[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 96 (Thursday, June 19, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3847-S3855]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRS INVESTIGATION
Madam President, about a year ago the American people learned that
the IRS--one of the most feared and powerful agencies in our
government--had engaged in political targeting. There is no doubt about
that. Specifically, we learned that the IRS had, by its own admissions,
singled out individual conservative groups applying for tax-exempt
status for harassment and extra scrutiny during the runup to the 2010
and 2012 elections, and the IRS admits it--at least some in the IRS
admit it. Needless to say, the American people were outraged when this
news became public, and the IRS's credibility was seriously damaged.
We saw numerous groups and individuals come forward to acknowledge
that they had been targeted. Politicians across the political spectrum,
including the President of the United States, condemned these actions
and vowed to get to the bottom of it.
In the many months since the targeting scandal was revealed, I have
said numerous times that the most important objective for the IRS and
its leadership consisted of repairing its reputation with the American
people. For a while there, it appeared as though the agency was serious
about doing that. Sadly, over the last few days a new chapter in this
scandal has been opened, and as a result the IRS's credibility has
taken yet another serious hit.
For more than a year the Senate Finance Committee has been engaged in
a bipartisan investigation into the targeting scandal. During most of
that time we were under the impression that the IRS was acting in
relative good faith to cooperate with our inquiry. As of last week we
believed we were close to completing our investigation. We had prepared
the bipartisan majority report and the majority and minority views in
addition. We were about ready to come out with that. The facts, we
believed, were coming together. Then, in what I thought would be one of
the last steps in the investigation, I insisted that we send a letter
to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen demanding that he formally certify
that the agency had produced
[[Page S3848]]
all documents that were relevant to our requests. It was then--after we
sent that notice to them asking them to verify--that we learned there
was an enormous hole in our factfinding. I am sure glad we sent the
letter.
On Friday of last week the IRS informed us that due to a hard drive
crash, it was unable to produce thousands of pages of emails from Lois
Lerner--the one who took the fifth amendment--the former Director of
Exempt Organizations and one of the central figures, by anybody's
estimation, if not the central figure, in this investigation. The gap
in the emails was from 2009 through April 2011--a pivotal time in the
activities under investigation.
You heard that right, Madam President. A full year after our initial
investigation request or information request, the IRS informed us that
a huge chunk of relevant emails was mysteriously gone.
Needless to say, this was disturbing. That is why Chairman Wyden and
I demanded to meet with Commissioner Koskinen on Monday of this week.
Sadly, this meeting produced even more bad news.
The first thing we learned during the course of this meeting was that
Ms. Lerner's emails were not going to be reproduced. The IRS's
redundancy operations were apparently insufficient to ensure that these
emails would be saved in the event of a hard drive crash. According to
Commissioner Koskinen, the IRS only saves emails on its servers for 6
months. Get that. The IRS only saves emails on its computer servers for
6 months. Now, they require you and me and everybody else to save at
least 3 years of our tax returns, but they only--according to them--
were saving emails on their servers for 6 months. I don't know about
you, but I have a rough time believing that. I cannot believe it. That
is what they do.
The next thing we learned is that officials at the IRS became aware
of this gap in Ms. Lerner's emails as early as February of this year
and that the Commissioner was made aware of the hard drive crash about
3 weeks or more prior to our meeting--he wasn't quite sure, but
sometime around the end of March or the first part of April, is my
recollection, but certainly more than 3 weeks before our meeting. It
was never made clear to us why it took at the very least 3 weeks and a
letter from us demanding a signed certification from the Commissioner
for the IRS to inform the Finance Committee that the emails were
missing. As of right now we still don't know why the agency failed to
inform us immediately that the emails were gone.
The IRS was more willing to share this information with others in the
administration. Yesterday we learned that by April the IRS had already
notified Treasury that some of Ms. Lerner's emails appeared to be
missing. We also learned that in April Treasury informed the White
House of this development, but they didn't inform us. The IRS has
offered no explanation of why they waited 2 more months to inform
Congress--and particularly the Senate Finance Committee, which is the
crucial committee here in the Senate which was performing an active
investigation into this very issue. You haven't heard from either me or
the chairman, Senator Wyden, popping off about this. We conducted a
reasonably good investigation, doing everything we thought we could do
without mouthing off about it.
Moreover, we do not know what discussions have taken place since
April between the White House, Treasury, and the IRS about the lost
emails.
That would be bad enough, but it gets worse.
After our meeting on Monday, we were surprised to learn, via a press
release from the House Ways and Means Committee, that even more emails
relevant to our investigation may be missing. Apparently the IRS had
informed the Ways and Means Committee, but not us, knowing we were
conducting an investigation, that it might have lost the emails for six
IRS employees, all of whom were covered by the Finance Committee's
document requests. Think about that.
One of these employees is reported to be Nikole Flax, who was the
chief of staff to former Acting Commissioner Steve Miller. In that role
Ms. Flax helped oversee the processing of tax-exempt applications. From
our investigation, we also know that she directly dealt with the White
House and the Office of Management and Budget on a number of issues.
It seems there is an epidemic of hard-drive crashes going on at the
IRS, and it seems to be particularly focused on individuals relevant to
the targeting scandal and the ongoing congressional investigations.
Chairman Wyden and I just wanted to get to the truth on these matters,
but it is going to be difficult to ever get there now.
Needless to say, it is very troubling that even more emails might be
missing and may never be recovered. It is also troubling that neither
Commissioner Koskinen nor his staff thought they should reveal this
information to Chairman Wyden and myself during our long conversation
earlier this week. They knew about it, but they didn't tell the people
who were conducting the investigation about it at all.
It is obvious from the timing of the revelations that people in that
room were aware of the additional missing emails. Yet it didn't occur
to any of them that they should disclose this information to the
chairman and ranking member of the only Senate committee with oversight
authority over this agency.
