Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I will be very quick. I will vote for the continuing resolution because I do not want to shut the government down. I agree with Senator McCain that this is not the right process, but we are where we are. I think the issue people are focusing on about the continuing resolution is the changing of the training of the Free Syrian Army from title 50, a covert program, to title 10, the Department of Defense, where it will be out in the open. The reason I support the appropriation and the change in title 10--I think this is a long-overdue effort on our part to build up Syrian forces that can confront both Assad and ISIL, enemies of the United States. To my colleagues who worry about the people we train and the arms we give falling into the wrong hands, I would say that there is nothing we can do in this area without some risk. But when you tell me there are no Syrians that you believe exist who would fight against Assad and ISIL, I do not believe you quite understand what is going on in Syria. I would say that the vast majority of Syrians have two things in common: They want to overthrow Assad and they want to get ISIL out of their country. ISIL is mostly non-Syrians. They came from the vacuum created by a lack of security. When Hezbollah and Russia doubled down to protect Assad, who was just about knocked out several years ago, the Free Syrian Army was abandoned by us and the rest of the world and ISIL was able to fill in that vacuum. These are foreign fighters. So to my colleagues who talk about how they worry, I worry too. I worry about doing nothing. I worry about finding an excuse not to do anything. It bothered me when Republicans embraced the position of President Obama just a few weeks ago that it was a fantasy to train the Syrians to fight for Syria. I do not think it is a fantasy to train Syrians to fight for Syria because they want to. This whole revolution against Assad was not to overthrow him and replace Assad with ISIL. The people who think the average Syrian wants to be dominated by ISIL instead of Assad, really, I do not think they appreciate what is going on in Syria. That is selling the Syrian people short. Having said that, the limitations of what the Free Syrian Army can do at this point are real, but training as many as possible makes sense to me. My goal is to keep the war over there so it does not come here. From an American point of view, I think it would be a huge mistake not to provide training and resources to those people in the region--in Syria--to do the fighting because we have common enemies. Those who say this is too risky, what is your alternative? If we do nothing, ISIL will continue to grow and the threat to our homeland will continue to increase. It is long past time to blunt the momentum of this vicious terrorist organization. A Free Syrian Army component makes perfect sense to me. Whatever risk is associated with that concept is well worth it at this point. When we talk about Iraq, I hope the Iraqi Government can reconstitute itself. Their military is in shambles. The Kurds are hanging on in the north with our help. But to dislodge ISIL from Iraq and take back Fallujah and Mosul and other cities, as General Dempsey indicated, would be a very difficult military endeavor. From my point of view, the last thing America wants to do is take ISIL on in Iraq and Syria and fail. If you do believe that it is about our homeland and that it is not just about the Mideast, allowing ISIL to defeat any force we throw at it makes them larger and more lethal over time. So the worst possible outcome is to form a coalition in Syria of Arab countries and they are defeated by ISIL because we do not provide them the capabilities they lack. President Obama's insistence of no boots on the ground is the Achilles' heel to his strategy. This is a military strategy, I believe, designed around political promises. This is not the military strategy you would create to destroy or devastate ISIL. President Bush made many mistakes in Iraq, but to his credit he changed the strategy in a fashion that allowed us to succeed. One thing I have learned over the past 13 years, you can have a lot of troops doing the wrong thing and it will not matter. When you leave no troops behind, that is a mistake. And if you have too few troops doing the right thing, it will not matter. The President is right about this. We don't need to reinvade Iraq or Syria. We don't need the 82nd Airborne to go in with 100,000 troops behind it, but we do need to provide capacity to the Iraqis and any future coalition to deal with Syria that is lacking in that part of the world. Like it or not the American military is second to none. The special forces capability we have can really be decisive in this fight. To every American, this is not only about them over there, this is about us here. The better and the sooner that ISIL is defeated, the more decisive ISIL is defeated, and the sooner that day comes about, the safer we are at home. I urge the President to not take options off the table. I am voting for this change in strategy regarding the Free Syrian Army because I think it is long overdue. When the President does the right thing, I want to be his partner. Mr. President, if you will come up with a strategy to destroy and defeat ISIL that makes sense, I will be your best ally and try to help you on this side of the aisle. This is a first step in the right direction, but when you play out this strategy, which you are trying to do, I think it will not work unless you embrace American assistance in a greater level to the Iraqi military and to any coalition you could create in Syria. The last thing I want this body to understand, this is the last best chance we will have to put ISIL back in a box so they can't wreak havoc in the Mideast and grow in strength. The stronger they are over there, the more endangered we are over here. It is in our interests to help our Arab allies and our Iraqi allies destroy ISIL. It is not just about those people over there. Lines of defenses in the war on terror make perfect sense to me. The best way to keep this fight off our shores is to engage the people who will help us carry the fight to the common enemy. ISIL is not only an enemy of Islam, it is an enemy of mankind, and failing to defeat these people will resonate here very quickly. We have a chance. Let's take advantage of it. There is nothing we can do in a war on terror without risk, but now we are fighting an Army, not an organization. If we defeat ISIS, the war is not over. This is a generational struggle. But if you do defeat ISIL, as a turning point in our favor--if they survive our best attempt to defeat them--God help us all. I yield back.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.

