[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 96 (Thursday, June 19, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3827-S3833]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             FOREIGN POLICY

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today we see reports that now ISIS has 
taken over the major oil refinery in Baiji, Iraq. Names that we used to 
hear quite often, such as, Tal Afar, Mosul, Fallujah, Ramadi--all of 
these areas are now under the black flag of Al Qaeda and ISIS, which is 
an even worse organization than Al Qaeda, if that can be believed.
  We now see the forces of ISIS marching on Baghdad itself, which I 
don't believe they can take. But the second largest city in Iraq--
Mosul--is now under the black flag, and quantities of military 
capability and equipment have clearly fallen into the hands of what has 
now become the richest, largest base for terrorism in history. This has 
all come about in the last couple of weeks.
  What has the United States of America done? Today we see on the front 
page of the Washington Post: ``U.S. Sees Risk in Iraqi Airstrikes.'' 
The President of the United States goes for fundraising and golfing and 
now is fiddling while Iraq burns. We need to act, but we also need to 
understand why we are where we are today.
  The Senator from South Carolina and I visited Iraq on many 
occasions--more than I can count. We know for a fact that if we would 
have left a residual force behind, this situation would not be where it 
is today.
  The fact is that the President of the United States, if he wanted to 
leave a residual force, never made that clear to the American people. 
In fact, on October 22, 2012, the President said: ``What I would not 
have had done was left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down.'' 
In 2011 he celebrated the departure--as he described it--of the last 
combat soldier from Iraq.
  The fact is that because of our fecklessness and the fact that we did 
not leave that residual force behind, we are paying the price, and the 
people of Iraq are paying a heavier price.
  What do we need to do? First of all, we have to understand there are 
no good options remaining. This is a culmination of failure after 
failure of this administration. But for us to do nothing now will 
ensure this base for terrorism. We have tracked over 100 who have 
already come back to the United States of America. There are hundreds 
who are leaving--not only the battlefield in Syria and Iraq--and they 
will pose a direct threat to the security of the United States.
  I say to the critics who say ``Do nothing and let them fight it 
out,'' you cannot confine this conflict to Iraq and

[[Page S3828]]

Syria. The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security have said these people will be planning attacks on 
the United States of America.
  What do we need to do? Of course, Maliki has to be transitioned out, 
but the only way that is going to happen is for us to assure Iraqis 
that we will be there to assist. Let me make it clear that no one I 
know wants to send combat troops on the ground. But airstrikes are an 
important factor psychologically and in many other ways, and that may 
require some forward air controllers and some special forces.
  We cannot afford to allow a Syria-Iraq enclave that will pose a 
direct threat to the United States of America. And if we act, we are 
going to have to act in Syria as well. A residual force of U.S. troops 
in Iraq could have checked Iranian influence in Iraq.
  The other question is, What are the Iranians doing while we are not 
making any decisions? Well, probably the most evil man on Earth, the 
head of the Quds Force--an Iraqi terrorist organization--has been 
reported to have been in Baghdad. There are reports of Iranian forces 
moving into Baghdad.
  I say to my colleagues that we must meet this threat. The President 
of the United States must make some decisions. I am convinced that the 
national security of the United States of America is at risk, and the 
sooner all of us realize it, the better off we will be.
  I yield to my colleague from South Carolina.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, contrary to what may be popular belief, 
there are plenty of Democrats in this body who are very much worried 
about Iraq. The question is, What do we do about it? I will be the 
first to admit it is complicated.
  The first thing we have to assess as a nation is, does it really 
matter what happens in Iraq? Clearly, I think it does. Economically, if 
Iraq becomes a failed state, the oil production in the south will fall 
into the hands of the Iranians, and Iraq will become a failed state 
that spreads economic chaos throughout the region. We will feel it at 
the gas pump, and we will eventually feel it in our wallets. An 
economic collapse in Iraq would affect our economy. I think it would 
throw the world oil market into turmoil. So it matters economically.