As I said, the Finance Committee was getting close to completing its
investigation last week. We were getting close to issuing our report,
and we were moving forward under the assumption that the IRS had been
cooperating. It took me a week to read the bipartisan report and the
majority and minority views that were added to it--not because I am a
slow reader, but because I was interrupted all day long every day. I
had to set aside various times when I could read it. We were moving
forward under the assumption that the IRS had been honestly
cooperating--we thought. Now we have to ask ourselves whether we can
trust any of the statements coming out of this agency.
Our investigation is important. We need to have a full and complete
account of what went on at the IRS during the 2010 and 2012 election
campaigns. Sadly, it seems that in order to get such an account, we are
going to need to also delve into what has gone on at the IRS during the
months the agency was supposedly trying to respond to our reasonable
document requests.
One way or another, I am going to get to the bottom of this, and I am
prepared to take any steps that are necessary to do so. We need to get
to closure on what the facts are before we can close out the
investigation. Otherwise, the conclusions in the investigation will be
based on a faulty factual premise.
Earlier today, I sent a letter to Commissioner Koskinen demanding to
know what he knew about the additional missing emails and why the
chairman and I were not informed about them during our meeting this
last Monday. He had three others with him, and at least one of them
fully knew about the additional six hard drives that crashed.
I am not naive. I do a lot in the IT world, and I can tell you this:
These are the first hard drives that crashed--that I have known about--
that some of our IT, information technology, experts could not get into
and find some of the data. That is possible but not probable in seven
different cases. Once again, it appears that either the Commissioner or
his staff were less than forthcoming in the meeting and someone needs
to be held responsible.
This is important. If we can't trust these agencies to be truthful to
congressional leaders, we have serious problems. This letter is only
the first step. More action needs to be taken. There needs to be an
independent review of the fiasco surrounding all of these lost emails
and crashed servers.
We need an independent arbiter to determine if the agency's account
of the computer problems is accurate and whether the relevant emails
are, in fact, unrecoverable. We also need a review to determine if
there are more missing emails. As I said, this review needs to be
independent as we apparently can't trust the IRS to be fully
forthcoming on these issues. This is what we are going to need to get
to the bottom of it, but sadly, even that won't be enough.
The problem with these missing emails is that we won't have any
assurances that we will ever get a complete
[[Page S3849]]
picture of what went on. We need to take the necessary steps to find
out what communications these individuals were making during the time
in question.
We have received many of these employees' emails from the IRS because
for obvious reasons they tended to include the email addresses of other
IRS employees. However, what we don't have are emails sent by these
individuals to parties outside the IRS. If the computer problems at the
agency have indeed made these emails impossible to recover on the IRS's
end, the only way to recover them is to extend the inquiry to agencies
outside the IRS.
Let me say, this is a mess. Honestly, I don't see how any reasonable
person cannot conclude that there is a very real possibility that
something is wrong in Washington, something is wrong at the IRS,
something is wrong at Treasury, and something is wrong at the White
House.
Communications to agencies such as the Treasury Department, Justice
Department, and the Federal Election Commission are all relevant, as
are emails sent to the White House.
I plan to send document requests to all of these parties, asking them
to produce any communications they received from the seven IRS
employees whose emails have been lost.
Of course, in an ideal world none of this would be necessary, but we
are not living in an ideal world. Instead, we are living in a world
where apparently hard drives crash every day and administration
officials decide to withhold information from congressional
investigators. As a result, additional steps are necessary in order for
the truth to finally come out.
In conclusion, I want to make one thing clear. While I am angered and
disappointed by this recent turn of events, I am not the aggrieved
party here. That unfortunate distinction belongs to the American
people.
Once again, the IRS is one of the most powerful and feared agencies
in our government. It is one that millions of Americans have to deal
with on a daily basis. The American people have a right to expect this
agency will conduct itself in a fair manner without regard to parties
and politics, and that trust was broken last year when the targeting
scandal was made public.
Now, a year later, after all the work we have done to hold this
agency accountable and to get to the bottom of these matters, that
trust has been broken again.
I have to say that Chairman Wyden has been very good on these
matters. He has tried to be bipartisan in every way, and I personally
appreciate it. I think he will continue to work in a bipartisan way as
we try to get the real facts about all of these matters.
It is a shame, but once again I am going to get to the bottom of this
one way or the other. It is going to be difficult because it appears
that going forward we will not be able to trust anything the IRS says
to Congress. That is why we are going to have to bring other parties
into the inquiry. This is unfortunate. As I said, this is the world we
are living in.
I am discouraged about this. I mean, the administration knows I am as
fair as a person can be on our side, and all I want to do is get to the
facts and the truth and resolve these problems in the best interest of
the American people.
Why some of these were not brought up when they were known is beyond
me. It is beyond me that only after we sent a letter saying: Will you
verify this is everything, then all of a sudden there were other emails
that were found, but not from these servers, and not for 2 years in the
case of the Lois Lerner server.
Lois Lerner took the Fifth Amendment, which is her right. I am not
about to condemn her as a guilty criminal around here, but I think the
best thing she could have done was help provide these emails that would
hopefully exonerate her, but I believe would not. Otherwise I don't
think there would have been a crash of the computer.
What really bothers me is this too: When computers in the Federal
Government crash, they usually have backups, and the backups will allow
us to get the computer up and working. For some reason there apparently
were not backups here either. Not only that, they were only keeping
track of the prior 6 months, so you would have never gotten the 2 years
no matter what you did if the computer crashed. But we don't have those
2 years, which were relevant years, in anybody's estimation.
There is something rotten in Washington. I am not sure who is
responsible for it. I have to say I like Mr. Koskinen. I helped put him
through in a very ready fashion and got him confirmed. I believed he
was telling us the truth. But I am disturbed that the only way we even
got the rest of the available emails--none from 2009 to 2011. And who
knows, as to the other six servers, how many of those crashed and how
many of those emails are gone forever.
