transit, the faa, rao, public housing and community development programs. the senate will spend most of the day working on amendments to the bill. live senate coverage now here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the pastor jeff wheeler, pastor oin sioux falls, south dakota, will lead the sna the? prayer. the guest chaplain: good morning. let's pray. almighty god, we pause today to declare your matchless power and moral perfection. we're reminded that you're in control. you govern your creation with

righteousness and truth. you extend mercy to the downcast and hope to the broken. may these men and women govern with the same spirit. you tell us, "righteousness elevates a nation to greatness." o god, forgive our sin, and grant righteous judgment to these leaders as they make moral and ethical decisions. please grant discernment. fill their hearts with compassion for the weak, courage in adversity, wisdom through debate and vision in the storm. may every decision be tethered to the anchor of your unchanging truth. o lord, be pleased to dwell among us today. let your presence dispel the darkness of self-centeredness. let humility give birth to a servant-hearted spirit. may your name once again be great in our nation. for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever,

in jesus' name. amen. the president pro tempore: pleae join me in reciting the pledge f allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. the senior senator from south dakota. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. it's a great honor for me to be able to welcome to the united states senate today our pastor from sioux falls, south dakota, jeff wheeler, who just offered our invocation this morning, and to just express how much

kimberly and i have appreciated the opportunity to worship and to benefit from his ministry. we enjoy and are blessed by his teaching each and every single week when we're back home in south dakota, and his ministry has and is continuing to impact people all across our community, across our state, and across our region. so he and his wife charlene are with us today in the united states senate. and on behalf of myself and our colleagues, we want to extend the warmest welcome and appreciate the great work that he does in serving the lord in south dakota and across our country. thank you, mr. president. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: it's clear that the american people are concerned about the administration's ability to properly vet thousands of individuals from syria. more than half of our nation's governors, governors of both

parties, have demonstrated their concern. many members in congress, members of both parties, have raised concerns as well. given all this and give given l that's happened in pairs, it simply makes sense to take a step back now to press the pause button so we can determine the facts and enshould yoensure we e correct policies and security screenings in place. that's the most responsible thing for the administration to do right now. that's the most reasonable and balanced thing for the administration to do right now. we should also not lose sight of why we are in this position to begin with. the syrian people are fleeing syria because of a brutal civil war. the ultimate solution to this problem is to make syria a place the syrian people can continue to return to. but the administration has never

had a coherent strategy to settle the conflict. every single one of us knows that isil presents a threat to the homeland, our homeland, and is not contained. so if the administration is serious about starting to turn this situation around, then it's going to have to develop a serious and workable strategy that can swing and win strong bipartisan support. now, on another matter, years ago then-candidate obama made a campaign promise that has not withstood the measure of time or the realities brought by terrorism. he said he wanted to close the secure detention facility at guantanamo bay. every since he has pursued policies that willfully avoided

the targeting chain of capture, interrogate, build intelligence, and target. it turns out the reality of closing the secure detention facility is a lot harder than making promises on the campaign trail. it's an incredibly complex issue with grave national security concerns for the citizens of our country and for our allies. the fact that the president has never been able to present any kind of serious plan to congress seems to say quite a lot. we hear he's working on one now. we will, of course, give consideration to what he sends. we will, of course, keep an open mind. it doesn't mean congress is going to agree with him. it's going to be a very tough sell because it's hard to understand why indefinite detention for terrorists on u.s. soil is preferable todetaining

terrorist whose cannot be rltsed in guantanamo. -- released in guantanamo. it is especially true when one considers the fact that bringing terrorists here presents serious risks that simply do not exist if we keep the terrorists in a secure facility down there. -- in guantanamo bay. this much is crystal clear, though: if the president wants to be able to import guantanamo terrorists into america's backyards, he's going to have to persuade a majority in congress to change the law. the law prevents this. just last week big bipartisan majorities in congress voted twice to underscore the point. we overwhelmingly passed a defense authorization bill with a clear bipartisan prohibition on the president moving guantanamo terrorists into our country. we overwhelmingly passed a veterans funding bill with a

clear bipartisan prohibition on the president improving military facilities for the detention of guantanamo terrorists in our country. the senate has voted many times in recent years to enact these bipartisan protections. we enacted them in congresses with split party control. we enacted them in congresses with massive democratic majorities. the president signed them all into law. so if the president wants to bring guantanamo terrorists into the united states, he has to change the law. that's the opinion of the president's own attorney gener general. she was asked directly this week if the president could ignore legislation passed by congress that prohibits him from transferring guantanamo detainees to american soil. this is what she said, attorney general loretta lynch:

"the law currently does not allow for that." let me repeat that. "the law currently does not allow for that." that's attorney general lynch of this administration. this is what the nation's chief law enforcement officer, a woman appointed by president obama himself, had to say on his ability to import guantanamo terrorists into our country. this isn't exactly a revelation to anybody. the fact that the president is now contemplating flouting the law in pursuit of a campaign promise from years ago means that it's parntsl apparently ney for his own attorney general to remind everybody that the law is the law. even for president obama. there are a multitude of other reasons not to bring these individuals into our country. i plan to continue reminding my colleagues of them here on the floor from time to time.

if the president ever presents some kind of plan we can actually debate, i'm sure there will be several different views on it. i'm sure we'll each have a lot to saivment i a say. i'm sure the president will make his pitch to convince congress that moving terrorists into american communities is a good idea. like i said, it will be a hard sell, but the president should make his case, if he feels passionately about it. for now, though, we should at least be able to agree with what one of our democratic senate colleagues recently said of the president: " he's going to have to comply with the legal restrictions. now, mr. president, i understand there is a bill at the desk due a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second-degree time. the clerk: h.r. 3762, an act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 2002 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016.

mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceedings. the presiding officer: the objection is heard and the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i would ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, we all know that the federal government has many obligations, but chief among them is to protect the american people from harm. responsibility is now if he forefront of talk here in our nation's capital. and rightfully so. isis continues to spread its campaign of terror across the entire world. the united states is committed to combating terrorism. our government will do all possible to protect the people of this nation. in this fight against evil, is isis, it is absolutely critical that we as americans do not lose sight of our nation's core principles. those principles are eloquently etched at the base of the statue of liberty.

i can remember taking my family there for the first time. didn't have all may children then. we had a couple more that had to be born, but my oldest children still remember that. i remember it. here's what it says. "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuge of your teeming store, send these tempest to me." that of course is directed to the united states. all across europe and the middle east, there are huddled masses of syrian families desperate to find refuge someplace from syria's civil war and the isis reign of terror. many of syri syrians have fled r country. 300,000 since the civil war started.

they've fled to nations like turkey, lebanon, tiny little jordan but the crisis continues to worsen and people are forced to seek refuge. what else can they do? on a daily basis europe's waters are being flooded by people in search of a better life, mothers cradling infants. the nations of europe have helped. greece, germany have accommodated a number of people as safely as possible. they're overwhelmed. the united states must do its part. we have a rigorous screening process for when we accept these refugees. refugees we're accepting are women and children and old and older men and families. mr. president, only 2% of the refugees are men of military age. two percent.

two percent last year were of military age. the united states has a long and proud history of providing refuge to the world's most vulnerable. that history includes my father-in-law. israel goldfarb. he and his family came from russia. they were refugees he is caipg the czar. -- refugees escaping the czar. i've been disgusted in recent day to see some of my republican colleagues shunning the american tradition of sheltering those fleeing death, torture, rape and oppression. frankly, i've been disappointed by republican fearmongering and bigotry. apparently they've learned nothing from history. we cannot preept -- repeat the days of the 1930's when many americans resolved to turn away refugees fleeing nazi germany or innocent japanese americans

during world war ii, like our late colleague, dan inouye and his family. those mistakes were based on misguided fears of people who didn't know. how many people died because of unfounded apprehensions? i don't know, but far too many. yet, it seems many republicans are destined to go down that same path again. some in the republican party suggested we categorically block all syrian refugees. one republican candidate for president suggested we turn away even five-year-old refugee children. two other republican candidates for president said that the united states of america should have some sort of religious test for refugees. they're saying only christians. this is the latest in what has become a disturbing pattern of republican hatred toward muslims. remember, syria is mostly

muslim, but there are jews, there are christians, lots of them. during the course of the current presidential cycle, we've heard from the leading ranks of the republican party the following: we're at war with islam, that we should be shutting down muslim houses of worship in america. close the mosques. we should ban muslims from government service. we have two of my friends who serve in the house of representatives who are muslim and proud. that religion has made them better people. isnow that we are -- now that we are suggesting that we should turn away refugees on the ground that are muslim. that's not america. that is hate emanating from some republicans. that anti-muslim venom from republicans is a propaganda bonanza for isis and christian groups responded to those republican attacks.

we've heard what the pope said. to kill in the name of religion is blasphemous. the u.s. conference of catholic bishops are dismayed at the way the antirefugee fervor pushed forward by republicans and are urging supporters to contact elected officials on behalf of these victims of the syrian conflict. we must pause and think about what they have been through. poison gas, cluster bombs, let's think about who are these refugees. they're not our enemies. they are expelled from their homeland by the same evildoers we're fighting. all they want is to find safety to restart their lives. these people have been persecuted and that's an understatement, by president

assad and isis. the syrian regime, i repeat, has barrel bombed their own citizens, unleashed chemical weapons against their own citizens, rapes, justifying the rapes of these hundreds and hundreds of women in the name of their religion. murdering women and children. these refugees hate assad. they hate isis. that's why they're trying to get out of that horrible situation they find themselves. the department of homeland security has verified that not one of the 1,800 refugees already admitted to the united states has a single confirmed tie to terrorism. that's how france feels about it also. on the heels of last week's appalling attacks, the president of france is refusing to neglect

france's duty to humanity. here's what this good man said yesterday -- quote -- "30,000 refugees will be welcomed over the next two years. our country has the duty to respect this commitment." close quote. after what they've through, this is what the president of france said. accepting syrian refugees is the moral thing to do and it's sound policy. former secretary of state condoleezza rice agrees that the united states must offer its arms to those fleeing persecution. here's what she said -- quote -- "what the united states has done is offer to people who are fleeing danger but we've done it in a very careful way that has worked for us." close quote. secretary madeleine albright offered an op-ed this week for "time" magazine. remember, she herself was a refugee. that's how she came to this

country during world war ii. she said "americans must respond with compassion for -- to defeat isis." we can do all we want with refugees. this is no way to win the war. attacking the refugees. here's what she said -- and i quote -- "our enemies have a plan. they want to divide the world putting muslims and nonmuslims between the defenders and attackers of islam. by making syrian refugees the enemy, we're playing to h their hands. instead, we need to clarify that the real choice is between those who think it's okay to murder innocent people and those who think it's wrong. by showing that we value every human life, we can make clear to the world where we stand." close quote. what secretary albright said, secretary rice said is absolutely right. we process refugees in a very, very careful way, and it has

worked. we're not the nations of europe. has anyone thought that we have an ocean between us and them? an ocean, the atlantic ocean. the united states refugee screening process takes place well before they come to our borders. to enter the u.s. refugee program as an applicant, the u.n. agency must select and refer all potential refugees to our program. we accept refugees solely on a referral basis through the united nations agency. we don't go out soliciting these people. after being referred, all refugees, including those from syria, are subjected to extremely rigorous screening and security checks. this isn't some easy procedure where you fly right through the application process and are sent here within a matter of days. no. it takes an average of 18 to 24 months for a refugee to make it through the process of coming to the united states. remember, the mass majority of these people are checked and

rechecked, taking 24 months, are women, children and old men. i repeat, it takes 18 to 24 months for a refugee to make it through the process of coming to the united states. that is why 1,800 refugees have been admitted since the start of the conflict out of the millions fleeing is syria. our government accepts only the most vulnerable, survivors of violence and torture, those with severe medical conditions, women and children. but security precautions are not taking a back seat in the process. these syrian refugees are real people. the measures of their plight should be so visually apparent in our minds. think of that little boy that we saw and everyone saw around the world, a picture of this little dead boy washed up on a beach, a drowned syrian boy whose body was washed up on this turkish beach.

pictures on the front page of newspapers, all the tv programs for several days. at that time democrats and republicans together responded with calls for compassion and action. i urge republicans to remember that little boy. we must help where we can. that's who we are. we're america. we come to the defense of the defenseless. we come to the aid of those in need. and right now we are needed. we're a nation, a nation of freedom. we shouldn't forsake our duty and obligation to these struggling people. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until

11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that after i promulgate two unanimous requests that the remaining time between now and is 11:00 be onely divideevenly divided betwf and the senate's democratic leader. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cruz: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 247 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i ask that the bill be read a third time and passed. and that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? the assistant democratic leader? mr. durbin: on behalf of the ranking member -- the democratic member of the senate judiciary committee, senator pat leahy, and myself, i do object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from texas.

mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee being discharged from further consideration of s. 2302 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: i object. the presiding officer: shoarksd. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, moments ago i asked this body to take up and pass two commonsense pieces of legislation in response to the terrorist attack in paris. the first, the expiatriate terrorist act, is legislation that i introduced over a year ago, attempted to pass over a year ago and that the democratic party blocked. that legislation provides that any american citizen who goes and joins isis, who takes up arms against america and attempts to wage jihad, by doing so forfeits his or her u.s.

citizenship. existing federal law provides for grounds of revocation of citizenship. this would adjoining terrorist groups like isis to those grounds. unfortunately, the democratic party has just objected to passing that commonsense legislation. as a consequence, because of that objection, it means that the americans and the estimates are it could be up to or over 100 americans have gone and joined isis right now, are waging jihad against america. and as a consequence of that objection, it means those isis terrorists can come back to america using a u.s. passport and wage jihad against this country. attempt to murder innocent men and women in this country using a u.s. passport. that is, i believe, a profound mistake. the second legislation that i just asked this body to pass and the democrats just objected to is legislation that would stop

president obama and hillary clinton's plan to bring in tens of thousands of syrian muslim refugees to the united states. in light of the declaration of war from isis, in light of the horrific terrorist attack, in light of the admissions from the director of the f.b.i., who i might note president obama appointed, director comey, said the administration cannot vet these refugees to determine whether or not they are isis terrorists. indeed, he said since they don't have the data on which of the syrian refugees are involved with isis terrorism, they can query the database, but with no information in the database, they can query over and over again until the cows come home. they don't have the information. unfortunately, the democratic party, the democratic senators in this body have chosen to stand with president obama and

his absurd political correctness, his unwillingness even to utter the words "radical islamic terrorism." the president refuses to say the words "radical islamic terrorists." hillary clinton refuses to say the words "radical islamic terrorists." not only do they refuse to say the words, but they are supporting a policy of bringing tens of thousands of syrian muslim refugees into this country knowing full well that we cannot vet them to determine who is coming here to wage jihad. that is a profound threat to this country. it is my hope we should stand as one. this ought to be an area of bipartisan agreement. now i would note the legislation i introduced includes an exception for persecuted minorities facing genocide. christians, yazidis, small minorities that are facing genocide in response to my acknowledging genocide as a different circumstance, president obama two days ago in turkey attacked me directly.

said it was un-american to want to protect this country from terrorists and to want to help persecuted christians. then yesterday president obama attacked me again from manila saying it was offensive that i and so many millions of other americans want to keep our children safe. mr. president, it is neither un-american nor offensive to believe in rule of law, to believe in standing up to radical islamic terrorism. and it is an astonishing statement that so many democratic senators choose to stand with a president who will not confront radical islamic terrorism. indeed just this week secretary kerry rationalized the terrorist attack on charlie hebdo saying it was understandable why they attacked charlie hebdo. we should not be acting as apologists for radical islamic terrorists, the very first obligation of the commander in chief is to keep this nation safe. and i will say any official that is responsible for bringing

people in that they do not know if they are radical islamic terrorists will bear responsibility for the consequences of their action. isis has been plain. they intend to murder as many americans as possible. they intend to carry out terror attacks like happened in paris, they intend to carry them out here. this commonsense legislation would have helped protect this nation, but i'm sorry to say the democratic party is objecting to it. i believe we should put america first, protecting america first. unfortunately my friends on the other side of the aisle are blocking that effort. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i understand there's a limited amount of time? the presiding officer: there are 7 1/2 minutes remaining on the democratic side. mr. leahy: i thank the

distinguished chair. i'm worried in this country that we hear rhetoric that is dangerous, and it's time to stop. it shames the very nature of what america is. we hear ideas that are, they're wrong. i would say they are deeply anti-american. my grandparents, my italian grandparents, my irish great great-grandparents heard some of these kind of -- some of this rhetoric when this country was saying they shouldn't come here. don't allow these papis into the united states. don't allow these irish that are opposed to the rule of great britain in their island that they actually stood up and

fought against great britain. and the words back then, like some of the words today, come from a place of fear and hatred. i don't want to stand by quietly and see the victims of terrorism and torture be demonized just so people will have a talking point for local evening news. we're better than this. the bill that my colleague, the junior senator from texas, introduced an hour ago would prevent virtually all nationals of iraq, belabor, somalia -- iraq, libya, somalia, iraq and yemen from refugee protection regardless of how they suffered at the hands of terrorists and despots. women fleeing gang rapes, children fleeing horrors we cannot even imagine, they would be closed off. a few weeks ago the world came together stunned and heart broken over the image of a

three-year-old syrian child's lifeless body washed up on a turkish beach. his tragic death focused our attention on the plight of so many syrians who have fled the horror of isis and bashar al-assad. we call it the humanitarian issue of the day. how many images of our statue of liberty and our proud history as a land of refuge for those fleeing persecution is brought forward? i heard so many on this floor as well as commentators in the news. but those who call now to slam our door on even properly vetted syrian and other refugees, remember the people we'll shut out are the very children who touched our hearts just weeks ago. of course we're horrified by what happened in beirut and paris. and we need an effective, thoughtful strategy for countering isis and other

terrorist organizations. that's what we should be debating. we should be talking about how more countries should be involved in this fight. isis is our enemy. the people fleeing isis are not. in fact, we've had discussions, among other things that could be done. you can have somebody who's on a terrorist watch list, but they're in this country legally, they can go to a gun show, they can buy all the automatic weapons they want, they'd break no law. they can buy all the ammunition they want, they break no law. they can go to the store that one of the greatest terrorists in this country faced -- the man who did the oklahoma city bombing -- and buy the components of a bomb. they break no law. these are the things we ought to be discussing. i reserve my time. i yield the floor.

mr. durbin: how much time is remaining on each side? the presiding officer: three minutes. three minutes on the democratic side and two minutes on the republican side. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, let me say at the outset that the initial unanimous consent request made by the junior senator from texas was a bill which he had pending before the senate judiciary committee today. he did not attend that meeting in the senate judiciary committee. i wish he had. and i think we should have all been there if we wanted to take this up and debate it. i objected on behalf of myself and senator leahy and the senator has spoken to the reason for that objection. let me address the second part of this bill relative to refugees. we will reflect in years to come about what happened in this world in the last week and ten days. we will reflect on the terrible

tragedy that occurred in paris, france, and in beirut and other nations that was led by the isis terrorists. we will reflect on those poor victims who died as a result of their terrorist acts. and we will also reflect on acts of heroism and wisdom that emerged from this terrible tragedy. heroism on the ground in paris and other places for those who defied these terrorists and those who risked their lives to bring those responsible to justice, and the wisdom and compassion shown by leaders around the world not to exploitish -- exploit this situation. when president hollande of france announced countries would receive his refugees after this attack, he made it clear that he would not hold those innocent refugees accountable for the misdeeds of these terrorists. when the nation of canada said they would accept thousands of refugees even after the paris

attack, they showed the wisdom and good sense to differentiate those helpless victims of terrorism around the world who were seeking refuge on our shores from those who perpetrated these terrorist acts. and listen to the debate on capitol hill. listen to the unanimous consent request made this morning by the junior senator from texas. it is not consistent with that ethic. it is not consistent with those values. to say that we will only accept refugees who are the victims of genocide would close the doors to cuban refugees who came to the united states trying to escape all of communism and what it meant to their families. it would have closed the doors to soviet jews persecuted in their country who were looking for freedom and came to the united states as refugees. and i can list countless others who were not the victims of genocide but they were the victims of persecution. they were from war-torn countries. they were the victims, as

senator leahy has said, of gang rape and terrorism. listen to what has been said on the other side of the rotunda and in this chamber today. it does not merit the kind of appreciation of american values which we insist on when we make these critical decisions. in time of war, in time of attack, sometimes rash decisions are made. i predict in the course of history, as people in the future reflect on what happened in the united states senate and the house of representatives this week, they will hope that saner voices will prevail. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, the senator from vermont spoke against overheated rhetoric, and in the very next breath accused me of being anti-american, echoing the attack president obama gave standing on the soil of turkey. let me say speaking the truth is not terrorism. my democratic friends invoked

their irish and italian grandparents when my irish and italian grandparents came to this country, they did not pose a terror threat because they were not seeking to murder innocent citizens. when my cuban father came as a refugee, he was not a terror threat seeking to murder innocent citizens. and this is an example of the democratic party's refusal to acknowledge the qualitative difference. perhaps if they cannot see it, they can hear it, because abu al baghdadi, the leader of isis, in 2009 the president of the united states released him. as he was being released. he turned to colonel king and said see you in new york. isis intends to murder americans and if the democratic party cannot distinguish between isis terrorists and irish and italian and jewish and cuban immigrants, then they are ignoring reality. i would note that the expiatriate terrorist act is very, very similar to

legislation that was introduced in 2010 by democratic senator joe lieberman and senator scott brown, both of whom apparently, under the senator from vermont's view are un-american as well. i would note at the time then-senator hillary clinton said about legislation virtually identical to my legislation -- quote -- "united states citizenship is a privilege. it is not a right. people who are serving foreign powers or in this case foreign terrorists are clearly in violation of the oath which they swore when they became citizens." and yet president obama and the senator from new york consider the statement to be un-american. it is american to say the commander in chief should protect the safety and security of the united states. president hollande has said he would support stripping french citizenship. we should protect ourselves every bit as much. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired.

mr. cruz: -- as the other nations. mr. durbin: madam president i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms ms. collins: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be

dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 2577, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 138, h.r. 257, an act making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and so forth and for other purposes.