  Militarily, does it matter? It does in this regard: ISIS is an 
offshoot of Al Qaeda because Al Qaeda kicked them out. These people now 
are going to have a safe haven from Aleppo, Syria, to the gates of 
Baghdad. They have sworn to attack us. Part of their agenda is to 
strike our homeland. Their goal is to create an Islamic state--a 
caliphate--that would put the people under their rule into darkness. I 
don't want to hear any more war-on-women stories unless we address Iraq 
and Syria. Do we want to see a war on women? I will show my colleagues 
one. Can we imagine what little girls are thinking today in the Sunni 
part of Iraq and in Syria? Can we imagine the hell on Earth? The people 
who will do that to their own--what would they do to us?
  I don't mean to be an alarmist, but I am alarmed. I am just telling 
my colleagues what they are saying they will do. Our Director of 
National Intelligence has said that the safe haven for ISIS in Syria, 
and now in Iraq, presents a great threat to our homeland. The mistake 
President Obama is making is not to realize we need lines of defense.
  Why did we want to leave a residual force behind in Iraq? Ten 
thousand to 15,000 would have given the Iraqi military the capacity 
they don't possess today, the confidence they don't possess today. It 
would have given us an edge against ISIS we don't have. A Toyota truck 
doesn't do very well against American air power. But when we have no 
American air power and when the intelligence capability of the American 
military leaves, the Iraqi Army goes dark. We have seen a collapse of 
the Iraqi Army that I think could have been prevented.
  We can't kill all the terrorists to keep us safe. Our goal in this 
trying time is to have lines of defense, to keep the war over there so 
it doesn't come over here. It is in our national security interests to 
partner with people in Iraq. There were many who wanted a different 
life than ISIS would have. There are many Shias who want to be Iraqi 
Shias, not Iranian Shias. I have been there enough to know.
  So this fateful decision to look for ways to get out totally has come 
back to haunt us, and we are on the verge of doing the same thing in 
Afghanistan. I promised my colleagues the Taliban would be dancing in 
the streets--they just do not believe in dancing--when they heard we 
were leaving in 2016. Can we imagine how the Afghan people feel who 
have fought these thugs by our side believing we would not abandon them 
and now to hear we are going to pull all of our troops out but for a 
couple of hundred. Can we imagine how a young woman in Afghanistan 
feels. Can we imagine how people in Pakistan feel--a nuclear-armed 
nation that could be in the crosshairs of the people trying to take 
Afghanistan down.
  But it is not just about the people in Afghanistan. What about us? 
President Obama is going back to a pre-9/11 mentality. On September 10, 
2001, we had not one soldier in Afghanistan, not one dollar of aid, not 
even an ambassador. So those in America who think if we leave these 
guys alone they will leave us alone, you are not listening to what they 
are saying. The only reason 3,000 Americans died on September 11 and 
not 3 million is they can't get the weapons to kill 3 million of us. If 
they could, they would, and they are very close.
  So, Mr. President: Recalculate your decision on Afghanistan. If you 
pull all of our troops out, the Taliban will regroup, the Afghan 
National Army will meet a terrible fate, and the people who wish us 
harm will be coming back our way. The region between Afghanistan and 
Pakistan is a target-rich environment for the world's most radical 
terrorists, radical Islamists. So at the end of the day, Mr. President: 
Your job is to protect us. You are destroying the lines of defense that 
exist. The Afghan people are willing to have us stay there in enough 
numbers to protect them and us. Mr. President: Before it is too late, 
change your policies in Afghanistan. Mr. President: Do not take this 
country back to a pre-9/11 mentality where we treat terrorists as 
common criminals when we read them their rights rather than gathering 
intelligence.
  We are letting our defenses erode all over the world. The enemies are 
emboldened and our friends are afraid. I can tell my colleagues this. 
If we continue on this track, it will come here again.
  With that, I yield the floor for Senator Chambliss.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
discussing the current direction of U.S. foreign policy, especially as 
it relates to the Middle East. The Obama administration's foreign 
policy in this regard has unfortunately totally unraveled. The 
President, to his credit, made the Middle East his priority and engaged 
the Arab world early on in his presidency. He attempted to forge a new 
beginning between the United States and the Muslim world, but his 
idealistic strategy simply has not worked.
  The Middle East over the last 3 years has been besieged by a 
resurgence of violence, instability, and terrorism. The administration 
has chosen to confront this challenge, which has major implications for 
U.S. national security, by leading from behind and by relying on an 
ineffective diplomatic strategy that involves few concrete security 
measures.
  The shortcomings of this diplomatic strategy are painfully evident 
today in both Syria and in Iraq. In September of last year the 
administration praised the U.S.-Russian deal to disarm Syria of its 
chemical weapons. The deal was designed to rid Syria of chemical 
weapons and buy time for a diplomatic solution. Yet here we are today, 
in a situation where the Syrians have missed countless deadlines, still 
have chemical weapons, and continue to use barrel bombs filled with 
chlorine and other chemicals, as well as ball bearings, with impunity. 
In addition to the humanitarian disaster that has unfolded in Syria, 
allowing the status quo to

[[Page S3829]]

continue has also given the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, 
and the al-Nusra Front the safe haven they needed to grow into the 
force we face today. Make no mistake about it. Terrorists are training 
inside of Syria today, planning to attack America and American 
interests.
  I have been shocked to hear news commentators and some in this body 
refer to recent events in the Middle East, including the rise of ISIL 
in Iraq, as intelligence failures. The intelligence community makes its 
fair share of mistakes and I am the first to criticize them when they 
do. But these recent events, including the resurgence of ISIL, are not 
intelligence failures; they are policy and leadership failures. As we 
saw in Benghazi, the intelligence community provided ample strategic 
warning of the deteriorating security situation in Libya. Yet the 
administration did little to enhance security in Benghazi. Failing to 
protect the diplomatic facility, despite repeated warnings, is not an 
intelligence failure, it is a policy and a leadership failure on the 
part of the administration.
  With regard to Iraq, intelligence, including Director Clapper's 
testimony at a January 29, 2014, hearing, has been abundantly clear 
that Iraq was vulnerable to the threat from ISIL. I encourage any 
Member to read the intelligence if they have questions regarding the 
intelligence community's assessment about security in Iraq and the rise 
of ISIL before the fall of Mosul. It was clear in 2011, as U.S. forces 
were withdrawing, that Iraq was vulnerable to a resurgence in extremist 
activity, and we have seen the violence escalate steadily in the last 3 
years during this administration's failed policies. This collapse in 
security was again easily predicted, but we have stood by and watched 
as it has occurred. Again, this is a policy failure, not an 
intelligence failure.

  Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this administration's foreign 
policy is its inadequate counterterrorism strategy. I often hear 
administration officials touting Al Qaeda's demise or describing the 
organization as on the run. Yet nothing could be further from the 
truth. As my friend from South Carolina alluded to earlier, before we 
began on the floor this morning, he said: Yes, Al Qaeda is on the run. 
They are running from one country to the next and taking over one 
country and the next.
  Violent extremism is on the rise in the Middle East, and the warning 
signs have been visible for years. These warning signs include the 
September 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi, the rising of Al Qaeda-
affiliated extremist groups such as the al-Nusra Front in Syria, the 
resurgence of ISIL, and most recently the fall of Mosul. Just yesterday 
we saw a terrorist flag raised over the largest refinery inside of 
Iraq. Despite these stark warning signs, the administration has only 
been willing to take very limited steps to curb this disturbing trend. 
Instead of focusing on making counterterrorism operations more 
effective, the administration has been focused on ending the wars in 
Iraq and Afghanistan while America's enemies grow stronger. This 
approach has been a huge gamble that continues to jeopardize America's 
security.
  The administration has sidelined many of the tools we used to 
successfully counter Al Qaeda in the years immediately after 9/11, 
including the effective, long-term detention and interrogation of enemy 
combatants. As a result, we know far less today about many of these 
terrorist organizations. Since the President ordered the closure of the 
detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in January of 2009, our Nation has 
been without a clear policy for detaining suspected terrorists. Without 
such a policy, including one that identifies a facility for holding 
terrorists that are captured outside of Afghanistan, the intelligence 
community's ability to conduct ongoing intelligence operations have 
been severely limited. I recognize there is no one-size-fits-all 
solution for handling terrorists, but our detention policies must 
foster full intelligence collection before any prosecution begins.
  Al Qaeda and its affiliates and other terrorist groups are determined 
to attack the United States. We constantly face new plots and 
operatives looking for ways to murder Americans, such as the foiled May 
2012 AQAP plot to put another IED on a United States-bound aircraft. 
Thankfully, this plot and others didn't materialize, but we are not 
going to always be that fortunate.
  We know that Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula--or AQAP--today 
represents one of the biggest threats to the U.S. homeland and 
personnel serving overseas. They are continually plotting against our 
interests and seeking new recruits, especially among our own citizens 
as well as former Guantanamo detainees. Explosive experts such as 
Ibrahim al-Asiri continue to roam free, posing a tremendous threat to 
the safety and security of U.S. citizens.
  The proposed closure of Guantanamo Bay presents significant risks for 
the United States and Yemeni efforts to counter AQAP inside Yemen. A 
substantial portion of the detainees remaining at Guantanamo Bay are 
Yemeni citizens. Transferring these individuals to a country plagued by 
prison breaks, assassinations, and open warfare at this point could 
prove very catastrophic. These detainees would likely join several 
other former Gitmo detainees who have returned to the fight in Yemen, 
further destabilizing the country and worsening an already tenuous 
security situation.
  The most recent example of a totally failed and dangerous policy on 
the part of this administration is the exchange of five Guantanamo 
detainees for Sergeant Bergdahl. We are all glad Sergeant Bergdahl is 
back. We should have done everything we could to get him back, and 
thank goodness he is now with his family. But the deal--the exchange of 
five individuals from Guantanamo Bay who now wake up every morning 
thinking of ways to kill and harm Americans--was not the right thing to 
do. There were other ways to handle it. Yet this administration, almost 
callously, without notifying Congress--by the way, that was clearly 
intentional. The failure to notify Congress of what they planned to do 
when they signed a memorandum on May 12 and didn't release these 
individuals for another 2\1/2\ weeks gives us a pretty clear indication 
that this administration did not want to come to Congress and say we 
are going to exchange these five Guantanamo prisoners. The reason they 
did not is because they knew there would be objections from both sides 
of the aisle to doing such a dangerous thing and setting such a 
terrible precedent.

