want to end an inspection regime if they were still involved in state terrorist activity. So the two leaders on this bill, from my view, have crafted a very good piece of legislation. People dislike it for different reasons, which means it is probably the balance we need--and I can't think of a better way to do this. To those who think they have a better way, the only thing I can tell you is you better get some Democrats to agree with you. Because if you cannot, it is just all talk. What Bob Corker and Ben Cardin have been able to do is they have given the Senate a voice that we wouldn't have otherwise. They have given the American people a chance to understand the deal better than any opportunity I know of, and they have given us the power that every Member of the House and Senate should want in this regard, a chance to have a say and to be recorded in history. The outcome may not please you, but this is the best process I could think of, given the way the Senate works and the way democracy works, which means both parties are going to require a say in something this important. So, well done. I look forward to voting for this deal. Any amendment you want to bring to the floor, I will vote for it if I think it is a good amendment that will not deconstruct the deal or unravel the deal. I will vote against the amendment if I think it will break the deal apart, even though I am sympathetic to it, because my goal is to get this right, to make sure that any final deal with the Iranians is explained to the American people through the House and the Senate debate, and that can only happen if this bill becomes law. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am going to withdraw this amendment, but before I do, I will take a couple of minutes to explain what it would do and what awaits us. Most Members of the body don't understand, I think, that there are 160 programs which are exempt from sequestration. Our pay is exempt from sequestration, as is Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, food stamps, most all of Medicare, all of Medicaid, and the Veterans' Administration. The military, the intel community, and NIH have had devastating cuts, but we don't include our own pay. At the end of the day, how can we justify making sure we take care of the veterans, but we are putting those who are serving our country in the fight today at risk? So I will withdraw this amendment for now because I think we are about to get some reason regarding sequestration, but if we don't, I will have an amendment for each of the 160 programs, starting with our pay. We need to feel the pain we are inflicting on other people. I will withdraw this amendment for now, hoping we can fix sequestration, but if not, we need to take a look at the entire government and let others feel the pain, not just those who wear the uniform and are doing the work this country needs to have done. Amendment No. 763 Withdrawn With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as all of you know, the Knesset meets in Jerusalem. Every political party in Israel recognizes Jerusalem as their capital. Both political parties of the United States should do the same. That is where our Embassy should be.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, all I can say is it would be like telling a North Korean to speak up. That may be a bit of an extreme example, but not too much. The point we are trying to make to President Obama is that if he believes there is a moderate element in Iran, who are they? Who is in charge of this government he is trying to empower at the expense of the hardliners? The assembly of experts are the people who pick the next Ayatollah. On March 10, they had an election--I think it was 46 to 24. Ayatollah Yazdi--I don't want to mispronounce his name--won the election to be in charge of the assembly of experts. Their No. 1 goal is to pick the next Ayatollah. He is widely known to be the hardest of the hardliners. So I want the administration to explain to us, the Congress, who the moderates are and how do you square that circle with the election of the most hardline Ayatollah to pick the next Ayatollah? What information does the President have that there is a moderate element that we can empower in Iran? Can my colleague name one moderate voice that has a real say in the Iranian Government?

Mr. GRAHAM. Exactly. So the point we are trying to make to the President and the Members of this body is that Iran is on a rampage without a nuclear weapon. Clearly they are not a moderate regime trying to live peacefully with their neighbors. They are trying to disrupt the whole Mideast and have influence unlike at any other time. Here is what is going to happen. The Arabs in the region are going to push back. They no longer trust us. Remember when the head of the Saudi Arabian intelligence community said it is better to be America's enemy than her friend? We heard this twice in the Mideast on our recent tour--that people believe Iran is getting a better deal from America being her enemy than the traditional friends of this country. So here is what is going to happen. Turkey is going to align with the Sunni Arab world and go after Iran themselves, and we are going to have a Sunni-Shia war the likes of which we haven't seen in 1,000 years, because without American leadership the whole place is falling apart. Here is the legacy of Barack Obama. He tried to change the Mideast by giving speeches. And every time he was told by military leaders you should do A, he did B. He has reached out to the Ayatollahs, not understanding who he is talking to. He has empowered the most brutal, vicious, murderers on the planet today in Iran. This Ayatollah in Iran is not a good man. He has blood on his hands. The President is talking to the people who killed our soldiers by the hundreds. He is giving them resources they wouldn't have otherwise, and he is making a deal with the devil. At the end of the day, this is blowing up in our face. If the President doesn't self-correct, we are all in trouble. And if this Congress sits on the sidelines and allows this nuclear deal with Iran to go unchecked, and we don't look at it and vote on it, then we own the consequences of it. To every Member of this body I say: We have an independent duty, as does the President of the United States, to make sure the deal we do with Iran is a good deal for America and not a nightmare for the world. So we are asking our colleagues to take their independent duty seriously. We have a check-and-balance responsibility. Do not let this administration do a deal with the Ayatollahs in Iran who go to the United Nations and bypass us. If it is a good deal, we will vote for it. As strongly as I know how to say it, I am telling my colleagues that our policies in the Mideast are failing, Iran is the biggest winner of America leading from behind, all our traditional allies are in a world of hurt, and they are going to take matters in their own hands. I thank Senator McCain for his leadership and for telling America about the right choices, even though they are the hard choices. I will continue to work with my colleague as long as I can to speak truth to what I think is the biggest foreign policy disaster in my lifetime unfolding before our very eyes.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator.

Mr. GRAHAM. If I could give my best answer to that, No. 1--and my colleague from Arizona has been more right than wrong for the last 4 years about what was going to happen in the Mideast if we made the choices the President made--No. 1, my colleague said if we don't leave any troops behind in Iraq, all our gains will come unraveled. At the end of the day, the sectarian rise in violence was a direct result of, I think, American troops leaving Iraq. We had a good thing going after the surge. It did work. After drawing the redline against Assad and doing nothing about it, ISIL was able to fill in that vacuum. But here is the question: Given Iran's behavior today, what would they do with the extra money that would come into their coffers if sanctions were lifted? Let's say we got a nuclear deal tomorrow, and as a result of that deal sanctions would be lifted. Without a nuclear program, the Ayatollahs are wreaking havoc throughout the region. The pro-American government in Yemen has been taken down by Houthi militias funded by Iran. Assad in Syria has killed 220,000 of his own people and he is a puppet of Iran. John Kerry said that Assad was Iran's puppet. We have Lebanon, where Hezbollah is an agent of Iran that saved Assad and creating discontent all over the region. We have Shia militias on the ground in Iraq being led by the leader of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran. So here is the answer to my colleague's question. How could anybody believe the money we would give them for sanction relief would go to hospitals and schools? Don't you think the best evidence of what they would do with money is what they are doing today? The administration has never tied behavior to sanctions relief. So my big fear, Senator McCain, is that not only would the Arabs want a nuclear weapon of their own if we got a bad deal with Iran, but the money we gave the Iranians would go into their missile program to hit us, would go into further destabilizing the Middle East. Does my colleague agree that given Iran's behavior there is not one ounce of moderation in this regime? Does my colleague agree there are no moderates in charge of Iran; that when President Obama speaks to the Iranian people, urging them to argue for this deal, they have no voice; that the last time the Iranian people rose up to petition their government they got gunned down? Does my colleague agree with me that President Obama has no idea what is going on inside Iran and no understanding what this regime is up to with the money they already have?