Mr. GRAHAM. I remember getting a phone call from then-Secretary Clinton asking me and Senator McCain and Senator Levin to go to Iraq and see if we could intervene and help the Iraqis make a decision about a residual force because we thought it was in our interest. President Obama has always looked at this issue as fulfilling a campaign promise. He got the answer he wanted, which was zero. The military told him we needed some people, but he really was intent on ending the war in Iraq. Here is the problem: Without a residual force, we have lost everything we fought for. When we met with Barzani, Allawi, and Malaki, I was convinced they were willing to accept an American follow- on force; we just had to put it on the table in a way that it mattered. When we were talking to Malaki, they said: Senator Graham, how many troops are we talking about? I turned to General Austin and our then-Ambassador Jeffrey and said: How many? He said: We are still working on that. We went from 18,000 recommended by General Austin--the last time I got a number from the White House, it was below 3,000. This cascading downward from 18,000 to below 3,000 was not because the Iraqis said it was too many; it was because the White House couldn't pick a number because they didn't want to stay. It is about as accurate to say the Iraqis didn't want us to stay as it is to say the President never called ISIS a JV team. The President did, but he is trying to rewrite that statement because it looks pretty naive. Look forward. Let's beat on the Republicans for a minute. The Republican Party--the party of Ronald Reagan--embraced sequestration. For those who don't know what I am talking about, it is a budget proposal that will gut our military over the next decade. We have the smallest Army since 1940, the smallest Navy since 1950, and the smallest Air Force in modern history. Republicans embraced that concept. If we want to defeat ISIL, we better change sequestration because we are about to gut the military at the time we need it most. There is plenty of blame to go around here. Here is the key for me: We as a nation have one last chance to get this right. I will make the same offer to President Obama that I made to President Bush: If you come up with a strategy that makes sense and you are understanding and learning from your mistakes, as I try to learn from mine, I will be there with you. There was not much help coming from our friends on the other side when Iraq was bad. Bush got absolutely no support when his mistakes came back to haunt him. I will not make that mistake. The mistakes President Obama has made are real, and they have to be corrected. If the President will correct them, I will stand with him no matter what the polls show about troops on the ground. And I know how the President stands with South Carolinians--not very well. It is not about the President; it is not about this Senator; it is about us. So on this September 11 anniversary, I make an offer to my Commander in Chief, Barack Obama: If you will destroy ISIL and mean it, you will have an ally in Senator McCain and Senator Graham. I yield.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. If I may, this is the anniversary of 9/11. Thirteen years ago on this date our country was attacked by radical Islamists who don't want your car, they don't want your bank account, they don't want your television. They are not criminals. They want to destroy your way of life. And the sooner we come to grips with the fact that there are people like this still out there, the better off we will be. It is hard for the average American to understand why people think this way. I can't explain it. I have been to the Mideast more times than I can count, and I promise you there are plenty of devout Muslims who worship according to the Muslim faith, the Islamic faith, who would have plenty of places for me and you to reside in this world without fear. There are plenty of people--the vast majority of people of that faith we could live with in peace. But there is a strain called radical Islam that would kill every moderate Muslim, kill every Christian, destroy the State of Israel, and would kill as many of us as they could if somebody doesn't stop them. Thirteen years ago close to 3,000 Americans were killed in the attacks on our country by the bin Laden group. The only reason it was close to 3,000 and not 3 million is because they couldn't get the weapons to kill 3 million of us. If they could, they would. So what do we do? We have to keep them away from those weapons. We have to keep the war over there so it doesn't come back here. And we need allies. I am here to tell you that contrary to what I hear in my own party, most people in Syria have two things in common: They don't like Assad and they sure don't like ISIL. If you don't believe that about Syria, you really don't know much about Syria. This whole enterprise in Syria started when people demanded to be free from the dictator. Our lack of attention in not responding to the needs of those Syrians who would have defeated Assad and lived in peace with us has cost us greatly. Three years ago Senator McCain said: It is in our national security interest to side with the Free Syrian Army to get rid of Assad because he is the guy who helped kill Americans during the Iraq war. He is the guy who is cozy with Iran. We had them on the ropes. The Free Syrian Army was about to beat Assad, and then in came 3,000 to 5,000 Hezbollah fighters--Iranian- inspired militia from Lebanon--and the Russians doubled down, we withdrew our support, and the army eventually collapsed. That happened simultaneously with a decision by President Obama--President Obama's decision to withdraw all of our troops from Iraq. We disengaged from Iraq. We had no presence there, and the rest is history. About the speech last night, what bothered me the most was the way it started. The President tried to tell us that as a nation we are safer today than we have ever been. Do you believe that? I don't. There are more terrorist organizations with more money, more capability, and more weapons to attack our homeland than existed before 9/11. We are not safer than we were before 9/11, and that is an unfortunate fact. The President also said this operation against ISIL will be like other CT--counterterrorism--operations over the last 5 or 6 years. No, it will not. This is not a small group of people running around with AK-47s; this is a full-blown army. They were going to defeat the Kurdish Peshmerga--a pretty tough fighting group--if we hadn't intervened. To underestimate how hard this will be will bite us. Mr. President, please square. Be honest with the American people about what we face. Somebody has to beat this army. This is not a small group of terrorists. They have howitzers, they have tanks, and they are flush with money. They are getting fighters from all over the world. But they can and will be defeated, and they must be defeated. To the family members who remember this as the day their lives were turned upside down, you will always be in my thoughts and prayers, like everybody else in the country. This is a day for most of us