  So whether it is in Iraq, Afghanistan or in other parts of the Middle 
East, Americans have fought and died in the war against Al Qaeda. Our 
Nation is weary of war, but threatening elements still remain. And 
those five individuals who I just alluded to are clearly threats to the 
United States.
  I have asked the President to declassify the personnel files on those 
five individuals: Tell the American people what we know about them, Mr. 
President, and then look the American people in the eye and say: This 
was a good deal. I know they are going to return to the fight, and they 
are going to seek to kill and harm Americans, but this was a good deal.
  Well, that is for the American people to decide ultimately.
  I urge President Obama and my congressional colleagues, as well as 
the American people, not to abandon the gains we have made in the fight 
against terrorism since 9/11, but let's remain steady and let's 
continue to fight the good fight.
  With that, I yield for my friend from North Carolina.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 
minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today to discuss the 
administration's misguided foreign policy, especially as it relates to 
Afghanistan and the threat of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Haqqani 
Network. Despite what the administration would have you believe, Al 
Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Haqqani Network remain capable and 
committed adversaries in Afghanistan. They are a clear strategic threat 
to the safety, the security, and the stability of the region and 
continue to commit to acts of violence against U.S. troops and plot 
against U.S. interests in the region and here at home.
  Yet, for some reason, this administration has time and again failed 
to

[[Page S3830]]

recognize this simple fact, or worse, they have chosen to ignore it. Al 
Qaeda is not decimated--regardless of what Ambassador Rice may have 
communicated to the American people. Its senior leadership continues to 
plot devastating attacks and, more troubling, serve as an inspiration 
to a series of affiliates in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and elsewhere. These 
affiliates are plotting against the United States of America here at 
home, with the guidance, advice, and financial support of Al Qaeda's 
senior most leadership.
  The Al Qaeda brand is alive and well, and the Obama administration's 
AfPak strategy to end the conflict, not win it, reveals a profound 
failure to analyze threats to the region, the world, and the United 
States of America.
  Despite what this administration would have you believe, leaving 
Afghanistan before our work is done will not--will not--end the 
fighting. We cannot take the pressure off or our enemies will bring the 
fight to our doorstep here at home.
  But Al Qaeda is not alone in Afghanistan. It is well established that 
the Haqqani Network, one of our deadliest adversaries, is the link 
between the Taliban and Al Qaeda--a direct link.
  The Haqqani Network is directly responsible for a significant number 
of U.S. casualties and injuries on the battlefield in Afghanistan and 
continues to actively plan potentially catastrophic attacks against our 
interests and the interests of others in the region.
  The group routinely targets civilians--civilians--and uses murder as 
an intimidation tactic against the Afghan people. They have mounted 
numerous assaults and suicide attacks on civilians and U.S. forces with 
deadly effectiveness. Yet the administration took until late 2012--at 
the urging of the Senate of the United States in a bill that I 
introduced--to actually name the Haqqani Network as a foreign terrorist 
organization.
  Why was that important? Because that act changes the game. It 
provides us the full range of diplomatic and military tools to use 
directly against the Haqqani Network. It is against that backdrop that 
the administration then negotiated with the Haqqani Network the release 
of five high-level Taliban fighters for SGT Bowe Bergdahl's return. In 
other words, the President rewarded the Haqqani Network for its 
incarceration of a U.S. servicemember, strengthened its relationship 
with the Taliban, emboldened the Taliban, and undermined the Afghan 
Government--all with one decision.
  Does anyone in this administration believe that five high-ranking 
Taliban officials, when set free, would not return to the fight? If 
they do, then they have not paid attention for the last decade or 
longer.
  I understand that this Nation is weary of war. I understand the 
sacrifices made by our servicemembers, and I work every day to ensure 
that our brave veterans are provided the care and treatment they 
deserve. Their efforts should not be in vain.
  As we are here today, Marine Cpl Kyle Carpenter will receive the 
Medal of Honor. He was a 19-year-old when he signed up to go in the 
Marine Corps. The young marine, in combat--to save a fellow marine--
jumped on a grenade. Kyle Carpenter lived--not only lived--after 40 
surgeries, today he just completed his freshman year at the University 
of South Carolina, at 24 years old.
  He is an American hero. He could be any one of our children or 
grandchildren. What makes this country great is that we have people 
such as Kyle Carpenter who step up, when asked, and they do more than 
we could ever ask of them.
  Our servicemembers served and sacrificed overseas so that we could be 
safe at home. We cannot in good faith let the administration dishonor 
their efforts with a misguided policy.
  The continued drawdown of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan 
will provide Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Haqqani Network with a safe 
haven to train operatives and plot further attacks against the United 
States of America and our allies.
  Contrary to the campaign statements of the President and Vice 
President, Al Qaeda is not ``on the run,'' and I urge this 
administration to avoid further actions that may endanger our Nation.
  I yield the floor for Senator Inhofe.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak until the arrival of the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the subject today, of course, is the 
failed foreign policy of this President and this administration. It is 
really hard to do it in a limited period of time because once something 
happens like Benghazi, and we get into the middle of that thing, then 
all of a sudden you turn around and this President turns loose arguably 
the five most heinous terrorists from Gitmo. At the same time, we have 
a policy that was going so well in Iraq, and now we find out that is 
not working out either. If I have time, I will touch on that.
  But the first thing I want to do is just mention this Benghazi thing. 
Being the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, I had the 
opportunity to really be in there and see as it was happening. It 
happens that Chris Stevens--the Ambassador who was sent over there and 
who was killed, one of the four who was killed in Benghazi--was a 
friend of mine. He was in my office. We spent time together. We talked 
about the threats that were out there. Then, as we got closer to this 
time, he realized and started sending messages to the President, to the 
White House, to us, to send security over there. He said that right now 
the terrorists are actually training in Benghazi. They actually had 
their flags flying. They knew they were organizing something, probably 
for an anniversary of 9/11. So he knew that. He had requested it, and 
the President elected not to send help at that time.