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i would ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. i want to talk about friday night for a few moments. in connecticut on friday night, the world really did stop. thousands of people in my state watched their television set or their smartphone as images like this one poured in from the bloodsoaked streets of paris, horrific reports of scores dead, more badly wounded. and deep down in connecticut, we ached deeply for paris' loss. maybe it's because for those of us who hail from the former colonies, we feel a special sense of brotherhood with the french. in my boytown home, i grew up

only a stone's throw that washington and rochambeaux met in. we know unfortunately exactly what they're going through, that ominous sense of familiarity, that perverse bond among nations that have been visited by mass terrorist attacks. it's part of the reason why we ached so acutely on friday night and over the weekend and into this week. but also these pictures cause us pain because we fear this isn't the end of the mass slaughter. we grieve because the massive scale of this particular attack on a nation that had already had its atten in a tuned for -- it's antenna tuned for a potential tack made us realize how vulnerable we are.

it became so much more real for millions of americans who had frankly begun to settle into an understandable comfortable exrie sency a decade and a half -- complacency a decade and a half since that last major terrorist attack just miles from connecticut's border. in connecticut, i'll be honest, people are mad, and they are scared, and having watched all of this coverage, i understand why. but, madam president, images like this, they also move the people of my state. these are two little kids, ralea and rahaf, they are 7 and 13 years old. this is where they sleep at night, on the streets of beirut. they went there from damascus after their mother and their brother were killed by a

grenade, and along with their dad, they have been sleeping on the streets for over a year. rahaf, who is 13, says she's scared of the bad boys in beirut. -- on those streets at night. and when she talks about that, rahalea starts crying. now, i don't want to cast with a broad brush all of the people in my state, but i think i can safely say that their hearts ache for pictures like this, for images like the one of that 3-year-old boy, just about the same age as my youngest son, who washed up limp and dead on a beach in turkey. and my neighbors, they're not comfortable living in a country that simply turns its back on little kids who have been ratify analled by torture and rape, dying from barrel bombs and executions and slipshod escape vessels. and there's been a lot that's disturbed me about the debate here in washington, across the country, and on the cable news

channels since friday's massacre. the hyper partisanship, the ken for one religion over another, the refusal just to wait for facts before jumping to policy conclusions. but maybe what's disappointed me the most is the suggestion that the people of my state or the people of this country or this congress need to make a choice between acting on concern for this image or acting out of concern for this image. the suggestion that if your priority is protecting us from a paris-style attack, you can't show compassion for those two little kids. and if you want to show compassion for these innocents, then you compromise national security. but here's the truth, madam president. not only are these two priorities not mutually exclusive, they are actually

inter dependent. there is no choice to be made between protecting this country and helping victims of terror. we can take steps together, republicans and democrats, to make sure terrorists do not get into this country, and we can continue in the best traditions of america to be as our statue of liberty says, a home for your tired, your poor, and your huddled masses. so how do i arrive at this conclusion that we can do both, that we can protect our country and respond to the victims of terror in syria? well, first, i ask the questions that my constituents are asking: how can we be sure that refugees fleeing syria aren't going to pose a risk to the security of the people who live in my state, in connecticut? yesterday i sat through two exhaustive briefings to seek the answer to this question. here's what i learned. there is no one who comes to the united states in any immigration category that receives a more comprehensive and exhaustive background check than refugees.

biometrics, international background checks, interviews, fingerprints, a process that takes anywhere from two months to two years to make sure we got it right. it's exhaustive and it's probably why of the nearly 2,000 syrian refugees who are resettled in the united states this year, not a single one has been connected to terrorist act why i felt. but the other -- to terrorist activity. but the other reason for this is because the profile of the refugees that we're prioritizing for entry into the united states tell the story as well. we largely bring women and children, the frail and the sick, those that have been beaten or raped or tortured by terrorists, the ones that simply cannot survive in the refugee camps. it means that of all the syrians who are already here, only 2% of them are young single males. we just aren't bringing into the united states the type of people who fits the profile of those who could pose a danger to us. but the second reason why i've concluded that ending the refugee program really won't make us safer is because of conversations that i've had with

experts about the nature of isis itself. i don't think that you can argue that isis has been contained. paris showed us that isis can be lethal anywhere, any time. but over the past year isis has proffered two narratives to its recruits. the first is that the so-called caliphate is expanding. it's an unstoppable, inexorable force that challenges young muslims to get on board now before it overtakes you by force. the second is this narrative that there's a war between the west. it's left over from iraq, left over from afghanistan, left over from the crusades. it's this idea that the western world is out to destroy the east, they argue, and we have to fight for our survival. the first narrative is still strong but it's not as strong as it used to be. isis isn't expanding its territory in the middle east anymore. they have 25% less territory than they did last year at this

time. and so the second narrative now actually becomes more important, and the paris attacks are evidence of this. indiscriminate attacks on civilians in a place like paris are designed in part to provoke a response from the west to feed this argument over a class of civilizations. that doesn't mean that we shouldn't respond. it doesn't mean that we shouldn't respond forcefully. but it should wake us up to the reality of the necessity of this us versus them narrative that's essential to the growth of isis. the story of the christian world's marginalizeation of the muslim world is the nourishment that feeds the growth of isis. and so that's what makes our response to the syrian humanitarian disaster int woven into our strategy to defeat isis. turning our back on those who have been tortured, raped and beaten by bashar al-assad after having welcomed massive refugee

flows from cuba, vietnam and bosnia feeds into the thought that we're at war from islam. that is a story line that is an isis recruiter's dream. none of this is is to suggest that we shouldn't be taking a fight to isis in syria and iraq. i've been a vocal supporter of the thousands of bombings by planes, our efforts to supreme o support the army in peshmerga but fighting isis inside syria and iraq is necessary to defeat them. we engage in that fight with the knowledge that that may help with recruitment. we weigh the benefit of the cost and we fight. when it comes to turning away the victims of terror inside syria, if we're able to build a system that screens out any syrians that pose a threat to the united states, then the

meager benefit can never outweigh the costs of feeding this anti-muslim narrative. and now it's more important than ever, that narrative, to sustaining isis. but here's the most important point to make. the people that i represent don't believe that we can just standstill in the wake of paris, even if they believe that the screening program is robust enough. they may be convinced of this, but they're certainly right that we can't accept the status quo. and so my worry over the past week is that this hyperfocus on the refugee program that's only brought in 2,000 immigrants last year, mostly women and children, misses the forest for the trees. the visa waiver program brings in 20 million people a year. not 2,000. 20 million people. it has background checks too, but nothing like what's applied to refugees. and there's a good reason for this difference, because the countries that are part of the

visa waiver program, they're our allies, countries that we can generally rely on. but with several of the paris attackers bearing e.u. passports, making them eligible for the visa waiver program, this sense of security that we've had with these countries has been shattered. and so if we want to have a real conversation about changing our immigration laws to better protect this country, then focusing on 20 million lightly vetted visitors rather than 2,000 highly vetted visitors sounds like the better approach. and there's absolutely room to make the visa waiver program stronger. there are a myriad of security information-sharing agreements between the united states and europe and among countries within europe that have not been executed. now is the time to demand that these agreements, like the umbrella law enforcement agreement between the e.u. and u.s. be signed. now is the time to require every e.u. nation modernize their protocols for uploading

terrorist information on to the databases we use to compile our no fly list. if these agreements aren't signed or these protocols aren't updated, then we need to consider whether an unreformed visa waiver program is still in our national interests. if our goal is really to keep america safe from infiltration of terrorist groups, this reform is the most important one that we can make to our immigration system. and it should, frankly, bring together republicans and democrats. madam president, every day that i come home to my seven-year-old and my four-year-old, i'm reminded that my most sacred duty here is to enact policy that keeps them safe and keeps my constituents safe. and the hundreds of calls and e-mails in my office since friday reinforces for me this commitment. but, madam president, i live in a nation like no other. i live in the united states of america, a nation that in the late 1800 had emerged from civil war to become a beacon for the oppressed and the repressed all

over the world. millions showed up on our shores, people like my irish and polish ancestors, a nation that was spreading its wings over the world, beginning to understand the impact for good that we could have. and it was during that time that the poet emmet lazarus called america the new collosus, the feeling we were capable of a greatness of achievement and heart that the world never witted and exceptionalism, one that still burns bright today. the argument that america cannot both protect itself and protect those that are fleeing terrorism, it feels so small, it feels so contrary to this idea of exceptionalism that has been at the foundation, at the root of the american story. it feels, frankly, very weak. and in fact, the moments where we have made choices solely out

of fear to marginalize others, they are moments that we now regret. when we interned japanese americans in camps because we were at war with japan or hesitated to take jewish refugees fleeing the nazis out of the fear that some might be spies, in hindsight those measures did not reflect on who wree really are as a -- we really are as a nation. the america i live in doesn't settle for false choices that make america look and feel small or powerless. we can save the terrorized and protect ourselves from being terrorized at the same time. in fact, we have to do the former to accomplish the latter. and in doing so, we can come together as a congress, as a country to make good policy and to recall that sense of american exceptionalism that caused emma lazarus' poem to end up on a statue that was sent as a present to the united states from france as a reminder of our

unbreakable bond with them. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the quorum call be dispensed with. i ask unanimous consent that at 2:00 p.m. the senate go to executive session for calendar 366 through 371, that the senate vote on nominations without intervening action or debate, that following disposition of the nominations the motions to reconsider be considered made

and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. that no further motions be in order to the nominations, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, for the information of our colleagues, we are making good progress in clearing a number of amendments that have support on both sides of the aisle. i expect that we will be able to proceed with an amendment offered by senator cornyn and senator reid of nevada shortly. and in the meantime, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. cornyn: i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up my amendment number 2844. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object. over a thousand americans have called my office in the last couple of days and they're very concerned about admitting people to the middle east that we're

not sure of what their intentions are. the boston bombers were here under the refugee program. two iraqi refugees came to my state with the intent to buy stinger missiles to attack us. i've asked for a very simple amendment. i would like to have an amendment placed in the queue for a vote that lets the american people vote on whether or not we want to bring more people to here from the middle east, whether we're doing an adequate job screening these people. i think it's a very reasonable request to have a vote on that. and, therefore, until i am allowed to have a vote for which i think the american people are clamoring for, i will continue to object. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. paul: i also ask unanimous consent that i bring forward my amendment to limit and end the subsidized housing for new people to come here from the middle east. my amendment is 2843. and i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to set aside the current business and bring my amendment forward.

the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. collins: on behalf of myself and the ranking member of the subcommittee, senator reed, i object. we are in a process where we are trying to clear amendments. we are making good progress on this bill. i understand that senator paul has raised an issue that is an important issue. it does not belong on this bill. and, indeed, would result in this bill not progressing. we are trying to get back to regular order on the appropriations process. with cooperation, i am confident that we could finish this important appropriations bill today. we could show the american people that we can govern, that we can fund essential

transportation and housing programs that are included in this bill. by and large, we have had excellent bipartisan cooperati cooperation. i was hoping we could move to the amendment offered by the senator from texas, a member of the republican leadership, that is cosponsored by the senate democratic leader. it's an amendment that i believe we could dispense with quickly and we would continue to work through the amendments on this bill. so because the senator from kentucky's amendment would grind this bill to a halt and does not belong on this bill and there will be other opportunities to deal with this issue because the house is going to be passing

legislation this week dealing with the issues raised by the senator from kentucky, i will object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, i agree with the senior senator from maine that -- and the bill manager that the concerns that senator paul has raised, which are shared by many of us about the adequacy of the screening process for refugees coming to our country, is a serious matter and it's one that the house, as the senator from maine has said, is going to be voting on today. and my prediction is there's going to be a broad bipartisan support for the additional security measures contained in that bill. but this is a transportation bill and it's really important for us to get our work done. and unfortunately that's appearing to be more and more difficult. but just if i could say a word about -- first about my amendment because this is really an important matter to me and to

my state as well as to other states, but it would direct the secretary of transportation to conduct cost-benefit determinations for new airports seeking entry into the federal tower program but have been unnecessarily prohibited by the federal aviation administration. the f.a.a.'s current moratorium on accepting new airports negatively impacts airport sponsors who've already submitted their applications to the f.a.a., including the north texas regional airport in grayson county, texas. and i know there are airports like that around the country, which is why this amendment has such broad bipartisan support. this amendment would simply require the secretary of transportation to process applications that have already been submitted, in some cases years ago, but have been punished by this arbitrary administrative delay. it would not have any negative impact on any current contract tower airports. it would only allow new airports to be admitted to the program if funds are available.

so i'm grateful to senator collins and senator reid for their -- senator collins and senator reed for their favorable consideration of this amendment and i hope we can work through the objection raised by the senator from kentucky so we can process this legislation and pass it in the near future. on another note, madam president, i wanted to just say a few words about national adoption month. yesterday, senator grassley, chairman of the senate judiciary committee, convened a very important hearing on the subject of international adoptions, specifically ensuring that the process, which at times can be bogged down in bureaucratic red tape and taken -- take an excruciating long time to complete, that it remains a priority for the administration. last year, if my recollection serves me correctly, there were about 22,000 intracountry adoptions.

in other words, there were families here in the united states who wanted to adopt these children who in many circumstances have very poor prospects in their countries where they were born. as i said, this is national adoption month, and i'm glad that senator grassley enabled us to highlight the challenges of people who, for example, who are trying to adopt children from the democratic republic of congress -- congo. there are about 400 adopted children who the government of the congo will not release. yesterday, many of us on a bipartisan basis met with the ambassador and asked what is the way forward for these families and these children, many of whom are in pretty poor circumstances back in their home country. but americans, of course, adopt not only children from their local communities or their state but literally around the world, and it's something we ought to

encourage. devoted parents who make the decision to adopt ought to be commended for providing an opportunity for a better life for a child in need and providing support and the love that all children need and deserve. but one of the things that struck me yesterday about the hearing, as we heard from the state department, the numerous protections that are embedded within the adoption process to ensure that these internationally adopted children are placed in safe homes, how important they are for protection of these children. these measures include commonsense safeguards like thorough background checks, intensive interviews with potential parents, multiple visits in the child's future home, and of course proper vetting of other people who will be living under the same roof. this is important for the protection of this adopted child. so this is a process that puts safety and the interests of the

child first, which i think we would all agree that's exactly where that priority should stand. the best interests of the child first. so while it was reassuring to me to hear about these rigorous requirements that our government has put in place to protect these adoptive children, i was reminded of the issue of protecting children during the placement process, that that issue should not be just limited to one when we're talking about adoption. over the last two fiscal years, more than 95,000 unaccompanied children have crossed our southern border without legal permit. the large majority of them making a perilous and deadly journey across thousands of miles from central america. and we can only imagine the horrible circumstances that parents must see and the poor prospects for her own children's future for them to turn them over to essentially criminal

organizations who will then ferry them if they're lucky from their country of origin through mexico and into the united states. that the surge, with which we are all familiar, again 95,000 unaccompanied children in just the last two years, this surge has exposed the vulnerability of our southern border to human smugglers and transnational criminal networks. as a matter of fact, i asked one of the witnesses at the hearing yesterday, i said are the same criminal organizations that engage in human trafficking and illegal immigration and illegal illegal -- illegal importation of drugs, are they all the same people? and he said absolutely. and i don't know how we can turn a blind eye to some of the illegal immigration issues and to say we are completely outraged at the drug trafficking going between our countries or the human trafficking going between our countries when in fact that activity is being conducted by exactly the same

criminal organizations who have one interest in mind, and it's not the best interests of the child. it is money. they view children as a commodity just like they view drugs as a commodity. but it's shown us that the lack of border security can cause a humanitarian crisis that endangers the lives of children who were turned over by their parents and then smuggled into the united states. we know from numerous reports and testimony that children on this journey are preyed upon in the form of human trafficking, rape and even murder. many of them don't even make it here because they are killed along the way, held hostage perhaps for ransom or otherwise assaulted. to this day, we still have no idea how many children and parents have perished during this unprecedented surge across our border, but once these children arrive here in the united states, i think -- i would hope we would all agree

that it's our joint and collective responsibility to do what we can to protect them and ensure they are no longer preyed upon by criminals and human traffickers. current law requires within 72 hours of being located by law enforcement officials that a child be placed in the protective custody of the department of health and human services so they can be protected from the danger of abuse and exposure to forms of violence. but unfortunately the current law also requires that these children be releaseed, sometimes even to nonfamily members, sometimes even to noncitizens, without any assurance of systematic protections that they are being sent into a safe environment. certainly nothing even remotely approaching the sort of care and precautions that we use when it comes to international adoptions. as i heard yesterday, the administration is capable of making these assurances in the

context of international adoptions, so why would we not take steps to ensure that the same level of protection is there for these unaccompanied children? during the surgery of the -- of these children across our border in 2014, i stood right here and i posed two very important questions. could anyone in the administration say with certainty that the children being released from u.s. custody were leaving with an actual family member? believe it or not, there is no legal requirement that these children be turned over to an absolutely family member. and could the administration say with certainty that none of these children have been handed over to an adult with a criminal record? the answer to both of these questions was and continues to be no, and that ought to shock our collective conscience. sadly, we don't know how many of these children have fallen into the wrong hands. earlier this year, four

individuals were indicted for their involvement in a trafficking ring that smuggled unaccompanied guatemalan children into the united states and forced them to live in slave labor at an egg farm in ohio. these children face horrific conditions, long work hours, abuse, threats and exploitation, but even more shockingly, many of these children could have been spared if the federal government and health and human services had an adequate system for screening and vetting the nongovernmental sponsors for these unaccompanied children, none of the protections, none of the protections that are available for international adoptions have been applied here to protect these children. the human traffickers in this case that i mentioned were able to gain custody of these three children -- of these children by simply showing up at an h.h.s. shelter, telling the u.s. government that they were family friends and submitting a fake family reunification

application. this is unacceptable, and it's our duty to these children to make sure that we do a better job of protecting them, just like we do in cases of international adoption. i know my colleague, our colleague from ohio, senator portman, in his oversight role at the homeland security committee, is taking a hard look at this process through which we move unaccompanied children out of protective custody and into the hands of potential danger. not even family members, not even citizens, no criminal background check, absolutely no way to know what the government is turning these children over to. i look forward to reviewing the findings of his forthcoming report and hope that we can make efforts to implement his recommendations. in the last congress, i was proud to be the author and sponsor of a piece of legislation we called helping unaccompanied alien minors and

alleviating national emergency act or humane act, which would have required all potential sponsors of unaccompanied children to undergo a rigorous biometric background and criminal history check. this is bipartisan legislation. and although there is certainly more we can do to ensure an acceptable screening process, i believe that the protections in my legislation were a good start and would make a difference. so i just ask my colleagues or anybody else who may be listening, as we reflect on national adoption month and the appropriate protections that we put in place for international adoptions, we need to think about these other children, almost 100,000 of whom have crossed our borders over the last two years who are afforded none of the protections that we forward adoptive children, and i really hope we'll take a comprehensive look at the concerns that i have raised here today. madam president, i yield the floor.

