[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1090-S1099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, Senators are 
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
such time as I may consume as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      The Middle East and Ukraine

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, a lot of us are deeply concerned about the 
situation in the Middle East, in Ukraine, in China, to which we have 
paid very little attention to as they expand their territory.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to engage in a colloquy 
with the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there is a huge credibility gap. The 
Washington Post probably said it better than I probably could, and it 
is entitled ``A credibility gap,'' in the Washington Post, by Fred 
Hiatt, editorial page editor, February 22. He says: ``If his 
negotiators strike an agreement next month, we already know that it 
will be far from ideal,'' talking about the Iranian nuclear deal.
  He continues:

       The partisanship needs no explanation, but the record of 
     foreign-policy assurances is worth recalling:

  This is very interesting and I think deserves the attention of all 
Americans.

       In 2011, when he decided to pull all U.S. troops out of 
     Iraq, Obama belittled worries that instability might result. 
     Iraq and the United States would maintain ``a strong and 
     enduring partnership,'' Obama said. Iraq would be ``stable, 
     secure and self-reliant,'' and Iraqis would build a future 
     ``worthy of their history as a cradle of civilization.''
       Today [as we know] Iraq is in deep trouble, with a 
     murderous ``caliphate'' occupying much of its territory and 
     predatory Shiite militia roaming through much of the rest.
       The same year, Obama touted his bombing campaign in Libya 
     as a model of U.S. intervention and promised, ``That's not to 
     say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO 
     responsibilities, we will work with the international 
     community to provide assistance to the people of Libya.''

  My friends, we all know what has happened in Libya and the reason 
is--despite what Senator Graham and our then-former colleague Senator 
Lieberman said--we had to do some things in Libya to make sure there 
was stability in Libya. Obama then walked away.
  Continuing from the article:

       Obama also said then, ``Some nations may be able to turn a 
     blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States 
     of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait 
     for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking 
     action.'' That was before Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad's 
     barrel bombs, systematic and well-documented prison torture 
     and other depredations of civil war killed 200,000 of his 
     compatriots, and drove millions more from their homes.
       In August 2011, Obama declared that Assad must ``step 
     aside.'' In a background briefing a senior White House 
     official added, ``We are certain Assad is on the way out.'' 
     In August 2013 came Obama's statement that ``the worst 
     chemical attack of the 21st century . . . must be confronted 
     . . . I have decided that the United States should take 
     military action against Syrian regime [military] targets.''

  As a personal aside, the Senator from South Carolina came over to the 
White House, and the President of the United States assured us that he 
was going to take military action and we were going to degrade Bashar 
al-Assad and upgrade the Syrian Army, and, obviously, the article 
states that ``no military action was taken, and Assad remains in 
power.''
  Defeating the Islamic State is one we have successfully pursued in 
Yemen and Somalia for years--successful in Yemen and Somalia that we 
have pursued for years. Just last month in the State of the Union 
Address, President Obama presented his Ukraine policy as a triumph of 
``. . . American strength and diplomacy. We are upholding the principle 
that bigger nations can't bully the small by opposing Russian 
aggression supporting Ukraine's democracy,'' he said.
  We all know. We have watched Ukrainians slaughtered, slaughtered with 
the most modern equipment that Vladimir Putin has. That great national 
bloodletting is going on, and we are watching, thanks to the assistance 
of the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France--in the finest 
traditions of Neville Chamberlain--we are standing by and watching that 
country be dismembered.
  What the Senator from South Carolina and I are trying to say is what 
General Keane said the other day:

     . . . al Qaeda and its affiliates exceeds Iran and is 
     beginning to dominate multiple countries. In fact, al-Qaeda 
     has grown fourfold in the last five years.


[[Page S1091]]


  Radical Islam is clearly on the rise, and I think our policy of 
disengaging from the Middle East has contributed to that rise.
  So there is no policy in Iraq, there is no policy in Syria, there is 
no combating or assisting even the Ukrainians as they attempt to defend 
themselves against the wholesale slaughter of their countrymen by 
Vladimir Putin.
  My friends, we have had ample testimony before the Armed Services 
Committee, people who served this country with distinction for many 
years--Republican and Democratic administrations. All of them have said 
they have never seen the world in more turmoil, and these things don't 
happen by accident. It is not like hurricanes or earthquakes, it is a 
matter of a failed, feckless foreign policy that began in 2009 and the 
chickens are coming home to roost.
  May I mention--my friend from South Carolina--this is where we are 
with the Islamic State. We are hearing from the administration, I 
believe, that we are gaining. Look at the Islamic State, January 10, of 
Syria in red--this is the Islamic State and contested places--and look 
at August 31. Obviously, there are significant gains. One more chart, 
please.
  Looking at this chart, these are the areas of all of that part of the 
world that are now controlled or under attack by ISIS, including, by 
the way, we now see ISIS gaining a foothold in Libya.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Arizona.
  What I would like the body to recognize is that our Presiding 
Officer, who just left, Senator Cotton, was an infantry officer in 
Iraq, and I can't imagine how he must feel. Our current Presiding 
Officer is a reservist in the Marine Corps who has served in harm's way 
in battlefield areas, and he was a commander in the Marine Corps. It is 
great to have people in the Senate who have worn the uniform and they 
understand what is at stake here.
  Senator McCain and I have tried to be consistent, if nothing else, 
about this situation. Here is the first question America has to answer: 
Is this someone else's war? I have heard very prominent commentators on 
cable television say: I am tired of fighting other people's wars.
  Does ISIL represent a threat to our homeland? I think it does. And 
more importantly, they indicate they mean to hit us here. The head of 
ISIL, the Islamic State and the Levant is what I want to call it, 
served time in a military prison in Camp Bucca in Iraq, where I did 
some reserve duty, and when he was released from the camp and turned 
over to the Iraqis he told the colonel in charge of his release: I will 
see you in New York.
  They are recruiting foreign fighters coming in by the thousands. They 
hold passports that would allow them to go to Europe and come back to 
our country, and their goal is not only to purify their religion, to 
kill or convert every Christian they find, but also to attack us.
  So to those who say this is not our fight, I think you are making a 
huge mistake, as we did before 9/11.
  Regional forces have to be part of the mix. The goal to degrade and 
destroy ISIL is the right goal. The strategy will fail as currently 
being considered unless we visit this issue.
  As Senator McCain said, what you see on this map is not an accident. 
It is a predictable outcome of three things. The President's decision 
in 2011 not to leave a residual force behind in Iraq to secure our 
gains has come back to haunt us. The military command infrastructure of 
this country advised a minimum of 10,000 troops to be left behind as a 
residual force.
  I visited Baghdad, along with Senators McCain and Lieberman, to try 
to persuade the Iraqi political leadership to enter into an agreement 
to allow us to have a residual force. Prime Minister Maliki said: I am 
willing to do it if the other groups in Iraq are willing to do it. They 
were all willing to do it. He asked me: How many troops are you talking 
about? I turned to our ambassador and our commander at the time, and 
they tell him and me: We are still working on that.
  Press reports simultaneously were suggesting the White House, led by 
the Vice President, by the way, was driving the residual force to below 
3,000--a number incapable of making a difference.
  So when the President of the United States says he was willing to 
leave a residual force behind, that is not accurate. In a debate with 
Governor Romney, Governor Romney suggested he would support a residual 
force of 10,000, as President Obama was contemplating, and President 
Obama interrupted him and said: No, I am not contemplating that.
  He held our departure in Iraq as the fulfillment of a campaign 
promise. He said: We can leave with our heads held high. We have 
accomplished our task.
  Here is what I said on April 3, 2011:

       If we're not smart enough to work with the Iraqis to have 
     10,000 to 15,000 American troops in Iraq in 2012, Iraq could 
     go to hell. I'm urging the Obama administration to work with 
     the Maliki administration in Iraq to make sure we have enough 
     troops--10,000 to 15,000--beginning in 2012 to secure the 
     gains we have achieved. This is a defining moment in the 
     future of Iraq, and in my view they are going down the wrong 
     road in Iraq.