  The question a lot of people have is--they will say: Inhofe, how do 
you know the President knew that was an organized attack? Well, I can 
tell you how. In our system of government, we have four people who are 
responsible for advising the President on threats, on intelligence. 
They are the CIA Director--at that time it was John Brennan. The 
Director of National Intelligence was James Clapper. The Secretary of 
Defense at that time was Leon Panetta. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff was General Dempsey.
  Now, all of them acknowledged, when the annex was hit in Benghazi, 
that it was an organized--that same day--an organized terrorist attack. 
They all knew it. They expected it, but then they knew for a fact it 
was.
  So you are talking about the individuals who are responsible for 
advising the President. All of them were well aware that on the day of 
the annex attack in Benghazi that it was an organized terrorist attack. 
It was several days later that they sent Susan Rice to all of these 
shows in order to try to make it sound like it was some video that 
somebody had.
  Now, why would the President not want to admit that this was an 
organized terrorist attack? It was right before the election and the 
polls showed a lot of the people thought--Osama bin Laden having been 
captured--there was no longer that big threat out there in the Middle 
East and that would inure to his benefit. So it was for political 
reasons, and we ended up losing four lives.
  Then, just recently, they are saying, oh, they have now found this 
Abu Khattala. This is someone who has been around for 2 years. The 
press has been talking to him for 2 years. Why, all of a sudden, are 
they saying--now of all times--this is the guy who perpetrated 
Benghazi, when, in fact, this all came from the White House? I just 
think it is just covering it up, and I am very much offended by that.
  But the one thing I wanted to talk about--and I know some of the 
other Members are going to be here, and I will not abuse the time that 
has been given to me--but it is having to do with the release of the 
five Taliban terrorists on the American people. Let me tell you a side 
of this that people are not talking about that I feel strongly is the 
reason for it.
  First of all, this President is in the last half of his second term--
or approaching the last half of his second term. As is always the case, 
when you get down toward the end of your term, you start looking for a 
legacy. What was his legacy?
  One of his legacies is closing Gitmo. This President has been talking 
about

[[Page S3831]]

closing Gitmo for as long as I can remember, certainly longer than he 
has been President.
  Now, you wonder why. I go back and I tell people in Oklahoma--they 
say: Why does he want to close Gitmo? You cannot answer that. We have 
had Gitmo since 1903. It is one of the few good deals we have in 
government. We only pay $4,000 a year for that, and half the time the 
Cubans do not cash the check. So we have this thing. We had actually 
778 people there incarcerated and being interrogated prior to the time 
that Barack Obama became the President of the United States. Now we are 
down to 149.
  But as far as Gitmo--that resource--no one argues with the fact that 
the humane treatment is beyond anyone's expectation. There is no place 
else in the world they can do that. They are fully compliant with the 
Geneva Convention. They have had people go in there and look at the 
maximum security prison, and it is attested to. Human rights 
organizations, the Red Cross, and everyone else agrees that it is a 
very humane place while they are interrogating. As I said, there is no 
place else they can do this. Because if you start doing this in our 
court system, obviously, they get Miranda rights, constitutional 
rights, and people are pretty offended when they find out. That keeps 
us from getting information that would affect some of the others.
  We have an expeditionary legal complex there. It is the only one like 
this in the world, where they can actually do this.
  So this is a place where we can actually get in there, interrogate, 
get information, incarcerate people, not intermingle the terrorists 
with the prison population in this country, which is what the President 
has been talking about doing.
  Why do I say that? I say that because these guys are terrorists. They 
are not criminals. You put them in our prison system, and by definition 
their job is to train other people to become terrorists, and that is 
what they would be doing in training the prison population to become 
terrorists.
  I have to say this too. All of the talk about Osama bin Laden and the 
fact that we do have him--and I am very glad we were able to bring him 
down. But how did we do it? We did it through information that we 
received through interrogation at Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay.
  So I only say that because people wonder, why in the world would he 
be wanting to do this? And how does he want to fulfill this expectation 
or this legacy he has?
  Let me tell you, tell you how I think. If he would take, out of the 
149 individuals who are left there, the 5 most heinous terrorists, most 
dangerous Taliban terrorists, and turn them loose, that would put him 
in a position, then, to get rid of the rest of them, with the exception 
of those who are awaiting war crimes trials.
  So what happened? He turned them loose, No. 1. No. 2, he told the 
Taliban exactly when the United States is going to leave, regardless of 
the conditions on the ground. And then, thirdly, he has said that he is 
going to declare an ``end of hostilities.''
  That is a proper phrase, ``end of hostilities.'' This is not a war, 
it is a hostility. If he does that, that would then give him the 
justification for opening the gates, turning everyone loose from Gitmo 
and closing Gitmo. That, in my opinion, is the estimation.
  What are the threats we are facing as a result of that? We are in a 
position right now where we have five people who are turned loose. Even 
if we trusted Qatar to hold these five guys for a period of 1 year, 
still the philosophy there would be: All right, we will turn you loose 
if you few promise not to kill Americans for 1 year. That does not make 
sense.
  So this is something that should not have happened. We now have the 
people there making decisions, and they are celebrating as we speak. 
One of the five individual's name is named Fazl. I will end with this: 
There is a guy named Mullah Salem Khan. He is a Taliban commander over 
in Afghanistan. Listen to this. He is talking about Fazl, one of the 
five guys. He said:

       His return is like putting 10,000 Taliban fighters into the 
     battle on the side of jihad. Now the Taliban have the right 
     lion to lead them in the final moment before victory in 
     Afghanistan.

  That is what happened with these guys. That is how it is viewed over 
there. It is an atrocity that it did happen.
  I yield the floor for Senator Cornyn.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time remains in the allocation of 
this side's time?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republicans have 8 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CORNYN. I know we perhaps have another Member coming to speak. 
Would the Chair please advise me after I have used 5 minutes of that 8 
minutes?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will do that.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the intersection of 
national security and our mounting debt. Over the last 5 years, 
President Obama has had multiple occasions to embrace real structural 
entitlement reform that would help solve our long-term debt problem. 
One might wonder why am I talking about debt when the subject we are 
generally talking about is national security, including what is 
happening in Iraq and Syria.
  It is because as the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
said, ADM Mike Mullen, when asked what the single biggest threat to our 
national security was, he said: It is our debt. The President had an 
opportunity, when the Simpson-Bowles Commission released its 
recommendations in late 2010. As you will recall, this is a bipartisan 
commission the President himself appointed to help come up with a 
formula to deal with our fiscal problems.
  Unfortunately, once they made their recommendations in December of 
2010, the President walked away from them and nothing came of it, even 
though we are facing, in addition to $17 trillion in debt, more than 
$100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Perhaps it is because those 
numbers are so big that we have a hard time getting our head around it, 
that people have become desensitized to the urgency of dealing with our 
debt and these unfunded liabilities.
  But the President has never once endorsed any sort of reform 
necessary to deal with this challenge or to prevent a future crisis. 
The fact is, somebody someday--probably these young men and women who 
are working as pages and others their age, is going to have to be the 
ones to pay this back because our generation will have failed them 
unless we meet the challenges this presents.
  It seems as though the only part of the Federal budget the President 
is eager to cut is national defense. Under his latest budget plan, 
defense spending would drop from 3.4 percent to 2.3 percent of GDP by 
2023. At the same time, we are told the U.S. Army might be shrunk to 
the smallest size since pre-World War II.
  President Obama needs to realize that even America's current military 
capabilities are proving inadequate to meet global challenges. For 
example, one former Assistant Secretary of Defense has declared that 
because of Pentagon budget cuts, President Obama's highly touted pivot 
to Asia cannot happen. In other words, despite promoting the Asia pivot 
as a crucial element of American foreign policy, the President has 
failed to take the necessary fiscal steps to make sure that happens or 
could happen.
  This of course makes it a hollow policy, one where the promises are 
extravagant, but the delivery is anemic, and one that will do major 
damage to U.S. credibility among our allies and adversaries. The 
prospect of bringing DOD spending back down to sequestration levels has 
alarmed our senior military officials in all branches of government. 
Chief of Naval Operations ADM Jonathan Greenert has said that reverting 
to sequester levels in 2016 ``would lead to a Navy that is too small 
and lacking the advanced capabilities needed to execute the missions 
that nation expects of its Navy.''
  The Secretary of the Air Force has said that going back to those 
spending levels ``would compromise our national security.'' Ray 
Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army, said it would put ``our young men 
and women [in uniform] at much higher risk.'' In other words, the 
President cannot simply keep cutting defense spending and the military 
in order to fund his other priorities and at