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. hirono: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. ms. hirono: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: madam president, last november, faced with congress' failure to act, president obama through executive action took a courageous and practical step on immigration. like every president since president eisenhower, president obama exercised his legal authority to prioritize u.s. immigration enforcement and make our system more fair and just. the most significant parts of the president's executive actions were those intended to keep families together and give more people the opportunity to

come out of the shadows. the president announced that expansion of the successful deferred action for childhood arrivals or daca program. he also created a new deferred action for parents of americans and lawful permanent residents called dappa. dappa allows the undocumented parents of u.s.-born citizens to stay in this country with their families. since its creation in 2012, daca has given nearly 700,000 undocumented young people the opportunity to pursue their dreams through education and jobs. 60% of daca recipients have been able to find new jobs, contributing to our tax base and our economy. experts estimate that daca recipients will contribute $230 billion to our g.d.p. over the next decade. together, they expanded -- the

expanded daca and dapa programs will mean that around five million more individuals will be able to work legally, pay their taxes and care for their families. while the president's actions generated a great deal of support and excitement, they also generated opponents who challenged these actions in court. these court challenges resulted last week in a fifth circuit court of appeals ruling that further delays help for these five million people in our country. as judge carolyn king stated in her very strong dissent in the fifth circuit case -- quote -- "a mistake has been made." end quote. the administration is acting to swiftly appeal this decision to the united states supreme court. i am hopeful that the supreme court will find that the president's actions are lawful and that justice for millions of workers and families will eventually be served. we cannot continue to be inactive in congress while millions of people remain in the

shadows, yet here we are. today politicians from presidential candidates to sitting governors appeal to our nation's fears in arguing against any meaningful reform of our broken immigration system. conjuring up shadowy images fuels these fears. violent gang members from south america, terrorists from the middle east. in their divisive rhetoric and in their rush to build walls and close our borders, they neglect the faces of those they demonize and they forget the facts. the national academies of sciences recently released an authoritative look at how immigrants assimilate in the united states. that report paints a very different picture than what you're hearing from republicans on the campaign trail. for example, the academies found that neighborhoods with more immigrants have lower rates of crime and violence than comparable nonimmigrant

neighborhoods. foreign-born men of working age are incarcerated at one-fourth the rate of native born americans. today's immigrants are learning english just as fast as prior waives of immigrants. only our schools aren't equipped to help them as well as they should be. 86% of first-generation male immigrants have jobs, as do 61% of women. in fact, immigrant men with the lowest education levels are more likely -- they are more likely to have jobs than comparable groups of nonimmigrant men. these facts paint a very different picture than gang members and tearists. in fact, it is clear that immigrants are an asset to our communities and our nation. the vast majority of people come to america seeking a better life for themselves and their families. they work extremely hard and in many cases under very difficult circumstances. despite our country being a

nation of immigrants and the great benefits immigration has meant to our culture and economy, immigration remains a difficult issue in america. just last month, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the immigration and nationality act of 1965. prior to president johnson signing that law, the u.s. had a racially discriminatory quota system. in fact, prior to 1965, asians were essentially excluded from emigrating to the united states. the 1965 law wasn't perfect but it moved our system forward by focusing on family unification, not racial quota aas amounting to -- quotas amounting to racial discrimination as a guiding principle. since the 1965 law, our nation has benefited greatly from the millions of immigrants from all over the worldhoave come here. immigrants have built vibrant

communities, become titans of industry, expanded american arts and music, and strengthened our public institutions. their positive contributions have changed america and what it means to be an american. no matter how toxic the immigration rhetoric may be right now, we can't stop pushing to improve our broken system. president obama's executive actions were neither a complete nor permanent solution for the -- for immigration reform but they were positive steps forward. it has been more than two years since the senate passed its comprehensive immigration reform bill with 68 bipartisan votes. i was proud to have worked on this bill as a member of the senate judiciary committee. sadly, the house refused to even consider the bill, even after republicans released their immigration principles acknowledging the brokenness of our immigration system. congress remains deeply divided

and there is still no indication that we will be able to pass comprehensive immigration reform any time soon. leaving 11 million people in our country in the shadows. as the only immigrant serving in the united states senate today, i remember very well my mother's courage in bringing her three children to this country so that we could have a chance at a better life. that is what comprehensive immigration reform will mean to the 11 million people living in the shadows in our country, a chance for a better life for themselves and their families. these are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers. they're our neighbors and friends. they are not looking for handouts. they are looking for the chance for a better life. that's the universal appeal of our great country. as leaders, we need to act to make real for these millions of people the promise of america. we need to pass comprehensive

immigration reform soon. i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask that i be -- let me ask the leader of the bill here if i could have a couple of minutes to visit. ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: i would yield to the senator from oklahoma for the purpose of explaining an amendment that he has at the desk and a modification, a very good amendment, i might add. mr. inhofe: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: thank you. madam president, this is an amendment -- and it's my intention, after i explain this, to ask to set aside the pending amendment for the purpose of considering the inhofe amendment number 2820.

and but kind of want to explain what this is. today the noaa, the national oceanic and atmospheric administration and the f.a.a. are working on the next-generation radar system. we've talked about this for a long period of time. i think the senate knows i've been active in aviation for a long time and this is something that has been -- we've been working on together. the radar system in conjunction with the next generation is called the multifunction phase array radar, or mpar, comprised of individual radar stations capable of both air traffic tracking and weather surveillance. now, the new system will replace the multiple systems separately maintained by f.a.a. and noaa and allow the consolidation of the number of discreet radar sites in the united states by about a third and yet do a more thorough job. now, to support the development of the next-generation radar,

it's important for f.a.a. and noaa to be working together on this and that one not get out in front of the other one. and i -- for that reason, and i think my junior senator agrees and is going to be working with me on this, that there is some concern that the f.a.a.'s getting out in front of noaa on the selection of the best technology to meet both goals. and so we're going to clarify that in an amendment i will be asking to -- for consideration. it is amendment number 2820, as modified. and the modification is at the desk now. and it expresses the sense of the senate that the f.a.a. and noaa continue to work together so that one agency doesn't get out ahead of the other in ensuring the priorities of both agencies are met. sometimes you have to do this, get involved with the bureaucracy when's there's more than one that's working -- bureaucracies when there's more than one work it. so at the proper time, i will be wanting to do that and i -- i

know a courtesy being extended to another member to perhaps be involved in this. so with that, i'll yield the floor and be prepared to offer my amendment. ms. collins: i want to thank the senator from oklahoma for his courtesy to one of our colleagues who is on his way to the floor to repeat an earlier ritual that we went through when one of our colleagues attempted to make an amendment pending. so in deference to that colleague, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: madam president, i spent some time on the floor a

few minutes ago explaining an amendment that i have. it's number 2820, as modified, and the modification is at the desk. it's one of these things where there is no opposition at all. it's one we are trying to get to a new radar system that is rather complicateed but will end up saving a lot of money and letting other people in other parts of the country, all over the country, have the radar capability that they don't have today. so it's something that i know that no reasonable person would object to, and so for that reason, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment 2820 as modified and the changes are at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. paul: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: the biggest issue of the day is how we protect ourselves from terrorism. my amendment goes to the heart of the matter. are we sufficiently -- are we sufficiently vetting those who might come here and attack us

from the middle east? mr. inhofe: would you yield? mr. paul: i don't think we are. the two boston bombers were here during the refugee program. two iraqi refugees came to my hometown in bowling green, kentucky. mr. inhofe: parliamentary inquiry. mr. paul: i have an amendment that is not only pertinent to the biggest issue of the day, i have an amendment that is germane for those who make a mockery of this process by saying we're going to have regular order. we're not going to have regular order. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. paul: until we address the issues of the day on a germane amendment. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, i ask that proceedings under the

call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: madam president, i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of both the majority and the minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that they be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each until 2:00 p.m. today. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, for the information of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, i would

like to explain the situation that we face. first, let me say i am working very closely with the ranking member of the subcommittee, my friend and colleague, senator jack reed. we have been making very good progress on this bill. we have a number of amendments offered by senators on both sides of the aisle that we have managed to work out to clear on both sides with both managers of the bill. in some cases, we have also gone to the authorizing committees, the budget committees. in other words, a great deal of hard work has gone into clearing amendments that are ready to be considered that could be accepted by voice votes or unanimous consent or in a

manager's package, and i am confident because of this bipartisan cooperation, because of the extraordinarily hard work of our staffs that we could finish this appropriations bill today, and wouldn't that be progress for the senate, to be able to complete action on a bill that has vital funding for homeless veterans, for homeless youth, for disabled and low-income elderly that depend on the subsidized programs, the housing programs that are funded in this bill. this bill has important infrastructure spending. all of us are aware of the deteriorateing infrastructure, the crumbling roads and structurally deficient bridges that we have in this country,

the need for improvements in rail safety, in our transit system. there are so many issues that are important to the american people. this bill funds the community development block grant program, possibly one of the most popular programs with state and local officials for spurring economic development and job creation in their communities. but alas, madam president, we have encountered a roadblock, and as we've seen this morning, even amendments that have been cleared on both sides of the aisle are not being allowed to proceed. i think that is so unfortunate because with cooperation i am confident that we would have finished work on this bill and moved to final passage today.

regrettably, that is not going to occur unless there is a change of heart. i do want to say that i recognize that there are other very important issues for us to deal with, and the house today is taking up a bill that would deal with the screening process for refugees that come into this country. all of us recognize that our first obligation is the security of the american people, but that is not what the bill before us is dealing with, but there is action on the house side. a bill is expected to pass today with widespread bipartisan support and be sent over for our consideration. so i think it's unfortunate that we apparently cannot complete action on the appropriations

bill that is before us, and i do, however, want to assure my colleagues that we're going to continue to work on this bill. we're going to continue to review the amendments that have been filed. we're going to work with the sponsors. we're going to work with the floor managers. we're going to continue to make progress behind the scenes in the event that we find a way around this roadblock. in the meantime, i do want to express my appreciation to my ranking member, senator reed, for his close cooperation on this bill. he and i introduced the substitute amendment jointly when we began work on this bill, and a special thanks to our staffs who have been working night and day to clear

amendments that are ready to go but unfortunately cannot be considered. thank you, madam president. mr. reed: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: this whole process was begun and been moved forward by the leadership of chairman collins. she and her staff have done an extraordinary job of taking the additional resources made available through the budget agreement and focusing them in a very, very constructive way. in addition, focusing very clearly on the policies inherent in transportation and housing in the united states. and as she discussed, we have about nine or more amendments, bipartisan amendments that have been agreed to that focus on these housing and transportation issues exclusively, and they also recognize the giving back

and forth that's necessary, the compromise that's necessary. one example was the amendment that senator cornyn proposed, which dealt, along with senator harry reid, dealt with small airports throughout the united states. those are the types of ish you'reissuesthat really are thed should be the central focal point on the transportation and housing and urban development appropriations bill. and that's what we've tried to do. and, frankly, under her leadership, we were moving forward. we've run into a bit of an impasse. but we're going to continue to work because this is critical to the country, rebuilding our infrastructure, making sure that we have adequate affordable housing, which is key to so many things, to having a job, to holding a job, to be in a school for the whole year and not move from school to school to school. all of these are tied directly

to our efforts here today. and so i just want to again compliment the chairman for her extraordinary efforts. the staff has done a superb job. we are still going to continue to work. our objective is to get a bill done and move forward in the process. and unfortunately we've hit this bump but we're still going down the road and we'll keep doing that. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president, you've been in the chair before when i've done my waste of the week. this is the 27th waste of the week this year, where i come

down to the floor of this united states senate and take a documented waste, fraud or abuse within the federal government, exposing that abuse and informing taxpayers that their hard-earned money is being wasted by this federal government. we're taking those items that have been documented by government accounting agencies, by agencies that have been charged with the responsibility of looking into how we spend the taxpayers' money and alerting us to problems of fraud, waste and aabuse. so number 27 waste of the week is up this week and this week it involves the issue of paid lea leave. this is an executive policy that applies to every department and

every agency across the federal government. specifically, what i would like to do today is highlight the $31 million in payments to federal employees who have received paid leave for over a one-year period of time. now, for federal employees, paid administrative leave is typically a paid excused absence that is separate from vacation time. it includes things like jury duty or time to allow a person to transition back home from an overseas deployment or a post. some agencies also use alternative leave when making personnel evaluations and this could include things like investigations into alleged misconduct, security threats, similar situations where the employee should be restricted from the work site while the investigation occurs. many of these are legitimate.

many of these fall into this category. but being given paid leave for over a year? shouldn't we -- first of all, it raises the question, what's going on here? and this is way beyond the norm. secondly, shouldn't we have some documentation as to why this takes place? currently, individual agencies across the federal government have the authority to set their own policies regarding administrative leave, and this leads to a whole variety of different policies from agency to agency. why discrepancy entity both the length of time and the frequency of the granted paid leave? but what is particularly troubling to me is that an audit by the government accountability agency, the g.a.o., found that hundreds of employees have received paid administrative leave for over a one-year period of time. more than one year.

most of us expect, yes, okay, two days off because i've been selected for -- or a week off because i've been selected for jury duty. i have a citizen and resident obligation to do that and paid leave is justified on that basis. returning from a post overseas to get resettled, paid leave is justified. there are some other justifications. but, you know, we have things like paid leave for pregnancy and for birth and post-birth care. we have paid leave for sickness, to see the doctor and so forth. i mean, this is not out of the norm. but over a year? paid leave for someone over a year? and $31 million paid out to people who haven't worked for over a year? something needs to be looked into regarding how and why that takes place.

last month "the washington post" wrote a sphwoar how this issue -- wrote a story about how this issue has persisted within the department of homeland security even after the report was issu issued. the "post" article states -- and i quote -- "close to 100 d.h.s., department of homeland security, employees are still being paid not to work for more than one year." so the question i think we need to ask ourselves in response to this report is why? why did the federal government spend $31 million to pay 263 employees not to work for more than a year? and what is the justification for the one-year paid leaves? and unfortunately, the government accounting office was unable to disclose the specific details as to why these 263 individuals were on paid leave for over a year. however, we have republican -- we have public reports that give

examples of employees that have continued to receive paychecks for over a year. "the washington post" again reported the case of a former high-level e.p.a. employee. for 2 1/2 years this employee told the e.p.a. he was conducting top-secret work for the c.i.a. when, in fact, he was home exercising and pursuing a personal research project. he effectively, according to the "post" stole $900,000 from the taxpayers for work that he never did. that included his salary and bonus -- he was actually paid bonuses. the man was paid bonus payment for not working, fraudulently defrauding the agency that he worked for. now, the good news is that they caught him. the bad news is that it took 2 1/2 years to figure out that something was going to here. another article in "the washington times" details a four-year case where an employee

at e.p.a. was fired for -- quote e-mail and making inappropriate statements that caused anxiety and disruption to the workplac workplace." so that employee ultimately removed from the e.p.a. a second time but only after he received 1,496 hours of back pay. and on and on it goes. i could stand here for a long, long time talking about examples of paid leave to personnel totaling $31 million for payments of paid leave for over a one-year period of time. and it's not just the e.p.a. i'm not picking on one agency here. this is every agency in government has the -- has these policies. and g.a.o. estimates that there are some bad records here and bad track records for these agencies. for instance, the department of treasury has 25 employees on paid leave for over a year. the department of veterans affairs has 46.

and even more disturbing is the fact that the g.a.o. investigation found that federal agencies don't have sufficient documentation for the paid lea leave, if they had any documentation at all. so how can you put swown paid leave -- so how can you put someone on paid leave, how can you make payments for over a year and you have no documentation as to why you're making the payments? it's -- coming down here with these waste of the week fraud and abuse situations, it's hard to comprehend how these things go on. the ingenuity of those who are committing fraud and those who oversee agencies that are paying this out is -- it's stunning. now, i want to make it clear, i'm not against administrative leave. there are many valid cases here. but taxpayers deserve to know why federal agencies are paying their employees not to work for over a year without sufficient

documentation for taking such action. in fact, this ought to go for all paid leave, whether it's for one day or one year or one mon month, particularly, though, what ought to be ringing an alarm bell is someone who's on the record of receiving paid leave for several months or over a year. and i'm only documenting here that which was documented for over one year. who knows how much money this would total up if we looked into every agency's policies and found out that they weren't documented and they couldn't prove that the paid leave was legitimized. so i need to give credit where credit's due. the office of personnel management has finally recognized that this is a costly issue and has moved to take steps to address this misuse of taxpayer dollars. this summer the agency announced guidance on what does and doesn't constitute paid administrative leave, and i urge

o.p.m. to follow up now and ensure that all federal agencies are implementing these recommendations. but why did it take us so long? why do we have to have an investigative report to undertake these kind -- where is the management? where is the management in these agencies that oversees this and does not allow this to happen? why do we have to wait for the government accountability office to come in and audit these agencies and find out this unbelievable amount of waste, fraud and abuse that takes place? so taxpayers ro th are on the hr another $31 million of waste. and so we add that now -- we add that now to our ever growing total of waste, fraud and abuse, now reaching well over -- almost $119 million. and we have members down here talking about a program that

needs to have funding because it's an essential program but we don't have money to find out how to do it. others come down and say the -- we can't cut a penny more from any of our programs that we have here. that's another whole issue. and yet we continue to waste this kind of money. and so next week it will be item number 28 as we go forward exposing waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government, taking taxpayers' dollars, hardworking taxpayers' dollars at a time when the economy is not doing all that well. this is something that continues to be a noose around the federal government's neck and needs to be addressed. madam chairman, with that -- madam president, with that, i yield the floor.

mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i was seek the floor but it's my understanding that senator mcconnell, our leader, is on the way to the floor and i'm going to wait until he speaks. i don't think we have to ask for a quorum call because i think he'll be here in just a minute.

