United States Presidential Candidates 2008

"Mr. President, first of all, I wish to make reference to the famous letter by Senator Cotton to the Iranians conveying to them the realities of the U.S. Constitution and the situation as it will prevail, hopefully, and that is that the Congress of the United States must ratify any agreement between the United States and Iran. Anybody who says we shouldn't ignores history and ignores the impact of this treaty. I signed that letter, and I believe it is a direct result of the President's statement that he would veto any role the U.S. Congress should play in the ratification or nonratification of a pending agreement. That is what triggered the letter from Senator Cotton, and that is why I stand by it."

"While I suppose this means I’ll spend this Easter in Sedona rather than Siberia, I couldn’t be more proud of being sanctioned by Vladimir Putin for standing up for freedom and human rights for the Russian people and against Putin’s deadly aggression in Ukraine. I will never stop my efforts to support democracy, free speech, and the rule of law in Russia,"

"The question is, When these Shia militias get into Tikrit, how are they going to behave? There are well-documented human rights abuses by these Shia militias. Again, these are the same Badr brigades that we fought against in the Battle of Sadr City during the surge. And now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff said in January: "As long as the Iraqi government remains committed to inclusivity of all the various groups inside the country, then I think Iranian influence will be positive." I am not making that up."

"The Senator and I have been to Walter Reed and many other places like that and have seen our wounded. Wounded by what? By IEDs, the copper-tipped IEDs that Soleimani made sure came into Iraq, that would penetrate armor and wreak havoc and wounded so many and killed so many young Americans. It is now Soleimani who is visibly leading the fight in Tikrit. Strangely enough, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saw so many flags--guess what--with the banners of the Iranian-backed Shia militias. I would ask my friend, isn't this in some ways a Greek tragedy? Isn't this in some ways a situation where we sacrifice so much? And thanks to the inspired, fantastic leadership of General Petraeus and Colonel McFarland and all of those individuals who fought so well and led so well, we had it won, it was stabilized. And now because of the President's decision not to leave a residual force, we are seeing capitals in the Middle East--whether it be Sana'a, Baghdad, Beirut, or Damascus--we are now seeing an overwhelming Iranian presence that is dedicated, among other things, to the extinction of the State of Israel."

"Could I ask my friend if he recalls the recent testimony by Henry Kissinger, probably the most highly regarded individual in America today? He voiced his concern. His fundamental problem was that, as he put it, we have gone from negotiations to rid Iran from ever having the capability of developing nuclear weapons to delaying it. So that on its face--and again, I want to remind my friend from South Carolina that he and I and our beloved friend, former Member of this body, Joe Lieberman, made visit after visit to Baghdad and to Iraq. We probably were everywhere in that country on many occasions. And how well we remember the fight the surge brought on to bring stability to Iraq. It did bring stability. You remember the battle of Sadr City. Who was it that our forces, our young men and women, were fighting against, the Badr Brigades? Guess who is fighting in Tikrit today. The Badr Brigades."

"Can we get real, I ask my friend from South Carolina, as to what is taking place? The Iranians are now in Sana'a, they are in Baghdad, they are in Beirut, they are in Damascus, and they are on the move. Meanwhile, this administration, this President, and this Secretary of State pursue the mirage of a nuclear agreement that will somehow change the entire equation. I would also be interested in the views of the Senator from South Carolina of what the Saudis are doing, which is accommodating in their own way and possibly making plans to acquire their own nuclear weapons along with other nations in the Middle East."

"Let's be clear. The President's veto of this year's bill is not over any of its policies, it is over politics. In the President's case, politics has taken precedence over policies, and when we are talking about the lives of the men and women who are serving this Nation in uniform--disgraceful. For the first time in history, the Commander in Chief will sacrifice national security for his larger domestic political agenda. This veto will not resolve the spending debate; it will not stop sequestration. That is something that can only be done through the appropriations process, not a defense authorization bill. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have answered the call to protect our Nation. They want and need support. They don't care what budget category that support comes from. I wish to point out we authorized exactly the amount of money the President requested. This is a Washington game. All the men and women who are serving in the military care about is that their mission is fully resourced. With this veto, their mission will not be fully resourced. We will put their lives in greater danger because of this political game of the President--holding the military men and women hostage for his agenda to fund the IRS and the EPA."