  I am referring there to the Obama administration when I say ``they 
are going down the wrong road.''
  No voice was louder than that of Senator McCain. Senator McCain 
advocated, above all others, the surge when Iraq was slipping away 
under the Bush administration. When Senator McCain told President Bush 
his strategy was not working, President Bush, to his great credit, 
adjusted his strategy.
  Senator McCain, 3 years ago, was the leading voice in this country to 
argue for a no-fly zone in Syria so that Assad, who was on the ropes, 
could be taken down, and to train a Free Syrian Army at a time when it 
really would have mattered. The President ignored the advice not only 
of Senator McCain and myself but his entire national security team.
  So the President got the answer he wanted in Iraq. He pulled the plug 
on troops. And what we hoped wouldn't happen did happen. When he said 
no to a no-fly zone and the training of a Free Syrian Army, the vacuum 
that had been created in Syria was filled by ISIL. ISIL is a direct 
result of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was on its knees in 2010, being able 
to come back because we withdrew troops and we allowed a safe haven to 
be formed in Syria.
  So, President Obama, this map is the result of bad policy choices on 
your part, and you are doubling down on bad policy choices.
  The third thing that was a huge mistake is drawing a redline when 
Assad used chemical weapons against his own people and virtually doing 
nothing about it. I am glad the chemical weapons have been taken out of 
Syria--at least we think all of them have been taken out--but 220,000 
Syrians have been killed with initial forces by Assad, and Assad is 
stronger than ever. He is nowhere near going or leaving.
  Between Assad and ISIL, they represent the dominant military force 
inside Syria. Syria is truly hell on Earth, and all of this is going to 
come back to haunt us here at home.
  So the reason we are here on the floor today is to learn from the 
past. I have made mistakes. Everybody has made mistakes. But the key is 
to adjust when you make mistakes. The strategy President Obama is 
employing to degrade and destroy ISIL will fail, and let me tell you 
why.
  If you could liberate Mosul with the Iraqi security forces and the 
Kurds, we are going to need more than 3,000 U.S. forces to accomplish 
that task, because they do not have the capability that our military 
possesses to ensure victory.
  Once you liberate Mosul, you have to hold and build Mosul. Anbar 
Province has yet to be liberated. We have to convince the Sunni tribal 
leaders in Anbar to disassociate with ISIL and join us, and they are 
not going to do that unless we are part of a team on the ground. They 
don't trust the Iraqi security forces that are mainly Shia. So unless 
we get more capacity on the ground to ensure success, we will fail in 
Iraq. But Syria is the weak link in the chain.
  Mr. McCAIN. Before my colleague leaves Iraq, is it not true that the 
only real fighting being done now is the Peshmerga Kurds but also the 
Shia militia, who are inflicting human rights violations on the Sunni, 
and the same people we fought against during the surge that my 
colleague talked about before, which is Iranian backed and Iranian 
trained?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Right. The Iraqi security forces have crumbled. The most

[[Page S1092]]

dominant power on the ground is the Shia militia, backed by Iran and 
the Kurds in the north. And by the way, the aid we are providing to the 
Kurds never gets up to Erbil, and we need to fix that.
  Iran has inordinate influence in Baghdad. So to get the Sunni tribes 
to pull off of ISIL, they have to believe that Baghdad is going to be a 
better venue for them in terms of their political grievances, but they 
also need to see Americans on the ground to make sure this thing will 
work. They are not going to pull off ISIL unless we are there. They do 
not trust the Iraqi security forces.
  As to Syria, Syria is the biggest problem of all. That is where most 
of ISIL resides. That is where their leadership resides. That is where 
they have the largest number of fighters. There is no ground game in 
Syria. There is no Kurdish presence that has the capability to dislodge 
ISIL. The Free Syrian Army are being killed as fast as we can train 
them.
  Here is the flaw. The goal is to train the Free Syrian Army's young 
men throughout the region and send them into Syria to destroy ISIL. The 
problem with that is the moment we send them into Syria to defeat ISIL, 
Assad will attack them because he knows one day they will turn on him.
  So we have asked the question, under the authorization to use 
military force that is being sent over from the White House, could we 
stop an air attack by Assad's forces so they will not kill the people 
we train to fight ISIL, and they said no.
  So we are training people to go into Syria to fight ISIL who will be 
slaughtered by Assad if we do not have the ability under this 
authorization to protect the people we train. Senator McCain said this 
over and over again. That is immoral and militarily unsound. There is 
no strategy indeed to deal with Syria that has any chance of success. 
And if we don't get Syria right, we can't hold the gains we make in 
Iraq.
  So the President, after all these years, with 220,000 people being 
killed, having the largest terrorist army in the history of terrorism 
occupying a space the size of Indiana, with 30,000 to 50,000 fighters, 
depending on who you believe, still hasn't come to grips with a 
strategy that will protect this nation. He doesn't understand the 
mistakes he has been making for the last 3 or 4 years. He is not self-
correcting. He is perpetuating what I think is a military fraud.
  The longer it takes to destroy ISIL, the more exposed we are here. 
And at the end of the day, the Iranians are sizing us up and they see 
us as a paper tiger.
  The last thing I would say about Ukraine is that Russia has invaded 
Ukraine. When they say they have no weapons inside Ukraine, when they 
say they have no troops, they are liars.
  Russia has dismembered their neighbor, Ukraine. We in the Western 
world have sat on the sidelines and watched this happen. They have 
trampled all over the Budapest memorandum, where we persuaded 
Ukrainians to give up their nuclear weapons in the late 1990s and we 
would guarantee their sovereignty. When they need us to provide 
defensive weapons, we are absolutely absent at their time of dire need. 
The Iranians are watching our response to Putin. How could they feel we 
are serious about stopping their nuclear program when we seem not to be 
serious about anything else?
  The reason we will not be more aggressive in Syria is because 
President Obama doesn't want to deal with Assad, who is a puppet of 
Iran. He doesn't want to jeopardize the negotiations we have ongoing 
with the Iranians regarding their nuclear ambitions. His desire to get 
a deal with Iran is preventing us from degrading and destroying ISIL, 
and we will pay a heavy price for these mistakes.
  How would my colleague sum up where we are?
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I just mention to my colleague--and it has been 
made perhaps larger than it should have been, with all of the crises 
and the tragedies that are transpiring, but the President of the United 
States refuses to refer to this as radical Islam. Why that is is hard 
to understand because it is clearly radical Islam. It is a perversion 
of an honorable religion, but everything they are doing is based on 
their perverted interpretation of the Koran. They are Islamic. While we 
respect the religion and we respect the people, we don't respect 
radical Islam and we have to recognize it for what it is.
  Let me read this, from February 24:

       Scores of Syrian Christians Kidnapped by Islamic State--
     Islamic State militants swept into several of Assyrian 
     Christian villages in northeastern Syria in recent days, 
     taking scores of hostages, including both civilians and 
     fighters, according to numerous interviews with residents. . 
     . . The attacks have displaced hundreds of families and 
     sharpened Middle Eastern Christians' fears of the Islamic 
     State.