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: it's too bad that we have to have situations -- okay. i'm going to withhold because the leader is on his way. the presiding officer: thank you.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. the leader is acknowledged. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the two pending cloture motions with respect to h.r. 2577 be withdrawn. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 3996, which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3996, an act to

provide an extension of federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, and so forth, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on passage of the bill. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed. the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it, and the bill is passed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from iowa.

mr. grassley: it's too bad that things in paris happened last week, and as a result of that a lot of speeches are given on the floor of the united states senate about terrorism. i come to the floor for the same reason, but when i say it's too bad, it's too bad that we talk about the dangers of terrorism and think about them when things that happen in the united states or happened in paris or someplace else brings it to our attention, because i think what we all need to remember, it's a constant danger that may not appear to us daily, but somewheres out there, there are people thinking about killing us for what we believe. so i rise today again expressing my sympathies to the people of paris and those affected by

friday's terrible attacks by radical islamist terrorists there. on behalf of the people of iowa, i continue to stand with the people of france. unfortunately, the attacks last friday should not have been a surprising. radical islamist terrorists have been waging war against the united states and our allies. if you think over the last three decades of the last century, you think about the terrorism at the munich olympics or an american being murdered on a t.w.a. plane, that person murdered -- i think his name was steinem. then we had a jewish person in a wheelchair thrown overboard in the mediterranean. we had an attempt to bring down

the towers in 1993 by car bombs. we had marines murdered in lebanon, over 200 i think it was. we had the attack on the towers in saudi arabia where our military people were living. we had the east african embassies attacked and we had the u.s.s. cole attack. now, most of those happened before -- they all happened before 9/11. since 9/11, attacks have occurred around the world that i want to concentrate on, from the train bombings in madrid, 2004, to the suicide bombings in london, 2005, to the senseless slaughter in the streets of

museum by in 2008. my focus today will be on the united states homeland. terrorists have continued to try to attack us here on many occasions since 9/11. some of these attacks have succeeded. most of them have failed. some of them have involved direct coordination with terrorist leaders abroad. and some have been committed by lone wolves, inspired by terrorists overseas or the views of those terrorists. but these strengths are ongoing, and that's what we should not fail to understand. and consequently, we must be vigilant to guard against those threats. we know that we will face them

again. several prominent terrorist attacks in the united states come to mind. we all remember the carnage at the boston marathon april, 2013, where two brothers detonated bombs at the finish line that killed an 8-year-old boy and two others and injured hundreds more. although the brothers did not appear to have direct ties with terrorist organizations, they were motivated by radical islamist beliefs. we also reef the november, 2009, shooting at fort hood, texas, where 13 people were killed and several dozen others were wounded. incredibly, the obama administration refuses to categorize this as a terrorist attack. this was in spite of the fact that the shooter had traded emails with then-senior al qaeda

leader an anwr al-awaki. the shooter also later identified his extremist beliefs as the basis of his attack. but those tragedies only continue the pattern followed by radical islamic terrorists since al qaeda hijacked and crashed airplanes into the twin powers and the pentagon that faithful day in 2001. soon after 9/11, for example, british citizen richard reed attempted to detonate explosives packed in his shoe while on a flight to miami in december, 2001. he had previously trained at al qaeda terrorist camps in afghanistan. thankfully, he failed, but this attempt at attack put us on notice that these terrorists were not finished with what

happened on 9/11. more attacks and plots followed, perhaps less well remembered after the passage of time, and passage of time is our biggest enemy here. we don't think about this often enough. but they still demonstrate the ongoing threat that we face. july, 2002, an egyptian shot and killed two israelis and wounded four others at the los angeles international airport. although the f.b.i. did not find evidence linking the shooter to a terrorist group, the agency concluded the shooting was an act of terror. in march, 2006, another radical islamist -- islamic terrorist injured six people when he drove his vehicle into a group of pedestrians at the university of north carolina. the attacker claimed to have conducted the attack in order to

avenge the killing of muslims around the world by our american government. another example is the fort dix six plot may, 2007. in that case, six men planned to kill american soldiers at the military base in new jersey but were arrested before they could do so. the men were inspired by jihadist videos. in june, 2009, a terrorist shot two recruiters at a military center in little rock, arkansas. one of the recruiters was killed. the other was seriously wounded. the shooter told the judge in his case that he was a soldier of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. later in 2009, three radical islamist terrorists were arrested just before they were able to conduct suicide attacks

in new york city. one of these terrorists drove all the way from his home in colorado to strike the new york city subway system with homemade explosives hidden inside a backpack. he later admitted in court that he was trained by al qaeda to be a part of what they call martyr dom operation. he further confessed that al qaeda officials ordered these suicide attacks from afghanistan. also in 2009, on christmas day, a terrorist often referred to as the underwear bomber, attempted to blow up a bomb concealed in his underwear while on a flight from detroit -- over detroit. several days later, al qaeda affiliates in yemen and saudi arabia claimed responsibility for that. -- for that effort.

may, 2010, a terrorist tried to set off a car bomb in the middle of times square, new york city. he was arrested while attempting to flee the country on a flight to the middle east. the bomber was trained in finance by pakistani taliban. more recently, the threat from radical islamic extremism has sprung from the chaos in syria. by now, we are all familiar with isis or the islamic state. last year, we witnessed the horrors of isis' brutal and barbaric beheading of american journalist james foley, steven sutalav and aid worker peter kasik in syria. but as was explained to the senate judiciary committee earlier this year, isis presents a new type of islamic extremist

organization. for one thing, isis exploits social media to promote its terrorist agenda and encourage people within the united states to commit terrorist attacks. as director comey explained, isis' propaganda machine is like a devil on somebody's shoulder saying kill, kill, kill. and if you can't come to syria, kill somebody where you are. kill somebody in uniform. kill anybody. end of comey's quote, which was his paraphrasing the message that comes on social media. isis' deadly message of terror is having a profound effect here in our country. over the last year, the government has stopped numerous

individuals in the united states who tried to travel to syria to fight for isis. according to director comey, over 200 americans have traveled or attempted to travel to syria for this purpose. i fear that such individuals who successfully return home could re-create the paris attack here in our country, given the training, indoctrination and battlefield experience that they received abroad. "the washington post" reported on november 16 that 66 men and women in the united states have been charged with crimes associated with isis, including both attempting to travel to syria to join isis or planning attacks here. but beyond isis recruitment of

americans to fight in syria, the paris attack demonstrates the extreme dangers the group now poses here in north america. look what occurred just over the past year or so. october 2014, a radical islamist terrorist who could not obtain a passport to travel to syria shot up the parliament in canada, killing a canadian soldier on duty at the canadian war memorial. the next day a self-radicalized muslim convert attacked four police officers on the streets of new york city with a hatchet after watching isis internet propaganda. january this year, the f.b.i. arrested a person in ohio for plotting to attack the u.s. capitol with pipe bombs and

guns. the terrorist also allegedly expressed the desire to support isis, and he had posted videos and messages on social media supporting violent attacks by radical islamic terrorists. later, may this year, two islamic terrorists drove from arizona to garland, texas, to attack a conference center during an art exhibit. the center was hosting an exhibition of cartoons depicting the prophet mohammed. the pair shot and injured a security guard before being killed by police officers. isis subsequently claimed responsibility for that attack. in june 2015, law enforcement officers in massachusetts shot and luckily killed a

knife-wielding member of a group of isis supporters who were plotting attacks here in the united states, along the lines of what director comey has said, "just go out and kill, kill, kill." two others alleged terrorists were arrested and are being prosecuted. just this month an american was arrested in ohio for supporting isis. he allegedly posted online detailed personal information, including their addresses of 100 u.s. military members. he had then allegedly called on fellow terrorists to kill these military personnel in their homes and community, along the lines of what the social networking message is from overseas to people in the united states, as director comey has reported to us, "kill, kill,

kill ... just kill anyone." most chilling of these videos released earlier this week -- it's more chilling than maybe a lot of these things that i've just talked about -- on monday isis release add video warning countries against participating in airstrikes in syria. the video claimed that isis would attack these countries, just as it attacked france last friday. and the video specifically threatened to attack this city right here, washington, d.c. according to the "new york times" just this morning -- quote -- "at least three dozen people in the united states suspected of ties to the islamic state were under heavy electronic or physical surveillance, even before the paris attack" -- end of quote. that ought to wake us all up to

the fact that this is a dangerous environment that exists. so it is all too obvious that we will continue to face attacks from radical islamic terrorists in the future. so i told you, i'm here to -- we ought to be reminding ourselves every day about this potential threat. so to help remind us, both of that certainty and that we must be prepared for it, i'm going to ask unanimous consent at this point to enter in the record a long list of terrorist attacks in the united states that i prepared for public -- from public sources. the list may not include each and every attack by these terrorists here, but it does include a wide variety of

attempted and planned attacks against our citizens. it also includes a separate list of individuals prosecuted in the united states for attempting to leave the country to fight for isis. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: the list includes a successful -- includes successful attacks that harmed americans as well as unsuccessful attempts that did not, often thanks to law enforcement efforts. what is common to all the attacks is that they were undertaken by terrorists who coordinated with radical islamic extremists, were inspired by them, or who shared their views. the list of attacks should serve as a reminder then that we must always be vigilant. we must never forget that radical islamic extremists are

waging war against us. and so we must always be prepared to fight this battle and to defend against their attacks. i am grateful this thanksgiving season for the people in this country who have the difficult work of protecting us from terrorists every day. we must continually strengthen our country's ability to win this war. we must ensure that our military and special forces have the ability to take the fight to the terrorists overseas, where every they are lurking. we must ensure that our intelligence agencies have the tools needed to identify terrorists and their plots while preserving the civil liberties that make our country very special. and we must ensure that law enforcement is able to use the lawful tools provided by

congress, consistent with our constitution, approved by our courts to stop these terrorist attacks. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. johnson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johnson: madam president, i rise today to pay tribute and to honor two great americans, two wonderful people, art and sheri star for their numerous professional, personal contributions to the state of wisconsin. we are all aware of bart's

contributions as quarterback for the green bay packers. he proceed to win five world championships including victories in the first two super bowls. he was named the super bowl most available player for bodg both s but gave full credit to his teammates and coach vince lombardi for the team's historic success. over the years, bart has received many honors. he was selected as a pro-bowl player four times and was named the nfl's most valuable player in 1966. he was recognized in 1970 with the glad waiter of the year a-- gladiator of the year award. and he has been inducted into multiple halls of fame -- the alabama sports hall of fame in 1976, the pro football hall of fame in 1977, and the wisconsin athletic hall of fame in 1981.

bart's football legacy goes beyond technical skill. his excellence in leadership and strength of character earned him the respect of his coaches, teammates, and fans worldwide. he continues to be lauded as an example throughout the nfl. every year the bart star award is presented to an nfl player who demonstrates leadership and integrity on the field and in his community. bart considers his wife sheri to be the most important member of the star family team. sheri supported and inspired her husband as they raised their children bart jr. and brad and volunteered to numerous causes throughout their life together. their gifts of time, financial support, and celebrity continue to be a part of a lifelong mission benefiting many charities and causes. at the height of his career with

the packers, bart and sheri cofounded rawhide boys ranch, a home for at-risk boys. over the years, the rawhide boys ranch has grown into a campus composed of seven boys' homes, a state-of-the-art high school named in their honor, and numerous without objection experience facilities that expose youth too a variety of trades. part and sheri also certain n served as honoraire chairpersons for the vince lombardi center. they were work raised more than $16 million for cancer research. in addition, bart and sheri has been r. have been longtime supporters of corn stone schools of alabama. it offers education committed to academic excellence for children whose families have limited resources. sheri's passion for animals

fuels generous support for many years for the greater birmingham humane society. bart and sheri are very proud of their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, but the accomplishment they value most, that they cherish most is their 60 years of loving marriage. i'm honored to recognize bart and sheri star for their exemplary lives and i ask that these remarks be recorded in the "congressional record." may their humble leadership, sacrifice and love for others serve as an inspiration for all of us. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ham ham million-dollar? prowl mr. hatch: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i rise to speak on religious liberty, the sixth of addresses i've given on this subject. in might have previous remarks i have discussed why religious liberty matters and why it deserves special protection from governmental interference. i have detailed the history of religious history in the united states. i've debunked the erroneous notion that religion is a private matter that has no place in the public domain. last week i discussed the status of religious liberty in contemporary american life.

i argued that in ways that are a larming and unprecedented, religious liberty is under attack here in the united states. today i turn my attention beyond our borders to examine the status of religious liberty abroad. again, my argument is straightforward. across the world religious liberty is under serious attack. my observations are particularly relevant as we approach thanksgiving. our nation commemorates this special holiday in remembrance of our pilgrim ancestors who fled persecution in search of religious freedom. these brave men and women sailed uncharted waters and settled strange lands in order to build a society where they could practice their religion free from state interference. their earnest efforts precipitated not only the establishment of a new colony but the birth of a nation committed to the principles of religious pluralism.

for america's earliest settlers this land stood as a symbol of refuge, a haven from the storm of religious oppression that lingered over europe centuries -- that lingered over europe. centuries later victims of religious persecution across the world still look to our shores for sanctuary. they see america as john winthrop once described it. quote -- "as a city upon a hill." a light that reaches across the oceans giving hope to those still living in the shadows of religious intolerance. madam president, today our world needs that light more than ever. nearly four centuries after the pilgrims made landfall at plymouth rock, the state of religious liberty across the world is increasingly precarious. from brutal crackdowns on religious minorities in central asia to a growing wave of anti-semitism in europe, from

the violent campaigns of boko haram in africa to the nefarious specter of isis in the middle east, religious liberty is under attack like never before. despite the rapid advance of democracy over the last century, the blessings of religious freedom are still inaccessible to a majority of the world's population. in fact, a recent pew study finds that three-quarters of the global population -- quote -- "lives in countries with high government restrictions and significant hostilities surrounding religion." unquote. the truth about that, in spite of the substantial progress of our own society, our own society has made in securing individual rights and enshrining religious liberty in law, there are still billions of people across the world who are unable to exercise their religion freely and fully. there are still billions of

individuals living under despotic regimes that not only fail to protect people from persecution, but that actively constrain the conscience of citizens through law. there are still billions of people who understand religious liberty as little more than a philosophical concept, much less a reality. madam president, i wish i could offer these people hope. i wish i could say that the gradual march of progress will part the waters of religious intolerance, paving a clear path forward for religious liberty. but reality restrains my optimism. around the world hostility to religion is increasing. religious liberty abroad faces opposition from two sources: states and nonstate actors. and while i would like to relate an exhaustive account of the war being waged on both fronts, time

permits me to highlight only the most grievous examples of persecution. i believe with state-sponsored acts of religious oppression. far from being a relic of the past, government persecution of religious minorities is alive and well. first, consider the state of religious liberty in asia. china is perhaps the world's leading instigator of religious persecution. last year in a nearly unprecedented crackdown on religious expression, the chinese government bulldozed or removed crosses from more than 400 protestant and catholic churches. according to the united states commission on international religious freedom, many experts have characterized this growing tide of oppression against christians in china as -- quote -- "the most egregious and persistent since the cultural revolution." unquote. christian dominations are not the only groups facing

oppression. members of all faiths, including muslims and tibet an buddhists face arrests, fines, denials of justice and lengthy prison sentences because of their religious beliefs. practice of juon gon experience the most persecution. since that time they have been subjected to psychiatric experiments and other heinous forms of torture. the government has even executed practitioners of falun gong mutilating their bodies and harvesting their organs for profit. our nation can no longer turn a blind eye to these atrocities nor can we ignore the plight of religious prisoners in places where thousands have been

incarcerated. these men and women are separated from their families and forced to work in concentration camps. while the government punishes followers of any faith, the country's christians face the greatest persecution. if caught practicing their religion, christians face imprisonment without trial. many face execution. in southeast asia, myanmar is responsible for propagating religious bigotry not so much by what it does by what it doesn't do. across the country, religious and ethnic minorities face increasing persecution at the hands of the buddhist majority. rather than intervene to protect those vulnerable groups from mistreatment, the myanmar government has stood idly by as an observance to the violence. as a result of the government's inaction, 140,000 muslims and at least 100,000 christians have been internally displaced.