to remember with sadness, and it is a hurtful day, but if it were one of your family members who lost their life that day, it would be the day your life was turned upside down. There are four other Americans who died on September 11 whom I won't forget--Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Glen Doherty. They died 2 years ago in Benghazi. I am not going to forget them or their families, and we are going to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. That is my commitment to you. How do we move forward? Mr. President, if you need my blessing to destroy ISIL, you have it. If you need to follow them to the gates of hell, I will send you a note--go for it. If you need Congress to authorize your actions, let me know. You say you don't. I agree with you, but if it makes us stronger for this body to vote in support of your plan to destroy ISIL, I will give you my vote. But here is what I expect in return: your full commitment to me. I am tired of half measures. I am tired of misleading the American people about what we face. There is no way in hell we are going to beat these guys without an American ground component in Iraq and Syria. There is not a force in the Mideast that can take these guys on and win without substantial American help. We don't need the 82nd Airborne, but we are going to need thousands of troops over time on the ground holding the hands of the Arab armies that are going to do the fighting along with the Syrians to make sure we will win. One thing I can promise the American people: If we take ISIL on and lose, we will unlock the gates of hell, and hell will come our way. This is the last best chance to get this right, Mr. President. You made plenty of mistakes, and so have I, and so has Senator McCain. And Senator McCain, nobody is going to apologize to you. I think they should, but they are not. I am not looking for anybody to apologize. We have all made mistakes. This is the time to do some soul-searching as a nation. You and I can do some soul-searching. Those who have not seen the threat for what it is, all I ask of you is to be willing to embrace reality. All I am asking of President Obama is to do what President Bush did: Change your tactics and your strategy because it is not working. Senator McCain and I went to the White House during the Bush years, and we told President Bush: This is not a few dead-enders, Mr. President. It is not working in Iraq. You don't have enough troops. And if we don't change course, you are going to lose the country. To his credit, he went from training and advising the Iraqi Army to a full-blown counterinsurgency strategy, taking the fight to the enemy in the surge led by GEN David Petraeus, and it did work. That was an admission by President Bush that he had gotten it wrong and he had to change course. Every President and every Senator makes mistakes. History judges you not by the mistakes you make but by what you learn from them. Here is what I ask of the President: Quit caveating everything. Look the enemy in the eye and say, ``We will destroy you'' and stop. Look the American people in the eye and say, ``We have to win. We will win. And I will do what is necessary to win.'' Come to the Congress and say, ``We are in this together.'' The American military is tired, but they are not too tired to defend this country. If you had a bunch of them in front of you and you asked them to follow you--``Would you go to Iraq and Syria to fight ISIL?''-- they would say ``Send me tomorrow'' because they know what these people will do to the rest of us. Why do they serve over and over again? Why do they go to Iraq three and four times, Afghanistan three and four times? They have seen the enemy up close. They know what comes our way if we lose. So this is the day to reflect as a nation. I am so sorry that 13 years after 9/11 we are having to deal with greater threats than before 9/11. Fifty years from now, long after I am gone, there is going to be an American soldier somewhere in Africa or the Middle East helping indigenous populations fight radical Islam. But over time, just as sure as I am standing here, radical Islam will fall because--here is the truth--what they are selling, most people don't want to buy. They don't have the capacity yet by themselves to stand and stare these people down. As to Americans who are frustrated with the pace of democracy in the Mideast and who believe those people can't do this, all I ask you to do is to pick up an American history book. Within the first 100 years of our country, we were at war with Canada and Mexico. Within the first 100 years of our country, we were at war with ourselves, and it started in my State. This is not easy. It is not easy to this day. To expect people who have lived under brutal dictatorships and had their society divided and destroyed for decades to get to where we are in 12 or 13 years is unrealistic. Here is the hope for me. There is good news. There is plenty of will throughout the world to stand up to radical Islam. Our goal is to provide capacity to that will. Sometimes it will be with American soldiers; sometimes it will be clean drinking water; a small health care clinic that you wouldn't send your child to for 5 minutes that will save lives in Africa; a small schoolhouse where a young girl can get an education. If we are not willing to do these things over there, they will come here.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, one, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota, of the Joint Economic Committee, for making the case on why the Ex-Im Bank is a good government program essential to creating jobs in America from export sales. Boeing is in South Carolina; they are in Washington. Senator Cantwell has been a champion of this issue as long as I have been around. Now that Boeing is making 787s in South Carolina, I will just put this on the table: 8 out of 10 787s made in South Carolina are Ex-Im financed. We are competing in the wide-body market with countries such as France; China will be getting in this market. Every competitor of Boeing--GE makes gas turbines in Greenville. Most of those are sold in the Mideast through Ex-Im financing. Every competitor of these two large companies in South Carolina has an Ex-Im Bank. So to my colleagues in the House, I think I am a pretty conservative guy, but I am also practical. Why in the world would we shut our bank down when China is growing their bank? The Chinese would support closing the Ex-Im Bank in America; so would the French; so would the Canadians; so would the British. If you really want to give the American economy a kick in the wrong place, shut our bank down and allow the other countries that compete with us to keep theirs open. There is plenty of waste in the government. So we pick one program that is small in number, in terms of actual volume that makes money for the Treasury and creates hundreds of thousands of job opportunities. This is smart conservatism? This is what conservatism has come to be, that you take a program--that allows American companies to compete in the international market, that makes money for the American taxpayer-- and you