"Mr. President, I come to the floor for a very unusual reason this afternoon. It has to do with an attack on for-profit colleges by a longstanding campaign by certain groups and individuals who have been opposed to for-profit colleges. They were able to destroy one out in California, and they are continuing to attempt to make those attacks work on other for-profit colleges. This is a very unusual situation because what we are seeing take place are conclusions being drawn and action being taken--in this case by the Department of Defense--without due process, as a result of pressure exerted by a Member and Members of the Senate, which then has resulted in action without due process."

"I have been in the Senate and the House for a long time. I have never seen an act of blatant partisanship with disregard for the men and women who are serving in the military than what the President is doing as we speak. For 53 years, Congress has fulfilled its constitutional duty to provide for the common defense by passing the National Defense Authorization Act. For 53 consecutive years, both bodies have passed, and the President has signed into law, the National Defense Authorization Act. In all my years, I have never witnessed anything so misguided, cynical, and downright dangerous as vetoing the Defense authorization for reasons that have nothing to do with defense--nothing to do with defense. Presidents throughout history--Republicans and Democrats alike--have recognized the importance of this bill to our national defense. In the more than 50 years since Congress has passed an NDAA, a National Defense Authorization Act, the President of the United States has only vetoed the act four times. In each case, the President objected to an actual provision in the bill, and each time the Congress was able to find a compromise that earned the President's signature."

"He was one of a kind — a blunt-spoken legislator with a sense of humor who followed a sometimes unpredictable course, often clashed with his own party and exercised an outsized influence on policy debates. After losing to Barack Obama in his 2008 race for the presidency, he absorbed the defeat and resumed his Senate work with unflagging zeal."

"The legislation the President vetoed today authorizes the overall amount for defense that he requested, every single dollar of it. By making clear that he will "not fix defense without fixing non-defense spending," the President of the United States puts defense and the men and women in the military on the same level as the IRS. The President is using our military--using our military--as leverage to fight a battle that the Defense authorization bill cannot accomplish. At a time of mounting threats around the world, it is disgraceful. It is disgraceful the President would refuse to authorize for our troops the resources they need to prepare for and engage in vital missions around the world and that deliver some of the most significant reforms to the Pentagon in more than 30 years."

"I spend a lot of time with the men and women who are serving in the military, including members of my own family, and they are not uninformed. They are very intelligent. They watch what we do--we, their elected representatives. Their voters trust us to defend them, care for them, to give them the weapons they need, the benefits they need, and the care they need when the wounded come back. They rely on us. They are going to see, as we watch Vladimir Putin on the march, as we watch the success of ISIS, as we watch Ukraine being dismembered, as we watch China commit more aggression in the South China Sea and fill in islands--and now? Now this Commander in Chief decides that this is a time to veto an authorization bill because he doesn't think there is enough domestic spending. It is a sad day, a very sad day. It is a sad day for America but most of all it is a very sad day for the men and women with whom we entrust our very lives and our security. It is a sad day."

"On a bipartisan basis, we passed a defense authorization bill that has monumental consequences to the future security of this Nation, the present security of this Nation, and the welfare and ability of the men and women who are serving this Nation and their ability to defend this Nation, and the President--because he wants an increase in domestic spending, has vetoed it. Never have I seen such irresponsibility on the part of a Commander in Chief. There have been Presidents I have disagreed with. There have been Presidents I have had spirited debates with--but never ever in history has there been a President of the United States who abrogated his responsibilities, his constitutional responsibilities, as Commander in Chief. I say shame on him today, and this is a shameful day. The House will vote to override this veto on November 5. I strongly urge my colleagues to reverse this dangerous action and put the interests of our military and national security ahead of politics. Our men and women serving around the world, many still in harm's way, deserve nothing less."