in africa and the middle east, the situation is just as bleak. in iran, despite president rouhani's promise to extend greater protections to religious minorities, the number of individuals detained because of their religious beliefs has actually increased during his term. christian, jews and sunni muslims throughout the country face perpetual persecution. arrests, beating, and imprisonment. some are even executed for their beliefs. of course there is perhaps no government on earth more vocal in its anti-semitism than iran. meanwhile in saudi arabia, the state prevents all nonmuslim public places of worship. any system with a citizen who dares question the government's oppressive policies is likely to face charges of blasphemy and

even sorcery, a crime punishable by death. in syria, bashar al-assad has abandoned all appearances of religious liberty by deliberately targeting sunni muslim civilians in a bloody civil war. as he massacres his own people, he does so on the basis of their religious affiliation. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to finish my remarks. in pakistan, the government consistently fails to protect its own citizens from religiously motivated violence. and the courts exploit repress ive antiblas if -- blasphemy laws. egypt's courts convict and imprison under the same pretext as some of these other countries, as pakistan. in sudan, the government harasses its minority christian population and subjects muslims and nonmuslims alike to the pun

ments of sharia law. the state executes citizens who convert from islam to another religion. even in europe, religious liberty is under attack, albeit in more subtle ways. take, for example, switzerland, where a constitutional amendment placed a country-wide ban on the construction of mineretts, a widely recognized symbol of muslim prayer and devotion. in another blow to europe islamic population, france outlawed the wearing of burkas in public. when a muslim woman appealed the ban to the european court of human rights, the court upheld the law. madam president, what i have related here today is only a small sampling of the manifold abuses taking place around the world. if i were to relate every instance of state sponsored bigotry abroad i would be speaking here for days and none

of this is to mention the war against freedom being raised by nonstate actors. in the past decade, we have witnessed an unprecedented rise of terrorist groups and other criminal organizations seeking to eradicate religious liberty altogether. take, for example, the rise of boko haram in the chad region of africa. this islamic terrorist organization made headlines last year after kidnapping over 226 nigerian schoolgirls. according to the human rights watch, boko haram has since forced these young girls to convert to islam and undergo severe physical and psychological torture. many of these young women have been subjected to forced labor and others have been raped while in captivity. boko haram's central mission is to annihilate all western social and political activities, including any religion that isn't islam. in its fight against religious

freedom and other western values, the group has conducted inl discriminate tax on civilians and used children as suicide bombers. the brutality of boko haram is only surpassed by the barbarism of isis. far from being the j.v. team, in quotes, that president obama once described, isis has proven to be perhaps the most formidable terrorist network in operation today. i fear that too many underestimate the threat that isis poses to religious freedom. this is an organization whose very entendetre is to establish a global caliphate. islamic state militants carry out their mission, religious liberty is often the first casualty. in the baron world, isis envisions, there is no room for

dissent. either convert or be killed. you see, these christians and shia muslims have been confronted with this ultimate. refusal to give in to the islamic state's demands has resulted in mass executions, extra judicial killings, kidnappings of civilians, forced displacement, the killing and maiming of children, rape, and other forms of sexual violence. the savagery of isis has even gone viral, as the group posted videos of grizzly beheadings on the internet. in almost every case, captors target their victims on the basis of religion. as we're all too aware, the cruelty of isis is not confined to the middle east. just last week three teams of isis militants carried out terrorist assaults throughout paris, dea, detonating suicide s

at a soccer stadium and opening fire on innocent civilians in a concert hall. the violence against 350 bystanders and claimed 129 lives in what is considered the worst terrorist attack on french soil in the nation's history. madam president, we could call these attacks -- quote -- "senseless acts of violence" --en quot--unquote -- because ts exactly what they appear to be in their brutality and scale of intimidation. but i fear dismissing these as "u"senseless" motivates such violence. isis does not kill merely to feed an insatiable blood lust. it kills because it wants to terrorize, shock, and intimidate

other civilizations into submission. it kills because it wants to impose on all people a narrowminded medieval ideology of islam, one that would rob us of our religious freedom and other fundamental rights. sadly, isis is not alone in its animus towards religious freedom. nearly every terrorist organization that has vowed our destruction, be it al qaeda, hamas, or hezbollah, seeks to strip us not only of our sense of security but also the fundamental freedoms that make religious pluralism possible. madam president, if we are committed to defending religious liberty overseas, we must confront the growing menace of islamic extremism and we must challenge these nations that engender religious intolerance through law. today, by calling attention to the suffering of religious peoples throughout the world, i have demonstrated clearly and

without question that religious liberty faces growing hostility from abroad, from both state and non-state actors alike. from the heavyhanded government to the violent campaigns of terrorist organizations around the globe, the right to worship according to the dictates of one's own conscience is under relentless attack. with a fuller understanding of the threats facing religious liberty, the question now becomes, what is to be done if religious liberty is under attack abroad what can our nation do to protect this precious freedom now and in the future? first, we must recognize that protecting religious freedom abroad is not just a question of moral principle; it's a matter of national security. often violations of religious liberty abroad threaten our own safety at home. as a case in point, consider the role of religious intolerance in the syrian civil war. bashar al-assad quickly disposed

of religious freedom when he began deliberately targeting sunni muslims, murdering thousands of citizens on the basis of their religion. his brutal actions precipitated the formation of isis, an organization hellbent on destroying other civilizations in the name of islam. as isis gained in strength, it began to export its extreme ideology abroad, contributing several attacks throughout the world, including last week's attacks in paris, now isis states it is a formidable threat to the united states and all of our allies. assad's blatant disregard for religious liberty catalyzed the formation of isis. as a result, the world is less safe, given the obvious nexus between protecting religious liberty and strengthening global security, i agree with the following assessment from the

united states commission on international freedom: quote -- "in the longrun, there is only one permanent guaranteer of the safety, security, and survival of the persecuted and vulnerable: it is the full recognition of religious freedom as a sacred human right which ever every nation, government, and individual must fully support and no nation, government, or individual must ever violate." inquote. if we are committed to bolstering the security of our nations, then we must be equally devoted to strengthening religious liberty abroad. at the forefront of our foreign policy should be a commitment to defend and advance religious liberty in countries where it is under attack. we should also be prepared to reevaluate our relationship with governments that fail to make religious liberty protections a priority. congress took concrete steps to prioritize religious freedom as a foreign policy objective when it passed the international religious freedom act of 1998.

this law established an ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. the ambassador oversees the state department's office of international religious freedom, which monitors discrimination against people of faith and publishes an annual country-by-country report of the status of religious freedom abroad. this historic legislation also created the united states commission on international religious freedom, an independent bipartisan organization that closely follows religious persecution in other countries and offers recommendations to the executive branch and congress on how best to promote religious freedom overseas. as one of the only countries in the world to make religious liberty an explicit foreign policy objective, our nation is unique in its commitment to th this. congress can renew that commitment by continuing to support the provisions of international religious -- of

the international religious freedom act. the future of religious liberty overseas depends on our willingness to strengthen it here in congress. lastly, if we are committed to protecting religious liberty abroad, we must be ready to defend it here at home. at the beginning of my remarks i recalled the imagery of john winthrop sitting on a hill. throughout our nation's history, several prominent public figures have invoked winthrop's vyings to cap a truth. america's special freedoms make her a light to other nations. through our robust exercise of religious liberty, we offer hope of people beyond our borders -- to people beyond our borders, men and women suffering under the yoke of oppression, who look to our country or sanctuary. as our nation strives to be an example of the implementation of religious freedom, we can offer greater hope to those persecuted for their believ religious beli.

we can strengthen an beautify our city on a hill, depending upon the foundation laid for us by our pilgrim forebears so that the light of our nation might shine before our mankind. madam president, with this call to action, i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to address the senate as if in morning business. and for as much time as i may consume. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mccain: over the last month in a series of terrorist attacks around the globe that have killed hundreds of innocent people, isil has commenced a new phase in its war on the civilized world. we've seen attacks in ankara, baghdad, an and of course in pas

where isil gun mern attacked -- gunmen attacked a soccer stadi stadium, a concert, and people sitting in restaurants and bars, killing 129 people. this further highlights the threat that they pose to countries beyond the middle east, including the united states of america. we cannot and should not wait for isil to attack the united states before we finally, finally, finally acknowledge that we are a nation at war, and we must adopt a new strategy to destroy isil. what we must also acknowledge is that while the threat posed by isil and our other adversaries is growing, our national security budgets are increasingly disconnected -- disconnected -- from our national security requirements. regardless of what isil will do

next or how the united states will decide to act, our national security budgets through fiscal year 2021 have been arbitrarily -- i emphasize "arbitrarily" -- capped by the budget control act. to be sure, the recently passed bipartisan budget act of 2015 provides important relief from the sequester-level budget caps for fiscal year 2016 and 2017. i'm grateful to the republican majority leader for leading that effort. our national defense would be in far worse shape without that legislation. at the same time, that agreement is less optional for next year and obviously does not seek to address the budget caps that continue for the next four years. it is -- indeed, under the revised budget control act in conrestaurant dollars, we're actual -- in constant dollars, we're actually on track to spend

less on defense thek next year n this year. it's not taken long for world events to show the inadequacy of this exercise. at the same time we're locking in next year's defense budget caps, isil began demonstrating its capability to strike targets outside of iraq and syria and now at the very center of the western world. indeed, since the budget control act of 2011 capped defense and other discretionary spending for the subsequent ten years, absent any consideration of changing global threats or national requirements, let's consider what has transpired since 2011. any semblance of order in the middle east has collapsed. we're all tragically familiar with the carnage in syria and iraq. but libya has also deteriorated into anarchy, safe havens for isil and its affiliates.

yemen has become the scene of a proxy war between iron an iran e gulf arab nations. as general david petraeus testified, "almost every middle eastern country is now a battleground or a combatant in one or more wars." from the outset, the obama administration's policy was to withdraw from the middle east. it pulled -- the president pulled all u.s. troops out of iraq, put us on a path to do the same in afghanistan. but as we expected -- and i predicted -- evil forces have moved in to fill the vacuums that we have left behind. isil has captured large swaths of territory in syria and iraq and has spread across the region to afghanistan, libya, egypt and other countries. as a result, we now have thousands of troops back in iraq. the u.s. military has conducted

over 6,000 airstrikes in syria and iraq to combat isil. we're increasing counterterrorism operations in north africa and providing military assistance to saudi arabia and our gulf partners fighting in yemen. the situation in afghanistan has driven the president to further delay the drawdown of u.s. troops. the effectiveness of these policies is questionable, but the cost is not. in europe, we have seen russian forces invade crimea and intervene militarily in ukraine. for the first time since world war ii, one government has invaded and sought to annex the territory of another sovereign nation in europe. since then, vladimir putin has grown bolder. he continues to modernize russia's military. and most recently, of course, he has deployed russian forces into syria to prop up the assad regime, even firing cruise

missiles into the region from outside of it, as far away as nearly 1,000 miles. russia's actions have now forced the administration to bring back to europe on a rotational basis one of the two brigade combat teams that it withdrew. as russia continues its aggression in europe and increases its involvement until the middle east, the secretary of defense acknowledged that we need an entirely new strategy to counter russia. all of this requires proper funding. all of it. all of it requires proper funding levels. but our defense agencies have not gotten that. even as they have been asked to do more to counter russia. the situation isn't limited to russia and europe. china is growing more assertive as well. it has built several land feerts in the south china sea, equipped with military buildings, fort

facilities and even runways all in an effort to expand chinese territorial claims in the area. in addition to harassing other regional states, five chinese navy ships were spotted in the bering sea off of alaska during president obama's recent trip to alaska. meanwhile hackers in china continue to conduct cyber espionage and cyber attacks against our government and critical sectors of our economy. russia, iran, and north korea are doing so as well all in the past year. again and again national security requirements have materialized after the budget control act was passed. but we forced our military to tackle a growing set of missions with arbitrary and insufficient budget levels. revised periodically with

whatever additional resources the congress is able to scare up. the results speak for themselves. since 2011, as worldwide threats have been increasing, we've cut our defense spending by almost 25% in annual spending. not only has annual spending decreased but so have the long-term budget plans of the department of defense. each year the department releases a five-year budget. however, each year it is reduced its five-year plan in an effort to closer align its spending to the budget control act. as a result, while the short-term effects of these arbitrary budget caps are bad enough, the long-term harm they're doing is arguably worse. our military is raiding its own future readiness, modernization, research and development spending to pay its present bills and meet present needs. we are not making the kinds of investment in our future

war-fighting capability to remain technologically superior to adversaries that are closing the gap with us. what is even more troubling is that even as we made these reductions, our national security and defense strategies have stayed essentially the same. day-to-day requirements for the military have not been reduced to match declining budgets. independent analysis by defense experts at places like the center for strategic and budgetary assessments and the rand corporation have all pointed out that current budget levels and even the president's budget are insufficient to pay for our national security strategy given the current threat environment. all of this applies equally to our other national security agencies beyond the department of defense. protecting our nation is not just the job of the u.s. military. it also depends on a strong and

properly resourced intelligence community, federal law enforcement and homeland security agencies and a diplomatic presence overseas that can project american leadership and resolve problems before they become threats to our people and our interests. and yet, these other national security agencies have been dealing with the same fiscal challenges under the same worsening threat environment and with the same effects as our military. not just our military. the n.s.a., the c.i.a., the state department, all of these -- f.b.i. all of these agencies are unable to function effectively because of the effects of these budget cuts. to continue on this way, especially after paris, is not only absurd, it's dangerous. if we're serious about national

security, if we're serious about meeting our highest constitutional responsibility of providing for the common defense, and if we're serious about heeding the frequent and urgent warnings of our nation's most respected national security and foreign policy leaders, then we must change course immediately. we cannot continue to prioritize deficit reduction over national defense, allowing arbitrary budget caps to determine our national security needs. this process ought to be simple. we must identify what we need to be safe. to find those requirements early and provide budgets to resource them. the two can't be disconnected. if we choose not to fight isil or deter russian aggression in europe or uphold freedom of the seas in asia, then we can

justify the cuts to the budget. but neither the congress nor the administration wants to do that. nor should we. the only responsible thing to do then is to spend the money that's necessary to meet the national security requirements we've set for ourselves. and with the threats to our homeland growing closer, we can't afford to delay any longer. that's why i've introduced commonsense legislation that is long overdue. its goal is simple: to exempt national security spending from sequestration under the budget control act. this exemption would not just apply to the department of defense. it would also include the security-related functions of our intelligence agencies, the department of homeland security, the state department, and the national nuclear security

administration. by doing so, we will enable the president and congress to build national security budgets based on national security requirements. instead of arbitrary caps that entail greater risk to our nation. i know that some will express concern about the impact of this legislation on national deficits and the debt. i will match my record as a fiscal conservative with anybody. i spent decades targeting wasteful government spending, and i believe we must tackle our debt problem before it overwhelmed generations. but we cannot afford to put the lives of our men and women in uniform as well as those of our citizens at greater risk, which every one, all of our senior military leaders have said, by holding to these budget caps, we are putting the lives of the men

and women serving in the military today at greater risk. don't we have an obligation to these young men and women who are serving in the military and in uniform? are we going to just because of arbitrary caps put their lives in greater danger? of course the world has become more dangerous. of course there's been tremendous upheavals. and we're asking them to do the job with less than they need in order to do it most effectively and at the very risk of their own lives. this is disgraceful. this is disgraceful that we should neglect the view of every national security expert and every one of our uniformed leaders. they've all said the same thing. in testimony before the armed services committee, i have asked them the sequestration and the effects of sequestration put the lives of your young men and women in uniform at greater risk.

answer: yes. you know, history does not repeat itself, but i do remember in the 1970's when we had slashed defense spending and the chief of staff of the united states army came over and said we had a hollow army. we are now not approaching a hollow army but we certainly are approaching a point where we are unable to meet the new challenges that i just articulated in this, in these comments, and we are putting the lives of the men and women in the military in greater danger. that is not what we're supposed to be all about. we can't persist with the illusion that we will somehow balance the federal budget and meaningfully cut the debt on the back of discretionary spending alone. our defense and national security budgets are not the root of our spending problem. the real problem is rising entitlement costs and mandatory

spending. the heritage foundation report found that 85% of projected growth in spending is due to entitlement programs and interest on the debt. reducing our debt will only be possible with real entitlement reform. cuts to discretionary spending will not have major long-term impact. but for years we've gone to that well because it's politically easier than reforming entitlement programs. so this major source of the debt are three: medicare, social security, and interest on the debt. and that is what the problem we face. so we enact arbitrary cuts on our nation's national security capabilities in somehow trying to convince people that therefore that will reduce the debt. that is a lie. we don't have the guts to stand up here and do what's the right thing, which is entitlement

reform. instead we continue on this mindless sequestration -- mindless because it's a meat-ax. i'm happy to say that we have identified $11 billion in this national defense authorization act. as chairman of the committee, i've worked with members on both sides of the aisle. we've identified $11 billion in savings and lots more to come. we can trim the defense budget from a lot of the waste and inefficiencies that are there, but to do it with a meat-ax is the wrong way to do it. i encourage other committees to use their authorization processes to reform government and eliminate wasteful spending. however, to purposefully shortchange our national security agencies is obviously penny wise and pound foolish. just last week all of us went home and celebrated veterans day. there was probably not an event

that is quite like that in all the things we do in this nation. to spend time with our veterans, to see our nairgs -- nation honor them, it's a remarkable experience and incredibly uplifting. and it seems to me that year after year that there are more and more americans who are applauding and appreciating the service and sacrifice of our veterans. we're reminded what makes america great is the men and women who serve in it. and those who have served, we honor. these volunteers sacrifice their personal comfort, their families and sometimes their lives for this country. they always put the mission first, and it's time that we do the same. we must fully resource national security so that those who work to keep us safe day in and day out have what they need to accomplish what we've asked of them. if their mission is worth the

ultimate sacrifice, what other policy agenda could be more important? these young men and women are putting their lives as we speak on the line. and what are we doing? we're mindlessly cutting defense and their ability to defend this nation and themselves. it is a shameful chapter. it is a shameful chapter, an abrogation of our responsibilities to these men and women. so the next time you're home in your home state and you meet one of these men and women in uniform and you support the sequestration, look the other way. look the other way. because you're not taking care of those men and women who are willing to sacrifice. and i'm sorry if my words sound harsh, but in this world we're in today, to continue with this mindless sequestration is an abrogation of our responsibility as their elected leaders. so, madam president, i ask

unanimous consent that the committee on budget be discharged from further consideration of s. 2303 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. and what this is, for the benefit of my colleagues, this is elimination of sequestration for not only defense, but all of our national security requirements and agencies of government that are suffering under this mindless sequestration. and i see that my colleague from rhode island is going to object. and l all i can say is, to my colleague from rhode island, i am deeply, deeply, deeply disappointed in you objecting to doing the right thing for the men and women who are serving in the military. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reed: madam president, reserving my right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island.

mr. reed: i think that chairman mccain sl heading in the right direction which is trying to eliminate sequestration. but the real answer is the repeal of the budget control act. because the scope of relief offered by the chairman is certainly broader than just the department of defense. but it doesn't include all the agencies that actually protect us and interfere with our opponents. for example, the department of treasury in terms of trying to suppress terrorist financing. that would be subject to sequestration in this legislation. the c.d.c. would be subject to sequestration. even though if there was a biological attack, unfortunately our opponents, particularly terrorists, have talked about such an attack. so it's not really the issue of sequestration. it's limiting the scope of relief. and i think we should be, as the chairman would suggest, stand up and say we can repeal the b.c.a., and then we can talk about budgeting according to

demands, according to our total national security picture. longer-term, the strength of this country is certainly bolstered immediately by the department of defense, department of treasury, state department, et cetera, but without education, without many other efforts in our government, we will not be able to truly defend the nation. so for that reason, mr. president, i would with great reluctance object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations. which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations: department of state, peter william bodde of maryland to be ambassador to libya. elisabeth i. millard of virginia to be ambassador to the republic of tajikistan. marc jonathan sievers of maryland to be ambassador to the

sultan of owe man. deborah r. malac of virginia to be ambassador to the republic of uganda. lisa j. peterson of virginia to be ambassador to the kingdom of swaziland. h. dean pittman of the district of columbia to be ambassador to mow zack beak. -- mozambique. the presiding officer: under the previous question, the motion occurs on the bodde nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:.

