we're still importing 25% of all of our oil into our country right now, and we're importing it from countries we should not be importing that oil from. if we have a chance to back out that oil, to tell those countries we don't need their oil anymore that wouldn't need their sand, we're doing a big favor for our young men and women in uniform. we're allowing ourselves to step back and be more dispassionate in the decisions that we make about our relationships with all of those countries. what this decision says is, we're going to export our own oil, even as we continue to import oil from the middle east. this will only heighten our dependence upon oil coming in from countries that we should not be importing oil from, if we have a chance to back it out. that's what's wrong with this decision at its heart. oil, i.t. no it's not like a wi,

i.t. noit's not like a computer. you don't fight wars over that. you night wars over oil. -- you fight wars over oil. that's why a part of saudi arabia that has the oil is the one being jeopardized by rebels. that's why libya is so valuable and being fought over. oil, oil, oil and the revenues that they produce in order to then create that instability, create that jihadism that we're dealing with. we should be backing out all the oil that we're importing from that region, if we have a chance to do so -- and we do ... but not after this bill passes. we're going to be in a situation where we basically are saying we're going to be permanently dependent upon that oil being imported from that region. i listened last night to all the republican candidates for president debating in las vegas

about national security. well, that's what this is all about. this is all about that oil. this is all about that oil revenue that goes into the pockets of people who should not have our money, who spend it in ways that we don't feel good about. so in my opinion this decision will dramatically weaken our national security position, weaken our ability to be stronger in the middle east because we're less dependent upon pretty much the only product they make -- oil -- and we'll be able to deal with the national security issues in a much better way, being much more clear-eyed, dispassionate, and protective of american interests interests, and interests of those we are allied with over the world. this is a tale of two tax breaks. one tax break -- big oil.

they get $7 billion to $8 billion a year in breaks. and it is permanent, permanent. what happened in this bill is that the $7 billion to $8 billion for tax breaks for wind and solar, they're now going to be phased out. so you hear constantly out here on the floor from republicans that they believe in all of the above. wcialtion you can't have all -- well, you can't have all of the above competing fairly if one industry, the oil industry, gets their $7 billion to $8 billion in tax breaks every year and wind and solar, the technologies of the 21st century, are going to have their tax breaks phased out over the next four to five years. that's in this bill. so the oil industry gets $500 billion in new revenues over the next 20 years, $140 billion worth of taf breaks ove tax bree next 20 years, and wind and solar watch their tax breaks

evaporate over the next four to five years. is that a good deal for the climate, for our job creation here, with jobs in america? that's not a good deal. and, by the way, big oil wants their tax breaks so they can export the oil out of our country. is that a good deal? it absolutely is not. for the offshore wind industry, which has yet to be born, we need the tax breaks to incentivize companies, wind companies from around the world to come to the northeast, to come to this incredible place which has been called the saudi arabia of wind. well, those tax breaks are all going to phase out before an industry is even born, the offshore wind industry. does that really make any sense? if we're going to give the tax breaks to oil, we should give the tax breaks to the offshore wind industry, we should give the tax breaks to all these renewable industries on a

predictable basis for years to come. that is not happening in this bill. it is just the opposite. so for national security, for equality in terms of all energy resources, but especially those that are nonpolluting energy resources, there should be equawcialghts but there is not. -- there should be equality, but there is not. there is not. we can have an america with 40% of all electricity being wind and solar by the year 2030, if we kept the same tax rates on between now and 2030. the 7% that we'd add it in hydropower and then the power that comes from nuclear power in our country, we'd be over 60 for 65% of all electric in america would be non-carbon-polluting by the year 2030. but the tax breaks for wind and solar are going away in power to five years. does that make any sense? no, not at all. that's what this bill does. that's why this bill has that

provision that was inserted late at night a couple nights ago that's on page 1,865 in this omnibus bill. now, the koch brothers wrote a letter to all republicans a couple of days ago. they said, lift the ban on sportatioexportation of oil outr country, even as we still import from the middle east, and reduce and kill solar and wind tax breaks. good -- we haven't seen the agenda. it is in this bill. and i.t it's not good formark. -- and it's not good for america. it's not who we are. it is not this innovation economy, which we know is going to have the capacity, like we did with cell phones to very briefly in history just move interest this kind after phone in 1996 when it never really existed in people's pockets

