Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. My point is, does my colleague agree he is right? It is not acceptable for our national security interests for ISIS to have a safe haven in Syria and Iraq that could run from Aleppo to Baghdad; that that is not a good thing for us?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Senator McCain was on the floor, and I am sorry I missed him. I was in a briefing. To the American people, the situation in Iraq is dire. Syria has become a launching pad for attacks against the Iraqi people. The ISIS--we don't know who these people are, but we are going to get to know them--are Islamic jihadists based in Syria and Iraq. They are an army, and they are not a bunch of hoodlums. They have a very specific game plan. They want to create an Islamic caliphate and basically dominate Iraq and Syria. Some want to go to Lebanon and want to create an Islamic state that will be ruled under the most extreme version of Islamic law one could imagine--hell on earth for women, not good for us, the end of modern thought in that part of the world. The people of Iraq and Syria are not by their nature radical Islamists. The people who are beginning to win the day on the battlefield come from all over, and they truly are radical Islamists who would put the world in darkness if they could. The next 9/11 is in the making as I speak. These people are using Syria and now Iraq as a training ground for international jihad. There are European jihadists and American jihadists over in the Syria as I speak. Over 2 weeks ago, the largest truck bomb explosion by a suicide bomber in Syria was by an American citizen. And, I hate to say it, but there are more over there today. The question for the United States is: Does it really matter if the ISIS dominates Syria and Iraq or any part thereof? I think it does. I think it is a very bad scenario for us. I think it directly impacts our security here at home, and it will throw the region into chaos. It is clear to me, after the briefing, there is no scenario by which the Iraqi Security Forces can stop the advancement of this group toward Baghdad. I don't think they go much beyond Baghdad, because then they get into the Shia areas of Iraq. That would be one hell of a fight. But Mosul has fallen, Tikrit has fallen, Fallujah has fallen. Now they are marching to Baghdad. Unless something changes, they will be successful. They are sending the military equipment they are seizing into Syria to help their cause there. This is a very dangerous situation. I urge President Obama to go on national television, explain what is going on in Iraq and Syria, and make the case to the American people why we should stay out or why we should do something. I think American air power is the only hope to change the battlefield equation in Iraq. I know no American wants to set boots on the ground, and I don't feel that is a solution worthy of consideration at this point. But I have been told by our military commanders the Iraqi army is in shambles, and without some kind of intervention, Baghdad is definitely in jeopardy, most of the Sunni areas of Iraq will be run by ISIS, and they will join forces with their colleagues over in Syria. I worry about the King of Jordan. I worry about Lebanon being next. God knows, if we lose the King of Jordan, the last moderate force in the Middle East surrounding Israel, what a calamity that would be. I end with this thought. I remember discussing Iraq with President Bush as if it was yesterday. I went over on numerous occasions with Senator McCain early on after the fall of Baghdad and every trip it was worse. I remember the Bush administration telling us: These are just a few dead-enders. Everything is fine. The media is hyping all the problems because they don't like President Bush. The soldiers on the ground were telling us: I am driving around every day. I don't know why I am driving around, but I am getting my ass shot off--pardon my French here--without purpose. I remember sitting down with President Bush, his administration and his team, and Senator McCain, and we candidly told President Bush: If you don't adjust your strategy, if you don't reinforce Iraq, we are going to lose. To his credit, he did, and the surge actually worked. We left Iraq in a very good spot. The security forces had won the day. We had driven out Al Qaeda. Politics was beginning to take over. Violence had been reduced tremendously. The surge worked. Our military did their job, fighting alongside their Iraqi counterparts. But the decision to withdraw from Iraq created a crisis of confidence, a capability crisis. When there is a vacuum in the Middle East, people go back to their corners--and that is exactly what has happened in Iraq with the lack of an American presence. Here is what is so heartbreaking. Some 10,000 or 15,000 U.S. soldiers strategically placed would have held this together and politics would have taken over. But it is hard to do political agreements when you are subject to being killed by people on the other side. You need a certain level of security to advance society. That security has completely been lost in Iraq, and Syria is a contagion for the entire region. Our indecision and indecisive action in Syria--it was bipartisan, by the way. Plenty of Republicans said: Stay out of Syria; it is none of our concern. What Senator McCain and I have been worried about in Syria for about 3 or 4 years is that Iran and Russia were behind Assad. It is not in our interest for Iranians to be in Syria because it is very hard to get them to abandon their nuclear program if they think we are weak in Syria, and it is in our national security interest for Syria not to become an Islamic state. About 3 years ago there were 500 foreign fighters. Today there are 26,000. So to those Republicans and Democrats who said stay out of Syria, don't use airstrikes or air power, I am sad to say that I think you were wrong. I think Syria has become an absolute breeding ground for radical Islamists, and the next attack against our country could very well originate from the people who are fighting in Syria today. And I have never been more worried about another 9/11 than I am right now. So, Mr. President, if you are willing to adjust your policies, we will sit down with you. If you are willing to sit down with your generals and get some good, sound military advice, we will stand with you because what happens in Iraq and Syria does matter. I don't think we need boots on the ground. I don't think that is an option for consideration. But if our military leaders say that we need to stop ISIS because it is in our national security interests through the use of our air power, count me in if that is what our generals say. I will stand with you, Mr. President, if you correct your policies. If you continue to be delusional about the world, I will be your worst critic. With that, I yield back.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to speak until 11:30.