shut it down just to prove to people you are ideologically pure? That is not conservatism. That is crazy, and we are not going to let it happen. To my Democratic friends, we should have reauthorized this a long time ago in a process befitting the Senate. There is well over half of my conference ready to vote for reforms on the Ex-Im Bank, but we are not doing anything in this body, and you are not going to pick our amendments. So there is plenty of blame to go around. I hope we are smart enough as a House and a Senate to get this right, not to shut down the Ex-Im Bank that makes money for the taxpayer, creates thousands of American jobs, for some ideological reason disconnected with reality. China would love this. France would love this. When it comes to my State, it would be devastating to the small businesses that benefit from Ex-Im financing. If you can close their banks down, count me in, we will close ours. But I will be damned if we are going to close ours when they have theirs up and running to put people out of work in my State and all over this country when you are talking about the best- paying jobs in America. I look forward to a further discussion on this topic.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time do we have?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I just want to be recognized for the 3 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the second issue I would like to talk about is my colleagues in the House are trying to find their way to pass legislation regarding the crisis on the border. They tried yesterday. They failed. They are back at it again. I thank Speaker Boehner, from the Republican point of view, for not leaving town until we have a solution in a Republican-controlled House. It has been hard to find. It is an emotional issue. It is a difficult issue on many levels. The human suffering of the children--everybody is moved by that, as we should be. But we cannot incentivize these three countries in question to keep sending their children here, putting their children at risk, and overrunning our systems. That is not the way to deal with our neighbor. So the House hopefully will pass legislation reforming the 2008 law that needs to be reformed to make children from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, that region subject to the same laws as if you came from Mexico, and they are putting money aside to deal with the deportation problem and the humanitarian crisis. If they can pass a solution to this problem, I am urging the majority leader of the Senate to bring us back in because we should not be gone for 5 weeks with something this important left unresolved. You may not agree with the House, but let's take up their proposal, amend it, vote on it, vote it up or vote it down, take the prior Democratic proposal, allow amendments to be had on both sides of the aisle, and see if we can find common ground on dealing with the border. The President at one time embraced changes in the 2008 law. That has to be done or we will never solve the problem. I do not mind spending money in a humanitarian fashion as long as we are spending money to solve the problem, not perpetuate it. So if the House can find its way in offering a solution to the border crisis, I am urging my Democratic colleagues who control this body to act. Let's not be gone for 5 weeks. Bring us all back. See if we can find a solution among ourselves in the Senate, talk to our colleagues in the House and solve the problem. It is within our power to do so. I know we can get there. I know there are at least five or six Democrats who understand throwing money at the problem without changing the 2008 law gets you nowhere. There are plenty of people on our side who understand a humanitarian crisis does exist. Let's marry these forces and see if we can come up with a bipartisan compromise in the Senate. The only way you can do that is to be allowed to offer amendments and debate. I cannot think of a problem more dramatic facing the Nation right now in terms of a crisis than what is happening on our border: 50,000 unaccompanied children, the spike in people coming from Central America after President Obama unilaterally gave amnesty to children already here. No matter how well intentioned, it has created the belief in that part of the world that if you make it to America you can stay. We want you to understand there is a legal way to get to America. Just do not show up on the doorstep and ask to be taken in. That is not a way for our Nation to have to deal with people wanting to come to this Nation. So I hope we will not be gone for 5 weeks with this problem unaddressed. If the House can get its act together and pass a solution to the problem, it would be incumbent, in my view, upon the Senate to reconvene, deal with the House proposal, come up with one of our own, and engage the House to solve this problem. Five weeks is a very long time to be away from a problem this important. As to the August break, contrary to what a lot of people may believe, we do not all go on vacation. We try to take some time for ourselves and our families. But it is a chance to go visit other parts of the world, to get informed on problems that can come here in terms of affecting our national security. Situations over there are going to come here if we do not deal with them responsibly. It is a chance to do things in your State. So people are very busy during August. They try to capture some time for themselves. But at the end of the day, 5 weeks is way too long to be absent from Washington as the crisis on the border gets worse. If the House can find a solution to this problem, I am urging the Democratic-controlled Senate to bring us back, take up their solution, vote it up, vote it down, bring back the Senate bill, allow it to be amended so we can find consensus. Consensus is there if we want to find it. I appreciate the Presiding Officer's voice on national security. The Presiding Officer has been a stalwart friend of Israel in trying to find a way forward regarding the problems the Ukrainian people face. I hope we can find a solution to our border crisis. But a final thought as to Israel: Today could be a very good day for the U.S.-Israel relationship. It started in the Senate. I hope my House colleagues will pass the Iron Dome legislation that we passed by unanimous consent today. The House needs to get this done so the President can sign this into law. To my colleagues in the House: Please take up Iron Dome. Let's get this right. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the time is blurred now. Yesterday, or early this morning, a very bad occurrence happened to the people of Israel. During a cease-fire which they agreed to, an Israeli unit apparently was attacked by a Hamas suicide bomber. After that attack there was a charge against the unit in question, and apparently a soldier has been kidnapped and taken to the tunnels. It is so appropriate that today, of all days, the Senate speaks in one voice. I cannot thank Senator Reid enough for making this happen. Senator McConnell has worked to make sure it got cleared on our side, and it finally has. They are running out of Iron Dome missiles to protect themselves. To whom do they turn? To us. Mr. President, $225 million is a lot of money, but it is a rounding error in the budget. It is not only the missiles that matter; it is the message that goes with the missiles: We are with you. Here are the missiles. Use them to defend yourself. We will stand with you on the battlefield. We will stand with you in the court of public opinion, and we are going to push back against the United Nations, which is becoming more and more anti- Israeli. As dysfunctional as the Congress has been, this is one of our finer moments. We are about to leave here soon with a lot of work undone, but let it be said that we did have the foresight and the ability and, quite frankly, the moral decency to end on a positive note. You can say a lot about this Congress--and much criticism is deserved--but here is what you cannot say: We left Israel in the lurch. In a bipartisan manner we were there when they needed us the most. To our friends in Israel: Stay as long as you need to stay. Do whatever you need to do. To our friends in Palestine: We grieve when children are killed. There is no more innocent person on the planet than a child. To the Palestinian people: Reject Hamas and seek peace. We are not your enemy. We stand to help you, but you have to reject a terrorist organization that has the coldest and darkest of hearts, that would kill every Israeli child and put your children at risk. Reject this hateful ideology while you still can. To our friends in Israel: There is more to come when it comes to standing by your side. I thank both leaders of the Senate for rising to the occasion.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I intend to speak on a couple matters in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, a couple things. This is a very dark day for our friends in Israel. Apparently, earlier this morning, about an hour and a half after the agreed-upon cease-fire, an Israeli column of soldiers who were trying to decommission a terrorist tunnel, consistent with the terms of the cease-fire, were attacked by a suicide bomber that resulted in some Israeli casualties. That column also was hit by antitank missiles, and a group of Palestinian Hamas fighters engaged the column, resulting in the capture of one Israeli soldier. For lack of a better way of explaining this, there was a cease-fire. Israel was acting consistent with the terms of the cease-fire, and this was a planned military operation to take advantage of the cease-fire. In the law of war this would be a great breach. At the end of the day Israel is a victim of a group of people called Hamas that lie, cheat, have everything in their being that most of us should condemn. So what has the Senate done? This could be a very good day for the U.S.-Israeli relationship. To my Democratic and Republican colleagues in the Senate, you have risen to the occasion. I thank the majority leader Senator Reid and the minority leader Senator McConnell for bringing up Iron Dome funding. I thank all of my colleagues for allowing the funding to go forward. Senator Coburn was trying to find an offset. He is being consistent in trying to bring our fiscal house in order. He is a very principled man, but he understood the urgency of the matter in Israel and withdrew his objection last night. To our friends in Israel, the Senate has acted in a unanimous fashion, bipartisan in nature, to appropriate $225 million to resupply the missiles that you need to defend yourself under the Iron Dome Program. With the missiles comes a message. The message is we are with you. Take as long us you need. Go where you need to go to deal with this terrorist threat called Hamas. To the Palestinian people, we are not your enemy. We hope one day you will reject Hamas and try to find a peaceful solution to your problems with your Israeli neighbors, and we stand ready to help in that regard. The Palestinian Authority and Israel have a good working relationship when it comes to the West Bank. Hamas has been in charge of Gaza for several years now, and this cycle of violence repeats itself. You will have a cease-fire. You will have a lull in the violence. One year later you will fight Hamas again. They have fired over 15,000 rockets into Israel. In 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza, giving land for peace. The land was given, the peace has been unattainable. So the real root of the problem is Hamas. There is no moral equivalency here. Hamas is trying to kill every Israeli possible. They are firing missiles by the thousands indiscriminately into Israel. They could care less where they land. Thank God for the Iron Dome. The most heinous of all is they have put their own people in harm's way as human shields. As Israel tries to tell people to withdraw from an area because it is coming under attack, Hamas says: Ignore the leaflets. You go to that area. There is a video where a hospital was occupied by Hamas fighters. Israel gave 2 days' notice to evacuate the hospital. When the hospital was destroyed militarily because it became a command center for Hamas, secondary explosions went on for quite a while. It was also an ammo dump. So Hamas uses mosques, hospitals, apartment complexes. We found two instances of Hamas rockets being stored in U.N. schools. They are violating every known tenet of the law of war. They are using their own people as human shields in an unprecedented strategic manner. As to the United Nations, you are about to run afoul of the Congress. The Human Rights Commission issued a resolution that had one sentence condemning the attacks on Israeli civilians. It never mentioned the word ``Hamas.'' It basically accused Israel of being a war criminal. It passed 27 to 1. We were the lone vote objecting to the resolution, which was so out of sync with reality, and several major nations abstained. The United Nations is becoming more anti-Israeli as I speak. Anti- Semitism is spreading throughout the world, but let it be said that the Senate in a bipartisan fashion will have no part of this. The United Nations is a force that could be used for the good or it could be a force to make problems worse. I consider myself, as a Republican, an internationalist. I believe in foreign assistance. I believe in helping people. I believe in leading the world, not having the world run us over. Ronald Reagan is a great role model from my point of view. He said: America makes history. That is our destiny. We shape history; we are not overrun by it. That does not mean we have to become the world's policeman or act as the Lone Ranger. It does mean we have to stay involved in the world. That is my point of view. But it is very hard to maintain that point of view when the United Nations, I believe, is being hijacked in such a fashion. To the United Nations leadership: You are about to run afoul of the Congress, who wants to be part of the body that wants to shape the world for the better. By your constant condemning of Israel in a disproportionate manner to what is going on, on the ground in Gaza, beware of where you are taking this. To the Human