  Which the President of the United States refuses to recognize as 
radical Islam. When you don't even recognize it or identify it for what 
it is, how in the world are you going to be able to combat it?
  Finally, I would say to my friend one more time, if he would respond, 
that the Ukrainians wanted to defend themselves. One of the richest and 
proudest aspects of American history is that we have helped people who 
are struggling for freedom, whether it be in Afghanistan after Russia's 
invasion or others. And others have helped us, going all the way back 
to our Revolution when the French and Polish and others came in and 
helped us. How can we rationalize our failure to give them weapons to 
defend themselves by saying: Well, they can't beat the Russians anyway.
  Why don't we listen to their pleas for help? Why don't we listen to 
their cries? Why don't we listen to the fact they have lost 5,000; that 
right now the most sophisticated weaponry the Russians provided these 
``separatists'' is being used to slaughter them?
  To me it is the most unbelievable view, that somehow we don't want to 
provoke Vladimir Putin, who has taken Crimea--they have written that 
off--shot down an airplane, at least with Russian equipment; moved and 
dislocated eastern Ukraine; and has caused an economic crisis. And we 
don't want to provoke Vladimir Putin? It is staggering.
  Mr. GRAHAM. In conclusion, in 1998 we were a signatory to Budapest 
memorandum that asked the Ukrainian people to give up over 2,000 
nuclear weapons housed on their soil in return for a guarantee of their 
sovereignty.
  Mr. McCAIN. That included the State of Crimea as part of the 
territorial integrity of Ukraine.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Exactly. The Russians were a signatory to that Budapest 
memorandum.
  Clearly, the Russians have stepped all over it, and we are not doing 
anything. So in the future, would you give up your nuclear weapons 
relying on a promise by the United States?
  This is important because we want to deter Iran from trying to get a 
nuclear weapon. I think this emboldens them to get a nuclear weapon.
  As to radical Islam, it is hard to defeat an enemy if you don't 
understand what motivates them.
  The Nazis did not want just the German-speaking regions surrounding 
Germany. It wasn't about the Sudetenland. It wasn't about the 
Rheinland. It wasn't about the issues Hitler claimed at the time. He 
wrote a book telling us what he wanted to do. People should have read 
the book. It was about creating a master race to govern other races. 
The Aryan race would be the dominant race on the planet--with some 
people not worthy of living, such as the Jews, and others would be 
slaves.
  When we listen to what ISIL is saying and what motivates them, they 
want a master religion for the world, not a master race. If you are a 
Christian, you can pay a tax and convert or die. If you are a Muslim 
outside of their view of the faith, you just die. If you are an 
agnostic, you die. If you are a libertarian, you die. If you are an 
American--Republican or Democrat; they could care less--you die.
  They are taught by their interpretation of the Koran literally to 
kill all that stands in their way of the caliphate. We can close Gitmo 
tomorrow. We could throw the Palestinians under the bus or give the 
Palestinians everything they want and throw Israel under the bus. It 
wouldn't matter.
  We didn't bring this war on ourselves. These people are motivated by 
religious doctrine not widely accepted in the faith. But that doctrine 
requires them to kill everything in their path and to turn the world 
into a religion where they dominate, and there is no alternative to 
their religion.

[[Page S1093]]

  That may sound crazy to you. It sounds a little crazy to me. Hitler 
is crazy to me. I can't explain why somebody wants to kill all the 
Jews. I can't explain why somebody believes that one race should rule 
the world and everybody else be under their boot. I can't explain what 
makes these people tick. I can only tell you what they do and why they 
do it. There is no appeasement with radical Islam, any more than there 
would be an appeasement with Hitler. We tried that in the 1930s, and 50 
million people got killed.
  So here is our choice: Face the enemy as it is, degrade and destroy 
in a way that will work; or accept the fact that they are coming here, 
not to conquer America--that is not going to happen--but to hit us hard 
and break our will so they can have that part of the world for which 
they have been longing for over 1,000 years.
  Here is what I would say to America. Every time we have chosen to sit 
on the sidelines and watch other people suffer and did nothing about 
it, it wound up hurting us too. If you think we can live in a world 
where Christians over there are being raped, tortured, and crucified, 
and it won't affect Christians here, you are kidding yourself. If you 
think you can allow a force this evil to go unchecked because it is 
over there and it won't affect us here, you are making the mistake of a 
lifetime.
  My biggest fear is that radical Islam--which is exactly what it is--
will get a weapon of mass destruction one day and do a lot of harm to 
us here. Every day that goes by over there, that they get stronger, the 
more exposed we are here.
  Finally, on 9/11, 3,000 Americans died only because they didn't have 
the ability to kill more. If they could have killed 3 million of us, 
they would have. Every day we let this problem grow unchecked they are 
closer to having the technology to kill millions of people here and 
elsewhere. So the sooner we deal with this, the safer we will be.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article 
titled ``Credibility Gap'' from the Washington Post and also the 
International New York Times article ``Scores of Syrian Christians 
Kidnapped by Islamic State'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         [From the International New York Times, Feb. 24, 2015]

         Scores of Syrian Christians Kidnapped by Islamic State

                           (By Anne Barnard)

       Istanbul.--Islamic State militants swept into several 
     Assyrian Christian villages in northeastern Syria in recent 
     days, taking scores of hostages, including both civilians and 
     fighters, according to numerous interviews with residents and 
     representatives of the many factions fighting in the area.
       The attacks have displaced hundreds of families and 
     sharpened Middle Eastern Christians' fears of the Islamic 
     State, which considers non-Muslims, along with many Muslims 
     who disagree with its tenets, infidels.
       The extremist group displaced entire Christian communities 
     from northern Iraq when it swept through Mosul and the 
     surrounding area last year.
       The new attacks came as some Christians in northeastern 
     Syria, seeking to avoid the fate of northern Iraq's 
     Christians and other minority sects like the Yazidis that 
     were singled out by the Islamic State, had taken a more 
     assertive role, fighting alongside Kurdish and other 
     militias.
       The latest fighting took place in a string of villages 
     along the Khabur River, a tributary of the Euphrates. The 
     central village, Tel Tamer, is a strategic crossroads, with a 
     bridge over the river that connects northeastern Syria with 
     the country's northern hub, Aleppo; residents reported that 
     Islamic State militants bombed the bridge on Tuesday.
       The area has long been controlled by Kurdish militias but 
     has lately come under attack from the Islamic State, also 
     known as ISIS or ISIL.
       In recent weeks, villages have changed hands several times 
     as the Kurdish groups, some Arab Muslim factions and a 
     Christian group called the Syriac Military Council have 
     joined forces against the Islamic State.
       In the chaos Tuesday, the exact number of hostages seized 
     remained unclear, with estimates ranging from several dozen 
     to more than 100. Nuri Kino, an Assyrian-Swedish activist 
     with family ties to northeastern Syria, said that Islamic 
     State fighters were holding about 60 women and children in 
     the village of Tel Shamiran, and that they had taken 90 men 
     up into a mountainous area they control, perhaps seeking to 
     exchange them for Islamic State prisoners.
       Mr. Kino, who founded A Demand for Action, a group that 
     advocates for religious minorities in Iraq and Syria, said he 
     had gleaned the information by talking to residents over 
     Skype from Los Angeles.
       Dawoud Dawoud, the deputy president of the Assyrian 
     Democratic Party in the area, reached in Hasaka, said that 
     the villages had long been largely left alone, but that in 
     early February, Islamic State fighters had demanded that 
     crosses be removed from churches.
       The jihadists raided the village of Tel Hermez, driving 
     away a local group, the Guardians of Khabur, that had 
     protected churches there, said Omar Abd al-Aziz, a local 
     antigovernment activist who uses a nom de guerre for his 
     safety. Called to help, Kurdish militias entered the town 
     with fighters from the Syriac Military Council, who filmed 
     themselves retaking the area and leading away bound men they 
     said were Islamic State members.
       Now, the Islamic State appears to be retaliating with even 
     greater numbers and heavy weapons.
       ``It's the new Kobani,'' said Mr. Kino, referring to the 
     Kurdish enclave bordering Turkey whose encirclement by the 
     Islamic State prompted American-led airstrikes that helped 
     drive the group back. He called for United States 
     intervention to prevent massacres and displacements.
       The threats to minority enclaves, as in Kobani and the 
     attacks on Yazidis in Iraq's Sinjar mountains last summer, 
     have galvanized international action when other fighting did 
     not.
       Another activist in the area, who gave only his first name, 
     Siraj, because of concern for his safety, accused the Kurds 
     of leaving the Assyrians vulnerable in order to provoke a 
     Kobani-like international reaction.
       But Nawaf al-Khalil, a spokesman for the Kurdish Democratic 
     Union, a political party, tried to find a bright side, saying 
     the events were ``a good sign of stronger ties between the 
     Kurds, the Arabs and the Christians'' against the Islamic 
     State.
                                 ______
                                 