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 be recognized for 10 minutes to 15 minutes, as if in morning business.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Senator Scott and I would ask the membership to vote aye for Bruce Howe Hendricks. She is a former U.S. magistrate. She is a former U.S. attorney from the State of South Carolina. She has received numerous awards for a scholarship. She is well respected by both Republicans and Democrats. She has a rich judicial background and will be a great choice to assume the Federal bench in South Carolina, and she was rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the ABA. I strongly support her nomination. I yield back the remainder of our time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Am I into the Senator's time? If the Senator is next, may I have 1 minute? To be continued--I can't do this justice in 15 minutes, but this is what I am suggesting. If it is true that the Secretary of State could not go on television and talk about the consulate under her control and tell us about how four Americans died at that consulate--the first ambassador in 33 years--because she had a grueling week--if that is true--and I don't believe it is, but if it is--then we need to know because that will matter to the country as we go forth. If it is not true, why would Susan Rice say it? To be continued--there is so much about this incident called ``Benghazi'' that we don't know and that makes no sense to me that I am not going to give up until I can tell the families what I believe to be the truth. And what I have been told is nowhere near the truth. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask for 5 minutes more if I could.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the state of play in Benghazi. Senator Boxer came on the floor this morning and talked about the investigations and all the things that have been done to find out about what happened in Benghazi. No. 1, to those serving in Libya today, you are definitely in our thoughts and prayers. My advice to the administration is get those folks out as quickly as you can, because this thing is going downhill very quickly in Libya. So let's not have another Benghazi on our hands. I feel as though the security environment in Libya is deteriorating as I speak. Let me, if I can, set the stage for my concern. One, I think most people on this side of the aisle, rightly or wrongly, believe that if the names were changed, this whole attitude toward finding out what happened in Benghazi would be different; if it had been the Bush administration, Condoleezza Rice, not Susan Rice, that we would be on fire as a nation to find out how the President could have 2 weeks after the attack--mentioned a video as the cause of the attack--that all the information coming from the intelligence community to the White House and others, there was never a protest. If Secretary Rice had gotten on the national news or Mr. Hadley or John Bolton, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations had gotten on television 5 days after the attack and told the story about the level of security: We believe it was a protest caused by video, not accordingly a terrorist attack--if that had all been said by the Bush people, there would have been definitely a different approach about this issue. That to me is very sad. You may not agree with that observation, but almost everybody over here I think believes that. Mr. Zucker today--I know him from CNN; fine man--said he would not be bullied into covering the select committee. Nobody is asking any outlet to be bullied. But I have some questions I want CNN to answer, or somebody who would answer questions that I think are very relevant. What is the state of what? As far as the Senate goes, we have had the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issue a report on January 15, 2014. I think they did a very good job covering their lane. They did not have jurisdiction over the State Department so their report was limited. There was a minority report inside the report by Republicans taking some issues with some of the findings. But the bottom line was, the Senate intel committee, in a bipartisan fashion, looked at Benghazi and said it could have been prevented. So that is something to be positive about. The Armed Services Committee has done nothing. They have not issued any reports. This is the report of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate looking at DOD's responsibility that night. The Foreign Relations Committee--this is their report. Nothing looking at the State Department's behavior that night. We have had hearings, but the relevant committees have not issued reports. The Homeland Security Committee on December 30, 2012--Senators Lieberman and Collins did a good job talking about Homeland Security's role in Benghazi, a very good report. But a lot has happened since then. I want people in the country and the Senate to know the reason I want a select committee in the Senate. We are not the House. Two of the committees very relevant to oversight of Benghazi have not issued any reports. The Armed Services Committee has done nothing, nor has the Foreign Relations Committee, and I think this is worthy of our time. This is a bipartisan report issued in 2008 by the Armed Services Committee about detainee abuse. I participated in this report in the Bush administration. We had some serious system breakdowns when it came to detainees in U.S. custody. Senator McCain and I worked with Democrats to issue this report. I thought it was important to get to the bottom of system failure in the Bush administration. But I would argue that four dead Americans are worthy of a report, and we have not had one. There are a lot of things that could be done, should be done in the Senate, and have not been done. What would I like to find out about Benghazi that we did not know? This is the Accountability Review Board, an internal investigation by the State Department. Two fine men led this investigation--appointed by Secretary Clinton. This thing has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. They missed a lot. They didn't talk to Secretary Clinton or Ambassador Rice. In this report they talk about the reason that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi was that they were looking at closing the consulate in Benghazi in December. I finally got to talk to one survivor after 18 months of trying. I found out from that survivor, the person in charge of security in Benghazi on the night of the attack, that they had renewed the lease on the consulate in July for 1 year. So that makes no sense. The report says he went there to look at closing the consulate, and they just renewed the lease in July before he went there in September. So it is not by any means an exhaustive review of Benghazi. This is a readout on September 10, 2012, the day before the attack. This is a readout of: ``President's Meeting with Senior Administration Officials on Our Preparedness and Security Posture on the Eleventh Anniversary of September 11th.'' Apparently the President had a meeting--in the White House, I assume--with all of our national security folks talking about what we can expect on