anywhere on the planet, this kind of a phone which is in people's pockets and now 600 million people in africa have it today. we don't that, america. we can do the same thing with renewable energy. but we need to ensure that those tax breaks are equal to oil's, for oil is the technology of the 19th century, the oil of the 20th century. we have to have a vision of what is possible here in the 21 rts century. this bill does not include -- in the 21st century. this bill does not include that. that's why it's being added to a must-pass bill. it could not pass if it was not in a must-pass bill with unrelated appropriations. they immediate it to carry it through -- they need it to carry it through because they could not do it standing alone down here on the floor of the senate. so, ladies and gentlemen, whether it be the impact on our economy -- because it is going to drive prices higher -- whether it be on our national security -- it's going to increase our dependence upon imports from the middle east --

whether it be the impact on consumers where they're going to be paying higher prices, whether it be the environment, where believe it or not by the year 2025 this is going to lead to upwards of 2 million to 3 million new barrels of oil per day which is being exported out of our country. that's the equivalent of burning 150 coal-burning plantsdzburninr country and having a bill pass on the floor of the senate in the same week that the whole world came together in paris to sign an agreement saying we were going to have less greenhouse gases going up into the the atmosphere and that the united states was going to be the leader. you cannot tell the rest of the world to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels while we announce in the next week we're going to change our policy and

start drilling for 2 million to 3 million new barrels just to export it out of o our country d to phase out the tax breaks for wind and solar as we tell the rest of the world you should be moving to wind and solar. you cayou cannot teach temperanm a barstool and from an oil rig and tell other countries to move to renewables. it just does not work that way. doesn't work that way. they might nod. they might say, oh, don't worry, we're still going to honor our commitments. but i know behind your back as a country, they're going to be saying, ahh, i see what they're doing. we'll build a few more coal-burning plants. we're burn more fossil fuels over here. if they're not sincere, why should web sincere? -- why should we be insear? if they can preach temperance on sunday and thin then on sunday y

"bingo" in the church hall ... on every one of these lines of this argument, this bill just fails, environment, national security, consumers, the economy. it's just bad for america, bad policy. we should feel better about our capacity to innovate. i'm especially concerned about wind. i'm especially concerned about offshore wind. that's the reason why we call ourselves the saudi arabia of wind. it's because we have the potential to back out the oil from saudi arabia. that's why. that's our me metaphor. because we know how much oil they have and how they control otoprice of oil in the world -- they control the price of oil in the world every day since 40 years ago when they decided to have their first oil embargo. that's when we put this law on the books that we would never export our oil again; we would keep it here.

it's 40 years lairkts the middle east is i -- it's 40 years latee middle east is in chaos, it's hard to describe what the future is going to be like, which of these leaders will be in place in five years. no one in the world knows. but we do have one thing. we have our own domestic energy source of oil and natural gas, of wind and solar. we should keep it here to protect ourselves. it'll make us a better partner with the rest of the world if we are totally strong. we can project our power diplomatically, economically much better. so for me this is an historic day. i understand what big oil wanted to do. i understand what the republicans wanted to do. our leader, harry reid, did his absolute best to get the best deal he could for the renewable energy sources that we have, to

extend out as long as he could these tax breaks, and he did a good job. but the pressure was on from the republicans, and, unfortunately, in this agreement, the wind and solar tax breaks will expire, and wind tax breaks expire very soon. so from my perspective, we should have this debate out here soon. we should have a debate about the middle east. we should have a debate about the oil, about our national security, about our role in the future, and it's time for us to have the big debates out here. and the big debates are in prime time, with everyone participating and everyone understanding that the rest of this century is going to be about the united states over in the middle east, whether we like it or not from the day that we invaded iraq, that was our destiny. and so let's have those big debates. in the center of that has to be oil and the revenues that are

