[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12614-12615]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             FOREIGN POLICY

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, a FOX News poll released this month found 
that ``a record-high 54 percent of American voters feel the U.S. is 
less safe today than it was before 9/11.'' Fifty-four percent of 
Americans think they are less safe than they were before 9/11.
  The article went on to say:

       Voters also think: A major terrorist attack is likely in 
     the near future. . . . Last year's U.S.-Iran agreement on 
     Iran's nuclear program made the U.S. less safe. . . . The 
     $400 million the U.S. paid Iran after American prisoners were 
     released was ransom. . . . Terrorism is one of the most 
     important issues facing the country.

  Those are all quotes from the survey that was done where 54 percent 
of Americans indicated they thought they were less safe today than they 
were before 9/11. And it is not surprising that Americans are worried.
  When President Obama was elected, he was widely regarded as America's 
next great foreign policy President. Here was a President who would 
restore America's standing in the world and calm the troubled waters of 
international conflict. Confidence in his abilities was so high that he 
was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize before he had actually done anything to 
bring peace.
  But after 8 years of the Obama administration, the world is less, not 
more, safe. America's standing in the world has been weakened, 
terrorism is spreading, the Middle East is more hostile and dangerous, 
Iran is counting pallets of ransom money and is in a better position to 
develop a nuclear weapon, and all too often, President Obama and 
Hillary Clinton's foreign policies have been a contributing factor.
  Take the rise of ISIS. When President Obama came into office, he was 
determined to fulfill his campaign promise to withdraw U.S. troops from 
Iraq, and that is exactly what he and Secretary Clinton proceeded to do 
on a timetable that he announced to our enemies. America's hasty 
withdrawal left gaping holes in Iraq's security, and before too long, 
ISIS had stepped in to fill the void. By mid-2014, ISIS had made 
significant territorial gains in Iraq and neighboring Syria.
  Although ISIS has since lost territory in both Syria and Iraq, it was 
able to establish a foothold from which to expand its global terror 
reach. The list of ISIS-linked attacks has grown very long--Nice in 
France, Istanbul, Brussels, Paris, Orlando, San Bernardino, and on and 
on and on. In the past 2 months alone, ISIS has been linked to a 
suicide bombing at a Turkish wedding, a suicide bombing at a hospital 
in Pakistan, a suicide bombing in Yemen, and a gruesome attack at a 
church in northern France. ISIS has also been linked to an attack on 
police officers in Belgium, a music festival bombing in Germany, and 
another railway attack there. And that is just in the past 2 months. 
Yet, despite this ever-growing stream of attacks, the President has 
never seemed to understand the depth of the threat.
  While U.S. efforts have succeeded in reclaiming some territory from 
ISIS, the group's terrorist activities continue unabated and its 
international profile is increasing. Its communications have grown 
especially sophisticated, making intercepting and decoding ISIS's 
messages and tracking its recruitment efforts increasingly difficult.
  In June the President's own CIA Director told Congress, ``Our efforts 
have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach.'' 
That was

[[Page 12615]]