September 11 because it was the 11th anniversary of 9/11. It states: During the briefing today, the President and the Principals discussed specific measures we are taking in the Homeland to prevent 9/11 related attacks as well as the steps taken to protect U.S. persons and facilities abroad, as well as force protection. I have one simple question: Did they bring up Libya? Did they talk about the security situation in Benghazi and Libya? If not, why not? Based on this statement--it is a reassuring statement to the American people that the President and his team are on top of the situation. They were not on top of it when it came to Libya. So I want to find out if that meeting had any discussions about the deathtrap called Benghazi. This is the security situation in Benghazi pre-9/11. On March 28 there was a request for additional security which was denied. Our security footprint was very light. We had an agreement with a militia in Benghazi that was supposed to be our primary reaction team-- a Libyan militia that proved to be less than reliable. On April 6 an IED was thrown over the fence of the U.S. post in Benghazi. Did the President know about this? Did Secretary Clinton know about it? I assume they did, but nobody in any of these investigations ever told us that the President was aware of this. On June 6 a large IED destroyed part of the security perimeter of the U.S. post in Benghazi, leaving a whole ``big enough for 40 men to go through.'' They commissioned a study or some kind of review. Where is it? It has been attacked in April and June. Did the President know about these attacks. They blew a hole in the wall large enough for 40 people to go through. On June 11, 5 days later, the British Ambassador's motorcade is attacked--very close to the Benghazi facility, our facility--and U.S. personnel go help the British ambassador. After this attack, the British closed their consulate in Benghazi. Why did we leave ours open? On July 9, there was a request from Ambassador Stevens for additional security. No response. On July 1, Lieutenant General Neller sends an email to Under Secretary Kennedy offering additional security. Kennedy responds saying no additional DOD support is needed. There is a 16-person Special Forces National Guard team that was ready to volunteer for an extra year to help our folks in Benghazi, and the State Department folks said: No, thanks. On August 6, the International Committee of the Red Cross has been attacked four times. They finally close up shop and leave town on August 6. The British leave and the Red Cross leaves. Lieutenant Colonel Wood was a National Guard soldier trying to help security doing a site security team investigation. Instead of being extended--and he volunteered to stay for 1 additional year--he was sent home in August. On August 16--this is the most damning of all--there was a cable that was sent from Benghazi by our Ambassador telling the people in Washington that the consulate could not withstand a coordinated terrorist attack and the Al Qaeda flag is flying all over town, basically begging for additional security, letting people in Washington know: We cannot withstand a coordinated terrorist attack. Al Qaeda flags are flying all over the place. That is the state of play. That is the background in terms of security regarding the consulate in Benghazi. Fast forward. These are statements by the Regional Security Officer who was asking for additional security. He was so frustrated by the response he had received in Washington he said the following: ``For me the Taliban is inside the building.'' What Eric Nordstrom was talking about is that the people in Washington seemed to be completely deaf as to his needs for additional security. He thought the people in Washington were working against him, and he was very worried about what would happen if there was an attack, and he believed that one was coming. Lieutenant Colonel Wood, a Utah National Guard Special Forces soldier who left in August, said: It was instantly recognizable to me as a terrorist attack. . . . Mainly because of my prior knowledge there, I almost expected the attack to come. We were the last flag flying; it was a matter of time. This had gone up DOD channels as well as the Department of State. So that is the history of the security situation in Benghazi. Now, to the people at CNN, to my Democratic colleagues, to anybody and everybody, please explain to me how on September 16, 5 days after the attack, Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations was chosen to appear on five Sunday talk shows to talk about the attack in Benghazi on our facilities. But I can assure you, she was very worried about what was going to happen--the questions regarding Benghazi-- because we had four people killed. This is what she said about the level of security on September 16: Well, first of all, we had a substantial security presence with our personnel . . . with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. I have a question. Who told her that. Nothing could have been further from the truth. When you look at the history of the security footprint in Benghazi, it was begging and pleading by the people in Libya to have more help and everything was denied. It was to the point that the person in charge of security felt like the Taliban were all inside the building in Washington. Lieutenant Colonel Wood said: We were the last flag flying. It was a matter of time. On August 16, before the September 11 attack, there was a cable from Ambassador Chris Stevens saying: We cannot defend this compound against a coordinated terrorist attack. Those are the facts. This is what Susan Rice told the world: Well, first of all, we had a substantial security presence with our personnel . . . with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. I have a simple question. Who told her that, who briefed her about security in Benghazi, because the person who told her that needs to be fired because they are completely incompetent or they lied to her. If she made this up, she needs to resign because nothing could have been further from the truth. If she just made this up to make the administration look good in light of all of the other evidence about security, then she is not an honest person when it comes to conveying national security incidents. So, please, after all of these investigations, after all of these hearings, can somebody tell me from where Susan Rice got this information? How could she conclude, based on what we know now, that we had a substantial security presence with our personnel in the consulate in Benghazi. She went on to say: ``Well, we obviously did have a strong security presence.'' She said this on ABC and this on Fox. If you listened to her on September 16, you would believe we were well prepared for this attack and we had secured the consulate in a reasonable fashion. If anybody had looked at the actual record--the information available to our own government in our own files--you could not have said that honestly. I am sure this was a good thing to say 6 weeks before an election. The problem is it is not remotely connected to the truth. To this day, nobody can answer my question. Where did she receive information about the security level in Benghazi? She has never been interviewed by anybody 20 months later. Why was she chosen? If John Bolton had taken Condoleezza Rice's place to talk about a consulate--not under his control but under her control--people would want to know where the Secretary of State was. Ambassador Rice was the U.N. Ambassador--U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. She had no responsibility for consulate security. The person responsible for consulate security and our footprint in Libya was Secretary Clinton. I have always wondered why they chose her. To this day, no one has answered that, but Susan Rice said on 12/13/ 2012: Secretary Clinton had originally been asked by most of the networks to go on. . . . She had had an incredibly grueling week dealing with the protests around the Middle East and North Africa. I was asked. I was willing to do so. It wasn't what I had planned for that weekend originally, but I don't regret doing that. And she further said she had no regrets about what she told the American people.