The administration will say, well, we did look at the addresses and
we got the emails in some respect from some of the people they were
sent to, but that is not what the real investigation would show
either. They don't have a bit of an excuse here. It just makes one
wonder, why did Lois Lerner take the protections of the Fifth
Amendment? Why has not the administration been outraged as much as we
are? I can say I believe our distinguished chairman is as outraged as I
am. I can't speak for him, naturally, but I know him, and he is as
upset as I am because we sat right there last Monday and they never
told us about the six servers. As far as I know, they disposed of the
crashed server of Lois Lerner. So nobody will ever be able to examine
it and determine whether there is the possibility of getting the emails
for that crucial period between 2009 and 2011, which is probably the
most crucial period of the whole investigation.
Now Senator Wyden and I have to rework our report on this, and
hopefully we can do that, even though we don't have all the information
that anybody with common decency would expect us to have.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Iraq
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, we all continue to follow the events in
Iraq that have significant national security implications for the
United States now and in the years to come. The President spoke on this
issue a few moments ago, and I wish to share a few thoughts before we
return to our States for the next few days and then come back to
Washington early next week to continue our work.
The first thing I wish to say about this issue of Iraq is, while I
certainly respect those Members who have served in this body and those
commentators who have either served in government and now are out and
others who have strong opinions about the decisions that were made
regarding Iraq in the past, I would say I hope what we spend our time
around here doing during this process is focused on what is happening
now and what lies ahead. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a debate
about the decisions made in 2003 and beyond. Those are important
debates to have, primarily because we learn from history. We learn from
the successes and the mistakes, but I think we are spending a lot of
time around this process these days talking about the past. We have the
rest of history to debate who was right and who was wrong with regard
to the war in 2003 or the surge thereafter. I have strong opinions
about it, and we should certainly spend time talking about that so we
can learn from it and so we can apply it to new decisions that are
being made, for example, in Afghanistan, but I would hope that 90 to 95
percent of what we spend our time on is talking about how to deal with
this threat now--the one that is right before us.
The President today announced--and it is going to be covered--that
they are going to send close to 300 additional American trainers and
advisers into Iraq. I have no direct objection to that decision. I am
hopeful, however, that it is but the first step in a multistep process
in this counterterrorism risk we now face. I am hopeful what this is
designed to do is set the framework for the United States to achieve a
number of important goals that directly impact the national security of
the United States.
The first, of course, is I believe the United States, working in
conjunction
[[Page S3850]]
with others in the region, needs to do everything we can to cut off
ISIL's supply lines. Many people may not be fully aware of this, but
ISIL or ISIS--the same group involved in Syria--is not simply a bunch
of Sunni Syrians or Sunni Iraqis; these are foreign fighters, including
hundreds who are estimated to have come from the West, who have flocked
to Syria and now Iraq to participate in this fight.
In addition, this group, in order to make the advances and the gains
it is now making in Iraq, requires--as any force would--distinct supply
lines that allow them to transport individuals and weapons and
ammunition, in addition to, by the way, the things they are now getting
their hands on as they make these advances. So one of the goals the
United States must have, working in conjunction with others, is to
sever those supply lines so they cannot continue to make these gains.
Secondly, I hope what the President announced today as the beginning
of a process will, in part, also focus on the command and control areas
they currently operate from within Syria. Without those safe havens,
they would not possibly be able to expand the reach they now have. So I
hope, again, that what the President announced today is but a first
step toward a multistep process that allows us to address those two
issues.
In addition, I think it is important to continue to revisit the issue
of the opposition in Syria. When people read about the opposition in
Syria, it is important to note there is no such thing as the
opposition. There are a handful of groups operating within Syria
against the Assad regime, but these groups also fight each other, and
there is a group of nonjihadists, nonradical terrorists who are
fighting in Syria to topple Assad, but this group also takes on the al-
Nusra Front and ISIS. I have for many months now been calling on the
administration to do more to capacitate these groups, the nonjihadists.
I felt it was a mistake not to do so early on because that actually
created the possibility or the eventuality that now we face; that is,
that the best organized, best equipped, best trained groups in Syria
happen to be the most radical ones. That includes ISIL and of course
al-Nusra. By the way, al-Nusra and ISIL fight each other, which adds
further complexity.
Last but not least, I think it is important to spend a significant
amount of focus on helping our allies in Jordan. If we play out what is
happening--if, in fact, ISIS is able to erase this border between Syria
and Iraq and establish this Sunni caliphate, their next move logically
will be to threaten the Kingdom of Jordan, an incredibly important ally
to the United States, to the stability of the region, to Israel, and to
others. So we should continue to provide assistance to Jordan in
protecting their borders and their future.
These are four goals I hope we will continue to move toward, and I am
hopeful that with the announcement the President made today, it is a
first step as we work toward those goals.
A couple of points are important to make, and I do so every time I
address this issue of Iraq. The first is this is not about the United
States taking sides in a Sunni-Shia civil war. The future of Iraq
depends on the people of Iraq. It is up to them to establish a
government that functions. It is up to them to provide a secure and
safe country where people can prosper. It is up to them to create a
political system and a social system where both Sunni and Shia feel as
though they have a voice in the governance of their country. This is
not about the United States stepping in and saying, We are on the Shia
side. In fact, I can tell my colleagues that while this is not uniform,
there are many Sunnis within Iraq who do not necessarily sympathize
with ISIL and what they are doing. So this is not about the United
States engaging itself in a civil war.
This is also not about the United States trying to build a country.
This is not about the United States going into Iraq and saying, We have
to rebuild Iraq. This is about counterterrorism and this is about the
future security of the United States.
Every time I come to the floor, I remind everyone that the reason 9/
11 was possible was because Al Qaeda was able to establish a safe haven
in Afghanistan, under the protection of the Taliban, and from that safe
haven they raised money, they recruited, they plotted, they planned,
and they ultimately carried out the most devastating terrorist attack
in U.S. history, and we can never allow another similar safe haven to
take root.