fueling so much of what's happening over there. and so i thank you, mr. president, for giving me the opportunity to speak out here today. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i couldn't help overhearing my friend from massachusetts talking about something really good that's going to happen. that is, we're going to lift the caps off of our exports on oil and gas. i just can't understand why we ever had caps on exports. you know, it seems like this administration is perfectly willing not just to approve of but to encourage countries like iran and russia to export their oil and help there and yet preclude us from doing the same thing. right now one of the problems we have with russia is that they have a hand up on us because there are so many countries over there who are dependent on them to -- for their ability to have energy. and it's just pretty -- it's pretty amazing that that's going

on. so i'm really glad -- hoh hopefully this will go through. in my state it's cost literally hundreds of jobs in just three companies because they can no longer afford to drill here. so that's a big issue. i remember i was invited to lithuania back when the president of lithuania wanted to dedicate and open their first terminal so that they would be able to import gas and oil, and some of that being from us. everyone was joyous there and the fact that they were not going to have to rely on russia any longer. they would rely more on us. so we do have friends out there and we want to take care of our friends. the past weekend the officials from the administration traveled 3,800 miles to paris to attend the international climate negotiations in paris. this is a reminder, mr. president, this is a program going on now for 21 years. the wundz who started this --

the ones who started this whole idea that the world is coming to an end because of global warming came from the united nations and i've gone to several of these meetings. i didn't go to this one because even john kerry, our secretary of state, said publicly there is not going to be anything binding, said there is nothing binding, then why are they even there. it was kind of interesting because when he made that statement, president hollande from france was outraged and said he must have been confused when he said that but that changed the whole thing. on november 11, he made that statement. anyway, they went ahead and they had their conference, their 21st annual meeting that they have. i remember one of them i went to, i ran into someone, a friend of mine from a west african country, and i said what are you doing here? why are you over here? you don't believe all this stuff do you on global warming?

he said we stand to bring back millions of dollars to benin, west africa. the worst thing that happened before was they ran out of caviar. we're paying for that stuff. when they went over to say the wonderful things that were going to happen in paris, we knew that it wasn't going to happen. the cop-22 conference has nothing to do with saving the environment and with no means of enforcement, no guarantee of funding as developed countries had hoped, the deal will not reduce emissions and it will have no impact on global temperatures. so when they say they had this historic meeting, everyone is scratching their heads wondering what happened. did they win anything at all? even the former nasa scientist, james hansen, the guy credited with being the father of global warming, i can remember when i got involved in the issue when they came back from up-or-down vote tow and wanted -- came back

from kyoto and wanted to ratify a treaty, james hansen, that was the turn of the century, 1998, and james hansen had been working on global warming since the 1980's. he said in an interview he had with the british newspaper the guardian, he said the agreement is a fraud. here's the guy that is the father of this. it's a fraud. it doesn't accomplish anything. this is likely because the only guaranteed outcome from the paris agreement is continued growth in emissions. according to a study, m.i. it's joint -- it is the m.i.t. joint program on the science and policy of global change, global emissions will increase by 63% -- that's assuming that they pass, everyone complies with their commitments which obviously they won't and they

can't. global emissions will increase by 63% through 2050 compared to the year 2010. and by the end of this century the m.i.t. study projects temperatures, if they were successful, would only be reduced by 0.2 degrees celsius. even the 26% to 28% greenhouse gas emissions reductions which president obama committed to on this agreement is really a fraud. there's an environmentalist witness that came before our committee. he was the sierra club's former general counsel. his name was david bookbinder. he testified before the senate environment and public works committee, the one that i chair, this year saying that the president's plan -- this is the president's power plan -- does not add up to 26% to 28% target. it's totally attainable. when asked to explain the

targets in corresponding regulatory actions to congress, the key administration officials refused to do that. in fact, something happened, maybe the first time this has happened. people wonder how the unelected bureaucracies go off and do things that are not in keeping with the majority of the american people. and we see this all the time. to preclude that from happening, every bureaucracy has a committee in the senate and the house that is supposed to be watching what they're doing and they're supposed to be overseeing. they have jurisdiction, like my committee has jurisdiction over the e.p.a. i try to get them to come in and tell us when it was announced by president obama that they were going to propose the 26% to 28% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025 and they refused to testify. i would ask the chair in the years you've been here have you ever seen a bureaucracy refuse