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. We already have laws in this country banning elective abortions at the 24-week period. It is called the partial-birth abortion ban. It has been through the Supreme Court, it went through this body, it went through the House, and it got overwhelming support. That bill has exceptions for rape and incest and cases that involve the life of the mother; so would this. We are just backing it up 4 weeks, and the reason we are backing it up 4 weeks is because at 20 weeks people have been born and survived. I know twins who were born at 20 weeks. But the theory of the case is that the government should have the right to protect an unborn child, and most of the abortions are so far along that the medical science requires anesthesia before you operate. The question is, If we are going to require a doctor to provide anesthesia to the baby before they operate to save its life, should we authorize abortions at that point? The Washington Post poll showed just a few months ago that by 56 to 27 percent, people supported the 20-week pain-capable bill--60 percent women. At the end of the day I hope we can have a debate on this issue. The reason I brought it up today is because this is the anniversary of the Dr. Gosnell case, which was one of the most horrendous cases in American jurisprudence, where a doctor received life sentences for three counts of murder. He was an abortion doctor aborting babies at the latest stage of pregnancy. If the babies survived the abortion, he would cut the spinal cord. Three women died as a result of the care given by him. It was a chamber of horrors. It was a year ago today. I hope people will not forget what Dr. Gosnell did, and if we can prevent occurrences such as that, we should, and that is what this bill is designed to do--to make sure the unborn child at this stage of the pregnancy has a chance to continue on. There are only seven countries in the world that allow abortions at this stage, and I hope that when this debate is over, the United States will not be in the seven.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that I will make in a moment to kind of set the stage for what I am asking the Senate to consider. We will be asking that we schedule a vote on two pieces of legislation: the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, S. 1670, which is my legislation; and S. 1696, the Women's Health Protection Act, by Senator Blumenthal. Very briefly, what I am trying to do is to have an opportunity for the body to talk about two pieces of legislation that relate to the abortion issue, the role of the Federal Government. Very quickly, my legislation would ban abortion at the 20-week period--the fifth month of pregnancy--based on the theory that the child can feel pain at that point in the pregnancy and that the standard of care for the medical community is that you cannot operate on an unborn fetus at the 20-week period without administering anesthesia, and the reason for that is because the child can feel pain. There have been individuals born at the 20-week period who have survived. But the theory of the case is not based on the medical viability under Roe vs. Wade; it is a new theory that the State has a compelling interest in protecting an unborn child at this stage of pregnancy. The partial-birth abortion ban, which applies at 24 weeks, is backed up to 20 weeks. Here is what medical journals tell parents to do at 20 weeks: An unborn child can hear and respond to sounds. Talk or sing. The unborn child enjoys hearing your voice. It is a whole list of things about the unborn child in the 20-week period. We are one of seven countries that allow abortions at this stage in the pregnancy, along with China, North Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, Canada, and the Netherlands. So I would ask the body to consider having a debate on my legislation about whether we should limit elective abortions at the 20-week period and also a debate on Senator Blumenthal's legislation that basically would allow the courts to set aside several State restrictions on abortion. We are going to present a series of actions at the State level. I think his legislation would allow the courts to have a literal construction in terms of being able to strike down these provisions. I disagree with my good friend. We are good friends, although we have a different view. The Senator from Connecticut made a statement when he introduced the bill that every Senator should be on the record when it comes to this legislation. I agree. I hope every Senator would be on the record when it comes to my legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to consideration of S. 1670, the Pain- Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and S. 1696, the Women's Health Protection Act; that there be up to 8 hours of debate equally divided in the usual form, to run concurrently; that there be no amendments, points of order, or motions in order; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote on S. 1670; that following the disposition of S. 1670, the Senate proceed to vote on S. 1696; and that both bills be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for passage.