"By vetoing this legislation, the Defense authorization bill, let's be clear what the President is saying no to. He is saying no to pay increases and more than 30 types of bonuses and special pays for service members, saying no to more portability of military health plans and greater access to urgent care facilities for troops and their families, saying no to enhanced protection against military sexual assault, saying no to significant reforms to a 70-year-old military retirement system that would extend retirement benefits to over 80 percent of service members, saying no to the most sweeping reforms to our defense acquisition system in nearly 30 years, saying no to a ban on torture once and for all, saying no to $300 million in lethal assistance for the Ukrainians to defend themselves against Russian aggression, and saying no to countless other important provisions that are greatly needed to combat the growing threats we see around the world today. Perhaps, most importantly, the President of the United States is refusing to sign a bill at a time when--as our top military commanders and national security experts have testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee--the world has not seen greater turmoil since the end of World War II. So, my friends, here is the context. Thanks to the President's failed policies, the results of leading from behind, the results of a policy of "Don't do stupid stuff," we now see a world in a state of turmoil--the likes of which we have not seen since the end of World War II."

"After further review of the DOD's decision, it is my opinion that, No. 1, it relies on overly technical violations of a memorandum of understanding that the university signed with the Department of Defense regarding its participation in the Tuition Assistance Program; No. 2, it fails to reflect the actions the university has taken to correct and identify violations; and No. 3, it is based in part on unsubstantiated allegations associated with inquiries for information by other agencies, not findings of new violations. In other words, with our letter, we asked Secretary Carter to review a lower level decision to put the university on probation where even the DOD conceded, in its very letter to the university announcing its decision, that "the University of Phoenix has responded to infractions with appropriate corrective action at this time.""

"The EPA rule is especially bad news for Arizona agriculture and homebuilding sectors which, combined, account for most of all economic activity in my State. If a farmer wants to build or repair a canal, the EPA rule could block it. A community that wants to build a school or a church near a dry wash will have to beg EPA for a permit. Under the rule, the EPA can even fine a private property owners tens of thousands of dollars if the Agency thinks water historically flowed across their land even when there is no visible evidence. Regardless whether or not the President vetoes this resolution, I will continue to oppose the EPA clean water rule. I am a proud cosponsor of Senator Jeff Flake's similar bill, S. 1179, the Defending Rivers from Overreaching Policies Act, DROP Act, which would direct the EPA to pull its rule over its poor, nonscientific definition of "navigable" water bodies. We will continue to push forward with this and other legislative initiatives and will watch closely to see how the courts handle the EPA rule."

"Let's be clear again. There was no due process here. That is what I want--due process. If the University of Phoenix is guilty of some wrongdoing, I want to be one of the first to make sure the proper penalties are enacted. I do not--I repeat--I do not believe that on the basis of a single investigative report, that action should be taken. With this in mind, I was stunned to hear once again that the Senator from Illinois is insisting that the DOD not reverse its decision. Given his own involvement in the matter, his suggestion that the DOD not reverse its decision just because Members of this body conveyed concern about the merits of its probationary decision and the fundamentally unfair way that the DOD made it is, in fact, ridiculous. The whole matter arose from the Senator from Illinois pressuring the DOD to take adverse action against the university. His case was based not on an affirmative finding by the Department that the university engaged in any newly identified acts of substantial misconduct but a report by an outside investigative group. He then sent letters to the Department of Education and Department of Veterans Affairs asking for similar action."

"We sent these letters to the Veterans' Administration and to the Department of Education requesting that they notify us if further action is taken against the university. We sent these letters because we feel that the Department of Defense's decision and threats of termination of participation by the University of Phoenix in this program were done simply because the Senator from Illinois sent a letter to the Department of Defense highlighting an outside investigative report--an outside investigative report--suggesting wrongdoing on the part of the University of Phoenix."

"With respect to the university's proposed violations of DOD policies on the use of official seals or other trademark insignia with "challenge coins," we understand the university has remedied this infraction. But it is worth noting that traditional public or nonprofit universities, including Southern Illinois University, utilize similar challenge coins with impunity. I remain skeptical that the DOD is evenly and uniformly enforcing its policies on all institutions of higher education and appears to be unfairly singling out certain institutions of higher education based on a letter from the Senator from Illinois. With respect to the university's apparent failure to obtain specific approval for conducting partnership activities at several military installations, it is our understanding that the university obtained approval from the respective base leadership to sponsor, sometimes at their request, partnership events. While the university may have technically violated the MOU's requirement that the university coordinate with the education services officer, those who have served in the military readily understand and respect the chain of command. Approval from the base leadership should be sufficient to meet the requirements of the MOU regardless of the education service officer's involvement. By the way, the education service officer did not turn this down; they just were not consulted."