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator in the chamber who wishes to vote or change his or her vote? hearing none, on the nomination of peter william bodde to be ambassador of libya, there are 95 votes in the affirmative, zero in the negative, and the nomination is confirmed. the senate will receive a message from the house of representatives. the majority secretary: mr. president. the presiding officer: mr. clerk. the majority secretary: i have been directed by the house of representatives to inform the senate that the house has passed h.r. 4038, an act to require that supplemental certifications and background investigations be completed prior to the admission of certain aliens as refugees, and for other purposes, in which the concurrence of the senate is requested. the presiding officer: the message will be received. under the previous order, the

question occurs on the millard nomination. hearing no further debate, all those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the question occurs on the sievers nomination. all in favor signify by saying aye. opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the question curs on the malac nomination -- the question occurs on the malac nomination. all those i in favor saying phiy saying aye. those opposed say. no the ayes appear to have it.

the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the question now occurs on the peterson nomination. all those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the question now occurs on the pittman nomination. all those in favor signify by saying aye. all those o opposed say. no the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions and the senate will resume legislative session. the esteemed senator from

mississippi. mr. wicker: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you, mr. president. and i now ask that senator shaheen, the senator from new hampshire, and i be allowed to utilize up to 20 minutes speaking in a colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you very much, mr. president. on november 21, the world will mark the 20th anniversary of the dayton agreement which ended the conflict in bosnia and herzegovina that began april 1992. last july the senator from new hampshire and i had the privilege and distinct honor of being part of a delegation of united states house and senate members to visit celeb neets aas part of the u.s. delegation to remember the genocide in veb in

srebrenica. so now this november we commemorate a happy occasion, a positive development in the history of europe and in international relations, that being the dayton accord. i want to commend a bipartisan duo for -- for securing approval within the united states. president bill clinton, a democrat, speaker newt gingrich, a republican were both instrumental, along with a host of others in persuading on a nonpartisan basis americans and american congressmoney to support this agreement -- american congressmen to support this agreement which involved a bit of risk for the united states. it involved troops of the united states going into this area and risking their safety in order to

make this accord work. and so i appreciate this. and on the 20th anniversary of that agreement and their leadership, i commend them. the dayton agreement was part of a response to a conflict that helped the international community transition from a world divided between east and west in order to meet post-cold war challenges. let me just mention three accomplishments of the dayton accords and then perhaps i'll -- i will let senator shaheen speak for a few moments about -- about that aspect of it. and then we'll talk about some legislation that she and i have had the honor and privilege of working on together as a result of this trip that -- that she and i took along with others t to -- to commemorate this tragedy in srebrenica.

and we'll talk about that. but let's -- back to the dayton accords. among the accomplishments, a successful and robust peacekeeping force under nato. actually replaced the u.n. peacekeeping group with a nato command group. it was deployed for the first time and nato also intervened out of area for the first time to make peace. secondly, persons were held accountable for war crimes on an international basis. crimes against humanity and genocide. this is the first time this had happened since world war ii. and, thirdly, international cooperation on demining and a concerted search for missing persons became essential parts of the post-conflict recovery. dayton also put the osce in center stage, the organization for security and cooperation in europe, of which i am a committee chair, representing the united states of america.

the accord mandated that the osce oversee arms control efforts and develop confidence building measures within bosnia originally and make it possible for a country divided and almost destroyed by war to hold elections on a reasonably democratic basis. so let's celebrate that accomplishment. and i'm sure the senator from new hampshire will have some more important insights to offer at this point. mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i'm really pleased to be here on the floor with my friend and colleague from mississippi to talk about bosnia aa-herzegovina and -- bosnia-herzegovina and about our trip to commemorate the horrible massacre in srebrenica that occurred in 1995. you know, as -- as senator wicker has said, that was a very

moving trip for me, and one of the things that was very particular to new hampshire that i found hopeful was listening to the very young mayor from srebrenica, the current mayor, whose name is camile derokovic. and he had actually spent a number of years in new hampshire and had gone to southern new hampshire university. his family had fled after the massacre from bosnia and come to new hampshire, and he had gone back in 2005 and gotten elected mayor. and one of the things that he talked about was the need to -- to really work with serbia, to work across the ethnic and religious lines in bosnia to achieve peace. and it was, as senator wicker says, so heartening to think that we were actually able to get these dayton accords that

ended that long conflict in bosnia, very bitter and bloody, and see some real progress. and one of the things we talked about on the flight back with president clinton and former secretary of state madeleine albright was what we could do to help bosnia continue to progress and move forward. because one of their challenges is economic really. this is a country that has a very high level of education. it has lots of young people who need opportunities for the future. and so we talked about whether there was a way that we in congress could look at trying to provide some economic help for bosnia in the future. and so we came back and looked at how we could work together to come up with an idea that might be successful and what we came up with -- and it was another tremendous bipartisan effort -- was to look at the enterprise

funds that were done after the fall of the soviet union and some of the eastern european countries, enterprise funds that were passed by the congress with bipartisan support that really helped those fledgling private-sector economies after the fall of the soviet union begin to recover. and so we took that model, the u.s. enterprise fund, focused on bosnia-herzegovina and this is the legislation that we're going to be introducing. and i think -- i know how senator wicker feels about it, but i think this offers real opportunity to bosnia because we can leverage a very small amount of public resources through the private sector, through other local funds that might be available in bosnia and see real

progress on the economic front that will create jobs, that will help those young people stay in the country and build a strong country. so for my friend from mississippi, i think this is a really good way to provide some of the assistance that they're going to need. would you agree? mr. wicker: i certainly agree with my colleague from new hampshire. and i commend her for her leadership in getting in legislation drafted. it is an opportunity to provide a real meaningful chance for bosnians and herzegovinans to live the good life and to remain in the area. but it's also in the absolute national security interest of the united states of america. we can't tend to everything but what we saw 20 years ago -- 25 years ago and forward with the

war in the balkans what could happen and what almost happened to security in all of europe. and we know this has been a flashpoint down through the decades and the centuries even. and so to the extent that we can address some things that we didn't get done at dayton, this is -- this will help people in the region and the former yugoslavia but also help the united states of america. you know, the dayton agreement was a crowning achievement but it didn't provide bosnia with a constitutional framework and political structure as that could effectively govern on into the 21st century. and the senator from new hampshire and i certainly saw that. we were meeting with the tripartite head of the government after the ceremony that we attended. dan serwer of johns hopkins university recently observed,

"we opposed the dayton -- imposed the dayton accords but we opposed what the warring parties told us they could live with. it is therefore unsurprising that one way or another ethnic nationalists have dominated bosnia almost continuously, making it ungovernable since 1995." so we' -- we're hoping that the bosnians and hers go convenientians. a fund directed by a board of americans, american investment professionals, capable of leveraging both public and private funding to provide entrepreneurs access to the same kinds of loans and investment opportunities afforded to small and medium-sized businesses here in the united states. by strengthening the private sector in bosnia and herzogov

herzogovena, this would create space for the political reforms i was just alluded to. it would establish an enterprise modeled after the united states programs that supported central and eastern european economies after the fall of the berlin wall, with approximately $10 billion of public and private funding. i would also point out that this legislation doesn't score as an expense. i think we're being very frugal with the authorization that we're providing to the congress to build on this if our legislation passes. per-capita income in bosnia and herzegovina averages less than $5,000 annually, and that's a shame 20 years after the dayton accords. compare this to -- from $5,000 a year per capita to $13,000 per year right across the border in

neighboring croatia yeah. the unemployment rate is -- it stands at 40%. things are at a critical juncture, mr. president, in this country, and that's why i think our trip over there with -- with former president clinton, with former secretary albright and members from the house of representatives came at such an important time and prompted us to work together on legislation to help make the situation better for individuals over there but helped make our national security stronger and more reliable here, here in america. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, as my colleague from mississippi points out, this really is critical, not just to bosnia and its future, but this is also about the national security of the united states. you talked about the balkans.

we know that world war i began in the balkans. we know that it has continued to be a part of europe where russian aggression and russian efforts to subvert the governments there continues, where they continue their activity. it is a place where we have a number of different ethnic groups and different religions converging. so it is a place where we need to keep supporting bosnia and herzegovina. we need to look at how we can help them ensure their continued progress towards the western europe and also towards economic prosperity. i traveled there in 2010 with former senator voinovich from ohio who had done a lot of work on the balkans when he was in the senate, and i will never forget we had a lunch with a number of young people there,

mostly college students or recently graduates, and we talked to them about what they saw in the future of the country, and there was so much hopelessness in that conversation because they didn't see the kind of opportunities that we want young people to see as they're thinking about their futures and their children and what's going to happen in their country. and so this i think is a partial answer to how can we help them provide that economic prosperity that they're looking forward to? and finally, i think what has happened in bosnia-herzegovina with the dayton accords is a model for all of its flaws that we can look to as we're looking at the challenges that we face in syria, because the bosniacs, the serbs, croatians, muslims, orthodox christians and the roman catholics all came

together. they agreed to end the conflict in bosnia. they agreed to try to build a successful democracy and a strong economy to create a successful multi-ethnic, multisectarian state under very difficult circumstances, and while we need to continue to look at how the dayton accords should change, it is still a milestone in what happened with that conflict and i think serves as a model for so many other regions where there is conflict in the world. mr. wicker: mr. president, the senator from new hampshire makes two very salient points that i do want to underscore. and it pains me that we have to be on the floor of the senate this afternoon talking about an aggressive russia. russia was trying to help 20

years ago in the dayton accords. they were trying to be part of getting things done. this is no longer the case. russia and some of the few countries aligned with their interests now seem to be trying more to block effective responses to the international problems. in addition, some of the aggression of russia and ukraine, for example, is early, troublingly reminiscent of some language in previous decades. talk of violating a neighbor's sovereignty and territory, claiming that they're doing nothing more than defending a threatened local ethnic population. that is troubling and familiar rhetoric from a very dangerous

past time. so i would underscore the senator's point about russia. before i toss it back to her to close, i would simply say this about her comments about american leadership. no one could have made this work except for the united states of america. in the early 1990's and in the mid 1990's. there was one people on the face of the earth, and that was the americans. the world turned to us, and we stopped a conflagration in europe that was about to get out of hand. and with regard to syria, i'm so glad that my friend mentioned this, the united states is being looked to internationally for leadership. no one else can provide that leadership. and again, it's incumbent on us to help people that are suffering in other locations, and we want to do that if we can to the extent we can afford it,

but we need to act with the leadership on behalf of the united states of america, on behalf of our own citizens, on behalf of our own national defense interests and the interests of every american to live in the absence of fear from terrorism and the attacks and ill wishes of those who would cause us ill and injury if they possibly could. so i very much appreciate her point about american leadership, and i know that this will not be done unless we do it across the aisle. that's why it means so much to me, to take the floor this afternoon in this colloquy with a democratic senator from new hampshire and i, a republican senator from mississippi, pushing in the same direction and asking for american leadership. mrs. shaheen: well, let me just thank my colleague. as you point out, we represent

two very different parts of the country. mr. wicker: although we both are ol' miss grads. mrs. shaheen: we are. we share that in common. this is a bipartisan issue. as you point out, the united states brokered that historic agreement in dayton. we were the only country that could take that leadership. we need to continue that role in the world. and i look forward to working with senator wicker as we try and move this bipartisan bill to support bosnia and herzegovina and continuing to be vigilant on efforts to undermine democratic values wherever they exist in the world, and certainly this is one place where we can provide help in a way that's very important. so thank you very much, senator wicker. mr. wicker: and i thank the senator from new hampshire. mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the he esteemed senator from oregon. a senator: i ask that the quorum call be lifted.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: mr. president, seven years ago wall street came closer to imploding than any time since the great depression. wall street had stacked the deck against the american consumers by turning a banking system into a casino for wall street's own big bets. when things on these bets went badly, taxpayers were left holding the bag. while our economy has slowly returned, the memory of the crisis is fresh in the minds of american families. millions of families who lost their jobs, millions of families who lost their homes, millions of families who lost their retirement savings. for this reason, there is broad support across america for not allowing the return of the wall street casino. with nine in ten likely voters

saying it is important to regulate services and products to ensure they are safe for sciewrlsconsumers, that they arr for consumers, that they are designed to build the success of consumers. through the wall street reform bill, we ended predatory home lending practices. we stopped teaser rates that had exploding interest loans. these are the loans that went from 4% or 3% in the beginning and after two years would turn into 9% or 10%, enshould org that the family would be unable to make their payments. we stopped the kickbacks that went to loan originators. we stopped the liar loans that were designed to ensure that loans would fail just after the ornl nateers haoriginatorrers hr commissioners. in short, we restored

homeownership and home loans as powerful wealth-building tool for the middle class in america. indeed, over the course of the pospost-world war ii history, ownership has been a significant wealth builder for the middle class. wall street turn it into a predatory wealth-stripping experience and we've restored it to ensure the financial success of working families. and we ensure that banks and financial institutions have skin in the game and mandating that they retain risk in the products that they sell. and we established the consumer financial protection bureau, or cfpb to prevent scams from stripping wealth from our working families. you know, before we established the cysti consumer financial protection bureau, consumer protection was handled by the federal reserve. the federal reserve also handled

monetary policy. you see, monetary policy was much more exciting. perhaps they thought it was more up to their sophisticated educations to work on that, and they took consumer protection and they put it in the basement of the federal reserve, and they locked it up and they threw away the key. they never honored their responsibilities for consumer protection, allowing all of these predatory practices that we had to end through the dodd-frank legislation. to date the cfpb has returned more than $11 billion to 25 million wronged consumers. that's a pretty impressive record. show me something else that has brought a little bit of justice and a lot of financial restitution to 12 million wronged american citizens. the commonsense reforms we established laid the groundwork for a financial system that is

not premised on elevating the goal of quarterly profit margins on wall street, it is not about the size of bonuse bonuses on wl street but it instead about providing a foundation or our families to thrive financially and for our businesses to thrive financially. that's building the future prosperity of america. now, nobody wants to repeat the financial collapse, the bailouts, the economic recession. we spent six years digging out of the hole that was created. but despite the fact that to return to that model would be so destructive to american families, there are at this very moment colleagues of mine gathering in rooms here in the senate and here in the house who are preparing policy rider to return us back to those dark days. they want to add policy riders

to the financial year 2016 appropriationppropriations bille designed to turn back these improvements that restored homeownership for american families, that restored a financial system that is right for small businesses. i wholeheartedly oppose attaching these type of policy riders to these spending bills. and i tell you this: the american people don't like it either. so what is going on? well, one conversation is to design policy riders to -- polic-- toensure that mortgagesd the wealth of the middle class instead of pregnant o preying oe class. second, there is conversations going on about policy riders designed to weaken the tools and authorities of the fsoc. it is about this:

during 2007-200 8, we didn't have anyone systematically looking at weaknesses in the system of i remember looking at a chart that laid out the vast growth in predatory teeser rate loans is that righted in -- teaser rate loans that started in 20036789 a3. as that chart surged upwards as a percentage of loans done in america, the amount of other loans came p down just as dramatically. the ornl nairters were taking their customer and saying, oh, you don't want this prime loan, this low-interest locked in for 30 years, you want this teaser loafnlt you'll get a fraction of a percentage lower in the beginning, never explaining to their customer that their interest rate was going to go up dramatically just two years later to a level they wouldn't be able to afford. yet that originator was gettin

getting-- getting undisclosed kickbacks. if there had been a fsoc in place, they would -- why do we have this huge collapse of prime lending? they would have touched to "the wall street journal." "the wall street journal" ran an article, anag an analysis, a sty that looked at this and said, virtually all those folks who are being steered into these is up prime loans qualified for prime loans. this is the essence of a predatory practice. well, fsoc would have seen that and said, something needs tock done. that's why we have it to keep looking at bubbles in our economy, our potential bubbles in our economy, or practices in our economy that are going to cause a future collapse and remedy these problems before they happen. so despite that we have folks right now trying to undo the creation of the fsoc or disable it from being able do its job.

and there's another group that's gathering to try to undermine the success or ability of having a watchdog on the beat, the consumer financial protection bureau, on the beat ending predatory loan practices from here forward. you can't do it through a statute. because as soon as possible you outlaw -- because as soon as you outlaw this practice, there's another one over here. there's strategies to continuously find new ways to turn solid successful products into predatory products, misleading products, gouging products, products that explode in a couple years that consumers were not fully informed on. so you have to have a commission to be able to stop those practices. it's the same thing as we have in consumer products. we don't have detailed legislation that says you can't design a toaster with this, this, this, and this. instead, we have a consumer product safety commission that looks at it and says, oh, these new products are unsafe for these reasons, they can't be allowed. new products come in, they get

examined, they make sure that they continue to have safe products. it should be the same for our financial products. so the cfpb has done an extraordinary job ending predatory practices and returning funds to ordinary working families. if you want working families to fail, then allow predatory products. if you want them to succeed, if you have a vision for america that involves the success of families, then let's end these financial wealth-stripping predatory practices and that means the cfpb has to be able to do its job. so it would be 100% the wrong direction to go to pol put these -- to put these policy riders in the dark of night, to dismantle these dodd-frank protections onto these spending bills. so the senate democratic caucus is going to keep fighting for our american families. we're going to keep fighting for our american consumers. we're going to keep fighting for the success of individuals across this country and to ensure that the wall street

casino stays closed. thank you, mr. president. and i recognize the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

zen is en mr. president? the presiding officer: -- a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. coons: i ask proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. coongs coons mr. president, just three short weeks ago many of u- mr. coons: three short weeks ago many of my colleagues welcomed the budget agreement between the white house and congressional leaders of both parties. it was a budget agreement that put aside the short-term shutdown politics and gave us the opportunity to give american families and businesses the longer-term economic certainty they need and deserve. it was a budget agreement that made balance increases in both defense and non-defense discretionary spending, increases that were fully paid for. it was a budget agreement that

was negotiated in good faith by republican and democratic leadership and the white house. it was just a preview of what we might be able to accomplish if we put the politics of the moment, the partisan politics of the 2016 campaigns and other issues aside and actually focus on getting some things done. now barely three weeks later, barely three weeks since bipartisan majorities approved the agreement in both letter and spirit, here we are again staring down a potential government shutdown. we all thought we'd avoid it because there are some insistence here, some colleagues who are insisting on poisoning the very appropriations bills with policy riders that they know would undermine the ability of the federal government. let's be clear, the policy riders we're tax -- discussing,e

policy riders i'm objecting to don't represent a good-faith policy debate. these are predominantly partisan political priorities that republicans are otherwise unwilling to bring to the floor of this chamber because they know they aren't popular with the american people. for example, we shouldn't be using, in my view, the appropriations process to try and dismantle or sideline the environmental protection agency and put clean air and clean water and climate action at risk. if the majority chooses to make devastating cuts to planned parenthood, which more than 8,000 residents of my home state of delaware rely on for health care and family planning, i think my colleagues should bring it to the floor in a separate bill so the american people know that that is the focus of the legislation. mr. president, i join my colleagues today to make it clear that we're not going to use the appropriations process to pass narrow ideological riders that would not otherwise

have been considered on this floor and have not made it through the appropriate process. as the ranking member of the financial services appropriations subcommittee, i want to be clear it's particularly unacceptable to me to use the appropriations process to roll back many of the critical wall street reforms put in place over five years ago in response to the financial crisis that have devastating to the economy, to family and to businesses throughout delaware and the country. if the majority wants to bring a bill to the floor that rolls back some of the key consumer protections put in place in the dodd-frank bill, then lets have that debate. it's a debate we have at tiements been engage -- at times been engaged in. the problem for colleagues is they don't have enough votes in the senate to pass it as a stand alone bill. that is why they have taken the troubling step of jamming an

entire banking billowed with controversial -- bill loaded with controversial riders. mr. president, i ask my colleagues, it is my hope, my expectation that many of my republican colleagues would say that i give honest and thorough consideration to new policy proposals, even ones i'm disinclined to agree with. and i am open to discussing ways to improve existing reform so we don't unfairly burden, for example, small community banks that weren't responsible for the financial crisis. no legislation is perfect, but compromising and improving is what authorizing bills, policy-making bills are all about. but the examples i've just referenced are a few of many areas that should not be jammed into an appropriations bill at the last minute without being fully and carefully vetted by the authorizing committee. it would be difficult for me today to address all the different policy riders that are in the various pieces of the

appropriations bills currently under consideration. they range from education and health, labor and natural resources, environment, civil rights, justice, housing, immigration, voting rights, telecommunications, to name just a few. but, mr. president, our budgets, how we spend the taxpayers' dollars are a reflection of our priorities. but there's a substantial difference between using the appropriations process to support a specific program or department or federal activity and using it to sneak around the legislative process and to jam new, big changes into last-minute appropriations bills. so instead of manufacturing another crisis here in the days ahead, instead of having to look over the cliff of a government shutdown, let's get back to a regular order to l fulfill our responsibility to responsibly fund the government and separately engage in positive discussions about how we can make the policy changes we need