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank my colleague. To remind the body of what we are talking about, this email was released as a result of a lawsuit, and not voluntarily by the White House. In August of last year, the House of Representatives and the committees of jurisdiction subpoenaed all documents related to Benghazi and basically were stiff-armed. Senators McCain, Ayotte, and I have written enough letters to destroy a small forest to the White House with virtually nothing to show for it. A private organization called Judicial Watch sued under the Freedom of Information Act, and an independent judiciary--thank God for that-- ordered this White House to disclose this email just days ago. Knowing the email was going to come out, the White House provided it to the Congress a few days ago. What does that tell us? That tells us they did not want anyone to know about this email. They talk about 25,000 documents they have provided. It doesn't matter the number of documents they provided to the Congress. They could have provided us with the Benghazi phone book. It is the relevance of the documents and the significance of the documents. The reason they did not want anyone--me and anyone else--to know about this email is because it is the smoking gun that shows that people at the White House level--these are people who work at the White House for the administration--were very intent on shaping the story about Benghazi away from what they knew to be the truth. Here is the problem for the White House. This was 7 weeks before an election. President Obama had said repeatedly: Bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is on the run, the war is receding, my foreign policy is working. Many of us were critical of President Obama's foreign policy, particularly in Libya, because after Qadhafi fell, we really did nothing to secure the country. Senator McCain, myself, and a couple of other Senators--Rubio--went in 2011 to Libya. We said in an op-ed piece if we don't get rid of these militias, Libya is going to become a safe haven for terrorists. You have to understand this about the Benghazi consulate. It had been previously attacked in April of 2012. The British Ambassador had been attacked in June of 2012. The British closed their consulate. The Red Cross closed their office because they had been attacked. And we have email traffic coming from Libya to Washington at the State Department level saying on August 16: We cannot secure the Benghazi consulate from a coordinated terrorist attack, and Al Qaeda flags are flying all over Benghazi. What they did not want you to know is that the consulate in Benghazi was very unsecure, that everyone else had left the town, and that the numerous requests for security enhancements going back for months had been denied. They didn't want you to know because it would make the American people mad that the facility was so unsecure in such a dangerous area and people in Washington constantly ignored requests for additional security. Here is what they wanted you to know: . . . to convey that the United States is doing everything we can to protect our people and facilities abroad . . . That, to me, is the worst of the whole email because they are trying to convey to the American people and the families of the fallen that: These things happened, but we did all we could to protect your family and those who served this Nation. Nothing could be more untruthful about Benghazi than this statement that they did everything they could to secure the facility. The question as to whether this email relates to Benghazi was the most offensive thing coming out of the White House in quite a while. No one else died. There was an attack on our Embassy in Cairo with property damage. What did we think Susan Rice was going to be asked about on Sunday, 16 September? Everybody in the Nation wanted to know how our Ambassador and three other brave Americans died. To suggest they weren't trying to prepare her to talk about the deaths of 4 Americans is insulting to our intelligence, but the document itself tells us it was directed toward explaining Benghazi. To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice . . . That was part of what they wanted her to convey. No one else was hurt other than in Benghazi. So within the document itself, they are talking about reinforcing the view that we will go after those who harmed Americans. The only people who were harmed--the four people killed-- were in Benghazi. So that is just a bald-faced lie. That is insulting our intelligence, and it really is disrespectful to those who died in the line of duty to suggest this email--which they would not give us without a court order--had nothing to do with the death of four Americans.

Mr. GRAHAM. The bottom line is the goals set out in this email are to try to convince the American people 7 weeks before an election: We had done everything possible to protect our people and facilities; ``to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.'' I am here to tell you--and I dare anybody to show where I am wrong-- there is no evidence of a protest outside the compound that led to an eventual attack. I have talked to the man in charge of security at Benghazi--the only survivor I have been able to talk to. He told me that when the Ambassador went to bed shortly after 9, there was nobody outside the compound. They would not have let him go to bed if there had been protesters, and they would have reported a protest up the chain of command.

Mr. GRAHAM. That was the 15th. So this is in real-time that people are reporting a coordinated terrorist attack. There was no protest. The video had nothing to do with this because there was no protest. And why would they suggest that? They would be far less culpable in the eyes of the American people and myself if, in fact, this was caused by a video we had nothing to do with, a protest we could not see coming. The truth is that this was a coordinated terrorist attack that you could see coming for months, and it was the result of a broader failure of policy. Why didn't they want to admit that? They were 7 weeks out. It undercuts everything they were trying to tell the American people about their foreign policy. This is the smoking gun that shows they were consciously trying to manipulate the evidence to steer the story away from a coordinated terrorist attack of an unsecured facility and toward the land of an Internet video causing a protest. That, to me, is unacceptable and is clear as the Sun rises in the east, for those who care. I will end with this and turn it back over to Senator McCain. After this attack, President Obama said the following: But everything that--every piece of information we get, as we got it, we laid it out for the American people. I am here to tell you that statement has not borne scrutiny. The administration did not live up to this statement. Here is another statement from Jay Carney: I can tell you that the President believes that Ambassador Rice has done an excellent job as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, and I believe that--and I know that he believes that everyone here working for him has been transparent in the way that we've tried to answer questions about what happened in Benghazi . . . If they were trying to be transparent about what was happening in Benghazi, why would they fail to provide the relevant information? The information that we provided was based on the available assessment at the time. I am here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, they have not provided the relevant information. Why? Because the relevant information crumbles the story Susan Rice told on 16 September, crumbles the story of the President himself when weeks later he talked about a protest caused by a video that never happened. The reason they haven't shared this with us is because it exposes the lie of Benghazi. I will end with this thought. We would not know today about an email on 14 September setting goals for Susan Rice to meet on 16 September to change the whole narrative if it were not for an independent judiciary and a private organization. This White House has stiffed the Congress. Mostly, the media has been