"The EPA claims that the rule only allows the Agency to halt activities that disturb small, environmentally sensitive streams and wetlands. But when you dive into the rule's lengthy publication, you will find that EPA is proposing to expand its jurisdiction over roughly 60 percent of all waters of the United States and can also capture certain irrigation ditches, stock ponds, and even dry desert washes. Farmers, housing, construction jobs, and other activities will all suddenly find themselves under the thumb of EPA bureaucrats. The EPA will claim it has written waivers into the rule for these industries, but there is growing consensus that the waivers are so unclear and conflicting that nobody believes they hold any water. The EPA's rulemaking process itself was so closed off from outside input and peer-reviewed science that it is clear to any reasonable observer that EPA had misjudged the economic damage their rule will inflict on small business, farms, and local governments around the country."

"Mr. President, I was pleased to vote today in support of S.J. Res. 22, which would nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's recently finalized clean water rule. Just yesterday, I voted in support of a bipartisan bill, S. 1140, authored by my colleague, Senator John Barrasso, which would have forced EPA to pull the rule. Unfortunately, that bill did not receive the 60 votes necessary under Senate rules that are needed to pass. The resolution passed by the Senate today is supported by hundreds of national and local organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Homebuilders Association, to name a few. While I understand that the White House has threatened to veto this resolution if it reaches the President's desk, it is still important that a majority of Congress voice their opposition to the EPA rule as Federal courts continue to weigh its legality. Americans around the Nation are lining up against the EPA clean water rule because of its economic cost, the regulatory impact, and the uncertainty it engenders among State and local governments, businesses, and consumer alike. The rule itself bypassed Congress by redefining the types of water bodies under the Clean Water Act that EPA has the authority to regulate. EPA pushed forward without regard for State and local environmental protection laws, which is partly why about a dozen State attorneys general, including from my home State of Arizona, have won injunctions in Federal court against the EPA rule."

"In the absence of significant, substantiated findings regarding new, uncorrected violations, the Department of Defense decided to suspend the university from participating in the Tuition Assistance Program based on document requests by two government agencies that are not, in fact, the Department of Defense and does not indicate a violation or admittance of guilt. We call on our service men and women to serve and protect our interests, often at great cost to themselves and their families. Yet the Senator from Illinois suggests that they are not capable of choosing their own path when determining their postsecondary educational needs. By the way, on a technical violation of the budget agreement, the Senator from Illinois was one of the leaders in voting against the Defense authorization bill, which was the result of many years of work."

"By the way, during these debates, I will comment a little bit on it--that those who are against any intervention cite Libya as the case for not going in. Facts are a stubborn thing. The fact is, Muammer Qadhafi was at the gates of Benghazi and was going to slaughter thousands of people. We brought about his downfall and walked away. If we had walked away from Japan and Germany after World War II, it would have collapsed. If we had walked away from Korea, where we still have 38,000 troops, it would have collapsed. If we had walked away from Bosnia, it would have collapsed. I am telling you, my colleagues, we walked away. This President and this administration did not do the things necessary after the fall of Qadhafi to build a democracy, and the people of Libya wanted it, and I can tell you that for sure because I was there. One of the great tragedies of the 21st century is our failure to act in a way to help the Libyan people transition from all of those years of being under a brutal leader."

"We are now making nice--and I will talk a little bit more about it later--with Bashar al-Assad and their stewards, the Russians and the Iranians. Meanwhile, Bashar al-Assad is buying oil from--at least $1.5 million a day--from ISIL. Even as an Oval Office speech and a Pentagon photo op failed to reassure the American people, this administration has doubled down on its indecisive approach to ISIL, using limited means and indirect ways to achieve aspirational ends on a nonexistent timeline. The administration now admits we are at war with ISIL--wonderful--but proceeds at every turn to minimize any American role in fighting and winning that war. America has never waged anything we have called to war and then so profoundly limited our role in the hope that some other force will emerge to win it for us. The administration says we cannot "Americanize" the conflict."