to ensure that our economy is competitive, that our country is innovative and that our society continues to benefit from the work we all do here together. mr. president, paul ryan has barely had time to set up his new office and settle into his new role, and we're already back in crisis mode, walking back in agreement that as i said at the outset, a majority of this congress supported and a majority of america cheered. so so i urge my colleagues to put the middle class and the stability and future of our economy ahead of partisan politics. let's negotiate a clean and honest, a clear omnibus spending bill free of poison pill policy riders that only serve to divide this body and to unite the special interests who,a who,at , work against us. with that, thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. i request proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor this afternoon to speak on an energy-related topic, one that i think you and many will have interest in, and that's the issue of innovation within the energy sector. but before i speak on energy, i would like to bring up an issue that has just come about today with the announcement coming out of the food and drug administration that they have approved an application for what they have called aqua advantage salmon. and this is actually quite disturbing news to any of us

that care about our wild species of salmon, our wild stocks, our healthy wild stocks who are proponents of good amounts of fresh seafood in our diet, knowing that nutritionally it's pretty extraordinary source of omega 3's and fatty acid and good-for-you things. we'veing about trying to get the f.d.a. to make -- we've been trying to get the f.d.a. to make good on their commitment to make sure that pregnant women and nursing mothers know and understand the guidelines out there in terms of what is safe to consume when it comes to fish because, again, if you're looking for those good, nutritious food source, it's pretty tough to beat mother nature here. and yet, that is exactly what this approval from the f.d.a. is trying to do, is effectively not

only trying to beat mother nature, but messing with mother nature. and for those of us, again, who believe that the real thing is the best thing for our families, the best thing to serve at the dinner table, i find it very, very troubling. in fact, i'm spitting mad today, and i've calmed down a lot since i received this news this morning. but i can tell you, people back home are going to be mad about this for a long time. for about five years now the f.d.a. has been considering this application for this genetically engineered salmon. they're giving it a pretty nice name-calling it the aqua advantage, somehow or other this gives an advantage to the salmon. well, it does. what this does is it allows this genetically engineered fish -- i don't know that i want to call it a fish -- this genetically

engineered organism to grow twice as fast as any other salmon in the water there. how does it get to grow twice as fast? it doesn't happen naturally. it's not the way that mother nature orders it. what you do is you start messing with it. and what this process is that has now been approved by the f.d.a. is a process that supplies genetic material from a chinook salmon, a king salmon, and it takes that genetic material and it integrates it with a pout fish fish and an atlantic salmon. you might know that an atlantic salmon, farm salmon, what's an ocean pout? let me show you what an ocean pout is. an ocean pout is basically this

eel type of a bottom fish. those of you that know your salmon, know your chinooks and your sockeyes and your chums and know that this isn't anything close to a salmon, whether it is a wild alaskan salmon or whether it is a farm salmon. this is an eel. and we're taking a supplies from this and we're -- taking a splice and a s splice from an atlantic salmon and splicing this with a chinook salmon and the organism will grow to the size of an alaskan king salmon in a shorter period of time than that found in nature. freaky. we call this combination franken

fish because it's just not right. it's just not right. and it disturbs me, quite honestly, mr. president, that the f.d.a. would sign off on this, f.d.a. approval of genetically engineered animal designed for human consumption. this is first time ever. and the f.d.a. is saying this is going to be safe. we're going to make sure it's safe. we're going to make sure that it doesn't interbreed with the wild stocks and perhaps destroy them. we're going to make sure it doesn't mix with them so it can't transmit disease. we're going to make sure it's separated so it doesn't eat up the food source for our wild alaskan salmon. we're going to make sure. they're going to make sure doing

this because they are saying with this approval these aqua advantage salmon can only be raised in land-based contained hatchery tanks in two specific facilities in panama and canada. we should all feel safer because it is only going to be in panama and canada. there is no other locations under this application in the united states or elsewhere that are authorized to do this. somehow or other the f.d.a. says they're going to maintain regulatory oversight over the production and the facilities, and they're going to conduct inspections to confirm that adequate physical containment measures remain in place. and they're going to be working with the canadian and panamanian governments to be conducting inspections. really? do i feel safer about making sure that our wild and healthy stocks are going to be not

infiltrated by the frankenfish, by these genetically engineered organisms designed for human consumption, designed to grow twice as fast to get to the size of a king salmon so that a company can, i guess derive the benefit of selling more of this fish? well, i'm saying, mr. president, f.d.a. should never have approved this, never have approved this. the fact that the alaska delegation as well as members of other delegations in this body and on the other side have pounded their fists for quite some time against this measure through the f.d.a., they know full well how much we object to it. 7:55 last night my assistant got an e-mail from the f.d.a. saying that the commissioner would like to talk to me about some

imminent news. by the time the morning came around, the imminent news was already made public. alaskans were already aware that this approval from f.d.a. had come forth. not only me, it's my understanding that the head of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee, i met with them yesterday, didn't get a heads up about it. the nominee was before us yesterday in the help committee and i actually had a question, i had two questions to him about seafood. no heads up that this was coming your way. just kind of boom, lay it on the table. i have too -- to tell you, we have made no bones about the fact that this is wrong not only for alaska and our wild stocks. it's wrong for our salmon stocks around the country. and it's something that i'm going to continue to fight. i'm not sure, mr. president, as

we deal with this news today, i'm not sure if we can get the f.d.a. to reverse this. i'm going to keep working on it. but at a bare minimum, people around this country need to know what they're serving their families when it comes to seafood. and if this is going to be allowed into the markets, if it's going to be allowed on restaurant menus, then it needs to be labeled as such. the f.d.a. has said that there will be draft guidance on voluntary labeling indicating whether food has or has not been derived from g.e. atlantic salmon. so basically they're saying, okay, if you guys want to put a label on that says this is a

fake fish, a fake salmon, you can go ahead, but you don't have to. it's only voluntary. that's not good enough for this mom. that's not good enough for most who care about what their families are eating. so we're going to continue to press for mandatory labeling if, if f.d.a. is going to approve wrongheadedly, in my mind, this genetically engineered fake fish and they're going to approve it for human consumption, then they darned well better agree that labeling will be required. becau because i'm sure not going to eat it. let me switch to a better topic. and that is one that i know, mr. president, you care a great deal about, and that is the

issue of energy and the importance of energy to our nation's economy and to our overall health. i've come to this in regard many, many, many times to highlight what i believe are the shortsighted anti-energy decisions that we've seen come from this administration, whether we're talking about the keystone x.l. pipeline and more than seven years of delay and the eventually rejection of that infrastructure, whether it is the burdensome rules that we see coming out of the e.p.a. that raise the energy costs, or whether it's the actions from the department of interior that seek to halt resource development in federal areas. this administration has rarely ever worked with us to promote responsible energy, mineral, and timber development. in alaska, this ever-shiftingssg

federal regulatory environment played a key role in the recent decision by shell to abandon seven years of work and $7 billion of investment in the offshore arctic. and it was just this week we received word that another company looking, again, at low oil prices but seeing this same deteriorating regulatory environment decided to follow suit, and they are seeking to return their leases in the offshore. the obama administration has also canceled offshore lease sales in the state. it has hamstrung projects in our national petroleum reserve, which we absolutely need if we're ever going to be able to refill our trans-alaska oil pipeline. it's placed half of the reserve

within the national petroleum reserve off-limits, even though it was specifically designed for -- designated for development. and then, of course, we all know the situation in anwr. this administration is trying to lock away more than 10 billion barrels of oil in the non-wilderness portion of anwr, which could be safely produced with development of just .01% of its surface area. and the the list, mr. president, just goes on and on. and i told you that i was going to move to more promising and more uplifting subjects than franken fish and what thfish ane administration has done to suppress our ability with regard to energy resources. but i do want to move to another area because i think that this is an area and a focus that i'd like to believe we can find

support, not only working with the administration but working with colleagues and really building some partnerships on both the public and the private side. and this is the area of innovation, energy innovation, where i believe there is greater hope for working together with this administration to make a real difference for our nation. innovation holds tremendous promise, not just for us as policy-makers but also in terms of long-lasting benefits that it can deliver for not only the united states but really around the world. and innovation doesn't -- doesn't require more complex and costly regulations. it doesn't need to choose winners or losers in the energy sector. instead, innovation offers a chance at common ground that will deliver results and help

power our nation for decades to come. no matter your motivation for seeking cleaner and more affordable energy, we should all be able to agree that without innovation, without kind of pushing every day for that greater technology, our energy future and our economic prosperity are hardly secure. but i think the good news for us here -- good news for us here in this country is that the united states is the global leader in innovation, and we hear that this is a race and that america is falling behind, but i would contend that our strengths are still unmatched. our innovations, our ideas, our products and processes have changed history and, in turn, really changed the world. the united states has led the way in research and development that has changed our lives and lives across the world for the better. among federal agencies, the department of energy, in

particular, has played an important role in these efforts, and i think that they can make even greater contributions, especially when it comes to vital basic research. the d.o.e. is hardly perfect. many of us would make changes to the scope of its mission and improve its priorities if we were given a chance, but, given that, the department has also sparked innovation that has helped transform the global energy landscape. the most successful innovations give us more energy, reduce the amount of energy that we use, as well as lowering the costs that we pay for energy, and i think, as we move forward, we keep those goals in focus and we do improve. increasing access to energy, making it more affordable, and improving its environmental performance should be key factors that drive our innovation policy. those of us on the energy and natural resources committee are

always talking about innovation and how best to promote it through reasonable federal policies, because we understand how critical it is to our nation's future. and that's why energy and energy -- the innovation part of energy is a key part of our broad bipartisan energy bill that we reported through the energy committee by a vote of 18-4 back in july. the bill also includes legislation that is authored by senator alexander to review some of the energy-related portions of the america's competes actment we've agreed to authorize a 4% increase in funding for basic energy research each year, which i think puts us on a responsible path to double our nation's commitment to it. it's basic research that is at the heart of the mission of our system of national labs and also of many of our research universities. the men and women in the

research sector are pushing to make that fundamental discovery, to conduct the basic research that could find the next big thing for energy. and this type of research should be a priority for us, and the department of energy should be committed to helping new discoveries transition to market viability. within this bipartisan bill, we also reauthorize the arpa-e program which solicits ideas which are too h early for privae sector investment but with bridge funding have the ability to transform the energy sector. arp pa harpa-e ensures that awas meet milestones towards the goal of market vierkt. arpa-e hasn't been around nor that long but i think it lab promoting some good and strong ideas and producing some good results. our bill also promotes innosnraition a numbepromotes is

-- our bill also promotes innovation in a number of other areas and with regards to vehicles, provides for hybrid grid systems, for moron hydro-genetic and many other technologies. recently we've also seen more discussion has brought to us by private individuals and companies that plan to invest in energy technologies with the potential to transform the way that energy is produced and delivered and consumed, and i think this, too, will help drive energy innovation in this country. back in july, bill gates announced his personal commitment to invest $1 billion over five years to advance new energy technologies, and he made that commitment based on his recognition that current available energy options will not allow the world to achieve

its much-discussed climate goals in a way that also works to reduce the cost for the people using the energy. it is one thing to be working toward climate goals, but in doing so, if all that we do is increase the cost to the consumer, that doesn't help us either. his focus is as much on clean air and clean water as it is on lifting people around the world out of poverty. i had the opportunity to meet with mr. gates several weeks ago and look forward to seeing what comes out of his commitment. i'm also following the possibilities that are coming out of venture capital and other private investments. i think these efforts augment the federal research and the development dollars and, in many cases, are ensuring that promising technologies are not just set up on some shelf somewhere but really pursued to a successful and a productive result.

now, you've heard me say on the floor many times, but we in the state of alaska are at a time and a place where we are desperate to see energy innovation and see that translate in our state. energy prices in many parts of alaska are much, much higher than the prices paid by our friends in the lower 48, and in some communities in alaska, you're looking at40 cents to 50 cents a kilowatt hour for our electricity. certain parts of the state, over half of a family' budget goes just towards energy to keep warm or keep the lights on. can you imagine what that means, when over half of your family's budget, half of your income, a

just keeping your lights on and keeping yourself warm? it doesn't leave a lot for educating your kids, for feeding them, for health care. it is a huge issue for us and there are so many things that contribute to the high cost. it's big geography, lack of a comprehensive and interconnected energy delivery system. we have tremendous energy potential in the state of alaska, and, unfortunately, many of our communities are just not powered by it. we have natural gas in abundance, and yet our second-largest community in alaska doesn't have access to that natural gas. we're trying to get it there, but that's our current reality. many communities in rural alaska still rely on diesel to generate their power an, and delivering e

diesel, whether coming up on barger ow flyin or flying it in, is expensive. so innoreagan administration is essential to moving these rural communities and even those not-so-rural communities off of diesel and on to more sustainable energy systems. and what we're doing in alaska is bringing some very innovative technologies to communities around the state through a variety of state-run programs that are largely financed by the revenues that are derived from our oil production. so think about that. we're a state that derives most of our revenues, most of our income from oil. and so we're taking a nonrenewable energy source, taking the revenues from that, and helping to facilitate our

renewable resources, our resources that will be there for well, well, well into the future. but you have to be able to finance these programs, and we're doing so much of it from our oil production. responsible development of alaska's resources has enabled our state to take the necessary steps to improve energy development in our remote communities. this is in many ways almost like a virtual cycle where current energy production helps fund the next generation of energy production and where we harness today's energy to significantly improve the lives of our people. what we're seeing in the state -- we've got several communities that are working with various state agencies to integrate wind and solar and geothermal into their electricity delivery system in on effort to displace the power that's normally

generated from expensive diesel. it's the micro-grids that we're seeing that are really coming to be found as the solution. we are home to more microgrids in the state of alaska than any other state out there, and that's largely because they're the only option for us. they're the only option for many of our communities that lie far outside any regional transmission grids. we've got transmission grids in what we call the rail belt area, but it is -- it's difficult when you have, again, large geography, small population numbers. so you're going to have to figure out how you can literally power one village at a time, or maybe you get lucky and you're able to cluster a few. but knowing what, for instance, the island of kodiak has done

with being able to power a major seafood producing port through wind combined with their hydroresources and also utilizing battery, that area in kodiak is almost 100% powered by renewable resource. almost 100%. and this again is one of the major seafood producing ports not only in the state but in the country. and so the energy that is needed for those processors is coming to us by renewable energy sources, almost 100%. the irony -- and we were able to talk about this briefly in the energy committee this morning -- is in order to meet increased demand in kodiak, they're going to need to expand one of

their -- one of their hydrofacilities, and so they have asked for assistance with that. if they can't get the expansion, which some are objecting to because they don't want to see an expansion of that dam, what happens? you go back to diesel. you go back to diesel. that's not the answer here. so what we have been doing with pioneering of our microgrids is again something that i think provides the state and the federal government with ample opportunities to conduct research, develop solutions to better integrate renewable technologies into these microgrids. and in order for renewable technologies to be effective in the state, innovative research and development is required, and the result of these efforts i think has made a dramatic difference in many communities. bringing renewables online in remote communities, again like

kodiak, has displaced hundreds of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel, not only saving the people who live there hundreds of thousands of dollars but resulting in a cleaner environment overall. mr. president, i do think that it's exciting to think about what a difference future innovations in renewable technologies and energy storage could mean for communities not only in a place like alaska but really around our country and around the world, whether it's through federal research and development, whether it's through our state programs that are assisting our private capital, promoting innovation is a clear path toward lower energy costs and a future with cleaner water and cleaner air. we might not agree on every energy policy that comes to this neighbor, but i would hope, i would hope that we can all agree that energy innovation is one key to assuring our economic

growth, our national security as well as our international competitiveness, and i look forward to working with colleagues in all of these areas. with that, mr. president, i see that my friend and colleague from kansas, a gentleman who is always filled with thanksgiving and has shared that with many of us today is here on the floor, and so i will yield at this time. mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, i thank the distinguished senator from alaska for her kind comments, her advice, her help on several important issues where we have worked together, and i hope she enjoyed the thanksgiving meal that we had -- i guess it's called the thursday lunch bunch so that will work fine. mr. president, i rise today to

congratulate the french government for taking aggressive and appropriate action to arrest and kill the terrorist responsible for last friday's vicious attack in paris that resulted in 129 killed and over 300 wounded. we all pray for the full recovery of those wounded and note that everywhere within our country, we see the american flag at half staff, along with many displaying the flag of our ally friends. so the good news today is that the mastermind of several terrorist plots and the plot killing so many last friday is dead. abdelhamid abaaoud died in the same fashion as many of his victims. so be it. viva la france. keep up the fight.

mr. president, as our nation memorializes those who perished in france, it is the absolute wrong time for president obama and this administration to be putting forth a plan to relocate guantanamo detainees to the united states mainland. the absolute wrong time. now we learned that the administration has delayed the much-publicized but secret plan to close guantanamo and bring terrorists to the united states. white house spokesman josh earnest said i don't have any additional guidance for you but the plan will come relatively soon. he has been saying that for some time. others say the plan could even be released while department is gone for the g-20 meeting in turkey. as a personal aside, i might suggest he try to move the terrorists there. mr. president, the reason president obama delayed the plan is that we had a terrorist attack in france.

france has gone to war, and the united states is on high alert. apparently he has tossed this decision and public announcement regarding the plan to the department of defense, who has stated there is nothing imminent. thank goodness for that. now beyond the security threat this poses to our communities in kansas and south carolina or colorado, the sites with which this administration has surveyed for potential relocation, there has been no, mr. president, no intelligence assessment regarding the danger of moving enemy combatants from guantanamo to the united states. that's amazing. the question is how can the administration ask kansans or coloradans or south carolinians or any americans to paint a bull's-eye on their community without providing assurances that moving detainees to the united states will not pose a threat to them or our national security?

it seems unfathomable. and yet this president is proposing to do just that. this president's unending affinity for executive order risks overriding his attorney general's view of the law, the advice of those at the department of defense, especially those close to fort leavenworth and military law enforcement. it goes against the will of the congress which voted in this body 91-3 to maintain a prohibition on moving detainees to the mainland. and there is absolutely no intelligence to support the move, none. in short, the senate, congress, department of defense, attorney general and the american people have spoken. yesterday, i wrote the department of defense secretary carter to ask whether an intelligence report has been done to support the administration claims that guantanamo bay is a recruiting tool for isis and other terrorist organizations. some people believe that.

common sense tells you, however, moving detainees to the mainland would be a greater recruiting tool for isis and other terrorist organizations. i asked if an assessment showed detainment in the u.s. would decrease recruitment or did an intelligence product show that national security threats would decrease if any -- if any enemy combatants are held in the united states. from my discussions with members of this body on the intelligence committee, the senate intelligence committee, the answer is they have no comprehensive intelligence assessment. simply put, an assessment regarding the transfers of detainees to the mainland has not been done, so i have asked secretary carter and the department of defense to ensure an assessment is completed. to do otherwise would be irresponsible and reckless.