This is especially true when the group trying to establish such a
safe haven--in fact, not just a safe haven but a caliphate run by a
radical government--is a group whose expressed goal is to establish
that caliphate, to use it to terrorize the people of the United States
by attacking us in the United States, in the hopes of driving us out of
the Middle East and then destroying Israel and establishing their brand
of Islam and forcing it on all the peoples and countries of the region.
We cannot allow such a safe haven to take root. If they are
successful in their goal of creating a new country, a new State, this
Islamic radical caliphate, we will have in the future grave risks and
potentially severe and devastating terrorist attacks against Americans
both abroad and here in the homeland. This group has a very clear
mandate. They have been very clear about what their goals are, but in
order to carry that out successfully, they need an operational space,
and we cannot allow them to create one in Iraq. That is what this issue
is about. That is why this issue matters.
I know when I say what I have said, I open myself to those voices
that say there are warmongers and people who want to go back to war.
Absolutely not. On the contrary. What has happened is, after looking at
this issue, studying the lessons of the past 20 years and what we have
learned after 9/11 especially, it becomes evident to me that we are
going to have to deal with this group. That is not what we are
debating. The issue before us that we have to decide is when do we deal
with them? Do we deal with them now, when they still have not created
that caliphate, or do we deal with them 5 or 10 years down the road
when they have established a safe haven and significant operational
capacity? It is going to cost a lot more money, potentially many more
lives and, in the process, significant terrorist attacks and terrorist
risks if we deal with it later. It will cost less money, be more
effective, and be a lot less dangerous if we deal with it now.
That must be our goal, to not allow this group ISIS to establish a
safe haven of operation in Iraq, or in Syria for that matter, and then
give the people of Iraq the opportunity to decide a future for
themselves. That is important, which is why this issue of Iran is
important.
I have been asked by reporters and others: Should we be working with
Iran? My opinion, based on all I have learned regarding this situation
and based on factors that are obvious for anyone to see, is we do not
share the same goal Iran does. We don't have the same goal. Iran's goal
is not simply to defeat ISIL. Iran's goal is to establish a Shia
government that oppresses Sunnis and that is responsive to them. That
is their goal. What they want to set up in Iraq is a public government
under the control of Iran. That is not our goal, that should not be our
goal, and it never has been our goal.
Our goal is to ensure that a terrorist organization cannot establish
a safe haven, and our hope is that the Iraqi people can create for
themselves a government and a country where both Shia and Sunni can
live in peace and harmony among each other. That is up to them. We can
help them do that, but we can't make them do that. What we can do is
everything we can to ensure that this terrorist group doesn't take
root. So I think our goals are completely incompatible with Iran.
The other point I would make is we should not do anything to
legitimize that regime. That regime is the world's greatest State
sponsor of terrorism. In virtually every continent on this planet, Iran
has a hand in sponsoring terrorism. So I am not sure how we could
possibly work side by side to wipe out terrorism with a government that
sponsors terrorism more than any other government on the planet. I
caution against that approach as well.
To close the loop, I hope we will spend most of our time focused on
what we need to do now and in the future. We have forever to debate who
was right and who was wrong about the war in 2003 or the surge in 2007.
Also, I hope the announcement the President made today was the first
[[Page S3851]]
step in a multistep process that will allow us to prevent ISIL from
establishing the kingdom, the caliphate, and the safe haven they seek.
I hope we make clear to the American people what the stakes are for us,
that the reason we care about what is happening in Iraq is not because
we want to nation build or because we want to force any sort of
government on the people of Iraq. Their future belongs to them. It is
because we cannot allow a terrorist group that has the stated goal and
the increasing capacity of attacking the United States to establish an
operational space such as Afghanistan was for Al Qaeda before 9/11.
I hope we will continue to play the important role the Senate plays
in speaking out and hoping to give guidance and advice to the Commander
in Chief. But as I said yesterday, ultimately, the role of leading on
this matter corresponds to the President. Only the President of the
United States can come up with a plan that hopefully all of us can
unite behind because it is that important for our country and for our
future and for our security.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the deteriorating
situation in Iraq. There has been considerable debate in recent days
about what we want to achieve in that country and the importance of
achieving so-called political reconciliation in Baghdad. I wish to
propose three simple principles that should guide any action we take in
Iraq.
No. 1, we should do everything possible to secure our people. No. 2,
we should defend our national security interests. No. 3, we should not
partner with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
First and foremost, we need to be certain we are doing everything
humanly possible to secure the Americans who are still in Iraq. The
instability of the situation in the north of that country could quickly
devolve into nationwide chaos, and it requires our immediate attention.
We need to be developing and implementing an immediate plan to get
out all nonessential American personnel, to get them to safety now. I
am deeply concerned, as all of us should be, that our people on the
ground will become pawns in a sectarian conflict we cannot control. I
am concerned the up to 275 marines who may be deployed to assist in
embassy security, along with the 300 additional military advisers that
President Obama announced today, will also become targets, isolated in
Baghdad.
It is not at all reassuring to have the security in Baghdad provided
by either Shia militias, loosely controlled by the al-Maliki
government, or by the Iranian Quds forces themselves or their agents.
If we have to rely on either to keep our people safe, we should not be
there. Let me repeat that. If we have to rely on either to keep our
people safe, we should not be there.
Second, we need to define and then to defend the national security
interests of the United States in Iraq. There has been extensive
discussion of ``political reconciliation'' in Iraq and of making any
American military action contingent on achieving that ephemeral
objective. This makes no sense. Although a political solution to Iraq's
troubles may have been an appropriate goal in 2005 or 2011, it simply
may not be feasible in 2014. The time for this sort of argument would
have been 3 years ago when America was the most influential voice in
Baghdad and we were completing our largest embassy on the planet on the
banks of the Tigris River.
But we chose to relinquish that influence when we did not
successfully negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with the Iraqis.