"We lost -- we lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger. We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties -- and Sen. Obama -- passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust when we valued our power over our principles. We're going to change that."

"All you've ever asked of your government is to stand on your side and not in your way. And that's what I intend to do: stand on your side and fight for your future."

"By the way, he was also responsible for the deaths of Americans in a bar in Berlin and an airliner being shot down. Yet we should have left him in power? Sure we should have. ISIL is operating in Lebanon, Yemen, and Egypt, and other radical Islamic groups, such as Boko Haram in Nigeria and al-Shabaab in Somolia, have pledged allegiance to ISIL. This appearance of success only enhances ISIL's ability to radicalize, recruit, and grow. There has been some progress. I was recently in Iraq, and the operation to retake Sinjar was important. Iraqi forces, as I mentioned, have closed in on Ramadi for weeks. They haven't finished the job. Our counterterrorism operations are taking a lot of ISIL fighters off the battlefield in Iraq and Syria. All of this represents tactical progress, and it is a testament to our civilian and military leaders, who are outstanding, as well as thousands of U.S. troops helping to take the fight to ISIL every day. I would like to point out that significant challenges remain."

"It comes as no surprise that the training of Iraqi security forces has been slow. The building of support for the Sunni tribal forces has been even slower. ISIL captured Mosul in June of 2014, and at the end of 2015, ISIL still controls the second largest city in Iraq. How do you think the families of those brave Americans who have sacrificed themselves and those individuals who are still at Walter Reed feel after the sacrifices they made and the victories they won? Now, of course, we see all of that is gone--just a glimmering--thanks to the President of the United States withdrawing all of our troops in the mistaken belief that if you pull out of wars, wars end. They don't end. It is hard to talk to the Gold Star Mothers. Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that ISIL is still making $1.5 million a day in oil sales. Worse, Reuters reports that ISIL has made more than $500 million trading oil, with significant volumes sold to--guess who. Guess who ISIL is selling oil to. The government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It is hard to make some of this stuff up, and it gets a little complicated."

"I met with Prime Minister al-Abadi in Iraq. He is a good man. He knows he needs this help, but because of the dominating influence of Iran and Shia militias in Iraq, he turned it down anyway. General McFarland, one of the greatest generals I have met--he is up there in the category of David Petraeus--is leading the fight against ISIL. He reacted with a very interesting comment. He said: "This is a very complex environment. It is kind of hard to inflict support on somebody." What General McFarland is saying is that because of the Iranian dominant influence, the Iraqis, as a body, are reluctant to accept the help they need to retake the second largest city in Iraq. The second largest city in Iraq, Mosul, is under ISIS control, and he knows full well that Apache helicopters and Special Operations forces could help him do that. But who is telling him not to? The Iranians. When I was there, we met with the Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. al-Abadi, and he said: If you Americans come and you lose one pilot or one plane, you will leave. That was the opinion of the Prime Minister of Iraq, and one of the reasons--along with the Iranian influence--is because there is no trust or confidence of the United States in Iraq or in the region."

"As a direct result of President Obama's decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq and squander hard-won American influence, the Iraqi Government is weak and beholden to Iran. I tell my colleagues, have no doubt what the dominant influence in Iraq is today: It is the Iranians. There was no more vivid example of this than when it was reported that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Abadi turned down Secretary of Defense Ash Carter's offer of new military assistance, including the use of Apache helicopters and Special Operations forces to help recapture Ramadi."

"My friends, the last time the Russians had influence in the region was when Anwar Sadat threw them out in 1973. Now they are back. Now they are major players in the Middle East. This is the headline from the Associated Press yesterday: "Russian Airstrikes Restore Syrian Military Balance of Power." The airstrikes of the Russians have taken out significant capabilities of the moderate resistance--not ISIS but the moderates whom we had trained and equipped and we refused to protect."