from the President's own CIA Director. Yet, just days before the CIA 
Director's testimony, the President claimed we were ``making 
significant progress'' against ISIS. As long as ISIS's global terrorism 
capability remains unchecked, we are not making significant progress.
  Unfortunately, President Obama's foreign policy failures are not 
confined to his halfhearted campaign against ISIS. Take the President's 
nuclear agreement with Iran. This agreement was supposed to protect our 
Nation and the world from the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. The 
actual deal that emerged, however, doesn't even come close to that 
goal. Even if Iran complies with all aspects of the deal, which doesn't 
seem likely, it will not stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. In 
fact, the deal will actually make it easier for Iran to acquire 
advanced nuclear weapons down the road. On top of this, recent reports 
suggest that the United States and the other signatories to the deal 
have actually already allowed Iran to evade full compliance with some 
of the deal's provisions. It is no surprise that even some of the 
deal's supporters are getting worried.
  Iran has been in the news lately for other disturbing reasons as 
well. In August, news emerged that the Obama administration had 
delivered a $400 million cash payment to Iran on the same day four 
American hostages were freed. Furthermore, the administration had paid 
the money over the objections of Justice Department officials, who were 
concerned that the Iranians would regard it as a ransom payment. The 
administration, of course, strenuously denied that the payment was a 
ransom, but it is pretty hard to get away from the fact that there had 
been a de facto exchange of money for prisoners. Two weeks after news 
of the ransom broke, a State Department spokesman admitted that the 
administration had held the money until three American hostages had 
departed the country by plane.
  The President's ransom payment to Iran is troubling for more than one 
reason. First, of course, tying the receipt of a large cash payment to 
the release of prisoners could easily encourage Iran to expand its 
hostage-taking. Since the ransom payment in January, Iran has continued 
to detain individuals on spurious grounds. In late August, the State 
Department warned U.S. citizens not to travel to Iran because of the 
danger of being detained by the Iranian Government.
  So $400 million in cash in the hands of the Iranians is a disturbing 
prospect. Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and 
has a finger in many of the world's worst conflicts, particularly in 
the Middle East. There is a good chance that at least a chunk of that 
$400 million will go to funding Iran's illicit activities, from support 
for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to funds for terrorist 
organizations like Hezbollah.
  On top of all of this, there is the fact that every time Iran gets 
the better end of a bargain, it feels even more free to act 
aggressively. Recently, Iranian fast boats have been harassing U.S. 
Navy ships, and warning shots have been fired. It is not a stretch to 
think that this aggression and boldness springs from the 
administration's position of weakness when it comes to Iran.
  Teddy Roosevelt used to say: ``Speak softly and carry a big stick.'' 
President Obama's foreign policy has reversed that. The President talks 
a big game, but he has no follow-through. To our adversaries, his 
statements have become no more than empty threats.
  Take Syria. The President drew a redline 4 years ago. If Syrian 
President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, 
the United States would respond. Well, Assad used chemical weapons, and 
the United States did nothing. It should shock no one that a recent 
U.N. investigation found that Assad has continued to use chemical 
weapons against his citizens. After more than 4 years of inaction from 
our President and 5 years of civil war, Syrian cities lie in ruins, 
millions are displaced, and tens of thousands--literally, tens of 
thousands--have been slaughtered. The world's eyes are now on the 
tenuous ceasefire in hopes that it may lead to peace talks and permit 
humanitarian aid to reach those most in need. But we must ask how we 
got here and what lessons can be learned.
  The consequence of empty threats is bolder and stronger enemies. When 
the United States fails to follow through, we send a message that the 
United States can be ignored at will. We can see the results in 
chemical attacks on civilians in Syria, in the belligerent acts of the 
Iranian Navy, in a defiant North Korea testing nuclear bombs, in China 
boldly asserting territorial claims and building up reefs in disputed 
waters, and in Russia annexing Crimea and flexing military and 
political influence in Ukraine.
  In 2008, then-candidate Obama spoke of the need for ``tough, direct 
diplomacy, where the President of the United States isn't afraid to let 
any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for.'' 
That is a direct quote from the President back when he was running for 
President. Well, Presidential candidate Obama was right. That is the 
kind of diplomacy that we need. But, unfortunately, it has never been 
the kind of diplomacy actually displayed by President Obama.
  In that same speech, then-candidate Obama spoke of the need for ``the 
courage and the conviction to lead the free world.'' Well, that is 
something that we need even more today, after 8 years of an 
administration that has frequently lacked the conviction to lead at 
all.
  Senate Republicans will continue to do what we can in Congress to 
restore America's leadership and to strengthen our country's security. 
This includes working to advance the essential National Defense 
Authorization Act and Defense appropriations measures--the latter of 
which have been blocked repeatedly in this Chamber by Democrats.
  I hope my colleagues across the aisle will work with us. Our Nation 
is already in a more dangerous position today, thanks to the foreign 
policy failures of the Obama administration. If we don't start getting 
our foreign policy right, the consequences could haunt us for 
generations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 15 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________