to come to the floor of the committee that has the jurisdiction? well, they did. and we're the authority in congress to approve such expedited -- it has not only not pledged the money that has been committed as our price to pay, we haven't actually appropriated any money at all. so while proclaiming as historic this agreement, did little to overcome long-standing obstacle that has plagued international climate agreements from the start. our responsibility is unequally divided between the developed and developing world. i remember back in about 1999, i guess it was, around the i don'o time. we had a vote in here -- around the kyoto time. we had a vote in here. it was called the chuck hagel and bob byrd vote. it said if you come back from any of these places that, where you're putting this together with a treaty, whether it's kyoto or another treaty, we will

not vote to ratify a treaty that either is bad for the economy of america or doesn't treat china and the developing countries the same as it treats us. well, that passed 95-0. so when they go over and they come back, it's dead on arrival. the thing is everyone knows except for the 192 countries that were over there. so we can't figure out why they would call this an historic event over there. while the administration is pushing forward with economically disastrous climate regulations before the end of his presidency, china gets to conclude business as usual including emission tion -- emissions growth through 2030 each year. they came back saying we have to increase our co2 emissions for 15 more years. this morning -- i think it's yesterday morning, just three days after india signed off on

the fining paris -- the final paris agreement, the guardian, the big newspaper in london, reported that india is targeting to more than double its output of 1.5 billion tons through 2020 because -- quote -- "coal provides the cheapest energy for rapid industrialization that would lift millions out of poverty. the top official from india's coal ministry said" -- this was at the historic meeting that they had. said -- quote -- "our dependence on coal will continue. there are no other alternatives available." so india is not alone. there are numerous other countries that are going to continue to do that. even though the temperature level set is misleading as 1.5 degree cap on global temperatures increases no more realistic or technologically feasible than the two degrees they used before this.

for any agreement to have h legal significance within the united states, it's got to be ratified by the senate. the fine print remains the same. people in other countries don't know that. they think somebody, particularly a strong president, like president obama, he can pretty much mandate anything that he wants. it doesn't work that way in the united states. in what was literally the final hour -- this is very interestiny their announcement of their agreement by two hours because they wanted to make one change in the agreement. and that change was they had language that said developed countries -- that's us, united states -- developed countries, country parties shall continue taking the lead by undertaking the economy, and certainly know how to do it. they want to replace the shall to should because they discovered in their discussions that if they left shall in there it would have to come to the united states senate for ratification. they would all be embarrassed because we know what the results of that would be.

missing from the administration's cop 21 celebre bra torrey speeches is the fact that neither the american people nor the u.s. senate supports the international agreement, and that the centerpiece regulatory commitment, the so-called clean power plan, faces significant legal obstacles in the united states congress. in fact, not just obstacles, but it's already been voted on. there is a c.r.a., congressional review act. the congressional review act was saying that we are going to reject the clean power plan. it passed with an overwhelming majority of democrats and republicans. what they agreed on has already been rejected. and missing for moments all the paris agreement coverage before and after was that the basis for this agreement is not scientific but political. 90% of the scientists do not

believe that the world is coming to an end because of global warming as environmental n.g.o.'s and the united states administrators and officials claim. "the wall street journal" op-ed examined what constituted this misrepresentation of 97%. we all hear there's 97% of the scientists say this is true. it must be true. anything you have something that's unpopular, if you keep saying over and over again the science is settled, a lot of people out there believe it is. when they did the analysis of the 97% consensus that explained it, it was simply based on fractions respondents. for example, in a commonly cited 2009 survey, over 3,100 respondents, only 79 were counted because they claim their exer -- expertise was solely climate related. the 1976 consensus reviewed a

few weeks ago by one of the news stations, their poll -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent for one more minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: -- poll which found 97% of americans don't care about global warming when stacked against issues like terrorism, immigration, health care and the economy. i remember when it used to be the number-one concern of americans and following the same march gallup poll over the years, it's gone from number one 0 or number two over that period of time to number 15, dead last. they got a lot of work to do. it's not going to work. thank you. i yield the floor. i thank the senator from connecticut for all of his help last night. we worked late. we did the right thing and i appreciate that very much. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i'm pleased and honored to follow my colleague from oklahoma, and i want to extend my thanks to him for his cooperation on the