"It is really embarrassing to watch this President and this Secretary of State as they continue to beg Vladimir Putin and his stooge Lavrov as they continue to place Russia in a position of influence they have not had since Anwar Sadat threw them out of Egypt in 1973. They now have a major role to play in the Middle East. They have a military base. They have a naval base. They have upgraded airfields, and they have now solidified Bashar Assad's position in power. Is there anybody who believes that Russia will agree to an arrangement that Bashar Assad or his stooge doesn't remain in power? Of course not. Aren't we tired of begging Vladimir Putin? Aren't we tired of watching the United States and the young men we trained and equipped being bombed by Vladimir Putin and killed and murdered? Don't we sometimes grow a little tired of that? It is no wonder that the United States of America has no standing and no influence in the region."

"The war against ISIL was Americanized when ISIL inspired terrorists who murdered 14 Americans on our own soil in San Bernardino. This attack should be a wake-up call and we need a strategy, as I mentioned. In Syria, there is no plausible strategy to achieve this goal on anywhere near an acceptable time line. We were briefed that it would be a year before they retake Mosul. There is no time limit on how they could even approach regaining Raqqa. There is no ground force that is both willing and able to retake Raqqa, nor is there a realistic prospect of one emerging anytime soon. The Syrian Kurds could take Raqqa but won't, and the Syrian Sunni Arabs want to but can't, partly due to our failure to support them. Meanwhile, the administration has continued its inaction and indifference and has allowed Bashar al-Assad to slaughter a quarter of a million people. Have no doubt who is responsible for these millions of refugees; his name is Bashar al-Assad, the godfather of ISIS. He is the one who has barrel-bombed thousands and thousands of his people. Bashar al-Assad used poison gas and crossed the redline, we might recall. It is Bashar al-Assad who continues the butcher of his own people."

"I also want to point out that the President has a unique and really dishonest approach to those of us who have said for a long time that we have to have more involvement and predicted what would happen. Unfortunately, we have been wrong by saying, yes, the "popoffs"--as he called us in a speech from the Philippines--want to send hundreds of thousands of troops. That is a total falsehood. I will repeat again what we have been asking for for years, and that is another 5,000 or so Americans on the ground in Iraq and a multinational force led by the Sunni Arab countries with European participation--I would hope that people like the French would join in a--about 10,000 of 100,000-person force to go to Raqqa and take them out. As long as Raqqa exists, they will be able to export this evil throughout the world, including to the United States of America. There is no plan by this administration to retake Raqqa. There is no strategy, and that is, indeed, shameful."

"Let's get this straight. Assad will be tolerated to continue to barrel bomb and slaughter innocent people. "However unpalatable his conduct of the war..." This kind of Orwellian understatement not only obscures the truth, but it cripples the conscience. My friends, it cripples the conscience. Bashar Assad's conduct of the war, the barrel bombs, chemical weapons, slaughtering women and children, not only killed one-quarter of a million people, it is what gave rise to ISIL to start with, and it is what fuels them still. Secretary Kerry seems not to understand that fact. While in Moscow searching for "common ground" with Russia on Syria and Ukraine, Secretary Kerry said--and I am not making this up; I am telling my colleagues, I am not making this up--"Russia has been a significant contributor to the progress" the world has made on Syria."

"Mr. President, briefly, the Senator from South Carolina and I discussed this announcement that Russia will begin withdrawing some military forces from Syria. It obviously signals Vladimir Putin's belief that he has bombed and killed enough of the opponents of the murderous Assad regime to assure Assad's survival. For 4 years, this administration--this President--stood by as the Assad regime slaughtered nearly half a million people in Syria. Then, when Assad appeared weak, it watched as Putin intervened militarily and protected his brutal regime, in a move that the President described as Putin going into a "quagmire." Well, apparently now Vladimir Putin is leaving that "quagmire," and he is leaving a solid Bashar Assad in a position of strength. He is leaving thousands of dead moderate opposition that he has indiscriminately bombed, and the United States has their begging bowl out, asking and pleading that they somehow reach some agreement again in Geneva."

"I don't give a damn what the President of the United States wants to do or what anybody else wants to do. We will not waterboard; we will not torture... We will not torture people... It doesn't work, my friends. It doesn't work. If you inflict enough pain on somebody long enough, they're going to tell you whatever they think you want to hear to have it stopped... There are accomplished interrogators who can gain the confidence of the suspect and gain all the information that they could possibly want... My God, what does it say about America if we're going to inflict torture on people? It makes it hard for us to make the argument about the moral superiority of our way of our government and our way of life."