Much of the blame for that diplomatic impasse lies with the al-Maliki
government, but the Obama administration bears considerable
responsibility as well. The President campaigned on ``ending the war in
Iraq'' which he defined by removing all of our forces, not winning. So
immediate troop withdrawal, not negotiating a proper status-of-forces
agreement, was the priority. In the words of Secretary Clinton on CNN
on Tuesday, ``We did not get it done.'' The result is that today we
have little or no influence in Baghdad.
It is not my purpose today to relitigate the history of U.S.
involvement in Iraq but, rather, to propose what we can do with the
circumstances in which we find ourselves right now. Given our current
circumstances, any attempt to reconcile a Sunni-Shiite religious
conflict that has waged for more than 1,500 years seems either the
height of hubris or naivete or both.
Rather than prioritizing an unachievable political solution we have
no power to effect, it seems much more practical to focus on what is in
the actual national security interests of the United States of America.
The most acute security threat to the United States in Iraq is the
aggressive movement of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIS,
forces out of Syria and into Iraq over the last 6 months. These vicious
Sunni fanatics may be relatively small in number, but they make up for
it in shear brutality. Although President Obama dismissed their
aggression into Fallujah in January of this year as the terrorist
equivalent of the ``junior varsity,'' recent events suggest they are of
a much higher capability.
Indeed, an obvious question the administration should answer is, has
the Obama administration ever armed ISIS? Has the administration given
lethal weapons to ISIS? We are doing so to rebels who are fighting
alongside ISIS in Syria. It is an obvious question to ask, whether we
have, in fact, armed these radical Islamic terrorists as well.
ISIS is much more than a local or even regional threat. They are
among the worst of the radical jihadists who attacked us on September
1, 2001, and again on September 11, 2012. They are so bad, in fact,
that the ``core Al Qaeda,'' as President Obama likes to call the
terrorist cells in Pakistan and Afghanistan, have renounced them. Their
goal is to establish a new Islamic caliphate in the Middle East and
northern Africa, from Syria to Iraq. They have publicly announced that
when they achieve their ambition in Syria and Iraq, their goal is to
move on to Jordan, to Israel, and to the United States of America.
Because of their actions and their stated intent, it would seem a
targeted mission to seriously degrade the lethality of ISIS could well
be in the national security interests of the United States. Such an
action would not require the commitment of American combat forces, but
it would require a commitment from the Commander in Chief that this
action would not be merely a symbolic message or an effort simply to
perpetuate the al-Maliki government in Baghdad.
Instead, it would need to be an expeditious and emphatic
demonstration of America's ability to strike at the terrorists at the
time and means of our choosing. If the President needs to respond to an
imminent threat to the national security interests of the United
States, or to act to an imminent threat to the lives of Americans in
Iraq, he has the constitutional authority to do so. However, Congress
has the constitutional authority to declare war. So if the President is
planning on launching a concerted offensive attack that is not
constrained by the exigency of the circumstances, he should come to
Congress to seek and to receive authorization for the use of military
force. A precondition for any such mission in Iraq should be the utter
rejection of any partnership with the Islamic Republic of Iran on which
the al-Maliki government is increasingly dependent.
Iran has been the implacable enemy of the United States since 1979,
when revolutionaries took 54 American citizens hostage for 444 days,
some of the darkest days of our history. Earlier this year, Iran
demonstrated that this rapid anti-American hostility is alive and well
by trying to get a U.S. visa for one of those hostage takers to serve
as their Ambassador to the United Nations, to live in Manhattan with
diplomatic immunity. It was one of my proudest days in the Senate to
introduce the legislation countering this action that passed
unanimously through both Houses of Congress, and that was signed into
law by President Obama, stopping known terrorists from entering the
United States.
When push comes to shove, the American people understand that Iran
[[Page S3852]]
is our enemy. We need to bring that same clarity, that same bipartisan
unity to current circumstances in Iraq.
Just because Iran fears ISIS jihadists, it does not follow that we
should partner with them in this fight. The enemy of our enemy, in this
instance, is not our friend. If we cannot secure our people absent
Iranian involvement, we need to get them out. If we cannot strike ISIS
in Iraq without Iranian involvement, then we need to look for another
means of doing so.
ISIS consists of radical Islamist terrorists who seek to murder
Americans. Yet the Iranian regime has over and over demonstrated the
same hostile intent. Indeed, it is the leading sponsor of terrorism
across the world.
It is deeply concerning that not only Secretary of State John Kerry
but also former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of
Defense Chuck Hagel have all signaled in recent days they are actively
interested in exploring a partnership with Iran to deal with Iraq.
Indeed, today President Obama publicly suggested: ``Iran can play a
constructive role.'' This is the height of foolishness. It is deeply
disturbing that so many current and former senior Obama administration
officials would share this same misguided and naive view.
There could be no more ill-advised or counter-productive policy for
the United States at this moment than to partner with the Islamic
Republic of Iran. Rather than partnering with Iran, we should be all
the more mindful of the dangers of taking our eye off the ball of
Iran's nuclear program, as no doubt Tehran hopes we will in this most
recent crisis.
As grim as the threat of ISIS is, it pales in comparison to the
threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, given their long and well-documented
history of state-sponsored terrorism. Indeed, Iran is working now and
has been working for years now to develop nuclear ICBMs for one reason
and one reason only, and that is to strike at America and potentially
murder millions of Americans. It would be the height of folly to take
any action in Iraq that would further embolden Iran, which is already
moving to make Iraq a client state in its pursuit of regional hegemony.
We already know how that script plays out. We have seen it in our
ally Ukraine, where former President Viktor Yanukovych acted as
Vladimir Putin's stooge and planted pro-Russian agents throughout the
Ukrainian government and armed forces. But the Ukrainian people refused
to accept Russia's attempt to reintegrate them into a 21st century
reincarnation of the Soviet Union.
They stood in the Maidan Square, a place I visited just a few weeks
ago, and they braved the freezing cold. They braved the murderous army
snipers who shot the protesters down in that square, and they stood and
demanded freedom. They demanded to stand with America, with Europe, and
the West.