legislation that we did last night by unanimous consent, which i was pleased to support eventually and work with him to reach a resolution on. i am here to support the bipartisan efforts and goals of my colleagues in senate resolution 310 which condemns the ongoing sexual violence perpetrated by isil against women and children from yazidis and other religious communities. the horrific and despicable actions of isil against women and girls who are kidnapped and slayed, tortured, raped and impregnanted in conflict affected regions there and others around the world is one of the horrors of terrorism. and this resolution addresses

it, but it could and should have gone much farther. in fact, it lacks the recognition, the full range of support that yazidi survivors of sexual violence desperately need. that's the reason i offered two amendments to improve this important resolution to urge the president to exercise his existing authority. no new authority is necessary for him to provide and support age-appropriate, comprehensive postviolence care, including provision of treatment to prevent h.i.v. infection, trauma and surgical care, mental health services, social and legal support, and a full range of medically necessary reproductive health services, including emergency contraception, safe abortion care, and maternal

health services. when the o or the horrors that l inflicts on the yazidi came to light in "the new york times" report entitled "isis enshrines a theology of rape, including systemic rape of women and children in isil-held territory," i demanded that our great nation take action. we cannot allow for the continued use of rape as a tool of warfare to destabilize and disrupt communities, to exert control over women and girls, and in the case of the yazidis, to impregnate them purposefully and relentlessly. survivors should not be forced to carry pregnancies to full

term simply because access to reproductive health care is not available following their vicious assault. we cannot stand idly by by witnessing such. the united states must work to increase access to health care, especially abortion services, and most especially for the yazidi girls and women who were purposefully impregnated as a tool of terrorism by isil. i've called on the administration multiple times to confront this horror. in september i led a letter with five of my democratic colleagues to secretary kerry, calling on the state department to declare iraqi religious minorities,

including the yazidis, as protected minority groups, so they could seek refugee assistance within iraq's border. and in october i led a letter with 27 of my democratic colleagues calling on the president to take action to properly implement existing law. existing law includes the helms amendment. tomorrow is the 42nd anniversary of the helms amendment. for its entire existence, it has been incorrectly interpreted, and it continues to serve as a critical obstacle in our foreign aid efforts to provide for safe abortions in the case of rape, incest, and life endangerment. so the letter that we wrote to the administration -- and i ask that it be entered into the record along with the "new york

times" article and the response of the administration dated december 7, 2015. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. blumenthal: it very simply asks that the administration -- quote -- "take action to correct the overly constrained implementation of the helms amendment, which serves as a critical barrier to safe abortion, particularly impacting women and girls fleeing confli conflict." and it asks the administration to recognize that american foreign aid can be used to fund safe abortions, even in the cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. that's a very simple principle. and preventing our foreign aid funds for being used for that purpose not only denies critical

assistance to the yazidi girls and women but also overly constrains the assistance of this great nation to the victims of terror and horror abroad. today the united states senate will pass resolution 310, and i have joined in supporting it. i am deeply disappointed that the administration essentially has denied any even consideration of a change in policy. this action does not mean that the united states should be complacent regarding the dismal state of protection for the yazidi girls and women. the amendments that i offered

were rejected by my republican colleagues, and i understand my colleagues' goal of expressing the senate's concern for girls and women and others, despite my reservation and profound disappointment with the administration'administration'sd the denial of these two amendments, i am supporting this resolution, and i have withdrawn my amendments, recognizing the reality of our current situation on the floor of the united states senate. but it remains essential that we recognize the full scope of the post-rape health care needed by survivors of rape, who hideously and gruesomely have been victims of a tool of terrorism by isis.