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 22, 2015]

                           A Credibility Gap

                            (By Fred Hiatt)

       If his negotiators strike an agreement next month, we 
     already know that it will be far from ideal: Rather than 
     eradicating Iran's nuclear-weapons potential, as once was 
     hoped, a pact would seek to control Iran's activities for 
     some limited number of years.
       Such a deal might be defensible on the grounds that it is 
     better than any alternative, given that most experts believe 
     a military ``solution'' would be at best temporary and 
     possibly counterproductive.
       But making that kind of lesser-evil defense would be 
     challenging in any circumstances. Three conditions will make 
     it particularly hard for Obama to persuade Congress and the 
     nation to accept his assurances in this case: the suspicious, 
     poisonous partisanship of the moment here, with Israeli 
     politics mixed in; worries that he wants a deal too much; and 
     the record of his past assurances.
       The partisanship needs no explanation, but the record of 
     foreign-policy assurances is worth recalling:
       In 2011, when he decided to pull all U.S. troops out of 
     Iraq, Obama belittled worries that instability might result. 
     Iraq and the United States would maintain ``a strong and 
     enduring partnership,'' Obama said. Iraq would be ``stable, 
     secure and self-reliant,'' and Iraqis would build a future 
     ``worthy of their history as a cradle of civilization.''
       Today Iraq is in deep trouble, with a murderous 
     ``caliphate'' occupying much of its territory and predatory 
     Shiite militia roaming through much of the rest.
       That same year, Obama touted his bombing campaign in Libya 
     as a model of U.S. intervention and promised, ``That's not to 
     say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO 
     responsibilities, we will work with the international 
     community to provide assistance to the people of Libya.''
       The United States and its NATO allies promptly abandoned 
     Libya, which today is in the grip of civil war, with rival 
     governments in the east and west and Islamist terrorists in 
     between.
       Obama also said then, ``Some nations may be able to turn a 
     blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States 
     of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait 
     for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking 
     action.''
       That was before Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad's barrel 
     bombs, systematic and well-documented prison torture and 
     other depredations of civil war killed 200,000 of his 
     compatriots, and drove millions more from their homes.
       In August 2011, Obama declared that Assad must ``step 
     aside.'' In a background briefing a senior White House 
     official added, ``We are certain Assad is on the way out.'' 
     In August 2013 came Obama's statement that ``the worst 
     chemical attack of the 21st century . . . must be confronted. 
     . . . I have decided that the United States should take 
     military action against Syrian regime targets.''
       No military action was taken, and Assad remains in power.
       In September, the president said his strategy for defeating 
     the Islamic State ``is one that we have successfully pursued 
     in Yemen and Somalia for years.'' Shortly thereafter, an 
     Iran-backed rebellion deposed Yemen's pro-U.S. government, 
     forcing the United States to abandon its embassy and much of 
     its anti-terror operation.
       Just last month, in the State of the Union address, Obama 
     presented his Ukraine policy

[[Page S1094]]

     as a triumph of ``American strength and diplomacy.
       ``We're upholding the principle that bigger nations can't 
     bully the small by opposing Russian aggression and supporting 
     Ukraine's democracy,'' he said.
       Since then Russian forces have extended their incursion 
     into Ukraine, now controlling nearly one-fifth of its 
     territory. Russia's economy is hurting, but Ukraine's is in 
     far worse shape.
       This litany of unfulfilled assurances is less a case of 
     Nixonian deception than a product of wishful thinking and 
     stubborn adherence to policies after they have failed. But 
     inevitably it will affect how people hear Obama's promises on 
     Iran, as will his overall foreign policy record.
       That record includes successes, such as the killing of 
     Osama bin Laden, warming ties with India and a potentially 
     groundbreaking agreement with China on climate change. By 
     most measures, though, the world has not become safer during 
     Obama's tenure. Islamist extremists are stronger than ever; 
     democracy is in retreat around the globe; relations with 
     Russia and North Korea have worsened; allies are questioning 
     U.S. steadfastness.
       Openings as well as problems can appear unexpectedly in 
     foreign affairs, but the coming two years offer only two 
     obvious opportunities for Obama to burnish this legacy: trade 
     deals with Europe and with Pacific nations, and a nuclear 
     agreement with Iran. That limited field fuels worries that 
     administration negotiators will accept the kind of deal that 
     results from wanting it too badly.
       Whatever its contours, Obama would be making a big mistake 
     to try to implement such a momentous pact, as administration 
     officials have suggested he might, without congressional buy-
     in. But it's not surprising that he would be tempted to try.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the patience of my friend and 
colleague from the State of Texas.
  It is with a heavy heart that we see the events transpiring according 
to this chart.
  It is with a heavy heart that we see our friends in Ukraine, who only 
want to be like us, being slaughtered, and we are refusing to assist 
them. I have assured them that I will never give up--ever--until we see 
a free, prosperous, democratic Ukraine which is part of the community 
of nations, which we would admire, and in which we include them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, when given the opportunity four times over 
the last few weeks to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, 
while at the same time rolling back the President's unconstitutional 
Executive action on immigration, four times our Senate Democratic 
friends have filibustered this funding. At the same time, they have 
been pointing to this side of the aisle and saying: If there is a 
shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, you are at fault. It 
is hypocrisy, to say the least.
  But of all the Democrats who voted to filibuster the funding of the 
Department of Homeland Security--which, again, expires at midnight on 
this Friday night--there are 11 of our Senate Democratic colleagues who 
come from States which are parties to a lawsuit in Brownsville, TX, 
where the Federal judge issued a temporary injunction just last week 
saying that what the President did in his Executive action was 
illegal--illegal.
  So how our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can filibuster 
the Department of Homeland Security funding because they say it 
includes a disapproval of the President's action at the same time the 
States they represent are parties to a lawsuit complaining about the 
illegality of the President's actions--how they can reconcile that is 
beyond me. Perhaps they can come to the floor and talk about that. But 
I think they should be asked that question, and I would be very 
interested in their answer.
  Of course, as we all know, now the Obama administration--after the 
Federal judge agreed with what the President said 22 different times, 
that he didn't have the authority to do what he did--and, obviously, he 
changed his mind. But after the Federal judge agreed with what he said 
the first 22 times, that he didn't have the authority, now they have 
asked for a stay of that temporary injunction.
  If the reports in the press are correct, Judge Hanen in Brownsville, 
in the Southern District of Texas, has given the States, the plaintiffs 
in the lawsuit, until March 2 to respond to this request for emergency 
stay.
  One by one, the folks who criticized what the President was doing in 
one fashion or another came to the floor and have voted in effect to 
affirm what he did. As I said yesterday, in justifying these votes we 
heard a common refrain from several of our Democratic colleagues, 
including some of those 11 whose States have joined the lawsuit against 
the President's Executive action. They have said to us: We don't 
necessarily agree with the President's action, but you shouldn't attach 
that to an appropriations bill to fund the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  Similarly, from Senate Democratic leadership came the demands for a 
``clean bill''--a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland 
Security--without these provisions addressing the Executive action 
attached.
  Just 2 days ago here on the floor, the Democratic leader himself 
called for the Senate to vote on such a bill. A press release issued 
from Senator Reid's office was unequivocal: ``Reid Remarks Calling On 
Senate GOP To Avoid A Shutdown By Passing A Clean DHS Funding Bill.''
  Monday wasn't the first time we heard this from Democratic 
leadership. We heard it over and over and over, as the Democrats, in 
lockstep, filibustered the Department of Homeland Security funding 
bill.
  So imagine my surprise when Senator McConnell, the Senate majority 
leader, offered to consider two bills, one that would address the 
President's Executive action from last November--the Collins bill--and 
a separate one that would fully fund the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  You would, I guess, if logic prevailed in this place, expect that the 
Democratic leader would embrace that wholeheartedly, instantaneously, 
saying: That is exactly what we have been demanding, and now we have 
been offered it. We will take it.
  Well, that didn't happen. This place can be very confusing sometimes, 
and you would be wrong if you thought the Democratic leader embraced 
what he had been demanding for the last few weeks. So after spending 
weeks demanding a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland 
Security, including as recently as Monday, 24 hours have passed and the 
Democratic leader has still refused to agree to hold a vote on a so-
called clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill.
  Let me just repeat that so I am absolutely clear. The Democratic 
leader has so far refused to agree to vote on a clean funding bill for 
the Department, even after he called on Senate Republicans to pass 
exactly that as recently as Monday.
  So I don't know how to sugar coat it. Call it a flip-flop, call it 
disingenuous. I don't know what to call it. But when you are offered 
exactly what you have been demanding and you don't accept it, it tells 
me you are not particularly serious about wanting to solve the problem. 
It is this kind of doubletalk which I think causes the Senate to be 
held in low regard by the American people, where they think that what 
you say doesn't necessarily translate into action. It is becoming 
abundantly clear that our friends across the aisle do not seem to have 
gotten the message from the last election on November 4.
  I mentioned this yesterday, and I will repeat it, with reference to 
some of the gamesmanship that appears to be going on here, at the time 
when the clock is ticking and the Department of Homeland Security 
funding runs out at midnight on Friday. Recently, the senior Senator 
from New York told the Huffington Post that ``it's really fun to be in 
the Senate Minority,'' as if creating obstacles, slowing things down, 
and impeding progress toward a goal that we all hold in common--funding 
the Department of Homeland Security--is somehow having fun. But 
filibustering critical funding for the men and women that protect us 
every day and protect the homeland is not what I call fun.
  At the end of the day, the Senate will make sure that those who 
protect our borders, our ports, and our skies get paid. That is what 
the American people voted for last November. They were sick and tired. 
If I heard it once, I heard it 100 times: We are sick and tired of the 
dysfunction in Washington, DC, and that is why we are voting for a 
change.