Iran, in its attempt to create a modern version, a new version of the
Persian Empire, has attempted a similar play on behalf of so-called
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei through the means of the Iraqi regime of
Nouri al-Maliki.
Sadly, Iranian forces today permeate both the Government of Iraq and
the Iraqi security forces.
America has demonstrated, beyond any shadow of doubt, our offer of
liberty to the people of Iraq. Indeed, thousands of our sons and
daughters have given their lives in pursuit of freedom in Iraq. But if
the Iraqi Government is more interested in forging a relationship with
Iran than with the United States, we should not and we cannot attempt
to force them to adhere to our political goals for them.
Absent active partners in Iraq who want a closer alliance with
America and with our allies, our key objective should be, quite simply,
to secure our people, to counteract terrorist threats to our national
security, and to make sure that we do not further embolden the Islamic
Republic of Iran.
These objectives--not the fantasy of resolving the Sunni-Shiite
conflict that has been raging since the death of Muhammad in 632 A.D.
or the illusion that we can magically find productive common ground
with Iran--should define our policy toward Iraq.
I would like to make one final note. It is my hope that my colleagues
will think more broadly about what is happening in the world in Iraq,
in Iran, in Russia, and in Libya. We are being faced with options of
options of options that have been created by the bad choices our
leaders make.
Those guiding our foreign policy at the White House, the State
Department, and even, unfortunately, in the Senate have refused to
address true dangers posed to Americans at home and abroad. Bad choices
inevitably leave us with bad options.
Refusing to recognize the radical religious extremism of individuals
who are committed to jihad and have pledged to murder Americans is a
bad choice. Refusing to utter the words ``radical Islamic terrorists''
is a bad choice. Negotiating with terrorists to release terrorist
leaders is a bad choice, and considering any kind of deal with Iran is
a very bad choice.
In the last 5 years America has receded from leadership in the world.
Into that vacuum have stepped nations such as Iran, such as Russia,
such as China. As we have abandoned our allies, the consequences have
been to make the world a much more dangerous place. America's
leadership has never been more critical than it is today.
Until the leaders of our government stop making these bad choices, we
will continue to be left with bad options.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Rhode Island.
CJS Appropriations
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the appropriations
minibus that many of us were prepared to move forward on today. I am
deeply disappointed that the Republican minority is effectively
blocking another bill on this floor from moving forward for
consideration and ultimately approval by the Congress.
It is disappointing because I know that the bipartisan work that was
done in the committee was absolutely critical and extremely productive.
The Appropriations Committee, which I have the privilege of serving on,
presented us, this Senate, with three very excellent pieces of
legislation. I am disappointed that we are not moving forward to pass
them. It is also disappointing because this process gives us the
opportunity to shape the spending priorities of the government, to
focus on the needs of the American people, and to do so in a way that
will be responsive to their needs and we hope improves their
opportunities to grow this economy and participate in the economy.
Without appropriations bills, we run the risk of being stuck with a
continuing resolution--funding just what we did the last year--perhaps
a little less, perhaps a little more in some areas. But it deprives us
of focusing on issues that are more sensitive and more critical at this
moment to the American public.
Chairman Mikulski has done an excellent job leading the
Appropriations Committee. As I said from the beginning, she was
determined to make it a substantive, respectful, and bipartisan
process. The results are reflected in the unanimous or near unanimous
committee votes on the bills that are coming to this floor in this
minibus, as we call it. So I thank her, obviously, for her leadership.
I also want to thank my colleagues on the relevant subcommittees,
Senator Murray, in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Subcommittee; Senator Pryor, the chair of the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Subcommittee. Together they have prepared balanced
bills that invest in our people, our infrastructure, and in science.
The transportation-HUD bill includes $550 million for the important
TIGER Discretionary Grant Program, which is shared by the entire
country but has been particularly critical to Rhode Island in helping
us improve our commercial ports and in jump-starting major road
projects, including the replacement of a major bridge, the Providence
Viaduct on route 95.
Indeed, it is one of the potential choke points on route 95 that will
not only affect Rhode Island, but it will affect Massachusetts, the
home of the Presiding Officer. It will affect Connecticut. It will
bottle up traffic if we don't continue to fix it, improve it, and
[[Page S3853]]
make it traffic ready for another several decades.
The bill also maintains robust support for the Airport Improvement
Program. One of the things we are very pleased about is the T.F. Green
Airport. We are investing about $100 million in safety improvements, a
runway extension, and an expansion. I thank Chairman Murray for
including this funding in the bill, this general category funding which
has been very helpful to the Rhode Island Airport Corporation as it has
applied for these grants.
I was particularly delighted last month because Chairwoman Mikulski
joined me at T.F. Green Airport to look at the improvements, to talk
about the issues, and to get a firsthand sense of how her efforts and
Senator Murray's efforts are translating into real projects throughout
the United States.
The bill also includes more than $3 billion for the Community
Development Block Grant Program, again an important program critical to
all communities in Rhode Island. It provides more than $2 billion for
homeless assistance grants. There is no portion of the country today
that is not facing a very real problem with homeless Americans who need
help, assistance, and support.
There is $75 million for the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, which
again helps people who are struggling not only to find a place to live
but also to deal with all of the issues of getting by in a very
difficult economy.
All of these programs are extremely worthwhile. They serve the
Nation--not in one particular area or in one particular State--and they
contribute to our productivity--not just for the moment but looking
ahead.
We can take, for example, the Commerce-Justice-Science bill with the
strong support for NOAA, including funding for fisheries, aquaculture,
Sea Grant, ocean exploration, and ocean education--again, initiatives
that affect my home State of Rhode Island, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, the State of Florida, the State of North Carolina, every
coastal area, the gulf coast, et cetera, all critical to our country,
to our productivity, to our commerce, and to the livelihood of so many
Americans
We are looking also at investments in the National Science
Foundation, fully funding, for example, the request for the EPSCoR
Program at nearly $160 million. This is absolutely critical for many
reasons, particularly to make that connection between academic
institutions and business enterprises and also to economic development.