fully countering isil's terror strategy means providing necessary and compassionate care for girls and women who have been victims and who have been shunned by their families. they have been rejected by their communities. they have been victims many times over as a result of these crimes, heinous crimes, committed against them. i hope that my fellow senators will join me as i continue to call on the administration to right this wrong. as the world's largest donor of assistance around the world, the united states can and should do better and do more to provide health care that girls and women vitally need when they become

vulnerable and, in fact, victims of terrorre terror inflicted bye heinous criminal acts. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: is noter from wyoming. -- the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: recently you i traveled to my hometown of gillette, wyoming. i am in wyoming most weekends, but i only get to my hometown about every other month because i have a huge state to cover. but i happened to get there when the senior citizens were having their annual crafts gala. as i wandered through looking at all the marvelous things they'd done, i was shown a christmas ornament specifically designed for our county, and i was asked if i couldn't take it and a message to the president. of course, i agreed. and today i want to share that

message and that ornament with my fellow senators. that's what it looks like on the tree. the seniors say "we, the seniors of gillette, campbell county, wyoming, want to send you this christmas ornament that reflects the support of many programs in our community. without the coal and oil industries, campbell county would not have such a wonderful school system or the outstanding program for seniors. the campbell county senior center provides hot lunches for seniors monday through friday and serves about 100 more every day. it also offers activities including social activities, exercise classes, computer classes, day trips to local points of interest and assistance in completing forms for government programs.

we feel the campbell county senior center is the cadillac of owl senior centers. the coal and oil industry not only support campbell county but they support the whole state of wyoming. much of the tax dollars generated by the coal and oil industries are distributed throughout wyoming. when your administration tries so hard to close down these descrirks iindustries, it not os the thousands of families in campbell county, but it affects the whole staivment although we realize there are valid concerns about global warming and environmental issues in our country, we want to testify that the coal and oil industries in our county are environmentally conscious and they work hard to beautify the land here. the people of wyoming not only receive but they also give freely. if there is anyone in need here, the people step forward and give of their time, talent, and resources. if every state in this country would give as wyoming does, there wonk be any hunger or -- there wouldn't be any hunger or

homelessness. we've enclosed some photos to show you a few of our programs offered to children, seniors, and families in campbell county. we ask that you please take the time to look at them. we would also like to invite you to visit campbell county to see the wonderful community we have. visit our open-pit coal mines and our oil descrirks along with the various forms of wildlife. thank you for take the time to listen to concerned seniors of gillette, wyoming. may god bless you and your family." and following is a list of the number of the seniors that signed the letter. i'd ask that their aim names alo appear in the record following the letter. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: i'll give you a littlcloser look at this ornment they gave me to give to the president. we're not only the energy capital of wyoming, we're the energy capital of the nation.

we produce 40% of the nation's coal, and the reason we produce 40% of the nation's coal is it's cleaner coal than a anywhere el. it is low in full if you ar in r chemicals. and they even found ways to imriewrve the way it operates. our university again using money from the energy business is also working on a few projects. one of them is to use solar power to separate hydrogen out of water and burn the hydrogen with coal to make it burn better. -- and cleaner. we have five power plants in my county, and i would love to talk people into coming to campbell county, and we're successful at getting some senior staffers from both republicans and democrats to come every year --

each year to take a look at what it is, what it's like. and the biggest comment that all of them make as they leave is they had no idea that it could be that clean. they thought the coal mines would be dirty. i floon that whe ran into that o the first global warming conference in japan. i went there early before the negotiations were starting, and i guess i was one of the first people to show up in a suit, so people were leaping over tables and everything to interview me, and i usually don't do that. i ask what their circulation is in wyoming, and of course in japan it was zero. so i didn't do any interviews. but one of the big papers in tokyo was so interested that i wouldn't do an interview that they sent a reporter to wyoming. well, they called first and said, you know, would it be okay if he came and traveled with you for a day? i said, that would be fine, as long as he also visits a coal mine and a power plant.

and he came and he traveled with me, and he didn't have any idea all the distances we have between the few people we have in wyoming. we're the least populated state in the nation. he also followed through on visiting a coal mine and a power plant. he couldn't believe it could be done so cleanly that it could be done so well. in the early days of the coal mines coming in, people said, oh, they'll never be able to reclaim that land because we have such low moisture in wyoming. we're actually considered high desert. and in fact that eastern part of the state is the most desert. god didn't put anything above the ground. he put it all under the ground. and part of it is coal under about 80 feet of dirt, which is considered nothing in the coal mining business. and so we've been able to mine the coal with this open pit and to reclaim it. and now it's fun to take people