[[Page S3832]]

the same time ignore the 70 percent of spending that is on autopilot, 
so-called entitlement spending. That is where the big money is. That is 
where the reforms need to take place, but it will not happen without a 
leader.
  We all know what is happening in Iraq. I know time is short. I do not 
want to take away any more time than necessary from my colleague from 
Alabama, but this map reflects what is happening now in Iraq. The civil 
war in Syria, the President had drawn a red line which once crossed--
there were no consequences associated with that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 5 minutes.
  Mr. CORNYN. Now this border between Iran and Syria has basically been 
wiped away. We see all of these places where the ISIS, a horrific 
terrorist group that is even worse than Al Qaeda, has basically taken 
charge. So this is what happens with a failure of leadership. 
Unfortunately, this is where we are in so many places around the world.
  In short: President Obama simply cannot keep asking America's 
military to shoulder such a disproportionate share of the spending cuts 
while our biggest entitlement programs remain virtually untouched. DoD 
spending did not cause our long-term budget problem, so slashing it to 
the bone would not solve that problem. Moreover, seemingly every week 
brings fresh reminders of the challenges our country will face in the 
years to come. At this very moment, we have Russia's ongoing aggression 
against democratic Ukraine. We have an Iranian theocracy that shows no 
signs of abandoning its quest for a nuclear weapon. We have a 
persistent terrorist challenge in Afghanistan. We have a potential 
failed state in Libya. We have growing Al Qaeda activity in many parts 
of Africa. We have a Chinese dictatorship that is increasing its annual 
military budget by more than 12 percent while continuing to bully its 
neighbors on the high seas.
  Most notably, we have a burgeoning terror state in the heart of the 
Middle East, where a ruthless band of jihadist killers--a group that is 
even more radical and murderous than Al Qaeda, if you can believe it--
now controls a massive piece of territory spanning both Syria and Iraq. 
Calling their movement the ``Islamic State of Iraq and Syria,'' or 
ISIS, members of this organization have taken over major Iraqi cities, 
including Fallujah, Mosul, Tikrit, and Tal Afar, leaving a trail of 
blood and medieval terror in their wake.
  The map to my left shows just how much territory ISIS has conquered. 
To make matters worse, they have seized a tremendous amount of weaponry 
and money--almost half a billion dollars--making them perhaps the most 
well-resourced terrorist group on earth.
  And again, just to reiterate: This group is considered more radical, 
and more vicious, than even Al Qaeda.
  Amazingly, even after ISIS took control of Mosul, Iraq's second-
largest city, a National Security Council spokeswoman stuck to the 
White House's 3-year-old talking points and said, ``President Obama 
promised to responsibly end the war in Iraq and he did.''
  Of course, the President did no such thing. By the time he assumed 
office in January 2009, Iraq had largely been stabilized. All the 
President had to do was convince the Iraqi government to sign a new 
Status of Forces Agreement, SOFA. Unfortunately, he was more interested 
in keeping a misguided campaign promise from 2008.
  As a result of his failure to maintain a significant U.S. troop 
presence in Iraq, America emboldened the Iranians, the Shiite militias, 
and the Sunni terrorist groups to become more aggressive. We also 
emboldened Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to behave in a more 
sectarian and dictatorial manner.
  Meanwhile, amid the fallout from America's Iraq withdrawal, President 
Obama's failure to take early, decisive action in Syria made it much 
easier for Sunni terrorists to increase their territory, weapons, and 
manpower. As you can see from this map, the jihadists have effectively 
been using their bases in Syria as a launching pad for attacks in 
western Iraq.
  The path forward in Iraq is highly uncertain, but I would urge 
President Obama to explain to the American people what is at stake, and 
to formulate a robust strategy for defending U.S. interests and 
preventing the creation of a new terror state. The President may well 
believe--as a recent New York Times article suggested--that ``he is 
managing an era of American retrenchment.'' But with bloodthirsty 
jihadists marauding through Iraq and approaching the gates of Baghdad, 
now is not a time for U.S. retrenchment. Instead, now is a time for 
clear thinking, clear decisions, and clear action.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, when a nation commits itself to a 
military effort, it is a very significant, august decision. I was here 
when we voted to utilize military force in Iraq and Afghanistan. A 
majority of the Democrats in this body supported that. The American 
people supported that.
  Through tough times, success was achieved in the sense that Iraq had 
elections, they had a functioning government, the U.S. military was 
drawing down its personnel, the country had a reconciliation with the 
Sunni and the Shia and the Kurds, and we were on a path that gave us 
some prospect, I believe it is fair to say--critics can have different 
opinions--but it is pretty clear to me we had prospects for a 
successful conclusion of that effort which would allow a relatively 
stable, relatively democratic nation to be established that did not 
threaten its neighbors or the United States.
  So we should have not done that. Well, we did that. That is what has 
happened. That was the situation when President Obama took office. He 
failed, in my opinion, in negotiating the kind of drawdown in the 
status of forces agreement that needed to be established to be able to 
create credibility in this new and fragile regime and help hold their 
military together, keep them trained, while we reduced dramatically our 
presence and military activities. We would be there as support, 
supplying equipment, intelligence, aircraft lift capability. That would 
have given them confidence.
  It was very clear when we just said: We cannot reach an agreement. We 
are pulling everybody out. We had General Bednarek talk to us recently. 
He told us he has 100 solders. I asked him if he was the current 
General Petraeus.
  He said, yes, with a bit of a smile, but he only has 100 people. So I 
guess I would say we are worried about it. One of the things that is so 
critical in our conduct and understanding of what we are involved in is 
to understand that the terrorist threat is going to be there for a long 
time. We are going to be dealing with this for a long time. There is a 
significant number, not a majority by any means but a significant 
number, of radicalized people in the Middle East who want to destroy 
the United States. They see us as an evil force. They support what we 
oppose. They want to take over their neighbors and continue to expand. 
They want to knock down reasonably functioning regimes that provide at 
least some freedom and order in their societies. They want to impose a 
caliphate. They want to impose on those countries a theocratic 
government and legal system.
  It is not good for the United States and it is not good for the 
world. One of the things we have to do and have to understand is that 
when we capture a person committed to the destruction of the United 
States, and who is attacking our people, they are not criminals. They 
are warriors. Most of their activities are clearly contrary to the law 
of war. So they are unlawful enemy combatants.
  When we capture a soldier in battle, whether lawful or unlawful, if 
they have complied with the rules of war, unlike this group, we do not 
try them, per se. We hold them until the war is over, until a peace 
treaty has been signed, until an agreement has been reached. That is 
not happening now. As a result, we have a confused policy that results 
in the release of dangerous enemy combatants, such as the five Taliban 
leaders we just released under this confused thinking.
  It fundamentally arose when the left--determined to attack President 
Bush--attacked the secure terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo 
Bay. They argued that it became some symbol of the policies we are 
using to detain people who are captured enemy