"Unfortunately, America's troubles in 2015 were not contained in Iraq and Syria. Despite conditions on the ground, President Obama elected to withdraw roughly half of the U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of next year. Do you know the President of the United States, even when he announces a buildup, announces a withdrawal. So he sends the message to any potential enemy or any enemy we are engaged with: We are going to build up now, but don't worry, we are going to pull out. We will withdraw. So what happens? Here we are. The Pentagon says violence is on the rise in Afghanistan. The AP report says "Violence in Afghanistan is on the rise, according to a new Pentagon report to Congress that says the Taliban was emboldened by the reduced U.S. military role and can be expected to build momentum from their 2015 attack strategy." It is inevitable, I say to my colleagues, there will be greater violence in Afghanistan, an increase in Taliban activity, and--I am sorry to say--ISIS, who is already establishing a foothold there, will increase their presence. Meanwhile, the Iranians, in their attempt at hegemony, will provide weapons to the Taliban."

"I don't work for myself. I work for you. I've fought corruption, and it didn't matter if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans. They violated their public trust, and they had to be held accountable."

"Madam President, it is my pleasure to rise with my friend and colleague from Rhode Island to speak about the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017. For 54 consecutive years, Congress has passed this vital piece of legislation, which provides our military servicemembers with the resources, equipment, and training they need to defend the Nation. The NDAA is one of the few bills in Congress that continues to enjoy bipartisan support year after year. That is a testament to this legislation's critical importance to our national security and the high regard with which it is held by the Congress. Last month, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 23 to 3--23 to 3--to approve the NDAA, an overwhelming vote that reflects the committee's proud tradition of bipartisan support for the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. I thank the committee's ranking member, the Senator from Rhode Island, for his months of hard work on the NDAA. It has been a great pleasure to work with him on this legislation, and I remain appreciative of the thoughtfulness and bipartisan spirit with which he approaches our national security. He is a great partner and a great leader. I also thank the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, for his commitment to bring the NDAA to the Senate floor on time and without delay. It is a testimony to his leadership that the Senate will once again consider this bill in regular order with an open amendment process."

"For the last 5 years, we have been writing a shameful chapter in American history. To sum all of this up, leading from behind doesn't work. If America leads from behind, somebody else is going to be in front. If the United States leaves conflicts and creates vacuums, then bad things happen. Look at a map of the Middle East in January of 2009, when this President came to the Presidency of the United States, and look at that map now--the way ISIS has metastasized, the way hundreds of thousands have been murdered and millions are on the march as refugees. We still have apologists for this leading from behind, a policy which is described as "Don't do stupid stuff." This is the result of leadership that has left the scene in a way that we have not seen since the 1930s, in the days of Neville Chamberlain and "peace in our time.""

"I fight for the family of Matthew Stanley of Wolfeboro, New Hampshire. Matthew died serving our country in Iraq. I wear his bracelet and think of him every day. I intend to honor their sacrifice by making sure the country their son loved so well and never returned to remains safe from its enemies."

"I've found just the right partner to help me shake up Washington, Gov. Sarah Palin of the great state of Alaska. ... She has an executive experience and a real record of accomplishment. She's tackled tough problems, like energy independence and corruption. She's balanced a budget, cut taxes, and she's taken on the special interests. She's reached across the aisle and asked Republicans, Democrats, and independents to serve in her administration. She's the wonderful mother of five children. She's -- she's helped run a small business. She's worked with her hands and knows -- and knows what it's like to worry about mortgage payments, and health care, and the cost of gasoline and groceries. She knows where she comes from, and she knows who she works for. She stands up for what's right, and she doesn't let anyone tell her to sit down."

"Change is coming."