out to see one of these mines because you get there they say, don't let them tear up that part over there. and we say, that's where the mine used to be. this is where it's going to be. and they say, oh, go ahead an tear that up because it is done better putting it back -- and that could be done better yet. but there are some requirements in the reclamation that it has to be put back the way that it was. and that puts some constraints on t nobod it. nobody would move millions of tons of dirt on a farm or ranch and put it back to the way it was. so we have a product that is used naturally and the chinese would like to use. did you know that during the olympic games in china that they had to fire off rockets that would go to a fairly high altitude and spread out some chemicals that would clean the air so that it would look nice on television? they are extremely interested in getting campbell county coal shipped to them so that they can burn that in their power plants

and clean their air. so it's the least expensive form of energy that there is. and i'm just talking about one of the forms of energy. we also have oil, which results in natural gas and methane. and this symbol is a uranium symbol. we also produce most of the nation's uranium in our county. that could be used more extensively to provide clean power as well. and we're a big source of agriculture as well. agriculture, including bison raising. i wanted to share this christmas ornament with all of my colleagues and echo what the seniors have said and suggest that america is the most inventive country in the world. if we have a problem, we can solve it.

a little bit of incentive can go a long ways. we're an inventive country. a little bit of incentive has gone a long ways lots of time. we have private companies that are talking about restocking the space station. we have a plane that was powered by bicycle pedals that crossed the english channel. we have to quit discouraging inventiveness and encourage the use of resources that we have. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would consent to speak in morning business for such time as i consume not to exceed 30

minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i rise to address the 2,000-page $1 trillion-plus year-end funding omnibus spending bill which was drafted behind closed doors away from public view, that only a limited number of people were involved, members of the senate, members of the house unaware of what deals were being cut and decisions were being made. and i believe it contains provisions that will cause material harm to american workers. i just do. matters involved in this legislation i've worked on for years. i'm very disappointed. actually i'm deeply disappointed and surprised to an extraordinary degree that this language was in the bill. it contains dramatic changes to federal immigration law that

would increase by as much as fourfold the number of low-wage foreign workers provided to employers under the controversial h-2b visa program. it's a matter of controversy for a number of years. it's been added to this bill without hearings and open process in the senate. these foreign workers are brought in exclusively to fill blue-collar, low-wage, nonfarm jobs -- not agricultural jobs -- in hotel, in restaurants, on construction sites, amusement parks, landscaping, truck driving and many other occupations, jobs being sought by millions of people around this country. millions taking those jobs every day. you go into hotel and you go into restaurants, are not americans doing those jobs?

h-2b workers are supposed to be here to fill seasonal jobs that americans allegedly won't do. that's what they say. those who want more cheaper labor. they're supposed to be temporary positions. foreign h-2b workers are allowed to bring their spouses and their children with them, which of course results in costs being incurred by local communities, hospitals and schools and such across the country. although the alien spouses and children are not supposed to work in the united states, i don't think anyone is under the illusion that this administration has any intention or previous ones, for that matter, to do anything to stop them from working if they want to. nor will they be deported if they violate the terms of their employment. nor will they remove them from

they overstay the visa that they have been given, which is a limited time. so hotels are good jobs. construction are good jobs. landscaping. the group that does my lawn in alabama, three african-american men come out and work our lawn in a fairly short period of time using good equipment. the head person is in his 40's, had 20 years in the army. what do you mean americans won't do this work? at a time of record immigration, we do not appreciate the scope of it. we're on track. we already have the highest number of foreign born in american history. we're not against immigration. immigration is a positive thing properly conducted. good people come in to america. but i just want to say we're at

record levels both in total numbers and in a few years the highest percentage of foreign born in america will be reached, and it will continue thereafter. so is it any wonder that 83% of the electorate want immigration either frozen or reduced? and the republican-led congress is about to deliver the president a fourfold increase in one of the most controversial foreign worker programs that we have. in fact, it's a much larger version of the proposal that was contained in the gang of eight comprehensive immigration bill that was rejected by the american people in the house of representatives just two years ago. more than that, the result, higher unemployment for americans and lower wages for

americans in recent immigrants. the free market controls more labor, lower wages. more labor, less job opportunity. it's indisputable. as the economic policy institute has noted -- quote -- "wages are stagnant or declining for workers in all of the top 15 h-2b occupations between 2004 and 2014" and -- quote -- "unemployment rates increased in all but one of the top 15 h-2b occupations between 2004 and 2014, and all 15 occupations averaged a very high unemployment rate, flat and declining wages coupled with such high unemployment rates over such a long period of time suggests a loose labor market and oversupply of workers rather than an undersupply."