Rights Commission: You have become a joke in the eyes of Congress. The second thing I hope we can do is pass a resolution that was authored by myself and Senator Menendez this morning. It is cleared on the Republican side. I think we are about there on the Democratic side. So what have we done? Tactically, the Senate has acted in a fashion to resupply missiles to the Iron Dome Program that is literally under siege. Strategically, we have a partnership agreement pending before the Senate that reaffirms our relationship for years to come as a signal to Israel: Strategically, we will be your partner as far as the eye can see. So that is pending before the Senate, and I hope we can clear it today. Today, of all days, would be a great time for us to make decisions that reinforce the military capability of the Israelis to defend themselves, recommit ourselves to a strategic partnership. And the third thing we could do is lend our moral voices as a nation by condemning the attack of Hamas against the Israeli defense forces and the capturing of a soldier. This resolution thoroughly points out the cease-fire breach by Hamas, the preplanned attack on the Israeli column during the cease-fire, the capturing of a soldier. We are condemning this activity as a breach of international law, and we are urging that Hamas return the IDF soldier. This resolution would give the moral voice of our Nation and the Senate to the cause Israel faces. So if we could, in a dysfunctional Congress--and we deserve a lot of criticism, both parties are to blame--but if we could end the day speaking as one on something that is very important, the survival of our friends in Israel--not being anti- Palestinian but being pro-Israel and pro-peace and being anti-Hamas--I just wish and hope and pray the Palestinian people will reject Hamas and turn in a new direction because in that direction you will find peace and you will find America as a partner. So let it be said the Senate, in the most turbulent political times, found its way when it came to supporting our friends in Israel by appropriating money to help their military which is under siege, by passing a strategic partnership agreement that reaffirms the relationship, and by lending our voice to what happened today in condemning, in no uncertain terms, the vicious attack and the breach of the cease-fire by Hamas. If we could do those three things today, it would be the right message, it would send the right message at the right time, and it would solidify this relationship that is so important because the enemies of Israel are our enemies also. Radical Islam has the same desire to kill us and destroy our way of life as they do Israel. At the end of the day we have to understand our fates are tied together.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely. With that, I will turn over the debate to my good friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte, who has been one of the leaders on our side on foreign policy and is a steadfast ally of our friends in Israel.

Mr. GRAHAM. Sad but true.

Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.

Mr. GRAHAM. Senator McConnell is dead on point--land for peace. Give the Palestinians land and in return Israel gets peace. They gave the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, and what have they gotten in return? They got 2,500 rockets in the last 3 weeks and terrorist tunnels. The idea that leaving an area will lead to peace in the Middle East with the Palestinians has not borne fruit. What to do? No. 1, pass more appropriations for Iron Dome because it is the right and smart thing to do. No. 2, pass a resolution saying we oppose any cease-fire that does not allow Israel to get to the heart of the problem when it comes to terrorist tunnels and dealing with the rocket threat against their country. No. 3, push back against the United Nations that has lost its moral way. The Human Rights Commission--which is a subcommittee, for lack of a better term, of the United Nations--passed a resolution 27 to 1 about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza, and I will read the first paragraph: Deploring the massive Israeli military operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, since 13 June 2014 that have involved disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks and resulted in grave violations of the human rights of the Palestinian civilian population, including through the most recent Israeli military assault on the occupied Gaza Strip, the latest in a series of military aggressions by Israel, and through actions of mass closures, mass arrests and the killing of civilians in the occupied West Bank. This resolution is 1,600-and-something words, and it has a half sentence about rockets against Israel and nothing about the tunnels and never mentions Hamas. The third thing I would like this body to do, through a letter of resolution, is let the United Nations know we condemn this one-sided view of the conflict and that we find the Human Rights Commission report objectionable and, quite frankly, immoral. The vote was 27 to 1, and we were the only nation that objected to this resolution, which I think should make every decent person in the world feel the shame of the United Nations. I thank our leader on the Republican side for creating this opportunity and allowing us to speak on this issue, and I thank him for his longstanding support for the State of Israel. I close with this thought: In times of trouble, try to do the right thing and the smart thing, and they both come together on this issue. The right thing to do is to stand by your friends in Israel; the smart thing to do is to stand by your friends in Israel. The right thing and the smart thing to do is to oppose Hamas, which has a wicked heart, and allow Israel, once and for all, to fix this problem by demilitarizing Gaza and dealing with the tunnels and the rockets. As Senator McConnell said, Israel has tried cease-fires time and time again without dealing with the military threat they face. Not this time. When Israel says never again, they are referring to the Holocaust. America needs to stand with Israel and Israel should say to Hamas: Never again will we allow a cease-fire that allows you to dig tunnels under our borders to kidnap and kill our citizens, and never again will we allow you to rearm and rain holy terror on our people through thousands of rockets being fired at innocent civilians. Now is the time for the Senate to say with Israel, never again.