The bill also supports, with respect to our criminal justice system,
$376 million for Byrne justice assistance grants and $181 million for
COPS hiring grants--actually putting police officers on the street,
increasing our ability to deal with crime and making our communities
more livable. This is absolutely critical.
We look at the Agriculture appropriations bill--and I thank Senator
Pryor--because, today, agriculture includes aquaculture, the commercial
growing, if you will, of shellfish and other seafood products.
Again, in my State--but not just in my State, in other parts of the
country--it is a growing and commercially thriving enterprise which
deserves support. In fact, because of federal investments, we have been
able to initiate in Rhode Island aquaculture projects that have taken
on their own lives and own momentum and are extremely productive.
I am disappointed we are here today only talking about these
appropriations bills instead of actually moving forward and passing
them.
Another topic that is very frustrating is the fact that this body
passed on a bipartisan basis an extension of unemployment insurance,
fully paid for, fiscally responsible--a bipartisan bill that went
through all of the rigorous steps that required 60 votes to get
cloture, and a majority of votes to get final passage. We didn't cut
any corners. That is what we had to do, and we did it.
Unfortunately, it has languished in the House of Representatives so
now the extension, which as we passed the bill would have been looking
backward and forward several months--now it has been totally eclipsed.
So we are back working.
I have reached out, and fortunately Senator Dean Heller of Nevada has
been an extraordinarily thoughtful and crucial leader, along with other
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and colleagues on this side
of the aisle. So we are beginning again, but I have to express my
frustration.
Over 3 million Americans now are without benefits that they would
have received had we been able to extend unemployment compensation
benefits which were terminated December 28 of last year. These are
modest benefits, about $300 a week, but for people who are looking
desperately for work, it could mean the difference between staying in
their homes or being forced out, repairing their car, having a
telephone if they need it--which we all need to communicate to look for
jobs.
So we have to start again. Not only is this the right issue for
individual Americans--millions of them--but it is the right issue for
our economy.
Economists who look at the unemployment problem will tell us--and in
fact they did--if we would have extended the program last December for
a full year, this economy would gain 200,000 jobs. We are in no
position to turn down 200,000 jobs. In Rhode Island, that is
particularly the case. It would have added to our GDP growth, some
estimates as high as 0.2 percent, again helping to grow the economy.
I hope we can rejoin this effort and move forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Health Care
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor because for those
folks who picked up the Wall Street Journal this morning, this was the
headline regarding the health care law: June 19, 2014, ``Large Health
Plans Set to Raise Rates.''
The picture emerging from proposed 2015 insurance rates in the 10
States that have completed their filings, as the States have to do--
stretching from Rhode Island to Washington State, in all but one of
those 10, the largest health insurer in the State is proposing to
increase premiums between 8.5 percent and 22.8 percent for next year.
That is not what the President of the United States promised the
American people when he forced through a health care law with only
Democrats voting for it in the House and in the Senate. What he said is
that by the end of his first term, premiums for families would drop by
$2,500 per family. That is not what we are seeing: Across the board,
the largest insurer in each of those 10 States, anywhere between 8.5
percent to 22 percent for next year. It makes us wonder how that is
going to sit with the American public when they are faced with these
bills.
Republicans have been coming to this floor to talk about the health
care law that Democrats in the Senate voted for, the President signed,
and we talked about the many alarming side effects--the alarming side
effects Americans have been feeling ever since the law has passed.
People are still trying to understand the law, and they are asking
the question: How is this actually helping me? That is what people want
to know, is how is the law helping them. Much of what they are hearing
is not how it is helping them, but how it is hurting them. Once again,
an alarming side effect in the front page of the newspaper this
morning.
It seems like just about every day we pick up a newspaper and see
headlines about another broken promise by the Democrats who voted for
the health care law--Democrats who came to the Senate floor and the
floor of the House of Representatives and said this is a good thing.
But then, of course, it was Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who
said: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in
it. As more Americans are finding out what is in it, they continue to
be very unhappy with what they are getting.
American families all across the country are finding out that the
President's promises didn't come true. They weren't true.
As chairman of the Republican policy committee, I have been looking
at the damaging side effects of the health care law around the country
and in different States and what I have found meeting people around the
country. Here is what I found in North Carolina:
Last Friday there was a headline in the Triangle Business Journal in
the
[[Page S3854]]
Raleigh-Durham, NC, area on the Affordable Care Act: ``ACA forcing
majority of [North Carolina] employers to change health care
offerings.''
The President said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. The
headline in North Carolina is: The law is forcing a majority of
employers to change their health care offerings.
The article says:
More than half of North Carolina companies are considering
radical changes to the health plans they offer employees----
Not little changes, not little tweaks, radical changes to the health
plans they offer employees.
``You might look at raising your deductible to keep premiums lower,
or look at what you are covering,'' Hegeman says. ``Or charging more in
terms of co-pay, in order to keep premiums lower.''
It quotes one human resources executive says that companies `` . . .
might look at raising your deductible to keep premiums lower, or look
at what you are covering. . . . ''
Those are all considerations because the President made a lot of
promises that are not being able to be kept, and people who actually
read the law as it was being proposed knew the President's promises
were not going to be able to be kept.
This is a terrifying side effect of the health care law for many
people--people who now in North Carolina are worried about these
radical changes to their insurance plans. That is what some companies
are going to have to do to keep down the costs.
But for many people, the costs keep going up anyway, and we are
seeing higher premiums in those 10 States I mentioned in the headlines
today, but specifically in North Carolina, here is what WTVD, a
television station in Raleigh, reported last month. They did a story
entitled, ``Blue Cross missing age sales target for ACA could mean
higher bills.'' So higher bills for North Carolina.
It turns out not enough young and healthy people signed up for the
insurance in the State's ObamaCare exchange.