AWOL. But the reason we haven't stopped is because we met the families. To any Member of the Congress who thinks Benghazi is a Republican conspiracy designed to help Lindsey Graham or anyone else get elected, why don't you go to the family members and explain to them what happened. Why don't you tell the family members that the government was up front and honest and see if they believe you. This email that came from a court requiring the White House to disclose is devastating. It is devastating because it shows that 3 days after the attack, their goal was not to inform the American people of what happened but to shape the story to help the President get reelected. I hope and pray that matters to the American people, and I believe it does. And I hope and pray our friends on the Democratic side will start taking a little bit of interest. I can tell you this about Senator McCain and myself: When President Bush's policies in Iraq were crumbling, we did not have enough troops, and John McCain, to his credit, said that publicly and asked for the resignation of President Bush's Secretary of Defense because of failed policy. When we discovered the abuses at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib when it came to detainee policies, both of us said: The system failed. Don't believe it when they tell you this was a few bad apples. Why did we do that? I have been a military lawyer for 31 years. It means a lot to me to adhere to the conventions we have signed up to. Senator McCain--if there were ever an American hero in the Senate, it is he. He has lived through a country that practices torture, and he did not want us to go down that road. When we did those things, we were ``great Americans holding the system accountable and doing the country a service.'' Now, all of a sudden, we are ``just party hacks.'' I am here to say that what drove us then drives us now. When we ask people to serve in faraway places with strange-sounding names and to go out on the tip of the spear, we owe it to them to help them, to give them the best ability to survive. And if something bad happens, we owe their families the truth. Just as in Iraq, they tried to shape the story in a fashion that did not bear scrutiny. It wasn't a few dead-enders; it was system failure that led to the collapse of Iraq. And thank God we changed tactics and we overcame our problems. This Benghazi story is about a foreign policy choice called the light footprint that caught up with this administration. It is about an administration that said no to additional security requests because they didn't want to be like Bush. It is a story about an administration that is too stubborn to react to facts on the ground, that kept a consulate open when everybody else closed theirs, unsecured, believing that ignoring the problem would solve the problem. We have now found evidence of their willingness and desire to change the narrative from a coordinated terrorist attack of an unsecured facility--something they really couldn't control, and they did the best they could 7 weeks before an election. All I can say is if the shoe were on the other foot and this had been the Bush administration, it would be front-page news everywhere and our colleagues on the other side would be screaming. It is sad that it hasn't been news everywhere. It is sad that my Democratic colleagues in the House in particular have disdain for trying to find out what happened in Benghazi.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank you. I have been to the Canadian oil sands that I would recommend every person in this body go visit. The Canadians are being very environmentally responsible when it comes to extracting the oil sands product. This is an equivalent to a Saudi Arabian oil find from our Canadian friends. Here is the choice and here is the debate: They are going to sell the oil to China or they are going to sell it to us. How many people in America really have a hard time figuring out what we should do? It is not as though the oil is not going to be sold and extracted from the ground. It is going to be sold to us or the Chinese. If we buy oil from Canada, it is like buying oil from your cousin. We trade with the Canadians. They are very reliable partners. It is less oil to buy from Russia and Venezuela, and you can go down the list. What is at stake here is that the people who object to this pipeline--I do not doubt their sincerity--would not allow us to buy oil from anybody or explore for oil here at home. The people objecting to this pipeline do not have an all-of-the-above approach when it comes to American energy. If you left it up to them, we would be doing windmills, solar, no nuclear power. So the President of the United States has turned this issue over to the most extreme people in the country when it comes to politics. They are trumping the unions. They are trumping the former Presiding Officer. They are locking down developing an energy source that we need as a nation. I really regret that the President has let them take over this issue at a time when we need more oil from friendly people and less oil from people who hate our guts. Dirty oil to me is buying oil from people who will take the proceeds and share it with terrorists. This oil content from Canada is slightly greater in carbon content than Mideast sweet crude, the same level as oil we find off the coast of California, and has less sulfur. So the environmental argument does not bear scrutiny. At the end of the day, we are not going to get this oil from our friends in Canada because of the upcoming elections. President Obama is afraid of turning off environmental support so he has turned off the pipeline--very bad for America. I yield.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to recognize that this is a very important moment for the Senate to speak with one voice at a time when I think it matters to former hostages and their families. We heard you, Senator Cruz heard you, I heard you, and our friends on the other side heard you. So it is good to know that the Senate is listening to people who have suffered in the past from this regime and Iran. To Senators Leahy, Menendez, and Schumer, thank you very much for working with Senator Cruz so we could reach this moment. I will do everything I can to get the House to act accordingly. At the end of the day, it is very important that the Iranians not mistake how we view them. We have had our differences about Syria. We have had foreign policy disputes between the administration and Republicans, and sometimes Democrats, regarding how to move forward in the world. But this is a unique moment when all 100 Senators support the following statement to the Iranians: We remember who you are. We remember what you have done to our country and to our fellow citizens, and we are not going to forget. If you are listening in Iran, we have a very clear-eyed view in the Senate of who we are dealing with. So this is a very appropriate time to speak with one voice. I hope the Iranians will understand that we are resolved, Republicans and Democrats, to make sure they never possess a nuclear weapon. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for a few minutes, if I could, as if in morning business.