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I return the compliment to Senator McConnell from Kentucky, the Republican leader. I have been here now since 2002. There is no better friend of the State of Israel than Mitch McConnell. He is the former chairman and ranking member of the foreign ops subcommittee on appropriations that deals with aid to the world--particularly Israel--and it was his idea to come to the floor today and have voices speak in support of Israel at a time when they need friends. Friends are great to have. They are wonderful in good times. They are a necessity in bad times. Israel is going through some pretty bad times and so are the Palestinian people. I wish to clearly make myself known. I have nothing against the legitimate hopes and aspirations of the Palestinian people to have their own country, to live in peace and prosperity by Israel. But they have to want it more than I do. The Palestinian people are suffering. Children are being killed, and the most innocent people on the planet are children. It breaks all of our hearts to see them as a casualty of war. But now is the time to be clear-eyed and focused as to what the problem really is. The problem is very simple in many ways. Hamas is a terrorist organization in the eyes of the U.S. Government. Hamas should be a terrorist organization in the eyes of any decent person in the world. What did they do? They have as their goal not a two-state solution but a one-state solution--the complete and utter destruction of the State of Israel. If you don't believe me, just check out their own charter. They have as their tactics using their own people and children as human shields to win a propaganda war. When Israeli children are killed, it breaks Israel's heart. When Palestinian children are killed, it breaks the heart of all decent Palestinians, but Hamas sees it as a victory. They literally try to put women and children in harm's way to marginalize the ability of Israel to defend itself against two things. The tunnels are something new in this fight. Forty-one tunnels have been discovered that go from the Gaza Strip--some into Israel itself-- and yesterday five Israeli soldiers were killed by an attack that came from Hamas fighters that penetrated Israel through the tunnels. So Senator McConnell is not only speaking for Republicans when he says the Senate stands firmly behind Israel's right to destroy the terrorist tunnels, but I think that is the body's view and Democrats' as well. There is a resolution that is bipartisan in nature before the body, and I hope we can pass it before Thursday. In the resolved clause, it says the Senate opposes any efforts to impose a cease-fire that does not allow the Government of Israel to protect its citizens from threats posed by Hamas rockets and tunnels. That, I believe, is the view of the Senate in a bipartisan fashion. Today, Republicans take the floor to clearly state where we stand in this conflict. We stand with Israel's right to defend itself against a terrorist organization called Hamas. We stand with the Palestinian people's legitimate aspirations to have a better life. But until that day comes, we are going to be firmly in the Israeli camp to defend themselves, because what would we do as a nation if a neighboring nation dug tunnels under our border for the express purpose of kidnapping and killing our citizens. What would America do if one rocket coming from a neighboring nation fired indiscriminately to kill American citizens? We would respond in the most aggressive fashion, and we would have every right to do so. As the minority leader stated, there is no moral equivalency. Israel tells you they are going to attack. Israel calls before the attack. Israel gives notice about an impending attack. Hamas secretly fires rockets, caring less where they land. Their hope is that it hits a kindergarten. That is their desire. And the only reason they have not been successful is because of the Iron Dome program that has been a collaboration between the United States and Israel for many years. There has been discussion about appropriating additional dollars for Iron Dome. That discussion needs to turn into a reality. We don't need to marry it with controversial topics. Israel is under siege. We are the best friend of the State of Israel. They need this assistance. Every Republican stands ready to work with every Democrat to pass--in the next 5 minutes--additional money for the Iron Dome program. In tough times, what is the smart thing and right thing for America to do? The smart thing for America to do is pursue a lasting peace, a peace with meaning, and not repeat the mistakes of the past. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Israel is beyond that moment. America needs to stand by Israel's legitimate right to get to the heart of the problem and not face this threat 6 months or 1 year from now. The one thing I can tell you that is not a smart thing to do is to give Hamas a bunch of concrete. They are not going to build schools with it; they build tunnels. All the aid the international community has been providing to the Gaza Strip, through the hands of Hamas, has not gone into building hospitals, schools, and the economic improvement of the lives of Palestinians but to create tunnels of war. The tunnels are weapons of war. The thousands and thousands of tons of concrete and iron that have been misappropriated to build these tunnels came from people with a good heart. How long does it take the international community to wake up to the fact that Hamas has a bad heart--an evil, wicked heart. They could care less about their own people. They want to destroy Israel.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I would say that if there was a group of people in the world to be suspicious of, I would put Iran very close to the top of that list. The international intelligence community believes they have tried to militarize their nuclear program in the past. Senator Rubio made a good point. They deny this, but before you go forward, you would want to answer that question: Were they engaged in militarization of what was claimed to be a peaceful nuclear power program? Second, why would you go through all of this upheaval, build a nuclear powerplant secretly at the bottom of a mountain, if all you wanted to do was have peaceful nuclear power? None of this really adds up. Why do you need an ICBM if all you want to do is produce peaceful nuclear power? Having said that, suspicion is warranted here. But more than anything else, the final deal that may be reached should come to this body because I would suggest that of all the problems in the world today, this is the top of the list for me. If they did break out as did North Korea, if a bad deal turned into a dangerous deal just as with North Korea, Sunni Arabs would respond in kind and we are on the road to Armageddon. I cannot think of a much worse scenario for our national security than the ayatollahs with nukes. I cannot think of a much more direct threat to the survival of the State of Israel than ayatollahs in Iran with nukes. I can't believe the Sunni Arabs would allow the Shia Persians to have a nuclear capability unanswered.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator very much. Senators McCain, Rubio, and Corker on the Foreign Relations Committee, all have I think revived the committee, along with Senator Menendez. The committee is probably the most effective it has been in a very long time. The committee is doing a lot of work in a bipartisan fashion. I hope one day this becomes a bipartisan piece of legislation. But credit to the three of you all for coming up with this idea. I am glad to be part of it. I wish to hear from Senator Rubio about his view of why this legislation is necessary.