"This is a far-reaching piece of legislation, but there is one challenge it could not address: the dangerous mismatch between growing worldwide threats and arbitrary limits on defense spending that are in current law. This mismatch has very real consequences for the thousands of Americans who serve in uniform and sacrifice on our behalf all around the Nation and the world. Our troops are doing everything we ask of them, but we must ask ourselves: Are we doing everything we can for them? The answer, I say with profound sadness, is we are not. Since 2011 the Budget Control Act has imposed arbitrary caps on defense spending. Over the last 5 years, as our military has struggled under the threat of sequestration, the world has only grown more complex and far more dangerous. Since 2011 we have seen Russian forces invade Ukraine, the emergence of the so-called Islamic State and its global campaign of terrorism, increased attempts by Iran to destabilize U.S. allies and partners in the Middle East, growing assertive behavior by China and the militarization of the South China Sea, numerous cyber attacks on U.S. industry and government agencies, and further testing by North Korea of nuclear technology and other advanced military capabilities. Indeed, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified in February that over the course of his distinguished five-decade career, he could not recall "a more diverse array of challenges and crises" than our Nation confronts today."

"Our military is being forced to confront these growing threats with shrinking resources. This year's defense budget is more than $150 billion less than fiscal year 2011. Despite periodic relief from the budget caps that imposed these cuts, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of last year, each of our military services remains underfunded, undersized, and unready to meet current and future threats. In short, as threats grow and the operational demands on our military increase, defense spending in constant dollars is decreasing. How does that make any sense? The President's defense budget request strictly adheres to the bipartisan budget agreement, which is $17 billion less than what the Department of Defense planned for last year. As a result, the military services' underfunded requirements total nearly $23 billion for the coming fiscal year alone. Meanwhile, sequestration threatens to return in 2018, taking away another $100 billion from our military through 2021. This is unacceptable."

"The NDAA also caps the size of the National Security Council policy staff at 150. The National Security Council staff will be capped at 150. The staff has steadily grown over administrations of both parties in recent decades. Under George Herbert Walker Bush, there were 40; more than 100 in the Clinton administration; more than 200 during the George W. Bush administration; and now there are reports of nearly 400 under the current administration, plus as many as 200 contractors. This tremendous growth has enabled a troubling expansion of the NSC staff's activities from their original strategic focus to micromanagement of operational issues in ways that are inconsistent with the intent of Congress when it created the NSC in 1947. It has gotten so bad that all three leaders who served as Secretary of Defense under the current administration recently blasted the NSC's micromanagement of operational issues during their tenures. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has come out publicly in favor of shrinking the staff, saying he thinks we can do the job better with fewer people."

"I don't mind a good fight. For reasons known only to God, I've had quite a few tough ones in my life. But I learned an important lesson along the way: In the end, it matters less that you can fight. What you fight for is the real test."

"In short, the NSC staff is becoming increasingly involved in operational issues that should be the purview of Senate-confirmed individuals in the chain of command, and doing so beyond the reach of congressional oversight. If this organization were to return to the intent of the legislation that established it, it could reasonably claim that its strategic functions on behalf of the President are protected by Executive privilege. If, on the other hand, the NSC staff is to play the kind of operational role it has in recent years--and I could give my colleagues example after example--if it is going to play the kind of operational role it has in recent years, then such a body cannot escape congressional oversight. The purpose of the provision in the NDAA to cap the size of the NSC staff is to state a preference for the Congress's original intent in creating the NSC."

"This bill was introduced for the nearly half of all Americans who take a dietary supplement. People have died from taking dietary supplements, including a young mother and wife who lived in my home State, and thousands have had to be hospitalized or seen by a doctor due to an adverse reaction from a dietary supplement. It took nearly 10 years--and then a lengthy court battle--for the FDA to ban the inclusion of ephedra in dietary supplements after ephedra was linked to a number of deaths. Such a delay should never happen again. Additionally, the more than 100 million Americans who consume dietary supplements should be able to know the ingredients of any supplement, and these supplements need to be required to be listed on the product's packaging. If you go to a grocery store and pick up a box of cereal, bread, yogurt or any product off the shelf, you can read the product's label to clearly know the ingredients and be sure you aren't eating something that you find concerning, hazardous or unhealthy. Those who take dietary supplements should have the same option. Simply put, this legislation is about truth in labeling. This legislation is about giving consumers choice. If you take a vitamin now, this bill will in no way restrict your ability to take that vitamin. But the consumer needs to know the entirety of what is contained in that pill."