Mr. GRAHAM. There is an issue facing this country that needs to be addressed firmly and decisively. I am encouraged there is a bipartisan effort to deal with this issue, and the issue is very simple. The person who has been nominated to be the U.N. Ambassador for Iran is a gentleman who participated in the takeover of our Embassy in Tehran, holding hostage 52 U.S. personnel for 444 days. This is a slap in the face by the Iranian Government to the American people, to the hostages, and it should not be allowed to stand. Senator Cruz, I believe, will be offering a unanimous consent request potentially dealing with this issue, but I just wanted to rise for a few minutes and speak in support of what he is trying to accomplish in the Senate. I am somewhat encouraged that there is a bipartisan effort forming among our intel folks to deal with this affront to the American people, to all those held hostage, and basically to human dignity. The idea that the Iranians would be appointing someone connected in such an apparently direct way with the Embassy takeover back in 1979 to represent their nation in the U.N. tells us all we need to know about Iran. This hardline-moderate divide doesn't exist. This is all a game. President Ruhani, when he was the nuclear negotiator for Iran, bragged about how much progress they made when the heat was off. If he were truly moderate he wouldn't have been on the ballot and wouldn't be serving today at the pleasure of the Ayatollah. Nobody serves in a high position in Iran without the blessing of the Supreme Leader. So the idea of making this gentleman--I don't want to butcher his name--the Ambassador to the United Nations from Iran when he has actively participated in violating every diplomatic principle involved, the idea of invading a consulate or embassy and taking hostages runs afoul of every principle of international law and diplomatic behavior. It would be different if in the last 30 or so years the Iranian regime had changed. We have relationships with people today who are some of our strongest allies who used to be our enemies. There is nothing changing in Iran since the Embassy takeover that would place Iran in the column of a friend of America. This regime has been actively involved in worldwide terrorism plots. They have provided equipment to those who were fighting in Iraq to kill our soldiers. They support Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist organizations. They have been designated by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. They are trying to build a nuclear weapon, not a powerplant. So they have actually been no good for a very long time. I hope this body will send a signal to the Iranians that we will not accept on U.S. soil the person who has been designated, because this person was actively engaged in holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, in contravention of every law on the books and human decency. If Iran wants a new relationship with the United States, this is not a good way to start it. I think there will be a lot of bipartisan objection to allowing this person to come to New York. We have provisions in our laws that give us the right as the host nation to exclude people who have been involved in acts of terrorism against the United States or their neighbors and any security threat. Again, the idea of doing business with former enemies is the way of life. The idea of accepting that the Ambassador to the United Nations from Iran as one of the people intricately involved in the takeover of our Embassy and holding Americans hostage for 444 days is an affront to us as a people and to the United Nations as a whole. He has served in other posts in Europe. That is not the issue. It is our Embassy that was taken over; it was our people who were held hostage, and the surviving hostages are very upset, as they should be. We don't want to reward people for doing bad things. This would be the ultimate reward for somebody who did a very bad thing. It would be a mistake to engage Iran in this way and not push back. If there is to be a better relationship with Iran, it is worth fighting for. We are going to have to stand up to these people because they will take advantage of us if we allow it. I look forward to supporting Senator Cruz and others who want to join in the effort to stop this appointment because it is wrong. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, as Senator McCain makes his way to the floor, we are trying to figure out what to do as a nation--along with our allies in Europe and throughout the world--about Ukraine and really what to do with Putin. In my view, this is a symptom of a greater problem. Crimea had been a part of Russia for a very long time, but in 1954, I believe it was, Crimea became part of a sovereign nation called the Ukraine through an agreement. In 1994 the Ukrainians--after the collapse of the former Soviet Union, which was the third largest nuclear power in the world-- agreed to turn their nuclear weapons back over to the Russian Federation as part of the Budapest agreement. In return for receiving the weapons, the Russian Government promised to honor the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, and we were part of that deal. I guess no one really fleshed out what honoring the territorial integrity of the Ukraine would mean, but clearly, in 1994 when the Ukrainian people gave up the nuclear weapons they possessed to the Russians--and we were part of the deal where we were going to guarantee their territorial integrity for the swap--no one envisioned that Russia would move into Crimea because they don't like the political dynamic in Kiev. If the people of the Ukraine want to move west, that is not a reason to basically abrogate the 1994 agreement. What is going on around Russia is the following: As the former Soviet Union collapsed, people who had been in the sphere of influence of Russia--the former Soviet Union--have all embarked on a different path for the most part. There are a couple of people who align with Russia but not many. My goal is quite simple: Allow the people of the Ukraine, Poland, and the former Soviet Union to make their decision about how they would construct their country apart from threats of force or intimidation by Russia. It is no surprise to me that all those who could choose to move away from Russia because of the experience they had in the past have done so. Ukrainian people will always have a unique relationship with Russia, but they want to be Ukrainian. There are a lot of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. We have everybody in America. America is an idea, not an ethnic group or a particular religion. Ukraine is multiethnic. They have ethnic Russians with a bunch of other folks--``Ukrainians,'' for lack of a better word. The bottom line is that they have been debating among themselves about how to move forward and in what direction to move. Yanukovych won an election. He moved the Ukrainian people away from Europe and toward Russia. The President preceding him rode a revolution into power--the Orange Revolution, which some would argue did not produce the results the Ukrainian people were hoping