Mr. GRAHAM. The answer, unequivocally to me would be yes, assuming one thing: that those of us in this body would handle this in a mature fashion, assuming that Republicans would not vote no because this is the Obama deal and Democrats would not be tempted to vote yes because their President did this, a Democratic President. I have confidence in the body that they would not do that. Let me tell you why. There are a lot of treaties out there that affect our national security. I can't think of an event in my life that is going to affect our national security one way or the other greater than the Iranian nuclear deal that I think is coming. If a Republican scuttled the deal that was good, you would have a very unique place in history because you would have done a disservice to our country and the world at large. Is it possible to know that it is a good deal? Yes, because the Israelis would comment on it. The Sunni Arab world would comment on it. If it is truly a deal unlike North Korea, which led to a bad outcome, I think you would have a score of people, including me, that would acknowledge that the President did the world a great service. If it is a bad deal, if Senator Rubio is right that they want to check the box and get a deal for the sake of getting a deal, I hope my Democratic colleagues would stand and say: This will come back to bite us as a nation. I have confidence the body can do this because I can't think of anything more serious we will vote on other than going to war.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. The answer, unequivocally to me would be yes, assuming one thing: that those of us in this body would handle this in a mature fashion, assuming that Republicans would not vote no because this is the Obama deal and Democrats would not be tempted to vote yes because their President did this, a Democratic President. I have confidence in the body that they would not do that. Let me tell you why. There are a lot of treaties out there that affect our national security. I can't think of an event in my life that is going to affect our national security one way or the other greater than the Iranian nuclear deal that I think is coming. If a Republican scuttled the deal that was good, you would have a very unique place in history because you would have done a disservice to our country and the world at large. Is it possible to know that it is a good deal? Yes, because the Israelis would comment on it. The Sunni Arab world would comment on it. If it is truly a deal unlike North Korea, which led to a bad outcome, I think you would have a score of people, including me, that would acknowledge that the President did the world a great service. If it is a bad deal, if Senator Rubio is right that they want to check the box and get a deal for the sake of getting a deal, I hope my Democratic colleagues would stand and say: This will come back to bite us as a nation. I have confidence the body can do this because I can't think of anything more serious we will vote on other than going to war.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator very much. Senators McCain, Rubio, and Corker on the Foreign Relations Committee, all have I think revived the committee, along with Senator Menendez. The committee is probably the most effective it has been in a very long time. The committee is doing a lot of work in a bipartisan fashion. I hope one day this becomes a bipartisan piece of legislation. But credit to the three of you all for coming up with this idea. I am glad to be part of it. I wish to hear from Senator Rubio about his view of why this legislation is necessary.

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I would say that if there was a group of people in the world to be suspicious of, I would put Iran very close to the top of that list. The international intelligence community believes they have tried to militarize their nuclear program in the past. Senator Rubio made a good point. They deny this, but before you go forward, you would want to answer that question: Were they engaged in militarization of what was claimed to be a peaceful nuclear power program? Second, why would you go through all of this upheaval, build a nuclear powerplant secretly at the bottom of a mountain, if all you wanted to do was have peaceful nuclear power? None of this really adds up. Why do you need an ICBM if all you want to do is produce peaceful nuclear power? Having said that, suspicion is warranted here. But more than anything else, the final deal that may be reached should come to this body because I would suggest that of all the problems in the world today, this is the top of the list for me. If they did break out as did North Korea, if a bad deal turned into a dangerous deal just as with North Korea, Sunni Arabs would respond in kind and we are on the road to Armageddon. I cannot think of a much worse scenario for our national security than the ayatollahs with nukes. I cannot think of a much more direct threat to the survival of the State of Israel than ayatollahs in Iran with nukes. I can't believe the Sunni Arabs would allow the Shia Persians to have a nuclear capability unanswered.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I withdraw my request.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the fact that I believe the body has come to agreement on my resolution, along with Senator Menendez, standing behind Israel in its conflict with Hamas. As I speak, apparently there is a ground action going on by the Israelis in Gaza. From my point of view, do what you have to do to defend yourself. I can't believe they have actually waited this long. I can't imagine what the American response would have been. If one rocket had come from our neighboring nations toward our country, we would not be so restrained. A two-state solution seems to be a very reasonable approach. The problem is, as the Presiding Officer knows, Hamas doesn't recognize Israel as an entity. It is pretty hard to negotiate with somebody who doesn't recognize you exist and tells their schoolchildren you don't exist. The hatred that comes from Hamas in their schools toward Israel is not conducive to peace. The resolution passed unanimously by the Senate the very night Israel decided to use ground force I think is appropriate and very symbolic. The Senate does not see a moral equivalency. As Prime Minister Netanyahu said: Israel uses missiles, in collaboration with the United States, to produce the technology called Iron Dome to defend civilians. Hamas uses civilians to cover their missile program, making human shields of their own people. That says all we need to know. So I am pleased that in a bipartisan fashion, unanimous in nature, the U.S. Senate is on record supporting the State of Israel in this conflict, understanding their justification for defending themselves and that there is no moral equivalency here. To my Israeli friends and allies, we wish you well. I expect that you will continue to defend yourselves against a terrorist organization. To the Palestinians who have formed a unity government, you need to break away from Hamas. There will never be peace until you marginalize the terrorist organization called Hamas, until you reject what they stand for and the way they have behaved. Finally, to those who wish for Israel to give up land and withdraw from territories, please remember, that is exactly what Israel did in Gaza. They withdrew all their forces, and what have they gotten in return? Tens of thousands of rockets. So to those who are pushing a peace plan in the Middle East between the Palestinians and the Israelis, I hope you remember security for Israel has to be the centerpiece of any peace deal. How can you obtain peace when one of the members of the Palestinian Government--Hamas--has fired thousands of rockets, caring less where they fall? They couldn't care less if it falls on a kindergarten or a military base. They just care to kill Israelis. Israelis have killed civilians, but they go the extra mile in time of war and conflict to minimize casualties. They tell them: We are going to bomb you. They pass out leaflets. They tell people to leave. That says a lot about the Israelis. So the Senate is in Israel's camp in a bipartisan fashion. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.