  That is why we have nine new colleagues in the Senate--to break that 
logjam of dysfunction.
  So I would implore the Democratic leader to heed his own call for a 
clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill and to quit playing 
games. Quit playing games with the lives of

[[Page S1095]]

the people who work at the Department of Homeland Security. Quit 
playing games with the American people, whose security is on the line 
if for some reason the ability of the Department to perform its 
important functions is disrupted because of the lack of funding. Quit 
playing games with the funding that pays the salaries of the men and 
women who protect our ports, who protect our airports, and who protect 
our border from transnational drug cartels.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, everyone agrees that our immigration 
system is broken. The immigration system we have now hurts our economy, 
and it hurts our national security. The Senate passed a bipartisan 
immigration bill; the House of Representatives chose not to act. Again, 
the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill. That is why I 
supported the Executive action by President Obama to address our 
immediate immigration crisis. We cannot wait for the House of 
Representatives' Republicans to act, and that is because immigration is 
one of our country's greatest strengths. Immigrants are a vital part of 
the fabric of Massachusetts and of our country. They start businesses, 
they create jobs, and they contribute to our communities.
  The President's Executive order recognizes the value of immigrants to 
our country. President Obama's Executive order will bring millions of 
law-abiding immigrants out of the shadows and help to keep those 
families together. The order allows law enforcement to focus its 
resources where they belong: reinforcing security at our borders and 
prosecuting and deporting dangerous criminals who pose threats to 
public safety. This Executive action cannot and should not be viewed as 
the final word on the matter of immigration reform. It is the beginning 
of an effort to permanently fix our broken immigration system.
  What unites us in Massachusetts and all across America is the 
unshakable belief that no matter where you come from, no matter what 
your circumstances, you can achieve the American dream. The immigration 
system we have now doesn't reflect those values.
  Unfortunately, instead of working to fix the problems with our 
immigration system, the majority of the Senate has been manufacturing a 
government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, even as our 
Nation faces real threats to our safety and to our national security if 
we don't fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. The majority 
seems more interested in undermining President Obama's border policy 
than funding actual border protection in our country.
  Let's look at what could happen if Homeland Security funding lapses.
  No. 1, FEMA efforts. FEMA is a part of the Department of Homeland 
Security. FEMA efforts in Massachusetts to develop a preliminary damage 
assessment for disaster relief funding may be interrupted.
  The people in my home State of Massachusetts are suffering from the 
second snowiest winter in our history. We have endured more than 8 feet 
of snow. Those snow piles are climbing even higher. Seawalls that 
protect our shores are crumbling. Roofs are collapsing. Homes are being 
destroyed. Small businesses are shuttered while owners struggle to make 
ends meet. Cities and towns across the Commonwealth have overspent 
their budgets by tens of millions of dollars responding to one 
snowstorm after another.
  But instead of the relief that should come with the assurance that 
FEMA assistance is on the way, the people of Massachusetts have to 
worry that this Republican-manufactured government shutdown threat is 
jeopardizing this critical assistance. The last thing the people of 
Massachusetts should have to worry about is whether their disaster 
assistance will be delayed by the politics of immigration reform. This 
is absolutely outrageous. Massachusetts needs the disaster relief 
today.
  No. 2, an estimated 30,000 Homeland Security employees would have to 
be furloughed, including those who process Federal grants for local 
police, fire, and other first responders. Firefighters might not get 
the best oxygen masks. Bomb squads might not get the right equipment 
they need. These are hard-working people who help protect our Nation 
and help our first responders do their jobs.
  No. 3, a Department of Homeland Security shutdown would compromise 
our national security by stopping command and control activities at 
Department of Homeland Security headquarters, disrupting important 
programs such as detecting weapons of mass destruction. Homeland 
Security employees remaining on the job will not get paid, and those 
who are furloughed will be left to wonder whether they will ever be 
paid for the work they missed. This uncertainty hurts morale and puts 
families in financial jeopardy.
  It is time for Republicans to end this brinkmanship and help pass a 
clean Homeland Security budget free of unrelated policy riders. Then we 
should get to work on comprehensive immigration reform. The immigration 
system we have now doesn't reflect our time-honored values as a melting 
pot of diversity and innovation. It hurts our economy and national 
security. In short, our immigration system is broken.
  But for millions of immigrants who are living in the shadows, who are 
working every day to support their families, who have been brought up 
here from a young age, who are serving our country in the military or 
pursuing the dream of higher education--these people deserve a path 
that allows them to earn citizenship. That is why we need to work 
together on comprehensive immigration reform. It will give more 
families and individuals a real shot at the American dream. It will 
encourage immigrants who are educated here to innovate here.
  This is an important debate, and we should have it, and we should not 
have it at the expense of the safety and the security of our Nation.
  I call on my Republican colleagues to bring forward a clean 
Department of Homeland Security funding bill, free of unrelated policy 
riders dealing with immigration. Let's give the people of our country 
the confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is going to 
protect against al-Shabaab launching a successful attack against the 
Mall of America, that a terrorist group cannot now be put together, 
thinking, perhaps erroneously, that the Department of Homeland Security 
has taken its eye off the ball while worrying about the funding levels 
that are necessary in order to secure our country.
  I lived through this in Boston. Mohamed Atta and the other nine who 
hijacked the two planes on September 11, 2001, thought they could find 
an opening--and they did--in our airline security. In 2013 the Tsarnaev 
brothers thought they could find a hole in our security, and they 
attacked again in Boston.
  We should not have any question raised about the Department of 
Homeland Security being on the job protecting our citizens and 
providing the security our country needs. That is where we are right 
now, and the Republicans are holding up the funding of this vital 
agency under the misguided notion that they are going to be able to 
write the entire comprehensive immigration bill inside a Department of 
Homeland Security budget. It is not going to happen. Everyone in this 
country knows it is not going to happen. The Republicans are playing a 
dangerous game with the security of our country.
  I ask all who make the decisions in the Republican Party to please 
tell their most radical Members that the Department of Homeland 
Security must be funded. It must be funded this week. We must not only 
pay those who work for us, but we should thank them every day for the 
security they provide to our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Amen. Amen. We can't play around with our national 
security by holding somebody's legislative ideal as