close quote. i think that's a fact. our free market friends ought to understand that. it's worth noting that the civilian labor force participation rate is currently at around 62.5%, a low that we have not seen in nearly four decades. labor participation rate means the percentage of workers in the working ages that actually have a job, it's the lowest rate we've had in four decades. nevertheless, despite this low labor force participation rate, this provision in the omnibus bill would exempt from the statutory limit, which is now 66,000 h-2b workers a year. 66,000 a year. any worker who was present in the united states during the three previous years. thus, instead of 66,000 foreign workers, the bill would allow up

to 264,000 foreign workers to be present in the united states under h-2b visas. that's over a quarter of a million low-wage, low-skilled workers brought in to occupy blue-collar jobs. it may be good for certain businesses who now have a large number of workers and they don't have to raise wages and change working conditions and raise benefits to attract and keep workers. they can just bring in people from abroad who are thankful to get any good cash income job at lower wages. this is bad for struggling american wages -- workers trying to get by and take care of their family. it's particularly bad as economist after economist have shown for minorities. african-americans, hispanics,

recent immigrants who are here lawfully looking to try to get a little better wage with a little better retirement and health care benefit. this is going to help them? give me a break. on top of this provision, this omnibus bill approves, without any conditions -- there is no separate issue, but it's another important issue, without conditions it approves the president's request for increased refugee admissions, allowing him to bring in as many refugees as he wants under current law. he can do that. it's hard to believe, but he is allowed to do so. he simply has to notify congress of how many he intends to allow to enter. and he can bring them from anywhere he wants and allow them access to unlimited welfare and entitlements at the taxpayer expense, which is not scored as

a cost. the immigration and naturalization subcommittee which i chair, we had the official from health and human services who paid their air fare as refugees and takes care of them, and he said 75% of the people are self-sustaining within 180 days. but my staff helped me to ask a follow-up question. what we found was that means health and human services is no longer giving men and women refugee money. but 93%, we know, of immigrants from the middle east between 2012 and 2015 are on food stamps. and 73% are on medicaid or health care programs. and they may be there the rest of their lives. this is not being scored.

this is why our country that's smart seeks to bring in people that have the greatest chance of being successful. sure some will do well and many are wonderful people. and we have a tradition of that. i'm just saying that we have a president with unlimited powers who has an agenda, and he's passing on the cost that's going tobe to the detriment of working americans tor decades to come. the risks associated with the refugee admission program are serious. with respect to syria, f.b.i. director comey repeatedly said we simply do not have the ability to vet refugees from syria. testifying before the house homeland security committee in october, he said -- quote -- "we can only query against that which we have collected. and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in syria in a way that would get their

identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but we are not going to. there will be nothing to show up because we have no record on that person." close quote. we'll, that's absolutely correct. of course that's correct. but they tried to tell us in committee that we're going to do beau metric checks -- biometric checks. so i proceeded to ask repeatedly, and finally after the most difficult time they acknowledged they have no database in syria to check biometrics against. it's not like the united states. if you're caught, they take your fingerprints and they can tell whether or not you were convicted in maine, alabama, or california. it's in the computer system. well, they don't have that in syria. so that was a misrepresentation, an attempt to mislead and create false confidence in the american people that we have an ability

to vet people coming here from syria, an ability we don't have as the f.b.i. director honestly and directly stated. and any claims made by others that refugees in the united states never engage in acts of terrorism are demonstrably false. just a few weeks ago i identified a list of at least 12 individuals whom were admitted to the united states as refugees, who have been implicated in terrorism in the last year alone. we found out there may be more. probably others under investigation right now. in fact, the pick fib has said there's a terrorism investigation -- fact, the f.b.i. says there's a terrorism investigation in every single state in america. these terrorists, for example, were from somalia, bosnia, kenya and