how can the president of the united states allow isis to paint a target on those who live near what would become gitmo north? and no community in the united states wants that label. fort leavenworth in particular, mr. president, is not a suitable place for replacement for gitmo. it is the intellectual center of the army. it hosts our nation's best and brightest war fighters at the command and general staff college, which also hosts 100 international officers every year. i want to remind my colleagues just how important fort leavenworth's mission is to the army and to our national security, and the risk of this entire mission would be endangered by making it a terrorist prison. fort lesson worth is home to the united states army's training and doctrine commands combined arms center. the combined arms center

oversees 13 schools including the command and general staff college, and most recently fort lesson worth was named the army university, giving our intellectual center of the army an official title. since 1881, the command and general staff college and the combined armed center have been engaged in the primary mission of preparing the army and its leaders for war. in order to accomplish critical missions, fort leavenworth develops and integrates army leader development, doctrine education, lessons learned, functional training, training support, training development and proponent responsibilities in order to support mission command and prepare the army to successfully conduct unified land operations in a joint interagency, intergovernmental multinational environment. a lot of words. big mission. important mission. to degrade fort leavenworth to a

terrorist prison would have ominous repercussions to our professional military and the value it serves every american and our national security. in addition, we must consider how our allies will respond to having enemy combatants so close to their top military leaders training at fort leavenworth. in my effort to reach out to embassies tied to the school, all have expressed their deep support for the international military officers division, its value to their military and security and the importance of maintaining the program at fort leavenworth. there is every possibility that given the countries who warp in the command and general staff college would reconsider their participation given the relocation of terrorists. this would bring really negative consequences and represent a terrible detriment to the partnership building that takes place during their course work. it would mean a loss for

international cooperation, for american military education and our national security. there are so many imperative factors that must be examined at fort lesson worth in colorado and in south carolina, factors that we cannot ignore. the fact that the f.b.i. has nearly 1,000 investigations into isis activity within the u.s. in all 50 states, that isis released a video right after the attacks in paris stating that the u.s. was next and most importantly again the fact that we are not dealing with everyday criminals, the detainees currently held at guantanamo bay are enemy combatants, terrorists, individuals with no remorse and with a recidivism rate at 30%, a strong desire to return to the battlefield. the reality is these individuals and the organizations they support pose the greatest risk to the national security we face

today. this administration should not obstruct the will of congress reflecting the voice of the american people which has prohibited this white house from transferring detainees from gitmo to the u.s. every year since 2009 when we first won this battle, and we won the battle back then. why do we have to repeat it now? if the president believes he can act without consequences, he is wrong. again, 91 senators voted in favor of this prohibition just last week when we passed the national defense authorization act. that's not just a majority. that is a veto-proof majority. article two of the constitution does not provide this president, any president with the power to ignore the law. just the other night in a teletown hall meeting, caller after caller asked if the president's actions are constitutional. how can the president do this when congress has prohibited funding, was the question.

in my view and that of the president's own attorney general, if the president acts by executive order, he is acting unconstitutionally. i agree with our founding fathers like george mason who said when the same man or set of men holds the sword and the purse, there is an end to liberty. and james madison, who said it is particularly dangerous to give the keys of the treasury and the command of the army into the same hands. now, i have mentioned the congress, the merits of fort leavenworth, the constitution, but what i have not mentioned yet is our service members. we have asked so much of our men and women in uniform over the past 14 years. we have asked them to go into harm's way before every bit of equipment was ready. we have asked them to deploy and

redeploy with almost no dwell time. we've asked them to extend their stays, we've put them in more places across the globe than any other period in history. and they've done it all without hesitation or complaint because we have the best fighting force in the history the world. -- in the history of the world. but i am unwilling to ask them to take on the challenge of guarding enemy combatants in the united states and put their families at risk for harassment, kidnapping, other terror tactics, homegrown terrorists and foreign fighters have used or will used. our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen and marines do not live anonymously when their families are stationed with them, as is the case at fort leavenworth. i believe, along with many, that if -- that have worn the uniform, the attacks in benghazi may have broken the nation's promise to never leave a man in harm's way.

mr. president, on a personal note, when i signed up to enlist in the united states marine corps, i was told that if i was in harm's way, i would never left behind. that's what the marine corps could do for me. the corps would have my back either by squad, if i got in harm's way, or they'd send the platoon or the company or the battalion or the regimen or the division or the whole marine corps. and i believed that. i still believe it, as the senior marine in the congress. the marines would have my back. it has been the same for generations before me and hopefully generations after. that is, until now. if we are going to ask our men and women to fight isis or to put their families at risk, they have to know that we have their back. until that bond is restored and we have a president that is willing to lead instead of following, our nation remains vulnerable to every terrorist organization and cell in the

world. we must put national security back as our top priority. it must be our first duty in congress and by the commander in chief. mr. president, i stand here because america's national security is my top priority and bringing guantanamo detainees to the united states is not putting our nation's security above politics, campaign promises or anything else. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. the best way to give to -- to fight this war on terrorism is give the president of the united states the tools he's asked for and he needs. part of that is fully funding support for veterans that the presiding officer sits on the veterans affairs question me. he stood side-by-side with most of us on funding veterans'

programs. some of my colleagues haven't. they're happy to send people off to war and spend all the money we need. not so generous when it comes to taking care of our men and women when they return. higher suicide rates, higher head injury rates, higher drug addiction rates, higher unemployment than regular civilians yet people in this body, especially the tea party in the house of representatives, doesn't seem to be able to find the money sometimes to spend to help veterans. the other -- the other way to night war on terrorism and to help our efforts on fighting isis is to actually put the people in place in the united states government who help us do that. and i come to the floor today to join senator casey, my friend from pennsylvania, who is going to mention him too and that is to support the nomination of adam zubin. adam zubin has been delayed for 200 days by republican obstruction in the banking committee. who is adam zubin?

adam zubin has been nominated -- listen to this job -- to the under secretary for terrorism and financial crimes at the treasury department. this isn't a low-level ghee has nothing to do with isis and fighting isis and fighting terrorism. this is the number-one person in the treasury department, perhaps the number-one person in our whole government next to the commander in chief, who's in the position to fight terrorism and to fight the kind of financial crimes that isis depends on to fund its operations. yet mr. zubin, we've had a hearing, he came from -- originally he worked for the bush administration for a number of years. he's been serving interim during the obama administration. but my colleagues on the banking committee, my colleagues in the senate simply have refused to bring mr. zubin to a vote. he's served republican and democratic administrations in senior positions. there's no question, zero question that he's qualified for this position.

let me tell you a little more about him. 15 years he's distinguished himself as a tough, aggressive enforcer of our nation's sanctions laws, against who? not against england or germany but against countries like iran and russia, north korea, against money launderers, against terrorists, against narco traffickers, the source of a good bit of the money for terrorist groups like isis. yet republicans say the administration's not doing enough, barack obama won't stand up. well, the republicans are blocking this appointment to give the prethpresident the tooe he -- the president the tools he needs to fight terrorism. he was a fulbright scholar in israel before joining the department of justice. as i said, he served for president bush and with president obama. he was counsel to the deputy attorney general. he worked as counsel/trial attorney on the terrorism litigation task force. he received the justice department's special commendation award for his work

countering terrorism. he directed for nine years the treasury's office of foreign assets control. many of us first came to know him then. as both parties as a thoughtful policy-maker. both parties respected him then in barack obama nominated him, then republicans seemed to forget how good he was and how qualified he was. the antidefamation league in this letter here described him as an intellectual heavyweight who worked effectively with global partners to amplify the effects of u.s. sanctions. the united against nuclear iran, a group that strongly, strongly, strongly opposed the president's deal with iran, they support mr. zubin to be promoted, to be confirmed by the united states senate. many of my colleagues on the banking committee said we're not going to confirm zubin because he was for the iran nuclear agreement. well, he worked for the president of the united states who was negotiating it. of course he was for it. but they're going to oppose him because they don't like what his boss did or are they opposing

him because they don't like much of anything president obama did? the fact is, mr. president, that group after group, whether they're for the united -- the iran nuclear agreement or against it -- it really doesn't matter -- they support mr. zubin. his mentor, bush under secretary stuart leavey, his mentor and his immediate predecessor -- not immediate predecessor -- was confirmed by the senate three weeks after his nomination. three weeks after his nomination. but you know what? because both parties then, with president bush, recognized that you confirm somebody that's central to the war on terrorism. republicans then believed that. today, with a democratic president, even though adam zubin is supported by darned near everybody with his qualifications and with his support and work in two administrations, they don't want to bring him forward for a vote. i'm not even sure why. i hear all kinds of reasons. none of them really on the record. none of them official.

from my colleagues only that, oh, they don't like president bush or this guy must be a bad guy because president bush appointed him. or he was part of the government when the -- the nuclear agreement with iran was negotiated. all these reasons that simply don't pass a straight-face test. this is a critical national security post. it needs to be filled permanently and quickly. mr. zubin heads what is, in effect, treasury's economic war room. it manages u.s. efforts to combat terrorist financing and fight financial crimes. again, isis/isil gets a good bit of its funding through illegal activities like that. and if the u.s. and if mr. zubin has the full range of powers that we have given him in the congress, if he has the full range of powers that we have given him, he can help us fight that kind of financing, stop that kind of financing for isis. he's helping to lead the charge to choke off their funding sources, to prevent it from

developing additional capacity to strike more targets around the world. he's working to hold iran to its commitments under the nuclear deal and to lead a campaign against the full range of iran's other destructive activities. he's supported by the global jewish advocacy. and as i said earlier, by the antidefamation league and the unite against nuclear iran. and i will, mr. president, ask unanimous consent to enter these three letters in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. he has support across the political spectrum, or at least he did until he was nominated by this president. banking committee shelby -- chairman shelby, my colleague on banking, i sit next to him as the ranking member, i -- i like senator shelby, i work with senator shelby day by day on many things. he's described mr. zubin as eminently qualified, quote, unquote. he served with distinction in senior national security roles. i'll say it again for 15 years under presidents of both parti parties. he was regarded around the world for his intellect and courage and expertise. he deserves a strong backing --

the strong backing of the senate. republicans in congress, mr. president, need to stop holding our national security apparatus hostage to political demands. they should allow, we shall allow adam zubin and other national security nominees to be approved as soon as possible. again, mr. president, strip the partisanship away here, do what's right, confirm adam zubin, confirm these other national security people. they aren't controversial. they're only -- the only aspect -- the only thing controversial about these nominations is barack obama made them. well, last time i checked, he was elected president of the united states twice, including my number-one swing state in the country, the hardest one to win, the one that both parties fight for in every election. he carried my state twice. he carried my state by over 100,000 votes. so he's the president of the united states. he appointed adam zubin, who is eminently qualified, who has had support from both parties. why don't my colleagues confirm him, giving him the full range of powers to fight isis, to keep

isis from getting the resources and the financing that they are getting now to fight -- to -- to launch these terrible terrorist crimes against innocent men and women all over the world. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey casey: thank you, mr. president. i rise and would ask first consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in morning business. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. casey: i rise today to speak about the recent terrorist attacks around the world, including, of course, the horror of paris but also to talk about what undergirds that and that's the threat posed by isis. some using acronym isil or daesh

is another phrase that's been used to describe this vicious terrorist group. but i think we need to at the same time as we're trying to prevent terrorist attacks focus the broader policy to destroy isis. we know that it's been 4 1/2 years since the people of syria began protesting against the repressive regime of bashar al-assad. and as we also know, that conflict as it escalated rapidly and was coupled with a dysfunctional and sectarian government in iraq, especially in the -- starting from the capital of baghdad -- the fighting and unrest created space for extremism to grow and to take root. about a year and a half ago, we saw the emergence of the group we now know as isis. this group poses a very serious threat to our national security as well as to the security of many parts of the world.

and there's no question that isis is a clear threat to the security of our partners in the region and as we know most horrific until the last few days, in europe. they also have a desire to attack the u.s. homeland. we know that. we've got to remember that this is a group that originated as an al qaeda off shoot. they share the same motivations, or at least similar motivations, and they, of course, share the same brutality, if not worse. in recent weeks, isis has claimed responsibility for horrific attacks outside of syria and iraq. they claim responsibility for a bombing -- for bombing of a russian airliner that went down over egypt in the sinai, killing all of its passengers, russian passengers. isis suicide bombers attacked a market in beirut, lebanon, just last we're, just before paris. and then, of course, came friday

night the 13th. this was, as has been reported, a coordinated, ruthless and despicable attack in paris that killed 129 innocent civilians. so what this horror -- and we could list other examples, but these most recent events remind us, what this horror reminds us is what our job is here in the united states congress and across our country, but especially when it comes to the role of the united states federal government. we have at least two responsibilities in this area. number one is to prevent terrorists from coming into the united states of america. and second but related is to destroy isis, without a doubt. to do both of these will continue to be difficult and challenging, and anyone who can come up with a simple proposal

or a commentary that makes it seem simple really doesn't know what they're talking about, really doesn't understand the complexity of this, and i even doubt their commitment to it when they speak about one-line answers to difficult, challenging problems. last year, i was blessed in 2014, june of 2014, to have the chance to go to normandy. senator leahy, the senior senator from vermont, organized a visit to normandy on the 70th anniversary of d-day. and for someone representing any state -- in my case representing the commonwealth of pennsylvania where so many pennsylvanians and of course so many americans died on the beaches of normandy or died within days of that -- of that battle, it was deeply

moving to be in normandy, to listen to presentations from those who had lived through the horror of normandy and those who were coming back to celebrate the fact that they were -- they had served and they were alive after those 70 years. we were able to see the beaches, we saw the cemetery where i walked down to the cemetery and the first grave that i happened to look at was one of a pennsylvania soldier, just fortuitously when i was looking at the first -- the first marker, the first grave. and one of the themes of that visit was, of course, the people of france thanking the united states, thanking the allies and expressing gratitude in so many different ways, in heartfelt ways, at the leadership level from president olan, all the way down. one of the best images was this

image here. i'll put it up on the easel. this is an enlarged version of what was on a brochure. you can see it, it's written in two languages. of course, the translation is 70th anniversary of the liberation of france, in english and french. and the date. june 6, 2014, commemorating the 70th anniversary. what you may not be able to make out from a distance is the image. it's of course a beach and it's the image of a little girl. she has got an orange plastic pail and a green plastic shovel, an image we all understand, a child going onto the beach to play in the sand. she is in a yellow dress, with her back toward us. she is moving towards the beach. what's so moving about this expression of gratitude by the people of france is that the shadow that emanates from that little girl is not her shadow, it's a shadow of an american

g.i., or what i believe to be an american g.i., but i'm not sure anyone could contest it. and a profound and very moving and powerful expression of gratitude that all of us can understand, that this little girl would not be able to be on that beach to play in freedom on that beach or in any other place in the places that wrunder attack during world war ii, werk during world war ii were it not for the bravery of the american soldiers, the commitment of the american people, the work that was done to undergird that effort by the allies against the axis powers. but a very powerful reminder of the contribution of that soldier depicted by the shadow and the freedom that that little girl can enjoy because of that sacrifice. profound sacrifice, sacrifice you can't even describe if you had volumes of books to write

about it. and i was moved because it was a wonderful expression of gratitude to the people of the united states by the french people, and i was thinking about that in the aftermath of this horror. folks all over the united states and across the world were expressing solidarity with the people of paris and the people of france, and it gave us a chance to try to give back to them in the aftermath of not just a tragedy but the -- in the year or so after they expressed gratitude to us. so this relationship between our two countries is very strong, and it goes back to the beginnings of our republic, even back to the days of the revolution. but that image of that little girl probably couldn't be expressed or presented were it not for what happened in world

war ii, what happened on the beaches of normandy. and again, that -- that result that we were able to achieve, working with allies the world over, would not be possible were it not for the work of people around the country sacrificing, the soldiers and their families, the factories, the spouses who worked in factories while the soldiers were overseas, and there was a lot of good work done then by the united states congress to support the war effort. so we have to figure out a way here to get back to that kind of sacrifice, that kind of commitment. there was a reminder recently of what a member of this body said around that time, in about 1945. senator arthur vandenberg from the state of michigan. he delivered a speech in january

of 1945, a seminal speech on this floor. senator vandenberg was a republican, an avowed isolationist, a staunch opponent of president roosevelt, but on that day, he said, and i quote -- "we cannot drift to victory. we must have maximum united efforts on all fronts, and we must deserve the continued united effort of our own people." it is vandenberg's example of setting aside partisan politics for the good of our nation that gives us the expression -- quote -- "politics stops at the water's edge. we've all heard that expression. if you haven't, we should educate ourselves. if we've heard it, we should remind ourselves of it. but i'm afraid when we debate

foreign policy, security policy here, there is often a dismissal of that basic lesson that he taught us. i'm afraid we lost sight of his legacy, that politics must stop at the water's edge when it comes to our security, whether that's the fight against terrorism itself or whether that military campaign against isis. this fight against isis demands our attention, but it also demands our unity. unity is not just a nice expression, something we should hope for. the challenge demands it. if we're not unified, it's going to be very difficult to defeat isis or any other threat, frankly. we must not do oversight by sound bite when it comes to this policy. we can't engage in simply as

some have done -- not everyone but enough to be concerned in both houses of congress, categorical condemnation of the president's policy on virtually everything in the international arena. that doesn't move the ball down the field. it also doesn't be a solve the president of accepting and incorporating critiques of the policy, specific critiques of what we should be doing or not doing or might want to consider. but categorical condemnation doesn't help anyone. it doesn't solve the problem. it just divides people and prevents us from having that essential unity to make sure that the strategy works. so if i or anyone else -- and i had been critical of a number of the president's policies on the international stage. i haven't always agreed with him. but if you're going to disagree with the president or disagree

with a colleague about something as important as a strategy to defeat maybe what most people believe is the biggest threat to the civilized world, you should be very specific. that unity demands that you're specific. we don't have time for just words and finger pointing. we need a bipartisan approach to this challenge. so we do need bipartisanship, we need sober and sears deliberation, and we also need spirited debate. i'm not advocating that someone doesn't criticize the policy or engage in a very heated exchange with someone who has a different point of view, but it's got to be a debate and it's got to be an engagement that yields a result, and the result is a policy and a strategy that's -- that's going to be effective. and that has some degree of

substantial unity. a lot of our allies look at the squabbles here in washington and wonder how serious we are about this fight. if all we do is just comment and answer reporters' questions and maybe go to a hearing once in a while, that's -- that's okay, but this policy is going to take a lot more than that. some of our allies look at our failure to unite behind a common strategy and wonder whether the united states will be an enduring partner for as long as it takes to eliminate isis from the planet. not just to defeat them on the battlefield but to destroy them. and a lot of these allies, i'm afraid, are wishing for for senator evander denbergs or at least more vandenberg-roosevelt days where you could disagree almost violently about domestic

policy or even an aspect of our security, but at some point you come together and say we're going to move forward with this strategy and work together. in november of last year, the president outlined a multipart strategy to address the threat posed by isis. he spoke about the air strike campaign in iraq and syria which now involves 11 countries and has yielded more than 8,000 air strikes as of last week. those strikes have taken -- taken out isis leaders. it's taken out financiers and bomb makers and foreign fighters and foreign fighter recruiters, and of course most recently just last week just before the news -- horrific news about paris, we were told that the man responsible for the beheadings of isis hostages had in fact been killed. that was a good result for the

civilized world. and we also heard from the president at that time and since that time about a 60-plus nation coalition. most recently, there have been hits on the tanker trucks bringing oil out of the isis-held areas for sale in the black market, hits on communications equipment or weapons caches, and they have helped protect opposition fighters and cleared the way for significant territorial gains, especially by the kurdish peshmerga forces, great fighter in this battle. reports now indicate that isis territorial holdings in iraq and syria have been diminished by as much as 45% in roughly the last year. centcom's assessment -- this isn't an assessment by a politician. this is centcom. centcom, their assessment