[[Page S1096]]

a means of holding up the national security and holding the national 
security of this country hostage.


                 electronic devices and privacy rights

  Mr. President, I came to talk about another issue. In the first part 
of the week, the Washington Post had an article that followed a series 
of articles in other newspapers, such as the Wall Street Journal and 
the New York Times, about a device that was given certification by the 
Federal Communications Commission called a stingray.
  This device, when used properly by law enforcement--specifically, the 
FBI--not only can locate and absorb the content of communications over 
cell phones but can also locate the specific location of that cell 
phone. It does so by making the cell phone think that it, the device, 
is the cell phone tower. So instead of the cell phone radio waves going 
to the normal cell phone tower, they would come to this device called a 
stingray. If used properly, it can be used to go after the bad guys--
terrorists and criminals. Of course, that is one of the reasons this 
device was created and certified by the Federal Communications 
Commission.
  Part of the protections, as used by the FBI and local law 
enforcement, to get content is to treat it as if they were going to 
break into somebody's home to get evidence. Our constitutional 
protections regarding the right of privacy require that the law 
enforcement agency go to a judge--an impartial part of the judicial 
branch--in order to get a court order to show probable cause that a 
crime has been committed and therefore the constitutional right of 
privacy is trumped, and with this court order, law enforcement can go 
in and get the evidence.
  Well, as technology continues to evolve and explode, of course, 
questions about our constitutional right of privacy get a lot more 
difficult, and so now law enforcement wants to pinpoint the location of 
a cellphone so they can go in and grab that person. Again, it would 
seem that the constitutional right of privacy needs to have the 
protection of a judge's order, and it is this Senator's belief that the 
FBI, when employing this type of device, would, in fact, use those 
constitutional protections.
  Different news articles have raised questions about how this device 
is handled once it is turned over to local law enforcement and whether 
they are being adequately trained on judicial protections, and indeed, 
are they employing those protections. The news articles, as evidenced 
by the Washington Post this past Monday, would indicate that those 
judicial protections are not being employed.
  So this Senator, as one of the co-leaders of the commerce committee, 
along with the chairman of the committee, John Thune, has written to 
the FCC and asked them what information they have about the rationale 
behind the restrictions placed on the certification of the stingray--
the device that was certified by the FCC--and whether those similar 
restrictions have been put in place for other devices. As technology 
continues to improve, we are going to see a lot more of these types of 
devices.
  We need to know whether the FCC has inquired about the oversight that 
may be in place in order to ensure that the use of the devices complies 
with the manufacturer's representations to the FCC at the time of the 
certification. We are asking for a status report of the task force that 
was previously formed so we can look at these questions surrounding the 
use of the stingray.
  This is not the last time we are going to be asking these questions--
not necessarily about this device, the stingray. There is a 
multiplicity of devices that are coming out on the market, and the 
question is: What about our privacy? Of course we are reminded about 
this issue every day because every day we read about another data 
breach in the newspaper.
  I have filed legislation with regard to data breaches to ensure that 
at least the company has the obligation to notify the poor customers 
that their data is suddenly out there in the Internet ether because of 
that data breach. A lot of these questions are going to continue to be 
asked.
  What about the device called the Pineapple? I had no idea this device 
existed. Here is what it does: If I go into a Starbucks and use their 
wireless Internet, someone could be sitting outside of that Starbucks 
in their car, or at one of the outside tables, with this device called 
a Pineapple, and instead of my wireless device using Starbucks' 
Internet system, it is on that Pineapple device and all of my 
communications are going directly to that person, and that person is 
able to steal all of my private information. That is a major theft. 
This is scary. Yet that device has been around for several years.
  We have major privacy questions. The Presiding Officer, who is a 
member of the commerce committee, knows that we are going to be 
grappling with these issues, along with other committees, such as 
judiciary, on the right to privacy.
  In the meantime, we have raised these issues with the FCC on this 
most recent detailed expose about this device called the stingray. If 
it is employed for our national security and our personal safety, which 
is the job of the government, then it is a good thing; however, if it 
is employed for other reasons, such as invading our constitutional 
right of privacy, that is another thing.
  It is time for us to stand up for the individual citizens in this 
country and their right to privacy.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.


                      President's Executive Order

  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, last week I was glad to see that a 
Federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the 
President's Executive order on immigration. This ruling, if upheld--and 
I believe it will be--reaffirms that President Obama was right when he 
said at least 22 times that he didn't have the authority to take the 
action he now has taken on immigration.
  In December of last year I joined in an amicus brief with Senator 
Cruz and Senator Cornyn and, I believe, the attorneys general from 26 
States--not the State of Missouri but 26 States. I was glad that my 
joining allowed Missouri to be represented in support of this lawsuit 
brought by the State of Texas against President Obama's illegal 
decision to allow amnesty to be established. The brief states the Obama 
administration exceeded its constitutional authority and disrupted the 
delicate balance of power between the Congress, whose job it is to pass 
the law, and the President, whose job it is to carry out the law.
  Executive means just that. The job of the Executive is to execute the 
law. It is not to pass the law. There is no constitutional provision 
anyone has been able to show me or that I have ever been able to find 
that says if the Congress doesn't do something, the President can 
decide it needs to be done and the President just does it on his own. 
There is certainly no law that suggests the President can just 
willfully ignore the law.
  The brief we joined asserts that the Obama administration exceeded 
the bounds of its so-called prosecutorial discretion. The idea that 
they can have some discretion about how vigorously they enforce certain 
laws is, both in this case and in the court ruling, held up to the 
standard it really should be allowed to meet. The idea that the 
President can say that there is too much law here to enforce and we 
can't afford to enforce the law--but then by not enforcing the law, it 
creates substantially more economic burden on the States and the 
Federal Government than enforcing the law would have created--by any 
standard makes no sense. This is not a determination that at some level 
there are just too many violations of some law that is not very 
significant that you could have some prosecutorial discretion. This is 
the law that impacts whether people can come into the country or not 
and whether they can stay in the country not being legally here.
  The bill that Leader McConnell introduced this week will put every 
Senator on record on this topic. I look forward to a chance to vote on 
that bill