[[Page S3833]]

combatants, lawful or unlawful. When we capture them, we hold them. We 
do not release them so they can go back to the war and kill us. We are 
going to send soldiers out to capture them, and then once they have 
been captured, we are going to release them so they continue into the 
war? It goes against all common sense. As Justice Jackson once said: 
The Constitution is not a ``suicide pact.''
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So they have to be treated properly and that sort of 
thing, but they do not have to be released. We captured, for example, 
Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai last year for conspiring with bin Ladin to 
attack U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Somalia and for his part 
in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. Embassies in East Africa that killed 
224 people before 9/11. He is a treasure trove of intelligence.
  U.S. forces went in and captured him, took him away at risk of their 
lives. He had been undergoing interrogation on the USS San Antonio 
until he said he was sick and not doing well. So what happened? They 
took him to New York, where he was formally arrested and taken into the 
custody of the U.S. Justice Department, and put into the civilian 
justice system. The purpose of capturing him was to get intelligence. 
This is a warrior. We want to talk to him. We want to see what we can 
learn about him. Even the New York Times said ``his capture was seen as 
a potential intelligence coup because he had been on the run for years 
and so would, presumably, possess information about al Qaeda.'' 
However, when he appeared in Federal court, he was appointed a lawyer, 
guaranteed a speedy, public trial--the things that prisoners of war are 
not entitled to--yet this has been happening over and over again. Al-
Ruqai's cooperation ended, leading to a major lost opportunity to 
obtain valuable intelligence.
  This evidences a serious lack of understanding of the nature of the 
conflict we are engaged in. It evidences a policy that is dangerous to 
our safety. It is wrong to send Americans to capture people such as 
this and then treat them in a way that allows them to minimize the 
opportunity to obtain intelligence.
  Indeed, the gravest danger with bringing enemy combatants to U.S. 
soil is that the President cannot absolutely prevent their release into 
the United States. And, once foreign nationals are here, there are 
legal limits on the government's ability to remove them from the U.S. 
The reality is, once here, their fate is no longer simply up to the 
administration but also a federal judge.
  There are many examples of foreign nationals who have committed 
murder and other serious crimes and were released into the U.S. when 
our government could not transfer them to another country.
  This risk extends to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. We saw that in 
the case of Kiyemba v. Obama. There, the D.C. District Court ordered 
the release into the United States of a group of ethnic Chinese 
Uighers who were detained at Guantanamo, many of whom had received 
military-style training in Tora Bora. Fortunately, the D.C. Circuit 
reversed the decision based on the fact that the Gitmo detainees had 
not been brought to the United States. If, however, Gitmo detainees are 
brought here, a judge may very well order them released into the United 
States if they cannot be removed to another country. That very real 
risk obviously does not exist if Gitmo detainees are not brought to the 
United States in the first place.

  The course this administration has chosen on national security 
matters has steered us into a head-on collision with reality. The 
American people unequivocally oppose transplanting terrorists from 
Gitmo into their own communities, either for detention or trial. Our 
primary goal is to prevent future terrorist attacks, especially through 
obtaining intelligence. We should not jeopardize that goal in order to 
afford foreign terrorists who seek to harm the United States and its 
citizens the rights and privileges granted to ordinary criminals. The 
administration's policy has put this country at grave risk.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.

                          ____________________