The President said: Oh, we will get all these young, healthy people
signing up, buying insurance that--in my opinion--they don't need,
don't want, can't afford, will never use. The President said: We will
get all these healthy people signing up.
It didn't happen. They missed the sales targets in terms of what they
expected in terms of the age of those signing up. So the biggest
insurer in the State in North Carolina says it may have to raise rates
next year.
The news story quoted a woman named Amanda LaRoque. She and her
husband own their own business, they pay their own health insurance,
and they say their premiums have doubled since they signed up for the
Obama health care law. They are now paying $999 a month for two
people--almost $1,000 a month for two people.
I remember listening to President Obama and President Bill Clinton
having a discussion in New York a couple days before the exchange
opened. The President was saying: Easier to use than Amazon, and he
said: Cheaper than your cell phone bill.
The plan was going to cost less than your cell phone bill.
This couple in North Carolina says they are paying almost $1,000 a
month and their rates are going even higher. So it makes us wonder was
the President of the United States again trying to mislead the American
people intentionally? Did he not understand the law which was written
behind closed doors over there in Harry Reid's office? Did he not care?
Does he still not care? But that is what people are seeing and
experiencing as a result of the President's health care law.
But this couple is not the only one paying more because of the health
care law. According to a new analysis by the Manhattan Institute,
people all over the country are going to have to pay more--much more--
than what the President told them, much more than they ever
anticipated.
The Manhattan Institute found that for an average 64-year-old woman
in North Carolina, her premiums would have been $210 a month in 2013,
before the ObamaCare mandates and everything else kicked in. In 2014, 1
year later and all the mandates, buying insurance through the ObamaCare
exchange her premiums almost triple to $623 a month. She is paying
almost $5,000 a year more this year than last year because of the
President's health care law that the Democrats voted for in the House
and in the Senate. The President said it would lower premiums by $2,500
a year. Yet she is seeing her premiums go up by $5,000 a year.
For a 27-year-old man, he would have paid an average of $80 a month
in 2013. Under the President's health care law, $217 a month--an extra
$1,600 a year than last year. That is not what the President promised
him.
President Obama then goes and gives a speech not that long ago and
said: Democrats who voted for this law--and there are a lot of Members
of this body that fit this description. Democrats who voted for this
law should forcefully defend and be proud of it--forcefully defend and
be proud, the President of the United States said just a couple weeks
ago. Is there a Senator in this body who is willing to stand and
forcefully defend the fact that people in North Carolina are paying
double or triple for insurance? Is there anyone who wants to defend
this expensive side effect of the health care law?
I know some people have been helped by the law. Some people are
paying less for insurance than they would have before, but many people
are paying much more. That is because the people who pay less are
getting a subsidy from Washington to help hide the rate hikes that
everybody else is facing.
President Ronald Reagan once said, ``Government doesn't solve
problems; it subsidizes them.'' That is exactly what is going on with
the President's health care law. The Democrats who voted for this
health care law did not solve the problem with our health care system.
They just threw more money at it to hide the fact that the law actually
made things worse. People wanted reform that gave them access to
quality care, that gave them affordable care. No one wanted more
expensive coverage.
I will talk about one more example. That is the devastating side
effect of smaller paychecks some families will be facing because of the
Democrats' health care law. Another side effect, smaller paychecks.
The law says employers--including State governments, including local
governments, school districts, communities, counties--have to cover
people who work 30 hours a week or more and treat them as full-time
employees. They have to cover those people with insurance and treat
them as full-time employees. That is what the law considers full-time
employees.
There was another story in Raleigh, NC, on WTVD. It said State
agencies--we are not talking about for-profit businesses. State
agencies are looking at cutting the hours of part-time workers to keep
them under that 30-hour limit.
The North Carolina Agriculture Department has about 240 part-time
employees who are now working more than 30 hours--less than 40, more
than 30--240 of these folks at the North Carolina Agriculture
Department.
How about the North Carolina Department of Transportation? They have
almost 600 people in exactly the same situation. So North Carolina is
going to have to look very closely at what to do with those
individuals. If the hours are cut back to under 30 hours, that can mean
smaller paychecks.
One expert at Duke University told the TV station he expects the
State will see 300,000 full-time workers be moved to part time. Local
governments, State governments, private employers, they are all having
to make these same decisions. Why? Because of the health care
law. Those 300,000 workers moved to part time by the definition--not
what the man or woman on the street thinks of as the definition of full
time, but what the health care law defines it as. That is a big hit to
people's paychecks, and it is another very harmful side effect in the
health care law.
It didn't have to be that way. Republicans have offered solutions for
patient-centered health care reform such as increasing the ability of
small businesses to get together, join together, negotiate for better
rates, expand health savings accounts, allow people to buy insurance
that works best for them and their family and shop in other States to
do it, and not have to
[[Page S3855]]
buy this whole big list of insurance the President says they need when
it is not what their family needs. It is not what they need for their
kids, for their families, for their spouses, not what they want, not
what they can afford, because the President essentially thinks he knows
better than American families about their own personal situation.
Republicans have offered ideas that would give people the care they
need from a doctor they choose at lower costs--not lower costs as a
subsidy for some people, but lower costs for everybody. That is what we
are working on, lower cost of care.
Republicans are going to keep coming to the floor. We are going to
keep offering real solutions for better health care without all of
these terrible side effects, because we know the list is there, one
side effect after another. They are costly, harmful, some are
irreversible, and nothing that the American people wanted.
On the front-page headline today is ``Large Health Plans Set to Raise
Rates.'' Insurance rates in 10 States that have completed their
filings, stretching from Rhode Island to Washington State, all but one
of them, the largest health insurer in the State is proposing to
increase premiums between 8.5 and 22 percent for next year. The
American people will once again realize that the Democrats and the
President who voted for this health care law have broken their trust,
broken their promises to the American people, and the American people
deserve better.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceed to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________