[[Page S1097]]

and to see my colleagues vote on this bill. Who will stand with the 
President's clear power grab on immigration, and who will stand by the 
rule of law? At least half a dozen Democrats and perhaps more have said 
they disagree with what the President did with this November action. A 
vote on Senator McConnell's bill will give them a chance to show 
whether they really disagree or not. It is specific to the November 
action. It is specific to the action the Federal judge in Texas said 
puts undue burdens on the State and exceeded the President's authority.
  As I have said a number of times, I would like to see our friends on 
the other side of the aisle be willing to debate this issue. I have 
also admitted a number of times that if I were them and if the 
President of the United States had said 22 times he couldn't do 
something, I would have some reluctance--I suppose as they clearly do--
to come to the floor and defend why now those 22 statements don't 
matter.
  If the Democrats would simply allow the Senate to begin debating the 
bill, Members on both side of the aisle could offer amendments, and we 
could actually be doing the job we are expected to do as legislators. 
Unfortunately, they decided to repeatedly say: No, we don't want to 
debate this bill. No, we are not going to go forward. No, we are not 
going to let the normal process work. No, we are not going to deal with 
the bill sent over by the co-equal branch of the Congress, the House of 
Representatives. Hopefully, we will see what happens as this debate 
moves forward and the President's activities are held not only now to a 
standard of law but also to his own standard.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a list of the 22 times the President has said he didn't have the 
authority to do what he has now done.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  22 Times President Obama Said He Couldn't Ignore or Create His Own 
                            Immigration Law

       1. The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to 
     do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power 
     into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. 
     And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm President of the 
     United States of America.'' (3/31/08)
       2. ``We've got a government designed by the Founders so 
     that there'd be checks and balances. You don't want a 
     president who's too powerful or a Congress that's too 
     powerful or a court that's too powerful. Everybody's got 
     their own role. Congress's job is to pass legislation. The 
     president can veto it or he can sign it. . . . I believe in 
     the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the 
     United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a 
     way of doing an end-run around Congress.'' (5/19/08)
       3. ``Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve 
     this problem. . . . Anybody who tells you it's going to be 
     easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen 
     hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.'' (5/5/
     10)
       4. ``[T]here are those in the immigrants' rights community 
     who have argued passionately that we should simply provide 
     those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least 
     ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation 
     until we have better laws. . . . I believe such an 
     indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It 
     would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally 
     that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And 
     this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And 
     it would also ignore the millions of people around the world 
     who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our 
     nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to 
     control its borders and set laws for residency and 
     citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter 
     their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be 
     held accountable.'' (7/1/10)
       5. ``I do have an obligation to make sure that I am 
     following some of the rules. I can't simply ignore laws that 
     are out there. I've got to work to make sure that they are 
     changed.''
       6. ``I am president, I can't do these things just by 
     myself. We have a system of government that requires the 
     Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. 
     I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some 
     partners to do it. . . . The main thing we have to do to stop 
     deportations is to change the laws. . . . [T]he most 
     important thing that we can do is to change the law because 
     the way the system works--again, I just want to repeat, I'm 
     president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books 
     that says that people who are here who are not documented 
     have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in 
     terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people 
     who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who 
     are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a 
     limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged 
     to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I 
     can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important 
     thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying 
     laws.'' (10/25/10)
       7. ``America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the 
     President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a 
     choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate 
     for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both 
     respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation 
     of immigrants. . . . With respect to the notion that I can 
     just suspend deportations through executive order, that's 
     just not the case, because there are laws on the books that 
     Congress has passed. . . . [W]e've got three branches of 
     government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch's 
     job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the 
     judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on 
     the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we 
     have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply 
     through executive order ignore those congressional mandates 
     would not conform with my appropriate role as President.'' 
     (3/28/11)
       8. ``I can't solve this problem by myself. . . . [W]e're 
     going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it 
     happen. . . . I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to 
     change the laws in Congress, but I'm confident we can make it 
     happen.'' (4/20/11)
       9. ``I know some here wish that I could just bypass 
     Congress and change the law myself. But that's not how 
     democracy works. See, democracy is hard. But it's right. 
     Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds 
     and changing votes, one by one.'' (4/29/11)
       10. ``Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they 
     wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. 
     But that's not how a democracy works. What we really need to 
     do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive 
     reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's 
     what I'm committed to doing.'' (5/10/11)
       11. ``I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. . . 
     . Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and 
     change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing 
     things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on 
     immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. 
     That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our 
     Constitution is written.'' (7/25/11)
       12. ``So what we've tried to do is within the constraints 
     of the laws on the books, we've tried to be as fair, humane, 
     just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves 
     need to be changed. . . . The most important thing for your 
     viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in 
     order to change our laws, we've got to get it through the 
     House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by 
     Republicans, and we've got to get 60 votes in the Senate. . . 
     . Administratively, we can't ignore the law. . . . I just 
     have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just 
     change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing 
     everything we can administratively. But the fact of the 
     matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. 
     And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause 
     of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive 
     immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, 
     by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true. 
     . . . We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through 
     the legislature, and then I can sign it. And if all the 
     attention is focused away from the legislative process, 
     then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have 
     to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure 
     to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, 
     we can get this thing solved.'' (9/28/11)
       In June 2012, President Obama unilaterally granted deferred 
     action for childhood arrivals (DACA), allowing ``eligible 
     individuals who do not present a risk to national security or 
     public safety . . . to request temporary relief from 
     deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.'' 
     He then argued that he had already done everything he could 
     legally do on his own:
       13. ``Now, what I've always said is, as the head of the 
     executive branch, there's a limit to what I can do. Part of 
     the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole 
     lot of money into it, and when you have a lot of resources 
     and a lot more agents involved, then there are going to be 
     higher numbers. What we've said is, let's make sure that 
     you're not misdirecting those resources. But we're still 
     going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to 
     avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming 
     up occasionally. And that's why this continues to be a top 
     priority of mine. . . . And we will continue to make sure 
     that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible. 
     But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for 
     legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question, 
     we're going to continue to be bound by the law. . . . And so 
     part of the challenge as President is constantly saying, 
     `what authorities do I have?' '' (9/20/12)
       14. ``We are a nation of immigrants. . . . But we're also a 
     nation of laws. So what I've said is, we need to fix a broken 
     immigration system. And I've done everything that I can on my 
     own[.]'' (10/16/12)
       15. ``. . . I am the head of the executive branch of 
     government. I'm required to follow the law. And that's what 
     we've done. But