for. It took us a long time as a nation--and we are still trying--to figure out who we are and where we are going. Democracies are messy. The one thing we should all be doing is aligning ourselves around the concept that choosing one's destiny as an individual within the confines of the law and choosing one's destiny as a nation in international law should preclude having that choice taken away by your neighbor through military force and intimidation. Entering into Crimea was a breach of international law. It was a breach of the 1994 agreement. Putin has proven to be an antidemocratic force in the world and in Russia. When you are dealing with somebody, you need to look at their value system and their agenda and their interest. The value system of Mr. Putin is that of a KGB colonel. Most of his adult life he worked for the KGB, so his value system comes from that organization. It is about the ends, not the means. Democracy is about the process. I am not surprised that he snuffed out democracy--as any reasonable person would know it in Russia--and that he has made the Duma almost irrelevant, if not a joke. There is no independent judiciary; if you oppose Putin, you are liable to go to jail. I understand where he is coming from because of his value system; I just don't agree with it. What we can't do is let him affect those who are living around him who want to go on a different path because the day you begin to do that, it never works out well. In World War II, every time somebody gave Hitler a little of this or a little of that, it never worked out well. So what do we do? The European community, along with the United States, has a historic chance to reset what I think is a deterioration of world security and order. Having sanctions combined with aid, including sanctioning the Russians in a fashion they will feel, hitting their energy sectors, their oil and gas companies masquerading in this country, and increasing the capability of a gutted Ukrainian Army to defend themselves from further insurgents, would be a combination of hitting the Russians and helping the Ukrainians militarily and economically without any boots on the ground from the United States. I hope that is what the President will do. That is what we are trying to do here--to some extent, at least--on the sanctions side in the U.S. Senate. I see Senator McCain has arrived. He has been the most consistent voice for the last decade about the role of America, our destiny as a country, with what we should align ourselves, understanding the Arab spring, and he has been a thorn in the side of Putin and Russia for quite awhile. So I wish to, if I could, ask a question of Senator McCain. Given what we know about Putin's past and what he has done in Crimea, what does the Senator expect in the future and what can we reasonably do as a nation to change the outcome?

Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator from Arizona is absolutely right.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if people are wondering why Senator McCain's name wasn't on that article--he is on everything else Joe and I did--it is because he was running for President and just got the nomination. We were very much worried then, the three of us, that the Bush administration wasn't doing enough, and we needed to help the Georgian people as a signal not only to those in Georgia but other people in the neighborhood. Let's talk about the Ukrainian military. It has been devastated, it has been gutted, because Yanukovych, the Ukrainian President, who won the election by less than 1 million votes--if you take Crimea out of Ukraine electorally, then no pro-Russian candidate inside Ukraine has much of a chance to win. So now they have destroyed the balance of power inside Ukraine politically. So as those left in Ukraine, the Ukrainian people move west, they are going to have the ability to align themselves with Europe. Putin is, in my view, very much likely to take some eastern cities that may ask for his help, because the referendum by the Ukraine to move west they opposed, but they can't stop because of the electoral change. So watch out for a move by Ukraine to integrating the European Union in April or May when they have an election, and people in the east create a fake fight and Russia uses that as a reason to go further into the east. But to Senator McCain's point: President Obama has conceded Crimea. There is just no other way we can say it. Our European allies and our President have basically said, If you do any more, we are going to get tougher with you. The Senator from Arizona nailed this. What does that say to Putin? I got Crimea. Seven people and I may be sanctioned, but I have been given Crimea by Europe and the United States. The sanctions we are talking about get tougher only if he moves further into his sovereign neighbor. Six thousand troops are combat-ready in Ukraine. Why? Because the pro-Russian President and their Defense Minister, who got fired yesterday, gutted the Ukrainian military, setting up a scenario such as this, making it impossible for the Ukrainians to effectively defend themselves. Here is the question for us: Do we let the Russians get away with it? They have been planning this for a while. Clearly, the pro-Russian forces inside Ukraine took on the task of neutering the Ukrainian military and they have done a heck of a good job. Should the United States and our NATO partners, at the request of the Ukrainian people, supply them with defensive weapons to rebuild the military, gutted by pro-Russian elements? To me, the answer is yes. Because if we want to make Putin think twice about what he does next, he has to pay a price greater than he has for Crimea. If he gets away with this and he doesn't pay any price, he is going to be on steroids. But if he thinks about moving and he sees on the other side of Crimea a Ukrainian people willing to fight with some capacity, that will change the equation. Because it is one thing to cheer in Moscow for getting something for almost nothing in terms of effort. It will be another thing to talk about Russian soldiers getting killed to continue to be on the aggressive path. So if the NATO alliance, along with the United States, doesn't help rebuild the Ukrainian military so they can defend themselves without our troops being involved, we have made a historic mistake, because everybody in the world is watching how this movie ends. The Iranians are watching, after Syria, now Russia. Does anybody in their right mind believe the Iranians take us seriously as a nation when it comes to stopping their nuclear program? So I say to Senator McCain, you have been a voice for realism, understanding Putin for who he is. For years, you have been telling the Senate and the country and the world at large: Watch this guy. There have been a series of foreign policy failures that have added up to make it confident to Putin that he can move forward without consequences. So I hope we can convince our colleagues in the Senate and the House to honor a reasonable request by the Ukrainian people to help them rebuild the military destroyed by pro-Russian forces.

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