[[Page S1098]]

     what I've also said is, let's make sure that we're applying 
     the law in a way that takes into account people's humanity. 
     That's the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. 
     Within the confines of the law we said, we have some 
     discretion in terms of how we apply this law.'' (1/30/13)
       16. ``I'm not a king. You know, my job as the head of the 
     executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And, you 
     know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, 
     we've got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But 
     we can't simply ignore the law. When it comes to the 
     dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, `These 
     folks are generally not a risk. They're not involved in 
     crime. . . . And so let's prioritize our enforcement 
     resources.' But to sort through all the possible cases of 
     everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very 
     difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive 
     immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a 
     way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that 
     there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying 
     out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who've 
     put down roots here. . . . My job is to carry out the law. 
     And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They 
     give us an order that we've got to go out there and enforce 
     the laws that are on the books. . . . If this was an issue 
     that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time 
     ago. . . . The way our system works is Congress has to pass 
     legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and 
     implement it.'' (1/30/13)
       17. ``This is something I've struggled with throughout my 
     presidency. The problem is that I'm the president of the 
     United States, I'm not the emperor of the United States. My 
     job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right 
     now has not changed what I consider to be a broken 
     immigration system. And what that means is that we have 
     certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place 
     even if we think that in many cases the results may be 
     tragic. . . . [W]e've kind of stretched our administrative 
     flexibility as much as we can[.]'' (2/14/13)
       18. ``I think that it is very important for us to recognize 
     that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I 
     can do some things and have done some things that make a 
     difference in the lives of people by determining how our 
     enforcement should focus. . . . And we've been able to 
     provide help through deferred action for young people. . . . 
     But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively.'' 
     (7/16/13)
       19. ``My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to 
     carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said `here 
     is the law' when it comes to those who are undocumented, and 
     they've allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. 
     And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument 
     that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the 
     resources that we have, we can't do everything that Congress 
     has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the 
     DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown 
     up here are Americans that we should welcome. . . . But if we 
     start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring 
     the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to 
     defend legally. So that's not an option. . . . What I've said 
     is there is a there's a path to get this done, and that's 
     through Congress.'' (9/17/13)
       20. ``[I]f, in fact, I could solve all these problems 
     without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But 
     we're also a nation of laws. That's part of our tradition. 
     And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I 
     can do something by violating our laws. And what I'm 
     proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic 
     processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. 
     . . . It is not simply a matter of us just saying we're going 
     to violate the law. That's not our tradition. The great thing 
     about this country is we have this wonderful process of 
     democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is 
     hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out.'' (11/25/13)
       21. ``I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive 
     immigration reform. But what I've said in the past remains 
     true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am 
     constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I've done 
     is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can't 
     enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million 
     people, there aren't the resources there. What we've said is 
     focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on 
     people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on 
     young people, who we're calling DREAMers. . . . That already 
     stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was 
     confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a 
     certain point the reason that these deportations are taking 
     place is, Congress said, `you have to enforce these laws.' 
     They fund the hiring of officials at the department that's 
     charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any 
     more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws 
     that are on the books. That's why it's so important for us to 
     get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.'' (3/6/
     14)
       22. ``I think that I never have a green light [to push the 
     limits of executive power]. I'm bound by the Constitution; 
     I'm bound by separation of powers. There are some things we 
     can't do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. . 
     . . Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So 
     I don't have a green light. . . . My preference in all these 
     instances is to work with Congress, because not only can 
     Congress do more, but it's going to be longer-lasting.'' (8/
     6/14)

  Mr. BLUNT. Let me mention a few of those, but I will submit all 22 
for the Record. As early as March of 2008, the President said: I take 
the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we are 
facing right now are things that don't go through Congress at all.
  In November of 2010 the President said: I am the President, not a 
king. I can't do these things just by myself. I have to have partners 
to do it.
  In January of 2013, the President, again, still believes he is not a 
king, because he says: I am not a king. He says that at two different 
events on that day. He says: We can't simply ignore the law.
  The truth is, in November of 2014 the President does decide we can 
simply ignore the law. The 22 times the President said we couldn't 
ignore the law I agree with him. For those who believe I don't find 
enough opportunities to agree with the President, here are 22 times I 
agree with the President's view that he cannot do these kinds of things 
on his own and by himself.
  On February 14, 2013--2 years ago--the President said: The problem is 
that I am the President of the United States.
  I could actually quit right there and maybe that would say all I need 
to say, but of course he said:

       The problem is that you know I'm the president of the 
     United States. I'm not the emperor of the United States . . . 
     we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in 
     place.

  It goes on. I get to that point, and I don't know quite how to 
explain--as I am sure the President doesn't know how to explain--what 
he has said and what he has now done.
  On September 2013: ``My job in the executive branch is supposed to be 
to carry out the laws that are passed,'' still in full agreement with 
what the President said his job is.
  As late as August of this last year, the President said: There are 
some things we can't do. Congress has the power of the purse, for 
example. Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I 
don't have a green light.
  He goes on to suggest to do whatever the President might like to do. 
That is basically what this debate is about right now. It is not about 
whether the Department of Homeland Security would continue to function. 
In fact, what I wish to see is the President engaged as the principal 
officer responsible for the administration of the government.
  I think something like that is what President Kennedy said after the 
Bay of Pigs, when he said: I am responsible here because I am the 
principal officer responsible for the administration of the government.
  The President created this problem. He created this funding problem 
for States, he created this funding problem for the Federal Government, 
and he created this problem of exceeding his authority as President of 
the United States. But the President, once again, is missing from the 
discussion of how to solve the problem.
  That could very well be, as is often the case, the person who would 
know how to solve the problem is the person who created it. But we are 
not hearing anything from that person because clearly people at the 
White House believe it is to their temporary political advantage to act 
as though the people in the Congress don't want the government to 
function, rather than to act as though people in the Congress believe 
the President was right the 22 times he said he couldn't do what he has 
now done.
  I have heard several of my colleagues in the last few days--in fact, 
even one or two this morning on early news shows--say: We need a way 
for Congress to settle these kinds of disputes outside of the 
appropriations process.
  One way to do that would be to pass a law I filed in the last 
Congress that the House of Representatives passed in a bipartisan way--
the Senate was not allowed to vote on it and I would like to see us 
vote on it in this Congress--which is the ENFORCE the Law Act, which 
simply does allow the Congress, if a majority of the Members of the 
House or Senate believes the President is not enforcing the law as 
written, to go to a judge and seek an early determination, rather than 
wait for some aggrieved citizen who disagrees with a rule or regulation 
to have to hire their own lawyer after the rule is in effect,

[[Page S1099]]

and in the 2 years or so it might take to get that case to the Supreme 
Court, other individuals impacted by the rule or regulation are trying 
to comply with it, only to find out later, as the Court ruled a handful 
of times during the recent years of this Presidency that, no, the 
President doesn't have the authority to do that.
  They said: No, you don't have the authority to appoint people to the 
National Labor Relations Board when the Senate is in session just 
because you have decided somehow the Senate is not in session. You 
don't get to decide whether the Senate is in session, Mr. President, if 
they have met all the requirements to be in session. You particularly 
don't get to decide whether the Senate is in session if that same 
session of the Senate approves some things that you thought needed to 
be done and that was good enough for you.
  Then they said: Mr. President, by the way, when you appoint these 
people illegally, whatever rules and regulations they put forward 
aren't legal either.
  So the couple of years of businesses trying to comply with the 
National Labor Relations Act rules and regulations, all of that is to 
the wayside. Those rules are all gone, but that doesn't restore the 
time, effort, money, and needless compliance that happens when the 
President exceeds his authority or when the President's agencies, such 
as the Environmental Protection Agency, decide they could do something 
they would like to do without ever arguing before the Congress that we 
would like the authority to do this.
  So passing the ENFORCE the Law Act would be a way to seek an earlier 
or quicker remedy. It does appear to me that the Federal judges are 
likely to decide pretty quickly--Federal judges, the court of appeals 
level and then the circuit level--that, no, Mr. President; you have 
gone beyond where you were in fact. You were right the first 22 times, 
not the November 2014 time that you decided if you don't like the law, 
you don't have to enforce the law.
  I think we should move forward with that ability that the Congress 
currently doesn't have, but also I think we should continue to express 
our desire for this process to work the way it is supposed to work.
  The House of Representatives, which is supposed to initiate spending 
bills, has done that. It is the job of the Senate to debate those 
spending bills. It is the job of Senators to offer amendments if they 
don't like them, and so far our friends on the other side have insisted 
they don't want to do that part of this job. Maybe we all should 
understand why they don't want to defend what the President has done 
because of all the times he said he couldn't do it.

                          ____________________